# T R U M P



## MrMister

new thread to praise our benevolent god emperor

:trump

anyone critical of :trump is obvs fake news don't listen to them! SAD!


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:fakenews need not apply in this WONDROUS thread, I tell you. :trump3


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:uphilltask


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am seeing a pattern with the new :trump threads.

Certain characters being killed off signify the end of previous :trump threads and the launching of a new one, like how in a television series that season's big bad is likely to go in either the penultimate episode or season finale, to clear the deck and prepare the groundwork for the next season, or, uh, :trump thread.

:trump Thread #1 wrapped up with the death of Hillary Clinton's Long-Gestating Presidential Ambitions Even Though She Already Had Two Terms As Co-President...

:trump Thread #2 wrapped up with the death of Rachel Maddow's Credibility/Respectability. 

Who will fall next to the mighty :trump? :woo :woo :woo


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Season 3 of the Trump Train starts today!

What twists and turns are in store for our Beloved President?

Who will be humiliated and defeated before Trump's might?

Will the Rinos fall finally? Stay tuned!

I suspect Paul Ryan is this seasons bad and his fate isn't going to be a good one.


----------



## Banez

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump News Network, the only network for the REAL news :trump


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

MrMister you should have waited until ripntear had 999 posts before locking the thread, gotta do it like damage in final fantasy 9999999


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So is this whole thing about Trumps tax returns over or are they still going to go after him on it? Not saying he should refuse to release his returns, I actually think it would be in good faith if he did but can this thing be over now and people can focus on actually you know...reporting actual news?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> So is this whole thing about Trumps tax returns over or are they still going to go after him on it? Not saying he should refuse to release his returns, I actually think it would be in good faith if he did but can this thing be over now and people can focus on actually you know...reporting actual news?


Nobody wants real news, they want to have their asses tickled because they hate Trump. 

The same people who blame Trump for everything are like the ones who blamed Obama for everything. 

Obama wasn't a good President but he wasn't the worst. Blaming him for everything was asinine.

In many ways this is like a reverse Obama, the MSM hid Obama's faults and scandals and kissed his ass all while ignoring the bad.

Where as for Trump you got them reporting on make believe scandals and faults while ignoring the actual bad stuff because that bad stuff is mundane and not like Hitler.

It's super weird. You got two opposites who are polarizing but getting reverse media coverage, yet it's still over the top in both cases! 

MSM Pie in the sky for Obama and MSM Chicken little about Trump.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> So is this whole thing about Trumps tax returns over or are they still going to go after him on it? Not saying he should refuse to release his returns, I actually think it would be in good faith if he did but can this thing be over now and people can focus on actually you know...reporting actual news?


I'd imagine reporters will be that much more determined to find one that's actually recent.


----------



## DELETE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is the trump supporters circle jerk thread right?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DELETE said:


> This is the trump supporters circle jerk thread right?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How many posts did I have in the previous thread? I must have been close to a thousand :hmm 

Anyways, the "Trump leaked his own returns" is getting to the point of conspiracy theory thinking and interestingly, Slate (one of our most far left outlets) tends to agree. I've pretty much never seen a more center/center right Op Ed from Slate. 

It actually seems like Maddow has now become a sacrifice upon which the least credible media is trying to snake out some credibility for themselves. CNN tried to make itself seem credible after the Trump address to Congress, and Slate is trying to eek out its 

There are now specific points in this story when you realize that people are starting to break from their hive mind and battling their cognitive dissonance. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...p_was_a_cynical_self_defeating_spectacle.html



> *Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle*
> 
> At 7:36 p.m. Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow tweeted “BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC. (Seriously),” sending the internet into a frenzy of theorizing. Did Maddow have Donald Trump’s tax returns or just one of the Trumps’ tax returns? Could this be it, the tax return that would bring down the Donald? If this _was_ it, why wasn't MSNBC cutting into its programming, instead of running a countdown clock to Maddow’s show? By 8:24, Maddow was tweeting that the tax return in question was Donald Trump’s 1040 from 2005. By 8:30, still half an hour before _Maddow_ started airing, the White House had responded to the MSNBC report, saying that Trump had paid $38 million on income of $150 million that year. An hour later, about 20 minutes after _The Rachel Maddow Show_ started, Maddow would confirm these numbers, turning her big scoop about Donald Trump’s long-missing tax returns into a cautionary tale about overhype. Rachel Maddow, you played yourself—and us too.
> 
> Willa Paskin  Willa Paskin is *Slate*’s television critic.
> 
> “It’s been a little bit of a hullabaloo around here this evening, I apologize for being flustered,” Maddow said at the top of the hour, before confirming that her show had copies of Donald Trump’s federal tax returns, obtained by the reporter David Cay Johnston, to share with her audience. “In just a second we’re going to show you exactly what it is we’ve got,” she said, before launching, instead, into a 20-minute monologue. Maddow seemed uncharacteristically nervous as she wended her way though what could kindly be described as context and which I am unkindly describing as word salad, a long meander that was difficult to follow even _without_ the distracting promise of a revelatory tax return at its end.
> 
> The monologue started contextually enough, with a long-winded skewering of Trump’s refusal to share his tax returns that touched on Richard Nixon, the Clintons, and his unaudited tax forms, before veering off conspiratorially. “Whether or not you are a supporter of Donald Trump,” Maddow said, “It ought to give you pause that his explanations [for not releasing his tax returns] have never made any factual sense. … When you get an excuse from them that doesn't make sense, you have to look for another reason. What’s the real explanation? Well, choose your own adventure.” She then launched into a long hypothetical about a particular Russian oligarch’s possible relationship to Trump that touched on Florida real estate, Deutsche Bank, and Preet Bharara, that Trump’s tax returns—though not, as it would turn out, the ones she actually had—could conceivably clear up.
> 
> The longer Maddow went on, ever deeper into a conspiratorial thicket, the clearer it became that whatever tax returns Maddow had, they weren’t as juicy as the ones she was talking about. If she had anything that damning, she would have shared them from the start. TV _is_ a ratings game, but an entire episode about highly damaging tax returns is just as likely to get you great ratings as milking the _possibility_ that you have highly damaging tax returns, and less likely to get you compared to Geraldo. Maddoweven went so far as to hold the tax returns back until after the first commercial break, as if we were watching an episode of _The Bachelor_ and not a matter of national importance—because we weren’t, in fact, watching a matter of national importance, just a cable news show trying to set a ratings record.
> 
> After the first break—at which point the tax returns were already available on the internet and glossed by the _Daily Beast_—Maddow was joined by Johnston, and she began by asking him how he knew Trump hadn’t sent the returns himself. Johnston said that he could have. A few hours after Maddow finished airing, this has become a popular conspiracy theory, simply because, if Donald Trump were to share any of his tax returns, the 2005 1040 seems like a good candidate. Trump paid taxes at a rate of around 4 percent, but because of the alternate minimum tax, he also paid an additional $31 million. The form revealed that, rather than not paying taxes and making no money, Trump paid $38 million on $150 million in income. Maddow promised to pull a sordid revelation out of a hat and instead plucked out … Trump’s credibility? Maddow was soon parsing, asking Johnston to explain that Trump is currently trying to do away with the AMT, which, unfair as it may be, still wouldn’t change the amount he paid in 2005.
> 
> As the show went on, it became clear that Maddow knew she didn't quite have the scoop that had been promised. “What would we have to see, what would we hope to get in mail,” she asked Johnston, “if we were going to get to the real meat of Donald Trump’s foreign ties?”—i.e. what would be more meaningful than the tax form that we have? Speaking to Chris Hayes and Johnston, she said, “The story here to me is, a) we have obtained this [tax form], b) that this stuff is obtainable.” “BREAKING: Trump’s tax returns theoretically obtainable. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC. (Seriously)” does make for a less rousing tweet.
> 
> Trump’s tax returns, whatever information they happen to contain, constitute a major scoop. Maddow’s social media team ensured the highest possible ratings for that scoop. But if ever a story should have been delivered in a stentorian, fuddy-duddy, nonpartisan manner, this was it. In positioning it as a grand revelation, a vital step in comprehending Trump’s corruption, MSNBC created an exceedingly cynical spectacle. By playing into the network’s loyal liberal audience’s fantasy that there exists a Trump silver bullet, it instead delivered Trump a positive news cycle—the guy pays taxes! Who knew!—amidst the debacle of the AHCA, along with more evidence that the media is aligned against him. The lesson? Don’t tell us you have news, just tell us the news.


Hopefully after this news cycle, the media will finally relax a little bit. When I grew up consuming largely leftist media, I didn't see it fall victim to conspiracy theories and even create them quite as much as it is now. Sure, the left media has always spun narratives in their favor, but right now they crossed all sorts of lines. 

Many of the people are grasping at straws to find that gotcha moment. Maybe it's time to relax and accept that maybe there isn't one. It's over. The battle is lost. 

Lefties, you need to keep up with your criticisms of the policies and ignore the policy maker because the policy maker is clean and is working with the best of intentions. Even if his policies are terrible, it doesn't mean they're coming from a terrible human being. Shift your focus. Don't let the media define your views as most of you come in here literally saying the exact same things one after the other after the other.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> I'd imagine reporters will be that much more determined to find one that's actually recent.


Which was illegal wasn't it? Serious question 



Miss Sally said:


> Nobody wants real news, they want to have their asses tickled because they hate Trump.
> 
> The same people who blame Trump for everything are like the ones who blamed Obama for everything.
> 
> Obama wasn't a good President but he wasn't the worst. Blaming him for everything was asinine.
> 
> In many ways this is like a reverse Obama, the MSM hid Obama's faults and scandals and kissed his ass all while ignoring the bad.
> 
> Where as for Trump you got them reporting on make believe scandals and faults while ignoring the actual bad stuff because that bad stuff is mundane and not like Hitler.
> 
> It's super weird. You got two opposites who are polarizing but getting reverse media coverage, yet it's still over the top in both cases!
> 
> MSM Pie in the sky for Obama and MSM Chicken little about Trump.


It's quite a shame really. They're determined to make Trump look like Hitler 2.0 that they go on wild goose chases for anything they can get on him and its seemingly failing. Like You said, they should focus on the bad stuff that actually does happen and not try to make stuff up. There's a reason why more people trust Trump than the media right now, which is pretty crazy when you think about it. The media should keep the president(or any politician) honest , but its really showing how bias these media outlets can be and it can be difficult for some people to truly find a media outlet that will tell you what's actually going on.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Which was illegal wasn't it? Serious question
> 
> 
> It's quite a shame really. They're determined to make Trump look like Hitler 2.0 that they go on wild goose chases for anything they can get on him and its seemingly failing. Like You said, they should focus on the bad stuff that actually does happen and not try to make stuff up. There's a reason why more people trust Trump than the media right now, which is pretty crazy when you think about it. The media should keep the president(or any politician) honest , but its really showing how bias these media outlets can be and it can be difficult for some people to truly find a media outlet that will tell you what's actually going on.


One of the last posts in old thread said not. That's about as much as I know though

Either way, Trump has been dangling that carrot in front of the reporters' faces ever since he said "that makes me smart" about not paying taxes. He's clearly not a guy that's on the up-and-up, and this leaked return being over a decade old has all but certainly rekindled the motivation to find the rest of them.


DELETE said:


> This is the trump supporters circle jerk thread right?


No


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's not illegal to publish what has been received. It's illegal to acquire (steal) with the intent to publish. Even then it's an easily avoidable stipulation as you can steal information and send it to another newspaper anonymously to publish. If you get caught stealing then you can be prosecuted, not the person who talked about it.

--

BTW, CNN is pretty much done now as a legit source of any kind. Anyone remember this from a few months ago when they were talking about how Trump may not have paid taxes in 18 years. Well, he certainly did in 2005. 






I doubt though that this will get the leftist conspiracy theorists to start doubting their Russia ties hysteria even though it is literally the same media that lied to them about Trump not having paid taxes for 18 years. 

You guys are the new conspiracy theorists. Russia Ties and Tax returns is the liberals' Birther / Birth Certificate "Obama is a muslim" conspiracy.


----------



## wkdsoul

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That cant be your only reason to dismiss CNN surely? They have a debate "may or may not in 18 years", 1 year gets proven he did so that's them forever dismissed?

There has to be more to it (I have no idea on their track record), Just curious, really. (They have a shit previous record confirmation will be fine, i dont need x50 yt links and files  )


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> One of the last posts in old thread said not. That's about as much as I know though
> 
> Either way, Trump has been dangling that carrot in front of the reporters' faces ever since he said "that makes me smart" about not paying taxes. He's clearly not a guy that's on the up-and-up, and this leaked return being over a decade old has all but certainly rekindled the motivation to find the rest of them.


Okay, interesting then. We will see where things go from here.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wkdsoul said:


> That cant be your only reason to dismiss CNN surely? They have a debate "may or may not in 18 years", 1 year gets proven he did so that's them forever dismissed?
> 
> There has to be more to it (I have no idea on their track record), Just curious, really. (They have a shit previous record confirmation will be fine, i dont need x50 yt links and files  )


You want confirmation but you don't want evidence? 

Can't say I'm surprised to hear that :mj


----------



## wkdsoul

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You want confirmation but you don't want evidence?
> 
> Can't say I'm surprised to hear that :mj


Fair enough, they have previous then. 

You never know with some posts/posters, that one thing would be enough for them to jump the high horse and fuck them off. :lol

Yes, my one request for slight clarification makes me like all the others. :lol

but cheers for the quick reply Rip.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wkdsoul said:


> Fair enough, they have previous then.


Lol. I'll be fair. I'd add a qualifier to my earlier statement that in terms of domestic politics CNN has failed to maintain an honest distinction between opinion and fact in order to push their anti-Trump bias. This is something that would be true with most outlets but them and HuffPo are at the moment the worst offenders. 

When it comes to international news and terror attacks, I still rely on them because there they can't spin a narrative and usually don't. 

However, that is changing because unfortunately in their desire to paint Trump in a bad light, they've by and large ignored publishing much news or even op-eds about the situation in Sweden that sway from the leftist narrative of "it's all fine, it's just a small fire, but it has nothing to do with what you think it is".


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wait what ... is Buzzfeed getting redpilled too? I mean it could just be an attempt on their part to claw back some credibility for themselves, but that's ok. There's nothing wrong with publishing a story that counters public perception and learning from mistakes of the past. I'm ok with this. 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensing...on-dollar-hoax?utm_term=.lun7zWedp#.rqQe7pygY



> An elaborate hoax based on forged documents escalates the phenomenon of “fake news” and *reveals an audience on the left that seems willing to believe virtually any claim that could damage Trump. *


:wow A lot of irony here, but that's ok too. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for them and starting on a path of more credible journalism. 

I'm reading the rest of it right now, and I'll add it in later to this post.


> *In the third week of* January, an Israeli named Yoni Ariel flew from Tel Aviv to Rome carrying $9,000 in cash on a secret mission to bring down Donald Trump.
> There, he met with an Italian businessman. Seated at a table toward the rear of a café, away from the street where they might attract unwanted attention, Ariel recalled, he handed over the cash. In exchange he was given a copy of a potentially explosive set of documents.
> Its 35 pages told the story of a $1.6 billion wire transfer from petroleum giant ExxonMobil to a European office of a Chinese mining company, which a day later transferred 1.4 billion euros to the Trump Organization, the privately held conglomerate founded by President Trump.
> The transfers appeared to have taken place in mid-June, at the exact same time that Exxon’s then chief executive, Rex Tillerson, was in St. Petersburg at an economic forum, which Russian President Vladimir Putin also attended. Less than six months later, President-elect Trump — victor in an election that the US intelligence community said the Russian government had interfered with — nominated Tillerson to be his secretary of state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yoni Ariel Courtesy Yoni Ariel
> 
> 
> To Ariel, who is married to an American and calls Russia’s tampering in the elections “an act of war,” the implications of these billion-dollar transfers were clear: Exxon had secretly bribed Trump to name Tillerson to the powerful cabinet post.
> Alarmed, Ariel passed the documents to a network of Democratic and anti-Trump activists who in turn shared them with prominent news organizations including BuzzFeed News.
> The only problem: The documents were phony. The wire transfers never occurred, and the entire set of documents appear to have been forged as part of an elaborate scam. The fake documents were created, sold, and circulated by a cast of characters that includes a flamboyant Italian who claims to be a baron and a knight, an Israeli who says that during apartheid he engaged in “political subversion” on behalf of the African National Congress, and an American felon who digs up dirt to hurt Trump and other Republicans.
> In the slightly more than four months since the presidential election, a burgeoning market for potentially damaging information about President Trump and his associates has emerged. Opportunists have begun dangling such would-be smoking guns — sometimes for a price — in front of journalists, amateur sleuths, and deep-pocketed political activists so eager to damage the Trump presidency that they can be blind to potential red flags.Opportunists have begun dangling would-be smoking guns — sometimes for a price — in front of journalists, amateur sleuths, and deep-pocketed political activists so eager to damage the Trump presidency that they can be blind to red flags.​Such forgeries escalate the phenomenon of “fake news,” the Facebook- and Twitter-friendly lies that tell readers what they want to believe and that are packaged to look like authentic journalism. In this case, evidence was deliberately fabricated that could make fictional allegations seem authentic. Such forged documents also feed the hunger of a growing audience on the left that seems willing to believe virtually any claim about Trump’s supposed bad deeds.
> Forgeries that have duped the public and influenced American politics aren’t new, of course. Fake documents (also with roots in Italy) led the George W. Bush administration to suggest that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, for example, and questionable records of Bush’s National Guard service ended Dan Rather’s career at CBS News.
> 
> Since Trump’s election, a spate of people, often with financial motives, have been peddling dirt on the president. One anonymous tipster, for example, asked $15,000 for “credible” videos of women telling “erotic” tales of Trump at nightclubs in various countries. A high-profile private investigator in Los Angeles wanted $2 million in “funding” for what he described as “game-changing information” about Trump and his wife, Melania. In both cases, BuzzFeed News rejected the offers. An Israeli startup, meanwhile, tried to convince reporters that portions of Trump’s inauguration speech had been plagiarized using its software, a claim that appears to be untrue.
> Although Ariel acknowledges paying for the alleged Exxon documents, neither he nor others who helped circulate them asked for compensation from journalists; instead, they argued passionately that the documents appeared authentic and demanded attention for what they saw as the good of democracy. But however noble their intentions may have been, had they succeeded in persuading journalists of the documents’ authenticity, they could have further muddled the waters in an era increasingly defined by the spread of disinformation.
> 
> *The documents allege* that on June 16, 2016, Exxon entered into a “joint participation agreement” with MCC Holding, a state-owned Chinese company. The terms in the contract are vague, stipulating only that Exxon will send $1.6 billion to MCC for “Foreign investment, Fiduciary Management and Profit Sharing.” It is signed by two officials of MCC and an American employee of Exxon.
> 
> Supplementing the contract is an email, written in Italian and lacking headers or signatures, that summarizes the transaction. The file also includes a wire transfer receipt from Chase Bank, showing the movement of $1.6 billion from Exxon’s account to MCC’s account at HSBC in France on June 16, and an HSBC wire slip dated June 17 showing a “donation” of 1.4 billion euros, equivalent to $1.575 billion at the time, to the Trump Organization.
> “We have no record of the transaction, and after reviewing the document, there are a number of details that indicate it isn’t genuine,” JPMorgan Chase spokesperson Brian Marchiony said. HSBC disavowed the other wire. “We don’t recognize the document or any of the transaction data on it,” said spokesman Robert Sherman.
> 
> 
> Exxon spokesman William Holbrook declined to comment on the documents, saying that to do so “would dignify” false information, but noted that the Exxon employee whose signature is on the contract, Sandra C. Collier, had not worked for the company for “years and years.” Reached by telephone, a Texas woman named Sandra Cheryl Collier denied any involvement and hung up.
> MCC Holding, based in Beijing, did not return emails and repeated phone calls.
> The Trump Organization referred a request for comment to the White House, which did not immediately respond.
> Ariel is 60 years old and also goes by the name Jonathan Schwartz. He said he is involved in a startup company that he declined to describe in detail, as well as a “cyber media consultancy” that he recently founded. He was born and raised in South Africa and his voice betrays a distinct trace of that country’s accent.
> In vouching for the documents’ authenticity, he referred repeatedly to what he said was his experience in international espionage. He emigrated to Israel in 1969, Ariel said, but starting in the late 1970s he worked for the African National Congress, helping the party fight apartheid and engaging in what he called “political subversion.” Since then, he said, he has worked as a journalist and political consultant, and claims credit for unearthing a number of political scandals in the country.
> Because of his training, Ariel said, he became convinced as far back as July that Russia was interfering with the US elections, and he began speaking up about it even before Trump won. He said he first heard about the Exxon documents late last year from Sheldon Schorer, an attorney who until recently was legal counsel and spokesman for Democrats Abroad Israel, a chapter of an international group that describes itself as “the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States.”
> Schorer, in turn, said a former Israeli ambassador to Italy contacted him in the fall and asked if he might be interested in the documents. Both Schorer and Ariel declined to name the retired Israeli diplomat, but two sources confirm it was Gideon Meir, who from 2006 to 2011 held the Rome posting.
> Meir, who could not be reached for comment, apparently learned about the documents from an Italian in Rome named Corrado Pasetti, who describes himself as a consultant who helps construction firms establish business operations in foreign countries, particularly in Africa.
> Pasetti said he told Meir about the documents and that he eventually sold them to Ariel. At first, Pasetti said, he asked 150,000 to 200,000 euros for the originals. But after negotiation, the two settled on $9,000 for copies because, Ariel said, that amount fell just below the threshold most countries require be declared at international border crossings and thus would leave no paper trail.
> According to Ariel, Pasetti is a retired member of Italy’s intelligence service, and the documents were intercepted by active Italian intelligence officers monitoring whether Exxon was properly complying with the sanctions placed on Russia following its annexation of Crimea. Schorer, for his part, said he was told the documents were gathered by the Italian federal police, the Carabinieri.
> Pasetti denies all of those details.
> “I am a businessman. I don’t care about political things,” he said. “If somebody wants these documents, I am ready to give them to him for compensation.”
> The truth, Pasetti said, is that he was given the documents by an associate whom he would not name, and to whom he eventually passed the $9,000. That person, Pasetti said, got them in turn from someone named Luigi Forino, who happens to be one of three signatories to the alleged Exxon contract, where he is listed as a “general manager director” of the Chinese firm MCC Holding. Accompanying Forino’s signature is what appears to be a color copy of the photo page of his Italian passport, which gives his age as 40.
> In his Facebook profile, Forino appears to be a handsome, muscled man who is often pictured behind the wheel of an Aston Martin sports car. He frequently goes by the formal title Baron Luigi Louis Forino of Little Staughton. Materials posted online describe Forino as a Knight of Malta and Templar of England, as well as executing deals with David Rockefeller, not to mention being the 190th-richest person in the world, a ranking allegedly bestowed by _Forbes_ magazine. In an annual report available on one of his many websites, the allegedly Paris-based Forino claims to be the “Group CEO” of MCC, the Chinese conglomerate.
> A flashy YouTube video for Forino’s company, MCC Petroli, features images of exotic luxury cars, jets, helicopters, yachts, bustling stock exchanges, and attractive women playing stringed instruments. It says MCC Petroli trades in gold, bank instruments, rough diamonds, and “Arabian Emirates Crude Oil.”
> 
> However, there appear to be no listings for European offices on MCC’s main website, and mentions of Forino could not be found in any official documents or news reports about the Chinese company. BuzzFeed News found no evidence of any connection between the Chinese MCC and the many companies Forino has promoted that use the same acronym. As for his claims about _Forbes-_list wealth and Rockefeller connections, they come from crude photoshops of _Wall Street Journal_ and _Forbes_ articles that appear on two of Forino’s websites.
> The internet almost runs over with information about Forino, most of it from people alleging that he scammed, or attempted to scam, them in schemes that often involve promises of loans that never materialize.
> John Raciti is an executive of Fox Petroleum, an Indian company that’s building a large liquefied natural gas terminal on India’s west coast. He said Forino met several times with the chairman of Fox, who agreed to list Forino on the management page of the company’s website. But then Raciti did a bit of digging and concluded that Forino wasn’t who he said he was: “when you look at this guy, he says he’s a knight but it’s all bloody bullshit.” Raciti removed Forino’s name from the website, and warned the chairman to stay away from him.
> The internet is also littered with images of Swiss, Italian, and UK passports that supposedly belong to Forino. A London businessman who described how Forino tried to scam him said the UK passport Forino sent to prove his identity bore the same number as the real passport of a deceased British author. As for Forino’s title, “Barony of Little Staughton” is currently listed as available for purchase on the internet for £15,000.
> 
> BuzzFeed News initially reached out to Forino by contacting him on Skype at a username listed online. The person running the account replied, “I am glad to introduce you a Swiss Lender called MCC they sells Private Bank Loans at 2.45% annual debit interest!”
> The person identified himself as Rory O’Driscoll, a name listed as an executive on the website for a company calling itself MCC Investment and Leasing Co. The site said O’Driscoll is a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. But the real Rory O’Driscoll, a partner with Scale Venture Partners, told BuzzFeed News that “I am not the CEO of MCC Finance and this person is not me and is impersonating me.” (O’Driscoll’s name was removed from the MCC Investment website after BuzzFeed News spoke with Forino.)
> Stephan Eberle, the general counsel of Scale Venture Partners, told BuzzFeed News they have been trying to get O’Driscoll’s name removed from Forino’s website since last fall. “We’ve been in contact with the FBI, the US Secret Service, and we filed claims with the UK’s financial oversight fraud unit and also with the Swiss cybercrime unit,” he said.
> In a phone conversation, Forino claimed his company operates a refinery and has 72 oil tankers. He also said he was involved in the billion-dollar transaction with Exxon last summer.
> “There was an agreement but I can not speak deeply” about the contract without lawyers being involved, he said. For more information, he referred the reporter to his office in Geneva, located in a business center where individuals and companies can rent workspaces. His address in Paris is a similar shared workspace.
> Forino told BuzzFeed News that he knows Pasetti, the man who sold the Exxon documents in Italy. But he refused to discuss the allegations in the documents related to the Trump Organization.
> “You’re talking about Mister President,” Forino said. “If the company gave some financing, I’m not able to disclose any information. It’s very private.”
> When asked about allegations of his involvement in financial scams, Forino abruptly ended the call. He has not responded to detailed questions sent by BuzzFeed News.
> *Not long after* Trump won the election, Schorer, the former spokesman for Democrats Abroad Israel, told Ariel about the alleged Exxon payments and the documents that supposedly provide proof.
> 
> Ariel, intrigued, decided he would need help paying for trips to Rome to acquire the documents and also with authenticating them. A string of contacts, including the chairman of Democrats Abroad France, and a former Democratic National Committee operative in Washington, DC, eventually led Ariel to Brett Kimberlin, a left-wing political activist who is also notorious as a felon convicted of setting off bombs in the American heartland.
> In September 1978 a series of homemade explosive devices blew up in Speedway, Indiana, including one that maimed a Vietnam veteran who later fell into a deep depression and killed himself. Kimberlin was convicted of planting all of them and spent a total of 17 years in federal prison for that and other crimes, including drug conspiracy and impersonating a federal officer.
> In 1988, while still behind bars, he famously claimed that he sold marijuana to a young Dan Quayle when the vice presidential candidate was a law student in Kimberlin’s hometown.
> Kimberlin’s story and his claims that powerful people in Washington, DC, were silencing him won over _New Yorker_ writer Mark Singer, who penned a sympathetic profile. But four years later, when Singer turned that article into the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> book _Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin_, the author concluded that Kimberlin’s story about Quayle was a lie.
> His political activities have rankled conservative bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin, former _RedState_ editor-in-chief Erick Erickson, and the late Andrew Breitbart. In 2012 conservative bloggers launched their own crusade against Kimberlin — “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” — that resulted in dozens of posts about Kimberlin’s criminal history.
> Today, Kimberlin co-runs two registered nonprofits, Justice Through Music and Velvet Revolution, which describe their mission as education and together raised $1.875 million between 2011 and 2015, according to the organizations’ most recent available tax filings. He has built working relationships with a number of left-wing activists and researchers who seek out what amounts to opposition research: information that can hurt Republicans.
> Ariel recalled that he contacted Kimberlin, who then arranged for him to travel to Washington. Ariel had been sounding alarm bells about Russia’s meddling in the presidential campaign so, he said, Kimberlin wanted him to meet people on Capitol Hill. Kimberlin covered the cost of the trip, according to Ariel.
> Ariel had not yet seen the documents at that time, but what he did know about them seemed like exactly the sort of thing Kimberlin was interested in digging up. When told about them, Kimberlin quickly agreed to finance Ariel’s efforts to acquire them, according to Ariel and two people with knowledge of the arrangement.
> Kimberlin ultimately covered the costs for Ariel to travel to Rome three times, Ariel said. On the first trip, just before Christmas, Pasetti showed him portions of the documents; on the second trip, a price was negotiated; and on the last one Ariel actually purchased the documents. The $9,000 payment was also covered by Kimberlin, according to Ariel and the two people familiar with the arrangement.
> Reached Sunday evening at his home in Maryland, Kimberlin declined to discuss the documents or his relationship with Ariel.
> “I don’t want to be part of this story. It has nothing to do with me. I have nothing to say,” Kimberlin said.
> On January 22, a political activist who works closely with Kimberlin reached out to a BuzzFeed News reporter, offering up what seemed like a lead on an important scoop.
> “This isn’t some internet rumor, person has been to Rome to examine bank documents, copies of passports, etc,” an encrypted email read. “Let me know if you want to take a closer look.”
> A subsequent email said that the Department of Justice and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations had been informed about the alleged wire transfers earlier in the month.
> Sean Bartlett, a Democratic spokesman for the Senate committee, told BuzzFeed News, “That would have been some set of documents, but does not sound familiar at all to me or anyone on the Democratic staff.”
> A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
> When the actual documents were forwarded to BuzzFeed News, warning signs quickly emerged. The 30-page contract was rife with spelling and grammatical errors, which seemed jarringly out of place for a roughly $340 billion company such as Exxon, known to employ legions of lawyers for even the most routine of transactions. It describes He Ting Shen as CEO of MCC, when the company website identifies him as Shen Heting and calls him the company’s president.
> There were also numerous problems with the bank documents, including an incorrect postal code for the recipient branch, an account number that would seem to correspond to a different location, and a phone number listed for Collier that appears to belong to a defunct grocery wholesaler called TG & Scrap LLC registered in Houston. A message left at that number seeking comment was not returned.
> In addition, the document describes a $443.91 fee for the wire, which does not conform to Chase’s policy of flat dollar fees on corporate wire transfers, and the request is described as a “walk-in” — meaning the person literally walked into a branch to make a transfer of more than a billion and a half dollars. Such a move, banking experts said, would attract a huge amount of attention in the bank, hardly a discreet way to conduct a secret transaction.
> Pressed on the inconsistencies, as well as the numerous red flags surrounding Forino, Ariel dug in his heels.
> Forino, he insisted, was no con artist but someone who had been fully vetted and was operating in the “gray areas” of the law, “a freelancer who is hired by people when they need his services to transfer money with no traces.”
> The numerous errors in the documents, he added, only served to underscore “that we are not dealing with a forgery here,” he wrote in an email. “In my opinion as a former intelligence officer, the various misspellings and other inconsistencies are deliberate, to camouflage it and deter media scrutiny.”
> On February 2, a day after Tillerson was sworn in, a blog called _Down With Tyranny!_, penned by former music executive and liberal activist Howie Klein, published a summary of the documents, which had been written by Ariel weeks earlier and quietly circulated among a small cadre of progressives. Ariel’s writeup, posted under the headline “What Does Big Oil Get For It’s [_sic_] Political Bribery?”
> Ariel and a person close to Kimberlin originally said that reporters from Bloomberg News had also been given the documents and allegedly thought they looked good; to date, the news organization has not published anything. Subsequently, they said that the _Washington Post_ had been shown the documents as well, but decided by mid-February that they were forgeries.
> Ariel, however, said he had been in touch with a _Post_ reporter who told him that the newspaper was keen on the story but had its hands full other political stories and hoped to return to the documents later.
> Bloomberg declined to comment on the matter. A spokesperson for the _New York Times_, which had also been offered the documents, said, “We do not comment on unpublished reporting as a general rule.” The _Post_ did not reply to a call and email seeking comment.
> Presented with mounting evidence that the documents were not real, activists who had played a role in their circulation quickly began backpedaling, conceding they seemed more likely than not forgeries. Ariel, on the other hand, continued to push.
> “Would it help to know that they are in the hands of the Justice Department?” he asked in a phone call in mid-February. As recently as a week ago, Ariel argued that the documents were “more likely true than false.” He had just shared them with a _New York Times_ reporter, he added, and the two were set to meet in a few days.
> This past Saturday, Ariel reached out again, but with a different message.
> “At this time we are not proceeding with the documents,” he wrote in an email. “Too many question marks, so suggest you not waste any more time working on them.” ●
> _Megha Rajagopalan in Beijing contributed reporting to this story._


:clapTHIS is how you report on fake dossiers. 

If the left can be moved back from its extremist left SJW rantings, I'd say that Trump's election has already given people like me validation for supporting him. As I pointed out earlier, there were three things that led me to support him (stance on illegal immigrants, stance on repeal of mandated ACA tax and reminding people about the importance of the first amendment). So far Trump is 2 out of 3 and if he can get the extremist leftists to abandon SJW-ism, then he'll be 3 out of 3.


----------



## Clique

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> How many posts did I have in the previous thread? I must have been close to a thousand :hmm


You led the previous thread with 897 posts.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

YOU KILLED THE OLD ONE YOU GLORIOUS BASTARD 

MrMister 2020


----------



## Trivette

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Can we show some love to our Presidential ladies, friends? :banderas #MAGA


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Miss Sally: " . . . . .The same people who blame Trump for everything are like the ones who blamed Obama for everything. 

Obama wasn't a good President but he wasn't the worst. Blaming him for everything was asinine. . . . "

Comparing The two is ridiculous. You can dislike Obama as a president, but he was KNOWLEGABLE on the issues.. He knew what he was talking about regardless of whether you liked what he was saying or not. 

On the other hand, the current President possesses at best a 10th grade vocabulary with the inability to string together a coherent paragraph most of the time. His policy positions change with his underwear. He is vindictive, a bully and a generally dislikeable person. He is laughed at by most of the world (not to mention most of the people in this country as well)


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Melania always looks so suspicious of cameras.

Do you guys think she might be a Russian spy?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Wait what ... is Buzzfeed getting redpilled too? I mean it could just be an attempt on their part to claw back some credibility for themselves, but that's ok. There's nothing wrong with publishing a story that counters public perception and learning from mistakes of the past. I'm ok with this.
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensing...on-dollar-hoax?utm_term=.lun7zWedp#.rqQe7pygY
> 
> :wow A lot of irony here, but that's ok too. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for them and starting on a path of more credible journalism.
> 
> I'm reading the rest of it right now, and I'll add it in later to this post.
> :clapTHIS is how you report on fake dossiers.
> 
> If the left can be moved back from its extremist left SJW rantings, I'd say that Trump's election has already given people like me validation for supporting him. As I pointed out earlier, there were three things that led me to support him (stance on illegal immigrants, stance on repeal of mandated ACA tax and reminding people about the importance of the first amendment). So far Trump is 2 out of 3 and if he can get the extremist leftists to abandon SJW-ism, then he'll be 3 out of 3.


Come on dude. You are supporting the guy who lead the charge for Obama not being an American and then the whole BS oh Obama had him wiretapped BS and the Trump admin saying they give alternative facts.

Trump is one of the biggest culprits of putting out fake news


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So the House intel committee, including the top GOP leader just said there's no evidence on this Obama wiretap thing. Since we know Trump isn't the type to apologize, will he fight this or just keep quiet and let it go away?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Come on dude. You are supporting the guy who lead the charge for Obama not being an American and then the whole BS oh Obama had him wiretapped BS and the Trump admin saying they give alternative facts.
> 
> Trump is one of the biggest culprits of fake news


Doesn't mean the things that I do support him for are also invalid. As I said, I think it's time that we moved on from citicising the policy-maker and criticize his policies otherwise you guys run the risk of becoming this generation's "Thanks Trump" meme. 

As I said in correction to my first statement, I still rely on CNN for their international news and terror attack reporting even though their domestic reporting has a component fake and misleading news. 

You're quoting me on a post congratulating Buzzfeed of all news sites for stepping up their game. IIRC, weren't they the ones that broke the Pissgate dossier? 

What you should gather out of this is that I'm not a blind supporter of anything if I can discern its "truth" to have been manufactured based on misrepresenations - and not that my support for Trump means support for all his policies. I've actually never advocated for all of Trump's agenda. I just fight when I see someone pushing false narratives and conspiracy theories and when Trump does it (and he does), my silence should mean that I'm not a supporter of it. I just won't go out of my way to disprove it. 

I'm selective and I reserve the right to be but it doesn't mean I'm supportive. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










:lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So the House intel committee, including the top GOP leader just said there's no evidence on this Obama wiretap thing. Since we know Trump isn't the type to apologize, will he fight this or just keep quiet and let it go away?


He will act like he never said it, or make up something like well I didn't really mean wiretapping. LIke how Spicer said one time, Trump does not always mean everything he says literally or something to that effect. I forget his exact words.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Doesn't mean the things that I do support him for are also invalid. As I said, I think it's time that we moved on from citicising the policy-maker and criticize his policies otherwise you guys run the risk of becoming this generation's "Thanks Trump" meme.
> 
> As I said in correction to my first statement, I still rely on CNN for their international news and terror attack reporting even though their domestic reporting has a component fake and misleading news.
> 
> You're quoting me on a post congratulating Buzzfeed of all news sites for stepping up their game. IIRC, weren't they the ones that broke the Pissgate dossier?
> 
> What you should gather out of this is that I'm not a blind supporter of anything if I can discern its "truth" to have been manufactured based on misrepresenations - and not that my support for Trump means support for all his policies. I've actually never advocated for all of Trump's agenda. I just fight when I see someone pushing false narratives and conspiracy theories


But you are saying Trump gave people validation for supporting him because of crap like the Maddow thing when Trump does the exact same BS and Trump does it way more often. So why wouldn't that give people validation for being against him? It seems like a lot of Trump supporters get all pissy when people are against Trump. Its just funny what a hyporcrite some Trump supporters are . They act like he never puts out fake news or lies when the majority of the stuff he says is not even true.



You just seem to have less of a problem when Trump does it and give the left way more shit when they do it.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So the House intel committee, including the top GOP leader just said there's no evidence on this Obama wiretap thing. Since we know Trump isn't the type to apologize, will he fight this or just keep quiet and let it go away?


*It was one of the stupidest goddamn accusations I've ever heard and the sad thing is it didn't surprise me in the slightest. Not in the slightest. And that's a shame.

My guess is Trump will accuse them of being a fake intel committee :maisie *


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I hope we don't get into a huge debate about this and I'm not countering everything you're saying but rather speaking for myself and explaining myself because I don't think I've actually done that. So read this carefully (and not as a criticism of your views)



birthday_massacre said:


> But you are saying Trump gave people validation for supporting him because of crap like the Maddow thing when Trump does the exact same BS and Trump does it way more often.


I think you're over-looking the fact that I'm interested in truth no matter which side it comes from. If Maddow says something about discrimination in the gay and lesbian community (as she herself is a lesbian), I'll be more apt to listen to her than if Pence said it. 

If Trump says something about himself and things that he's personally involved in where he'd have more knowledge, I'll believe him. But I didn't believe him on the wire-tapping stuff. Some people claim evidence, but by and large the evidence is suspect. 

If you notice, I have never actually outright supported anything Trump has directly dessiminated as news. When I support Trump, I support certain aspects of his policies that impact me directly. His policy stances and actions are what I'm interested in, not what he says. 



> You just seem to have less of a problem when Trump does it and give the left way more shit when they do it.


Exactly right. I'm less interested in the policymaker (other than celebrating his victories) and more interested in debunking the left. I do it as a two-fold exercise. 1) Debating 2) Arguing against the side that I used to be a part of. 

I engage in part 2 because I personally feel more enlightened after having broken away from leftist brainwashing. I know you don't see it that way and you might not, but as an atheist I had one of my biggest enlightening periods when I broke away from Allah. The second such enlightening experience happened when I broke away from the box of leftist thinking. It's an invisible box of ideas that while not completely bad, but have a lot of similarities with religious dogma. 

I engage leftists more than rightists because I feel like many of them are still in that box and I think they should try to get out of it and experience a sort of euphoria of breaking away from an ideological box. 

There are some right-wingers that are too extreme even for me. Remember that one random dude that showed up and then promptly got banned? Believe it or not, I reported his posts several times and provoked him as well into getting more and more extreme. I don't like those kinds of people either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I hope we don't get into a huge debate about this and I'm not countering everything you're saying but rather speaking for myself and explaining myself because I don't think I've actually done that. So read this carefully (and not as a criticism of your views)
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're over-looking the fact that I'm interested in truth no matter which side it comes from. If Maddow says something about discrimination in the gay and lesbian community (as she herself is a lesbian), I'll be more apt to listen to her than if Pence said it.
> 
> If Trump says something about himself and things that he's personally involved in where he'd have more knowledge, I'll believe him. But I didn't believe him on the wire-tapping stuff. Some people claim evidence, but by and large the evidence is suspect.
> 
> If you notice, I have never actually outright supported anything Trump has directly dessiminated as news. When I support Trump, I support certain aspects of his policies that impact me directly. His policy stances and actions are what I'm interested in, not what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I'm less interested in the policymaker (other than celebrating his victories) and more interested in debunking the left. I do it as a two-fold exercise. 1) Debating 2) Arguing against the side that I used to be a part of.
> 
> I engage in part 2 because I personally feel more enlightened after having broken away from leftist brainwashing. I know you don't see it that way and you might not, but as an atheist I had one of my biggest enlightening periods when I broke away from Allah. The second such enlightening experience happened when I broke away from the box of leftist thinking. It's an invisible box of ideas that while not completely bad, but have a lot of similarities with religious dogma.
> 
> I engage leftists more than rightists because I feel like many of them are still in that box and I think they should try to get out of it and experience a sort of euphoria of breaking away from an ideological box.
> 
> There are some right-wingers that are too extreme even for me. Remember that one random dude that showed up and then promptly got banned? Believe it or not, I reported his posts several times and provoked him as well into getting more and more extreme. I don't like those kinds of people either.



Yeah there is no point in debating why you support Trump, all I was saying is with Trump supporters in general and to your point a big reason why Trump supporters say they don't support the left because they put out "fake news" but then they turn around and support Trump who does the same thing to an even bigger extent of putting out fake news.

Its much worse when Trump does it like the wire tapping thing as an example than what Maddow did because Trump is POTUS and everything he says should be true and not just BS he gets from watching fox news or infowars before at least trying to fact check it.


But that is the last I will say on this since neither of us want to go down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@MrMister When are Justin Trudeau, Paul Ryan, Angela Merkal and Nicola Sturgeon getting their own threads? :armfold


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah there is no point in debating why you support Trump, all I was saying is with Trump supporters in general and to your point a big reason why Trump supporters say they don't support the left because they put out "fake news" but then they turn around and support Trump who does the same thing to an even bigger extent of putting out fake news.
> 
> Its much worse when Trump does it like the wire tapping thing as an example than what Maddow did because Trump is POTUS and everything he says should be true and not just BS he gets from watching fox news or infowars before at least trying to fact check it.
> 
> But that is the last I will say on this since neither of us want to go down that rabbit hole.


I actually do agree that it's worse when Trump does it. But at the same time, we should agree that it exposes partisan hackery on both sides. The same people on the left that pushed the Russian and Pissgate conspiracy theories are now busy debunking the wiretapping conspiracy theories. The fact is that partisanship overall is creating blinders and people just need to be careful what they're doing. 

This isn't a jab at you. Just generally what I've observed on the left.

Let's just agree that partisanship on both sides gives birth to conspiracy theories and all we need to learn from this is not to trust anyone's conspiracy theory at face value. Just remember what we learnt when we debunked the existence of god and apply those rules of skepticism across the board.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I knew the old thread couldn't handle rachel maddows gargantuan forehead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I actually do agree that it's worse when Trump does it. But at the same time, we should agree that it exposes partisan hackery on both sides. The same people on the left that pushed the Russian and Pissgate conspiracy theories are now busy debunking the wiretapping conspiracy theories. The fact is that partisanship overall is creating blinders and people just need to be careful what they're doing.
> 
> This isn't a jab at you. Just generally what I've observed on the left.
> 
> Let's just agree that partisanship on both sides gives birth to conspiracy theories and all we need to learn from this is not to trust anyone's conspiracy theory at face value. Just remember what we learnt when we debunked the existence of god and apply those rules of skepticism across the board.


Oh and I agree 100% I always cringe when people on the left do it, that is one of the reasons they lost. I constantly complained about it during the primary, CNN was the worst at it. 

And the thing that pisses me off most of the establishment left still has not learned this lesson. Tom Perez is the worse and more of the same BS. The hatchet job they did on Ellison was sickening.


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> Melania always looks so suspicious of cameras.
> 
> Do you guys think she might be a Russian spy?


No, she's just miserable . . . . and miserably rich.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Who will fall next to the mighty :trump? :woo :woo :woo


Hawaii and 13 other fuccboi states are looking to challenge the revised travel ban, so they're the most likely "season 3"'s antagonists.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> No, she's just miserable . . . . and miserably rich.


Hate to say it, but that's just another BS narrative being spun by a media that specifically posts specifically chosen pictures. Almost everyone goes through moments of contemplation, thought where their faces aren't always stuck in a perpetual smile. Not everyone is born a politician. 

She's actually starting to embrace her First Lady role as well but we all know that Ivanka is the real go getter there. She's commandeering paid maternal leave for expecting mothers. It's not something I care too much about, but at least she has a clear agenda.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Blackbeard said:


> @MrMister When are Justin Trudeau, Paul Ryan, Angela Merkal and Nicola Sturgeon getting their own threads? :armfold


lmfao no buys for them srs


----------



## terrydude

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Who will fall next to the mighty ? 

Senator John McCain needs to get on board or get out.


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

" . . . . but that's just another BS narrative being spun by a media . . . . "

Media blah blah . . . zzzz yawn. I've never once seen in the media that she's miserable. It's my own observation. I read and watch media all day.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> Miss Sally: " . . . . .The same people who blame Trump for everything are like the ones who blamed Obama for everything.
> 
> Obama wasn't a good President but he wasn't the worst. Blaming him for everything was asinine. . . . "
> 
> Comparing The two is ridiculous. You can dislike Obama as a president, but he was KNOWLEGABLE on the issues.. He knew what he was talking about regardless of whether you liked what he was saying or not.
> 
> On the other hand, the current President possesses at best a 10th grade vocabulary with the inability to string together a coherent paragraph most of the time. His policy positions change with his underwear. He is vindictive, a bully and a generally dislikeable person. He is laughed at by most of the world (not to mention most of the people in this country as well)


I think his general dickishness is what drives the media to try and find as much dirt on him as possible. We view the media as this faceless conglomerate but it's driven by individuals, and a lot of them simply do not like Trump the human being.

I don't pretend to understand economics or foreign policy, in terms of knowing what we should do. I have opinions on social issues like everyone else, but frankly I'm sick of that stuff. My focus is drawn to the tone and style of discourse, and that's where Trump rubs me the wrong way. I don't like him as a person one bit, though I begrudgingly respect his hustle and what a cagey bastard he can be (this also makes me nervous about him). I think a lot of the people involved in generating the news cycle feel the same and have trouble keeping their personal biases out of the way.

Biases surely played a part in the past, but we've become more polarized and there's an incredible amount of content with 24 hour cable news, countless internet news sites, and their social media platforms. Choosing what to cover, what not to cover, and how to frame it in a headline or a tweet are ultimately editorial decisions, as well as financial decisions. They're all looking for eyeballs and catering to a demographic. It's not even just news outlets; people like Jared Yates Sexton have built a brand out of Trump tweets after one of his blogs about attending a Trump rally went viral. Hey ho, now he has a book for sale!

Too much speculation is also a problem. The public would be best served if media stopped worrying everyone about what could happen and simply report what does, but there's a demand for speculative reporting. Maddow's ratings are the best they've been in years as she tries to piece together the Russia stuff, which is starting to resemble one of those intricate TV shows where every supposed answer just brings more questions. She and MSNBC are in this to make money like everyone else, so she'd be crazy to lay off the subject.

I wish there was a way to take the money out of news, but the only alternative would be state-run media, and lol no. We just have to look for the best sources of news and be really good at deciphering what is bullshit and what isn't. But we can't be too skeptical, otherwise we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the baby in this case being the truth.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> I think his general dickishness is what drives the media to try and find as much dirt on him as possible. We view the media as this faceless conglomerate but it's driven by individuals, and a lot of them simply do not like Trump the human being.
> 
> I don't pretend to understand economics or foreign policy, in terms of knowing what we should do. I have opinions on social issues like everyone else, but frankly I'm sick of that stuff. My focus is drawn to the tone and style of discourse, and that's where Trump rubs me the wrong way. I don't like him as a person one bit, though I begrudgingly respect his hustle and what a cagey bastard he can be (this also makes me nervous about him). I think a lot of the people involved in generating the news cycle feel the same and have trouble keeping their personal biases out of the way.
> 
> Biases surely played a part in the past, but we've become more polarized and there's an incredible amount of content with 24 hour cable news, countless internet news sites, and their social media platforms. Choosing what to cover, what not to cover, and how to frame it in a headline or a tweet are ultimately editorial decisions, as well as financial decisions. They're all looking for eyeballs and catering to a demographic. It's not even just news outlets; people like Jared Yates Sexton have built a brand out of Trump tweets after one of his blogs about attending a Trump rally went viral. Hey ho, now he has a book for sale!
> 
> Too much speculation is also a problem. The public would be best served if media stopped worrying everyone about what could happen and simply report what does, but there's a demand for speculative reporting. Maddow's ratings are the best they've been in years as she tries to piece together the Russia stuff, which is starting to resemble one of those intricate TV shows where every supposed answer just brings more questions. She and MSNBC are in this to make money like everyone else, so she'd be crazy to lay off the subject.
> 
> *I wish there was a way to take the money out of news,* but the only alternative would be state-run media, and lol no. We just have to look for the best sources of news and be really good at deciphering what is bullshit and what isn't. But we can't be too skeptical, otherwise we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the baby in this case being the truth.


You dont need to take money out of news, just take money out of politics. Don't let corporations give campaign donations, anymore.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> " . . . . but that's just another BS narrative being spun by a media . . . .


































































If this is what misery looks like to you, then sure. Stay deluded :lmao

"Your own observation". Are you a servant in the Trump household? 

Nah. You're just another ranting leftie who has to make up bullshit in order to justify your Trump Derangement Syndrome


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



terrydude said:


> Who will fall next to the mighty ?
> 
> Senator John McCain needs to get on board or get out.


In board with what - the dumbing down of Ammurca?

McCain was just re-elected. He will still be a Senator long after Darth Trump is defeated "bigly" in 2020


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



terrydude said:


> Who will fall next to the mighty ?
> 
> Senator John McCain needs to get on board or get out.


Feed his decrepit carcass to the jackals. We should also do the same to that antebellum ****** Lindsey. :tripsscust

However, we should keep Meghan McCain on the grounds that she's reasonably sensible (especially in comparison to her bitter old man) and, in my opinion, decently attractive.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You dont need to take money out of news, just take money out of politics. Don't let corporations give campaign donations, anymore.


This is basically unenforceable. Corporations are made up of individuals. If the ruling was that corporations can't give money, that money will just be filtered through multiple individual donations. The money will get there regardless, and politicians will never not need it. Actually, Trump's the closest we've come to a politician who didn't need it.

I think it's more of an issue with news anyway, because truth is being slanted and it shapes perception. But money isn't going out of news either, it's impossible.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm legitimately curious how The Media Who Cried Trump will operate after last night's fail.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Come on dude. You are supporting the guy who lead the charge for Obama not being an American and then the whole BS oh Obama had him wiretapped BS and the Trump admin saying they give alternative facts.
> 
> Trump is one of the biggest culprits of putting out fake news


Still waiting for the list of things that will get Trump impeached, BM. :sleep


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> In board with what - the dumbing down of Ammurca?
> 
> McCain was just re-elected. He will still be a Senator long after Darth Trump is defeated "bigly" in 2020


Trump will leave office in 2024-2025. 8 years of the GOAT, wags. 

Sit back and enjoy the wild ride. :trump


----------



## wagnergrad96

SureUmm said:


> Maddow's ratings are the best they've been in years as she tries to piece together the Russia stuff, which is starting to resemble one of those intricate TV shows where every supposed answer just brings more questions. .


I usually always laugh at conspiracy theorists on another board. Hell, Trump is a constant conspiracy theorist going back to his first days of the campaign (i.e. Mexican rapists . . . . Bullets with pigs blood . . )

However, Rachel Maddow is one of the few who is able to tie the Russia stuff together in a way that is understandable. Her show about Azerbajan business deals was excellent.

The reason Russia isn't a conspiracy theory is because much of it is true. Next week Comey will confirm publically that there is an ongoing investigation into it.



glenwo2 said:


> Still waiting for the list of things that will get Trump impeached, BM. :sleep


The List is too long to waste energy typing. 

Sometimes I wonder if people post here Kayfabe.. . . . 

I think life has become Kayfabe . . . . 

#resist


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> I usually always laugh at conspiracy theorists on another board. Hell, Trump is a constant conspiracy theorist going back to his first days of the campaign (i.e. Mexican rapists . . . . Bullets with pigs blood . . )
> 
> However, Rachel Maddow is one of the few who is able to tie the Russia stuff together in a way that is understandable. Her show about Azerbajan business deals was excellent.
> 
> The reason Russia isn't a conspiracy theory is because much of it is true. Next week Comey will confirm publically that there is an ongoing investigation into it.


I've followed it somewhat, and there are compelling things there. I wasn't really commenting on whether it was true or not, more the motivation for and the nature of speculative news. I wonder if her ratings hit rock bottom if she'd continue on the Russia story or move to other things?

Like most people, it's not evil money grubber vs. wholesome perfect person. It's a mix of both. I'm sure she believes in what she's doing, but she's got her eye on what sells as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Still waiting for the list of things that will get Trump impeached, BM. :sleep


I have given this list a number of times, I am not doing it again. Go back to the other thread and find it


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> *The List is too long to waste energy typing.
> *
> Sometimes I wonder if people post here Kayfabe.. . . .
> 
> I think life has become Kayfabe . . . .
> 
> #resist


Of course it is. 

So that said, let's move on to making fun of Paul Ryan.....






birthday_massacre said:


> I have given this list a number of times, I am not doing it again. Go back to the other thread and find it


How many times did Rip debunk that list?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


>


Thanks, Reap. I was looking for another one of these photos for a new smiley.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Thanks, Reap. I was looking for another one of these photos for a new smiley.


Best one yet. :trump


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Thanks, Reap. I was looking for another one of these photos for a new smiley.


Yo. While you're at this, can you add this too:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> If this is what misery looks like to you, then sure. Stay deluded :lmao
> 
> "Your own observation". Are you a servant in the Trump household?
> 
> Nah. You're just another ranting leftie who has to make up bullshit in order to justify your Trump Derangement Syndrome


Oh like this smile when Trump is looking at her, then when it turns around she is like BLAH


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh like this smile when Trump is looking at her, then when it turns around she is like BLAH


Nah. Anyone that has been in a longterm relationship knows that this shit is very, very normal between people who love each other. 

I got upset at my wife at one of her friends' weddings and she was patronizing me. I snapped at her in private but that doesn't mean that I'm unhappy or abused :lmao


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yo. While you're at this, can you add this too:


I can't add anything to the database. Only admins can do that. That Trump smiley is also not in the database. None of these are.














































If you want to use 'em, just bookmark 'em. :trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> So that said, let's move on to making fun of Paul Ryan.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Rip debunk that list?


He never did. There is yet another article today about all his conflicts

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-conflicts-of-interest-20170314-story.html

Any of these could get him impeached.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Nah. Anyone that has been in a longterm relationship knows that this shit is very, very normal between people who love each other.
> 
> I got upset at my wife at one of her friends' weddings and she was patronizing me. I snapped at her in private but that doesn't mean that I'm unhappy or abused :lmao


Not in inauguration day. Her body language in most interviews they are today says it all.

But we all know she is in it for the money and that she is just a trophy wife for Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not in inauguration day. Her body language in most interviews they are today says it all.
> 
> *But we all know she is in it for the money and that she is just a trophy wife for Trump.*


You do realize that that's actually sexism right? I mean you have a right to say sexist things, but you should remember that that's what it is. 

I make sexist jokes and comments all the time, but to seriously call a woman a gold-digger and trophy wife goes beyond "lol j/k".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You do realize that that's actually sexism right? I mean you have a right to say sexist things, but you should remember that that's what it is.
> 
> I make sexist jokes and comments all the time, but to seriously call a woman a gold-digger and trophy wife goes beyond "lol j/k".


Call it what you want, does not make it any less true.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Call it what you want, does not make it any less true.


Just when I thought you were turning a corner in your mindless hate and narrative pushing fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Just when I thought you were turning a corner in your mindless hate and narrative pushing fpalm


You can't be that delusional dude. She is in it for the money and she is a trophy wife to him

But ok pretend that is not what it is


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> Miss Sally: " . . . . .The same people who blame Trump for everything are like the ones who blamed Obama for everything.
> 
> Obama wasn't a good President but he wasn't the worst. Blaming him for everything was asinine. . . . "
> 
> Comparing The two is ridiculous. You can dislike Obama as a president, but he was KNOWLEGABLE on the issues.. He knew what he was talking about regardless of whether you liked what he was saying or not.
> 
> On the other hand, the current President possesses at best a 10th grade vocabulary with the inability to string together a coherent paragraph most of the time. His policy positions change with his underwear. He is vindictive, a bully and a generally dislikeable person. He is laughed at by most of the world (not to mention most of the people in this country as well)


That's not the point. The fact is people blamed Obama for everything when there were things to really complain about but instead they bitched about the dumbest stuff. This is the case for Trump, these wild goose chases, random scandals and stupidity isn't worth going on about. There are other things to attack Trump on yet they ignore that in favor of the most asinine stuff, it's the same with Obama. This has nothing to do with their leadership abilities.

Also Trump isn't going to be impeached unless it's something massive, if using the IRS to target certain groups wasn't enough for it, nor any of the scandals during the Bush/Obama rules than Trump isn't going anywhere. Stop clutching your pearls, grow up people and live your lives.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't be that delusional dude. She is in it for the money and she is a trophy wife to him
> 
> But ok pretend that is not what it is


For someone who would hate to be stereotyped, who hates it when muslims are stereotyped, you're surprisingly ok with stereotyping a woman who married a rich man.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> For someone who would hate to be stereotyped, who hates it when muslims are stereotyped, you're surprisingly ok with stereotyping a woman who married a rich man.


Its not a stereotype to call a Muslim a terrorist if that Muslim is in a terrorist cell.


You go by what you see, and seeing Trump and Melania is obvious what it is

But sure keep pretending. LOL


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> For someone who would hate to be stereotyped, who hates it when muslims are stereotyped, you're surprisingly ok with stereotyping a woman who married a rich man.


She's married to someone he doesn't like. I'm sure some of those psychotic fans of Dean Ambrose think he's not happy with what's her name because he isn't always giggling about with her.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not a stereotype to call a Muslim a terrorist if that Muslim is in a terrorist cell.
> 
> 
> You go by what you see, and seeing Trump and Melania is obvious what it is
> 
> But sure keep pretending. LOL


How is it obvious that she's a golddigger and trophy wife?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> How is it obvious that she's a golddigger and trophy wife?


Do you hear what Trump says about women? He says, did you see what she looks like, I would never sleep with her, or that chick is ugly I would never bang her.

So you really think if Melania was ugly Trump would give her the time of day? Of course not. He admits he only dates hot women, that is a trophy. What esle would you call it? You think he dated her the married her for her personality? Come on dude. Get real.



You really think if Trump was poor or middle class Melania would have given him a second look? Of course not.

When they first met, she would not even give Trump her number, she made Trump give her is. That is so she could research him then when she saw who he was she called him.

If he was some nobody, she never would have called him back. If she wanted to date him right off the bat she would have given Trump her number.

There is also a 20 something age gap. but yeah she is not a trophy wife and she did not marry him for his money.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Originally Posted by birthday_massacre View Post
> You dont need to take money out of news, just take money out of politics. Don't let corporations give campaign donations, anymore.


The largest corporations donate much more money to Democrats than to Republicans. It's not even close. Google, Apple, Facebook, the rest of the tech industry, Wall Street... outside of the energy sector the Democratic Party dominates political donations from them.

Why do you want to hurt the Democratic Party?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> That's not the point. The fact is people blamed Obama for everything when there were things to really complain about but instead they bitched about the dumbest stuff. This is the case for Trump, these wild goose chases, random scandals and stupidity isn't worth going on about. There are other things to attack Trump on yet they ignore that in favor of the most asinine stuff, it's the same with Obama. This has nothing to do with their leadership abilities.
> 
> *Also Trump isn't going to be impeached unless it's something massive*, if using the IRS to target certain groups wasn't enough for it, nor any of the scandals during the Bush/Obama rules than Trump isn't going anywhere. Stop clutching your pearls, grow up people and live your lives.



But..but...BM's Link :

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-conflicts-of-interest-20170314-story.html


He's in trouble now. 



(BTW, BM? Your so-called "list" doesn't hold any water based on the fucking website address itself. You know...the part of the address that says "/opinion/". So much for the dreaded list. More wishful thinking :lol )


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you hear what Trump says about women? He says, did you see what she looks like, I would never sleep with her, or that chick is ugly I would never bang her.


You would sleep with someone you're not attracted to just so that you won't appear sexist? Wow, that's some real dedication to your ideology man. How many pity fucks have you had in your life? 



> So you really think if Melania was ugly Trump would give her the time of day? Of course not. He admits he only dates hot women, that is a trophy. What esle would you call it? You think he dated her the married her for her personality? Come on dude. Get real.


So having a type or sexual preference is wrong? 



> You really think if Trump was poor or middle class Melania would have given him a second look? Of course not.


Yes obviously. Why would I assume otherwise without any coraborating evidence to the contrary? That would be like believing that Trump was actually wire-tapped by Obama just because he said it. So I disagree with what you're saying because it's something you pulled out of your ass because you're stereotyping a certain kind of relationship. It's called prejudice. 



> When they first met, she would not even give Trump her number, she made Trump give her is. That is so she could research him then when she saw who he was she called him.


You do realize that plenty of models get into relationships with normal guys all the time, right? Do you really know so little about reality that you think that models don't bang normal guys? 

You've seriously never seen a bombshell with a normal working class fat dude?

You do realize that you're really coming across as a sexist in this conversation and you know that I don't throw around these words easily or randomly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The largest corporations donate much more money to Democrats than to Republicans. It's not even close. Google, Apple, Facebook, the rest of the tech industry, Wall Street... outside of the energy sector the Democratic Party dominates political donations from them.
> 
> Why do you want to hurt the Democratic Party?


And who affects policy the most? OH that is right the energy companies who by far give more money to the GOP.

Google, Apple, and FB don't affect policy like the NRA, Oil, Gas, etc etc who give way more to the GOP . 

The DNC only take a fraction of what the GOP does but that does not even matter.

Neither should be able to take money, it's just legal bribery


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

MUH CHIVALRY 

:trump IS NO CHIVALROUS MAN

Chivalry is a sexist patriarchial control system doncha know.

Also kind of very sexist to say that a successful beautiful woman wouldn't give a man who isn't mega rich the time of day. Of course leftie hypocrisy when it comes to stereotyping people they don't like is a given.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hey BM. Your so-called "list" doesn't hold any water based on the fucking website address itself. You know...the part of the address that says "/opinion/". So much for the dreaded list. More wishful thinking by the LEFT. :lol


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Rachel Maddow :lmao :lmao :lmao. Biggest fail of 2017 thus far without a doubt.

TRUMP paying MORE tax than progressive hero BERNIE SANDERS :lmao. More tax than Democrat hero/president Obama :lmao.

Either this was a leak that backfired tremendously or an absolutely genius play by the Trump team.

The best thing about it is how embarrassing this was for Maddow. She is legitimately one of the worst journalists on either side of the aisle, so for this to happen to her is fan-fucking-tastic :mark: :mark: :mark:.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You've seriously never seen a bombshell with a normal working class fat dude?


I see this all the time and think to myself.. "Gawd why can't I find a guy like that."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You would sleep with someone you're not attracted to just so that you won't appear sexist? Wow, that's some real dedication to your ideology man. How many pity fucks have you had in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> So having a type or sexual preference is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes obviously. Why would I assume otherwise without any coraborating evidence to the contrary? That would be like believing that Trump was actually wire-tapped by Obama just because he said it. So I disagree with what you're saying because it's something you pulled out of your ass because you're stereotyping a certain kind of relationship. It's called prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that plenty of models get into relationships with normal guys all the time, right? Do you really know so little about reality that you think that models don't bang normal guys?
> 
> You've seriously never seen a bombshell with a normal working class fat dude?


I have slept with people that were not super hot because I was attracted to their personality.

You can have a type all you want but if you just date a women who is way younger than you and has to be hot, call it what it is, a trophy wife/gf.

LOL No they wouldnt dude. You lose all credibility by claiming this when Trump has said over and over he wouldn't date or hook up with anyone unattractive
Trump is all about looks even with people he hires for his cabinet LOL


the only one here that knows little about reality is you. It's a joke you can't admit what this relationship is.

But keep lying to yourself.






glenwo2 said:


> Hey BM. Your so-called "list" doesn't hold any water based on the fucking website address itself. You know...the part of the address that says "/opinion/". So much for the dreaded list. More wishful thinking by the LEFT. :lol


You are one of the most clueless people on the boards, you just troll over and over again

But keep being uninformed its what you do best.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I see this all the time and think to myself.. "Gawd why can't I find a guy like that."


Same here lol. It seems to happen a lot in small towns actually since there's less choice. It happens in reverse too, I've seen a lot of fat and ugly chicks with really good looking dudes and it shatters all preconceived notions.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Apparently personality and RAW ALPHA MALE SEXUAL ENERGY mean nothing to women, it's all about $$$$$ and the 6-6-6 (minimum 6 feet tall, minimum 6 visible ab muscles, minimum 6 inch dick)

Again seems kinda sexist :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have slept with people that were not super hot because I was attracted to their personality.
> 
> You can have a type all you want but if you just date a women who is way younger than you and has to be hot, call it what it is, a trophy wife/gf.
> 
> LOL No they wouldnt dude. You lose all credibility by claiming this when Trump has said over and over he wouldn't date or hook up with anyone unattractive
> Trump is all about looks even with people he hires for his cabinet LOL
> 
> 
> the only one here that knows little about reality is you. It's a joke you can't admit what this relationship is.
> 
> But keep lying to yourself.


Your beliefs about this relationship are entirely based on your prejudice. There's no actual rationality here at all.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> Rachel Maddow :lmao :lmao :lmao. Biggest fail of 2017 thus far without a doubt.
> 
> TRUMP paying MORE tax than progressive hero BERNIE SANDERS :lmao. More tax than Democrat hero/president Obama :lmao.
> 
> Either this was a leak that backfired tremendously or an absolutely genius play by the Trump team.
> 
> The best thing about it is how embarrassing this was for Maddow. She is legitimately one of the worst journalists on either side of the aisle, so for this to happen to her is fan-fucking-tastic :mark: :mark: :mark:.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Your beliefs about this relationship are entirely based on your prejudice. There's no actual rationality here at all.


LOL Trump supporters and how delusional they are.

What ever makes you sleep at night dude


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Your beliefs about this relationship are entirely based on your prejudice. There's no actual rationality here at all.


I wonder what his opinion is on the allegation that Hillary only married Bill because she saw a good pair of coattails to ride to wealth and power.

No evidence for it of course but COME ON LIVE IN REALITY

Why would she marry some nobody from the wrong side of the tracks (Bill's family being dirt poor and literally from the wrong side of the tracks in his hometown) who had no potential whatsoever except maybe a future in politics when she met him?

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump supporters and how delusional they are.
> 
> What ever makes you sleep at night dude


All you did was use your prejudice and pushed a ton of negative stereotypes to convey your bias. That's not rationality. 

:mj4

:sleep


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are one of the most clueless people on the boards, you just troll over and over again
> 
> But keep being uninformed its what you do best.



Noticed that you had no rebuttal for what I just said. *OPINION* pieces are *OPINION* pieces.

They could've said that Aliens(real ones) have taken over the White house and you'd believe it.


Like Rip has stated time and time again :

You're not a serious person.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Take a deep breath and count to ten everybody, before Oda does it for you!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Like Rip has stated time and time again :
> 
> You're not a serious person.


Your over-use of this phrase is making me want to never use it again :mj 

Deep down I'm a narcissist, so while I appreciate the fandom, I also want to remain unique


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Noticed that you had no rebuttal for what I just said.
> 
> Like Rip has stated time and time again :
> 
> You're not a serious person.


I don't need a rebuttal,I know you like ALT Facts. You can pretend Trump does not have all these conflicts you want, you can also pretend don't violate the emoluments all you want, you are just a Trump apologist.

But keep up your circle jerking.

The examples of Trumps conflicts are not opinion.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Your over-use of this phrase is making me want to never use it again :mj
> 
> Deep down I'm a narcissist, so while I appreciate the fandom, I also want to remain unique


Hmmm...you are correct, sir. 

I got a bit carried away. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Blackbeard said:


> @MrMister When are Justin Trudeau, Paul Ryan, Angela Merkal and Nicola Sturgeon getting their own threads? :armfold


:lmao :lmao :lmao



RipNTear said:


> Your over-use of this phrase is making me want to never use it again :mj
> 
> Deep down I'm a narcissist, so while I appreciate the fandom, I also want to remain unique


WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT STEALING MY CATCH PHRASE 


Great ending to the last thread. (Y) Kind of a poor start to this one to be engaging in tabloid-level speculation about the God Emperor and his consort though.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT STEALING MY CATCH PHRASE
> 
> 
> Great ending to the last thread. (Y) Kind of a poor start to this one to be engaging in tabloid-level speculation about the God Emperor and his consort though.


There's nothing unique about it tbf. I've been hearing it for years (as early as 2011!).


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is BM still asshurt Kevin Owens got demolished by Brock Lesnar and Goldberg in under 3 minutes that he's trying to take his frustrations out on the God Emperor King Lord?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rainmaka! said:


> Is BM still asshurt Kevin Owens got demolished by Brock Lesnar and Goldberg in under 3 minutes that he's trying to take his frustrations out on the God Emperor King Lord?


Nah, he's been that way since the election started


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rainmaka! said:


> Is BM still asshurt Kevin Owens got demolished by Brock Lesnar and Goldberg in under 3 minutes that he's trying to take his frustrations out on the God Emperor King Lord?


God Emperor Shitlord is the proper title.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Rachel Maddow is either an idiot of the highest degree or a secret Trump agent making the haters look like fools.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Rachel Maddow is either an idiot of the highest degree or a secret Trump agent making the haters look like fools.


Its the former


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Rachel Maddow is either an idiot of the highest degree.


Yes.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Call it what you want, does not make it any less true.


Actually, it does make it less true because your observation isn't a fact.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Actually, it does make it less true because your observation isn't a fact.


LOL still denying Trump has conflicts.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So a Hawaii federal judge just blocked the revised travel ban for the whole country.

This is sooooo going to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals doesn't overturn this verdict.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL still denying Trump has conflicts.


I was actually referring to your take on Melania Trump, but since you brought it up, I have never dismissed the possibility that Trump may have conflicts. What I have questioned is your insistence that these alleged conflicts of interest are 1.) impeachable based solely on the surface of things; and 2.) that they are evidence of wrong doing.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So a Hawaii federal judge just blocked the revised travel ban for the whole country.
> 
> This is sooooo going to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals doesn't overturn this verdict.


This is insane. These judges are no longer even trying to hide the fact that they are just doing this to make Trump's job more difficult.

I mean the revised plan is more well-thought out and still this fucktard blocks it?


Please get rid of this Hawaiian AssClown. fpalm


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> This is insane. These judges are no longer even trying to hide the fact that they are just doing this to make Trump's job more difficult.
> 
> I mean the revised plan is more well-thought out and still this fucktard blocks it?
> 
> 
> Please get rid of this Hawaiian AssClown. fpalm


They have a high chance of getting this overturned by the Supreme Court. They just have to wait for Trump's guy to get appointed so that they have the 5-4 advantage on the bench.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> They have a high chance of getting this overturned by the Supreme Court. They just have to wait for Trump's guy to get appointed so that they have the 5-4 advantage on the bench.


Is there any chance that this judge gets replaced? 

This is total bush-league horseshit being done here, imo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> This is insane. These judges are no longer even trying to hide the fact that they are just doing this to make Trump's job more difficult.
> 
> I mean the revised plan is more well-thought out and still this fucktard blocks it?
> 
> 
> Please get rid of this Hawaiian AssClown. fpalm


AWWW is the little snowflake Glennywoowoo all triggered by this.

How exactly is this making Trumps job more difficult? How is the revised plan is more well-thought out? They took away a country they did not even add to it.

There has been ZERO fatal terrorist attacks by refugees or immigrants from these countries on American citizens in the US in the past 40 years.

If he was going to really care about safety why didn't he put Saudi Arabia , you know the place were most of the terrorist came from on 9/11, Turkey or Egypt.

OH that's right it's because Trump has business in those countries.


You don't even have the first idea of what well thought out means.

Its funny how butt hurt you are over this




glenwo2 said:


> Is there any chance that this judge gets replaced?
> 
> This is total bush-league horseshit being done here, imo.


No because he is following the law. Quit being a fascist.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Is there any chance that this judge gets replaced?
> 
> This is total bush-league horseshit being done here, imo.


They can only be removed from Congress through impeachment and conviction. Federal judges are lifetime appointments.


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Judge Gorsuch needs to be sworn in soon to stop these judges from making the presidents job more difficult


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If the Supreme Court gets split on Democrat vs Republican lines, doesn't that indicate that there's something wrong with the entire judicial system?

I thought we're supposed to be about separation of powers and not voting along partisan party values...


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> AWWWW I'm a little teapot, short and stout....



I'm sorry..did you say something?






Headliner said:


> They can only be removed from Congress through impeachment and conviction. Federal judges are lifetime appointments.


Oh that's right. I forgot about that RIDICULOUS thing regarding them having ZERO term-limits. fpalm

How can one judge in fucking HAWAII have the AUTHORITY to do this ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTRY? He shouldn't have that kind of authority. Only the Supreme Court(and the President) should.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I'm sorry..did you say something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. I forgot about that RIDICULOUS thing regarding them having ZERO term-limits. fpalm
> 
> How can one judge in fucking HAWAII have the AUTHORITY to do this ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTRY? He shouldn't have that kind of authority. Only the Supreme Court(and the President) should.


There you go again ignoring the facts and acting like a child by not replying to what I said and editing a quote like a baby.

So tell me, should Trump have added Saudi Arabia , Egypt and Turkey to the ban list?

Why or why not?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> blahblahblahblah



I think this is how I view your posts going forward because you have nothing constructive to add except busting balls which is the only thing LEFTISTS are able to do. 

So BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH away. It's just noise to me. :sleep :sleep :sleep


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I think this is how I view your posts going forward because you have nothing constructive to add except busting balls which is the only thing LEFTISTS are able to do.
> 
> So BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH away. It's just noise to me. :sleep :sleep :sleep


The projection by you is classic.

Its funny you can't answer this simple question.


But it's because you are not smart enough to. It's way above your intellect that is why 90% of your posts in this thread are shit post. But like Trump said he loves the uneducated, you are a perfect example of that.

All Trump supporters should answer the question as well.

Should Trump have added Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to the ban list?

Why or why not?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I actually think that most Muslim refugee loving Euro liberal countries and even Canada should be on the list :shrug

Also send back Bieber and that antivaxxer piece of shit Jim Carey.


----------



## American_Nightmare

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hawaii's tourism numbers are probably going to skyrocket.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What is the big deal, presidents get blocked by courts all the time. 

If this were really a big deal to the administration it would lean on McConnell to start the Gorsuch confirmation hearings faster than probably next month sometime. It would have done that after the first EO was blocked. It didnt. This whole thing is political theater. :trump showing that he'll fight for his campaign promises and Democrats trying to show they're relevant.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



American_Nightmare said:


> Hawaii's tourism numbers are probably going to skyrocket.


No one except rich white people go there anyways. It's pretty much inoculated from reality of Muslim terrorism and Tulsi is a huge Muslim apologist all of a sudden. 

Good thing it's not a popular refugee destination for their sake.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Judge Gorsuch needs to be sworn in soon to stop these judges from making the presidents job more difficult


If you think the Democrats are going to roll over on Gorsuch, you got another thing coming. Whatever the record is for the time it took to confirm a SCOTUS pick will dwarf in comparison to how long it's going to take for Gorsuch to get approved.

But let's go ahead and mark it here, because it's going to be plainly obvious that the Dems are going to do whatever it takes to stall Gorsuch's confirmation. 

When Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th circuit, not a single Democrat voiced opposition. Once Trump nominated him, Democrats lined up to call him a right-wing, pro-corporate, special-interest agenda puppet. Just like how MSNBC and Maddow intentions were laid bare, so will the Democratic Party's. They'll cherry pick a handful of the hundreds of cases he presided over to justify their claims, ignoring the equal amount of cases where he went against their characterization, people will see the double talk and the approval rating of the Democrats will sink lower.


----------



## American_Nightmare

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And coincidentally, the Obamas are apparently there.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In case a certain someone didn't get the hint, I don't respond to blahblah people. 



So back on topic....There really should be term limits for Federal Judges 'cause this action just smacks of pure spite and not anything that's actually an issue with the revised ban.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But you are saying Trump gave people validation for supporting him because of crap like the Maddow thing when Trump does the exact same BS and Trump does it way more often. So why wouldn't that give people validation for being against him? It seems like a lot of Trump supporters get all pissy when people are against Trump. Its just funny what a hyporcrite some Trump supporters are . They act like he never puts out fake news or lies when the majority of the stuff he says is not even true.
> 
> 
> 
> You just seem to have less of a problem when Trump does it and give the left way more shit when they do it.


The inauguration crowd size thing seem to fade into the background. Remember the justification of the size by using CNN's cameras? Was there any admission of error there? :lmao

What about Trump's insistence of voter fraud and massive unemployment numbers?

He's not a serious person when he attempt to pass off Trump acting like the 'fake news' he hates by claiming Trump was doing self-defence. :troll


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*











:lol


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Out of complete interest and curiosity, not looking to get into a debate or anything (no matter what political stance you are), what foreign deals does Trump have with other countries? Anyone know? As I say, just curious to know.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> :lol


Does the same logic applies to the crowd size of Trump's rallies? :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Does the same logic applies to the crowd size of Trump's rallies? :lol


God Emperor shitlords rallies usually take place after 5pm don't they


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> God Emperor shitlords rallies usually take place after 5pm don't they


Rallies were held throughout the day during the campaign by both candidates.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Out of complete interest and curiosity, not looking to get into a debate or anything (no matter what political stance you are), what foreign deals does Trump have with other countries? Anyone know? As I say, just curious to know.


This is the best that I can come up with on short notice...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/trump-foreign-businesses/


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Rallies were held throughout the day during the campaign by both candidates.


Rallies during a presidential campaign aren't the same to me as rallies after, I meant the ones he's held since winning. I think they've all been held (all two of them. Maybe theres been more but i think its only been two including tonights) in the evening.

Maybe all the people at both inaugurations were playing hooky from work :grin2:


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Rallies during a presidential campaign aren't the same to me as rallies after, I meant the ones he's held since winning. I think they've all been held (all two of them. Maybe theres been more but i think its only been two including tonights) in the evening.
> 
> Maybe all the people at both inaugurations were playing hooky from work :grin2:


I take that as you admitting your mistake in this shitpost discussion.

Next step is to come to term that your messiah Trump isn't going to help the country.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I take that as you admitting your mistake in this shitpost discussion.
> 
> Next step is to come to term that your messiah Trump isn't going to help the country.


Ummm not sure what you mean by mistake. Wouldn't it be you making the mistake of thinking I meant rallies held during the campaign? Inaugurations aren't held during campaigns either...


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Ummm not sure what you mean by mistake. Wouldn't it be you making the mistake of thinking I meant rallies held during the campaign? Inaugurations aren't held during campaigns either...


You were replying to me raising the issue about rallies. Wouldn't it be YOU making the mistake that I meant rallies held after the elections?

Your grasping at straws at this is amusing.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ what is amusing is you believing that Trump won't help this country. 

He's got 4 years(soon to be 8) so we'll see where we stand then. (I seriously doubt he would be impeached. He'd have to murder someone for that to happen)


----------



## X Spectrum

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah, not seeing Trump getting impeached either. The Dems' popularity has sunk to the level of popularity the GOP has (though the GOP is not as hated), while both Mike Pence and Donald Trump are far, far more popular.

There are only two ways for Trump to be impeached, the first him screwing up things to the point the conservative voters no longer support him, the Dems would get enough support from the GOP to impeach Trump; the other way is for the Democratic Party to win the majority of the house in the next mid-terms, which, with the way the Democratic Party has been acting as the opposition, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






:lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Out of complete interest and curiosity, not looking to get into a debate or anything (no matter what political stance you are), what foreign deals does Trump have with other countries? Anyone know? As I say, just curious to know.


Slight correction. Trump doesn't have deals with foreign nationals. Trump's corporations do. 

Big Government was pretty clear about this when they forced the idea that corporations are separate entities from the individuals that own them so that they can double tax the capitalist. Can't have it both ways. Either redefine a corporation and tax the individual and the business owner as one and the same, or accept the fact that a business and an owner are separate so that they can be taxed separately and therefore can't be tied together. If you really want to get technical, a corporation pretty much works the same way a government does. Probably a much less authoritarian version of one so Trump's ties to the ROW literally aren't Trump's ties. There's a board of governors that's also involved. And when people say Trump is a russian agent, they basically assume that dozens of his very independent governors and hundreds of senior management etc are all involved in a huge conspiracy

But this kind of nuttery is now endemic within left wingers as this is the same BS logic they use to shit on corporations and companies all the time. :lol 

Anyways, in all seriousness assuming I know why you're asking questions, Trump has business ties in countries that are considered America's top genuine allies as well. The hysteria over his ties with countries US has some friction with (and they're all still considered diplomatic allies, including Russia) is a leftist creation ... A fantasy.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So what did Maddow say tonight on her show after last night's blunder :ti


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you think the Democrats are going to roll over on Gorsuch, you got another thing coming. Whatever the record is for the time it took to confirm a SCOTUS pick will dwarf in comparison to how long it's going to take for Gorsuch to get approved.
> 
> But let's go ahead and mark it here, because it's going to be plainly obvious that the Dems are going to do whatever it takes to stall Gorsuch's confirmation.
> 
> When Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th circuit, not a single Democrat voiced opposition. Once Trump nominated him, Democrats lined up to call him a right-wing, pro-corporate, special-interest agenda puppet. Just like how MSNBC and Maddow intentions were laid bare, so will the Democratic Party's. They'll cherry pick a handful of the hundreds of cases he presided over to justify their claims, ignoring the equal amount of cases where he went against their characterization, people will see the double talk and the approval rating of the Democrats will sink lower.


LOL at how uninformed you are. The GOP destroyed the record when they delayed Obamas pick for a year until time ran out. So are you going to bitch about them doing that

If you don't you are a hypocrite.




glenwo2 said:


> ^ what is amusing is you believing that Trump won't help this country.
> 
> He's got 4 years(soon to be 8) so we'll see where we stand then. (I seriously doubt he would be impeached. He'd have to murder someone for that to happen)


All Trump wants to do is help the rich not the middle class or poor. He just wants to line his pockets and his buddies. He could give fucks about middle and the lower class, and even less about the environment. 

Yet again another clueless Trump supporter.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



WINNING said:


> So what did Maddow say tonight on her show after last night's blunder :ti


If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

Anyways, I didn't watch, but she's probably gone down the "your expectations led you to believe that there was something there that wasn't. Not my fault" and moved on to blabbering on about Russian ties :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
> 
> Anyways, I didn't watch, but she's probably gone down the "your expectations led you to believe that there was something there that wasn't. Not my fault" and moved on to blabbering on about Russian ties :shrug


Of course it does that is always a stupid question and point to make.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Jeff Sessions spoke to law enforcement in Richmond, MA today.



> I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana – so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another* that’s only slightly less awful. * Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.
> 
> In the ’80s and ’90s, we saw how campaigns stressing prevention brought down drug use and addiction. We can do this again. Educating people and telling them the terrible truth about drugs and addiction will result in better choices. We can reduce the use of drugs, save lives and turn back the surge in crime that inevitably follows in the wake of increased drug abuse.


So if heroin is at 10 then weed is at 9.5

Back to this I guess.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Maddow with dat backtracking


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course it does that is always a stupid question and point to make.


You seem more humorless today than usual. Rub one out. It helps. Hopefully your plumbing still works even if the CPU is a little fried.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Woosh for BM. Of course.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

VINTAGE BM


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Jeff Sessions spoke to law enforcement in Richmond, MA today.
> 
> 
> 
> So if heroin is at 10 then weed is at 9.5
> 
> Back to this I guess.


Reminds me of my mother in law who won't eat anything but organic food and yet still drinks and smokes a pack a day.

Some people just haven't evolved from medieval era thinking. They merely replaced some superstitions with others.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is a nice thread. Not like the old thread. Stop being so rude to each other. Let's be nice.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course it does that is always a stupid question and point to make.


It's a physics-based philosophical question, not really a point. Does sound exist if the vibrations don't reach an ear? You could be pedantic and say that in all actuality a squirrel heard it, but that's no fun and squirrels don't care about politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You seem more humorless today than usual. Rub one out. It helps. Hopefully your plumbing still works even if the CPU is a little fried.


Oh reaper and his childish antics. LOL that is the best you can do. You really are a sad sad person.

I really do pity you.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at how uninformed you are. The GOP destroyed the record when they delayed Obamas pick for a year until time ran out. So are you going to bitch about them doing that
> 
> If you don't you are a hypocrite.


You'll have to explain how I'm uninformed when I'm stating a fact about Gorsuch being unanimously picked for the 10th circuit....and the characterization is from a direct quote by your beloved Chuck Schumer....and stalling to get a SCOTUS pick, while not completely unheard of from either party, was as far a stretch by the GOP as a stretch could get, but I wasn't referring to delaying the pick, I was talking about confirming the pick. So, maybe go back and re-read what I wrote.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Rachel Maddow talks about the leak. She says something along the lines of 'well, if you didn't have anything to hide why didn't you want to release your tax returns?' and the crowd just kind of sits there silent.

EDIT: Beat me to it, on the same page even damn I suck :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh reaper and his childish antics. LOL that is the best you can do. You really are a sad sad person.
> 
> I really do pity you.


No. You don't. Because in a few hours you'll be looking to reconcile again saying stuff like oh at least we agree on something and being all nice and peachy.

The only one you should pity is yourself that you literally start fights every few days with the same people you then try to reconcile with.

You have some sort of major setback or deficiency in your personal life that compels you to behave this erratically. I think you really need to look inwards and figure out what causes you to lash out.

I'm being friendly here. I'd give the same advice to a best friend if they continued this bipolar and disfunctional behavior with people.


----------



## NOCONTESTU

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My kinda thread. :trump


Rainmaka! said:


> Maddow with dat backtracking


Is there a dumber reporter on other side than Rachel Maddow?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You'll have to explain how I'm uninformed when I'm stating a fact about Gorsuch being unanimously picked for the 10th circuit....and the characterization is from a direct quote by your beloved Chuck Schumer....and stalling to get a SCOTUS pick, while not completely unheard of from either party, was as far a stretch by the GOP as a stretch could get, but I wasn't referring to delaying the pick, I was talking about confirming the pick. So, maybe go back and re-read what I wrote.


You did not even know the GOP blocked Garland for almost a year It just shows how clueless you are. 

so stop bitching about blocking a pick.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. You don't. Because in a few hours you'll be looking to reconcile again saying stuff like oh at least we agree on something and being all nice and peachy.
> 
> The only one you should pity is yourself that you literally start fights every few days with the same people you then try to reconcile with.
> 
> You have some sort of major setback or deficiency in your personal life that compels you to behave this erratically. I think you really need to look inwards and figure out what causes you to lash out.
> 
> I'm being friendly here. I'd give the same advice to a best friend if they continued this bipolar and disfunctional behavior with people.


You are the one being a dick, then when someone is a dick back you cry about it. That is what all you Trump supporters do on this forum. 

And LOL at all your other bullshit. Dude seriously, get a life. You take this board way too seriously.

Your projection speaks volumes of what must be going on in your life. Maybe you need time away from the forums if you cant handle it


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842225602220441600
Real man on the people. Who needs education or environment right?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one being a dick, then when someone is a dick back you cry about it. That is what all you Trump supporters do on this forum.
> 
> And LOL at all your other bullshit. Dude seriously, get a life. You take this board way too seriously.
> 
> Your projection speaks volumes of what must be going on in your life. Maybe you need time away from the forums if you cant handle it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


>


You should really take your own advice, maybe this is your cry for help dude. I really do worry about you man. 

I think it really is time you take a break before your fragile ego crumbles.

We all know you need the likes of your circle jerk Trump supporters to feel good about yourself.

It really is pretty sad


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You should really take your own advice, maybe this is your cry for help dude. I really do worry about you man.
> 
> I think it really is time you take a break before your fragile ego crumbles.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LMAO RipNTear cant handle being wrong so he responds with GIFS


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> LMAO RipNTear cant handle being wrong so he responds with GIFS


That is what all Trump supporters do when they are wrong. Just look at Glenwo as well.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> LMAO RipNTear cant handle being wrong so he responds with GIFS


:mj4

It's because responding to you, Alkomesh2, Fried Tofu and BM has resulted in water time and energy.

You guys deserve less of my time than I give you.

So.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is what all Trump supporters do when they are wrong. Just look at Glenwo as well.


We weren't even in an argument. I made a joke about Maddow not getting any viewers tonight and you picked a fight because you literally have no life.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :mj4
> 
> It's because responding to you, Alkomesh2, Fried Tofu and BM has resulted in water time and energy.
> 
> You guys deserve less of my time than I give you.
> 
> So.


Care to comment of the tweet I posted, showing the cuts Trump is making to American infrastructure?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> We weren't even in an argument. I made a joke about Maddow not getting any viewers tonight and you picked a fight because you literally have no life.



There you go again with your projection again.

so sad.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> care to comment of the tweet I posted, showing the cuts Trump is making to American infrastructure?


No. Some of you people are just not serious about actually learning or discussing. 

But please do









And iirc you really did need help at one point. Hopefully you got it.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842033880324497410


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :mj4
> 
> It's because responding to you, Alkomesh2, Fried Tofu and BM has resulted in water time and energy.
> 
> You guys deserve less of my time than I give you.
> 
> So.


That's a nicer way of saying you need your safe space like all the libtards you hate.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> There you go again with your projection again.
> 
> so sad.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. Some of you people are just not serious about actually learning or discussing.
> 
> But please do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And iirc yiu really did need help at one point. Hopefully you got it.


You really are going off the deep end tonight, accusing another person of needing help lol

You really need to look in the mirror. You are unraveling before our very eyes.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. Some of you people are just not serious about actually learning or discussing.


Yea I'm good. Was dealing with the death of a loved one. 

But please. I would like to know how you feel about his cuts to pretty much everything. 21% cut to agriculture. Something like that isn't good. 21% to labor as well.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really are going off the deep end tonight, accusing another person of needing help lol
> 
> You really need to look in the mirror. You are unraveling before our very eyes.


Eh. He made a thread about being suicidal once. 

If you call laughing my ass off unraveling, then sure. :kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> Yea I'm good. Was dealing with the death of a loved one.
> 
> But please. I would like to know how you feel about his cuts to pretty much everything. 21% cut to agriculture. Something like that isn't good. 21% to labor as well.


You really don't. You need your own soap box so carry on. Give us your deep thoughts. If I feel they're worth commenting on. I will. 

And I'm glad you're doing better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> *You really don't. You need your own soap box so carry on.* Give us your deep thoughts. If I feel they're worth commenting on. I will.
> 
> And I'm glad you're doing better.


If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.


Yeah. I use this place as a soap box. So even if this is a pot calling kettle black situation then it doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. 

Getting on a soap box isn't innately bad. Why would you think it is?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Liberals can never see how retarded they really look, even when self-reflection calls for it. This is why Trump is going the full eight. They'll have no one to blame but themselves.

*incoming BM/liberal passive aggressive reply proving my point*


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You really don't. You need your own soap box so carry on. Give us your deep thoughts. If I feel they're worth commenting on. I will.
> 
> And I'm glad you're doing better.


I don't need a soapbox for anything. I don't see any need to defend this. I'm interested in how fans of Trump view the guy they elected, cutting funding to programs like "Meals on Wheels" that help feed veterans in need, but plans on throwing poorly attended rallies every 2 weeks on taxpayer dollars


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842164042789724160


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yeah. I use this place as a soap box. So even if this is a pot calling kettle black situation then it doesn't mean that it's a bad thing.
> 
> Getting on a soap box isn't innately bad. Why would you think it is?


You just mocked nucklehead88 saying he needs a soapbox, then you admit you use one yourself.

You truly have lost it.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You just mocked nucklehead88 saying he needs a soapbox, then you admit you use one yourself.
> 
> You truly have lost it.


Lol let it go man. Didn't bother me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> Lol let it go man. Didn't bother me.


Just pointing out his hypocrisy. But just watch, he will claim I don't know what that word means too lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You just mocked nucklehead88 saying he needs a soapbox, then you admit you use one yourself.
> 
> You truly have lost it.


Yeah. I was mocking him and being serious at the same time. He can make a lengthy post on the subject and i'll taken it seriously if he does. 

Now go to bed BM. And Jack off before you do. You really need it  

I'm still being friendly BTW. Have been throughout. It's just the kind of person I am. 

I'm glad we did this though. Because I bet that you managed to persuade more people to vote for the Democrats after this exchange between us :kobelol


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. You don't. Because in a few hours you'll be looking to reconcile again saying stuff like oh at least we agree on something and being all nice and peachy.
> 
> The only one you should pity is yourself that you literally start fights every few days with the same people you then try to reconcile with.
> 
> You have some sort of major setback or deficiency in your personal life that compels you to behave this erratically. I think you really need to look inwards and figure out what causes you to lash out.
> 
> I'm being friendly here. I'd give the same advice to a best friend if they continued this bipolar and disfunctional behavior with people.



He no longer WANTS to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's all about name-calling and mockery now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yeah. I was mocking him and being serious at the same time. He can make a lengthy post on the subject and i'll taken it seriously if he does.
> 
> Now go to bed BM. And Jack off before you do. You really need it
> 
> I'm still being friendly BTW. Have been throughout. It's just the kind of person I am.
> 
> I'm glad we did this though. Because I bet that you managed to persuade more people to vote for the Democrats after this exchange between us :kobelol


You are so far gone from reality with your delusions, its getting pretty scary now.

Maybe some day you will make it back to reality.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> LMAO RipNTear cant handle being wrong so he responds with GIFS


Love your name, buddy. 

and what is wrong with GIFS if it gets the point across? :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> He no longer WANTS to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's all about name-calling and mockery now.


I know. I'm an armchair psychologist and I'm fairly sure that BM has some issues in life that cause his histrionics. 

I have BPD which is why I get emotional sometimes and I admit it openly. But I'm also self-aware so I don't get into fights deliberately in the main sections and troll people in rants. 

I believe that if you're intentionally provoking fights and getting into terrible arguments with literally half a dozen people over politics then you are hiding some sort of a mental disorder.

Especially when this guy tries to reconcile after lashing out like this. 

I bet 2 days from now he'll be back with an olive branch. Then 2 days after this he'll go through this kind of meltdown again. He really does need some help.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> He no longer WANTS to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's all about name-calling and mockery now.


That's kind of his M.O. around here, though. Politics, wrestling, etc. Doesn't matter. He's a dedicated troll, I will give him that. It's not a "BM special" for nothing and he knows that. It's just to raise his post count at this point. 

It's funny because his posts remind me of how I used to reply and think when I was an "apolitical liberal" many years back. Now seeing his posts remind how fucking dumb I really was and how I'm glad I left the plantation :ti


----------



## Yeah1993

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So, if I have it right, it was a claim that Trump had avoided taxes for two decades, only for it to be revealed that in 2005 he paid very close to double the percentage Bernie Sanders did in 2014.










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793856950786072577

You funny, politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> He no longer WANTS to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's all about name-calling and mockery now.


LOL more projection from you, when you are the one who edited my quotes and put in nonsense and just posted gifs instead of replying to my intelligent question.

And was it not reaper who started with all this personal BS after I said how if the tree in the forest falls does it make a sound being a stupid argument and him coming back to say oh you should go jerk off.

You can't even be taken seriously dude.



RipNTear said:


> I know. I'm an armchair psychologist and I'm fairly sure that BM has some issues in life that cause his histrionics.
> 
> I have BPD which is why I get emotional sometimes and I admit it openly. But I'm also self-aware so I don't get into fights deliberately in the main sections and troll people in rants.
> 
> I believe that if you're intentionally provoking fights and getting into terrible arguments with literally half a dozen people over politics then you are hiding some sort of a mental disorder.
> 
> Especially when this guy tries to reconcile after lashing out like this.
> 
> I bet 2 days from now he'll be back with an olive branch. Then 2 days after this he'll go through this kind of meltdown again. He really does need some help.


You are the one who was lashing out LOL It's so comical you claim I'm the one lashing out. Look at all your stupid oh go jerk off comment and just replying with gifs.

You are one of the most delusional people on this forum.

You act this way because you life sucks and you want all the Trump supporters on this board to pat you on the back. Its pretty pathetic.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Stop it with the "projection" horseshit already, BM. It's tired just like your whole shtick.


Enough.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Stop it with the "projection" horseshit already, BM. It's tired just like your whole shtick.
> 
> 
> Enough.


does the truth hurt?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

See?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> does the truth hurt?



^ You tell me. 

You're on the losing side. I have no clue since I'm WINNING. :trump


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Love your name, buddy.
> 
> and what is wrong with GIFS if it gets the point across? :shrug


MFW someone tries to mock anothers username of a forum











I guess you're right. It does work


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL more projection from you, when you are the one who edited my quotes and put in nonsense and just posted gifs instead of replying to my intelligent question.
> 
> And was it not reaper who started with all this personal BS after I said how if the tree in the forest falls does it make a sound being a stupid argument and him coming back to say oh you should go jerk off.
> 
> You can't even be taken seriously dude.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who was lashing out LOL It's so comical you claim I'm the one lashing out. Look at all your stupid oh go jerk off comment and just replying with gifs.
> 
> You are one of the most delusional people on this forum.
> 
> You act this way because you life sucks and you want all the Trump supporters on this board to pat you on the back. Its pretty pathetic.


It's OK bud. Let it all out. Cleanse your demons. 

I'll be here if you need a hug.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ You tell me.


I can tell you are hurting, just like reaper is. It shows in your posts. You could not even answer a simple question you instead just trolled by editing my question and replying with gifs.

that is all Trump supporters can do when they know they are wrong, they spam gifs.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> MFW someone tries to mock anothers username of a forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. It does work


TURTLES!!


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think they should move the Trump thread into rants :nod


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I second that motion.

This thread has possibilities.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No. I think they should get rid of BM again and make it permanent. This guy is toxic and always does this. 

At some point he has to recognize that if multiple people say the same thing about him he really has a problem and do some soul searching.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

#BMFuckery


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

#BMFuckery


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. I think they should get rid of BM again and make it permanent. This guy is toxic and always does this.
> 
> At some point he has to recognize that if multiple people say the same thing about him he really has a problem and do some soul searching.


Well it's not just him, though. Others are joining in, too. :shrug


But this is what happens when the LEFT have absolutely ZILCH remaining in their "Get rid of Trump" arsenal. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Melania would not approve of this. :troll


----------



## Rigby

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Exclusive footage of Donald Trump selecting countries for future travel bans. _"I don't know what happens out here..."_


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Well it's not just him, though. Others are joining in, too. :shrug
> 
> 
> But this is what happens when the LEFT have absolutely ZILCH remaining in their "Get rid of Trump" arsenal. :lol


Others are fine. I've had plenty of disagreements with a lot of guys and gals on here. I've had some heated exchanges. But none that devolve to the point of absolute disfunction like the ones with BM. 

The guy can't stand me and for some reason after promising to block me, he decides to literally unblock and get into spats all over again. No shred of fortitude, no sense of personal responsibility and no sense of sticking to ones own principles. You block someone and then unblock them, then try to get friendly with them, then get into fights with them again. 

That is the very definition of a dysfunctional person.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump be like







at Madcow right now.


(channeling my inner FriedTofu)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. I think they should get rid of BM again and make it permanent. This guy is toxic and always does this.
> 
> At some point he has to recognize that if multiple people say the same thing about him he really has a problem and do some soul searching.


So typical, someone has a difference of opinion that does not suck Trumps dick like you all do and lets boot that person LOL 

You are the one who is toxic, your problem is you start personal shit or trolling, then that person trolls you back and you act like a snowflake and want them booted.

You are the one who keeps saying this type of stuff


RipNTear said:


> You seem more humorless today than usual. Rub one out. It helps. Hopefully your plumbing still works even if the CPU is a little fried.


over and over again, but I am the problem? That is what started all of this, but sure blame me because you got all pissy because i said its stupid to use that tree in the forest adage. 

And lets not forget glenwo who a few times edited what I quoted and put in nonsense.

But I aim the toxic one LOL

that is the problem with people like you, you cant reap what you sow.

When people stand up for themselves you are like oh they need to be thrown out again

But keep being a snowflake. 

You keep proving over and over what a pathetic person you are.

You have totally imploded tonight.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So typical, someone has a difference of opinion that does not suck Trumps dick like you all do and lets boot that person LOL
> 
> You are the one who is toxic, your problem is you start personal shit or trolling, then that person trolls you back and you act like a snowflake and want them booted.
> 
> You are the one who keeps saying this type of stuff
> 
> over and over again, but I am the problem? That is what started all of this, but sure blame me because you got all pissy because i said its stupid to use that tree in the forest adage.


BM. I say that shit to my friends, my father. I've even said this to my wife. I say it to people I like. The fact is that instead of even contemplating the possibility that this could be a normal comment someone tosses in a bar towards their buddy, you got your panties in a bunch.

The thing is that you have a bad attitude and bad impression of people which is why you assume the fucking worst from them.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:wow

Can everyone make their final posts on this sillyness so the thread can move on to whatever it can move on to?


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :mj4
> 
> It's because responding to you, Alkomesh2, Fried Tofu and BM has resulted in water time and energy.
> 
> You guys deserve less of my time than I give you.
> 
> So.


 @Alkomesh2 is an alright fella though...



Headliner said:


> :wow
> 
> Can everyone make their final posts on this sillyness so the thread can move on to whatever it can move on to?


I agree, we should make this thread a very nice thread.









No more rudeness, no more bias, no more fake news. Just nice factual discussion.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rainmaka! said:


> #BMFuckery





WINNING said:


> #BMFuckery


:thecause


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> :wow
> 
> Can everyone make their final posts on this sillyness so the thread can move on to whatever it can move on to?


Is it heading for Rants? PLEASE SAY IT IS! :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So glenwo2 are you ever going to answer the question?

Should Trump have added Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to his ban?

Why or why not.

The answer is pretty simple and obvious.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM getting btfo. Fantastic. :mj4

Anyways, saw that Geert Wilders did not win the Dutch elections tonight. Can already see press saying this as a "blow to Trump" on the European front.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So typical, someone has a difference of opinion that does not suck Trumps dick like you all do and lets boot that person LOL
> 
> You are the one who is toxic, your problem is you start personal shit or trolling, then that person trolls you back and you act like a snowflake and want them booted.
> 
> You are the one who keeps saying this type of stuff
> 
> over and over again, but I am the problem? That is what started all of this, but sure blame me because you got all pissy because i said its stupid to use that tree in the forest adage.
> 
> And lets not forget glenwo who a few times edited what I quoted and put in nonsense.
> 
> But I aim the toxic one LOL
> 
> that is the problem with people like you, you cant reap what you sow.
> 
> When people stand up for themselves you are like oh they need to be thrown out again
> 
> But keep being a snowflake.
> 
> You keep proving over and over what a pathetic person you are.
> 
> You have totally imploded tonight.


You know I'm pretty new around here, and I'm not a big arguer so I like to sit back and observe, try and learn something, throw in my 2 cents here and there. 

You're embarrassing yourself pretty badly here. I'm starting to wonder if you're someone's alt, a false flag painstakingly engineered to bury the fuck out of the left.

I think I'm having that thing happen when I thought I was firmly on the left and I'm starting to realize I'm not. Because if you represent the left, it's not the side I want to be on. To be fair it's not just you, Twitter is bad for it as well. Though right-wingers on Twitter are like HitlerAIDS. Coming here helps me see it's not all bad.

But yeah man. If you're trolling, thanks because this is very entertaining. If you're not, step back, think things over. The masturbating sounds like a plan, maybe put on Bernie's greatest hits and run a nice warm bath.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> You know I'm pretty new around here, and I'm not a big arguer so I like to sit back and observe, try and learn something, throw in my 2 cents here and there.
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself pretty badly here. I'm starting to wonder if you're someone's alt, a false flag painstakingly engineered to bury the fuck out of the left.
> 
> I think I'm having that thing happen when I thought I was firmly on the left and I'm starting to realize I'm not. Because if you represent the left, it's not the side I want to be on. To be fair it's not just you, Twitter is bad for it as well. Though right-wingers on Twitter are like HitlerAIDS. Coming here helps me see it's not all bad.
> 
> But yeah man. If you're trolling, thanks because this is very entertaining. If you're not, step back, think things over. The masturbating sounds like a plan, maybe put on Bernie's greatest hits and run a nice warm bath.


Nice to know you have join the circle jerk of sheep Trump supporters. You even proved with your post you cant even think for yourself nor do you even know what you stand for. 

You will fit in nicely with them.


----------



## Rigby

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice to know you have join the circle jerk of sheep Trump supporters. You even proved with your post you cant even think for yourself nor do you even know what you stand for.
> 
> You will fit in nicely with them.


dude, i'm a homosexual socialist and even I think you're fucking shite at articulating cogent points in a political conversation

humble yourself and realize you're a dope who spends more time espousing opinions than developing them


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Don't put this thread in Rants just because some posters act like children (yes I know the mods aren't going to do it). :lol 

A real shame for the Netherlands that Wilders didn't win. Dark days ahead for the Dutch people, I reckon.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice to know you have join the circle jerk of sheep Trump supporters. You even proved with your post you cant even think for yourself nor do you even know what you stand for.
> 
> You will fit in nicely with them.


No, man I just don't bother starting arguments over everything I disagree with. People acting foolish bothers me more than someone articulately explaining a position I don't hold myself. I was trying to let you know as someone who doesn't have much of a dog in the fight that you're coming off pretty poorly. I was a little more of a dick than I needed to be but you're bringing that on yourself.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> I think I'm having that thing happen when I thought I was firmly on the left and I'm starting to realize I'm not. Because if you represent the left, it's not the side I want to be on. To be fair it's not just you, Twitter is bad for it as well. Though right-wingers on Twitter are like HitlerAIDS. Coming here helps me see it's not all bad.


BM represents the SJW left. You should worry at this point because the Democrats are pretty much overrun with the belief that pandering to SJWs will get them more votes. 

They're overestimating their numbers based on the activism of SJWs and it's the same mistake SJW pandering movies make which end up failing. The Democrats are making the same mistake.

The problem is that for people like you there really isn't any representation left in America and perhaps even the rest of the world.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Look who made it into the White House Press Briefing, the recently gone-independent Lauren Southern. :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> No, man I just don't bother starting arguments over everything I disagree with. People acting foolish bothers me more than someone articulately explaining a position I don't hold myself. I was trying to let you know as someone who doesn't have much of a dog in the fight that you're coming off pretty poorly. I was a little more of a dick than I needed to be but you're bringing that on yourself.


This is what I always find amusing. For pages upon pages you have people like blues, glenwo, beatles, and the last few like reaper who just spam troll with memes or gifs and the Trump supporters all circle jerk over it thinking its great but the moment someone trolls them back on that person is a cancer or ruining the thread or acting foolish. Its funny how you dont call those people out that start it, its always when someone from the left who gives them a taste of their own medicine when it becomes an issue

but that is what the snowflakes on the right do they start something they cant finish and when they get back what they are putting out they start to cry.

Its just so funny seeing all the Trump supporters on here when triggered when they got trolled back.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> BM represents the SJW left. You should worry at this point because the Democrats are pretty much overrun with the belief that pandering to SJWs will get them more votes.
> 
> They're overestimating their numbers based on the activism of SJWs and it's the same mistake SJW pandering movies make which end up failing. The Democrats are making the same mistake.
> 
> The problem is that for people like you there really isn't any representation left in America and perhaps even the rest of the world.


I've been seeing that since getting sucked into the election stuff. Before that I didn't discuss politics online, only with friends occasionally.  Most of my friends are conservative, but more the types who have really basic opinions and fall back on being American rather than developing them. I was kind of the same but opposite. You know, pro-choice, support gay marriage, separation of church and state, don't be racist, the basics. Things I now see that a lot of people on the right agree with.

I'm a bleeding heart in terms of compassion for the poor and environmental issues. But any sort of dishonest spin drives me nuts, and I see where that happens on the left regarding social issues. This actually led to me switching my major from psychology to environmental science; unfortunately that sort of spin seems to be embraced in the social sciences. 

I'm a centrist in that I want people to keep things civil and find common ground. I try to stay open-minded myself, if it's an intelligent argument I'll listen. If it's just talking points, I stop caring.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is what I always find amusing. For pages upon pages you have people like blues, glenwo, beatles, and the last few like reaper who just spam troll with memes or gifs and the Trump supporters all circle jerk over it thinking its great but the moment someone trolls them back on that person is a cancer or ruining the thread or acting foolish. Its funny how you dont call those people out that start it, its always when someone from the left who gives them a taste of their own medicine when it becomes an issue
> 
> but that is what the snowflakes on the right do they start something they cant finish and when they get back what they are putting out they start to cry.
> 
> Its just so funny seeing all the Trump supporters on here when triggered when they got trolled back.


Yes because I haven't spent hours trying to get through to you previously. I can pull up the dozens of posts that I have made to you in good faith and conscience trying to talk you down from your cancerous ideological stances.

Now I know that you're not worth it. At all and that it was all for nought.










You are losing this battle where it really matters. In swaying centrists towards becoming more willing to listen to right wing arguments. 

Personally I don't care what you think. You're a terrible persuader.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is what I always find amusing. For pages upon pages you have people like blues, glenwo, beatles, and the last few like reaper who just spam troll with memes or gifs and the Trump supporters all circle jerk over it thinking its great but the moment someone trolls them back on that person is a cancer or ruining the thread or acting foolish. Its funny how you dont call those people out that start it, its always when someone from the left who gives them a taste of their own medicine when it becomes an issue
> 
> but that is what the snowflakes on the right do they start something they cant finish and when they get back what they are putting out they start to cry.
> 
> Its just so funny seeing all the Trump supporters on here when triggered when they got trolled back.


Some people I just go ahead and put on ignore.

This reminds me of something that happened at my job a few years ago. 

So, I'm white. Context.

I was working at a restaurant with this older black woman, probably around 50. One of our co-workers, a black guy around 22 or so, came in with his headphones on, his pants falling down, rapping vulgar shit at the top of his lungs in front of customers, just making a scene and being a knucklehead. The black lady looks at me, sighs, says "my people" and shook her head.

As someone who has long identified as being on the left, that's how I feel reading your posts sometimes.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Look who made it into the White House Press Briefing, the recently gone-independent Lauren Southern. :mark:


Congrats for her. Fan of her work.

By the way, why did Lauren leave Rebel Media? Was it because she was clearly becoming bigger than the brand or was it something internally that saw her out?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



WINNING said:


> Congrats for her. Fan of her work.
> 
> By the way, why did Lauren leave Rebel Media? Was it because she was clearly becoming bigger than the brand or was it something internally that saw her out?


Don't think there was any bad blood. Her star has risen quite a bit and she's got a book out. Think she just wants to go it on her own and not have to balance her work with The Rebel.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Some people will speculate the ZIONIST AGENDA. :tripsscust
Pretty sure she just wanted the freedom to do her own thing, yea. Rebel is a bit confusing about what it wants to actually do, imo.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*This week in Republican Retardation:

Trump puts Snoop Dogg on a federal watch list for shooting a clown likeness of him with a confetti gun in the music video for Lavender: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html

The GOP replaced Obamacare with an Unaffordable Healthcare Act that disqualifies the poor, elderly, and sick, and will leave 14 million Americans without health insurance by next year. A Fox News poll shows a 55% disapproval rating: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/fox-news-poll-health-care-donald-trump/

Kelly Ann Conway justifies baseless claims of Obama espionage with alleged existence of microwaves that double as cameras: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html

Jeff Sessions asks 46 Obama appointed attorneys to resign in order to create a complete monopoly of the judicial system: http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...ks-46-obama-era-u-s-1489181229-htmlstory.html

Trump's "revised" travel ban gets shot down yet again for being racist and unconstitutional: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-on-travel-ban-ruling-another-victory-for-our

Ivanka Trump was found to have had tons of Chinese materials imported for her clothing line on the same day of Trump's inauguration speech pushing people to "Buy American and hire American" 





In other news, there's nothing new. The Trump administration continues to embarrass themselves on a daily basis. Tune in next week for more flaming idiocy and hypocrisy.*


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> This week in Republican Retardation:


No rudeposting in the new TRUMP thread!



> Trump's "revised" travel ban gets shot down yet again for being racist and unconstitutional: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html


This links to Kellyanne Conway making comments about microwave spies. :fakenews


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Some people will speculate the ZIONIST AGENDA. :tripsscust
> Pretty sure she just wanted the freedom to do her own thing, yea. Rebel is a bit confusing about what it wants to actually do, imo.


The Rebel is weird because they have a few Libertarians and such but also have super hardcore right wing guys and some conspiracy nuts. It's hard to find balance in that. Really would love for someone to form a Libertarian channel.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> This links to Kellyanne Conway making comments about microwave spies. :fakenews


*My post has been REVISED :trump3*


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> Some people I just go ahead and put on ignore.
> 
> This reminds me of something that happened at my job a few years ago.
> 
> So, I'm white. Context.
> 
> I was working at a restaurant with this older black woman, probably around 50. One of our co-workers, a black guy around 22 or so, came in with his headphones on, his pants falling down, rapping vulgar shit at the top of his lungs in front of customers, just making a scene and being a knucklehead. * The black lady looks at me, sighs, says "my people" and shook her head.*
> 
> As someone who has long identified as being on the left, that's how I feel reading your posts sometimes.



Funny thing is that if YOU started complaining to her, she'd call you a racist. :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *This week in Republican Retardation:
> 
> Trump puts Snoop Dogg on a federal watch list for shooting a clown likeness of him with a confetti gun in the music video for Lavender: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html
> 
> *


*

Well that shit is taken seriously when it involves the POTUS. I don't recall any RAP video in the past that has portrayed the shooting of our POTUS(probably because that's a big no-no to do). :shrug




The GOP replaced Obamacare with an Unaffordable Healthcare Act that disqualifies the poor, elderly, and sick, and will leave 14 million Americans without health insurance by next year. A Fox News poll shows a 55% disapproval rating: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/fox-news-poll-health-care-donald-trump/

Click to expand...

Disapproval for the rough draft of the Healthcare Act that hasn't been implemented yet? I can understand this. 

The OSAMAcare replacement from what I understand is still being worked on and being tweaked. I think Rand's version(or at least a good many parts of it) are being considered. I am no fan of Paul Ryan's plan and I doubt Trump is either.




Kelly Ann Conway justifies baseless claims of Obama espionage with alleged existence of microwaves that double as cameras: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html

Click to expand...

Okay...THIS is an embarrassment so I agree with you. I mean this is up there with anything the National Enquirer would come up with. fpalm




Jeff Sessions asks 46 Obama appointed attorneys to resign in order to create a complete monopoly of the judicial system: http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...ks-46-obama-era-u-s-1489181229-htmlstory.html

Click to expand...

Well...since they're all OBAMA-appointed and would undoubtedly hinder Trump every step of the way, he's getting rid of them and appointing his own so he can get shit done in this country. Sounds reasonable, imo. :shrug





Trump's "revised" travel ban gets shot down yet again for being racist and unconstitutional: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-on-travel-ban-ruling-another-victory-for-our

Click to expand...

Ah yes. The Hawaiian Federal Judge who shouldn't have ANY AUTHORITY to make such a decision across the country. This is a major problem in that it seems any federal judge in any state have the SAME POWERS as the Supreme Court does and that's ridiculous. Whatever, though. Once the Appeals court rejects this(as I know those LEFTISTS would), it would go to the Supreme Court and be overturned. What a joke these Federal Judges are. fpalm





Ivanka Trump was found to have had tons of Chinese materials imported for her clothing line on the same day of Trump's inauguration speech pushing people to "Buy American and hire American" 






Click to expand...

Right. Because 'materials' and 'clothing' are the same thing. Got it.




In other news, there's nothing new. The Trump administration continues to embarrass themselves on a daily basis. Tune in next week for more flaming idiocy and hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

**I don't need to tune in next week. All I need is to come here and read the posts of leftists continuing to gnash their teeth while Trump continues to be in the spot that they wanted Hilary in. So much winning.* :trump


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Tucker did a good job on this.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

#BoycottHawaii

:ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Well that shit is taken seriously when it involves the POTUS. I don't recall any RAP video in the past that has portrayed the shooting of our POTUS(probably because that's a big no-no to do). :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Disapproval for the rough draft of the Healthcare Act that hasn't been implemented yet? I can understand this.
> 
> The OSAMAcare replacement from what I understand is still being worked on and being tweaked. I think Rand's version(or at least a good many parts of it) are being considered. I am no fan of Paul Ryan's plan and I doubt Trump is either.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...THIS is an embarrassment so I agree with you. I mean this is up there with anything the National Enquirer would come up with. fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> Well...since they're all OBAMA-appointed and would undoubtedly hinder Trump every step of the way, he's getting rid of them and appointing his own so he can get shit done in this country. Sounds reasonable, imo. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. The Hawaiian Federal Judge who shouldn't have ANY AUTHORITY to make such a decision across the country. This is a major problem in that it seems any federal judge in any state have the SAME POWERS as the Supreme Court does and that's ridiculous. Whatever, though. Once the Appeals court rejects this(as I know those LEFTISTS would), it would go to the Supreme Court and be overturned. What a joke these Federal Judges are. fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Because 'materials' and 'clothing' are the same thing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't need to tune in next week. All I need is to come here and read the posts of leftists continuing to gnash their teeth while Trump continues to be in the spot that they wanted Hilary in. So much winning.* :trump



LOL at you thinking a parody video should be taken seriously. 

Trumpcare aka was not a draft, they are only now calling it a draft because pretty much everyone says how bad it is except the people that made it.

Trump was always saying he had this amazing healthcare plan to replace Obamacare and he once again was just talking out of his ass.

Trump always claims he has a super secret plan for something, first it was to replace Obamacare then it was to beat ISIS but he has no clue what he is doing and he keeps showing that over and over again.


Trump is incompetent, he can fire those judges all he wants, its his right but he should have their replacements in place already which he does not. Trump once again shows he does not know what he is doing.

I got shot down again because its still a Muslim ban, that is what Trump called his ban from day one. Just because now he is pretending its not, when everyone knows that is what it is, makes it unconstitutional. Trumps own words are being used against him.

This is why he should stay off twitter and choice his words more carefully. Rudy flat out said Trump asked him how to make this Muslim ban pass, so no matter what you or anyone wants to claim that is not a Muslim band that is exactly what it is. And ONCE AGAIN the point you keep ignoring, these countries on the list have not even had any Muslim terrorist have fatal attacks on US citizens in 40 years.

If Trump really cared about keeping America safe, he would put real terrorist countries on the list, like Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So the House intel committee, including the top GOP leader just said there's no evidence on this Obama wiretap thing. Since we know Trump isn't the type to apologize, will he fight this or just keep quiet and let it go away?


Now the Senate intel committee (Republican Chair & Democratic leader in a joint statement) just refuted the wiretap claims too. 

Swag walk on them Barry Obeezy.










Trump should be a man and apologize but he won't. The final blow will be March 20th during the James Comey public hearing on Russia and other stuff when he most likely says the same thing both intel committees just said. He already briefed members of the judiciary and Senate intel committee yesterday.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Now the Senate intel committee (Republican Chair & Democratic leader in a joint statement) just refuted the wiretap claims too.
> 
> Swag walk on them Barry Obeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump should be a man and apologize but he won't. The final blow will be March 20th during the James Comey public hearing on Russia and other stuff when he most likely says the same thing both intel committees just said. He already briefed members of the judiciary and Senate intel committee yesterday.


This must be the microwave Kelly Ann was talking about


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Bunch o' fake intel committees no doubt. :aryha*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.ebcad33f230b

Trump federal budget 2018: Massive cuts to the arts, science and the poor

y Damian Paletta and Steven Mufson March 16 at 12:01 AM 
President Trump on Thursday will unveil a budget plan that calls for a sharp increase in military spending and stark cuts across much of the rest of the government including the elimination of dozens of long-standing federal programs that assist the poor, fund scientific research and aid America’s allies abroad.

Trump’s first budget proposal, which he named “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” would increase defense spending by $54 billion and then offset that by stripping money from more than 18 other agencies. Some would be hit particularly hard, with reductions of more than 20 percent at the Agriculture, Labor and State departments and of more than 30 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency.

It would also propose eliminating future federal support for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Within EPA alone, 50 programs and 3,200 positions would be eliminated.

The cuts could represent the widest swath of reductions in federal programs since the drawdown after World War II, probably leading to a sizable cutback in the federal non-military workforce, something White House officials said was one of their goals.

“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters.

What's getting cut in Trump's budget VIEW GRAPHIC 
Many of Trump’s budget proposals are likely to run into stiff resistance from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, whose support is crucial because they must vote to authorize government appropriations. Republicans have objected, for example, to the large cuts in foreign aid and diplomacy that Trump has foreshadowed, and his budget whacks foreign aid programs run by the Education, State and Treasury departments, among others.

“The administration’s budget isn’t going to be the budget,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “We do the budget here. The administration makes recommendations, but Congress does budgets.”

14

Trump’s budget would not take effect until the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but the president must still reach a separate agreement with Congress by the end of April, when a temporary funding bill expires. If they can’t reach an agreement, and if Trump’s new budget plan widens fault lines, then the chances would increase for a partial government shutdown starting on April 29.

The president and Congress must also raise the debt ceiling, which has become a politically fraught ritual. Although the ceiling was extended until March 15, budget experts say the government should be able to continue borrowing money by suspending or stretching out payments through August or September.

White House budget proposals are often changed by lawmakers, but they serve as a marker for how the president plans to govern and as an opening bid on budget talks. Mulvaney said the White House was open to negotiation, but he was unapologetic about the size and scope of the reductions.

“This budget represents a president who is beholden to nobody but the voters,” Mulvaney said. “He is following through on his promises. We did not consult with special interests on how to write this budget. We did not consult with lobbyists on how to write this budget. The president’s team wrote this budget and that’s what you’ll see in the numbers.”

The 53-page budget plan offers the clearest snapshot yet of Trump’s priorities. Yet it is also far shorter and vaguer than White House budget plans normally are. One of the missing details is precisely where and how many jobs would be eliminated across the federal government.

See what President Trump has been doing since taking office	
View Photos	The beginning of his term has featured controversial executive orders and frequent conflicts with the media.
[Read President Trump’s first budget proposal]

Parts of the budget proposal also appear to contradict Trump’s agenda. Trump has said he wants to eliminate all disease, but the budget chops funding for the National Institutes of Health by $5.8 billion, or close to 20 percent. He has said he wants to create a $1 trillion infrastructure program, but the proposal would eliminate a Transportation Department program that funds nearly $500 million in road projects. It does not include new funding amounts or a tax mechanism for Trump’s infrastructure program, postponing those decisions.

And the Trump administration proposed to eliminate a number of other programs, particularly those that serve low-income Americans and minorities, because it questioned their effectiveness. This included the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which disburses more than $3 billion annually to help heat homes in the winter. It also proposed abolishing the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides roughly $3 billion for targeted projects related to affordable housing, community development and homelessness programs, among other things.

The budget was stuffed with other cuts and reductions. It calls for privatizing the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control function, cutting all funding for long-distance Amtrak train services and eliminating EPA funding for the restoration of Chesapeake Bay. Job training programs would also be cut, pushing more responsibility for this onto the states and employers.

Many Republicans have criticized these programs in the past as wasteful and ineffective, but supporters have said the programs are vital for communities in need.

The proposed budget extensively targets Obama programs and investments focused on climate change, seeking to eliminate payments to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund — one key component of the U.S. commitment to the Paris climate agreement — and to slash research funding for climate, ocean and earth science programs at agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. At the same time, clean-energy research, heavily privileged by the Obama administration, would suffer greatly under the budget with the elimination of the .ARPA-E program (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) at the Energy Department and an unspecified cut to the agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

“I think one of the reasons they’re proposing them [big spending cuts] is that they know they won’t ever get through Congress,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “They know they’d be a disaster for their own party if they did. It makes for a great talking point. It actually fits on a tweet.”

There were several areas in which Trump proposed increasing spending. He proposed, for example, $168 million for charter school programs and $250 million for a new private-school choice program, which would probably provide tuition assistance for families who opt to send their children to private schools.

The biggest increase in spending would be directed at the Pentagon, but the budget plan does not make clear where the new $54 billion would go. The budget plan would boost funding for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. It would, among other things, acquire new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and rebuild what it says are depleted munitions inventories. But it stops short of saying how these new funds would support new tactics to combat the Islamic State.

The bump in defense spending was a marked contrast to the cuts Trump proposed in diplomatic and international programs. He proposed cutting combined spending for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by $10.1 billion, or nearly 29 percent. It would cut an unspecified amount of funding from U.N. peacekeeping efforts. It would also cut spending for Treasury International Programs, foreign assistance programs that have been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations, by $803 million, or 35 percent.

Trump directed funding to meet several of his campaign pledges as well.

Economy & Business Alerts
Breaking news about economic and business issues.
Sign up
He proposed new money to hire border security agents and immigration judges.

And he requested $1.7 billion in new funding this year and an additional $2.6 billion in new funding in 2018 to begin construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. Trump proposed creating this wall during his campaign and had said Mexico would pay for it. A number of congressional Republicans appear to be cooling on the idea.

The federal government is expected to spend more than $4 trillion in the fiscal year that begins in October, and Trump’s budget proposal would deal with slightly more than 25 percent of this funding. The government is expected to spend $487 billion more than it brings in through revenue during the next fiscal year, and to avoid widening the deficit, Trump proposed steep cuts across the budget to compensate for the new defense spending.

Trump will propose a more comprehensive budget plan in May, which could include changes to programs such as Medicaid and also offer economic forecasts. But that proposal will come after the deadline for reaching an agreement to avoid a partial shutdown. So Thursday’s budget proposal from Trump will factor squarely into those negotiations.


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Disapproval for the rough draft of the Healthcare Act that hasn't been implemented yet? I can understand this.
> 
> The OSAMAcare replacement from what I understand is still being worked on and being tweaked. I think Rand's version(or at least a good many parts of it) are being considered. I am no fan of Paul Ryan's plan and I doubt Trump is either.[/B] :trump



You don't think He's a fan? I haven't heard him denounce it - even though it would cause the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.

Of course there's disapproval of the current RYANcare version. It's a terrible bill and the ones who will be hurt the most are the sheep who voted to make Ammurca grate ugen.

P.s. I didn't know we had a law named after the leader of Al QUeda. You must be getting that confused with the last President of the United States - the Honorable Barack Obama.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *This week in Republican Retardation:
> 
> Trump puts Snoop Dogg on a federal watch list for shooting a clown likeness of him with a confetti gun in the music video for Lavender: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html
> 
> The GOP replaced Obamacare with an Unaffordable Healthcare Act that disqualifies the poor, elderly, and sick, and will leave 14 million Americans without health insurance by next year. A Fox News poll shows a 55% disapproval rating: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/fox-news-poll-health-care-donald-trump/
> 
> Kelly Ann Conway justifies baseless claims of Obama espionage with alleged existence of microwaves that double as cameras: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-mocked-for-spy-microwaves-claims.html
> 
> Jeff Sessions asks 46 Obama appointed attorneys to resign in order to create a complete monopoly of the judicial system: http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...ks-46-obama-era-u-s-1489181229-htmlstory.html
> 
> Trump's "revised" travel ban gets shot down yet again for being racist and unconstitutional: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-on-travel-ban-ruling-another-victory-for-our
> *


You criticizing Kellyane Conway about "baseless claims" while parroting baseless claims about Trump, Russia and Saudi's. :lol

Can't make this stuff up . Instead of saying others are embarrassing themselves, maybe you shouldn't embarrass yourself first.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Now the Senate intel committee (Republican Chair & Democratic leader in a joint statement) just refuted the wiretap claims too.
> 
> Swag walk on them Barry Obeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump should be a man and apologize but he won't. The final blow will be March 20th during the James Comey public hearing on Russia and other stuff when he most likely says the same thing both intel committees just said. He already briefed members of the judiciary and Senate intel committee yesterday.


*Obama should sue his dumb ass for millions for slander and character assasination.*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> You criticizing Kellyane Conway about "baseless claims" while parroting baseless claims about Trump, Russia and Saudi's. :lol
> 
> Can't make this stuff up . Instead of saying others are embarrassing themselves, maybe you shouldn't embarrass yourself first.


How many Trump associates have to be shown to have Russian connections before it is no longer baseless? How can you know it's baseless when he refuses to release his tax returns showing who he is beholden to? Hmm I wonder why that is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> You criticizing Kellyane Conway about "baseless claims" while parroting baseless claims about Trump, Russia and Saudi's. :lol
> 
> Can't make this stuff up . Instead of saying others are embarrassing themselves, maybe you shouldn't embarrass yourself first.


Are you going to deny that Trump has business ties to Saudi Arabia? 

Do you really think the reason why SA is not on his banned list of countries does not have something to do with his business ties there?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> How many Trump associates have to be shown to have Russian connections before it is no longer baseless? How can you know it's baseless when he refuses to release his tax returns showing who he is beholden to? Hmm I wonder why that is.


Virtually everyone on both sides has an association with Russia in some shape or form. Russia hacking the election ,effecting the outcome and , Russia "owning" Trump are all baseless with no proof behind any of it. People ignore the recounts found that votes weren't even being counted for Trump. The same people who are parroting these baseless claims, completely ignore Obama and Medvedev on a hot mic









birthday_massacre said:


> Are you going to deny that Trump has business ties to Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Do you really think the reason why SA is not on his banned list of countries does not have something to do with his business ties there?


Haven't you been denying that Obama came up with the list in the first place?Had Saudi Arabia been on the list and Trump ignored it, there'd be something to the claims. However there's no proof behind what you are trying to claim, you're doing exactly what you're criticizing others for doing, making baseless claims about how Trump is in someones pocket . You're no better than the people you believe you're superior to


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You honestly are comparing the Obama / Medvedev thing to Trump? Really? Medvedev is a nobody anyway.

Obama said he would have more flexibility in the relationship between the two countries. We have NO IDEA what Trump was telling Putin.

I'll ignore the grammar in your sentence regarding the Recount that makes it difficult to discern your intent, but your stream of consciousness from one unrelated thing to another is telling.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @RipNTear @AryaDark


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842167184772239360
This timeline. :done (Yes that is The Art of the Deal on the table in front of the Senator)


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> *You honestly are comparing the Obama / Medvedev thing to Trump? * Really? Medvedev is a nobody anyway.
> 
> Obama said he would have more flexibility in the relationship between the two countries. We have NO IDEA what Trump was telling Putin.
> 
> I'll ignore the grammar in your sentence regarding the Recount that makes it difficult to discern your intent, but your stream of consciousness from one unrelated thing to another is telling.


You're right, it is an unfair comparison. On one hand we have a former sitting President promising to be more flexible, to the advantage of the Russians, and we have an active sitting President who has done....what exactly? I sure would like somebody to show me what Trump HAS done with the Russians, instead of what he MIGHT have done, MIGHT be doing, or MIGHT do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> You honestly are comparing the Obama / Medvedev thing to Trump? Really? Medvedev is a nobody anyway.
> 
> Obama said he would have more flexibility in the relationship between the two countries. We have NO IDEA what Trump was telling Putin.
> 
> I'll ignore the grammar in your sentence regarding the Recount that makes it difficult to discern your intent, but your stream of consciousness from one unrelated thing to another is telling.


Medvedev is not a nobody in Russia.

He's first among the second rankers in what is for all intents and purposes the recreated Politburo. Putin is the only one in the first rank. That's the way the Russian oligarchy has worked for centuries. 

The context of Obama's remark is more flexibility to be friendlier to Russia. You may remember that at that time the GOP primaries were in full swing and there was significant anti-Russia rhetoric coming out of the GOP candidates. Russia was naturally concerned about this and Obama reassured Medvedev to not freak out about it, and that the stance of his own administration would be more flexible to Russia. At that time Russia was not too happy about the Obama administration either, it was a year after the US basically told Russia to fuck off when Russia objected to NATO bombing Libya and Russia was still butthurt about it, and a renewal of NATO's eastern membership drive which Russia views as little more than a Trojan horse for a future invasion because that's the way Russia's mind works. 

There was nobody in the world who viewed the comments as anything but Obama telling Medvedev that after the election he would have the freedom to be more receptive to Russia's wants and opinions. 

Opposed to this we have your contention - with absolutely zero evidence - that the contents of :trump 's conversations with Putin are far more friendly to Russia, perhaps to the point of subservience. You have no evidence for any of this but you expect us to believe that your contention is not only true but much more serious than Obama's remark to Medvedev.

There has in fact been zero evidence presented of any kind of collusion or coordination between the :trump campaign and Russia, or evidence of any excessive accommodation or even subservience by :trump of or towards Putin. None. Not a single shred. It is literally all rumor, conjecture and innuendo. It is quite literally a moral panic, driven by a hurt and resentful news media and political left wing. The same left wing that sneered at the idea of Russia being a threat to America when you believed doing so was politically expedient; now you have decided Russia has stolen a presidential election and installed a Kremlin stooge in the White House, because you believe doing that is politically expedient.

At this point, expecting any evidence to ever emerge of :trump working with or kowtowing to Russia is an expectation that will never be realized. Neither the media nor any intelligence agency has found anything after six+ months of intense scrutiny. In the current climate of hate towards the president existing in the media and the bureaucracy, if any evidence had been found, it would have been leaked and published as if it were the biggest story in American history.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Slight correction. Trump doesn't have deals with foreign nationals. Trump's corporations do.
> 
> Big Government was pretty clear about this when they forced the idea that corporations are separate entities from the individuals that own them so that they can double tax the capitalist. Can't have it both ways. Either redefine a corporation and tax the individual and the business owner as one and the same, or accept the fact that a business and an owner are separate so that they can be taxed separately and therefore can't be tied together. If you really want to get technical, a corporation pretty much works the same way a government does. Probably a much less authoritarian version of one so Trump's ties to the ROW literally aren't Trump's ties. There's a board of governors that's also involved. And when people say Trump is a russian agent, they basically assume that dozens of his very independent governors and hundreds of senior management etc are all involved in a huge conspiracy
> 
> But this kind of nuttery is now endemic within left wingers as this is the same BS logic they use to shit on corporations and companies all the time. :lol
> 
> *Anyways, in all seriousness assuming I know why you're asking questions*, Trump has business ties in countries that are considered America's top genuine allies as well. The hysteria over his ties with countries US has some friction with (and they're all still considered diplomatic allies, including Russia) is a leftist creation ... A fantasy.


Thanks for the background info, but on the bolded part you've assumed wrong, dude. Only asked the question because I was interested, and thought folk in this thread might know!


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@wagnergrad96


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Virtually everyone on both sides has an association with Russia in some shape or form. Russia hacking the election ,effecting the outcome and , Russia "owning" Trump are all baseless with no proof behind any of it. People ignore the recounts found that votes weren't even being counted for Trump. The same people who are parroting these baseless claims, completely ignore Obama and Medvedev on a hot mic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you been denying that Obama came up with the list in the first place?Had Saudi Arabia been on the list and Trump ignored it, there'd be something to the claims. However there's no proof behind what you are trying to claim, you're doing exactly what you're criticizing others for doing, making baseless claims about how Trump is in someones pocket . You're no better than the people you believe you're superior to


I never said Obama did not come up with the list. If you want to claim that, quote me where I said that.

There is no proof to what I am trying to claim ? Really?

Trump claims he wants to keep America safe by trying to stop Muslim terrorist from coming into the country, yet he does not put SA where most of the terrorist came from on 9/11 on his list.

Not sure how its baseless when Trump has business ties with a country that has terrorists that killed Americans yet that country is not on his ban list.

It seems like you dont understand what the term baseless means

You love to use baseless when evidence is piled up against Trump and you cant explain it away. You just say oh iits baseless.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Obama came up with the list but not as a list of countries the US was at increased danger of terrorist attacks from though so Trump can't hide behind that fact before the courts.

Unless he can show the courts specific information relating to those specific countries that differentiates them from the countries not included (ie Saudi Arabia) he'll have a hard time getting around his comments that it is a muslim ban.

The idea that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional is uncontroversial.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Obama came up with the list but not as a list of countries the US was at increased danger of terrorist attacks from though so Trump can't hide behind that fact before the courts.
> 
> Unless he can show the courts specific information relating to those specific countries that differentiates them from the countries not included (ie Saudi Arabia) he'll have a hard time getting around his comments that it is a muslim ban.
> 
> The idea that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional is uncontroversial.


Not to mention its not even the same list of countries as Obama anymore since Trump took off a country of the list instead of adding more.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @AryaDark @Goku @Vic Capri @Beatles123






Let's fucking go RAND.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kinda weird he mentioned the NRA specifically as an insurance-buying group you could join. :woah

Although it is a FreedomWorks event so I guess it's not that strange.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-budget-2018-proposal/?utm_term=.935458b1973c

Not a fan of the new budget proposal in the slightest. It basically answers the question of how Trump really sees the Environment as a whole as well as the idea of climate change. There's massive cuts to coastal research programs (for readying communities for more intense storms), eliminating all funding for around 50 national historic sites, elimination of climate change research programs in conjunction with the UN, a good $100 million cut which would have been used by NASA for climate change related earth science, and also cuts the EPA's budget by 31%, which is the biggest hit. The latter would result in a bunch of eliminated programs (such as the Energy Star Program), complete elimination of funds to the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Project, and cut the Superfund's capital in half. 

But, there's increases for defense, border control, his wall, and nuclear arms protection. I mean, I get the defense increase because it is good to have the military re-tooled so that their equipment and such is at a modern level, but hell there's a ton he's taking out of so many other programs, from cutting teacher training grants, to eliminating meals on wheels. 

We'll see how this goes, but I'm not a fan at all.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Speaking of Rand....






Fucking McCain :lmao.

Rand's response was perfect.

"I think he makes a strong case for term limits". Fucking :lmao :lmao :lmao.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lol our military allies [emoji38]


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-politician-in-the-us-bernie-sanders-fox-news-poll-2017-3

*FOX NEWS POLL: Bernie Sanders remains the most popular politician in the US
*
A Fox News poll released Wednesday indicated some Americans have unfavorable opinions about the Trump administration, as well as some congressional Democrats and Republicans.

*Trump's overall job approval rating has dropped five points compared to a February poll from the network. As of March 15, 43% of surveyed voters approve of Trump's performance, while 51% disapprove.

Of the 43% of voters who approved, 30% said they "strongly approve," while 13% said they "somewhat approve."
Of the 51% who disapproved, 7% "somewhat disapproved" while 45% "strongly disapproved," the Fox News poll found.
In the February survey, 48% of people surveyed by Fox News said they approved of Trump's job performance and 47% disapproved.

While both Democrats and Republicans received low approval ratings from respondents, Democrats fared slightly better than Republicans with 32% of respondents approving of their actions in Congress, and 60% disapproving. Republicans earned a 29% approval rating of their actions in Congress and a disapproval rating of 63%.
*
Voters were also read a list of people, items, and organizations and asked if they had a "favorable" or "unfavorable" opinion of them.

*Vice President Mike Pence received ratings of 47% favorable to 43% unfavorable.
House Speaker Paul Ryan's ratings were 37% favorable compared to 47% unfavorable.
Sen. Bernie Sanders received a rating of 61% to 32%.
Planned Parenthood was rated 57% favorable to 32 unfavorable.
The Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" was rated 50% favorable and 47% unfavorable.*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> MSNBC’s hosts have a tax problem.
> 
> A Heat Street review of public records show that a total of six current, prominent MSNBC pundits have recently settled federal or state tax liens, while one still has tax problems. Moreover, at least two other hosts who recently left the network have also had massive tax liens filed against them.
> 
> MSNBC declined to comment, and none of the current or former tax debtors responded to requests for interviews sent through an MSNBC spokesperson.
> 
> The Rev. Al Sharpton — MSNBC’s Sunday morning host — easily comes in first place when it comes to “issues” with the taxman. He and his various entities—including several dissolved by New York for failure to pay taxes—currently owe about $1.5 million in state and federal taxes, interest and penalties, according to public records.
> 
> It’s a staggering sum, but down substantially from the $4.5 million in outstanding tax liens tallied by the New York Times two years ago. Sharpton has repeatedly said he’s worked out agreements with authorities to settle his tax debt, and a source close to him says he’s been paying it down aggressively, aware of how it may affect his legacy. The reverend has repeatedly called publicly for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
> 
> Several other prominent MSNBC talking heads have settled their tax debt only after liens were filed.
> 
> In January 2016, New York filed a lien for more than $2,500 in back taxes against MSNBC daytime anchor Craig Melvin, which he didn’t settle until the final weeks of the year.
> 
> 
> Craig Melvin
> It’s not the first time Melvin has run into tax problems, either. In 2010, South Carolina — where he used to anchor local news — filed a tax warrant against him for more than $3,300, which has since been resolved. Melvin has also run into other financial problems, with Discover Bank taking him to court in 2005 over a $3,200 debt.
> 
> Melvin has spoken out on air and on social media about the need for the wealthy to pay more taxes.
> 
> Follow
> Craig Melvin ✔ @craigmelvin
> Should peeps earning a million $ or more a year pay more income taxes than those making less? Would a "millionaire's tax" help the economy?
> 8:20 AM - 19 Sep 2011
> 6 6 Retweets likes
> Melvin is joined by Chris Matthews. Last summer, Maryland took out a lien against the Hardball host and his wife for nearly $4,000 before Matthews paid up.
> 
> Follow
> Chris Matthews ✔ @HardballChris
> Congrats to Eric "Ebeneezer" Cantor for starving people on food stamps. Helluva victory for the 1 percent.
> 5:34 PM - 19 Sep 2013
> 436 436 Retweets 141 141 likes
> Follow
> Chris Matthews ✔ @HardballChris
> #Obama has rung the bell. The campaign’s on. He’s asking the American people to say they want a fair tax burden. Gutsy move.
> 2:42 PM - 20 Sep 2011
> 68 68 Retweets 15 15 likes
> Joy-Ann Reid also recently settled a New York tax lien for nearly $5,000, filed against her in 2015.
> 
> Both Matthews and Reid have repeatedly held forth about tax policy—including together, on the same TV segment.
> 
> In 2012, for example, Matthews said that “the key element” of a political battle between John Boehner and Barack Obama was “that there be tax fairness—the people at the top, who now get a tax break of about 5 percent, should not get that anymore because they don’t need it.”
> 
> “Right, absolutely,” Reid replied. Later in the same interview, she mentioned how “it was very important to [Obama’s] base that he gets those rates up on the top earners. That was what he promised.” More recently, Reid said that taxation of the wealthy comes down to “a basic fairness argument.”
> 
> In 2016, Kristen Welker finally paid off $6,700 in California tax liens. Though she’s offered little personal commentary about tax policy, she has reported on the issue.
> 
> Follow
> Kristen Welker ✔ @kwelkernbc
> POTUS:"Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled." Dems will campaign on issues related to income inequality. #SOTU #nbcpolitics
> 8:23 PM - 28 Jan 2014
> 44 44 Retweets 16 16 likes
> Follow
> Kristen Welker ✔ @kwelkernbc
> Potus: "majority of voters agree with me" when it comes to wealthy paying more in taxes. A subtle suggestion that he's got a mandate.
> 12:47 PM - 14 Nov 2012
> 3 3 Retweets likes
> Follow
> Kristen Welker ✔ @kwelkernbc
> Per Dem Source Fam with talks: The call between Boehner and POTUS was tense bc the R. offer had permanent tax cuts for wealthy americans.
> 10:53 AM - 12 Dec 2012
> 3 3 Retweets likes
> Two other recent MSNBC personalities have also grappled with massive tax debt.
> 
> Touré Neblett, who was fired by MSNBC in 2015, has had significant tax problems. According to public records from the NYC Department of Finance Office of the City Register, the IRS filed two separate tax liens against him for more than $257,000, covering the years from 2008-2012.
> 
> 
> Touré Neblett
> It’s unclear whether he has made any effort to pay off these tax debts, or whether they remain outstanding. Neblett did not respond to our media requests sent to his various social media accounts, and by deadline, his representative for speaking gigs had also failed to respond to our detailed inquiry.
> 
> The New York City office that recorded the liens was unable to confirm or deny any payments. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said it did not show any state warrants but couldn’t comment on the status of federal tax warrants. By deadline, the Internal Revenue Service hadn’t responded to Heat Street’s detailed query about whether the tax debt was outstanding.
> 
> 
> Melissa Harris-Perry
> Melissa Harris-Perry, who left the network in 2016, had a federal tax lien taken out against her for around $70,000 in 2015. She paid it off the following year. She did not respond to Heat Street’s request for comment.


https://heatst.com/politics/the-place-for-tax-woes-nine-msnbc-personalities-had-tax-liens-filed-against-them/


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842467303363031040
Yeah, you should probably stop trying to convince me that if the government is involved in anything that the money is well spent in anything.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bernie Sanders is a drug peddler. Ask me how!


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842467303363031040
> Yeah, you should probably stop trying to convince me that if the government is involved in anything that the money is well spent in anything.


So because you can cherry pick certain anectodal wasted spending,let's have massive cuts to essential progams like the EPA,let's not fix it so people in Flint have drinking water,let's cut wheels on meals, let's cut job training programs for people in rural area's etc. 


No outrage from people though who always mention they hate wasted govt spending that Trump wants to ramp up military spending (even though we already spend more then the next 12 countries combined). We already have weapons made that sit in factories made for the sake of Weapons makers stuffing their pockets that have no practical use.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> You honestly are comparing the Obama / Medvedev thing to Trump? Really? Medvedev is a nobody anyway.
> 
> Obama said he would have more flexibility in the relationship between the two countries. We have NO IDEA what Trump was telling Putin.
> 
> I'll ignore the grammar in your sentence regarding the Recount that makes it difficult to discern your intent, but your stream of consciousness from one unrelated thing to another is telling.


If you're going to mention my post, at least have the courage to quote me. The whole Medvedev thing just shows how hypocritical people can be, yourself included. Also, Medvedev wasn't this "nobody" that you so desperately want to paint him as, he was the president of Russia, not some mayor but the actual president who was obviously working with Putin. You're trying to dismiss the video as much as you can but it is absolutely no different(and possibly worse) than the whole circus over Trump and how he's allowing them to control him. The fact that you're actually ignoring Obama clearly saying he has more "flexibility" after the election to a Russian president is astounding. There's an actual incentive for Russian influence(which you're ignoring) but you know how I don't know if Russia did or not? Because there's no actual evidence to suggest they did, just like there's no actual evidence they helped Trump. The one thing I find funny with your comment is how its completely different for both sides. For one team they're "working with" while the other its "working for". 


You turning into a grammar Nazi simply because you couldn't refute what I said about the recounts was pretty sad. The fact that you couldn't admit to what factually happened and resorted to childish insults is quite lame


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*




























I don't care much for the views of filthy statists anymore because they are nothing but partisan hacks and I'm not.

So there's no point in quoting me. It's not that I can't debate. It's that there's no point wasting time as a libertarian so I'm just going to post things that are relevant and move on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I don't care much for the views of filthy statists anymore because they are nothing but partisan hacks and I'm not.
> 
> So there's no point in quoting me. It's not that I can't debate. It's that there's no point wasting time as a libertarian so I'm just going to post things that are relevant and move on.



LOL

yeah fuck regulations right who cares about protecting the environment so humans can survive on the planet or who cares about protecting our fresh water lakes, and under ground wells so we have fresh water, or preventing more and more earthquakes due to fracking.

How will anyone be able to have a house if there is no planet left to buy one.


Who needs fresh water right

We all know how you love to left the right to be able to pollute lakes and the environment.

Pretty sure we won't be having wars over oil it will be over fresh water.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bernie's approval ratings are higher than the percentage of taxes he pays. 

When is he going to pay his fair share? Same for a certain president who gets a lot of freebies from ultra rich celebs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump blasted his opponents ties to Goldman Sachs during the campaign but he seem to like hiring people that used to work there now. I don't really have an issue with that but I seem to recall many in the thread blast Hilary for her ties to the bank.

When is it corporate sell-out and when is it hiring the best people? How can I tell the difference? :O


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Rand Paul works for the Russians according to McCain :hmm:


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> So because you can cherry pick certain anectodal wasted spending,let's have massive cuts to essential progams like the EPA,*let's not fix it so people in Flint have drinking water,*let's cut wheels on meals, let's cut job training programs for people in rural area's etc.
> 
> 
> No outrage from people though who always mention they hate wasted govt spending that Trump wants to ramp up military spending (even though we already spend more then the next 12 countries combined). We already have weapons made that sit in factories made for the sake of Weapons makers stuffing their pockets that have no practical use.


If you're gonna blame someone for that, make sure you're blaming the right people. I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Shemocrats.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Don't like them cutting funding to Meals on Wheels, both the national and individual state programs. Lot of old and disabled people benefit and depend on it. Not just the food either, but the companionship of the people that deliver to them.

The budget director's explanation leaves a lot to be desired as well.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842459432319627264


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump blasted his opponents ties to Goldman Sachs during the campaign but he seem to like hiring people that used to work there now. I don't really have an issue with that but I seem to recall many in the thread blast Hilary for her ties to the bank.
> 
> When is it corporate sell-out and when is it hiring the best people? *How can I tell the difference?* :O


When Trump hires them it's the best people.

:Bayley


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Don't like them cutting funding to Meals on Wheels, both the national and individual state programs. Lot of old and disabled people benefit and depend on it. Not just the food either, but the companionship of the people that deliver to them.
> 
> The budget director's explanation leaves a lot to be desired as well.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842459432319627264


I look at this as less a defunding of Meals on Wheels, and more the President telling states that if they're going to take federal money then they need to get their expenses in order. 



> The White House says many of these programs are not cost effective, however. “The president said he was going to go after wasteful programs, duplicative programs, programs that simply don’t work, and a lot of those are in HUD,” Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the president, told reporters. “We’ve spent a lot of money on Housing and Urban Development over the last decades without a lot to show for it. Certainly, there are some successes, but there’s a lot of programs that simply cannot justify their existence, and that’s where we zeroed in.”


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I look at this as less a defunding of Meals on Wheels, and more the President telling states that if they're going to take federal money then they need to get their expenses in order.


I understand that, but they aren't cutting funding to individual programs that have problems, they're just cutting funding to all of them. They're using an axe when a scalpel would be better.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I understand that, but they aren't cutting funding to individual programs that have problems, they're just cutting funding to all of them. They're using an axe when a scalpel would be better.





> About 3% of the budget for Meals on Wheels' national office comes from government grants (84% comes from individual contributions and grants from corporations and foundations)


Plus, you have to add this...



> The budget blueprint suggests cutting funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by about $6.2 billion, a 13.2% decrease from its 2017 funding level.
> Here's what Trump wants cut
> Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, *which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels.*


Let me go ahead and restate that sentence, leaving out the spin. "...which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels...and a many other programs."

What that's stating is that the 3% that goes to Meals on Wheels may not get cut at all, rather, it could wind up being other programs that are cut. Since Meals on Wheels is a program operated by HUD, it stands to reason that when Ben Carson looks to see where the money should go, Meals on Wheels may not lose out on any money at all.

This is very typical of opposition. State a program that people like that COULD be cut and then state that it WILL be cut. It may, it may not, but to say that it WILL is disingenuous and I don't appreciate that level of dishonesty.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I doubt meals on wheels gets cut. If something is cut it maybe some needless spending that is going on with the program. Most charity stuff like that is usually poorly run. 

Now "leftists " will jump on this pretending they care when in reality they thought funding was being cut to their favorite food truck outside of Starbucks.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Plus, you have to add this...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me go ahead and restate that sentence, leaving out the spin. "...which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels...and a many other programs."
> 
> What that's stating is that the 3% that goes to Meals on Wheels may not get cut at all, rather, it could wind up being other programs that are cut. Since Meals on Wheels is a program operated by HUD, it stands to reason that when Ben Carson looks to see where the money should go, Meals on Wheels may not lose out on any money at all.
> 
> This is very typical of opposition. State a program that people like that COULD be cut and then state that it WILL be cut. It may, it may not, but to say that it WILL is disingenuous and I don't appreciate that level of dishonesty.


The budget director's response I posted seemed to confirm it will be cut.



> *STATEMENT CLARIFYING FEDERAL FUNDING TO MEALS ON WHEELS *http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org...clarifying-federal-funding-to-meals-on-wheels
> 
> The nationwide Meals on Wheels network, comprised of 5,000, local, community-based programs, receives 35% of its total funding for the provision of congregate and home-delivered meals from the federal government through the Older Americans Act, administered by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living. Other federal funding sources that support Meals on Wheels program operations may include the Community Development Block Grant, Community Services Block Grant or the Social Services Block Grant. In addition, programs rely on contributions from state or local governments, private donations and other resources to cover the rest, demonstrating one of the best examples of a successful public-private partnership. Meals on Wheels America, the largest and oldest national organization representing senior nutrition programs across the country, receives only 3% of its funding from the government, specifically to run the National Research Center on Nutrition and Aging.


Meal on Wheels America is the national program. That 3.3% percent doesn't include the individual state programs. Now admittedly they don't state how much of the 35% comes from the CDBG.

I'm not saying the programs will close down, but I do think if the cut happens they will take a hit and according to them they're having trouble keeping up with the growing demand.

*EDIT:*

Found an example. City government of San Jose said that if the cut happens, $100,000 they would direct from the CDBG to Meals on Wheels would not happen.


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> yeah fuck regulations right who cares about protecting the environment so humans can survive on the planet or who cares about protecting our fresh water lakes, and under ground wells so we have fresh water, or preventing more and more earthquakes due to fracking.
> 
> How will anyone be able to have a house if there is no planet left to buy one.
> 
> 
> Who needs fresh water right
> 
> We all know how you love to left the right to be able to pollute lakes and the environment.
> 
> Pretty sure we won't be having wars over oil it will be over fresh water.


I don't know how many of those regulations actually go to the things you're talking about. There are a lot of dumb things that involve getting permits for. It's to the point where if you build a deck in your backyard without a permit that's illegal. So you have to take it down. You get a dumpster and take it down only to find that you needed a permit for the dumpster and one to deconstruct the deck. So I imagine when it comes to building an entire house there are countless permits that need to be applied for and every single one comes with a fee. 

Some make sense. If you start a housing development a water taste to make sure residents have clean water makes sense. Having to apply for 15 permits per residence for things like decks, sheds, and stuff like that just wastes money for builders and homeowners.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FITZ said:


> I don't know how many of those regulations actually go to the things you're talking about. There are a lot of dumb things that involve getting permits for. It's to the point where if you build a deck in your backyard without a permit that's illegal. So you have to take it down. You get a dumpster and take it down only to find that you needed a permit for the dumpster and one to deconstruct the deck. So I imagine when it comes to building an entire house there are countless permits that need to be applied for and every single one comes with a fee.
> 
> Some make sense. If you start a housing development a water taste to make sure residents have clean water makes sense. Having to apply for 15 permits per residence for things like decks, sheds, and stuff like that just wastes money for builders and homeowners.


You should need a permit to build a deck. Why do you think that is a waste? 

You need to make sure the deck that is being built is up to code, if not then people could get seriously injured if its built incorrectly, it could also damage your house or even a neighbors property or house.

And of course there should be a number of permits you need to build a house. Why shouldn't there be. Again you get some shlub who builds the house wrong and the house falls apart when someone is it in or it catches fire because someone did not do the electoral work correctly because they did not get a permit.

Are you really claiming all the permits you need to build a house are a waste? You can't really being claiming this.

It's not a waste of money to get permits, it's a safety thing for the reasons I mentioned.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm more concerned that the white house is bragging that it is a hard power budget, which seems to indicate they do not believe in soft power. Where is the concern about a war mongering president?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The budget director's response I posted seemed to confirm it will be cut.
> 
> 
> 
> Meal on Wheels America is the national program. That 3.3% percent doesn't include the state individual state programs. Now admittedly they don't they don't state how much of the 35% comes from the CDBG.
> 
> I'm not saying the programs will close down, but I do think if the cut happens they will take a hit and according to them they're having trouble keeping up with the growing demand.
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> Found an example. City government of San Jose said that if the cut happens, $100,000 they would direct from the CDBG to Meals on Wheels would not happen.


I am curious as to what directly will be cut and how much. Are they just going to be chopping off excess weight, or are they going to be butchering off some of the meat too? 

Interesting about the individual state programs, it would be important to know if any money is earmarked from the CDBG directly to individual state programs, or are they fully state funded. I gotta say, though, before anyone says anything about people not getting food, it would be important to know what exactly is being cut and how exactly it'll effect people, if at all. That's the thing that frustrates me. In this case it's the Democrats up in arms, but they aren't asking for specifics, at least as far as I can tell. Instead, they're yelling hyperbole and spouting out how the Republicans don't care about poor people. In my mind, if they really actually gave a shit they'd get verification on everything before nailing Republicans to the cross.

And to add further, how much of that $100,000 would actually go to food and deliveries to people, and how much would go into the pocket of the administration. Those are important questions. If it's the former then, ya, that's somewhat concerning; not as much as them actually needing Meals on Wheels, but concerning nonetheless; or if it's the latter then it's really a non-issue in my mind.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I am curious as to what directly will be cut and how much. Are they just going to be chopping off excess weight, or are they going to be butchering off some of the meat too?
> 
> Interesting about the individual state programs, it would be important to know if any money is earmarked from the CDBG directly to individual state programs, or are they fully state funded. I gotta say, though, before anyone says anything about people not getting food, it would be important to know what exactly is being cut and how exactly it'll effect people, if at all. That's the thing that frustrates me. In this case it's the Democrats up in arms, but they aren't asking for specifics, at least as far as I can tell. Instead, they're yelling hyperbole and spouting out how the Republicans don't care about poor people. In my mind, if they really actually gave a shit they'd get verification on everything before nailing Republicans to the cross.
> 
> And to add further, how much of that $100,000 would actually go to food and deliveries to people, and how much would go into the pocket of the administration. Those are important questions. If it's the former then, ya, that's somewhat concerning; not as much as them actually needing Meals on Wheels, but concerning nonetheless; or if it's the latter then it's really a non-issue in my mind.


Agree with you on wanting more specific info. Looking for specifics on this has been difficult. Info about how much money goes where should be more readily available.

Conversely the administration had to know something like this could easily be made to look bad and should have had specifics ready to counter it if they're in the right.

As to the $100,000, maybe they're on the up and up, maybe not. I know I said earlier a scalpel was needed instead of an axe, but I do acknowledge that with one national program, fifty state programs, and who the hell knows how many local programs, inspecting them could take a while.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I never said Obama did not come up with the list. If you want to claim that, quote me where I said that.
> 
> There is no proof to what I am trying to claim ? Really?
> 
> Trump claims he wants to keep America safe by trying to stop Muslim terrorist from coming into the country, yet he does not put SA where most of the terrorist came from on 9/11 on his list.
> 
> Not sure how its baseless when Trump has business ties with a country that has terrorists that killed Americans yet that country is not on his ban list.
> 
> It seems like you dont understand what the term baseless means
> 
> You love to use baseless when evidence is piled up against Trump and you cant explain it away. You just say oh iits baseless.


Can you please exit this thread and never return? Liberals are so annoying


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> Can you please exit this thread and never return? Liberals are so annoying


Please stop entering a thread just to tell someone to leave because of their beliefs. :armfold
They have every right to their opinion! This is a nice thread!


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Please stop entering a thread just to tell someone to leave because of their beliefs. :armfold
> They have every right to their opinion! This is a nice thread!


Please stop telling me to stop telling someone to leave because of their beliefs I have every right to my opinion. My opinion is more of a fact than anything else.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://time.com/4704757/oklahoma-senator-ralph-shortey-child-prostitution/



> An Oklahoma state senator was booked Thursday on child prostitution charges for allegedly hiring a 17-year-old boy for sex, leading to calls for his resignation and a separate internal investigation into his years of work with a youth program.
> Ralph Shortey, a 35-year-old conservative Republican who has a wife and three young daughters, surrendered to authorities on charges of engaging in child prostitution, transporting a minor for prostitution and engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church. He was released after about two hours on a $100,000 bond.


Maybe those looking for clues on Pizzagate need to look more closely at the other party? :lmao

And there is a law against engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church? So it is ok if it is 1,001 feet away from a church? :confused


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Pratchett @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Goku @Dr. Middy @2 Ton 21 @TheNightmanCometh @Miss Sally @RipNTear 

Anyone who has read the early budget proposal should not be surprised that the EPA is taking the biggest hit out of all the departments considering Trump's position on it. I personally would prioritize more on cutting the Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security (so I'm not too thrilled that is being increased), the NSA (which I wasn't expecting to be cut anyway) and the Department of Education (liberals gonna hate me for that) as first priority but that is just me.

I really don't know enough about the EPA to make a judgement call on the areas he is cutting so I will have to do some reading and get back on that. But I am encouraged by a few of the areas he is cutting on first reading, I know many on the left will disagree with at least some of the things I am going to point out but such is life :lol. I'll have to look more into the early budget proposals to judge on some of the cuts but of course the areas I am not encouraged in the raised spending on are Homeland Security (should be eliminated) and Defense (there needs to at least be a massive shift in funding).

* Department of Education cuts is particularly positive because that department not only has so much fraud, waste and abuse but has done nothing to improve education standards, it is stagnated ever since the department was first formed. Emphasis on school choice is great and the focus on private school choice is fantastic. This is what the education sector desperately needs, competition to increase overall education standards. Not a one size fits all government program.

* Cuts to Housing and Urban Development. One of those programs which has the right intentions but is absolutely terrible in practice and destroys communities. More houses get knocked down than are actually built and ghettoizes certain neighbourhoods. Does nothing to achieve affordable housing either and creates more dependency on big government. 

* Total elimination of Arts and Cultural agencies. Simply put, this should never be a government role to fund arts and crafts. Should be completely private.

As far as the meals on wheels situation, I'd need more specifics as people mentioned. The problem with government programs like this is usually at least a big portion of the funding goes to funding the administration and lining their pockets rather than doing what is intended, thus making the program poorly ran. If we are talking cuts to the administrative side of the government program then this is a good thing, I do not care what anyone says. If the money is not going where it should then it should be cut. Pure and simple. But we need more details.

The other problem is that this really falls under the war on poverty which has been going on since Lyndon B. Johnson. Simply put, it hasn't worked and has been a failure. Poverty levels on the whole have been stagnate and has not been mitigated through government programs. In fact going by 2012 records it has actually *increased* rather than decreased. I am not for an outright slashing of meals on wheels on day one from a consequential position because of course in the short term it would do damaging effect but we should really take a look at the overall war on poverty program and ask ourselves whether it has all been worth it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/louisw...-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#17ce5f976f49



> Has the War on Poverty been a failure? Well, of course it has. If you devote 50 years and *$21.5 trillion* (in 4Q2013 dollars) to anything, and people are arguing about whether it was a success or a failure, then you can be sure that it was a failure.
> 
> Have you noticed that, 50+ years from its inception, no one is suggesting that the Apollo program was a failure? The Apollo program was an unchallenged success because it accomplished its stated goal: “…to land a man on the moon, and to return him safely to the earth.”
> 
> The stated goal of the War on Poverty, as enunciated by Lyndon Johnson on January 8, 1964, was, “…not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Measured against this objective, the War on Poverty has not just been a failure, it has been a catastrophe. It was supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, and it has made them dependent and dysfunctional.
> 
> This is fact is illustrated most vividly by the “Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure Before Taxes and Transfers*” (ASPMBTAT). This metric was devised to assess the ability of people to earn enough, not counting taxes and subsidies, to keep themselves and their dependent children out of poverty. The income required to do this varies by family size and composition, but, for a family comprising two adults and two children, it is $25,500/year (in 4Q2013 dollars).
> 
> The ASPMBTAT is the ultimate quantitative test of the success (or failure) of the War on Poverty, at least in terms of its stated objective. *Shortly after the War on Poverty got rolling (1967), about 27% of Americans lived in poverty. In 2012, the last year for which data is available, the number was about 29%.*
> 
> This result would be shocking, even if we had not spent $21.5 trillion “fighting poverty” over the past 50 years. Here’s why.
> 
> *Between 1967 and 2012, U.S. real GDP (RGDP) per capita (in 4Q2013 dollars) increased by 127.3%, from $23,706 to $52,809. In other words, to stay out of poverty in 1967, the two adults in a typical family of four had to capture 26.9% of their family’s proportionate share of RGDP (i.e., average RGDP per capita, times four). To accomplish the same thing in 2012, they only had to pull in 12.1% of their family’s share of RGDP. And yet, fewer people were able to manage this in 2012 than in 1967.*
> 
> What turned the War on Poverty into a social and human catastrophe was that the enhanced welfare state created a perverse system of incentives, and people adapted to their new environment.
> 
> That people would adapt to a changed social/economic environment should have surprised no one. After all, everyone living today is here because 50,000+ generations of their ancestors managed to adapt to whatever circumstances they found themselves in, at least well enough to produce and raise offspring.
> 
> The adaptation of the working-age poor to the War on Poverty’s expanded welfare state was immediately evident in the growth of various social pathologies, especially unwed childbearing. The adaptation of the middle class to the new system took longer to manifest, but it was no less significant.
> 
> Even people with incomes far above the thresholds for welfare state programs were forced to adapt to the welfare state. As crime rates (driven by rising numbers of fatherless boys) rose in the cities, and urban schools systems became dangerous and dysfunctional, the middle class (of all races) was forced to flee to the suburbs.
> 
> Because many middle-class mothers had to go to work to permit their families to bid for houses in good school districts (as well as pay the higher taxes that the expanded welfare state required), self-supporting families had fewer children.
> 
> Before we look at how the poor adapted to the War on Poverty’s enhanced means-tested welfare programs, let’s look at how America adapted to Medicare and enhanced Social Security benefits.
> 
> Desperate to spin the disastrous War on Poverty as a success, progressives have tried to divert our attention from America’s growing underclass by pointing to the large decline in the Official Poverty Measure (OPM, which includes cash transfer payments) for senior citizens. The OPM for Americans age 65 and above fell from about 30% in 1967 to about 9% in 2012.
> 
> Not so fast, progressives. It is not clear that the OPM for seniors would be higher today if the War on Poverty had never been mounted.
> 
> Because the War on Poverty made Social Security benefits more generous, and also created Medicare, it produced an instantaneous reduction in the OPM for senior citizens. And, obviously, if Social Security and Medicare were terminated tomorrow, the OPM for senior citizens would rise. However, because both Medicare and enhanced Social Security have now been in place for the entire working lifetimes of the people retiring today, these calculations prove nothing.
> 
> Progressives want us to believe that the people that started working after 1965 would have managed their lives and their finances exactly the same way if the welfare state had not been expanded during the mid-1960s. This is not likely.
> 
> As Social Security and Medicare benefits were made more generous, people reduced their savings. *The Personal Savings Rate (which is calculated as a percent of disposable income) has fallen by more than half since 1967 (from 12.2% to 5.6%). In other words, when people found that they didn’t need to save as much to avoid being poor in old age, they didn’t save as much. Also, because of higher payroll taxes, workers had less money to save.*
> 
> This was particularly problematic because GDP is driven by capital investment. America’s lower savings rate translated into slower economic growth. Because, as Albert Einstein once said, compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe, our economy is considerably smaller today than it would have been if people had been required to save more for retirement. And, there are far fewer good-paying jobs than there would have been with more investment and higher GDP.
> 
> Among other things, *a smaller GDP means that supporting our non-working senior citizens imposes a larger burden upon today’s working people than it would have if savings and investment had been higher over the past 50 years.*
> 
> So, it is not clear at all that *the War-on-Poverty-enhanced welfare state for senior citizens produced any long-term benefit, even for seniors.* However, at least we can afford it.
> 
> With correct economic policies, *the U.S. can sustain RGDP growth rates of 3.5% or higher, and this level of growth would make Social Security and Medicare affordable, with no tax increases and no benefit cuts.*
> 
> What America cannot afford is a welfare state that makes government dependency a feasible career option for its young people. The War on Poverty made welfare (broadly defined) into a viable entry-level job, and poor people signed up for it in droves.
> 
> The pathologies that resulted from the War on Poverty were not the fault of the poor themselves. They simply adapted, in a logical and predictable way, to a welfare state designed and promoted by our progressive elites.
> 
> It is amazing that progressives, who treat the theory of evolution as religious dogma, also seem to believe that there is no such thing as “human nature.” They also seem to believe that “nurture” (which presumably includes exhortation from government bureaucrats) trumps “nature.”
> 
> Unfortunately for progressive programs like those making up the War on Poverty, there is an essential human nature that we all share, and humans respond predictably to the incentives present in the environment around them.
> 
> Children are programmed by evolution to rebel against their parents’ control, and to seek to be independent. Prior to the welfare state, the only way for girls to escape the authority of their parents was to become economically self-sufficient, by getting a job and/or getting married.
> 
> The progressive welfare state, especially after it was expanded by the War on Poverty, provided a third option for teenage girls seeking to get away from their parents’ control: have a baby. As soon as a young, unmarried girl had a baby, she officially became a “poor family,” and the government would force taxpayers to support her and her baby.
> 
> Girls of all races responded predictably to shifts in welfare state policy, as shown below in a chart excerpted from a Heritage report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poorer a demographic group is in terms of its ability to earn market income, the more members of that group will find the welfare state attractive. However, individuals in all demographic groups responded to the changed incentives.


The article goes on but the first two pages are the most important, these are what the facts show since the war on poverty was first enacted:

* $21.5 Trillion was spent on the war on poverty up till 2012.

* The rate of poverty overall has *increased* by 2% from 27% to 29%, meaning that at best the war on poverty has stagnated actual movement out of poverty from the underclass and working class.

* Fewer people managed to achieve the proportionate share of RDGP to stay out of poverty in 2012 than 1967 despite the proportion needed being less than half of what it was (26% to 12%)

* Personal Savings rate has fallen more than half since 1967 (12.2% to 5.6%), in other words as the social program benefits have become more generous, people have saved less relying more on government to provide for their retirement. People have less money of their own to save because of this and because of regressive taxes such as payroll tax.

* Lower savings rates have translated to slower economic growth, meaning supporting non-working senior citizens imposes a larger burden upon today’s working people than it would have if savings and investment had been higher over the past 50 years. I'd also like to point out it's even more so with social security as the baby boomers are retiring and there is less young people in the workforce than there was 50 years ago, mainly due to lower birthrates.

* Baring children out of wedlock has increased significantly. Now having children away from marriage isn't necessarily a bad thing but the welfare state has increased single motherhood particularly in the black community exponentially and has created a less stable family environment for children to grow up in, which is important for economic and social mobility.

I know that meals on wheels is an extremely tiny proportion of this and is certainly one of if not the least egregious programs but there is a bigger question to raise here which is is government the best tool to use to lift people out of poverty which is essentially what medicaid, medicare and social security is for as well as individual programs such as meals for wheels. I think the evidence overwhelming states no, and so we must look into what is being done and question if we should go in a different direction overall. That's the bigger picture that I have gotten from reading about this.

As the article points out, the US certainly can afford to provide welfare for seniors if the right economic policies are provided and I'm not suggesting to even get rid of meals for wheels in the way that it is being described (again context needed progressives!) but an enlarged welfare state does nothing to help poorer people overall.




HandsomeRTruth said:


> No outrage from people though who always mention they hate wasted govt spending that Trump wants to ramp up military spending (even though we already spend more then the next 12 countries combined). We already have weapons made that sit in factories made for the sake of Weapons makers stuffing their pockets that have no practical use.


I left this till last because it really annoys me that people who have never entered the thread or read anything suddenly come in and make judgements like this. I can only speak for myself but I probably have been the biggest critic of military spending ever since the discussion on US politics came to fruition. The biggest elements of spending in the US budget are defence, social security and medicare/medicaid. I want to see all of those things cut significantly in spending. In an ideal world I'd at least eliminate social security (I won't explain why now but if you want me to I can afterwards) and I'd want to see medicare and medicaid/medicare take at least a much smaller role and let the private market provide most of the healthcare cover. Ideally I'd want all of those things gone.

The vast majority of people wouldn't want that, so what it is clear is that those social programs need drastic reform to make them more affordable. And Trump says he won't cut a single cent from them and the Ryancare bill will do nothing to provide free market reforms to give space for medicaid/medicare to be reformed and for spending in those areas to come down. Which is the most annoying aspect in all of this. More big government healthcare bills.

But military spending is also a huge area that needs spending reform and cuts. I already mapped out in the other Trump thread that you could cut at least 25-30% of the military budget and you wouldn't even cut a single penny from actual Defence. How? Simply closing all the military bases and ending the overseas interventions in 7 different countries. Military bases alone count for 20-25% of the Defense budget. Even if you got rid of say 80% of the bases, that's around 20% gone, saved and could be put to use elsewhere; even in actually improving the military if that is where the priority the government wants. Instead under Trump we are seeing practically a blank cheque being made to increase Defence and whilst it isn't by as much as I expected which I guess you can say is a good thing, it does nothing to solve the mismanagement, fraud, abuse and wasteful spending.

Here is an article as an example of where money is wasted on military, this only looking at Afghanistan: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/12-ways-your-tax-dollars-were-squandered-afghanistan-n528771 Tagging @Tater in this part because he'll be interested.



> *The United States has now spent more money reconstructing Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Europe at the end of World War II, according to a government watchdog.*
> 
> The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) said in a statement to Congress last week that when adjusted for inflation the $113.1 billion plowed into the chaos-riven country outstripped the post-WWII spend by at least $10 billion.
> 
> Billions have been squandered on projects that were either useless or sub-standard, or lost to waste, corruption, and systemic abuse, according to SIGAR's reports.
> 
> NBC News spoke to SIGAR's Special Inspector General John F. Sopko about 12 of the most bizarre and baffling cases highlighted by his team's investigations.
> 
> Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, Sopko said the U.S.'s profligate spending in Afghanistan is "the definition of insanity — doing the same things over and over again, expecting a different result."
> 
> *1. $486 million for 'deathtrap' aircraft that were later sold for $32,000*
> 
> The Pentagon spent close to half a billion dollars on 20 Italian-made cargo planes that it eventually scrapped and sold for just $32,000, according to SIGAR.
> 
> "These planes were the wrong planes for Afghanistan," Sopko told NBC News. "The U.S. had difficulty getting the Afghans to fly them, and our pilots called them deathtraps. One pilot said parts started falling off while he was coming into land."
> 
> After being taken out of use in March 2013, the G222 aircraft, which are also referred to as the C-27A Spartan, were towed to a corner of Kabul International Airport where they were visible from the civilian terminal. They had "trees and bushes growing around them," the inspector general said.
> 
> Sixteen of the planes were scrapped and sold to a local construction company for 6 cents a pound, SIGAR said. The other four remained unused at a U.S. base in Germany.
> 
> Sopko called the planes "one of the biggest single programs in Afghanistan that was a total failure."
> 
> *2. $335 million on a power plant that used just 1 percent of its capacity*
> 
> The Tarakhil Power Plant was fired up in 2009 to "provide more reliable power " to blackout-plagued Kabul, according to the United States Agency for International Development, which built the facility.
> 
> However, the "modern" diesel plant exported just 8,846 megawatt hours of power between February 2014 and April 2015, SIGAR said in a letter to USAID last August. This output was less than 1 percent of the plant's capacity and provided just 0.35 percent of power to Kabul, a city of 4.6 million people.
> 
> Related: U.S. Spent $43M on Gas Station But Can't Explain Why
> 
> Furthermore, the plant's "frequent starts and stops … place greater wear and tear on the engines and electrical components," which could result in its "catastrophic failure," the watchdog said.
> 
> USAID responded to SIGAR's report in June 2015, saying: "We have no indication that [Afghan state-run utility company] Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), failed to operate Tarakhil as was alleged in your letter."
> 
> *3. Almost $500,000 on buildings that 'melted' in the rain*
> 
> U.S. officials directed and oversaw the construction of an Afghan police training facility in 2012 that was so poorly built that its walls actually fell apart in the rain. The $456,669 dry-fire range in Wardak province was "not only an embarrassment, but, more significantly, a waste of U.S. taxpayers' money," SIGAR's report said in January 2015.
> 
> It was overseen by the U.S. Central Command's Joint Theater Support Contracting Command and contracted out to an Afghan firm, the Qesmatullah Nasrat Construction Company.
> 
> SIGAR said this "melting" started just four months after the building was finished in October 2012. It blamed U.S. officials' bad planning and failure to hold to account the Afghan construction firm, which used poor-quality materials. The U.S. subsequently contracted another firm to rebuild the facility.
> 
> Sopko called the incident "baffling."
> 
> *4. $34.4 million on a soybean program for a country that doesn't eat soybea*ns
> 
> "Afghans apparently have never grown or eaten soybeans before," SIGAR said in its June 2014 report. This did not stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture funding a $34.4 million program by the American Soybean Association to try to introduce the foodstuff into the country in 2010.
> 
> The project "did not meet expectations," the USDA confirmed to SIGAR, largely owing to inappropriate farming conditions in Afghanistan and the fact no one wanted to buy a product they had never eaten.
> 
> "They didn't grow them, they didn't eat them, there was no market for them, and yet we thought it was a good idea," Sopko told NBC News.
> 
> "What is troubling about this particular project is that it appears that many of these problems could reasonably have been foreseen and, therefore, possibly avoided," the inspector general wrote in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in June 2014.
> 
> *5. One general's explanation why 1,600 fire-prone buildings weren't a problem*
> 
> Fire breaks out at an arch-span building at the Afghan National Army's Camp Sayar in October 2012. SIGAR
> The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built some 2,000 buildings to be used as barracks, medical clinics and fire stations by the Afghan National Army as part of a $1.57-billion program. When two fires in October and December 2012 revealed that around 80 percent of these structures did not meet international building regulations for fire safety, Sopko said he was "troubled" by the "arrogant" response from a senior USACE chief.
> 
> Major General Michael R. Eyre, commanding general of USACE's Transatlantic Division, said the risk of fire was acceptable because "the typical occupant populations for these facilities are young, fit Afghan soldiers." Writing in a January 2014 memo published by SIGAR, Eyre said these recruits "have the physical ability to make a hasty retreat during a developing situation."
> 
> Sopko told NBC News that Eyre's comments "showed a really poor attitude toward our allies." He added: "It was an unbelievable arrogance, and I'm sorry to say that about a senior officer."
> 
> *6. A $600,000 hospital where infants were washed in dirty river water*
> 
> Despite the Department of Defense spending $597,929 on Salang Hospital in Afghanistan's Parwan province, the 20-bed facility has been forced to resort to startling medical practices.
> 
> "Because there was no clean water, staff at the hospital were washing newborns with untreated river water," SIGAR's report said in January 2014. It added that the "poorly constructed" building was also at increased "risk of structural collapse during an earthquake."
> 
> NBC News visited the hospital in January 2014 and witnessed some disturbing practices: a doctor poking around a dental patient's mouth with a pair of unsterilized scissors before yanking out another's tooth with a pair of pliers.
> 
> Related: $600K in U.S. Taxpayer Cash Buys Medieval Hospital in Afghanistan
> 
> The United States Forces-Afghanistan responded to SIGAR's report in January 2014 saying it would investigate why the building was not constructed to standard.
> 
> In a separate report, SIGAR said that USAID reimbursed the International Organization for Migration for spiraling costs while building Gardez Hospital, in Paktia province.
> 
> The IOM's "weak internal controls" meant it paid $300,000 for just 600 gallons of diesel fuel — a price of $500 per gallon when market prices should not have exceeded $5, SIGAR said.
> 
> *7. $36 million on a military facility that several generals didn't want*
> 
> The so-called "64K" command-and-control facility at Afghanistan's Camp Leatherneck cost $36 million and was "a total waste of U.S. taxpayer funds," SIGAR's report said in May 2015.
> 
> The facility in Helmand province — named because it measured 64,000 square feet — was intended to support the U.S. troop surge of 2010.
> 
> However, a year before its construction, the very general in charge of the surge asked that it not be built because the existing facilities were "more than sufficient," the watchdog said. But another general denied this cancellation request, according to SIGAR, because he said it would not be "prudent" to quit a project for which funds had already been appropriated by Congress.
> 
> Ultimately, construction did not begin until May 2011, two months before the drawdown of the troops involved in surge. Sopko found the "well-built and newly furnished" building totally untouched in June 2013, with plastic sheets still covering the furniture.
> 
> "Again, nobody was held to account," Sopko told NBC News, adding it was a "gross ... really wasteful, extremely wasteful amount of money."
> 
> He added: "We have thrown too much money at the country. We pour in money not really thinking about it."
> 
> *8. $39.6 million that created an awkward conversation for the U.S. ambassador*
> 
> A now-defunct Pentagon task force spent almost $40 million on Afghanistan's oil, mining and gas industry — but no one remembered to tell America's diplomats in Kabul, according to SIGAR, citing a senior official at the U.S. embassy in the city.
> 
> In fact, the first the U.S. ambassador knew about the multi-billion-dollar spend was when Afghan government officials thanked him for his country's support, SIGAR said.
> 
> The project, administered by the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO), was part of a wider $488 million investment that also included the State Department and USAID. These organizations "failed to coordinate and prioritize" their work, which created "poor working relationships, and … potential sustainability problems," according to SIGAR.
> 
> It was, according to Sopko, "a real disaster."
> 
> One USAID official told the watchdog it would take the U.S. "100 years" to complete the necessary infrastructure and training Afghanistan needs to completely develop these industries.
> 
> *9. $3 million for the purchase — and then mystery cancellation — of eight boats*
> 
> SIGAR said the U.S. military has been unable to provide records answering "the most basic questions" surrounding the mystery purchase and cancellation of eight patrol boats for landlocked Afghanistan.
> 
> The scant facts SIGAR were able to find indicated the boats were bought in 2010 to be used by the Afghan National Police, and that they were intended to be deployed along the country's northern river border with Uzbekistan.
> 
> "The order was cancelled — without explanation — nine months later," SIGAR said. The boats were still sitting unused at a Navy warehouse in Yorktown, Virginia, as of 2014.
> 
> "We bought in a navy for a landlocked country," Sopko said.
> 
> *10. $7.8 billion fighting drugs — while Afghans grow more opium than ever*
> 
> Despite the U.S. plowing some $7.8 billion into stopping Afghanistan's drug trade," Afghan farmers are growing more opium than ever before," SIGAR reported in December 2014.
> 
> "Poppy-growing provinces that were once declared 'poppy free' have seen a resurgence in cultivation," it said, noting that internationally funded irrigation projects may have actually increased poppy growth in recent years.
> 
> The "fragile gains" the U.S. has made on Afghan health, education and rule of law were being put in "jeopardy or wiped out by the narcotics trade, which not only supports the insurgency, but also feeds organized crime and corruption," Sopko told U.S. lawmakers in January 2014.
> 
> Afghanistan is the world's leader in the production of opium. In 2013, the value of Afghan opium was $3 billion — equivalent to 15 percent of the country's GDP — according to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.
> 
> Sopko told NBC News the picture is no more optimistic today. "No matter which metric you use, this effort has been a real failure," he said.
> 
> 
> *11. $7.8 million on a nearly-empty business park*
> 
> The USAID-funded Shorandam Industrial Park in Kandahar province was transferred to the Afghan government in September 2010 with the intention of accommodating 48 business and hundreds of local employees. Four years later, SIGAR inspectors found just one active company operating there.
> 
> This was due to the U.S. military building a power plant on one-third of the industrial park to provide electricity to nearby Kandahar City, causing "entrepreneurs to shy away from setting up businesses" at the site, SIGAR said in its report of April 2015.
> 
> After the military withdrew in mid-2014, the investigators were told that at least four Afghan businesses had moved into the industrial park. However, SIGAR said that it could not complete a thorough inspection because USAID's contract files were "missing important documentation."
> 
> *12. $81.9 million on incinerators that either weren't used or harmed troops*
> 
> The DOD spent nearly $82 million on nine incineration facilities in Afghanistan — yet four of them never fired their furnaces, SIGAR said in February 2015. These four dormant facilities had eight incinerators between them and the wastage cost $20.1 million.
> 
> In addition, SIGAR inspectors said it was "disturbing" that "prohibited items," such as tires and batteries, continued to be burned in Afghanistan's 251 burn pits. U.S. military personnel were also exposed to emissions from these pits "that could have lasting negative health consequences," the watchdog said.
> 
> The Department of Defense said it was "vitally interested in exploring all possible ways to save taxpayer dollars and ensure we are good stewards of government resources."
> 
> A spokesman added: "We'll continue to work ‎with SIGAR, and other agencies, to help get to the bottom of any reported issues or concerns."
> 
> A spokesman for Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani declined to comment on this story.



You get the idea.

I promised myself after I was out of order to two members of the forum that I wouldn't be so confrontational when it comes to these threads but it annoys me that someone who I've never seen post in this thread come in here and make blank judgements with those concerned with spending and government waste. I look at *all spending*, I don't discriminate and certainly should not be lumped in with big government RINO's. I'm concerned with military spending as much as you, probably more so considering I've made at least 10 posts about it in the other Trump threads before you jumped in.

I'm not a Republican, not even Conservative so don't go there. Point is, think before you make blank statements like this, because likely you will be proven wrong by at least one example every time.

Overall the biggest concern for me is that with the increase in military spending, the promised $1 Trillion infrastructure bill and promises of no cuts to medicare, medicaid or social security that this will do very little to decrease overall spending. Which is a concern I had when Trump supporters gleamed about certain areas of government being cut and I am all for that, but the picture here is the deficits and the debt. If Trump is going to give out blank cheques to Defence without reform and not touch the major social programs then we'll get nowhere towards a balanced budget.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comparing the war on poverty to the Apollo mission is disingenuous. One had a definitive finish line while the other has a ever changing goal post. Similarly, other 'war on' programmes against drugs and terrorism has no definitive finish line. Does that mean government shouldn't aspire to improve the conditions of its citizens? Of course it could be well-intended but failed results. But I am not convinced that privatisation of different functions of government is the cure-all alternative that often comes up. One only need to look at the middle east to see how it isn't all rosy without government.

Trump's budget proposal thus far is an indication that they do not believe the role of the government includes taking care of the poor by cutting almost everything that was designed to help the poor. Their excuse is they don't believe those programmes work. They might have a point, but it is the same 'repeal and replace' rhetoric without the replacement part being well-thought out.

It also seems like they are cutting funding to programmes in the background that many take for granted to find funding for more programmes that tackle higher profile issues in recent years like those fighting opioid addiction and lead-based paint replacement. Seems to be an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something. Then again, at least they are proposing a badly needed federal fund for health emergencies like Zika though it is going along with huge cuts to FEMA grants and the departments that focuses on health research. Seems pretty ironic to focus on the cure and neglect research that could improve prevention. Maybe another move to score PR points.


----------



## MontyCora

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Your country does NOT need more education budget cuts.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> http://time.com/4704757/oklahoma-senator-ralph-shortey-child-prostitution/
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those looking for clues on Pizzagate need to look more closely at the other party? :lmao
> 
> And there is a law against engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church? So it is ok if it is 1,001 feet away from a church? :confused


Most states have an age of consent below 18. So most laws see 17 year old being able to consent. 

Apparently the state of Oklahoma, in their infinite wisdom, counts anyone under 18 as child prostitution.

So this law is punitive toward prostitution. 

This guy is still a piece a human garbage, but since the kid was 17, he's not a pedophile using this evidence.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> I promised myself after I was out of order to two members of the forum that I wouldn't be so confrontational when it comes to these threads but it annoys me that someone who I've never seen post in this thread come in here and make blank judgements with those concerned with spending and government waste. I look at *all spending*, I don't discriminate and certainly should not be lumped in with big government RINO's. I'm concerned with military spending as much as you, probably more so considering I've made at least 10 posts about it in the other Trump threads before you jumped in.


I've recognized over the last few days specifically that there's no point in wasting any effort or time on the SJW's in here. They're nothing but big government partisan hacks and they are already lost causes in terms of ideological tumors feasting on their rationality. 

Talk to the centrists and people on the fence. They're not only more apt to listen to you, but also remember what you say when it comes down to voting. 

You have some of the best posts in this thread.



> Overall the biggest concern for me is that with the increase in military spending, the promised $1 Trillion infrastructure bill and promises of no cuts to medicare, medicaid or social security that this will do very little to decrease overall spending. Which is a concern I had when Trump supporters gleamed about certain areas of government being cut and I am all for that, but the picture here is the deficits and the debt. If Trump is going to give out blank cheques to Defence without reform and not touch the major social programs then we'll get nowhere towards a balanced budget.


You know how I feel about the military and infrastructure. I consider them more leaning towards investment than school and healthcare. On the spectrum of investment to spending, I believe that Infrastructure would be in the middle, military would be investment, healthcare would be spending and education would be in the middle. From that perspective, it doesn't seem that bad. Though of course I'd rather the government just fuck off entirely lol, but that's not happening. However, to call everything that the government is adding to an expenditure is also technically incorrect. We need to remember what is investment and what is expenditure when we make the kind of analysis you did. 

I'm not for government investment in anything btw. I'm just saying that remember what is an investment and what is an expenditure makes it slightly more palatable. 

The other thing that people are crying about is that they're literally pretending that a government CUT = 0 government spending. Sure, you can cry about programs that lost all their federal funding, but that doesn't mean that they've lost their state funding either. People forget that federal spending isn't the only source of funding for all programs. It's just one source. Also, if you're so concerned about arts and all that BS, I don't really see why these people simply can't donate directly. It's because they want other people's money to go into their pet programs. It's like forcing me to pay for rice when I ordered a pizza and then crying when I say that I don't want to pay for rice but I'd rather pay for pizza - and then they won't pay for the rice either even though they can. They just want everyone to pay for rice. These are the sorts of people that will offer to pay $5 for a $50 meal and claim that the person paying $45 is a cheap bastard. How do you even rationalize with people like that?

That kind of intellectual dishonesty has to be a mental illness of some kind at this point. They're even crying about programs that are already far more reliant on private enterprise and charity than government funds and simply throwing irrational tantrums so they're not to be taken seriously at all.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> My opinion is more of a fact than anything else.


An opinion is opinion, not fact.


@MrMister we have to stop this thread from being so rude. This is a NICE thread. :trump3

Look at this, he negged me for my post. Sad!
Negs shouldn't be allowed in a nice thread. We should get rid of all neggers. Ban all neggers.
Even Alkomesh green repped me. I'll tell you, Alkomesh is a good man - bigly in comparison to Mra22 the negger.











Who will join me in making this thread a nice thread?

@RipNTear @L-DOPA @CamillePunk @birthday_massacre @DesolationRow @TheNightmareCometh @FriedTofu @Miss Sally @Goku @Dr. Middy

Re-enable my tags! It's not nice!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Get that red rep rant out of here Oxi darling. And I also disagree on being "nice". I pick and choose who I'm nice to and don't have to be nice to everybody ... why should I?


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

i will be nice als


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed, leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia and Albania. According to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros' Open Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.
> 
> "Unfortunately, we have received a credible report that, over the past few years, the U.S. Mission there has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as in the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring left-leaning political group over others. We find these reports discoraging and, if true, highly problematic."
> 
> "Much of the concerning activity in Macedonia has been perpetuated through USAID funds awarded to implementing entities such as George Soros' Open Society Foundations. As the recipient of multiple grant awards and serving as a USAID contractor implementing projects in this small nation of 2.1 million people, our taxpayer funded foreign aid goes far, allowing Foundation Open Society - Macedonia (FOSM) to push a progressive agenda and invigorate the political left. Our foreign aid should only be used to promote a political agenda if it is in the security or economic interests of our country to do so, and even at that, we must be cautious and respectful in such an endeavor. We should be especially wary of promoting policies that remain controversial even in our own country and that have the potential to harm our relationship with the citizens of recipient countries."
> As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia, and other Soros-linked organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.
> 
> The USAID website shows that between 2012 and 2016, USAID gave almost $5 million in taxpayer cash to FOSM for “The Civil Society Project,” which “aims to empower Macedonian citizens to hold government accountable.” USAID’s website links to www.soros.org.mk, and says the project trained hundreds of young Macedonians “in youth activism and the use of new media instruments.”
> 
> The State Department told lawmakers that in addition to that project, USAID has recently funded a new Civic Engagement Project which partners with four organizations, including FOSM. The cost is believed to be around $9.5 million.
> 
> A citizen’s initiative called “Stop Operation Soros” has also published a white paper alleging U.S. money has been funding violent riots in the streets, as well as a Macedonian version of Saul Alinsky’s far-left handbook “Rules for Radicals.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Macedonia isn't the only sovereign nation where U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding Soros' efforts to force his leftist political agenda down the throats of the disaffected youth.
> 
> "This problem is not limited to Macedonia, but appears to follow a pattern of alarming activity in this volatile region.
> Respected leaders from Albania have made similar claims of US diplomats and Soros-backed organizations pushing for certain political outcomes in their country. Foundation Open Society - Albania (FOSA) and its experts, with funding from USAID, have the controversial Strategy Document for Albania Judicial Reform. Some leaders believe that these "reforms" are ultimately aimed to give the Prime Minister and left-of-center government full control over judiciary power."
> Moreover, similar efforts in Hungary were blasted by Prime Minister Viktor Orban last month who expressed concern about Soros meddling in his country’s political fights, and warned about Soros’ “trans-border empire.” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told Fox News last month that they hoped that with a change in
> administration in Washington, the Soros-led push against their government would decrease.
> 
> “I think it is no secret and everyone knows about the very close relationship between the Democrats and George Soros and his foundations. It is obvious that if Hillary Clinton had won then this pressure on us would be much stronger. With Donald Trump winning we have the hope that this pressure will be decreased on us,” he said.
> Widely cited as an example of Soros’ influence during the Obama administration was a 2011 email, published by WikiLeaks, in which Soros urged Hillary Clinton to take action in Albania over recent demonstrations in the capital of Tirana. Among other things, Soros urged Clinton to “bring the full weight
> of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha and opposition leader Edi Rama".
> 
> Dear Hillary,
> 
> A serious situation has arisen in Albania which needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government. You may know that an opposition demonstration in Tirana on Friday resulted in the deaths of three people and the destruction of property. There are serious concerns about further unrest connected to a counter-demonstration to be organized by the governing party on Wednesday and a follow-up event by the opposition two days later to memorialize the victims. The prospect of tens of thousands of people entering the streets in an already inflamed political environment bodes ill for the return, of public order and the country's fragile democratic process.
> 
> I believe two things need to be done urgently:
> 
> 1. Bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha and opposition leader Edi Rama to forestall further public demonstrations and to tone down public pronouncements.
> 
> 2. Appoint a senior European official as a mediator.
> 
> While I am concerned about the rhetoric being used by both sides, I am particularly worried about the actions of the Prime Minister. There is videotape of National Guard members firing on demonstrators from the roof of the Prime Ministry. The Prosecutor (appointed by the Democratic Party) has issued arrest warrants for the individuals in question. The Prime Minister had previously accused the opposition of intentionally murdering these activists as a provocation.
> 
> After the tape came out deputies from his party accused the Prosecutor of planning a coup d'etat in collaboration with the opposition, a charge Mr. Berisha repeated today. No arrests have been made as of this writing. The demonstration resulted from opposition protests over the conduct of parliamentary elections in 2009. The political environment has deteriorated ever since and is now approaching levels of 1997, when similar issues caused the country to slide into anarchy and violence. There are signs that Edi Rama's control of his own people is slipping, which may lead to further violence.
> 
> The US and the EU must work in complete harmony over this, but given Albania's European aspirations the EU must take the lead. That is why I suggest appointing a mediator such as Carl Bildt. Martti Ahtisaari or Miroslav Lajcak, all of whom have strong connections to the Balkans.
> 
> My foundation in Tirana is monitoring the situation closely and can provide independent analysis of the crisis.
> 
> Thank you, George Soros
> Not surprisingly, within a few days, A U.S. envoy was dispatched.
> 
> Aren't we all so lucky that Hillary's State Department could rely on the "independent analysis" of George Soros during times of crisis?
> 
> * * *


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-16/senators-demand-investigation-taxpayer-funds-sent-soros-backed-leftist-groups-easter

About time someone went after Emperor Palpatine


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Looks like Van Jones is starting to get red pilled:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nce_and_what_corey_lewandowski_is_really.html


> *Don’t Become the Thing You’re Fighting*
> 
> *Isaac Chotiner: You said a few days ago that you’re concerned Trump is driving liberals insane. What did you mean by that?*
> *Van Jones:* I mean that there are two ways that Trump can be normalized. One is for us just to get used to him saying crazy things, lying, and attacking people, and that’s a big danger. There’s a more insidious danger, which is a danger of his becoming normalized at an emotional and social level. He is completely fear driven, he is completely polarizing, he is completely caught up in his own drama, and I’m starting to see liberals act the same way. We’re almost trying to fight polarization with polarization at this point, and I’m afraid that we’re feeding what we’re fighting.
> 
> *What exactly do you mean?*
> 
> Have you noticed that most of my fellow progressives are completely beside themselves most of the time?
> 
> *Yeah, well, we have a lunatic in the White House.*
> 
> Yes. There’s always a danger that you become the thing that you’re fighting. We could absolutely oppose all of his policies and his crazy personality, but, at the end of the day, we’re trying to assemble a governing majority. You can take your eyes off that prize. We needed 70,000 more votes in three states and then we would’ve had the White House. We already are getting 1.4 million more votes, 1.4 million more people come out to vote for Democrats than Republicans for Congress, but gerrymandering nullifies that outcome. We probably need another million people. I’m focused on trying to figure out how do we fight him but do so in a way that leaves a bridge open to definitely motivating more liberals, but also, understanding and converting more people who are right now in the Trump camp.
> 
> *OK, but when you say you don’t want liberals to become like Trump, what specifically are you worried about?*
> 
> A complete inability to self-reflect. I’m concerned that introspection, nuance, complexity are usually the hallmarks of liberals, and I’m seeing a death of that capacity. We are now as black and white as I’ve ever seen us, and more willing to engage in a kind of bigotry than I’ve ever seen. Every person who voted for Trump is, by definition, an ignorant, mouth-breathing, toothless idiot and a bigot, every single person. If you don’t agree with that, then you’re enabling or normalizing Trump. Well, that’s not a very nuanced, sophisticated view of the world or of human beings and it sounds like Trump.
> 
> I think people forget leaders have a tremendous impact on the culture. When Reagan was in office, everybody wanted to run to Wall Street and make a bunch of money. When Kennedy was in office, people went to join the Peace Corps. When Obama was in office, you had a real backlash, but during that eight years, you went from people being afraid to even say the word _marriage equality_ to it being a fact. You have to be very careful, when somebody gets that level of power, that it doesn’t begin to affect you in ways that you can’t track. What I’m saying is that progressives need to be better progressives. We need to fight even harder for what we believe in, but how we’re fighting needs to be aligned with our own principles.
> 
> *Isn’t there a difference between viewing issues like the Muslim ban as black and white, and figuring out how to talk to people (and about people) who support Trump in nuanced ways?*
> 
> Yes. Absolutely. I think I’ve been as outspoken on the question of treating Muslims with dignity and sticking up for Black Lives Matter and sticking up for trans people. What’s interesting is that people are in such a state of pain, such a state of fear, that things that I’m saying, which are ordinarily inarguable among progressives, sound like a threat. If I say, “Listen, let’s fight against all these policies but do it in a way that is respectful toward people who voted for Trump, and let’s actually look for common ground wherever it may show up with Trump supporters, not Trump, but with his supporters,” that actually sounds like a threat because right now anything other than blanket and wholesale opposition to everything Trump has ever done or said and everyone who’s ever supported him, even marginally, is required now by liberals. I just don’t think that that’s in keeping with our traditions.
> 
> I mean, you can fight very, very, very hard, I don’t know, like Dr. King did, like Nelson Mandela did, people who fought and gave up their lives and their liberty for these causes but still somehow managed to convey a level of grace and a level of empathy, even for their opponents.
> 
> *You wouldn’t have known that from Mandela’s opponents, who branded him a terrorist.*
> 
> It doesn’t matter what your opponents do; your opponents are going to do whatever they do. What I’m saying is that, and this is such basic—I mean, we’ve been so unmoored from just our basic traditions. Listen, I don’t say to extend some love and empathy toward those Trump voters to make the Trump voters better. I’m saying we should do that to make sure that we don’t become worse. That’s the big danger is that we all fall off this cliff along with him.
> 
> *Listen to Isaac Chotiner’s discussion with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his new podcast I Have to Ask:*
> 
> 
> _And click here to subscribe in iTunes._
> 
> *You said on your show, about liberals, “I don’t really want y’all to be in charge either.” What specifically is your fear about what will happen if the left keeps going down this path?*
> 
> I don’t have a utilitarian concern; I have an ethical concern. I want us to be good people. I want our kids to look at us and say, “Hey, when things get bad that’s how you handle it.” You will not give up one inch of rights or progress, you’re absolutely inflexible when it comes to defending the democracy from this authoritarian threat, and yet you conduct yourself in a way that any fair person would have to say, “You know what, those are good and decent people who deserve to be in charge.”
> 
> *I think part of the problem is people look at the Republicans over the past eight years and they see a party that put unified and often decidedly not “decent” opposition to Obama, and then nominated a racist vulgarian. And now they’ve won the White House and Congress and have complete power. In those circumstances, it’s hard to tell the people you need to act in a dignified way and only then can you regain power.*
> 
> Well, listen, there might be any number of ways to regain power, that’s not my preoccupation. Perhaps by being more horrible and hypocritical than Trump and the Tea Party combined, we might get some power. We need power to defend our communities that are under attack. I understand the temptation, but I also think that it has been our tradition to question means as well as ends, and the heroes we admire the most are the ones that had more harmony between their means and their ends. I am fighting to keep Trump from drowning our traditions. He’s already destroyed the Republicans, the best of the Republican traditions. Republicans used to be patriotic. Now, they’re willing to look the other way when Russia attacks the country. Republicans used to be respective of the Constitution.
> 
> *When was that?*
> 
> Well, I mean, at least rhetorically. I mean, listen, this is a party that was founded to end slavery and now they put up with neo-Nazis in their ranks.
> 
> *You got a lot of grief for saying nice things about Trump’s address to Congress. A lot of people on the left felt like he was using the widow of the Navy SEAL killed in Yemen, especially considering the haphazard nature of the raid. Do you think the reaction to your comment was an example of what you have been talking about?*
> 
> I mean, it’s certainly one sign of it. I’ve been warning against this for a long time. Look, people didn’t like what I said, but I will point out some very uncomfortable things. First of all, presidents put people in those boxes for their own political purposes every single time. They’ve been doing that since Reagan. The idea that Trump is somehow violating presidential standards by doing that is ludicrous because every president, including Obama, did that. That’s what that whole thing is for.
> 
> *OK but look—*
> 
> I can hear in your voice you have a level of emotional tension.
> 
> *Well, you don’t feel emotional tension right now?*
> 
> No, I do not.
> 
> *Really? OK.*
> 
> Because I’ve been black for a long time, and we’ve been through worse than this. The people who got us through did not act the way that the people are acting right now. I will tell you with a certainty that there is a way through racist authoritarian governments. My family lived under one for eight generations and they did not act this way, not when we were effective.
> 
> *I don’t have any response to that, that’s totally fair. But I understand why it enrages people when Trump is doing things like pursuing bigoted policies and separating parents from their children.*
> 
> Yeah, except most of the people who are really angry didn’t watch his speech or the coverage.
> 
> If you want me to, I’ll send you the clip, the full clip, of what I said, not the statement that became the click bait. I gave a very nuanced minute and a half, I gave a very nuanced statement about what he had achieved in that speech. I gave it as a compliment to him but a warning to others that if he continues in this way, we’re going to have problems.
> 
> *How much damage do you think can be done at the federal level to the environment in the next four years?*
> 
> Well, most of the momentum toward clean and green energy has come despite the federal government being sort of held at bay, but we don’t know how much damage an aggressive, unified federal onslaught can do. Listen, there are three scenarios. One scenario is what we were hoping with Obama in 2008: The federal government would get behind this bus and put some nitro in the tank and push it. We didn’t get that. The second is that the federal government at least stays out of the way and lets the entrepreneurs drive things forward, as they’ve been doing quite well. The third scenario is that the federal government starts trying to puncture the tires, and that’s really what we’re faced with now and we don’t know the outcome yet.
> 
> *In terms of criminal justice reform, how worried are you that the harsh policies sure to come from the federal level are going to filter down to the state and local level and reverse a lot of positive trends in criminal justice reform in the past couple of years?*
> 
> I think we’re in some peril for a couple of reasons. We fought hard to take the term _bipartisan criminal justice_ and turn it from an oxymoron into a cliché so that it was just absolutely safe for anybody and everybody to get on board with smarter approaches. Trump, when he first started running, was an outlier in his own party in his opposition to any kind of thoughtful approach. There is a danger that his backward view contaminates other people’s good thinking, but we are redoubling efforts. I mean, my organization, #cut50 just did a national day of action in, I think, 40 states. I called it a day of empathy on a bipartisan basis, sticking up for progress. I think we’re going to have to redouble efforts, but I think the jury is still out on so many things.
> 
> *Finally, what are Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski really like?*
> 
> Jeffrey is a complete sweetheart, and Corey is not.
> 
> *When I see the Trump people on CNN I always think, kind of, maybe, deep down, they’re playing a little bit of a role.*
> 
> Not Jeffrey, not Jeffrey. Jeffrey says what he says on set, during the break, in the men’s room.
> 
> *But Corey’s not the nicest guy?*
> 
> Corey is not a sweetheart.


Redpilling pretty much always starts with realizing that your side has become too hysterical and lost the debate. And throughout the interview Van Jones is showing signs of being redpilled. He's at least come a long way from his white-lash rhetoric. Still needs a lot more work because he's still pushing the Russia bullshit and hasn't yet recognized that while republicans are in bed with racists, the president himself is anything but one. :lmao 

I'm more interested now in following journalists that are engaged in self-reflection and self-criticism because that's the first sign of them breaking out of the liberal box.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Looks like Van Jones is starting to get red pilled:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nce_and_what_corey_lewandowski_is_really.html
> Redpilling pretty much always starts with realizing that your side has become too hysterical and lost the debate. And throughout the interview Van Jones is showing signs of being redpilled. He's at least come a long way from his white-lash rhetoric. Still needs a lot more work because he's still pushing the Russia bullshit and hasn't yet recognized that while republicans are in bed with racists, the president himself is anything but one. :lmao
> 
> I'm more interested now in following journalists that are engaged in self-reflection and self-criticism because that's the first sign of them breaking out of the liberal box.






Heretic, heretic!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/



> *Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion*
> 
> From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
> 
> The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
> 
> The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
> 
> But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
> 
> Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”
> 
> Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
> 
> Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.
> Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
> 
> What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
> Media figures have similarly begun trying to tamp down expectations. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which published the Steele dossier, published an article yesterday warning that the Democratic base’s expectation of a smoking gun “is so strong that Twitter and cable news are full of the theories of what my colleague Charlie Warzel calls the Blue Detectives — the left’s new version of Glenn Beck, digital blackboards full of lines and arrows.” Smith added: “It is also a simple fact that while news of Russian actions on Trump’s behalf is clear, hard details of coordination between his aides and Putin’s haven’t emerged.” And Smith’s core warning is this:Trump’s critics last year were horrified at the rise of “fake news” and the specter of a politics shaped by alternative facts, predominantly on the right. They need to be careful now not to succumb to the same delusional temptations as their political adversaries, and not to sink into a filter bubble which, after all, draws its strength not from conservative or progressive politics but from human nature.
> And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don’t, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.​For so long, Democrats demonized and smeared anyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: “Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.”
> 
> But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> A formal, credible investigation into all these questions, where the evidence is publicly disclosed, is still urgently needed. That’s true primarily so that conspiracies no longer linger and these questions are resolved by facts rather than agenda-driven anonymous leaks from the CIA and cable news hosts required to feed a partisan mob.
> 
> It’s certainly possible to envision an indictment of a low-level operative like Carter Page, or the prosecution of someone like Paul Manafort on matters unrelated to hacking, but the silver bullet that Democrats have been led to expect will sink Trump appears further away than ever.
> 
> But given the way these Russia conspiracies have drowned out other critical issues being virtually ignored under the Trump presidency, it’s vital that everything be done now to make clear what is based in evidence and what is based in partisan delusions. And most of what the Democratic base has been fed for the last six months by their unhinged stable of media, online, and party leaders has decisively fallen into the latter category, as even their own officials are now desperately trying to warn.


Looks like the Russia hysteria might be coming to an end. Only the Alex Jones's of the democrats will keep it up. McCain calling Rand Paul a Russian is probably taking it a step too far since he's also linked heavily to Pissgate. Either this is a stroke of genius by sacrificing McCain like this, or McCain is just stark raving mad.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> =
> P.s. I didn't know we had a law named after the leader of Al QUeda. You must be getting that confused with the last President of the United States - *the Honorable* Barack Obama.


Yeah "honorable" for someone who tried to quietly send millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to Palestine(remember that?) as he was leaving office. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


If that's "honorable", then the LEFTISTS' views are warped(unsurprising).


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> This is a nice thread!


Oxi with that :fakenews


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Yeah "honorable" for someone who tried to quietly send millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to Palestine(remember that?) as he was leaving office).



Where'd ya get that one? Alex Jones?

I also wasn't aware that there was a country named Palestine. The fact that there should be is of not the point . . . or maybe it is


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842467303363031040


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Erdogan pretty much openly admitted that refugees are weapons as he just threatened to release 15000 ' refugees ' a month into Europe.

Even the Muslims openly don't give a shit about nuance anymore or pretending that this isn't an invasion. It's an open invasion and people who want mass immigration are fools destined to destroy everything for everyone. 

BTW the lefties here pretend that mass immigration and selective immigration are the same things but their ignorance and eventual quoting of this post with their autistic screeching will be ignored.

I'm not a nice person. I came here in part to get away from muslin cunts with the express intent to assimilate so I'll oppose anyone who wants to import hoards of savages who don't align with the moral excellence of the West.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Please stop entering a thread just to tell someone to leave because of their beliefs. :armfold
> They have every right to their opinion! This is a nice thread!


Admit it. You're entertained by BM's saltiness, aren't you? :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> Where'd ya get that one? Alex Jones?




Are you kidding me?

There was an entire news story about it :



http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-queitly-sends-221-million-to-palestine-2017-1

https://www.apnews.com/b8446cbf5b504b1abaf49eb0d646367b

http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/obama-sent-palestine-221m-hours-before-leaving-office/

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...ased-221-million-in-aid-money-to-palestinians

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gave-palestinians-221-million-obamas-last-day-office-547363



It never hurts to GOOGLE before spouting nonsense, you know? fpalm



EDIT : So yes. The word "honorable" should NEVER be associated with Obama EVER after what he pulled here.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Admit it. You're entertained by BM's saltiness, aren't you? :lol


Oxo is the forum's resident "centrist" so that he can play both sides whenever he feels like it 

:cookie


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Admit it. You're entertained by BM's saltiness, aren't you? :lol


Or he is a fan of facts , something you and most Trump supporters seem to ignore.




Mra22 said:


> Can you please exit this thread and never return? Liberals are so annoying



This is you and the trump supporters in this thread


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> EDIT : So yes. The word "honorable" should NEVER be associated with Obama EVER after what he pulled here.


I guess You also forgot to see this sentence from the third sentence in THE HILL article you linked 

" . . . Congress had initially approved the spending. 

The other interesting sentence is " . . . The $221 million sent to the Palestinian Authority is intended to provide humanitarian aid in ares such as Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to support political reforms there. . . . "

So, what's your problem here? The U.S. (both Republicans and Democrats) has been sending foreign aid around the globe for more than a century. Not all of those areas were in tip top shape. This is nothing new or scandalous or clandestine. 

So, your beef is with Congress I guess. They appropriate money. The President does not.


----------



## Cabanarama

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Yeah "honorable" for someone who tried to quietly send millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to Palestine(remember that?) as he was leaving office. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> 
> If that's "honorable", then the LEFTISTS' views are warped(unsurprising).


You mean the money that had been set aside to send to the PA for humanitarian aid which congress had already approved of a couple years prior? 



wagnergrad96 said:


> Where'd ya get that one? Alex Jones?
> 
> I also wasn't aware that there was a country named Palestine. The fact that there should be is of not the point . . . or maybe it is


They'll get a country as soon as they're willing to live peacefully next to a Jewish country



RipNTear said:


> Erdogan pretty much openly admitted that refugees are weapons as he just threatened to release 15000 ' refugees ' a month into Europe.
> 
> Even the Muslims openly don't give a shit about nuance anymore or pretending that this isn't an invasion. It's an open invasion and people who want mass immigration are fools destined to destroy everything for everyone.
> 
> BTW the lefties here pretend that mass immigration and selective immigration are the same things but their ignorance and eventual quoting of this post with their autistic screeching will be ignored.
> 
> I'm not a nice person. I came here in part to get away from muslin cunts with the express intent to assimilate so I'll oppose anyone who wants to import hoards of savages who don't align with the moral excellence of the West.


If you're a migrant, you shouldn't have a say on what other immigrants are allowed in, period.
And besides, there are already many people in America whose views align very closely with that of the Islamic extremists.... they are the fundamentalist Christian right


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Cabanarama said:


> If you're a migrant, you shouldn't have a say on what other immigrants are allowed in, period.
> And besides, there are already many people in America whose views align very closely with that of the Islamic extremists.... they are the fundamentalist Christian right and are the main core of the Republican party.


"I'm a paragon of virtue. The defender of human rights. How DARE YOU have the right to oppose something that I favor because it flies in the face of MY virtue signalling therefore it's ok for me to want to take YOUR LEGALLY obtained rights away from you!" This has to be the SINGLE most stupid statement I've ever read on any forum ever. 

:lmao :lmao 

Another dishonest one who doesn't understand or even care about the difference between muslims and their beliefs and christians and their beliefs :lmao


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Cabanarama said:


> They'll get a country as soon as they're willing to live peacefully next to a Jewish country


More Likely when the Isrealis finally stop building housing settlements on their lands and decide to negotiate in good faith. Netanyahu should be a role model for Trump. He can see that someone can do even when more than half of the citizens in a country despise him.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wagnergrad96 said:


> I guess You also forgot to see this sentence from the third sentence in THE HILL article you linked
> 
> " . . . Congress had initially approved the spending.
> 
> The other interesting sentence is " . . . The $221 million sent to the Palestinian Authority is intended to provide humanitarian aid in ares such as Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to support political reforms there. . . . "
> 
> So, what's your problem here? The U.S. (both Republicans and Democrats) has been sending foreign aid around the globe for more than a century. Not all of those areas were in tip top shape. This is nothing new or scandalous or clandestine.
> 
> So, your beef is with Congress I guess. They appropriate money. The President does not.


Yes. "INITIALLY" but he waited until the very last day in office to do this instead of doing it the day it was approved. It seems to me he wanted to avoid any questions on why we were sending so much foreign aid to Palestine(or whatever the name of the place you believe it is). :shrug

Anyway, the bottom line is he gave away money that undoubtedly came from Taxpayers pockets and more than likely didn't want to explain himself for this. 

221 million is not something one can sweep under the rug here no matter how liberals can spin it.


Though I'm sure you'll do your best. Oh joy. 

Maybe I should consider "ignoring" you, too? (for some reason, the ignore feature for me doesn't show up so I just skip through(and not even read) those that are "dead" to me)


----------



## wagnergrad96

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Yes. "INITIALLY" but he waited until the very last day in office to do this instead of doing it the day it was approved. It seems to me he wanted to avoid any questions on why we were sending so much foreign aid to Palestine(or whatever the name of the place you believe it is). :shrug
> 
> Anyway, the bottom line is he gave away money that undoubtedly came from Taxpayers pockets and more than likely didn't want to explain himself for this. 221 million is not something one can sweep under the rug here no matter how liberals can spin it.



Again, your beef is with Congress and with how they allocate tax payer money. I'm sure you and could find many things we agree on in that area, as well as many we don't. Your beef here is not with Obama. He waited for congress to take their hold off money they had already approved and he did it before he left office. . . You seem to be in a very small minority of people who are outraged by this.

221 million is the cost of basically one Trump trip to Mar-a-Lago for a weekend of golf. Each citizen paid about .75 cents for that. Calm down.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yep. Definitely proceeding with my "ignore" plan for yet another SAP who can't see the forest from the trees.

(awaiting for next Vic Capri, virus, Miss Sally, or Rip post)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Yep. Definitely proceeding with my "ignore" plan for yet another SAP who can't see the forest from the trees.
> 
> (awaiting for next Vic Capri, virus, Miss Sally, or Rip post)


Keep fapping


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My word it was fantastic to see the Irish PM rinse Trump when he is right next to him. Ballsy guy, salute.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> My word it was fantastic to see the Irish PM rinse Trump when he is right next to him. Ballsy guy, salute.





> Irish Prime Minister @EndaKennyTD tells @realDonaldTrump that for over 200 years, millions of Irish immigrants have called America home.


So what does that have to do with the Muslim ban? :shrug

Or ILLEGAL immigrants? :shrug


I doubt any of those Irish immigrants aren't Legit U.S. Citizens that went through the process like any law-abiding American.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> So what does that have to do with the Muslim ban? :shrug


OH so you admit its a Muslim ban then?

So why do you have a problem with the judges blocking a Muslim ban since banning people based on their religion is unconstitutional


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










So many caption possibilities. :ken


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Blackbeard said:


> So many caption possibilities. :ken


We could have a lot of fun with this. :lol


*Lady :* "So Mr. President, what's your opinion on the Democrats concern for....."


*Trump :* *ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Irish were vetted immigrants/settlers, poor folk and also indentured servants that were a few steps higher than actual slaves so for the Irish PM to call them all immigrants and use that as a justification for forcing America to take on more immigrants (when Ireland itself is something like 95% white and STILL hasn't gotten over its oppression of its own people) is pretty shabby and disingenuous.

Maybe he should step up his refugee program or shut the fuck up. I doubt that he can even feed his 4.7 million people without handouts from the rest of europe though.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

the only people the irish have ever jihaded against are themselves and vikings and english

so kind of a big difference between irish immigrants 120 years ago and middle eastern immigrants today


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

During his conference with Merkel, Trump just said threw this jab regarding wiretapping: Maybe now Germany and I have something in common. 8*D

Looks like he won't be giving up that ghost any time soon, though it was deliciously spicy regardless. :trump

While I don't necessarily believe that he was wiretapped, I can definitely understand why Trump believes he was when taking the Vault 7 info into account.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> During his conference with Merkel, Trump just said threw this jab regarding wiretapping: Maybe now Germany and I have something in common. 8*D
> 
> Looks like he won't be giving up that ghost any time soon, though it was deliciously spicy regardless. :trump
> 
> While I don't necessarily believe that he was wiretapped, I can definitely understand why Trump believes he was when taking the Vault 7 info into account.


we all know why Trump is worried he was wiretapped. 

He is afraid calls of him trying to







were recorded.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Let's see.

-Trump winds up the UK with Yet More Wiretapping Allegations
-Tries to impose a travel ban, again. It is shot down, again
-Some posturing against Best Korea

I've probably missed some things?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Let's see.
> 
> -Trump winds up the UK with Yet More Wiretapping Allegations
> -Tries to impose a travel ban, again. It is shot down, again
> -Some posturing against Best Korea
> 
> I've probably missed some things?


If you're being serious then Ben Shapiro has been doing a weekly grading on Trump. I'm on my phone otherwise I'd link you. Should be easy to find. It's on the daily wire.

I tend to agree with his analysis.


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Is The Donald even aware that he just threw Fox News under the bus? He told reporters to talk to Fox because they broke the story, not the White House. This is going to get very interesting and I am anxious to see how Fox responds, or if they will tuck their balls between their legs. Trump claiming that he and Merkel have something in common was painful to see and hear. Did anyone happen to see this live? It was more uncomfortable than any scene on the former show "The Office". Trump refuses to call Fox "fake news" and apparently Fox is actually reporting fake news and Donald Trump is getting his information from them.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



blackholeson said:


> *Is The Donald even aware that he just threw Fox News under the bus? He told reporters to talk to Fox because they broke the story, not the White House. This is going to get very interesting and I am anxious to see how Fox responds, or if they will tuck their balls between their legs. Trump claiming that he and Merkel have something in common was painful to see and hear. Did anyone happen to see this live? It was more uncomfortable than any scene on the former show "The Office". Trump refuses to call Fox "fake news" and apparently Fox is actually reporting fake news and Donald Trump is getting his information from them.*


Trump should be more aware he threw himself under the bus, he is admitting he just watches fox news and tweets out or says anything they put on fox news without fact checking it first.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...eland-for-2019-open-at-portrush-35539011.html

Ian Paisley Jr. :HA

Don't get me started on the DUP.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

On a side note(and OT), I finally found the ignore list feature. Apparently, the "skin" I've been using(Wrestling Classic I), which was the old design of this site, for some reason did not have the link to the ignore list. Weird.





Well anyway....Long story short : 


*Birthday_Massacre? * You know what happens when you annoy the hell out of people? 







You know what happens when you refuse to stop your whining about Trump?




BM.....*YOU JUST MADE THE LIST!* :thelist





EDIT : I've also added *wagnergrad96* because the 221 mil report is apparently a figment of Alex Jones imagination to him. Can't have intelligent conversations with someone like that. Oh well.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://louderwithcrowder.com/netflix-changes-user-reviews-response-painfully-unfunny-amy-schumer-special/

Miss Piggy got OWNED! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> we all know why Trump is worried he was wiretapped.
> 
> He is afraid calls of him trying to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> were recorded.


Meh, could be worse. Like directly going to war with them over supposedly real election tampering that has become widely viewed as the boy who cried wolf.

Also, Trump x Putin is one of the OTPs I hold very near and dear to my heart, so let their forbidden love continue to blossom. >:I


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think Trump is just calling random people out hoping one will go "FUCK YA GOT ME!!!"

If you hit enough people I'm sure at least one of them will be guilty of something


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

i wonder what God Emperor Shitlord's opinion of paigefap is


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> On a side note(and OT), I finally found the ignore list feature. Apparently, the "skin" I've been using(Wrestling Classic I), which was the old design of this site, for some reason did not have the link to the ignore list. Weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well anyway....Long story short :
> 
> 
> *Birthday_Massacre? * You know what happens when you annoy the hell out of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what happens when you refuse to stop your whining about Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BM.....*YOU JUST MADE THE LIST!* :thelist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT : I've also added *wagnergrad96* because the 221 mil report is apparently a figment of Alex Jones imagination to him. Can't have intelligent conversations with someone like that. Oh well.



You and your little Trump crew


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

DOJ has appealed the travel ban ruling in Maryland to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been becoming more and more centrist after many years of being conservative-leaning.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> This message is hidden because birthday_massacre is on your ignore list.


So relieved to have found that damn ignore page. 




Anyway, it's a guarantee that the Appeals court will once again NOT overturn the decision. If they do, it would shock me a lot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> So relieved to have found that damn ignore page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it's a guarantee that the Appeals court will once again NOT overturn the decision. If they do, it would shock me a lot.


Enjoy your safe space because you could not accept facts and refused to talk about them. LOL


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> C*omparing the war on poverty to the Apollo mission is disingenuous. One had a definitive finish line while the other has a ever changing goal post.* Similarly, other 'war on' programmes against drugs and terrorism has no definitive finish line. Does that mean government shouldn't aspire to improve the conditions of its citizens? Of course it could be well-intended but failed results. But I am not convinced that privatisation of different functions of government is the cure-all alternative that often comes up. One only need to look at the middle east to see how it isn't all rosy without government.
> 
> *Trump's budget proposal thus far is an indication that they do not believe the role of the government includes taking care of the poor* by cutting almost everything that was designed to help the poor. Their excuse is they don't believe those programmes work. They might have a point, but it is the same 'repeal and replace' rhetoric without the replacement part being well-thought out.
> 
> It also seems like they are cutting funding to programmes in the background that many take for granted to find funding for more programmes that tackle higher profile issues in recent years like those fighting opioid addiction and lead-based paint replacement. *Seems to be an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something.* Then again, at least they are proposing a badly needed federal fund for health emergencies like Zika though it is going along with huge cuts to FEMA grants and the departments that focuses on health research. Seems pretty ironic to focus on the cure and neglect research that could improve prevention. Maybe another move to score PR points.


I think it goes without saying that the government shouldn't be getting involved in anything where the goal posts move.

The solution to helping the poor shouldn't be to give them money. It should be to give them jobs. Plain and simple. I don't know a single addict that did better by getting more of what they're addicted to.

Scoring PR points of looking like they are doing something? Be careful with that much spin, your head might pop off. Was Obamacare an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something? Was the bailout an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something? Be careful how you're throwing your stones, it could richochet and hit you in the face.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA; @CamillePunk

I don't think the big government statists are capable of understanding the stats presenting below, so this is mainly for you two:



> (K.R.) The United States spends nearly a trillion dollars every single year on anti-poverty programs.
> $668 billion spent by 126 federal anti-poverty programs.
> $284 billion spent by state welfare programs.
> $952 BILLION TOTAL SPENT PER YEAR
> That's $86,000 per family of four in poverty. And yet 47 million remain in poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the clean link incase you guys want to zoom in on your PC to read the details:
> 
> https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn....=4dd2eeabc5e7a80b36cf1cc919ac402a&oe=5964B262
> 
> SOURCES:
> https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
> http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2012/10/special-welfare-spending-2012_HIGHRES.jpg
> https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
> https://waysandmeans.house.gov/chai...g-welfare-programs-to-serve-families-in-need/


Just more evidence why government spending is misappropriated. The idea that government can fix poverty is the biggest con of the last half-century.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA; @CamillePunk
> 
> I don't think the big government statists are capable of understanding the stats presenting below, so this is mainly for you two:
> 
> 
> Just more evidence why government spending is misappropriated. The idea that government can fix poverty is the biggest con of the last half-century.


The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.


There's a reason why this money just doesn't end up in the hands of people directly. How else with the government officials and bureaucrats and lobbyists get their cut. 

It's a classic pyramid scheme.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> There's a reason why this money just doesn't end up in the hands of people directly. How else with the government officials and bureaucrats and lobbyists get their cut.
> 
> It's a classic pyramid scheme.


Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> My word it was fantastic to see the Irish PM rinse Trump when he is right next to him. Ballsy guy, salute.


Exactly what does this have to with the travel ban?

During the time the Irish were coming over there wasn't a problem with Irish terrorists.

Exactly how is it great or insulting to Trump? He never said he wants to stop legal immigration. 

I really fail to see how these are even connected, the reach is so great that you'd need a grabber arm just to even try to get it.

Maybe once these mostly white countries start practicing what they preach they can say something. Maybe when they have tons of illegals coming over and shipping money back home, they would have a reason to try and posture. This is why people laugh at Europeans and Canadians, they talk out out of their ass and virtue signal without knowing what the hell they're virtue signaling.


----------



## Nolo King

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love Trump, but he messed up big time with that wire tap accusation.

Besides that, he should keep up the good work!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842919081795883011
Trump not shaking Merkel's hand looks like a pre-arranged bit of political theater as she didn't extend her hand either. I don't really care about what it indicates, but it was something pre-arranged or discussed. Neither made the first move so you can't blame just one person. 

Submitting a pic of Trump shaking May's hand for context. (and that actually looks like a death grip too :lmao).


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> A judge has refused to toss out a federal lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California, in which the city police are accused of allowing an angry mob of left-wing agitators and violent protesters to target peaceful pro-Trump ralliers.
> 
> Several people were injured during the June 2 rally. A picture of a pro-Trump woman being pelted by eggs during the incident went viral last spring.
> 
> “Citizens ranging from their teens to their 70s were assaulted, abused, chased, hunted, and terrorized in a situation for which the city is responsible.”
> The city was sued by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, in a pro bono case, representing some of the victims. Dhillon, the national committeewoman of the California Republican Party and a contender to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, also attended the rally.
> 
> “Citizens ranging from their teens to their 70s were assaulted, abused, chased, hunted, and terrorized in a situation for which the city is responsible, and must now answer,” Dhillon told LifeZette. “This lawsuit seeks to vindicate the principle that every American — regardless of his or her political beliefs — is entitled to equal protection of the laws, and to the rights of free speech and free assembly, particularly in the support of their candidate of choice.”
> 
> The unfortunate series of events happened just weeks after Republican businessman Donald Trump had sewn up the GOP presidential nomination in May 2016. The Trump supporters were leaving the San Jose rally, exiting the convention center on June 2.
> …ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW…
> 
> Trending Videos
> 
> Chelsea Clinton ‘Persists’ with New Book
> LifeZette.com
> 
> 
> 1:15
> Springing...
> 0:45
> 235,000 Jobs...
> 1:01
> Refugee...
> 0:47
> Nation’s...
> 1:14
> Chelsea...
> 1:02
> Pain Meds...
> 1:08
> Knights of...
> 0:54
> Kids Can’t...
> 0:54
> 0:58
> 1:26
> 1:08
> 1:22
> 1:03
> 1:20
> 0:52
> 1:02
> 0:55
> 0:58
> 0:45
> 0:55
> 0:52
> 0:51
> 0:52
> 1:13
> 0:56
> 0:46
> 1:00
> 1:03
> 0:57
> 1:02
> 1:09
> 0:53
> 1:04
> 0:59
> 1:20
> 0:45
> 1:12
> 0:55
> 0:58
> 1:15
> 0:45
> 1:01
> 0:47
> 1:14
> Chelsea...
> 1:02
> Pain Meds...
> 1:08
> Knights of...
> 0:54
> Kids Can’t...
> 
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Jacob Rascon ✔ @Jacobnbc
> Woman who supports Trump surrounded by protesters, who taunt her, then throw eggs and bottles at her.
> 9:33 PM - 2 Jun 2016
> 3,312 3,312 Retweets 2,394 2,394 likes
> Police had lined up and guided the attendees along various pathways outside.
> 
> But as the pro-Trump attendees turned one final corner, they were led straight into what was described as an anti-Trump riot.
> 
> Some people took shelter in nearby buildings. But it was too late, according to people at the event.
> 
> "It felt like we were the lamb being led to the slaughterhouse," said Juan Hernandez, a Trump supporter who suffered a broken nose, speaking to The Mercury News. "I went down into a fetal position and the punches were coming in at every angle. The officers weren't doing anything as the attacks were happening. This should not happen anywhere — no matter who you support, Democrat or Republican — this should not happen."
> 
> In July, the first federal civil rights complaint was filed. Dhillon's law firm has been battling motions from the city to dismiss the case since then. Some state civil rights claims were dismissed, but the lion's share of the complaint — the federal civil rights claim — remains in the case, as does the claim for negligence against the city. A judge refused to throw those claims out in a decision Wednesday.
> 
> Dhillon, a candidate to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, is a Sikh-American who was born in India. Her experiences witnessing hate crimes against Sikhs led her to believe that if civil rights laws are on the books, conservatives and Republicans must use them in court if they encounter violence and suppression of their constitutional rights.
> 
> "San Jose has had two opportunities to dismiss this case, and now must defend the indefensible: its 250-plus police officers' utter inaction in the face of a violent mob riot they forced Trump supporters to walk through," Dhillon told LifeZette Friday. "San Jose violated these constitutional rights and the public trust, and we hope to make sure, through this civil rights case, that this travesty is never repeated."
> 
> Dhillon's law firm has amassed huge bills in suing the city of San Jose, and the plaintiffs have set up a GoFundMe page to keep the case going.
> 
> The San Jose city attorney blames President Trump for lingering after the rally and meeting with VIPs.
> 
> "Unfortunately, Mr. Trump hung around after the event to meet with the VIPs," said Rick Doyle, San Jose city attorney, speaking to The Mercury News. "And the Secret Service wouldn't allow anyone in that area. I think we'll sort that out in deposition."


http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-ralliers-notch-win-lawsuit-san-jose/?utm_content=buffer7d0ee&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA; @CamillePunk
> 
> I don't think the big government statists are capable of understanding the stats presenting below, so this is mainly for you two:
> 
> 
> Just more evidence why government spending is misappropriated. The idea that government can fix poverty is the biggest con of the last half-century.


My head just exploded. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Exactly what does this have to with the travel ban?
> 
> During the time the Irish were coming over there wasn't a problem with Irish terrorists.
> 
> Exactly how is it great or insulting to Trump? He never said he wants to stop legal immigration.
> 
> I really fail to see how these are even connected, the reach is so great that you'd need a grabber arm just to even try to get it.
> 
> Maybe once these mostly white countries start practicing what they preach they can say something. Maybe when they have tons of illegals coming over and shipping money back home, they would have a reason to try and posture. This is why people laugh at Europeans and Canadians, *they talk out out of their ass and virtue signal* without knowing what the hell they're virtue signaling.



Basically a description of the LEFT over here. :sleep :sleep :sleep





RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842919081795883011
> Trump not shaking Merkel's hand looks like a pre-arranged bit of political theater as she didn't extend her hand either. I don't really care about what it indicates, but it was something pre-arranged or discussed. Neither made the first move so you can't blame just one person.
> 
> Submitting a pic of Trump shaking May's hand for context. (*and that actually looks like a death grip too* :lmao).


You think he wants to grab her by the pussy? I wouldn't suggest it, Donald. :lmao


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The resistance folks:lol



> Coping strategies used by distressed liberals to deal with President Donald Trump’s November election victory are now being used to prepare activists to “resist” the Trump agenda.
> 
> Coddled college kids across the country tried group cry-ins, group hug-ins, coloring with crayons, and even finger-painting to deal with the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> “Our breath is so precious,” Johnson continued, “and if it wasn’t so precious Eric Garner would be alive, rest in peace.”
> Now adult snowflake activists are using breathing exercises to prepare for anti-Trump protests.
> 
> During a MoveOn.Org “Ready to Resist: Emergency Call” this week — part of a weekly teleconference organized by the Working Families Party that brings together leftist activists to discuss “the resistance” — Mark-Anthony Johnson, health director for a group called Dignity and Power NOW, led those on the call in a number of breathing exercises.
> 
> 00:00
> 03:15
> "Right now I'm going to ask everyone who's on this call to take a moment and just breathe with me," Johnson began. "This is a simple technique that you can use as we're in the tactics, as we're in the strategy, as we're in the back-to-back actions that we're going to be in we can take a moment to breathe," he said.
> 
> "Our breath is so precious," Johnson continued, "and if it wasn't so precious Eric Garner would be alive, rest in peace."
> 
> ...ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW...
> Trending Videos
> 
> 1:15
> Springing...
> 0:45
> 235,000 Jobs...
> 1:01
> Refugee...
> 0:47
> Nation’s...
> 1:14
> Chelsea...
> 1:02
> Pain Meds...
> 1:08
> Knights of...
> 0:54
> Kids Can’t...
> 0:54
> 0:58
> 1:26
> 1:08
> 1:22
> 1:03
> 1:20
> 0:52
> 1:02
> 0:55
> 0:58
> 0:45
> 0:55
> 0:52
> 0:51
> 0:52
> 1:13
> 0:56
> 0:46
> 1:00
> 1:03
> 0:57
> 1:02
> 1:09
> 0:53
> 1:04
> 0:59
> 1:20
> 0:45
> 1:12
> 0:55
> 0:58
> 1:15
> 0:45
> 1:01
> 0:47
> 1:14
> Chelsea...
> 1:02
> Pain Meds...
> 1:08
> Knights of...
> 0:54
> Kids Can’t...
> 
> "We're gonna take a moment to just breathe and I invite you to take three seconds to inhale and three seconds to exhale," Johnson said, before counting out the seconds for all those involved and then repeating the three seconds in, three seconds out exercise another two times.
> 
> Then it was time to really get serious and take the breathing exercises to the next level.
> 
> 
> ‘Save The Snowflakes’ Offers Help to Triggered Millennials
> Media watchdog mocks anti-Trump students in need of hot chocolate, puppies and coloring books
> "It's important in these moments of high response and rapid response that we make time to let our bodies know that we can be our whole self [so] we're actually going to go a little deeper into this," Johnson prepared his audience. "Five seconds to inhale, five seconds to exhale."
> 
> When Johnson arrived at the final part of his exercise, he invited the participants to grunt in order to shed their frustrations with the Trump era.
> 
> "And this last piece what I would invite you to do — once again you could do this anywhere — allow that exhale to make a sound," said Johnson.
> 
> "Whatever's in your body right now, or whatever frustrations, excitement, [or] joy … give it a sound," he said, before making an indescribably uncomfortable noise.


http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/left-wing-activists-prepare-resistance-breathing-exercises/


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Virus, that sounds like an article that's from the Onion. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I think it goes without saying that the government shouldn't be getting involved in anything where the goal posts move.
> 
> The solution to helping the poor shouldn't be to give them money. It should be to give them jobs. Plain and simple. I don't know a single addict that did better by getting more of what they're addicted to.
> 
> Scoring PR points of looking like they are doing something? Be careful with that much spin, your head might pop off. Was Obamacare an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something? Was the bailout an attempt to score PR points of looking like they are doing something? Be careful how you're throwing your stones, it could richochet and hit you in the face.


So you are saying government should hire more people?

Obamacare was a compromise to address rising healthcare costs in America since most Americans do not want a single payer system. The rate of increase in healthcare costs has decreased under the ACA. It remains to be seen if Trumpcare can continue this trend if implemented. The bailout was a bipartisan move to save the auto industry and banking industry from collapsing in America. The crisis was just 8 years ago, seems like you have a short attention span on how bad it got. One administration is cutting almost everything else to fund their 'doing something'. The other not so much.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> So you are saying government should hire more people?
> 
> Obamacare was a compromise to address rising healthcare costs in America *since most Americans do not want a single payer system*. The rate of increase in healthcare costs has decreased under the ACA. It remains to be seen if Trumpcare can continue this trend if implemented. The bailout was a bipartisan move to save the auto industry and banking industry from collapsing in America. The crisis was just 8 years ago, seems like you have a short attention span on how bad it got. One administration is cutting almost everything else to fund their 'doing something'. The other not so much.


that is not true, most Americans want a single payer system.



http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/the...le_payer_medicare_for_all_health_care_system/

*
They agree with Bernie: Majority of Americans support single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” health care system
Gallup poll: 58% of U.S. adults support Sanders' health care policy, including 73% of Dems and 41% of Republicans
*

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> So you are saying government should hire more people?
> 
> Obamacare was a compromise to address rising healthcare costs in America since most Americans do not want a single payer system. The rate of increase in healthcare costs has decreased under the ACA. It remains to be seen if Trumpcare can continue this trend if implemented. The bailout was a bipartisan move to save the auto industry and banking industry from collapsing in America. The crisis was just 8 years ago, seems like you have a short attention span on how bad it got. One administration is cutting almost everything else to fund their 'doing something'. The other not so much.


First, when you say, "The rate of increase in healthcare costs has decreased under the ACA", what exactly are you referring to? Premiums? You can't mean premiums, that has increased, so what are you referring to?

As for everything else, should government hire more people? Where did you get that out of what I said? When it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to you, which is the what the government does, I don't want them getting involved in anything where they can't accurately forecast how much of that money is going to be spent to fund that program, especially when it's a program that could conceivably cost TRILLIONS of dollars. That's just fiscally irresponsible.

Here's where I stand on healthcare, if the problem is that there are people out there who want healthcare and can't get it, then the solution isn't to steal money from people and give it to others. The solution is to drive down the cost of healthcare. Once the government gets involved the solution is always, always, to just take money away from taxpayers and give it to other people; or worse yet, borrow the money. That has never been a sustainable solution and will never be a sustainable solution. 

You claim that Obamacare was a compromise for those who didn't want a single-payer system, but Obamacare was a lie from Day 1, designed to usher in a single-payer system after it collapses. Every prominent Democrat lied about what it would do in order to trick people into being okay with it, knowing, full well, that by the time it collapses, people won't have a choice and they'll have to essentially accept a single-payer system. 



> “If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.”





> “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”





> “We’re going to lower your premiums by up to $2500 per family per year.”





> “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase.”





> “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future.”


Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Obamacare is collapsing, insurers are leaving, it's adding more and more money to the debt, and 27 million people still don't have healthcare. Does that sound like a workable solution? Yet, here we are, and Democrats want to talk about how repeal and replace is a bad idea. Are you gonna bang that drum after it collapses? No, you'll pray to the spaghetti monster that the Democrats control the House in 2018 so they can just throw more taxpayer money at it to keep it afloat, or just straight up replace it with a single-payer system, which has been proven time and time again to not be an effective option here in America. I'm not a fan of the current proposal by the Republicans. Furthermore, I hate the idea of entitlements because nobody should be entitled to my money, your money, his money, or her money. It's our money and we should be able to spend it how we want. The solution is to drive down the cost of healthcare. Advance R&D in the medical field, regulate the cost doctors and hospitals can charge for services, prevent monopolies in the insurance industry, give people an a la carte insurance option, incentivize donations, both individual and corporate. Any of these, all of these, some things I haven't thought of; all of them are better than taking tax payer money and funding it.

Obamacare was not a compromise, it was a ruse.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is not true, most Americans want a single payer system.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/the...le_payer_medicare_for_all_health_care_system/
> 
> *
> They agree with Bernie: Majority of Americans support single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” health care system
> Gallup poll: 58% of U.S. adults support Sanders' health care policy, including 73% of Dems and 41% of Republicans
> *
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx


Yes, a random sample of 1,549 people, that gives only one option, a federally funded health care program, as a replacement for the ACA, proves that Americans want a single-payer system. C'mon!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Yes, a random sample of 1,549 people, that gives only one option, a federally funded health care program, as a replacement for the ACA, proves that Americans want a single-payer system. C'mon!


Tofu claimed most Americans do not want a single payer system, which is not true. 

Either you support single payer or you don't. That is the only option you need.

And the poll showed more Americans support it than not.

You should also educate yourself on polls. they are very accurate especially Gallup


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Really? Salon? Maybe we can get a Poll from the National Enquirer on if American's prefer Batboy to the Giant 6 foot butterfly on the topic of Global Warming?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

ABCs Jon Karl tried to bitchslap sean spicer over "no evidence" for :trump 's claim of being wiretapped/spied on by Obama so spicer proceeded to read excerpts, *for ten minutes,* from news articles by publications like the new york times, the guardian and mcclatchy news reporting on various surveillances of trumps campaign and associates by the US government. Then he pointed out that the media has hyped the "no evidence" statement from intelligence committee members re: Obama spying on :trump but has not spent the same amount of attention on statements from committee members that there has been no evidence they've seen that :trump or his campaign were or are in bed with moscow.

:heston 

CANT ICE THE SPICE


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is not true, most Americans want a single payer system.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/the...le_payer_medicare_for_all_health_care_system/
> 
> *
> They agree with Bernie: Majority of Americans support single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” health care system
> Gallup poll: 58% of U.S. adults support Sanders' health care policy, including 73% of Dems and 41% of Republicans
> *
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx


Sorry the poll is too small a sample size. A single payer health system would mean higher taxes, which Americans will vote against.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> First, when you say, "The rate of increase in healthcare costs has decreased under the ACA", what exactly are you referring to? Premiums? You can't mean premiums, that has increased, so what are you referring to?


I meant the rate of increase in costs has decreased compared to the previous 5 years before the ACA. Overall healthcare costs is always increasing, the ACA reduced the rate of increase.



> As for everything else, should government hire more people? Where did you get that out of what I said? When it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to you, which is the what the government does, I don't want them getting involved in anything where they can't accurately forecast how much of that money is going to be spent to fund that program, especially when it's a program that could conceivably cost TRILLIONS of dollars. That's just fiscally irresponsible.


You said government should to give the poor jobs to help them. Government is always about picking winners and losers. :shrug 

I guess private companies shouldn't budget for R&D too since they can't accurately forecast how much money is going to be spent.



> Here's where I stand on healthcare, if the problem is that there are people out there who want healthcare and can't get it, then the solution isn't to steal money from people and give it to others. The solution is to drive down the cost of healthcare. Once the government gets involved the solution is always, always, to just take money away from taxpayers and give it to other people; or worse yet, borrow the money. That has never been a sustainable solution and will never be a sustainable solution.





> You claim that Obamacare was a compromise for those who didn't want a single-payer system, but Obamacare was a lie from Day 1, designed to usher in a single-payer system after it collapses. Every prominent Democrat lied about what it would do in order to trick people into being okay with it, knowing, full well, that by the time it collapses, people won't have a choice and they'll have to essentially accept a single-payer system.
> 
> Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.


It was a compromise because conservatives would never go with a single payer system. The rate of increase in healthcare costs was increasing with less quality coverage prior to the ACA. Something needed to be done. Also, the ACA look pretty good now compared to the GOP Trumpcare plan now. I agree the democrats lied to promote the ACA. They deserve to be called out on that.



> Obamacare is collapsing, insurers are leaving, it's adding more and more money to the debt, and 27 million people still don't have healthcare. Does that sound like a workable solution? Yet, here we are, and Democrats want to talk about how repeal and replace is a bad idea. Are you gonna bang that drum after it collapses? No, you'll pray to the spaghetti monster that the Democrats control the House in 2018 so they can just throw more taxpayer money at it to keep it afloat, or just straight up replace it with a single-payer system, which has been proven time and time again to not be an effective option here in America. I'm not a fan of the current proposal by the Republicans. Furthermore, I hate the idea of entitlements because nobody should be entitled to my money, your money, his money, or her money. It's our money and we should be able to spend it how we want. The solution is to drive down the cost of healthcare. Advance R&D in the medical field, *regulate the cost doctors and hospitals can charge for services*, prevent monopolies in the insurance industry, give people an a la carte insurance option, incentivize donations, both individual and corporate. Any of these, all of these, some things I haven't thought of; all of them are better than taking tax payer money and funding it.
> 
> Obamacare was not a compromise, it was a ruse.


Oh the irony.
:ha


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Most Americans I know don't even know what single-payer healthcare is and I live in California :lol Now I'm sure you could get a lot of people to say "yes" to "Do you want free healthcare?" but that's an obscenely dishonest question. :mj


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The right uses less taxes, the left uses free stuff. :shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile-admits-leaking-debate-questions-to-c/

President Trump vindicated once again! Hillary Clinton cheated during the debates explaining some of her smooth answers "on the fly".

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile-admits-leaking-debate-questions-to-c/
> 
> President Trump vindicated once again! Hillary Clinton cheated during the debates.
> 
> - Vic


Jimmy Dore is going to have a field day with this


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just a reminder that even though we are governed by literally Russian colluding Hitler that hates Mexicans and yet every single illegal Mexican still wants to stay here and Americans are doing whatever they can to keep them here. 

What does that says about the Mexico if the illegals are willing to risk death camps over going back.

Maybe the Democrats are colluding with literally Hitler to box them in and keep them here in preparation for the death camps. :hmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Really? Salon? Maybe we can get a Poll from the National Enquirer on if American's prefer Batboy to the Giant 6 foot butterfly on the topic of Global Warming?


Salon wrote the article based on the Gallup poll. Salon did not do the polling 




FriedTofu said:


> Sorry the poll is too small a sample size. A single payer health system would mean higher taxes, which Americans will vote against.
> 
> .



No its not too small. You are just saying that because you said something that was just not true. 


As for taxes going up and Americans being against that

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-would-pay-higher-taxes-for-universal-health-care/











A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll – though many worry that the nation's economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-would-pay-higher-taxes-for-universal-health-care/


What idiot made that pie chart and how did everyone else in CBS's graphics dept. miss it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> What idiot made that pie chart and how did everyone else in CBS's graphics dept. miss it?


LOL I just noticed what you mean when you pointed it out ha ha ha.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How the hell are we still talking about Single payer? I leave you guys for a few days and you let that commie trash ideology back in here! :trump

Seriously though, as far as Trump's budget? PBS can go. Gone are the days where Fred Rogers (Truly a saint) fought vehemently for something that was of use. Now Kids have crap like the telletubbies and Indoctrinated Stree--I mean, Sesame Street, which has become a shell of its former self.

Meal on Wheels I have mixed feelings about.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Tofu claimed most Americans do not want a single payer system, which is not true.
> 
> *Either you support single payer or you don't. That is the only option you need.
> *
> And the poll showed more Americans support it than not.
> 
> You should also educate yourself on polls. they are very accurate especially Gallup


The Gallop poll survey asked three questions, here they are...

Keeping the Affordable Care Act in Place

Replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded health care program that provides health insurance for all Americans

Repealing the Affordable Care Act

It's not as black and white as "Do you want single payer or not?". There are other health care options that are available that were asked for opinions on. The questions here were framed to compare the ACA to a single payer system.

Just to add further, so you know I'm not making anything up. This comes directly from the poll you cited...



> (Asked of those who favor keeping ACA and replacing with federally funded health insurance program) If you had to choose between these two options, which would you prefer -- [ROTATED: keeping the Affordable Care Act in place (or) replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally-funded health care program that provides health insurance for all Americans]
> 
> SUMMARY: VIEWS OF ACA/FEDERALLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
> 2016 May 6-8
> Favor both keeping ACA and Replacing ACA with federally funded health insurance program
> 35
> Favor keeping ACA *only*
> 13
> Favor federally funded health insurance program *only*
> 23
> Favor neither
> 29


Find a poll that gives more options than the ACA or single payer, then we can discuss the findings.

This poll is like asking, "Coke or Pepsi?" Ignoring the fact that there are other sodas out there people would choose over either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> The Gallop poll survey asked three questions, here they are...
> 
> Keeping the Affordable Care Act in Place
> 
> Replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded health care program that provides health insurance for all Americans
> 
> Repealing the Affordable Care Act
> 
> It's not as black and white as "Do you want single payer or not?". There are other health care options that are available that were asked for opinions on. The questions here were framed to compare the ACA to a single payer system.
> 
> Just to add further, so you know I'm not making anything up. This comes directly from the poll you cited...
> 
> 
> 
> Find a poll that gives more options than the ACA or single payer, then we can discuss the findings.
> 
> This poll is like asking, "Coke or Pepsi?" Ignoring the fact that there are other sodas out there people would choose over either.


it is that black and white.

The fact is Tofu said most Americans are against single payer, the poll proved otherwise.

Most Americans would support single payer.

The only question we are asking is are more Americans for or against single payer and more are for it

You dont need another poll with more options.

It would be like saying, most Americans hate Pepsi and having a poll, do you like Pepsi and 51% of the poll saying yes then you coming in and claim well you only gave one choice in the poll and that was pepsi.

All we are speaking to is if more Americans are for or against a single payers system and more Americans are for it than against it which is the opposite of what Tofu claimed.

The question is not what healthcare plan do you like the most, the question are more Americans for or against single payer.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No, it would be more like, "do you like pepsi better than dr pepper" then claiming that pepsi is the most popular soda when coke(the most popular soda) was never an option.

The poll question was comparing aca with it. I'd rather get shot in the foot rather than be shot in the head. Doesnt mean im in favor of being shot in the foot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> No, it would be more like, "do you like pepsi better than dr pepper" then claiming that pepsi is the most popular soda when coke(the most popular soda) was never an option.
> 
> The poll question was comparing aca with it. I'd rather get shot in the foot rather than be shot in the head. Doesnt mean im in favor of being shot in the foot.


LOL at you guys not understanding this simple concept . Your analogy is not even right. It would be like saying most people hate Dr Pepper then having a poll asking if people like Dr Pepper and most saying yes. Then you saying well that isnt fair because you are not asking about other sodas. 

the claim Tofu made only said most americans dont like single payer. The poll was do you like single payer. that is the only thing you have to ask.

When talking about if more or less people support something in this case single payer there are only two options, you either support it or you dont. And more americans support single payer than dont.

Not even going to try anymore its too beyond you


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Your poll didnt say "do you want single payer". It said, "would you drop aca in favor of this other option". You are conflating ideas again.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow @Alco @Alkomesh2 @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear

http://rare.us/rare-politics/populi...orm-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-in-decades/



> *Rand Paul introduces the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture law in decades*
> 
> Sen. Rand Paul has long taken the lead in calling for *the reform of civil asset forfeiture laws*, a controversial police practice in which authorities basically steal the property of citizens without due process and little recourse. *Billions have been seized from citizens by the police based on nothing more than suspicion, which many see as a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.*
> 
> It’s state-sanctioned theft. “Under civil forfeiture laws, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent,” says the Institute for Justice’s Scott Bullock.
> 
> On Thursday, Sen. Paul reintroduced FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which specifically addresses victims of civil asset forfeiture who have not been convicted of a crime.
> 
> “The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime,” Paul’s statement read. “The FAIR Act will protect Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights from being infringed upon by ensuring that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process.”
> 
> The House companion FAIR legislation is being introduced by Republican Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan.
> 
> Some have observed that if implemented, this legislation could be the most significant reform in decades. Heritage Foundation policy analyst Jason Snead writes at The Hill, “The bill, if passed, would be the most sweeping reform of abuse-prone federal civil forfeiture law since the 1980s.”
> 
> The issue of criminal justice reform is not new, but receiving popular support is a fairly recent trend. Both right and left, Republicans and Democrats, have been instrumental in raising awareness at both the local and national level.
> 
> “Paul and Walberg first introduced the FAIR Act in 2014,” Snead writes. “At the time, civil forfeiture was something few people had heard of, and there appeared to be little appetite for reform.”
> 
> “But in the years since, dozens of state legislatures have reined in their abuse-prone forfeiture statutes, and last year Congress advanced several forfeiture-reform bills, though none has yet made it to the president’s desk,” he added.
> 
> Some criticized Paul’s vote to confirm President Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions in February precisely because Sessions has been outspoken in opposing reform to civil asset forfeiture. Paul noted that any other appointment to that post would likely have the same positions on this issue, and also that as a senate colleague he felt he could try to change Sessions’ mind, something that would be more difficult with an Attorney General with whom Paul had no prior relationship.
> 
> Nor are Paul’s mind-changing efforts limited to Sessions.
> 
> “There was a discussion the other day in the White House about civil asset forfeiture,” Paul said in February. “I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone, and I’d like to have that discussion with the president,” the senator added.


Rand trying to get shit done with criminal justice reform. I think this is a rare instance where I think the vast majority of people in this thread would be on board with this.






http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-p...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> Rachel Maddow’s much-touted reveal about Donald Trump’s tax returns Tuesday night turned out to be a dud. The president apparently paid a lot of taxes in 2005 – $38 million on $153 million at a tax rate of 25.3 percent. This was above the average tax rate for an individual making his same income which is 22.5 percent.
> 
> Fox News noted during an interview with Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday that both President Obama and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders – who obviously make much less money than Trump – also pay a significantly lower rate. Obama paid 18.7 percent in 2015 and Sanders paid 13.5 percent in 2014.
> 
> 
> That’s when Sen. Paul raised an interesting question.
> 
> *“Since Senator Sanders is such a good socialist, I think he’d want to pay his fair share,” Paul said, smiling. “I’m expecting news any day that he’s gonna send a couple hundred thousand into the IRS so he can pay his fair share,” he chuckled.*
> 
> Sanders has a long record of demanding that the rich “pay their fair share.” In 2016, Fortune called Sanders the “six-figure socialist,” reporting, “by dint of his success as an anti-capitalist politician, Sanders has managed to make a quite comfortable living.”
> 
> “While Sanders wouldn’t describe himself as rich,” Fortune noted, “the scourge of the 1% has income that puts him in the top 3.8% of American households, according to CNBC.”
> 
> Paul appeared on Fox News to discuss his opposition to the American Health Care Act being promoted by House Speaker Paul Ryan and that the president has also been warm to. Paul has called the plan “ObamaCare-lite” and referred to it as “Trumpcare” on Wednesday.
> 
> President Trump has called the Maddow tax story “fake news.”












There's an old saying that you should practice what you preach. It's clear that Sanders in this case has not been doing so. If there is one thing I hate more than anything when it comes to politics is hypocrisy, preaching one thing and then doing another.

Moral of the story: Don't rail on the rich and demand for them (as well as the middle class but Bernie never mentions raising taxes on them....) to pay more of a fair share when you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and pay so little. It makes you look completely insincere.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you guys not understanding this simple concept . Your analogy is not even right. It would be like saying most people hate Dr Pepper then having a poll asking if people like Dr Pepper and most saying yes. Then you saying well that isnt fair because you are not asking about other sodas.
> 
> the claim Tofu made only said most americans dont like single payer. *The poll was do you like single payer. *that is the only thing you have to ask.
> 
> When talking about if more or less people support something in this case single payer there are only two options, you either support it or you dont. And more americans support single payer than dont.
> 
> Not even going to try anymore its too beyond you


They didn't even ask that question. I'll repeat the questions asked again...

Keeping the Affordable Care Act in Place

Replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded health care program that provides health insurance for all Americans

Repealing the Affordable Care Act

Which one of those questions ask specifically whether you like or do not like single payer? It asks specifically if you would replace the ACA with single payer, but that's not the same as asking if you like single payer. That's asking whether you like single payer more or less than the ACA. You can't be willfully obtuse on this. That is specifically what it's asking.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump has a lower approval rating than Pence.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> Trump has a lower approval rating than Pence.


And a higher one than you will admit.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> And a higher one than you will admit.


http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/americans-still-favor-bernie-sanders-over-donald-trump/


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://fortune.com/2017/03/18/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-taxes/

Palm Beach Mayor Says They May Have to Raise Taxes to Pay for President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Visits



> Palm Beach, Fla. Mayor Paulette Burdick says that using local law enforcement to protect President Donald Trump during his frequent trips to his Mar-a-Lago estate "means the local taxpayers will have to bear the added burden of being part of the security for the president of the United States," according to CNN.
> "It will either be cuts or increase in taxes," Burdick told the network. Palm Beach's sheriff's department told CNN that it costs roughly $60,000 in overtime per day when the president is in town, even with a Secret Service detail. CBS reports, based off figures from a similar trip by former President Barack Obama, that Trump's first three visits to Mar-a-Lago cost about $10 million in total.
> Trump is additionally spending this weekend at the private club, his fifth visit to the resort since taking office. The administration has not commented on the exact cost of Trump's visits.
> Local officials, facing increasing overtime costs, want the federal government or Trump himself to foot the bill for his self-described "Winter White House," according to CNN."Frankly, as long as it is not on my constituents, I don't care who pays it," Dave Kerner, a Palm Beach County commissioner, told CNN.


:ha


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Stephen90 is actually correct in that assumption. I think Pence has an approval rating of 47%(approx) while Trump has an approval rating of 45%. 


Meanwhile, the Democratic party is in the low-to-mid 30s.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The small town of Cudahy, near Los Angeles, got a big surprise at a recent town hall meeting.
> 
> Officials were hammered by supporters of President Donald Trump for declaring itself a sanctuary city more than a year ago.
> 
> But what many might not have expected about these particular Trump supporters is they don’t fit the demographic, let alone the narrative, liberals and the mainstream media want people to believe about those who don’t support sanctuary cities.
> 
> Chuck Todd cries foul over Trump’s media beat down, promptly pummeled with slew of wake-up calls
> 
> Share Tweet
> Among the videos from the event that are going viral are a black woman and a Latino man who castigated the town for its sanctuary policy.
> 
> “Sanctuary cities are racist,” the woman said.
> 
> “The black community has literally been destroyed by racist illegal immigration,” she said. “When my people do a crime we get three strikes. Your people do a crime they get amnesty.”
> 
> But, the woman said, now that America has a new president that nonsense is done.
> 
> “Thank God for (President) Trump,” she said.
> 
> She was joined by a Latino man who also lambasted the city.
> 
> Share Tweet
> “I’m a hardcore American patriot and a hardcore President Trump supporter,” he said.
> 
> “My mother came here legally. She had dignity, she had ethics, she had morals, and she didn’t want to come and disrespect this country,” he said.
> 
> “I voted for our president, Mr. Trump, and I stand right behind him.”
> 
> He explained that there are fellow Latinos, black and white people who are going to run for office and move to take the politicians seats to enforce the laws if the sanctuary cities won’t.
> 
> “People come her and they jump the border. They break into my house! Los Angeles is my house!” he said.
> 
> Anti-Trump haters will be sorry to learn where their so-called boycott landed Ivanka’s fragrance sales
> 
> “We have a new president, we have a new administration and they are not playing around. And we’re not playing around,” he said.
> 
> “America first! America Primero!”
> 
> These speeches came at the same meeting where Vice Mayor Christian Hernandez accused all of the President Trump supporters at the town hall “white supremacists.”
> 
> A charge that caused on Latino woman to get to the microphone and lambast him.
> 
> Share Tweet
> At the same meeting an openly gay, Democrat Latino activist was kicked out of the meeting after he accused the council of breaking the law.
> 
> Share Tweet
> Not exactly a typical group of “white supremacists.”


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/02/17/check-fiery-calif-town-hall-shatters-msms-immigration-anti-trump-mantra-smithereens-449544


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@virus21



> “The black community has literally been destroyed by racist illegal immigration,” she said. “When my people do a crime we get three strikes. Your people do a crime they get amnesty.”


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Of course the democrats don't actually care about blacks. That has been obvious for the decades of decay and ruin in inner cities.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> http://rare.us/rare-politics/populi...orm-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-in-decades/
> 
> 
> 
> Rand trying to get shit done with criminal justice reform. I think this is a rare instance where I think the vast majority of people in this thread would be on board with this.


Aye the US forfeiture laws are terrible, about time someone did something about them.


----------



## Pratchett

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Of course the democrats don't actually care about blacks. That has been obvious for the decades of decay and ruin in inner cities.


They (the Dems) have to remind the black community how much they care every time an election year rolls around though. Too bad after that it goes back to the same old same old. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Quote:
“The black community has literally been destroyed by racist illegal immigration,” she said. “When my people do a crime we get three strikes. Your people do a crime they get amnesty.”

I been pointing this out for a year now. Illegals commit crimes such as fraud, identity theft, petty crimes, rape etc and they get deported. Free to leave as Paco Martinez and come back as Juan Martinez, American citizens cannot even escape taxes! I'd love to be able to vanish and come back as someone else.

Hispanics also commit one of the largest amounts of hate crimes against blacks, seriously nobody cares about blacks unless it's voting season. People keep thinking it's brown against white, tell that to the people who are killing each other over another's brownness not being as good as their brownness. 

If Democrats really cared about blacks then Democrat run places wouldn't have some of the highest crime rates, poverty rates and tough laws to send blacks to prison. They would be running sanctuary cities which takes funds from poor Americans and gives it to illegals. They help hide illegals breaking the law but send blacks to prison for nearly any crime they commit. Exactly how is that fair?

People need to wake up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow @Alco @Alkomesh2 @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/populi...orm-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-in-decades/
> 
> 
> 
> Rand trying to get shit done with criminal justice reform. I think this is a rare instance where I think the vast majority of people in this thread would be on board with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-p...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's an old saying that you should practice what you preach. It's clear that Sanders in this case has not been doing so. If there is one thing I hate more than anything when it comes to politics is hypocrisy, preaching one thing and then doing another.
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't rail on the rich and demand for them (as well as the middle class but Bernie never mentions raising taxes on them....) to pay more of a fair share when you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and pay so little. It makes you look completely insincere.


Sanders is fucking done if he tries to run again. Bring this up and watch his followers fold. He lost his leg to stand on.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Sanders is fucking done if he tries to run again. Bring this up and watch his followers fold. He lost his leg to stand on.


Of course, to put it in perspective...Trump had an income of over $150 million...Bernie's income for the year in question was $200,000. Bernie is a raving-mad socialist but the percentages should be taken into account based on their income. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now...I want to say that I like so far some of the new budget that Trump is proposing. This has been one of my biggest things...we are $20 trillion in debt and climbing. Our government can't keep running in the deficit. Cuts are going to hurt, but if we don't resolve this matter now we run into a situation like they have in Greece and other nations where cuts have been so painful it's created a near-riot. We all live within a budget, the government should do the same. If they can't make ends meet with the money they receive from us for our taxes, etc...then they need to tighten their belt. It's simple math. 

I have volunteered for Meals on Wheels, it is an organization that does have a role in helping seniors and shut-ins get good home-cooked meals delivered. It is a great organization and needs to keep its role. There are those out there that say there is no place for them, they are just talking stupid shit and are selfish assholes who don't know better. They truly don't care if people starve. I pay them no mind and tell them to fuck off at every opportunity. 

The idea that Meals on Wheels will go away (and for that matter PBS and NPR go away if they stop giving those broadcast arms federal money as well as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) is not true. The money that MoW receives in federal funding is only a fraction of its overall budget. Even then, those funds come in the form of block grants. The feds designate that money for the states, in turn the states take those funds and divert them where they deem necessary (or in some cases waste it). MoW is not directly funded by the federal government. Even so, cutting out federal funding for it just means the funds can be made up elsewhere, in the form of additional donations or money for the citizens that pay for the service as well. 

Same with NPR and PBS...I will admit I do listen to some of the shows on NPR and watch PBS (enjoy "Whadda Ya Know" and Rick Steves on NPR, and my kids grew up watching PBS and I enjoy some of their documentaries and Red Green). The funding that comes from the government is a small percentage of its overall income...that probably means money moved around and additional pleas for donations come pledge time. However, "Sesame Street" isn't going away if the government stops giving money to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

To me, I look at it simply this way...if the Federal government and Congress have shown they are pissing away money and not spending it wisely, does it make more sense to handle a lot of these programs and charities better at the state level? This way, it would seem that they can be more accountable for what they do and be able to have a better handle on things. Too many hands in the pot. I would prefer that as opposed to wasting money. Besides, nothing is stopping you from donating your time and/or dollars to local charities like MoW and the United Way, and you can find from them where exactly your money goes to. 

There are a ton more examples of government fat that needs trimming...I just hope we can tackle more of this and actually reduce our national deficit. To me, the government should handle the basics that the Constitution sets forth...we take care of the rest.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






I'm admittedly very skeptical with the extra ground troops in Syria at this time. We'll have to see but on the surface I'm against this.






@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Tater

Molyneux video is mainly for you guys, though it wouldn't surprise me if you have already seen it CP . Schiff and Molyneux discuss FED policy, the raised interest rates, Trumpcare (if it gets through the house and senate), and the potential upcoming economic downturn in the next few years. Very good video.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/americans-still-favor-bernie-sanders-over-donald-trump/


see?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Quote:
> “The black community has literally been destroyed by racist illegal immigration,” she said. “When my people do a crime we get three strikes. Your people do a crime they get amnesty.”
> 
> I been pointing this out for a year now. Illegals commit crimes such as fraud, identity theft, petty crimes, rape etc and they get deported. Free to leave as Paco Martinez and come back as Juan Martinez, American citizens cannot even escape taxes! I'd love to be able to vanish and come back as someone else.
> 
> Hispanics also commit one of the largest amounts of hate crimes against blacks, seriously nobody cares about blacks unless it's voting season. People keep thinking it's brown against white, tell that to the people who are killing each other over another's brownness not being as good as their brownness.
> 
> If Democrats really cared about blacks then Democrat run places wouldn't have some of the highest crime rates, poverty rates and tough laws to send blacks to prison. They would be running sanctuary cities which takes funds from poor Americans and gives it to illegals. They help hide illegals breaking the law but send blacks to prison for nearly any crime they commit. Exactly how is that fair?
> 
> People need to wake up.


Oh and in all this, where does Black Lives Matter stand on this issue? 

Oh that's right. Hispanics are not White so they don't count. fpalm

Can Trump sign an executive order forcing the disbandment of BLM on the grounds that it's nothing more than a HATE-TOWARD-CAUCASIAN(IE Racist) organization? geez....


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Of course, to put it in perspective...Trump had an income of over $150 million...Bernie's income for the year in question was $200,000. Bernie is a raving-mad socialist but the percentages should be taken into account based on their income.


Of course but 200k isn't something to sneeze at, it's higher wages than most people get. Trump paid a lot of taxes, he's a rich guy paying a ton of taxes, the thought that he's not paying his fair share is completely silly. If Sanders was a true Socialist he'd be paying a lot more than his small percentage. It's not like he's living on 25k a year. 

I'm pointing out that Rich people are the enemy who don't pay taxes nonsense is garbage, compared to the "Socialist" heroes, rich people pay tons of cash to do business in the US. Could the taxes be better? Sure but someone make 6 digits a year talking about fair share and not paying all that much is ludicrous.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Of course but 200k isn't something to sneeze at, it's higher wages than most people get. Trump paid a lot of taxes, he's a rich guy paying a ton of taxes, the thought that he's not paying his fair share is completely silly. If Sanders was a true Socialist he'd be paying a lot more than his small percentage. It's not like he's living on 25k a year.
> 
> I'm pointing out that Rich people are the enemy who don't pay taxes nonsense is garbage, compared to the "Socialist" heroes, rich people pay tons of cash to do business in the US. Could the taxes be better? Sure but someone make 6 digits a year talking about fair share and not paying all that much is ludicrous.


Point taken. I would like to get back to when it was OK to make money and not be guilty for doing so. Plus the system is set up to allow us the opportunity to pay as little as possible while taking advantage of all loopholes and tax laws that allow us to do so.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Has anyone seen this?



> *
> JUST IN – Supreme Court Moves to INVALIDATE Trump’s Election *
> 
> March 18, 2017 6:05 pm
> 
> President Trump
> 
> (Angry Patriot) – The Democrats will never stop trying to remove President Trump from office. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the bogus Trump-Russia conspiracy story just got somewhat validated by the American legal system.
> 
> Citing a “novel constitutional question,” three plaintiffs from the deeply Democratic state of Massachusetts — Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman — have moved forward with their petition to invalidate the 2016 election. In particular, these three individuals, who have ties to Occupy Democrats, are citing the Guarantee Clause in the Constitution to argue that the election was tampered with, and therefore should be held again (via Right Journalist).
> 
> Of course, these lame-brained Democrats claim that the culprit behind this cyber attack was Moscow. Unfortunately, as inane as their stance is, the Supreme Court has moved their petition forward.
> 
> Now the petition may be set for the eight justices to review it. With the bench still missing its 9th justice, Trump could be in big trouble if one of the conservative justices decides to lean a little bit to the left during the hearing.
> 
> While Blumstein vs. U.S. has not yet been widely reported in the mainstream media, make no mistake about it, the Trump administration is under a full assault.
> 
> As can be clearly seen in the two legal fights concerning President Trump’s travel ban initiatives, the U.S. legal system is infected by the type of far-left thought that can only be indoctrinated via the corrupted school system.
> 
> Furthermore, several ex-government officials under Obama have joined the crusade to stop President Trump’s travel ban from ever taking effect, via Reuters.
> 
> Blumstein vs. U.S. is yet another attempt by the jilted Obama coalition, which includes numerous “grassroots” organizations, all of which receive sizable contributions from the government and wealthy communists like George Soros, to overthrow a democratically elected government.
> 
> In his book The People Have Spoken (And They Are Wrong), conservative writer David Harsanyi makes the case for why American patriots should never pin their hopes on the Supreme Court. Since the 1950s, the highest court in the land has consistently gone beyond the confines of the Constitution in order to promote social engineering and the expansion of the federal government.
> 
> Another author, Robert Taylor, makes the case in his book Reactionary Liberty that the current brand of American mass democracy invariably leads to democratic and despotic communism.
> 
> As Blumstein vs. U.S. shows, maybe it’s time to completely gut the legal status quo, breakdown the power of semi-public organizations like Occupy Democrats, and purge all of Washington, D.C. of those bureaucrats who are more loyal to “social justice” than to freedom, liberty, and the American people.
> 
> https://www.teaparty.org/just-supreme-court-moves-invalidate-trumps-election-224417/


And BTW, this is not the only source. A google search confirmed this.

Good lord. The LEFT certainly is pulling out all the stops, aren't they? fpalm


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA

March 17, 2017
*Yellen’s Effed up Attack on Working People, Sad*
by Mike Whitney 









Photo by DonkeyHotey | CC BY 2.0

Why did the Fed raise its benchmark interest rate when inflation is still running below the Fed’s target, workers wages have hardly budged and the economy is not even growing at 1 percent?

Yellen was asked that question at a press conference on Wednesday following the release of the FOMC’s statement. Her answer helps to show how the Fed makes its policy decisions based on factors most people would never consider. Here’s what she said:

Janet Yellen– “Well, look, our policy is not set in stone. It is data-dependent and we’re — we’re not locked into any particular policy path…As you said, the data have not notably strengthened.”

_Translation– So after saying the Fed bases its decisions on the data, Yellen does a quick 180 and says the data hasn’t changed. Okay._

Janet Yellen– “There’s always noise in the data from quarter to quarter. But we haven’t changed our view of the outlook.”

_Trans– The Fed expects economic growth will remain in the doldrums. (2 percent or less)_

Janet Yellen– “We haven’t boosted the outlook, projected faster growth.”

_Trans– The Fed is determined to maintain a slow-growth environment in order to continue its “easy money” policy which benefits Wall Street._

Janet Yellen– “We think we’re moving along the same course we’ve been on, but it’s one that involves gradual tightening in the labor market.”

_Trans — Ah ha. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now we can see what the rate hike is really all about. It’s all about the minuscule improvements in the labor market. Yellen thinks the improvements are a big red flag._

Janet Yellen– “I would describe some measures of wage growth as having moved up some.”

_Trans– Battle Stations! Battle Stations! Full Red Alert!_

Janet Yellen– “Some measures haven’t moved up, but there’s is also suggestive of a strengthening labor market.”

_Trans– “Suggestive”? In other words, the mere hint of improving conditions in the labor market –which could result in higher wages –is enough to send Yellen into a rate-hike frenzy? Is that what she’s saying?_

Janet Yellen– “And we expect policy to remain accommodative now for some time.”

_Trans– So don’t worry Wall Street, we’re not cutting off the flow of cheap money, we just need to tweak rates a bit to dampen the prospect of higher wages._

Janet Yellen– “So we’re talking about a gradual path of removing policy accommodation as the economy makes progress moving toward neutral.”

_Trans– We’re keeping our eyes peeled for even the slightest uptick in wages, but we’ll continue to price cash below the rate of inflation so the investor class can make out like bandits._

Janet Yellen– “But we’re continuing to provide accommodation to the economy that’s allowing it to grow at an above-trend pace that’s consistent with further improvement in the labor market.”

_Trans– We’ll make sure the economy doesn’t grow any faster than 2 percent GDP for the foreseeable future so we can continue to provide cheap credit to our constituents on Wall Street who need money that is priced below the rate of inflation to push stocks and bonds higher into the stratosphere. Also, we think that rising wages are merely a fleeting blip on the radar, even so, we are prepared to raise rates until the threat has been thoroughly extinguished._

So the Fed hasn’t changed its policy or its projections. Yellen basically raised rates because she had a ‘gut-feeling’ that the demand for labor is strengthening which means that wages could rise. (Her feelings on this matter are not supported by the data, but whatever.) As the primary steward of the system, it’s Yellen’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Any sign that of improvement in labor markets (like higher wages or, god forbid, rising standards of living) must be squelched before they ever get started. At the same time, the Fed has to balance its anti-worker duties with its stealth mandate to shower the investor class with below market-priced credit to help them game the system and rake off hefty profits. It’s a tough job, but the Fed has proved that it’s more than ready to meet the challenge.

The idea that the Fed is an impartial referee that serves the public by setting interest rates and regulating the financial system, is the nuttiest of all the conspiracy theories. The Fed is not only a creature of the banks, it is also the most destructive institution in the country today. Just look at the growing social unrest, the political instability and the sudden surge in right wing movements. Does anyone seriously believe these phenomena just popped out of nowhere? These are all the result of the gaping inequality that has emerged under the Fed’s malign stewardship. There’s nothing accidental in the way that wealth has been transferred from one class to another. It’s all part of a plan, a plan to enrich the few while everyone sees their incomes shrivel, their wages stagnate, the health care costs soar, their education expenses explode, their personal debts balloon, and their standards of living steadily decline.

Check out this chart from Bloomberg that shows with stunning clarity the real impact the Fed’s misguided policies. Rather than try to persuade readers that the Fed is a thoroughly corrupt and heinous institution that is a threat to every man, woman and child in the USA, I ask readers to study the chart and draw your own conclusions. The question that arises is this: Did the Fed choose the policy that would best serve the interests of the American people (by restoring economic growth and increasing employment) or did they choose a policy that they knew would maximize the profits for the investor class at the expense of everyone else?

You decide.










SOURCE


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Has anyone seen this?
> 
> And BTW, this is not the only source. A google search confirmed this.
> 
> Good lord. The LEFT certainly is pulling out all the stops, aren't they? fpalm


Its quite embarrassing. They are just doing more damage to themselves. Whatever let them do their stupid shit. In the end Trump will win like he always does. The dems are fucked in 2018 and really fucked in 2020


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow @Alco @Alkomesh2 @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/populi...orm-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-in-decades/
> 
> 
> 
> Rand trying to get shit done with criminal justice reform. I think this is a rare instance where I think the vast majority of people in this thread would be on board with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-p...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's an old saying that you should practice what you preach. It's clear that Sanders in this case has not been doing so. If there is one thing I hate more than anything when it comes to politics is hypocrisy, preaching one thing and then doing another.
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't rail on the rich and demand for them (as well as the middle class but Bernie never mentions raising taxes on them....) to pay more of a fair share when you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and pay so little. It makes you look completely insincere.


Regarding your moral: Just this past month, a big scandal broke out in Belgium about socialists who have seats in numerous boards of directors, getting paid tens of thousands of euros per seat for doing next to nothing. If ever there's a discipline "hypocrisy" at the Summer Olympics, I guarantee you Belgian socialists would rake in the gold.

Btw, I absolutely HATE laws that accept "suspicions" as a basis to convict, act or arrest. Hate 'em. It completely throws off the balance of power and it's so loosely interpretable that basically anything goes. So great job, Mr. Paul. Please make it happen.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> Regarding your moral: Just this past month, a big scandal broke out in Belgium about socialists who have seats in numerous boards of directors, getting paid tens of thousands of euros per seat for doing next to nothing. If ever there's a discipline "hypocrisy" at the Summer Olympics, I guarantee you Belgian socialists would rake in the gold.


I actually hate that this happens because this distracts people from criticizing socialism and focus their criticism on socialists themselves without realizing that the wealth distribution and anti-capitalist ideology of socialism creates the greedy socialist. A greedy socialist or socialist oligarchs at the top of the pyramid is a consequence of socialism as much as lack of wealth creation is.



Beatles123 said:


> see?


Polls and pollsters have literally no credibility left anymore. I even apply the same disdain to results that show pro-Trump results at the moment.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Sunday said he's seen no evidence of collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russia.
> Nunes was asked during an interview on "Fox News Sunday" if he has seen any evidence of any collusion between "Trump world" and Russia to swing the 2016 presidential election.
> "I'll give you a very simple answer: 'No,' " Nunes said.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> "Up to speed on everything I have up to this morning. No evidence of collusion."
> Nunes was also asked whether he thinks there are elements inside the intelligence community or FBI leaking information to undercut the Trump presidency.
> "It's pretty clear that that's happening," he said.
> "There's even been stories written about it in numerous newspapers talking about how they said they left breadcrumbs around to hurt the Trump administration."
> When pressed again on whether he believes there are people inside these intelligence community leaking information, Nunes said he doesn't "think so anymore."
> "I think it was largely people maybe who were there, had classified information, who are now no longer there and decided to leak it," he said.
> "Clearly to leak Michael Flynn's name talking to the Russian ambassador," Nunes said. "That was clearly designed to hurt Gen. Flynn and the president's national security adviser."


http://archive.is/r2Xca#selection-1639.0-1681.179


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Has anyone seen this?
> 
> 
> 
> And BTW, this is not the only source. A google search confirmed this.
> 
> Good lord. The LEFT certainly is pulling out all the stops, aren't they? fpalm


God damn. This is really getting frustrating to hear about.

I'll never start associating left and right, because even though I lean left, I still remain moderate and all. And I know there are still the vast majority of each side who do remain respectful and such, but those small, vocal minorities are REALLY loud. 

This shit is getting dumb though. He's our president, unless he does something which requires impeachment, end of story. Instead of trying so hard to fight something that is over and done with, could they not focus more on working hand in hand with Trump, and try to move policies and such towards their interests as well as his. Fighting him will get nothing done, and it's only going to hurt them.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Its quite embarrassing. They are just doing more damage to themselves. Whatever let them do their stupid shit. In the end Trump will win like he always does. The dems are fucked in 2018 and really fucked in 2020


He's most likely not even going to be in office by 2020. If the GOP feel like they will lose more seats then they think they should they will pressure Pence to get Trump's cabinet in line to invoke the 25th amendment which would pretty much yank Trump right out of the Oval Office and the only thing he could do is appeal to both houses in Congress which would not go his way.


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> He's most likely not even going to be in office by 2020. If the GOP feel like they will lose more seats then they think they should they will pressure Pence to get Trump's cabinet in line to invoke the 25th amendment which would pretty much yank Trump right out of the Oval Office and the only thing he could do is appeal to both houses in Congress which would not go his way.


lol WTF have you been watching? Trumps not going anywhere. The Dems are in risk of losing more seats in 2018 than the GOP. The GOP have a great chance have gaining more seats in 2018. Trump is the ticket to more Reps in the house and they know that. The dems are doing more damage to themselves everyday with nonsense like this.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> lol WTF have you been watching? Trumps not going anywhere. The Dems are in risk of losing more seats in 2018 than the GOP. The GOP have a great chance have gaining more seats in 2018. Trump is the ticket to more Reps in the house and they know that. The dems are doing more damage to themselves everyday with nonsense like this.


Explain to me how the GOP is in great position to gain even more power then they have right now? They have if my math is right 25 or 30 governorship's in the country control the House, the Senate, the President might have two judges on the Supreme court. Jesus Christ and you say they are going to gain even more?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> There are a ton more examples of government fat that needs trimming...I just hope we can tackle more of this and actually reduce our national deficit. To me, the government should handle the basics that the Constitution sets forth...we take care of the rest.


The only thing that worries me about Trump's budget cuts is that it's cuts that need to go along with manually trimming the salary fat and government has become an industry that creates jobs in and of itself. It will thrust back millions into the unemployment lines and that will counteract any positive the trimming will accomplish as that will overburden social welfare programs which are also facing cuts. 

Budget trimming will have dire consequences. I agree that it's better that this happens sooner rather than later, but it's still a drain on the economy and welfare of society. 

Note: I'm not advocating more government spending in this. I'm just stating the consequences of downsizing.



The Hardcore Show said:


> Explain to me how the GOP is in great position to gain even more power then they have right now? They have if my math is right 25 or 30 governorship's in the country control the House, the Senate, the President might have two judges on the Supreme court. Jesus Christ and you say they are going to gain even more?


The economy is expected to grow organically for the next few years. With tax cuts, a potential maternity program and repeal of mandated tax, the GOP have major populist agendas going forward (even if they don't have anything to do with them). The democrats are now the party of opposition but they're opposing on all the wrong things (keeping up with their continued deplorable, selfish, sexist, homophobic, conspiracy theory narrative). I have not heard of anyone claiming that they're currently happy with the democratic leadership even amongst the democrats and that's a worrying sign. Pelosi and her ilk are ruining the democrats and are cutting their own at the knees in order to maintain their on hold on the party leadership and therefore agenda. 

The people on the fence are switching to republicans because of the socialist and conspiracy theory rhetoric of the left and republicans are welcoming more and more small-government individuals. Democrats have moved farther left than they were during the Clinton and Obama years whereas Republicans have remained fairly centrist and Americans by and large are not European in their views yet. The democrats are struggling to break any ground with the centrists and center right with their continued and at this point unwarranted attacks on the electorate itself.

Generation Z which will be ready to vote in 2020 is also one of the most conservative we've seen in decades, which is a natural shift in demographics as the hippie millennials that supported Obama have lost their way with their clickbaity identity politics narrative with the Trump campaign, and that can also be seen from the huge growth in right wing youtubers/reporters in that demographic. The future is conservative, not liberal.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/843187579130449920
Heres a little hypocrisy from Mr. Mar a Lago himself



> Trump to spend 7th consecutive weekend at Trump-branded property, at enormous cost to taxpayers
> 
> President Trump doesn’t want to spend federal dollars on after-school programs, meals for poor people, or heating assistance that helps keep folks alive.
> But he has no problem wasting more than $3 million a pop to spend weekends at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. Trump has already made four trips there since becoming president on January 20, and on Friday he confirmed he’s headed there this weekend for the fifth time.
> 
> 
> Despite vowing during his campaign that he “would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done” and “would not be a president who took vacations” because “you don’t have time to take time off,” Trump has visited Trump-branded properties each of the past six weekends. That streak will hit seven when Trump lands at Mar-a-Lago later Friday.


https://thinkprogress.org/trump-mar-a-lago-trump-branded-properties-weekends-41d373bbe97a#.eyizj3c7j

Congrats guys. You spent 3mil so the Orange Sphincter could go away for the weekend again.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The only thing that worries me about Trump's budget cuts is that it's cuts that need to go along with manually trimming the salary fat and government has become an industry that creates jobs in and of itself. It will thrust back millions into the unemployment lines and that will counteract any positive the trimming will accomplish as that will overburden social welfare programs which are also facing cuts.
> 
> Budget trimming will have dire consequences. I agree that it's better that this happens sooner rather than later, but it's still a drain on the economy and welfare of society.
> 
> Note: I'm not advocating more government spending in this. I'm just stating the consequences of downsizing.
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is expected to grow organically for the next few years. With tax cuts, a potential maternity program and repeal of mandated tax, the GOP have major populist agendas going forward (even if they don't have anything to do with them). The democrats are now the party of opposition but they're opposing on all the wrong things (keeping up with their continued deplorable, selfish, sexist, homophobic, conspiracy theory narrative). I have not heard of anyone claiming that they're currently happy with the democratic leadership even amongst the democrats and that's a worrying sign. Pelosi and her ilk are ruining the democrats and are cutting their own at the knees in order to maintain their on hold on the party leadership and therefore agenda.
> 
> The people on the fence are switching to republicans because of the socialist and conspiracy theory rhetoric of the left and republicans are welcoming more and more small-government individuals. Democrats have moved farther left than they were during the Clinton and Obama years whereas Republicans have remained fairly centrist and Americans by and large are not European in their views yet. The democrats are struggling to break any ground with the centrists and center right with their continued and at this point unwarranted attacks on the electorate itself.
> 
> Generation Z which will be ready to vote in 2020 is also one of the most conservative we've seen in decades, which is a natural shift in demographics as the hippie millennials that supported Obama have lost their way with their clickbaity identity politics narrative with the Trump campaign, and that can also be seen from the huge growth in right wing youtubers/reporters in that demographic. The future is conservative, not liberal.


If they are fair minded people I could get behind that but if the future is pretty much this "only the strong survive your value as a person is how much money you have" bullshit then this country is going to have a real hard time staying together.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> If they are fair minded people I could get behind that but if the future is pretty much this "only the strong survive your value as a person is how much money you have" bullshit then this country is going to have a real hard time staying together.


No one is cutting social welfare and medicaid to the point of people starving or dying. We have one of the lowest homeless rates and death rates in the world. 

People will end up in debt, yes and that's never going to change for any country no matter where you are. But this idea that "only the strong survive" in 2016 America is a bullshit strawman - and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote up there.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> He's most likely not even going to be in office by 2020. If the GOP feel like they will lose more seats then they think they should *they will pressure Pence to get Trump's cabinet in line to invoke the 25th amendment* which would pretty much yank Trump right out of the Oval Office and the only thing he could do is appeal to both houses in Congress which would not go his way.


Seriously doubt this happens in any case. 

Trump would have to legit murder someone in order for him to get removed from office.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No one is cutting social welfare and medicaid to the point of people starving or dying. *We have one of the lowest homeless rates and death rates in the world. *
> 
> People will end up in debt, yes and that's never going to change for any country no matter where you are. But this idea that "only the strong survive" in 2016 America is a bullshit strawman - and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote up there.


Tbf when you say something like this you should be comparing to other welfare states, not all countries in the world. :mj

Only the strong survive? Only the lucky succeed. :jericho2


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Tbf when you say something like this you should be comparing to other welfare states, not all countries in the world. :mj
> 
> Only the strong survive? Only the lucky succeed. :jericho2


Well it has a better rate than Australia. 

You should look it up. A lot of Social Welfare states are in financial bubbles that wouldn't be able to sustain their policies if not for aid [EU] or prudent planning where the focus remains on capitalism driving social welfare.

As far as overall population OS concerned there's no country even close in terms of providing homes for people in the world. 

Only 600k people homeless in a country of 324 million is a huge achievement but people are trained not to see it that way.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well it has a better rate than Australia.
> 
> You should look it up. A lot of Social Welfare states are in financial bubbles that wouldn't be able to sustain their policies if not for aid [EU] or prudent planning where the focus remains on capitalism driving social welfare.
> 
> As far as overall population OS concerned there's no country even close in terms of providing homes for people in the world.
> 
> Only 600k people homeless in a country of 324 million is a huge achievement but people are trained not to see it that way.


Australia probably has one of the WORST homelessness rates of developed countries. :mj4

I'm not denying anything you've said, just saying it's a bit silly to say "compared to all countries", which you should know anyway.

I mean Australia is in a drought but we still have better water conditions than most of Africa, what an achievement 

P.S. more reason to not consider social welfare socialist. :trump2


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Australia probably has one of the WORST homelessness rates of developed countries. :mj4
> 
> I'm not denying anything you've said, just saying it's a bit silly to say "compared to all countries", which you should know anyway.
> 
> I mean Australia is in a drought but we still have better water conditions than most of Africa, what an achievement
> 
> P.S. more reason to not consider social welfare socialist. :trump2


I think what we need to conclude is that social welfare does not have a strong direct relationship with ending or even curtailing homelessness or even poverty. There's more important factors here to consider.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I think what we need to conclude is that social welfare does not have a strong direct relationship with ending or even curtailing homelessness or even poverty. There's more important factors here to consider.


You can't collect welfare without a fixed address here iirc. Would explain a lot.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> You can't collect welfare without a fixed address here iirc. Would explain a lot.


So how does social welfare end homelessness again?


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So how does social welfare end homelessness again?


In theory it prevents homelessness, doesn't solve the problem. Some people have vices they can't control and don't get help with and their downfall is mostly their own fault. Sometimes someone loses work and is so unlucky with their search for another job they can't pay their rent and are evicted. Most of those people get back on their feet obviously.

I still think to be homeless for longer than a few months is mostly the person's own fault but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be help. :side:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> In theory it prevents homelessness, doesn't solve the problem. Some people have vices they can't control and don't get help with and their downfall is mostly their own fault. Sometimes someone loses work and is so unlucky with their search for another job they can't pay their rent and are evicted. Most of those people get back on their feet obviously.
> 
> I still think to be homeless for longer than a few months is mostly the person's own fault but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be help. :side:


I never said there shouldn't be help. I just don't agree that the government middleman makes a good helper any more than a mafia does :draper2


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I never said there shouldn't be help. I just don't agree that the government middleman makes a good helper any more than a mafia does :draper2


What do you mean government middleman? If you're saying it should be left solely on the charity of private groups and individuals I think that is WRONG. :trump


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> What do you mean government middleman? If you're saying it should be left solely on the charity of private groups and individuals I think that is WRONG. :trump


You just told me that aussie homeless don't get Government help. So that means they're only alive because of private charity.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I came to this thread and all of a sudden, a Tennis Match between Oxi and Rip occurred. :lol


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well it has a better rate than Australia.
> 
> You should look it up. A lot of Social Welfare states are in financial bubbles that wouldn't be able to sustain their policies if not for aid [EU] or prudent planning where the focus remains on capitalism driving social welfare.
> 
> As far as overall population OS concerned there's no country even close in terms of providing homes for people in the world.
> 
> *Only 600k people homeless in a country of 324 million is a huge achievement but people are trained not to see it that way.*


It's really tricky for either side. Those who mention how low the total number of homeless and how small a percentage of the total population that is compared to years past are somewhat looked upon as not caring about those 600k homeless as much. On the flip side, there are some people who will look at is with the viewpoint of "As long as there are any homeless people at all, there should always be policies and programs to drive the number of homeless down to as close to zero as possible."

I think we're doing a decent job overall, but I think if there are areas which should be given more focus, I'd say homeless children and homeless veterans.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You just told me that aussie homeless don't get Government help. So that means they're only alive because of private charity.


No I mean they can't collect money from the government, but there is still government funded shelters (not that many) and other things. I think a fair bit of charity is partially funded by government anyway.

Most of government input and care is woefully low especially, I guess, if you compare to the US, but it exists.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I can easily see the 2000s generation being super conservative

They grew up in the internet and it was tuned them to think that most people will try to fuck them if given a chance, everyone is an asshole underneath, that most people are part of flag waving factions that hate each other, that trends die extremely quickly, that people violently respond to differences in views and you only trust the people close to you 

The sad thing is that this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where kids grow up thinking the world is full of defensive paranoid shut-ins and become defensive paranoid shut-ins in defense


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> It's really tricky for either side. Those who mention how low the total number of homeless and how small a percentage of the total population that is compared to years past are somewhat looked upon as not caring about those 600k homeless as much. On the flip side, there are some people who will look at is with the viewpoint of "As long as there are any homeless people at all, there should always be policies and programs to drive the number of homeless down to as close to zero as possible."
> 
> I think we're doing a decent job overall, but I think if there are areas which should be given more focus, I'd say homeless children and homeless veterans.


Well I don't not care about the homeless at all. Every month I donate 10-20 cans to local homeless shelters because that's what I can afford.

I just don't trust the government to get the job done as them and other charities have created laws that allow them to pocket a huge chunk of people's donations and a ton of taxes go into bureaucratic fat cats and that includes subsidies. The only difficult part is to convince people that taxation has not done anything to reduce poverty and nothing to end homelessness because the money is getting used up in the system. I just made that post about how bad the system is a few days ago.

Private charity is the only solution to homelessness and veterans.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well I don't not care about the homeless at all. Every month I donate 10-20 cans to local homeless shelters because that's what I can afford.
> 
> I just don't trust the government to get the job done as them and other charities have created laws that allow them to pocket a huge chunk of people's donations and a ton of taxes go into bureaucratic fat cats.
> 
> Private charity is the only solution to homelessness and veterans.


Nah I never said you didn't, and good on you for actually trying to help. 

I feel like local organizations are the best bet too. You're better off going small like soup kitchens and food banks, and I think the larger the charities become, the more likely you'll have corruption within it as the amount of money being dealt with increases. Governmental homeless programs are not bad, but they also aren't completely corrupt organizations either, at least in my eyes :shrug I mean, I'm sure there defintely is some there, but it's kinda expected sadly.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Nah I never said you didn't, and good on you for actually trying to help.
> 
> I feel like local organizations are the best bet too. You're better off going small like soup kitchens and food banks, and I think the larger the charities become, the more likely you'll have corruption within it as the amount of money being dealt with increases. Governmental homeless programs are not bad, but they also aren't completely corrupt organizations either, at least in my eyes :shrug I mean, I'm sure there defintely is some there, but it's kinda expected sadly.


BTW. Just a tip for future donations. Don't donate clothes directly. Try to sell them and donate the cash. Unfortunately what happens is that they get more clothes than they can give away to homeless people so they end up selling in bulk to third world buyers and get only a fraction of the cost.

Sell what you can directly on eBay and other sites and donate the cash. It's mote effort but charities will love you for it.

---










This is really why the ROW is afraid of American isolation... Especially spineless European social welfare statists. Most of their social welfare programs exist today because they don't contribute jack all to the world whereas America has driven its taxpayer into the ground to pay for someone else's policies.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/843187579130449920
> Heres a little hypocrisy from Mr. Mar a Lago himself
> 
> 
> 
> https://thinkprogress.org/trump-mar-a-lago-trump-branded-properties-weekends-41d373bbe97a#.eyizj3c7j
> 
> Congrats guys. You spent 3mil so the Orange Sphincter could go away for the weekend again.


Well, the thing with "vacations" is that a president doesn't have actual "down time". I'm pretty sure George Bush went down to his ranch quite often as well and Obama went on 333 golf trips . Just like how people claimed Trump would sign a record number of executive orders at the rate he was going on, his "vacations" will eventually slow down. This isn't in defense of Trump, he needs to start relaxing on those days down to Mar a lago but he is hardly the first president to do such a thing.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> BTW. Just a tip for future donations. Don't donate clothes directly. Try to sell them and donate the cash. Unfortunately what happens is that they get more clothes than they can give away to homeless people so they end up selling in bulk to third world buyers and get only a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Sell what you can directly on eBay and other sites and donate the cash. It's mote effort but charities will love you for it.


Yeah I've heard that mentioned as well too. Obviously cash is easier for them as they can buy exactly the items that they currently need more of. 

Although, I always heard that certain clothes, like socks and gloves, are always in need.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I would prefer the president whoever he may be keep his butt in the White House 95% of the time working but that isn't how the presidency works and that isn't how it has worked since FDR. It is a firmly established tradition now that the president travels constantly and has some posh retreat somewhere that he visits frequently on the taxpayer dime. In addition to his already posh retreat at Camp David :draper2


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> BTW. Just a tip for future donations. Don't donate clothes directly. Try to sell them and donate the cash. Unfortunately what happens is that they get more clothes than they can give away to homeless people so they end up selling in bulk to third world buyers and get only a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Sell what you can directly on eBay and other sites and donate the cash. It's mote effort but charities will love you for it.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really why the ROW is afraid of American isolation... Especially spineless European social welfare statists. Most of their social welfare programs exist today because they don't contribute jack all to the world whereas America has driven its taxpayer into the ground to pay for someone else's policies.


Wow...this is OUTRAGEOUS!!! FUCK THE U.N.! 

Let them start using some of *THEIR* wealth for a change to help their own countries.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Wow...this is OUTRAGEOUS!!! FUCK THE U.N.!
> 
> Let them start using some of *THEIR* wealth for a change to help their own countries.


Am I correct in assuming that Americans don't know just how much money is wasted in foreign aid and programs that have no benefit whatsoever to Americans at all?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Did I say that? I'm saying "Fuck the U.N." as response to that graphic. :shrug


I was aware myself but didn't know just how much "aid" was given by the U.S. in comparison to other countries. THAT is a joke.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

House Intelligence chairman: 'No evidence of collusion' between Trump camp, Russia

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-camp-and



> House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on
> 
> Sunday said he's seen no evidence of collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russia.
> 
> Nunes was asked during an interview on "Fox News Sunday" if he has seen any evidence of any collusion between "Trump world" and Russia to swing the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> "I'll give you a very simple answer: 'No,' " Nunes said.
> 
> "Up to speed on everything I have up to this morning. No evidence of collusion."
> Nunes was also asked whether he thinks there are elements inside the intelligence community or FBI leaking information to undercut the Trump presidency.
> 
> "It's pretty clear that that's happening," he said.
> 
> "There's even been stories written about it in numerous newspapers talking about how they said they left breadcrumbs around to hurt the Trump administration."
> 
> When pressed again on whether he believes there are people inside these intelligence community leaking information, Nunes said he doesn't "think so anymore."
> 
> "I think it was largely people maybe who were there, had classified information, who are now no longer there and decided to leak it," he said.
> 
> "Clearly to leak Michael Flynn's name talking to the Russian ambassador," Nunes said. "That was clearly designed to hurt Gen. Flynn and the president's national security adviser."


Also, not sure if you guys have used it before but http://spekr.org/ seems like a pretty good political compass test. Be interesting to see where some of my fellow Trump thread posters fall. 

I tested as an An-Cap, as expected. :lol Although I was labeled as a MINARCHIST until the final question, needless to say I was sweating bullets. @L-DOPA


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am a libertarian capitalist who supports light restrictions on cultural and economic freedom. I oppose increased economic regulation and I oppose the abolition of the state.

I also oppose these silly tests with their simplistic questions.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Can Trump sign an executive order forcing the disbandment of BLM on the grounds that it's nothing more than a HATE-TOWARD-CAUCASIAN(IE Racist) organization? geez....


Muh first amendment tho, right? :lol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Muh first amendment tho, right? :lol


Exactly. Regardless of what they say, its still free speech. Id rather he go after Antifa, who do deserve to be disbanded.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Infowars claiming to have nsa documents related to "project dragnet" detailing lengthy and extensive surveillance of :trump dating back to the george w. bush administration.

Provided by the reptile lizard aliens probably. Alex Jones is a nutjob. :trump was being spied on but Alex Jones is still a nutjob spearheading a movement that very thinly veils its hatred of the joooooooos.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I tested as an An-Cap, as expected. :lol Although I was labeled as a MINARCHIST until the final question, needless to say I was sweating bullets. @L-DOPA


I'm at the start of it and already getting annoyed at the fact that some questions assume that the government has to exist in order for you to answer. E.G.

"Government transparency is vital to accountablity" and I was like

"If there's no government, then there's no need for _transparent_ government"


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Also, not sure if you guys have used it before but http://spekr.org/ seems like a pretty good political compass test. Be interesting to see where some of my fellow Trump thread posters fall.
> 
> I tested as an An-Cap, as expected. :lol Although I was labeled as a MINARCHIST until the final question, needless to say I was sweating bullets. @L-DOPA


Thanks! I love quizzes. I covered that side of my screen though to make sure I answered truthfully.


Economic -12 cultural -45: LIBERAL. I'm pretty sure I lean a lot further left though



deepelemblues said:


> I am a libertarian capitalist who supports light restrictions on cultural and economic freedom. I oppose increased economic regulation and I oppose the abolition of the state.
> 
> I also oppose these silly tests with their simplistic questions.


Yeah, I did feel trapped with a few of these questions.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I'm at the start of it and already getting annoyed at the fact that some questions assume that the government has to exist in order for you to answer. E.G.
> 
> "Government transparency is vital to accountablity" and I was like
> 
> "If there's no government, then there's no need for _transparent_ government"


There were actually a lot of questions where you could express your anarchism, I was pleasantly surprised. :lol For a few though you do need to don your minarchist hat for a minute. I liked this one a lot more than the other political compass test that people use a lot.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

For what it's worth, I scored (90, -77). Libertarian Capitalist as expected. I have swung from left libertarian to right libertarian pretty sharply as my understanding of economics has improved over the last few years.


----------



## Martins

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I fucking *love * political compass-like tests :lol

I did the spekr one a few months ago, must've gotten some sort of left-libertarian designation even though I'm more of a Marxist-Leninist than anything else, but both this one and the actual Political Compass, those two being the ones most people take, are not-so-subtly biased towards libertarianism; especially on spekr, you'd have to answer questions like a fucking Stalin caricature to get even close to auth-left. The vast majority of my friends who took the Political Compass, who subscribe to pretty diverse ideas both economically and socially, ended up in the moderate lib-left field. 

Still find them really fun, though; plus I like seeing what other people get when they do them, it's always a fun conversation theme


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> For what it's worth, I scored (90, -77). Libertarian Capitalist as expected. I have swung from left libertarian to right libertarian pretty sharply as my understanding of economics has improved over the last few years.


(75, -53) Libertarian Capitalist, as well. "You support light restrictions on both economic and cultural freedom. You oppose increased economic regulations and the abolition of the state."


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> (75, -53) Libertarian Capitalist, as well. "You support light restrictions on both economic and cultural freedom. You oppose increased economic regulations and the abolition of the state.


Yah. I chalk that one as a result of how the test is made. You have to answer everything with either a strongly agree or strongly disagree without marking anything in the middle. 

I actually don't support any restrictions on both economic and cultural freedoms. I just don't feel that certain logical restrictions are restrictions for example there were a couple of questions about open borders that don't seem to correspond with the idea that countries can be viewed as private property and so that in tests shows up as restricting freedom instead of protecting private property. 

It's ultimately a result of the fact that I marked the things I don't care about in the middle and intentionally marked things "agree" or "disagree" instead of "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" to see how much of a difference that makes.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yah. I chalk that one as a result of how the test is made. You have to answer everything with either a strongly agree or strongly disagree without marking anything in the middle.
> 
> I actually don't support any restrictions on both economic and cultural freedoms. I just don't feel that certain logical restrictions are restrictions for example there were a couple of questions about open borders that don't seem to correspond with the idea that countries can be viewed as private property and so that in tests shows up as restricting freedom instead of protecting private property.
> 
> It's ultimately a result of the fact that I marked the things I don't care about in the middle and intentionally marked things "agree" or "disagree" instead of "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" to see how much of a difference that makes.


Ya, that was the same situation with me. I can't remember any of the questions off-hand, but there were at least 3 or 4 where I chose the middle and a few others where I chose just agree or disagree. Seems kind of odd that the test is skewed for you to answer strongly in either direction.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Took that test and got -4, -25 - Centrist. 



> In politics, centrism or the centre is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society away from such a paradigm.
> 
> Advocates of centrism espouse moderate political views or policies whilst rejecting extreme or radical views as impractical or idealistic. Most centrists borrow what they see as good ideas from across the political spectrum, often melding them together. Most support market-based solutions to social problems with strong governmental oversight in the public interest.


Really, this doesn't surprise me much, considering I've seen myself over the last year plus as a moderate mainly who will lean a bit more left.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Also, not sure if you guys have used it before but http://spekr.org/ seems like a pretty good political compass test. Be interesting to see where some of my fellow Trump thread posters fall.
> 
> I tested as an An-Cap, as expected. :lol Although I was labeled as a MINARCHIST until the final question, needless to say I was sweating bullets. @L-DOPA


Far from a thread regular but did try the quiz out of curiosity.
It seems I'm a Libertarian Socialist:

_"You support light restrictions on cultural freedom and heavy restrictions on economic freedom. You oppose most private property rights as well as the abolition of the state."_

I didn't see any score for my answers (Maybe it doesn't show in Vivaldi browser or one of my privacy extensions blocks it?), but I was sitting close to the bottom left. 

Well, I am anti-capitalist and a true eco-socialist but very much for individual freedoms ... is that what a Libertarian Socialist is supposed to be? This does explain why I'm not eager to engage in Anything's Trump supporter dominated political threads - most of you seem very strongly (often Libertarian) Capitalist; we're never going to find much common ground.


----------



## Pratchett

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Not a lot of nuance in that test. I found myself leaving more neutral answers than I would have liked. Tested as a Libertarian Capitalist though, so I guess that makes sense for the most part, given actual possibilities of governance in the world today.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm a LIB-CAP according to spekr.

seems kinda legit.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

(5, -2) -centralist

Pretty sure some of my answers would be different if I'm answering from an American perspective as the test seemed to be designed for.


----------



## TD_DDT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

39, -12 Conservative. No surprise.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Infowars claiming to have nsa documents related to "project dragnet" detailing lengthy and extensive surveillance of :trump dating back to the george w. bush administration.
> 
> Provided by the reptile lizard aliens probably. Alex Jones is a nutjob. :trump was being spied on but Alex Jones is still a nutjob spearheading a movement that very thinly veils its hatred of the joooooooos.


Eh. He's a bit out there but there's more often than not more TRUTH to what he says than Fiction. :shrug


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> Far from a thread regular but did try the quiz out of curiosity.
> It seems I'm a Libertarian Socialist:
> 
> _"You support light restrictions on cultural freedom and heavy restrictions on economic freedom. *You oppose most private property rights* as well as the abolition of the state."_
> 
> I didn't see any score for my answers (Maybe it doesn't show in Vivaldi browser or one of my privacy extensions blocks it?), but I was sitting close to the bottom left.
> 
> Well, I am anti-capitalist and a true eco-socialist but very much for individual freedoms ... is that what a Libertarian Socialist is supposed to be? This does explain why I'm not eager to engage in Anything's Trump supporter dominated political threads - most of you seem very strongly (often Libertarian) Capitalist; we're never going to find much common ground.


:tripsscust

J/K


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> Well, I am anti-capitalist and a true eco-socialist but very much for individual freedoms ...


Not looking to get into a very lengthy debate so a few short answers would be fine. 

How can someone be for individual freedoms and be anticapitalist considering that capitalism and individual liberties are deeply intertwined. If you call yourself an anti-capitalist, then technically you can't support the free exchange of any commodities - hence be anti-liberty.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Continuing on with the theme of keeping this the definitive source for Trump's positive actions, here's some good news for people who've been crying about EPA defunding: 

This is an Obama era plan. But it's also a bipartisan victory and Congress or Trump could have stopped it from going through. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint/index.html


> *EPA grants $100M for Flint water system repairs*
> 
> (CNN)The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that it has awarded Michigan $100 million to make upgrades to Flint's drinking water system, which became contaminated with lead and other toxins after the city switched water sources as a cost-cutting measure.
> 
> Last May, former President Barack Obama pressed Congress for emergency funds for the city, which included the $100 million to repair Flint's water system. In December, Congress passed water infrastructure legislation to provide the money, which Obama promptly signed.
> The funds will allow Flint to accelerate and expand its work to replace lead service lines and make other critical infrastructure improvements.
> EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt applauded the move Friday.
> "The people of Flint and all Americans deserve a more responsive federal government," Pruitt said in a statement. "EPA will especially focus on helping Michigan improve Flint's water infrastructure as part of our larger goal of improving America's water infrastructure."
> Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder expressed appreciation for the money in the statement Friday.
> "Combined with the nearly $250 million in state funding already allocated, this will help keep Flint on a solid path forward," the Republican governor said. "It's great to see federal, state and local partners continuing to work together to help with infrastructure upgrades and pipe replacements for the people of Flint."
> Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said in the statement that she was grateful as well: "The City of Flint being awarded a grant of this magnitude in such a critical time of need will be a huge benefit."


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Libertarian Capitalist is what I got on my test. 78 -51

Was like "People who think they're entitled to keep what they earn are selfish and should paid their "fair share"." Was like I cannot smash the disagree button hard enough!

The only thing I didn't agree with really was open borders, never have and never will. 

Everything else is like the Government can fuck off with it's rules and regulations and taxes and people should be able to do as they please unless it's not good, like diddling kids or your neighbors dog or murder, that's just common sense though!



GothicBohemian said:


> Far from a thread regular but did try the quiz out of curiosity.
> It seems I'm a Libertarian Socialist:
> 
> _"You support light restrictions on cultural freedom and heavy restrictions on economic freedom. You oppose most private property rights as well as the abolition of the state."_
> 
> I didn't see any score for my answers (Maybe it doesn't show in Vivaldi browser or one of my privacy extensions blocks it?), but I was sitting close to the bottom left.
> 
> Well, I am anti-capitalist and a true eco-socialist but very much for individual freedoms ... is that what a Libertarian Socialist is supposed to be? This does explain why I'm not eager to engage in Anything's Trump supporter dominated political threads - most of you seem very strongly (often Libertarian) Capitalist; we're never going to find much common ground.


That's silly you should post here more even if you disagree. Sure it's frustrating when you think you're right but living in a complete echo chamber isn't good. Ideas need challenging or they get fat and lazy and don't work like people who don't exercise. You're one of the best posters here on the site! You should stop in more.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Continuing on with the theme of keeping this the definitive source for Trump's positive actions


This is great! Although tbh, I don't feel like positive developments get any kind of traction in here, between rants about the media and Russia and whatnot.

I hope there's more where this came from. The fallout from Flint made other cities look at the lead content in their own water, and apparently many of them are Flint-level


Miss Sally said:


> That's silly you should post here more even if you disagree. Sure it's frustrating when you think you're right but living in a complete echo chamber isn't good. Ideas need challenging or they get fat and lazy and don't work like people who don't exercise. You're one of the best posters here on the site! You should stop in more.


I fully, fully agree with this @Gothic_Bohemian. I would like to hear more of what you have to say, particularly because your viewpoint is so different. I don't agree with many people in here either but it's important to see how other people think


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sami, if you don't post more, Poor Rip and Sally would be stuck arguing with Birthday_Massacre. :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Miss Sally, yes you definitely don't diddle kids or even sing a song about not doing it either.


----------



## Dolorian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Got Libertarian Capitalist...
"You support light restrictions on both economic and cultural freedom. You oppose increased economic regulations and the abolition of the state."

Not a bad test and the result is right for me even if some of the questions sort of force you to answer in a non-satisfactory manner.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's Approval Rating Hits *New Record Low*

*With two months into his presidency, Donald Trump’s ratings continue to fall. The commander in chief’s approval rating fell to a new low over the weekend to 37 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll. That marks a sharp drop from the 45 percent of a week earlier and comes as Trump’s disapproval rating hit 58 percent, also a high point since the real estate mogul was sworn into office.

Needless to say, those are the worst numbers for any president this early in his administration in the history of modern polling.*

Gallup- Job approval upon hitting 60 days in office:
Carter 75
Reagan 60
HW Bush 56
Clinton 53
W Bush 58
Obama 63

Trump... 37



Gallup- Job *disapproval* upon hitting 60 days in office:
Carter 9
Reagan 24
HW Bush 16
Clinton 34
W Bush 29
Obama 26

Trump... 58


he dip in Trump’s approval rating comes after a tumultuous week in which the president struggled to sell a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare and questions continue to swirl about Russia’s involvement in his campaign.

The Independent points out that Trump mocked Obama for his “record low” 39 percent Gallup approval rating in August 2011, a level he has now surpassed.

*The latest Gallup numbers come on the heels of another poll that showed 57 percent of young Americans see Trump’s presidency as illegitimate. GenForward’s poll found that only 22 percent of 18-to-30-year-olds approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 62 percent disapprove.*


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._hits_new_record_low_according_to_gallup.html


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *The latest Gallup numbers come on the heels of another poll that showed 57 percent of young Americans see Trump’s presidency as illegitimate. *G


This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Illegitimate? He won fair and square, get the fuck over it. I'm pretty sure racists though that Obama's win was illegitimate but like them, these people are morons. Their guy lost, enough said. There's not evidence of anything off. Even with voter recounts it didn't give Trump anything but a few more votes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Illegitimate? He won fair and square, get the fuck over it. I'm pretty sure racists though that Obama's win was illegitimate but like them, these people are morons. Their guy lost, enough said. There's not evidence of anything off. Even with voter recounts it didn't give Trump anything but a few more votes.


You mean like Trump kept saying Obama was Illegitimate because he was not an American lol Trump was the one who was leading that charge.

The real Illegitimate person in the general election was Hillary, after the fuckery she and the DNC did to Bernie sanders.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like Trump kept saying Obama was Illegitimate because he was not an American lol Trump was the one who was leading that charge.
> 
> The real Illegitimate person in the general election was Hillary, after the fuckery she and the DNC did to Bernie sanders.


I agree with you there. Not sure why Obama didn't help out Sanders when there was clear fuckery going on. What's worse is Hillary is going to probably try and run again in 2020.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't see HRC running again. There is a growing portion of the Democrat Party that is not happy with the Clintons, especially in her case she disappeared for months and is only now returning to the public spotlight rather than stick around the whole time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I agree with you there. Not sure why Obama didn't help out Sanders when there was clear fuckery going on.


Probably didn't want to be packed into his own suitcase.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Probably didn't want to be packed into his own suitcase.


BM did bring up something interesting that Bernie's guards were pulled and then he was brought to Hillary and afterward he had cuts on his face. So quite honestly it wouldn't shock me if he was threatened.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

RE Spekr: I'm apparently a liberal! It was centrist until I got to the six questions about health care. What can I say I want everybody to have health care.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> House Intelligence chairman: 'No evidence of collusion' between Trump camp, Russia
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-camp-and
> 
> 
> 
> Also, not sure if you guys have used it before but http://spekr.org/ seems like a pretty good political compass test. Be interesting to see where some of my fellow Trump thread posters fall.
> 
> I tested as an An-Cap, as expected. :lol Although I was labeled as a MINARCHIST until the final question, needless to say I was sweating bullets. @L-DOPA


You dirty dirty an-cap .

In all seriousness, this quiz is better than a lot of the other ones in terms of questioning which is good. I don't think anyone should be shocked with what I got:










If it weren't for immigration, I'd might get minarchist and be diametrically opposed to CP forever :lol .


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Libertarian Capitalist as well (31, -54). Good list. Judging from the results above me, this thread isn't as diverse as I suspected :side:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sounds like you guys need stronger convictions so you can hit that STRONGLY AGREE and STRONGLY DISAGREE button more often like me. 8*D 

Maybe _Reason_ magazine is right (LET ME FINISH @DesolationRow) and most people's political views do fall under the libertarian umbrella.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> he dip in Trump’s approval rating comes after a tumultuous week in which the president struggled to sell a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare and questions continue to swirl about Russia’s involvement in his campaign.
> 
> The Independent points out that Trump mocked Obama for his “record low” 39 percent Gallup approval rating in August 2011, a level he has now surpassed.
> 
> *The latest Gallup numbers come on the heels of another poll that showed 57 percent of young Americans see Trump’s presidency as illegitimate. GenForward’s poll found that only 22 percent of 18-to-30-year-olds approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 62 percent disapprove.*
> 
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._hits_new_record_low_according_to_gallup.html


Because they have media telling them it isn't legitimate by blaming Russia with no proof...it's also funny how they conveniently ignore that they actually found votes suppressed that would have been in favor of Trump :lol . Sadly, the future of America is in the hands of ignorant college students


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Sounds like *you guys need stronger convictions* so you can hit that STRONGLY AGREE and STRONGLY DISAGREE button more often like me. 8*D
> 
> Maybe _Reason_ magazine is right (LET ME FINISH @DesolationRow ) and most people's political views do fall under the libertarian umbrella.


fwiw, the problem wasn't with my convictions. But with toying with the test. 

The last question should supersede all questions before it because I clicked strongly agree as fast as I possibly could.



Alco said:


> Libertarian Capitalist as well (31, -54). Good list. Judging from the results above me, this thread isn't as diverse as I suspected :side:


I think there's an innate problem with the test because I would have expected some people who came up libertarian to come up authoritarian. Their views and their test results don't correspond.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

i think the test is trolling the anarchist. you get plenty of questions that assume the state should exist, and the last question (question ONE HUNDRED of course) is about abolition of the state.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Also, an openly admitted anticapitalist socialist testing libertarian? Am I missing something.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

who are you talking about Reaper?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> who are you talking about Reaper?


Don't worry about it. I looked it up. 

It's possible to be socialist and libertarian apparently. That's what the occupy movement is. Interesting.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

For anyone watching. Schiff is laying it on thick.


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I did the test but feel the scale moves slyly. Some of the dot's movements are exactly opposite to what I expected answering questions (Idr them all, i think one of them was re- a parent's right to neglect/abuse a child?), which makes me think the setter has an agenda, virtue signalling in favour of anarcho-capitalism. No problem with it, just sharing.

I ended up with 46 economic and -25 cultural i.e. conservative, which is kind of silly.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I dunno child discipline through physical means is something that goes against the NAP. It would be a conservative value not libertarian. No?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Illegitimate? He won fair and square, get the fuck over it. I'm pretty sure racists though that Obama's win was illegitimate but like them, these people are morons. Their guy lost, enough said. There's not evidence of anything off. Even with voter recounts it didn't give Trump anything but a few more votes.


I also have to question the polls. Remember how "reliable" they were during the Presidential Race? Yeah. :sleep


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I agree with you there. Not sure why Obama didn't help out Sanders when there was clear fuckery going on. What's worse is Hillary is going to probably try and run again in 2020.


Well I don't agree with him.

Obama was born in KENYA. 

But because he was Obama and everyone was on his tip, they just swept that under the rug like they did anything else that he ever did in office that was dubious.

Guarantee that if Trump was from Canada(for example), he would've been removed from office immediately. #LEFTISTdoublestandards


----------



## Simpsons Modern Life

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kind of off topic but whenever I do a bottom burp now I always say 'I've done a Donald' or 'I've just done a president', if the room stinks you can say to someone 'F*ck me have you just done a Donald' and they usually try deny it, but you can blame them anyway lol 

That's about all I have to say about this lol


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Uhh....okay? :shrug


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey has confirmed that the FBI is looking into a Trump / Russia relationship in regard to the Ruskies helping Donald win.

That's fine and dandy, but good luck on trying to find any evidence to prove such a collusion happened when that scapegoat has become nothing more but the boy who cried wolf at this rate. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ What a f'n waste of time. fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I agree with you there. Not sure why Obama didn't help out Sanders when there was clear fuckery going on. What's worse is Hillary is going to probably try and run again in 2020.


because Obama and Hillary are in bed with the same people. Obama was never going to back Sanders.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Another fine example of media bias

Comey reveals FBI investigating alleged :trump campaign-Russia ties - despite this already being known and known for months, the media is going nuts over it like it's some kind of huge revelation

Comey says he has no evidence of spying on :trump despite acknowledging FBI investigation - the contradiction is ignored, the media is going nuts over the first part

Comey says he has no evidence of Trump campaign-Russia collusion - media has ignored this portion of his remarks

EDIT:

Some suspects in an anti-Semitic hate crime have been arrested in Arizona. One suspect is 19 year old Clive Jamar Wilson and 3 juveniles who have not been named.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com...-suspects-in-menorah-into-swastika-vandalism/

For some reason this story refers to the acts as vandalism and not hate crimes. Hmmm I wonder why.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I wish someone would yell HATE-CRIME whenever a newsreporter says the word "vandalism". It so minimizes the real crime, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ What a f'n waste of time. fpalm


Just your gubmint working hard to use your tax dollars as effectively as possible. :kappa


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I wonder what's next? Something involving a Gate with some Pizza on the side?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Deconstructing the lack of upward mobility narrative:



> THE "STAGNANT MIDDLE CLASS INCOMES" NARRATIVE IS BASED ON A MISREADING OF THE DATA, by Kevin Ryan
> 
> It's probably the single most oft-mentioned "problem" in America today. Middle class families have stagnated. Their incomes, adjusted for inflation, have barely moved in the last 30+ years. As evidence, we're shown income quintiles such as the one on the top of this graphic, which seems to indicate that a middle class family in 2015 is only making 15% more than it made in 1985 (after adjusting for inflation). Much of populist and liberal agenda is based on this narrative.
> 
> And it's completely false.
> 
> Income quintiles are NOT a measure of how much a family's income has changed. That's because most families do NOT stay in the same quintile over time. From the time a new household or family is started (usually after high school or college), to the prime earning years (age 45 to 54), the typical family moves up from the second lowest quintile to the second highest quintile. For example, a household established by a young family in 1985 saw their income grow by 134% after inflation by the time they reached their prime earning age in 2015, a hell of a lot more than the 15% that politicians using income quintiles that DON'T break out ages would have you believe.
> 
> What's more, the income growth of the median family has actually INCREASED in recent decades, not decreased as the false narratives suggest. A young household established in 1967 saw its income grow by 119% after inflation by the time it reached its peak earning years in 1997, significantly less than the 134% growth between 1985 and 2015.
> 
> Yet people have been so indoctrinated to believe the stagnating incomes narrative, I doubt this will change their views. "I know a family who hasn't gotten a raise in 20 years!" they'll say. And that might true. But it doesn't change the fact that, according to a correct reading of the data, most families in America experience significant upward mobility over time, and that upward mobility is actually increasing, not decreasing.
> 
> SOURCES: https://www2.census.gov/programs-su...series/historical-income-households/h10ar.xls
> https://www2.census.gov/programs-su...series/historical-income-households/h03ar.xls


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Also, why is no one going after Hilary since we now know she cheated given what Donna Brazile did.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

that $73,000 per household which is usually two people. That means both people are averaging only about $35,000 per year each which is like $18 bucks an hour. $18 an hour is nothing.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's not just what you make, it's where you make it and how you spend it. How you spend it is the key. My wife and I make less than 18 an hour combined and we do just fine. We save $2-300 bucks a month and that goes into mutual funds. The people in that 35k bracket also get a hefty 4000+ tax return as well as are very likely on a great health insurance plan provided by the company they work for. It's not "nothing". It's what my family lives on and has a good lifestyle with at least 4 vacations a year. 

Poverty is a state of mind more than a state of being because if you think that $18 and hour is "nothing" then you're either living in a shit city and need to find a new job in a city with a lower cost of living, or just got some really frivolous ways that need to be curtailed.

And why are you trying to convert household income to single-income when that was not even what the discussion was about? 

If you're single and making 35k then you have to only worry about one person and are you saying that 35k is "nothing" for one person to live off of? You're kidding right? I can easily live off 25k a year. Easily. Here's my budget:

Rent: 1200m = 14000
Groceries: 400/m (that's on the high end because that's what my wife and I spend) = 4800
Recreation (phone, TV, cable, Internet): 200/m = 2400
Electricity = 100/m = 1200 (I'm using what my wife and I average for a 3 bedroom house)
Water and Gas = 60/m = 720
Eating out = 100/m (that would be 4 dinners so a dinner a week) = 1200
Driving/Gas = 60/m = 720

Total = 25,000 and that's living it up in a great place for a single person in most cities.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that $73,000 per household which is usually two people. That means both people are averaging only about $35,000 per year each which is like $18 bucks an hour. $18 an hour is nothing.


$18 an hour where I live is a really good job. I understand you may live somewhere that this is very different. So lets look at federal level lines for what they consider poverty line across all states(ie - takes all states into account just like the previous data screens did.). We'll just assume you are correct that household income automatically means 2 people for the sake of this post.

$36.5 k a year for one person is more than three times the poverty line. ($12,060)

73k a year for two people is nearly 4.5 times the poverty line. ($16,240)

73k a year for two people and FIVE kids is still nearly twice the poverty line. ($37,140) - Which also assumes none of those kids work to add to the household income as well.

I remind you that the data is "on average". Meaning people make less(ie - my area) and more(ie - larger cities) than the $73k per household, but settles at that amount across all of the US. But on average.. bringing in twice(or more) than the poverty line would not be considered nothing.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The other thing I think where people go wrong is that they want to remain in jobs that have no upward mobility and demand that they get raises in those jobs instead of switching careers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It's not just what you make, it's where you make it and how you spend it. How you spend it is the key. My wife and I make less than 18 an hour combined and we do just fine. We save $2-300 bucks a month and that goes into mutual funds. The people in that 35k bracket also get a hefty 4000+ tax return as well as are very likely on a great health insurance plan provided by the company they work for. It's not "nothing". It's what my family lives on and has a good lifestyle with at least 4 vacations a year.
> 
> Poverty is a state of mind more than a state of being because if you think that $18 and hour is "nothing" then you're either living in a shit city and need to find a new job in a city with a lower cost of living, or just got some really frivolous ways that need to be curtailed.
> 
> And why are you trying to convert household income to single-income when that was not even what the discussion was about?
> 
> If you're single and making 35k then you have to only worry about one person and are you saying that 35k is "nothing" for one person to live off of? You're kidding right? I can easily live off 25k a year. Easily. Here's my budget:
> 
> Rent: 1200m = 14000
> Groceries: 400/m (that's on the high end because that's what my wife and I spend) = 4800
> Recreation (phone, TV, cable, Internet): 200/m = 2400
> Electricity = 100/m = 1200 (I'm using what my wife and I average for a 3 bedroom house)
> Water and Gas = 60/m = 720
> Eating out = 100/m (that would be 4 dinners so a dinner a week) = 1200
> Driving/Gas = 60/m = 720
> 
> Total = 25,000 and that's living it up in a great place for a single person in most cities.


No I am not kidding. $35,000 is nothing for a single person especially if you live in a state like MA, NY, or CA. You can barely get by on $35,000 per year living in states like those. 

Gas where I live in the winter from (nov to march) can be anywhere from 300-500 per month. 

You also left out things like car insurance which can be anywhere between $800-1200 per year. As well as renters insurance or home owners insurance. 

Plus if you don't have your car paid off yet you have those bills as well.

So sorry dude but your number of 25,000 is on the low end but a few thousand dollars.



Sweenz said:


> $18 an hour where I live is a really good job. I understand you may live somewhere that this is very different. So lets look at federal level lines for what they consider poverty line across all states(ie - takes all states into account just like the previous data screens did.). We'll just assume you are correct that household income automatically means 2 people for the sake of this post.
> 
> $36.5 k a year for one person is more than three times the poverty line. ($12,060)
> 
> 73k a year for two people is nearly 4.5 times the poverty line. ($16,240)
> 
> 73k a year for two people and FIVE kids is still nearly twice the poverty line. ($37,140) - Which also assumes none of those kids work to add to the household income as well.
> 
> I remind you that the data is "on average". Meaning people make less(ie - my area) and more(ie - larger cities) than the $73k per household, but settles at that amount across all of the US. But on average.. bringing in twice(or more) than the poverty line would not be considered nothing.



It does depend where you live, like I said if you are in NY, MA or CA $18 an hour will barely get you by

Look luck owning a house making $18 an hour. 


But sure if you live in like SC for example then $18 is great.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I do agree with you on the part about how it sucks in some areas BM. I was the one that pointed out the horrifying living conditions of Bay Area techs a while ago so I get it. 

But at this point getting a high paying job in a costly city is sort of part of the poor financial decisions people make. The goal should be to find a great job in a smallish city. The American Dream of small town person making it big in the big Apple is long dead. The new dream is to make a lifelong career and have great credit in medium sized cities.

With the way our life is going, we'll be eligible for a mortgage in a few months and if we keep our credit scores high and save the tax refund we can buy a decent house in the area in 2-3 years.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I do agree with you on the part about how it sucks in some areas BM. I was the one that pointed out the horrifying living conditions of Bay Area techs a while ago so I get it.
> 
> But at this point getting a high paying job in a costly city is sort of part of the poor financial decisions people make. The goal should be to find a great job in a smallish city.


My friend and her BF live in CA and they pay like $2k a month for rent. 

And I am not even talking about a super high paying job, but in MA to live comfortably and be able to own a house and save, you need to make at least $50k a year.

Professional jobs IMO should not be paying like $11 or $12 an hour that is just BS. The $15 an hour should be where entry level starts but too many people that have been at "good" jobs for 4-5 years only making 30-35k a year IMO is bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> My friend and her BF live in CA and they pay like $2k a month for rent.
> 
> And I am not even talking about a super high paying job, but in MA to live comfortably and be able to own a house and save, you need to make at least $50k a year.


California has a terrible combination of land mafias and lobbying groups that keep new development from happening because it will impact their land values negatively making loving there terrible for new entrants especially out of state millenials. 

Our future plan includes making sure we move to an affordable state as much as how much the package would be. Florida is relatively cheap so we just might end up staying but there are cheaper states which are just fine. 

I don't see anything of any special value that would make me want to go to the expensive states anyways. Not in an America where amazon and super markets exist everywhere. There's literally no reason I can think of that would attract me to a particular state now except how cheap it might be to love there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> California has a terrible combination of land mafias and lobbying groups that keep new development from happening because it will impact their land values negatively making loving there terrible for new entrants especially out of state millenials.
> 
> Our future plan includes making sure we move to an affordable state as much as how much the package would be. Florida is relatively cheap so we just might end up staying but there are cheaper states which are just fine.
> 
> I don't see anything of any special value that would make me want to go to the expensive states anyways. Not in an America where amazon and super markets exist everywhere. There's literally no reason I can think of that would attract me to a particular state now except how cheap it might be to love there.


are you in CA now?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> are you in CA now?


Nope. Florida. Everything here is very cheap. 

We also have a great landlord who hasn't raised our rent in 3 years. We pay for most of our repairs ourselves so he doesn't raise our rent in exchange. Saving a lot on rent considering average rates here are 1200.

BTW, for those interested, this is a good way to calculate how much you make versus how much you would need to make in a specific city in order to have the same lifestyle: 

http://www.areavibes.com/cost-of-living-calculator/

If you go into a specific city, there's a calculator at the bottom that lets you compare what you currently make with how much you would need to make in order to maintain the same living standards

This is really how people need to calculate how they life their lives now. People who think more is better are really doing it wrong in this generation. Millennials need to get smarter :draper2


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It does depend where you live, like I said if you are in NY, MA or CA $18 an hour will barely get you by


Well, you didn't say that until after my post, but w.e.



> Look luck owning a house making $18 an hour.
> 
> But sure if you live in like SC for example then $18 is great.


Right, and in some places $10 an hour would be considered great. Just showing you can't make a comment about a general countrywide stat as it only pertains to you and your conditions. The average country wide is $18(meaning the average in more concise data sets will be higher and lower than that). For you, $18 may be nothing.. for my area, it's great. 

Cost of living matters greatly here. That average will (likely) be much higher when it only includes data from areas with a higher cost of living. I'd love to see the same data just in NY/MA/CA as you are suggesting. I'd love to get paid what people are paid in major cities, yet live where I live. 

Hell, it may not even be a state thing, but a urban/rural areas. I don't know if $18 is considered good pay or not in our major cities. But could also be a consideration.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Agreed with Sweenz above. Here's why it's different: 

Using the calculator on the site I just mentioned, I have to make 45k in Oakland in order to simply maintain the same standard of living I have currently in Melbourne Florida while I need to make the same amount of money in Arlington, TX in order to enjoy the same lifestyle. When I put in Oklahoma, I got 27k. 

It's not about how much you make, it's about where you make it. That's why the government programs and federal minimum wage is a failed metric in order to ensure everyone has an adequate lifestyle. In some cities even $25 an hour isn't enough. There's simply no way at all for the government to regulate wages in any sufficient way that would ensure an adequate lifestyle for everyone across the country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Agreed with Sweenz above. Here's why it's different:
> 
> *Using the calculator on the site I just mentioned, I have to make 45k in Oakland in order to simply maintain the same standard of living I have currently in Melbourne Florida while I need to make the same amount of money in Arlington, TX in order to enjoy the same lifestyle. When I put in Oklahoma, I got 27k.
> *
> It's not about how much you make, it's about where you make it. That's why the government programs and federal minimum wage is a failed metric in order to ensure everyone has an adequate lifestyle. In some cities even $25 an hour isn't enough. There's simply no way at all for the government to regulate wages in any sufficient way that would ensure an adequate lifestyle for everyone across the country.


So technically we were all right since we all live in different states where cost of living is vastly different


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So technically we were all right since we all live in different states where cost of living is vastly different


Yeah. There was never any argument over that anyways. I already mentioned that in my first post but then I overlooked it in my own budget when I did it.

This is really something they should be teaching people in schools so it always stays on top of mind though. You simply can't move just because you've been offered more money anymore since all States have different costs of living. That was the 60's way of doing things. Not anymore. In 2017 where you live is what really matters so an adjustment in how people make decisions is required.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yeah. There was never any argument over that anyways. I already mentioned that in my first post but then I overlooked it in my own budget when I did it.
> 
> This is really something they should be teaching people in schools so it always stays on top of mind though. You simply can't move just because you've been offered more money anymore since all States have different costs of living. That was the 60's way of doing things. Not anymore. In 2017 where you live is what really matters so an adjustment in how people make decisions is required.


yeah that is true, people making like 25k in one state then get an offer to move to CA to make like 45k need to see if they can afford it. rent in CA can be like 2k-3k in some places. I cant imagine paying that much for rent. You are better off just buying a house and paying that much for your mortage


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is true, people making like 25k in one state then get an offer to move to CA to make like 45k need to see if they can afford it. rent in CA can be like 2k-3k in some places. I cant imagine paying that much for rent. You are better off just buying a house and paying that much for your mortage


And you can't even do that in some parts of California. It's crazy. 

The more I understand about how difficult it is getting in some parts of the country, the more I'm convinced that we're in the right place at the moment. I'm debating in my head over getting a house right here in my current city because mortgages are still nice and low.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> And you can't even do that in some parts of California. It's crazy.
> 
> The more I understand about how difficult it is getting in some parts of the country, the more I'm convinced that we're in the right place at the moment. I'm debating in my head over getting a house right here in my current city because mortgages are still nice and low.


You can always try CT, which is pretty close to NY, just like an hour drive and CT is pretty close to FL in terms of cost of living.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can always try CT, which is pretty close to NY, just like an hour drive and CT is pretty close to FL in terms of cost of living.


According to the calculator it's still an expensive State. 1.5 times more than where I am currently overall. 

And it's liberal :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> So what does that have to do with the Muslim ban? :shrug
> 
> Or ILLEGAL immigrants? :shrug
> 
> 
> I doubt any of those Irish immigrants aren't Legit U.S. Citizens that went through the process like any law-abiding American.


You do realise that there are 50,000 undocumented irish immigrants in the US and that was what he was rinsing him on right? He even talked to Trump about it, I don't think you keep up with the news do you? He was taking him to task over those, not the 'muslim ban'.

I also NEVER mentioned the muslim ban or related it to that. Nice fail though. (Lets face it though, everyone with a brain can see a very simple correlation from "There are millions out there who want to play their part for America" to trumps stance on immigration from ALL areas. )



Miss Sally said:


> Exactly what does this have to with the travel ban?
> 
> During the time the Irish were coming over there wasn't a problem with Irish terrorists.


Again see above. Clueless people.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There's more to California than the coastal cities. It is not close to 2-3k a month to rent in Sacramento, the state capital, for instance, and there are many places cheaper than Sacramento. If you want to live in a rich coastal city in a really nice apartment, yeah, it's going to cost you. That's how the world works.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> You do realise that there are 50,000 undocumented irish immigrants in the US


They must not be really valuable people if he doesn't want them back. Just saying. In fact, taking in illegal Irish back into the fold and providing them jobs and a good life will go a long way in establishing himself as a better politician than just one that's virtue signalling at Trump. 

Or is letting your citizens mooch off other and richer countries becoming an entitlement in Europe?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Dynamite = BOOM.


Must be a slow news-day since there's not many more subject matter regarding Trump. 

I'm guessing that the LEFT is running out of options and ideas. :lol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ Dynamite = BOOM.
> 
> 
> Must be a slow news-day since there's not many more subject matter regarding Trump.
> 
> I'm guessing that the LEFT is running out of options and ideas. :lol


Is there any left that wouldn't go into tin foil hat territory?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> NPR's Ari Shapiro talks to Carnegie Mellon University researcher Dov Levin about his historical database that tracks U.S. involvement in meddling with foreign elections over the years.
> 
> ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
> 
> This is hardly the first time a country has tried to influence the outcome of another country's election. The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. That expert is Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. I asked him to tell me about one election where U.S. intervention likely made a difference in the outcome.
> 
> DOV LEVIN: One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn't want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupts the Balkans and his human rights violations.
> 
> So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.
> 
> SHAPIRO: How often are these interventions public versus covert?
> 
> LEVIN: Well, it's - basically there's about - one-third of them are public, and two-third of them are covert. In other words, they're not known to the voters in the target before the election.
> 
> SHAPIRO: Your count does not include coups, attempts at regime change. It sounds like depending on the definitions, the tally could actually be much higher.
> 
> LEVIN: Well, you're right. I don't count and discount covert coup d'etats like the United States did in Iran in 1953 or in Guatemala in 1954. I only took when the United States is trying directly to influence an election for one of the sides. Other types of interventions - I don't discuss. But if we would include those, then of course the number could be larger, yeah.
> 
> SHAPIRO: How often do other countries like Russia, for example, try to alter the outcome of elections as compared to the United States?
> 
> LEVIN: Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.
> 
> SHAPIRO: The U.S. is arguably more vocal than any other country about trying to promote democracy and democratic values around the world. Does this strike you as conflicting with that message?
> 
> LEVIN: It depends upon if we are assisting pro-democratic side - could be like in the case of Slobodan Milosevic that I talked about earlier. I believe that that could be helpful for democracy. If it helps less-nicer candidates or parties, then naturally it can be less helpful.
> 
> SHAPIRO: Obviously your examination of 20th century attempts to influence elections does not involve hacking because computers were not widespread until recently.
> 
> LEVIN: Yeah.
> 
> SHAPIRO: In your view, is technology - the way that we saw in the November election - dramatically changing the game? Or is this just the latest evolution of an effort that has always used whatever tools are available?
> 
> LEVIN: I would say it's more the latter. I mean the Russians or the Soviets before unfrequently did these type of intervention, just, you know, without the cyber-hacking tools - you know, the old style people meeting in the park in secret giving out and getting information and things like that, so to speak.
> 
> SHAPIRO: Dov Levin is with the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University. Thanks for joining us.
> 
> LEVIN: Thank you very much.


http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> (K.R.) Over and over and over, investigations into alleged collusion between the trump administration and russia have come to the same conclusion:
> 11/1/16, CBS News: “FBI says no evidence of Russia links to Trump campaign... The FBI reportedly spent several months investigating Russia's potential meddling in the U.S. election and found no direct link to Donald Trump.” [1]
> 
> 12/15/16, NBC News: "Intelligence sources emphasize to NBC News that there is no evidence that Donald Trump collaborated behind the scenes with Putin or the Russians." [2]
> 
> 1/19/17, New York Times: “The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said.” [3]
> 
> 1/23/17, CNN: "The officials all stressed that so far there has been no determination of any wrongdoing." [4]
> 
> 3/5/17, former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: “We did not have evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that, including in our report.” [5]
> 
> 3/9/17, BuzzFeed: “Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation... “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations,” a second official said. [6]
> 
> 3/16/17, NBC News: “Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump a dupe of Russia, cast doubt Wednesday night on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. ‘On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all,’ Morell said. ‘There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it.’” [7]
> 
> 3/19/17, The Hill: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he's seen no evidence of collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russia. When asked in an interview on if he has seen any evidence of any collusion between "Trump world" and Russia to swing the 2016 presidential election: "I'll give you a very simple answer: 'No,'" Nunes said. [8]
> 
> 
> Sources:
> 
> SOURCES: [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/…/report-fbi-says-no-evidence-of-ru…/
> [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/…/why-didnt-obama-do-more-about-russ…
> [3] https://www.nytimes.com/…/trump-russia-associates-investiga…
> [4] http://www.cnn.com/…/poli…/flynn-russia-calls-investigation/
> [5] https://youtu.be/3vCff3Y8jd0
> [6] https://www.buzzfeed.com/…/the-people-investigating-russias…
> [7] http://www.nbcnews.com/…/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no…
> [8] http://thehill.com/…/324685-nunes-says-hes-seen-no-evidence…
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/…/white-ho…/article136600203.html


I love KR on Unbiased America because he cuts right through the bullshit of coulds and the maybes and uses the same sources that drum up hysteria to debunk their own bullshit which they carefully include in the same articles they use to drum up the hysteria. 

I'm copy-pasting the sources to indicate that they exist. The links won't work, so to get clickable links just follow this link: https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/612878672231465

Anyone thinking about any sort of Russian/American conspiracy is the leftist's birther. Let's put an end to this and never pretend again that there is any merit or intelligent discussion to be had on this subject. 

My last post on this subject. There's no point in wasting time on this anymore at all.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah we could decide that the allegations are false before the allegations have been investigated. 

Or we could wait until the investigations are complete, those articles are all saying nothing has been found so far, or that there are low expectations of what will be found.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yeah we could decide that the allegations are false before the allegations have been investigated.
> 
> Or we could wait until the investigations are complete, those articles are all saying nothing has been found so far, or that there are low expectations of what will be found.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Must be a slow news-day since there's not many more subject matter regarding Trump.
> 
> I'm guessing that the LEFT is running out of options and ideas.


They're busy complaining about his rallies.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hope is saying we should put an end to discussion of a claim because it's without merit when it hasn't even been investigated yet. Saying we should wait until the investigation is complete is open-mindedness.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Do baseless claims warrant investigation though?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Do baseless claims warrant investigation though?


Sure if you're in Salem, the Middle East, a conspiracy nut or a "leftist".


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I dunno child discipline through physical means is something that goes against the NAP. It would be a conservative value not libertarian. No?


I think the question was phrased "should be allowed" or "should have the right to", which indicates freedom. Freedom supercedes.

child discipline through physical means is neither conservative or libertarian as that doesn't make much sense imo.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Deconstructing the lack of upward mobility narrative:


Hey, this is great. Does this guy have numbers for the more recent generations?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Hey, this is great. Does this guy have numbers for the more recent generations?


I can put the question up to him or you can do it directly on their fb page. He's usually very good with responses. Sometimes not so. 

It's Unbiased America on Facebook.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Do baseless claims warrant investigation though?


No, but the FBI evidently don't consider the claim baseless and they have more access to the facts than anyone.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I can put the question up to him or you can do it directly on their fb page. He's usually very good with responses. Sometimes not so.
> 
> It's Unbiased America on Facebook.


Thanks. I've seen some comments in the vein of what I was wondering but they've not been responded to yet. Basically he shows that the 15-24 year olds of 1985 have seen upwards mobility, but what about the generations after them? I just wonder if that pattern will hold if we track that age bracket in 2005 to where they ended up in 2015, and eventually where they'll be in 2025.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Do baseless claims warrant investigation though?


Who said they are baseless? Lets not forget Trump was the one who kept claiming Obama wiretapped him. Trump should not be upset they are now looking into it. And now because Trump kept claiming it they were digging deeper to see if Russia did collude with Trump or his team.

Trump has no one to blame but himself.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Thanks. I've seen some comments in the vein of what I was wondering but they've not been responded to yet. Basically he shows that the 15-24 year olds of 1985 have seen upwards mobility, but what about the generations after them? I just wonder if that pattern will hold if we track that age bracket in 2005 to where they ended up in 2015, and eventually where they'll be in 2025.


The problem area is the financial crisis in between so it's really hard to say if the impacted millennials will be able to maintain this trend compared to their predecessors.



birthday_massacre said:


> Who said they are baseless? Lets not forget Trump was the one who kept claiming Obama wiretapped him. Trump should not be upset they are now looking into it. And now because Trump kept claiming it they were digging deeper to see if Russia did collude with Trump or his team.
> 
> Trump has no one to blame but himself.


Technically, it's the left media's attempt to try to prove that Trump and Russia colluded and that wire-tapped data was used (which was a claim made by the media first) which led to Trump claiming that he was wire-tapped. Trump didn't make the claim. It was made on his behalf by the hysterical mexican owned New York Times :lmao 

It was a great play by Trump to turn the entire narrative on its own head which is why you're now seeing backtracking of russia collusion claims. It was a master-stroke by Trump. 

He used what could have been false claim in order to make another "could have been" false claim to nullify the entire conspiracy. 










At this point in order to prove collusion, it has to be proved that he was wire-tapped. This is such a genius chess play that I'm marveling at its sheer brilliance in my head.

If you keep this up, you'll become just another birther and you really don't want to be associated with that crowd do you?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Equating birtherism to accusations about Trump and Russia is bizarre. One was based on racism the other is speculating about an active FBI investigation.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Equating birtherism to accusations about Trump and Russia is bizarre. One was based on racism the other is speculating about an active FBI investigation.


Real conspiracy theorists aren't aware that they're conspiracy theorists and many of them have used FBI agents, statements, declassified data etc etc as a crutch for their conspiracies throughout their careers. 

Congratulations. You're one of them. In fact, a lot of conspiracy theorists are actual ex-agents - so it's not like you're in the worst company in the world :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

AWWWWWWW....ALKOMEESSSSH!!!


Don't you dare be sour.....

....clap for your President of United States...


....and feel his POWAHHHHHH!!! :bige


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Obama "wiretapped" the entire country, and foreign leaders as well. The only thing baffling about Trump's claim is why he seems to be OK with the government surveilling anyone but him, given his hostile remarks about Edward Snowden. Of course, people will just shift the blame off of Obama and onto the agencies directly responsible, but I think we all know those same people wouldn't give Trump near the same privilege of responsibility avoidance. :lol 

If you do some research you'll find that the FBI's original investigation during the campaign into communications from Trump Tower with some Russian bank yielded nothing noteworthy, and the investigation continued despise no illicit activity being uncovered, which is just bizarre. You can believe Obama had no knowledge or hand in it if you wish, but he was still president at the time, and I personally find it hard to believe he wasn't being briefed on an active FBI investigation into the Republican nominee. 

Trump is an astonishingly clean political figure, given the unparalleled level of scrutiny, and watching the leftist media pursue imagined lead after imagined lead in their deranged quest to find SOMETHING on him so they can convince the public to accept a political coup - and embarrassing themselves time and time again as they find either nothing or indeed unwittingly and publicly revealing things that make Trump look great (like Rachel Maddow lolol), makes for some great entertainment. Honestly, it's like I get to re-live the election over and over again, with the left believing they've finally sunk Trump's chances and Hillary's coronation is imminent, only for the carpet to be pulled out from under them, time and time again, with the same result each time..."Trump wins". :lol


----------



## "Discus" Lariat Tubman

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's '17 heel run has been good so far. Ranks up there with Bush '01/'04, Harding '21 and Nixon '68.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Real conspiracy theorists aren't aware that they're conspiracy theorists and many of them have used FBI agents, statements, declassified data etc etc as a crutch for their conspiracies throughout their careers.
> 
> Congratulations. You're one of them. In fact, a lot of conspiracy theorists are actual ex-agents - so it's not like you're in the worst company in the world :shrug


Saying lets wait and see what the FBI say isn't a conspiracy theory. 

Believing the FBI are investigating as part of some "deep state" conspiracy against him as Trump has publicly declared is the conspiracy theory.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Saying lets wait and see what the FBI say isn't a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Believing the FBI are investigating as part of some "deep state" conspiracy against him as Trump has publicly declared is the conspiracy theory.


Send me your address so I can send you your tinfoil hat. You sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist now. You know the ones that say that just because we haven't found Big Foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. People are still hunting for big foot so he practically exists for them. Doesn't make them sane


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The current president is a conspiracy theorist so you are in good company. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> The current president is a conspiracy theorist so you are in good company. :shrug


Name one conspiracy theory of Trump's that I've advocated.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Name one conspiracy theory of Trump's that I've advocated.


His inauguration crowd size.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> His inauguration crowd size.


That's not a conspiracy theory. 

The least you can do is look up what something means before you try to warp it into your conversation. 

It's literally always the same with you. Use a wrong word, pretend that you were right, and then dance around naked in your living room pretending you won an argument :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't even know why you are asking me to name anything Trump said that you advocated when I was just adding to YOUR list of people that are conspiracy theorists. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't even know why you are asking me to name anything Trump said that you advocated when I was just adding to YOUR list of people that are conspiracy theorists. :shrug





> The current president is a conspiracy theorist so *you are in good company. *


Until and unless now you're going to claim that you were referring to Alkomesh and not me now that you don't have anywhere else to go in this conversation. 

If you're referring to Alkomesh, then yah that's a fair statement to make. Trump is a conspiracy theorist. So you're basically agreeing with me for a change. 

:lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That's not a conspiracy theory.
> 
> The least you can do is look up what something means before you try to warp it into your conversation.
> 
> It's literally always the same with you. Use a wrong word, pretend that you were right, and then dance around naked in your living room pretending you won an argument :lmao


Dude you went deep into justifying Trump's conspiracy that the media purposefully used pictures that made his inauguration look smaller. How about another one like millions of illegals voted?

Maybe you should heed your own advice.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Until and unless now you're going to claim that you were referring to Alkomesh and not me now that you don't have anywhere else to go in this conversation.
> 
> :lol


Well the conversation was Trumpsters bashing Alko as a conspiracy theorist...I thought it was implied I was adding to the joke.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Dude you went deep into justifying Trump's conspiracy that the media purposefully used pictures that made his inauguration look smaller. How about another one like millions of illegals voted?
> 
> Maybe you should heed your own advice.


Maybe you should learn what a conspiracy theory is first before proceeding further. You're completely incapable of having any rational debates or discussions till you learn the meanings of the words and phrases you use. It's a huge battle just to get you to understand what you yourself are talking about. A conspiracy theory is something that involves a government involved in illegal or harmful acts. A conspiracy theory is something that continuously evolves to incorporate the evidence that gets compiled against it. For example, the Russian conspiracy theory is such that even with admittance of several key agencies that there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, the fact that an investigation is ongoing has become evidence of collusion in and of itself and therefore as long as some evidence of investigation is ongoing therefore the conspiracy will keep evolving to claim that that's evidence of the conspiracy. 

I also don't recall seriously believing that millions of illegals voted nor seriously pushing the truth of it. My stance is that there is voter fraud and the extent of which is something that's indeterminable and also irrelevant enough to be engaged in meaningful belief of its truth. I'm pretty sure it's another one of those things which you took out of context or created a fantasy in your head. 

The same way you once called me a climate change denier just because I started questioning the alarmism. Just as you called DesolationRow and myself white nationalists. 

At this point, you seriously have to look into just how poorly you come across with your poor language use and label tossing. I've seen salad tossers toss things about more cautiously than you do.



FriedTofu said:


> Well the conversation was Trumpsters bashing Alko as a conspiracy theorist...I thought it was implied I was adding to the joke.


I don't think you understand the limiters to association and how freedom from it necessary. Just because racists support Trump doesn't make Trump a racist just as just because Trump supports conspiracy theories doesn't mean that people who support Trump believe in conspiracy theories. It's a Amy Schumer level "joke". 

But that's probably a concept that's too complex for you to grasp.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Send me your address so I can send you your tinfoil hat. You sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist now. You know the ones that say that just because we haven't found Big Foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. People are still hunting for big foot so he practically exists for them. Doesn't make them sane [emoji38]


Equating an FBI investigation and a couple of crazy people in the mountains is ridiculous.

So is equating being open to the possibility of something being true and positively believing it is true.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Equating an FBI investigation and a couple of crazy people in the mountains is ridiculous.
> 
> So is equating being open to the possibility of something being true and positively believing it is true.


That's also one of the things the Big Foot nutters claim. 

FBI investigated the possible existence of Big Foot as late as 1975.

I'm not saying that it's not a rational claim. I'm just saying that more often than not people make that claim in order to appear more rational than they actually are.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So much win, so little time. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Maybe you should learn what a conspiracy theory is first before proceeding further. You're completely incapable of having any rational debates or discussions till you learn the meanings of the words and phrases you use. It's a huge battle just to get you to understand what you yourself are talking about. *A conspiracy theory is something that involves a government involved in illegal or harmful acts.* A conspiracy theory is something that continuously evolves to incorporate the evidence that gets compiled against it. For example, the Russian conspiracy theory is such that even with admittance of several key agencies that there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, the fact that an investigation is ongoing has become evidence of collusion in and of itself and therefore as long as some evidence of investigation is ongoing therefore the conspiracy will keep evolving to claim that that's evidence of the conspiracy.


Maybe you should learn what the term means before you start acting houlier than thou. A conspiracy theory is not confined to just government actors. Did you or did you not incoporate "evidence" to discredit the claim that Trump's crowd size was under reported by 'mainstream media'. Did you not include non-television number to try to justify Trump's claim that his inauguration was the 'biggest ever' was correct? By your definition isn't it a 'conspiracy theory' other than it wasn't a government actor doing the concealment?



> I also don't recall seriously believing that millions of illegals voted nor seriously pushing the truth of it. My stance is that there is voter fraud and the extent of which is something that's indeterminable and also irrelevant enough to be engaged in meaningful belief of its truth. I'm pretty sure it's another one of those things which you took out of context or created a fantasy in your head.


I don't think you understand the limiters to association and how freedom from it necessary. :troll



> The same way you once called me a climate change denier just because I started questioning the alarmism. Just as you called DesolationRow and myself white nationalists.


 If the shoe fits.


> At this point, you seriously have to look into just how poorly you come across with your poor language use and label tossing. I've seen salad tossers toss things about more cautiously than you do.


Stop projecting your insecurities onto me just because I am the other Asian person that is active in this thread. Well..unless you count Aussies Asians.




> I don't think you understand the limiters to association and how freedom from it necessary. Just because racists support Trump doesn't make Trump a racist just as just because Trump supports conspiracy theories doesn't mean that people who support Trump believe in conspiracy theories. It's a Amy Schumer level "joke".
> 
> But that's probably a concept that's too complex for you to grasp.


Same old same old. Projecting your own association of certain groups onto others having the same tendency as you when you can't stay on discussion again. Mind you, this is all over a shitpost I made in response to a shitpost you made trying to shit on Alkomesh2.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Maybe you should learn what the term means before you start acting houlier than thou. *A conspiracy theory is not confined to just government actors.* Did you or did you not incoporate "evidence" to discredit the claim that Trump's crowd size was under reported by 'mainstream media'. Did you not include non-television number to try to justify Trump's claim that his inauguration was the 'biggest ever' was correct? By your definition isn't it a 'conspiracy theory' other than it wasn't a government actor doing the concealment?


That is a very important qualifier for something to be a conspiracy theory :lmao 

Trying to prove something to be true does not mean that I'm trying to prove a conspiracy theory if it's not a conspiracy theory. That's just trying to prove a theory. 



> I don't think you understand the limiters to association and how freedom from it necessary. :troll


I take it that that point went over your head. 



> If the shoe fits.


You can't fit a foot in a shoe if as the cobbler you don't even know how to take measurements. 



> Stop projecting your insecurities onto me just because I am the other Asian person that is active in this thread. Well..unless you count Aussies Asians.


What does your being asian have anything to do with this? I've talked to plenty of americans that don't understand what they're talking about either and I point it out to them as well. 



> Same old same old. Projecting your own association of certain groups onto others having the same tendency as you when you can't stay on discussion again. Mind you, this is all over a shitpost I made in response to a shitpost you made trying to shit on Alkomesh2.


Well, at least you're reading BM's posts and learning something from them. Just a note. Your teacher doesn't understand the use of the word projection either and now neither do you :mj4


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That is a very important qualifier for something to be a conspiracy theory :lmao
> 
> Trying to prove something to be true does not mean that I'm trying to prove a conspiracy theory if it's not a conspiracy theory. That's just trying to prove a theory.


So all sports conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories then?

So anything that you believe in is just a theory then? Right....





> I take it that that point went over your head.


Believe whatever you want. You can't see past your own hubris.



> You can't fit a foot in a shoe if as the cobbler you don't even know how to take measurements.





> What does your being asian have anything to do with this? I've talked to plenty of americans that don't understand what they're talking about either and I point it out to them as well.


Guess you really are projecting your insecurities onto me.




> Well, at least you're reading BM's posts and learning something from them. Just a note. Your teacher doesn't understand the use of the word projection either and now neither do you :mj4


I probably started using that term way before him in these parts. Funny how in just one post earlier you were trying to 'educate' me about association but you are guilty of it all the time. Projection projection. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> So all sports conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories then?
> 
> So anything that you believe in is just a theory then? Right....
> 
> 
> 
> Believe whatever you want. You can't see past your own hubris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you really are projecting your insecurities onto me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably started using that term way before him in these parts. Funny how in just one post earlier you were trying to 'educate' me about association but you are guilty of it all the time. Projection projection. [emoji38]


No. Sporting conspiracy theories unless involving a covert, big, unseen organization playing a major role in the background aren't conspiracy theories. It's a poorly used label outside it's common use.

Well then he learnt it from you though I've seen him use it before I even knew you existed and he used it wrong then as well. Doesn't mean either of you are using it correctly.

My point about association has nothing to do with people learning to mimic each other's talking points. Completely different. But you wouldn't know that.

Even if I explain it to you you're just going to respond with “you're insecure hurr durr" as is now your default. 

Thanks for the usual late night entertainment.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump and the Russians faked the moon landing. Bigfoot is Putin in a suit, 9 11 was done by Russians dressed as Arabs. 

Trump and the Russians fudged climate documents to the UN to create skepticism about climate change. 

The da Vinci code is true except it's about Trump being the child of Christ. Trump is the progeny of Jesus Christ and a Russian woman.

The FBI has investigated crackpot reports of assassination attempts, ufo sightings and bigfoot. Therefore all of what I said is true.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump and the Russians faked the moon landing. Bigfoot is Putin in a suit, 9 11 was done by Russians dressed as Arabs.
> 
> Trump and the Russians fudged climate documents to the UN to create skepticism about climate change.
> 
> The da Vinci code is true except it's about Trump being the child of Christ. Trump is the progeny of Jesus Christ and a Russian woman.
> 
> The FBI has investigated crackpot reports of assassination attempts, ufo sightings and bigfoot. Therefore all of what I said is true.


You're just insecure. Your insecurities are projecting your projection onto my insecurities and now I'm projecting someone's insecurities onto my projection.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA; @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @BruiserKC 

In light of two recent events 1) Milo brought down by conservatives partly because he's gay (though the reason is a misrepresentation of a poorly worded conversation) and 2) Tomi Lahren on her way out of the Blaze because she's pro-choice (though the reason given is that she's a hostile co-worker) I feel like having a discussion about Conservatism vs Libertarianism and the shaky partnership between the two groups. 

I see a lot of younger generation kids (roughly mid-20's to late 30's) being attracted towards conservatism as their political affiliation of choice and hence voting republican - yet I also see that there is a great deal of incompatibility between the old guard and the new generation in terms of issues like gay rights, abortion and the level of government role in legislation those issues. I see a lot of social liberals as well as libertarians looking for a home amongst republicans because of the sharp leftward movement of the liberals towards identity politics abandoning reason. 

With their small government rhetoric, I've noticed that the republicans attract a lot of libertarians, but with the libertarian philosophy comes the caveat that government cannot restrict individual liberties. The right to be a practicing homosexual and the right to be pro-choice tend to be overrepresented amongst libertarians as a whole, but at the same time creates an innate incompatibility with social conservatives - which we're seeing happen with younger conservatives within a few months. 

Similar thing happened to Lauren Southern in Canada where she was tossed out of the Libertarian party there for being for closed borders. 

Everywhere you look nowadays you have this lack of representation and acceptance of the younger conservative within conservative circles. Do you think there should be more acceptance? Or do you think that the old guard has justifiable reasons to maintain its social conservative ideals and pandering to the religious majority?

Is the republican party that's largely comprised of the older more socially conservative electorate a good fit for the younger conservatives who are more socially liberal? 

What do you guys think is the future of the republican party with regards to social issues? 

Do you see them continue to wall out the younger social liberals, or do you see them ever softening up their stance and becoming more accepting?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. Sporting conspiracy theories unless involving a covert, big, unseen organization playing a major role in the background aren't conspiracy theories. It's a poorly used label outside it's common use.


You are hanging your head on your own narrow definition of what is a conspiracy theory when a simple online search will reveal you are incorrect. But whatever your choice.



> Well then he learnt it from you though I've seen him use it before I even knew you existed and he used it wrong then as well. Doesn't mean either of you are using it correctly.


Just means you jump the gun as always.



> My point about association has nothing to do with people learning to mimic each other's talking points. Completely different. But you wouldn't know that.


You associate anti-Trump posters to all share common fallacies as BM, but tried to 'educate' me to not associate Trump supporters all with the same characteristic as a subset of Trump supporters. Nice strawman to deflect away from that into a point about mimic the same talking point. (which is what exactly?) :lol



> Even if I explain it to you you're just going to respond with “you're insecure hurr durr" as is now your default.


Your default position when you can't talk your way out of the mess you created.



> Thanks for the usual late night entertainment.


Just remember to take your meds.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear

Unfortunately a lot of libertarians have not learned the lesson of Murray Rothbard that allying with the left is an absurdly bad idea, and they tend to shun young conservatives who might otherwise be inclined toward libertarianism because they aren't super down with abortions, open borders, or marijuana. What you get is a very non-serious Libertarian Party that doesn't appeal to liberals (no matter how much they try, and lord knows do they try) because the left and libertarianism are not at all compatible, and doesn't appeal to conservatives because their platform prioritizes drugs and importing people who will make limited government an impossible dream. So that's a big problem for libertarians in terms of building bridges with conservatives, who they *wrongly* view themselves as no more compatible with than liberals. In my view the Libertarian party could use a big dose of realism and realize open borders with a welfare state is a recipe for disaster, as is just letting anyone come in while your country has an atrocious history with very violent and superstitious parts of the world. We need to get rid of the welfare state and have a lengthy period of peace with strongly enforced borders before we relax immigration controls. 

I don't really know what goes on in conversations between old Republicans or how they feel about younger conservatives, perhaps Bruiser can shed some light there. I do think more and more young people are being pushed toward a libertarian brand of conservatism due to all of the SJW insanity, and as the older more staunch Republicans die off I could see the GOP moving in a somewhat libertarian direction, assuming the insane neocons like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, two irredeemably garbage individuals in my estimation, don't successfully blow up the world first as they seem to want to do.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thoughts on Ivanka's expanded role in the White House? So much so that she now has an office in the White house? Or are we too numb to the numerous conflict of interests within the white house to care about this?


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA; @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @BruiserKC
> 
> In light of two recent events 1) Milo brought down by conservatives partly because he's gay (though the reason is a misrepresentation of a poorly worded conversation) and 2) Tomi Lahren on her way out of the Blaze because she's pro-choice (though the reason given is that she's a hostile co-worker) I feel like having a discussion about Conservatism vs Libertarianism and the shaky partnership between the two groups.
> 
> I see a lot of younger generation kids (roughly mid-20's to late 30's) being attracted towards conservatism as their political affiliation of choice and hence voting republican - yet I also see that there is a great deal of incompatibility between the old guard and the new generation in terms of issues like gay rights, abortion and the level of government role in legislation those issues. I see a lot of social liberals as well as libertarians looking for a home amongst republicans because of the sharp leftward movement of the liberals towards identity politics abandoning reason.
> 
> With their small government rhetoric, I've noticed that the republicans attract a lot of libertarians, but with the libertarian philosophy comes the caveat that government cannot restrict individual liberties. The right to be a practicing homosexual and the right to be pro-choice tend to be overrepresented amongst libertarians as a whole, but at the same time creates an innate incompatibility with social conservatives - which we're seeing happen with younger conservatives within a few months.
> 
> Similar thing happened to Lauren Southern in Canada where she was tossed out of the Libertarian party there for being for closed borders.
> 
> Everywhere you look nowadays you have this lack of representation and acceptance of the younger conservative within conservative circles. Do you think there should be more acceptance? Or do you think that the old guard has justifiable reasons to maintain its social conservative ideals and pandering to the religious majority?
> 
> Is the republican party that's largely comprised of the older more socially conservative electorate a good fit for the younger conservatives who are more socially liberal?
> 
> What do you guys think is the future of the republican party with regards to social issues?
> 
> Do you see them continue to wall out the younger social liberals, or do you see them ever softening up their stance and becoming more accepting?


There are snowflakes on all sides of the political spectrum. I consider myself pro-choice and Ok with same sex marriage. I will never give up any of my rights for security purposes. Some see me as an apostate because I am not in total lockstep with everything they believe. 

Unfortunately I don't see that changing any time soon. They just blindly follow everything their leadership says just like the other side


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear

I think that the suspension of Tomi Lahren really was a move by Beck to basically say to her to fall in line with the abortion topic or to at least not speak about it. Beck really has proven here and in the past that he is just as bad as liberals when it comes to a purity test. Bruiser is absolutely right when he says there are snowflakes on both sides and the Conservatives are showing their snowflake colours in reaction to Lahren's pro-choice stance. Just because she disagrees with one aspect of the GOP/Conservative platform, they are essentially crying and wailing on her. If you want to be for free speech and a debate of ideas you can't on the one hand criticize SJW's for no platforming and disrupting speakers and on the other suspend someone from doing their show simply because one of her ideas don't match up to what a lot of old school Conservatives feel. I'm not really a fan of Lahren to be honest but the Blaze are certainly in the wrong for suspending her over her comments over abortion.

The GOP are in a catch 22 because many of the younger Conservatives/Libertarians are much more socially liberal, particularly on the issue of same-sex marriage. Abortion is a real difficult one because I have also seen a lot of young Conservatives who are pro-life too. Really truth be told, the GOP needs to take a more libertarian position on both these issues and just state that it's not down to the federal government to dictate policy in either area. I'm not saying that just because that happens to be my position and the one I'd like to see the GOP take but also because it really is the position they need to take to keep a good amount of younger voters on board, whether it be pro-choice or pro-life. The problem is the social conservatives are still trying to keep a hold of the party and the sooner they go the better in my opinion. The evidence of this is stacked with the Tomi Lahren case as she is getting hammered by Conservatives on her stance on abortion whilst moderates and liberals are defending her....which is something I would have never have fathomed even a week ago. But there you have it, Conservatives can be just as petty with this shit as liberals sometimes.

@CamillePunk is 100% right with the libertarian party, particularly with the issue of immigration. Immigration is the one area that I do not fall in line with Libertarian orthodoxy. I am most certainly Conservative when it comes to this issue, particularly with the welfare states being as large as they are. Open door immigration simply cannot work with a welfare state and I don't even believe it would work without one. The libertarian party is stuck in it's own purity test and needs to focus on other areas in order to sell limited government ideas to the voters. You are not going to do that with someone like Gary Johnson for example as your nominee. Libertarian party needs to be more realistic and tweak a few of their insane policies whilst maintaining a liberty message.

I hope one day the GOP moves in a more libertarian direction but with the social conservatives still around, the neo-conservatives still having a stranglehold on the party and Trump essentially being a big government Republican himself I doubt that is going to happen. For now, I'll continue to support the work Rand Paul and others are putting in to try and morph the GOP into a more small/limited government party rather than one of big government authoritarianism with social conservative clothing.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> FBI investigated the possible existence of Big Foot as late as 1975.


Yes, investigated and found false.

Conversely the Trump claim *hasn't been investigated yet*.

There is a difference between believing something is true that was found to be false in 1975 and believing something could be true that hasn't been investigated yet.


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That's also one of the things the Big Foot nutters claim.
> 
> FBI investigated the possible existence of Big Foot as late as 1975.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's not a rational claim. I'm just saying that more often than not people make that claim in order to appear more rational than they actually are.


*I will believe Big Foot exists over Obama placing Trump under surveillance. I would also believe Big Foot to exists before I believe Russia and members of this current administration have not had political discussions. I'm not saying this to troll either. Much of the Earth's forests have been uninhabited by modern man, and unexplored. This is a fact. With that said there could be a species yet to have been discovered. Never rule out Big Foot.*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lariat.Tubman said:


> Trump's '17 heel run has been good so far. Ranks up there with Bush '01/'04, Harding '21 and Nixon '68.


But not nearly as good as HHH's heel run from '02/'06.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes, investigated and found false.
> 
> Conversely the Trump claim *hasn't been investigated yet*.
> 
> There is a difference between believing something is true that was found to be false in 1975 and believing something could be true that hasn't been investigated yet.


If it hasn't been investigated, then what has the FBI been doing for the better part of a year?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> If it hasn't been investigated, then what has the FBI been doing for the better part of a year?


Fair enough, let me rephrase, "hasn't finished being investigated yet" or "results of the investigation haven't been released yet".


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



blackholeson said:


> *I will believe Big Foot exists over Obama placing Trump under surveillance. *


I really don't know why you guys quote me with things that Trump believes as though it would be something I'd believe too :lol

Are you incapable of realizing that if someone supports someone, they don't support everything they do even after being told the same thing dozens of times over. 

And if you want to remain rooted to believing in fantasies, who am I to care. Some Bronies believe that they can fuck Rainbow Dash too. (Not that I think you're a brony, just that your belief that Big Foot exists is as ridiculous as that brony) Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously on that issue.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA; @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @BruiserKC
> 
> In light of two recent events *1) Milo brought down by conservatives partly because he's gay (though the reason is a misrepresentation of a poorly worded conversation) and *2) Tomi Lahren on her way out of the Blaze because she's pro-choice (though the reason given is that she's a hostile co-worker) I feel like having a discussion about Conservatism vs Libertarianism and the shaky partnership between the two groups.
> 
> I see a lot of younger generation kids (roughly mid-20's to late 30's) being attracted towards conservatism as their political affiliation of choice and hence voting republican - yet I also see that there is a great deal of incompatibility between the old guard and the new generation in terms of issues like gay rights, abortion and the level of government role in legislation those issues. I see a lot of social liberals as well as libertarians looking for a home amongst republicans because of the sharp leftward movement of the liberals towards identity politics abandoning reason.
> 
> With their small government rhetoric, I've noticed that the republicans attract a lot of libertarians, but with the libertarian philosophy comes the caveat that government cannot restrict individual liberties. The right to be a practicing homosexual and the right to be pro-choice tend to be overrepresented amongst libertarians as a whole, but at the same time creates an innate incompatibility with social conservatives - which we're seeing happen with younger conservatives within a few months.
> 
> Similar thing happened to Lauren Southern in Canada where she was tossed out of the Libertarian party there for being for closed borders.
> 
> Everywhere you look nowadays you have this lack of representation and acceptance of the younger conservative within conservative circles. Do you think there should be more acceptance? Or do you think that the old guard has justifiable reasons to maintain its social conservative ideals and pandering to the religious majority?
> 
> Is the republican party that's largely comprised of the older more socially conservative electorate a good fit for the younger conservatives who are more socially liberal?
> 
> What do you guys think is the future of the republican party with regards to social issues?
> 
> Do you see them continue to wall out the younger social liberals, or do you see them ever softening up their stance and becoming more accepting?


Is this recent?

I do recall he was "brought down" due to him talking(and unfortunately sounding favorably) about Pedophilia. I mean...I know Milo likes to discuss controversial subjects and gives no f's about it but that was one subject he should've stayed away from. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Julie :banderas.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Is this recent?
> 
> I do recall he was "brought down" due to him talking(and unfortunately sounding favorably) about Pedophilia. I mean...I know Milo likes to discuss controversial subjects and gives no f's about it but that was one subject he should've stayed away from. :shrug


Not recent no. The podcast where he said this was with a christian conservative group. He claims he was drunk and therefore his inhibitions were lowered. However, what he said wasn't bad in the realm of a purely academic discussion but it was bad enough for conservatives with an agenda to destroy him at his most vulnerable moment. Usually Liberals would have defended him as they do others, but he created an enemy of them over the past year. He did that to himself by assuming that he'd be welcomed by the other side - the mainstream of which doesn't want him any more than than the liberals. He's a flamboyant, unrepentant gay. And GOP only wants / accepts those gays that repent. 

GOP is still socially conservative. People like Milo, Lahren and others that are adopting them blindly and thinking that they can reform them on gay and abortion issues are a very, very small minority who just learned the hard way that the GOP isn't cool and isn't going to be cool with them. They're children who were likely liberals at one point looking for a home for their views and they aren't welcome in the GOP as mainstream GOP is incredibly socially conservative. Probably never will change as it's the party of Christianity.

---

*MEDIA HEADLINES ON GORSUCH HEARING STIR UP A NEW FALSE NARRATIVE
*by Kevin Ryan



> The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has gone rather smoothly thus far. But that isn't stopping the media from creating another false narrative out of one of his answers.
> 
> When asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) what he would have done if President Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade (the 1973 case that legalized abortion), Gorsuch said "I would have walked out the door."
> 
> Media outlets have taken that quote and made it into a headline, the insinuation being that Gorsuch is pro-abortion. Such a revelation would be sure to anger pro-life conservatives... if that's what Gorsuch meant.
> 
> But it's not.
> 
> *Taken in context, Gorsuch meant that judges shouldn't bend to the will of the executive branch. “Senator, I would have walked out the door. It's not what judges do. They don't do it at that end of Pennsylvania Ave. and they shouldn't do it at this end either, respectfully,” he continued. It was a statement in support of the separation of powers, not abortion.
> *
> But that hasn't kept the media from blaring out headlines insinuating otherwise.
> 
> SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/…/scotus-hearing-neil-gorsuch-roe-v-wade/


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/...eting-in-favor-of-china-russia-talks-1.459683

Rex is passing up meeting with NATO to talk to China and Russia

Nato officials even offered to move the meeting so he could do both and he turned them down

not a fan of that one bit


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Thoughts on Ivanka's expanded role in the White House? So much so that she now has an office in the White house? Or are we too numb to the numerous conflict of interests within the white house to care about this?


You guys complain about Trump not having experience and now that he's grooming your next president for 8 years before she officially takes over it's a problem. You really can't please liberals, jeez.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey couldn't find proof of Russian interference. Liberals are having another hissy fit over this.

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Comey couldn't find proof of Russian interference.
> 
> - Vic












:kappa


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
> 
> The latest figures include 33% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7 (see trends).
> 
> Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
> 
> Spring has sprung, and most Americans are in a better mood.
> 
> Forty percent (40%) of voters say the United States is headed in the right direction. That’s the lowest weekly finding since Trump took office January 20, but it compares to 26% a year ago.
> 
> Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch faced his first day of Senate confirmation hearings yesterday. They’ll resume today. We’ll tell you tomorrow morning how voters think Gorsuch did.
> 
> FBI Director James Comey told a House panel yesterday that his agency is investigating any possible ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign last year. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats said in December that it’s likely the Russians helped Trump defeat their nominee Hillary Clinton. Just as many Republicans (71%) said that was unlikely.
> 
> Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is reportedly heading to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders next month. Voters worry about Tillerson’s business ties to Russia, and most think Russia is a likely influence on Trump’s foreign policy.
> 
> (More below)
> 
> 20-Jan-17
> 27-Jan-17
> 03-Feb-17
> 10-Feb-17
> 17-Feb-17
> 24-Feb-17
> 03-Mar-17
> 10-Mar-17
> 21-Mar-17
> 40%
> 50%
> 60%
> 70%
> www.RasmussenReports.com
> Total Approve
> The president is proposing major cuts in foreign aid. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters believe the $42.4 billion the U.S. government is slated to give in economic and military aid to other countries this year is too much.
> 
> Trump has proposed the cuts to help fund a big increase in defense spending and the repair and replacement of infrastructure nationwide. Most voters agree that any new spending must be offset by budget cuts elsewhere.
> 
> Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans think when it comes to team sports for children, it’s more important to reward the winners than to make sure everyone is recognized for participating.
> 
> (More below)
> 
> -7
> 20-Jan-17
> 27-Jan-17
> 03-Feb-17
> 10-Feb-17
> 17-Feb-17
> 24-Feb-17
> 03-Mar-17
> 10-Mar-17
> 21-Mar-17
> 20%
> 30%
> 40%
> 50%
> www.RasmussenReports.com
> Strongly Disapprove
> Strongly Approve
> Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.
> 
> To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.
> 
> Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
> 
> Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar21


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The first list of criminal aliens has dropped 

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ddor/ddor2017_01-28to02-03.pdf

And as promised, this only contains records of those aliens that were caught, convicted but still released by law enforcement instead of being deported.

---

On that subject, I got a temporary 1 year extension of my PRC subject to future vetting and potential interview and bio-metrics (fingerprinting etc). One step closer to becoming a legal permanent resident and citizen of the USA :woo

If all goes well, and it will, I will be able to vote for Donald Trump in 2020 

#lifegoals #MAGA :trump3


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys complain about Trump not having experience and now that he's grooming your next president for 8 years before she officially takes over it's a problem. You really can't please liberals, jeez.


Of course they would. If Ivanka ran then the first female President would be a Republican, oh no cannot have that! Only the Democrats can do that!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Of course they would. If Ivanka ran then the first female President would be a Republican, oh no cannot have that! Only the Democrats can do that!


Oh no, Sally, much worse than that. :lol The first female president will be a _Trump_.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This whole one side complaining about the other round robin shit is so goddamn annoying now. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm going through the list of criminals and out of the 206 detainees, 143 are Mexicans and the rest from other parts of South America. There's like 1 Indian and 1 Jamaican on the list. 

I don't know how I feel about because that's a disproportionate number. 

There are estimated to be 6-7 million illegal Mexicans in America out of 11.4 million total illegals (53-61%) and in the first list, they represent about 69% of the criminals. That's disproportionate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys complain about Trump not having experience and now that he's grooming your next president for 8 years before she officially takes over it's a problem. You really can't please liberals, jeez.


Nice red herring. If that was really the case why not give her an official position like her husband instead of all the unofficial crap.

Is she being groomed to take over Trump Organisation or to be the next President? Make up your minds. You really can't take conservative libertarians seriously, jeez.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Nice red herring. If that was really the case why not give her an official position like her husband instead of all the unofficial crap.
> 
> Is she being groomed to take over Trump Organisation or to be the next President? Make up your minds. You really can't take conservative libertarians seriously, jeez.


When did I say she was being groomed to take over the Trump Organization? :kobe I've said multiple times in this thread she will be president in 2024, should she decide to run.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Regarding the generational divide among conservatives, I definitely think the republican party of 20 years from now will look significantly different than what it does now, likely a lot more different than the democratic party will. Something I found telling when people were taking that little quiz is nobody scoring a positive value on the authoritarian/libertarian vertical line, which, even though it was only a few of us I find generally true at least among younger people. I think the caricature of the american right wing voter (homophobe that insists abstinence and creation be taught in schools etc) is dying out, literally, and being replaced the more hard libertarian ideals like I see in here


----------



## Pratchett

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> This whole one side complaining about the other round robin shit is so goddamn annoying now. :lol


It's always happened and it always will though. I think what makes it worse now (as opposed to the past) is the proliferation of social media. It used to be you only saw that stuff when you watched the news or read the paper for the most part. Now with everyone having a smartphone and a Facebook and a Twitter or whatever, there is almost no escaping it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We're a "bad" bunch to be judging political leaning of the younger generation on @samizayn ... Libertarians are grossly overrepresented on WF than any other site I've ever been to. No idea why that happened, but it's probably just luck of the draw. 

If you go on FB groups and other forums, you'll see the authoritarians with much more representation than here. I go on Imgur and it's mostly left-wing authoritarians and democrats there. Even on the site itself there's actually more authoritarians than we see in these threads. They just don't enter this thread but you see many of them and can sort of tell in other threads.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> We're a "bad" bunch to be judging political leaning of the younger generation on @samizayn ... Libertarians are grossly overrepresented on WF than any other site I've ever been to. No idea why that happened, but it's probably just luck of the draw.
> 
> If you go on FB groups and other forums, you'll see the authoritarians with much more representation than here. I go on Imgur and it's mostly left-wing authoritarians and democrats there. Even on the site itself there's actually more authoritarians than we see in these threads. They just don't enter this thread but you see many of them and can sort of tell in other threads.


Oh no for sure, I was just combining you guys with what I see on campus. The vast majority lean left obviously but where you have Republicans, it's the kind that wear shirts that read "Taxation is Theft" on them lol. Whenever they're handing out their little leaflets for the student orgs and everything it's just a lot of anti govt stuff, anti Islamic extremism occasionally. Nothing of preserving family values, nothing of God or any of the things you would have traditionally associated with (old people) Republicanism. That combined impression is what gave me the picture of the direction it's going in. Though I definitely have had a disproportionate amount of exposure to the libertarian half; I really can't recall having a fully fleshed out conversation with an authoritarian of any kind, online or otherwise.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Oh no for sure, I was just combining you guys with what I see on campus. The vast majority lean left obviously but where you have Republicans, it's the kind that wear shirts that read "Taxation is Theft" on them lol. Whenever they're handing out their little leaflets for the student orgs and everything it's just a lot of anti govt stuff, anti Islamic extremism occasionally. Nothing of preserving family values, nothing of God or any of the things you would have traditionally associated with (old people) Republicanism. That combined impression is what gave me the picture of the direction it's going in. Though I definitely have had a disproportionate amount of exposure to the libertarian half; I really can't recall having a fully fleshed out conversation with an authoritarian of any kind, online or otherwise.


Right wing authoritarianism is something that you'll find in the Canadian prairies ... not colleges and cities - in exactly the same way they exist in Rural America. The difference is that in America they have a much higher voting population ... If you look at all the Red in the American electorate, almost all of it is rural. 

They're not on the internet. They're not in colleges (except the over-achievers that eventually switch sides), and they hate mingling with regular folk. Most of them anyways. They're the ones that are the "God and Country" folk that vote republican. There is also an interesting phenomena happening in the States where you've got city folk migrating to the rural areas and switching sides to the Red state. Now when they switch, since they're coming over from big government on the left, they support big government on the right. 

The other thing we're all missing in our analysis is that there's republicans that are simply republicans because that's their family legacy. I'd say the vast majority of voters in America are legacy voters that never switch sides and they also don't really give a damn about the finer points of whether we should or shouldn't have government and they just vote for the party of their parents. This happens more on the republican side than it does on the democrat side however.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The first list of criminal aliens has dropped
> 
> https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ddor/ddor2017_01-28to02-03.pdf
> 
> And as promised, this only contains records of those aliens that were caught, convicted but still released by law enforcement instead of being deported.
> 
> ---
> 
> On that subject, I got a temporary 1 year extension of my PRC subject to future vetting and potential interview and bio-metrics (fingerprinting etc). One step closer to becoming a legal permanent resident and citizen of the USA :woo
> 
> If all goes well, and it will, I will be able to vote for Donald Trump in 2020
> 
> #lifegoals #MAGA :trump3


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'll be very very surprised if this GOP Health Bill passes in the House. If by some stroke of luck it passes the House, it's not passing the Senate. Dead on arrival in the Senate.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I agree. This Bill needs a massive "adjustment".


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> We're a "bad" bunch to be judging political leaning of the younger generation on @samizayn ... Libertarians are grossly overrepresented on WF than any other site I've ever been to. No idea why that happened, but it's probably just luck of the draw.
> 
> If you go on FB groups and other forums, you'll see the authoritarians with much more representation than here. I go on Imgur and it's mostly left-wing authoritarians and democrats there. Even on the site itself there's actually more authoritarians than we see in these threads. They just don't enter this thread but you see many of them and can sort of tell in other threads.


I don't recall much political discussion happening here at all until the 2012 election (so I had only been here a year, which means I could easily be very wrong about this) when GOON and I started letting our libertarian freak flags fly. :lol I think I was telling people to vote for Gary Johnson back then. :argh: I know I've influenced a few posters on here to either get more into libertarianism, or express their libertarian views more prominently, based on PMs/VMs/reps I've received over the years.

Basically I'm taking credit for all of it. Give me a few more years and this will be the new /r/Anarcho-Capitalism. :mark:


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Fair enough, let me rephrase, "hasn't finished being investigated yet" or "results of the investigation haven't been released yet".


Pretty much this. I don't particularly have a strong viewpoint onthe Trump-Russia collusion, I think its mostly a lot of mudslinging, but unlike Trumps continued lies about wiretapping and his cronies embarrassing attempts at backtracking, these claims are yet to be concluded one way or the other.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> This whole one side complaining about the other round robin shit is so goddamn annoying now. :lol


It's political theater for the masses...and the kneejerk reactions aren't limited to one side. You have idiots on both sides of the spectrum just spouting off...basically anything one side likes the other side doesn't. Take for example...

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/new...require-supreme-court-allow-cameras-courtroom

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2017 (which BTW I'd be all in favor for as I think it's important to be able to witness the proceedings of SCOTUS) was introduced by Grassley (R) and Durbin (D)...also had co-sponsorship from Al Franken, Richard Blumenthal, and Amy Klobuchar (all Democratic Senators as well...in fact Grassley and Klobuchar also introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act which would do the same on the federal court level). 

However...you have people just automatically saying it's a shitty idea because the other side thought of it. Dems/libs are saying, "Grassley is pushing this...I don't like it!" Republicans are saying, "I can't get behind this as they have a filthy Democrat's name on this. If they like this, I have to be against it!"


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> It's not rocket science to figure out that the Democrats really hate President Trump. The Democrats are enraged that Trump is forcing students to pay back their student loans, livid that he nominated a textualist to the Supreme Court, and apoplectic that he ordered a travel ban on six nations that pose massive vetting problems and are teeming with Islamic extremists.
> 
> However, nothing fires up the Democrats more than the conspiracy that the Russians assisted Trump in winning the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats, namely Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, have openly suggested that Trump is working with Vladimir Putin.
> 
> After FBI Director James Comey testified that he is probing into possible ties between Trump's campaign and the Russians, Rep. Maxine Waters from California wrote the following idiotic tweet:
> 
> Follow
> Maxine Waters ✔ @MaxineWaters
> Get ready for impeachment.
> 7:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017
> 35,457 35,457 Retweets 85,038 85,038 likes
> This is not the first time that Rep. Waters said something unhinged and idiotic, but this tweet takes the cake. By her l"ogic," if the FBI is seeking answers to questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians, then Trump is automatically guilty before being proven innocent. Not only does this bastardize one of the key components of fairness in the law, but it also cheapens what the Constitution establishes as justifiable cause to impeach the President in Article II, Section 4:
> 
> The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
> 
> Earth to Maxine: An investigation does not constitute a conviction. Calling for impeachment of the President of the United States on shoddy non-evidence should be embarrassing to any reasonable politician. If anyone is deserving of being kicked out of office for violating the law of the land, it would be the individual who lied about her age to acquire a Social Security Card, Maxine Waters. In addition, Waters' campaign also paid her daughter $70,000 during her 2016 re-election campaign in what could constitute an ethics violation. Speaking of ethics violations, Rep. Waters was charged on three counts of violating the House rules and the House ethics code in her attempt to arrange a meeting between Treasury officials and members of OneUnited Bank.
> 
> Earth to Maxine: An investigation does not constitute a conviction.
> 
> In short, Maxine Waters, with her personal history of violating the rules for her own interests, is not the best mouthpiece for the Democratic party on this issue. As for the case against Trump, after over six months of using all of its resources to catch him in supposed collusion with Putin, the Democrats and the media thus far have produced "no evidence." It might be time to drop the narrative.
> 
> Follow Elliott on Twitter and Facebook.
> 
> TAGS


http://www.dailywire.com/news/14624/moron-alert-maxine-waters-calls-trumps-impeachment-elliott-hamilton


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That Elliot sure does a good strawman, what a load of hot air and bullshit he spews. Its funny how he can't see the irony of dropping a narrative when it's Republicans and their birther bullshit or Trump and his wiretapping nonsense. Both sides deserve each other.

Get ready for impeachment is absolutely no different from the whole 'lock her up' crap the GOp were shouting during the elections, its empty nonsense, its not implying he's confirmed guilty but a hope/belief that he is and that after investigation he gets his just desserts. Can't believe someone took the time to write that, and that someone thought it was quality work to share with us ><

Get ready for impeachment...is that it?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't recall much political discussion happening here at all until the 2012 election (so I had only been here a year, which means I could easily be very wrong about this) when GOON and I started letting our libertarian freak flags fly.  I think I was telling people to vote for Gary Johnson back then. :argh: I know I've influenced a few posters on here to either get more into libertarianism, or express their libertarian views more prominently, based on PMs/VMs/reps I've received over the years.
> 
> Basically I'm taking credit for all of it. Give me a few more years and this will be the new /r/Anarcho-Capitalism. :mark:


I'll give you credit for changing my views on BLM and directing me to the study of libertarianism but I've been pro self governance since at least the late 2000s  I was one of those that a believed that abstaining from voting was a form of protest however not realizing that that is kind of idiotic. 

Didn't know that that was a full political philosophy till I had a lengthy conversation with @L-DOPA and you about it. 

Just didn't really flesh it out for myself as much as I have during the Trump campaign and for that I'll credit both you and Dopa.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/14624/moron-alert-maxine-waters-calls-trumps-impeachment-elliott-hamilton


They'll never drop the narrative because that's all they have anymore. :lol

They've been proven wrong in their accusations at every turn. 

Thwarted in their attempts to remove Trump from office at every attempt.


It's downright hilarious to see. 

And I agree with "Mr. Strawman"(Elliot) in that Maxine Walters shouldn't cast stones at glass houses or what-have-you. She's done more than enough to get HER removed from her position....yet she's still there. Trump could just as well order her removal due to these incidents that were largely ignored and there's nothing Democrats can do about it unless they want to show that they condone Ethics Violations to the entire country. :shrug

(or am I wrong in all this? Nah. )


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

>[X]Defeated Hillary easily
>[X]Laughed at delusional recount attempts
>[X]Laughed at delusional electoral coup attempts
>[X]Trump inaugurated as expected
>[X]Laughed at delusional children in pink hats
>[X]Laughed as said delusion children were arrested and sentenced to felony rioting, ruining their entire lives in their mid 20's over nothing
>[X]Revealed Sessions had no ties to Russia
>[X]Forced Sessions confirmation
>[X]Forced DeVos confirmation
>[X]Cucked Obamacare
>[X]Baited NYT into publishing lies about President Trump without proof
>[X]Secured wall funding
>[X]Democrats caught lying about Russian collusion
>[X]Wiretapping claims proven true
--->YOU ARE HERE<---
>[ ]Gorsuch Confirmed
>[ ]Implement tax cuts for the middle class
>[ ]SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim ban
>[ ]Wide ranging investigation into DNC/Soros collusion
>[ ]Wall built
>[ ]Full tax returns released, are totally clean
>[ ]Bipartisan support for the reelection of President Trump
>[ ]President Trump serves 8 years without being impeached
>[ ]Democrat leaders tried for Treason
>[ ]Imprisoned
>[ ]All die alone, poor, and disgraced in Prison
>[ ]Leftists are socially ostracized and humiliated for their delusional and childish beliefs
>[ ]President Donald Trump leads the nation into a new age of wealth and prosperity


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*









Bored CNN?




> Five people employed by members of the House of Representatives remain under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed at least one of those under investigation.
> The criminal investigation into the five, which includes three brothers and a wife of one of the men, started late last year, as reported by Politico in February. The group is being investigated by US Capitol Police over allegations that they removed equipment from over 20 members’ offices, as well as having run a procurement scheme to buy equipment and then overcharge the House.
> 
> House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week Capitol Police are receiving additional help for the investigation. “I won’t speak to the nature of their investigation, but they’re getting the kind of technical assistance they need to do that, this is under an active criminal investigation, their capabilities are pretty strong but they’re also able to go and get the kind of help they need from other sources," Ryan said.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> RT ✔ @RT_com
> House GOP pushes healthcare vote after Trump intervention https://on.rt.com/86h9
> 10:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017
> 23 23 Retweets 22 22 likes
> The brothers, Abid, Jamal and Imran Awan, worked as shared employees for various members of the House, covering committees relating to intelligence, terrorism and cybersecurity, which included the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.
> 
> Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, both of whom worked as House IT employees, are also under investigation.
> 
> DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
> 
> The group were banned from accessing the computers as a result of the investigation but, as of earlier this month, Imran Awan remains as an “technology adviser” to former Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign in July following revelations that she worked to further Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic primary at the expense of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> RT America ✔ @RT_America
> BREAKING: DNC chair Wasserman Schultz to step down amid WikiLeaks revelations http://on.rt.com/7kef
> 3:09 PM - 24 Jul 2016
> 190 190 Retweets 182 182 likes
> News of the brothers’ investigation has sparked speculation that it may be tied to the hack of the DNC servers, the contents of which were first released by Guccifer 2.0 and later published on WikiLeaks.
> 
> Russian actors have been accused of being behind the hack, which Democrats claim contributed to Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. There have also been reports that the DNC hack came from an insider.
> 
> READ MORE: WikiLeaks envoy: Leaked DNC emails came from ‘disgusted’ whistleblower, not Russian hackers
> 
> Follow
> JCross @ccross5882
> @Cernovich Can't blame the Russians for Awan brothers, why is no one talking about them since were investigating leaks!
> 10:30 PM - 20 Mar 2017
> 45 45 Retweets 51 51 likes
> Follow
> Sr Admin Official @Im_Effin_Dunn
> @Cernovich Were Dems really hacked? Looks like they'll give just about anybody access to their computers. No ? asked.
> 4:55 AM - 20 Mar 2017
> 11 11 Retweets 14 14 likes
> Follow
> Cheryl Aschenbrenner @CherylAschenbr2
> @TomFitton What is the actual proof specifically that in fact it was Russia doing hack of DNC because Awan Brothers issue disturbs me
> 12:10 AM - 21 Mar 2017
> 25 25 Retweets 18 18 likes
> An email between DNC staffers in April 2016, which was released by WikiLeaks, references a staff member named Imran and how this person has access to the passwords for Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.
> 
> Garret Bonosky, deputy director of office of the DNC chair, tells Amy Kroll: “I have to get [this iPad] thing figured out. Need to make sure I have her username and password before I delete and reload the app.”
> 
> “I do not have access to her ipad password, but Imran does,” Kroll replies, later writing: “Just spoke to Imran, call me whenever GB and I’ll update you, don’t delete anything yet.”
> 
> 
> Follow
> RT America ✔ @RT_America
> Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz just admit to rigging the primaries?
> READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/7mqr
> 5:06 PM - 15 Aug 2016
> 247 247 Retweets 146 146 likes
> Another email from the DNC hack, dated December 2016, references Imran once again. Wasserman Schultz’s assistant Rosalyn Kumar tells scheduler Anna Stolitzka: “[Nancy] Pelosi is doing [a] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.”
> 
> 6-FIGURE SALARIES
> 
> The brothers were paid high salaries for their work with various House members, above the median salary for Congressional staffers.
> 
> Imran, who started working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, received $164,600 in 2016, with close to $20,000 of that coming from Wasserman Schultz.
> 
> Jamal, who started working as a staffer in 2014, was paid $157,350.12 in 2016. Abid, who started working in 2005, was paid $160,943 in 2016.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> RT America ✔ @RT_America
> ‘This just keeps happening’: Secret Service under investigation over more breaches https://on.rt.com/86f3
> 9:31 PM - 20 Mar 2017
> 81 81 Retweets 62 62 likes
> Hina Alvi, who was employed as a staffer from February 2007, was paid 168,300 in 2016. Rao Abbas was paid $85,049 in 2016.
> 
> The Daily Caller reports that Imran received $1.2 million in salary since 2010, while Abid and Alvi received over $1 million each.
> 
> House Democrats supporting the employees have suggested that the Pakistani nationality of the suspects may have inspired the investigation.


https://www.rt.com/usa/381692-congressional-staffers-criminal-investigation/


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> House Democrats supporting the employees have suggested that the Pakistani nationality of the suspects may have inspired the investigation.


Don't think it was the sole reason. However, considering the risky climate we're living in today, I wouldn't be surprised if it played some part as well. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...orked-benefit-putin-government-report-n736881

Paul Manafort Once Worked to ‘Benefit the Putin Government’: Report

The White House distanced itself from a new report Wednesday that alleges Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was hired by a Russian billionaire more than a decade ago in order to advance the agenda of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The explosive report by The Associated Press appears to undermine assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort that he had never worked to promote Russia's global influence.

The White House distanced itself from a new report Wednesday that alleges Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was hired by a Russian billionaire more than a decade ago in order to advance the agenda of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The explosive report by The Associated Press appears to undermine assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort that he had never worked to promote Russia's global influence.

Play WH on Manafort Report: Trump Unaware of His Decade-Old Clients Facebook TwitterEmbed
WH on Manafort Report: Trump Unaware of His Decade-Old Clients 1:28
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told NBC News it would be "inappropriate" to comment.

Spicer later said at a press briefing that "to suggest that the president knew who (Manafort's) clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane. (Manafort) is not a government employee, he didn't fill out any paperwork attesting to something. There is nothing that he did that suggests at this point that anything was nefarious."

Manafort, working as a consultant, signed a $10 million annual contract with Russian oligarch and aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska in 2006 after pitching plans to help Russian interests around the world, the AP reported.

Deripaska is among Putin's inner circle of billionaire businessman.

Related: Donald Trump Aide Paul Manafort Scrutinized for Russian Business Ties

"We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success," Manafort purportedly wrote in a confidential 2005 memo to Deripaska obtained by the AP.

NBC News has not seen the document.

Last August, NBC News reported on a court filing that showed Deripaska paid Manafort $7.35 million toward management fees for him and his partners in connection with an investment fund.

As part of his work for Deripaska, Manafort did not use his public-facing consulting firm, Davis Manafort, according to the AP. The pair reportedly had a falling out in 2014 over how money Deripaska gave Manafort was used to invest in a Ukrainian TV company.

Image: -
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks with Oleg Deripaska at the International Investment Forum in Sochi in 2008. ILIA PITALEV / AFP-Getty Images file
Manafort in a statement Wednesday said that he has previously acknowledged doing work for Deripaska's aluminum company, Rusal, which does business in several countries, including the Balkan nation of Montenegro.

"For example, one of the projects involved supporting a referendum in Montenegro that allowed that country to choose membership in the EU, a measure that Russia opposed. I did not work for the Russian government," Manafort said. "Once again, smear and innuendo are being used to paint a false picture. I look forward to meeting with those conducting serious investigations of these issues to discuss the actual facts."

Manafort served as Trump's unpaid campaign chairman last year before he resigned in August. His tenure was plagued by questions about his ties to the pro-Russian government in Ukraine.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told NBC News that the AP report "is something that disturbs me if true."

"I'm sure President Trump didn't know anything about this ... But I can tell you this, this is something that disturbs me if true. I don't know if it is true and that's why I'm glad the FBI is investigating all these kinds of matters," Graham said.

Play Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort tied to Russia Facebook TwitterEmbed
Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort tied to Russia 3:30
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that Manafort should testify before the panel as part of its investigation into Trump's Russia ties and that if he won't appear voluntarily, he should be subpoenaed.

"The dots continue to connect around Paul Manafort and his ties to Russia," Swalwell told MSNBC. "Our investigation will not be complete if he does not testify."

NBC News previously reported that Manafort's firm was involved with Ukrainian businessman and philanthropist Dmytro Firtash to redevelop a New York hotel named the Drake, although the deal never went through.

Related: Timeline: Trump Associates and Aides and Their Brushes With Russia

In previous interviews and statements to NBC News, Manafort said he "never had a business relationship" with Firtash. "There was one occasion where an opportunity was explored. ... Nothing transpired and no business relationship was ever implemented."

The extent of any alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election is now under investigation, FBI Director James Comey told a House Intelligence Committee on Monday. Manafort is just one of a handful of Trump associates or aides whose past conversations or connections with Russian officials have been called into question.

Spicer on Monday downplayed Manafort's campaign role, telling reporters that he "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time."

Manafort also responded after Comey revealed there's a federal probe, and denied having any role in the alleged Russian-orchestrated cyberattacks against the Democrats last year or speaking with a Russian official or others who might be involved.

"Despite the constant scrutiny and innuendo, there are no facts or evidence supporting these allegations, nor will there be," Manafort said in a statement.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/844678078664249345
Trump was monitored, holy shit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/844678078664249345
> Trump was monitored, holy shit.


Nunes initially said “yes,” when asked by a reporter if President Trump’s own communications were part of that surveillance, *but when he was asked that same question again later, he said “it’s possible.”* Elaborating but not clarifying, Nunes said, *”I know there was incidental collection regarding the president-elect and his team.* I don’t know if it was physically a phone call.” He said he could not say if the communications had taken place in Trump Tower.

he said its possible and if it was it was incidental. Does not sound like Trump was being monitored at all.

People on his team was and Trump may have been because of people on his team being monitored

Trump was not the target by Obama like Trump claimed. 

This is like you claiming oh you are being wiretapped when you were not, then going to a friends house who is being monitored and because of that you were monitored while you were there and claiming SEE I was monitored.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nunes initially said “yes,” when asked by a reporter if President Trump’s own communications were part of that surveillance, *but when he was asked that same question again later, he said “it’s possible.”* Elaborating but not clarifying, Nunes said, *”I know there was incidental collection regarding the president-elect and his team.* I don’t know if it was physically a phone call.” He said he could not say if the communications had taken place in Trump Tower.
> 
> he said its possible and if it was it was incidental. Does not sound like Trump was being monitored at all.
> 
> People on his team was and Trump may have been because of people on his team being monitored


I don't know how one can be accidentally monitored, tbh. It's shady that this happened, tbh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> I don't know how one can be accidentally monitored, tbh. It's shady that this happened, tbh.


I just gave an example in my update post. 

If someone you know is being monitored, there is a chance when you interact with that person you are monitored.

How is that shady?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/844678078664249345
> Trump was monitored, holy shit.


The Vault 7 leaks were enough to make me view Trump's wiretapping claim as being very viable, though I have not been 100% sold on his claim being legitimate.

And now House Intel Chairman Nunes says that some of Trump's personal communications during his transition to the Presidency may have indeed been caught up in surveillance, albeit incidentally.

I still think an independent investigation would be best to put the matter to bed. But of course this pencil necked ****** Adam Schiff is saying he has "grave concerns" over Nunes' statement, because for all we know thanks to Vault 7, Trump could very well be mostly (or even totally) correct on his claim of being shadily monitored by the U.S. government due to him being such a mover and a shaker.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I just gave an example in my update post.
> 
> If someone you know is being monitored, there is a chance when you interact with that person you are monitored.
> 
> How is that shady?


Seems like a pretty big screw-up if it went down like that. Even if it was accidentally, it proves that at least for some time, his privacy as President was being breached. Not a good look.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Nothing Trump says is ever legit ever to BM, EVER. lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Seems like a pretty big screw-up if it went down like that. Even if it was accidentally, it proves that at least for some time, his privacy as President was being breached. Not a good look.


What isn't a good look is all the people on Trumps campaign having ties to Russia like Manafort and Flynn.

You really think Trump had no clue about Manafort?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The Vault 7 leaks were enough to make me view Trump's wiretapping claim as being very viable, though I have not been 100% sold on his claim being legitimate.
> 
> And now House Intel Chairman Nunes says that some of Trump's personal communications during his transition to the Presidency may have indeed been caught up in surveillance, albeit incidentally.
> 
> I still think an independent investigation would be best to put the matter to bed. But of course this pencil necked ****** Adam Schiff is saying he has "grave concerns" over Nunes' statement, because for all we know thanks to Vault 7, Trump could very well be mostly (or even totally) correct on his claim of being shadily monitored by the U.S. government due to him being such a mover and a shaker.


Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an accident. A screw-up with technology like that on the highest level by the federal government in 2017? I don't know.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an accident. A screw-up with technology like that on the highest level by the federal government in 2017? I don't know.


There is still zero evidence it even happened. He just said its possible Trump was. 

Lets see what the evidence is and what was found if anything was found.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is still zero evidence it even happened. He just said its possible Trump was.
> 
> Lets see what the evidence is and what was found if anything was found.


His first answer was "yes" before backtracking a bit and saying it's 'possible.' That says something to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> His first answer was "yes" before backtracking a bit and saying it's 'possible.' That says something to me.


Yeah the Trump admin backtracking once again when saying something that is not true.

With the Trump admin you never know what is true or not because they lie all the time.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah the Trump admin backtracking once again when saying something that is not true.
> 
> With the Trump admin you never know what is true or not because they lie all the time.


They're not different from anyother administration when it comes to lying.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an accident. A screw-up with technology like that on the highest level by the federal government in 2017? I don't know.


I'm leaning in favor of the prospect that Teflon Don Juan was indeed peeped on by Da Gubmint, thanks to the revelations of Vault 7 and now Nunes' statement. However, until we get an independent investigation into the matter, I'm only gonna be like 80% sold on it having occurred, rather than 100%.

All we can do is wait until then. :lenny2


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Uh, all this is confirming so far is that Trump's people had contact with foreign people. Those foreign people are always under watch by intelligence communities (standard protocol) so those who interact with them (Trump's people) ended up getting swept up too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> They're not different from anyother administration when it comes to lying.


Not even close to the same in the case of the Trump admin and their ALT FACTS.

Trump just tweets out anything as a fact even when its not true because he saw it on TV.

IF this guy has evidence then he needs to show it


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I'm leaning in favor of the prospect that Teflon Don Juan was indeed peeped on by Da Gubmint, thanks to the revelations of Vault 7 and now Nunes' statement. However, until we get an independent investigation into the matter, I'm only gonna be like 80% sold on it having occurred, rather than 100%.
> 
> All we can do is wait until then. :lenny2


Yeah, I agree. The government 'accidentally' fucking up with technology in 2017.

:lol Right.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, I agree. The government 'accidentally' fucking up with technology in 2017.
> 
> :lol Right.


Yeah, considering how petty both parties are and how government bureaus like the FBI, CIA, etc. are more politicized than we think, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they deliberately spied on Donald.

However, for all we know, it could simply be a matter of protocol inadvertently encompassing Trump and his team too, like @Headliner mentioned.

Gonna be quite interesting to see how this pans out.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm waiting to see what Rip has to say about this.


In the meantime :


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

On the eve of the ACHA vote... what would be a good plan...

https://www.conservativereview.com/...gs-trump-republicans-should-do-on-health-care

In his column, I like the idea of block grants so that each state can set up their own insurance program which takes the federal government out of it. I have stated all along that the feds tend to not be able to get the hell out of their own way and screw everything up. Especially the irony that many people complain about the government messing shit up and then turn around and say that they want some type of government-run health care system. I'd prefer to make my own medical decisions, thank you. 

One thing that I would like to see that they haven't really talked about...plan portability. As it stands now, your options for insurance are basically the one your employer offers or Medicaid/Medicare. I like my job, but there is always the possibility down the road I could lose that job or find another job with another company. If that happens, then I lose my insurance plan and would have to go with what the other employer offers. If I want to keep my plan, I should have that option and be able to take it with me. There are individual plans that are available, such as from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. However, they are expensive as all get-out. There needs to be a way to be able to get portability from our plan and have the costs be reasonable. 

I still find troubling with the breakneck speed that Trump is trying to get this through. I get it, he wants to show he kept his promise on repeal and replace. At the same time, one of the biggest knocks against the ACA was that it was pushed through before the politicians fully digested what it entailed (Nancy Pelosi told us that we had to vote for it to see what was in it.) Even though Obamacare was over a year in the making, it was pushed through when the fear was that losing super-majority in the Senate meant it would be killed through filibuster. Just ramming this through the process could lead to an even bigger disaster. 

The solution should be simple...take the simple bill that had been sent through multiple times repealing the ACA. Re-introduce it with an expiration date of three years from now. Get that through both Houses and to Trump's desk for signature. It would pass as it already has. Then, start working on the replacement. This way, you have time to get something done right.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I'm waiting to see what Rip has to say about this.
> 
> 
> In the meantime :


Picture inaccurate, Trump's tiny hands could not hold such a heavy gun; and it's been proven predatory birds attack Trump when they are close to him.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I got Centrist, which sounds about right to where while I think government has an effective place, it's not always the solution to many political and social issues. Also hate extreme intervention from either political side as it can be problematic (although I'm not one of those weak, fairweather centrists who use false equivalencies to undermine a valid point)


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I'm waiting to see what Rip has to say about this.
> 
> 
> In the meantime :


Political theater. One that I have no particular interest in.


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I like Rip. He's a good guy.

Did I already mention that I like Rip?


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.rt.com/usa/381692-congressional-staffers-criminal-investigation/



> Five people employed by members of the House of Representatives remain under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed at least one of those under investigation.
> The criminal investigation into the five, which includes three brothers and a wife of one of the men, started late last year, as reported by Politico in February. The group is being investigated by US Capitol Police over allegations that they removed equipment from over 20 members’ offices, as well as having run a procurement scheme to buy equipment and then overcharge the House.
> 
> House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week Capitol Police are receiving additional help for the investigation. “I won’t speak to the nature of their investigation, but they’re getting the kind of technical assistance they need to do that, this is under an active criminal investigation, their capabilities are pretty strong but they’re also able to go and get the kind of help they need from other sources," Ryan said.
> 
> The brothers, Abid, Jamal and Imran Awan, worked as shared employees for various members of the House, covering committees relating to intelligence, terrorism and cybersecurity, which included the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.
> 
> Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, both of whom worked as House IT employees, are also under investigation.
> 
> *DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ*
> 
> The group were banned from accessing the computers as a result of the investigation but, as of earlier this month, Imran Awan remains as an “technology adviser” to former Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign in July following revelations that she worked to further Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic primary at the expense of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
> 
> News of the brothers’ investigation has sparked speculation that it may be tied to the hack of the DNC servers, the contents of which were first released by Guccifer 2.0 and later published on WikiLeaks.
> 
> Russian actors have been accused of being behind the hack, which Democrats claim contributed to Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. There have also been reports that the DNC hack came from an insider.
> 
> An email between DNC staffers in April 2016, which was released by WikiLeaks, references a staff member named Imran and how this person has access to the passwords for Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.
> 
> Garret Bonosky, deputy director of office of the DNC chair, tells Amy Kroll: “I have to get [this iPad] thing figured out. Need to make sure I have her username and password before I delete and reload the app.”
> 
> “I do not have access to her ipad password, but Imran does,” Kroll replies, later writing: “Just spoke to Imran, call me whenever GB and I’ll update you, don’t delete anything yet.”
> 
> Another email from the DNC hack, dated December 2016, references Imran once again. Wasserman Schultz’s assistant Rosalyn Kumar tells scheduler Anna Stolitzka: “[Nancy] Pelosi is doing [a] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.”
> 
> 6-FIGURE SALARIES
> 
> The brothers were paid high salaries for their work with various House members, above the median salary for Congressional staffers.
> 
> Imran, who started working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, received $164,600 in 2016, with close to $20,000 of that coming from Wasserman Schultz.
> 
> Jamal, who started working as a staffer in 2014, was paid $157,350.12 in 2016. Abid, who started working in 2005, was paid $160,943 in 2016.
> 
> Hina Alvi, who was employed as a staffer from February 2007, was paid 168,300 in 2016. Rao Abbas was paid $85,049 in 2016.
> 
> The Daily Caller reports that Imran received $1.2 million in salary since 2010, while Abid and Alvi received over $1 million each.
> 
> House Democrats supporting the employees have suggested that the Pakistani nationality of the suspects may have inspired the investigation.


Interesting times ahead indeed.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Klotty23

Alco said:


> I like Rip.


So you're the one.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14655/khizr-khan-admits-us-didnt-ban-him-traveling-aaron-bandler#



> *Khizr Khan Admits The U.S. Didn't Ban Him From Traveling*
> 
> Gold Star father Khizr Khan finally admitted that the United States never banned him from traveling.
> 
> Earlier in March, headlines were ablaze with the news that Khan's planned speech at a lunch in Canada was canceled. The organization hosting him Ramsay Talks wrote on Facebook that Khan's "travel privileges were being reviewed."
> 
> Khan himself said in a statement, "This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad. I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future."
> 
> The story never made any sense from the get-go. As the Daily Wire pointed out, no American citizen can be barred from traveling to another country if they haven't been charged with a crime. Furthermore, a visa is not required to enter Canada, so the implied notion that President Donald Trump's immigration and refugee pause was somehow involved couldn't have been true. Following his veiled statement, Khan refused to provide more specifics.
> 
> But now Khan has admitted his canceled lunch was not the result of the U.S. stopping him from traveling.
> 
> In an email to a local PBS reporter, Khan wrote, "I did not want to go through the hassle of uncertain rules and capricious implementation."
> 
> Additionally, Khan was wary of "Muslim profiling." He won't travel again until he's certain that he won't have to face any sort of Muslim profiling at the border.
> 
> This raises some questions: If this was the issue with Khan all along, why wasn't he open about it when it was first announced that the lunch was canceled? Why did he refuse to provide clarity on the matter for weeks? Wouldn't him being forthright about it from the beginning helped raise awareness about an issue that he claims to be truly concerned about? Instead, Khan allowed a fake news story to spread about him being banned by the U.S. government to travel to Canada.


WELL COLOUR ME SHOCKED.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> I like Rip. He's a good guy.
> 
> Did I already mention that I like Rip?


Your mockery is noted.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/14655/khizr-khan-admits-us-didnt-ban-him-traveling-aaron-bandler#
> 
> 
> 
> WELL COLOUR ME SHOCKED.


I wonder who paid him to do this?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Your mockery is noted.


Well, you are kinda fangirling pretty hard ...


----------



## skypod

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rnc-says-trump-vindicated-time-after-time-over-fake-news-and-witch-hunts/

The two options are "I stand with President Trump" or "I believe Democrats and fake news"?

Surely this is a photoshop or some made up shit. It reads like it was written by a 14 year old boy.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The House vote on the GOP Health bill has been cancelled for today. It looks like they were unable to get other GOP members on board for the bill to pass the House.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well, you are kinda fangirling pretty hard ...


Well when you're one of the few level-headed posters in a forum where many liberals are running amok, I tend to look forward to the verbal smackdown you provide to the ignorant masses. :shrug

It's quite entertaining so can you blame me for looking forward to that?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> The House vote on the GOP Health bill has been cancelled for today. It looks like they were unable to get other GOP members on board for the bill to pass the House.


Like you said before : DEAD ON ARRIVAL. 

No way in hell this bill would be passed.

Hopefully, they consider Rand's proposal as from what I have heard, it looks more reasonable.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Like you said before : DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
> 
> No way in hell this bill would be passed.
> 
> Hopefully, they consider Rand's proposal as from what I have heard, it looks more reasonable.


Yeah. Now they are saying that they will vote tomorrow morning. Today will be more meetings and Paul Ryan trying to sway more GOP members to get on board.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

i don't care if its passed or rejected, this thing has a long way to gp snd we'll probably see another bill brought up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The liberty caucus doing work. :mark: The closer we get to Rand Paul's bill the better.

Trump needs to pump the brakes on supporting any GOP proposal that comes along and let Paul Ryan take his deserved L on this one. Or better yet, support Rand Paul. :mark:


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

going all-in on paul ryan's latest extremely wet and 'heavy' fart is the first mistake :trump 's ego has caused that could have lasting negative repercussions for him. 

the GOP is the right-wing party, be the right-wing party. the democratic party has no problems being unabashedly left-wing. the GOP leadership needs to stop being the right-wing party when doing so is cheap and easy (when it doesn't have power) and then immediately falling over itself to make concession after concession to left-wing sensibilities when it has power. democrats don't make concessions to conservative sensibilities when they have power. people take notice when you talk tough when talking is all you can do then don't live up to that talk when you can do more than just talk.

idiots like paul ryan get handed all the cards and then they act like they're holding the worst hand in the history of the game. stop being such fucking pussies.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Party members shouldn't just be rubberstamping robots for their party.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-i...y-behind-jewish-community-bomb-threats-2017-3
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/jcc-bomb-threats.html

:trump causes brain tumors THAT CAUSE ANTI-SEMITISM

is there anything this diabolical bastard can't do


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ IMPEACH HIM NOW!!! - Hillary Clinton


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If trump actually colluded with russia, he needs to be removed from office. But the amount of people who are actually hoping that our now president actually did so is pretty disturbing.

Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is really dumb imo. Each side will never accept anyone that isnt fully patisan to their agendas because of the longterm consequences of doing otherwise. Its become more important than potus, and thats pretty nuts.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ There is no "actually colluded" because there is no evidence. :shrug


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Firstly, I find Trump's selective silence on Muslim terrorist incidents very uncomfortable. It's one thing not commenting on intl tragedies period but seriously, 4 people die in a terrorist attack with a Muslim perpetrator and oh how awful this, condolences that; 5 die in a terrorist attack with Muslim victims and not a word? It's dehumanising and his words come across as hollow.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well, considering that Muslims dying at the hands of other muslims is so common, if he started commenting on all the incidents where muslims killed other muslims he'd have no time to do anything else. 

Why are you @samizayn being selective about a particular terrorist incident too?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oof. :lol


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well, considering that Muslims dying at the hands of other muslims is so common, if he started commenting on all the incidents where muslims killed other muslims he'd have no time to do anything else.
> 
> Why are you @samizayn being selective about a particular terrorist incident too?


Just talking about the ones that make major intl news. London and Quebec have been a clear step above in that regard. In an ideal world he'd make time to condemn every mass murder - I understand he's a busy man but if the news about London got to him and he had time to tweet about it, he clearly had time to send something out for the 2+ weeks Quebec was in the news cycle. These are the ones that have taken place in close Western/allied countries since he's become president and he's been silent on only one. That saddens me.

Also, Quebec wasn't done by a Muslim?...


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Just talking about the ones that make major intl news. London and Quebec have been a clear step above in that regard. In an ideal world he'd make time to condemn every mass murder - I understand he's a busy man but if the news about London got to him and he had time to tweet about it, he clearly had time to send something out for the 2+ weeks Quebec was in the news cycle. These are the ones that have taken place in close Western/allied countries since he's become president and he's been silent on only one. That saddens me.
> 
> Also, Quebec wasn't done by a Muslim?...


I'm pretty sure that considering anti-Trumper's think he's an Islamophobe, it's not going to matter even if he does sympathize with Muslim deaths.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Massive Amount of Data on 47 HARD DRIVES from Whistle Blower Proves Obama and Crew Spied on Everyone
> 
> A massive amount of data on 47 hard drives from a government whistle blower was turned over to the Freedom Watch group recently. The information proves Obama and company spied on everyone.
> 
> Via The Conservative Treehouse:
> 
> Freedom Watch notifies congress of a “Deep State” intelligence community whistle blower, Dennis Montgomery, with hundreds of millions of documents showing CIA and FBI and Intelligence Committees were spying on, and conducting surveillance on, American citizens for political purposes.
> 
> Mr. Montgomery is trying to use a legal “whistle-blower” process and not follow the same approach as Edward Snowden.
> 
> The whistleblower Mr. Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information exposing the illegal surveillance on prominent Americans during the Obama years including Donald Trump.


In other news...






:ha


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> In other news...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :ha


Ya don't say


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*
Lawmaker calls for complete shutdown of Trump agenda over possible collusion with Russia
*
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...enda-over-possible-collusion-russia/22009016/

Congressman Ted Lieu called for a "total and complete shutdown" of any of President Donald Trump's agenda in response to reports that Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians during the campaign.

The California Democrat issued a fiery statement on Thursday in response to the allegations, arguing that Trump's presidency may be illegitimate and that his policies cannot be pursued until after an independent investigation assesses the claims.

SEE MORE: Spicer speaks out on Manafort's secret work to benefit Putin

"Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation," Lieu said in the statement.

The demand comes in response to a report that emerged Wednesday night on CNN claiming the FBI has evidence to suggest Trump associates "may have coordinated" with Russians to impact the 2016 presidential election by releasing damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

See the wildest reactions to the allegations against Trump's team:

10 TWEETS
Reactions to reports of possible Trump collusion with Russia
See Gallery

On Wednesday, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said in an interview that the evidence against Trump's team was more than circumstantial in nature.

"I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now," Rep. Adam Schiff said in an interview with MSNBC.

On Thursday, Schiff's Republican counterpart, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, revealed publicly and to the president that communications of Trump and his associates may have been captured by intelligence agencies conducting surveillance of foreign targets.

SEE MORE: Anti-Trump tweet posted from Transportation Secretary's account

Trump set off a political firestorm over possible surveillance of his campaign earlier this month when he claimed in a tweet that Trump Tower had been wiretapped by former President Barack Obama. A spokesman for Obama quickly denied the claim, and officials came forward in the following days to clarify that the Justice Department and other intelligence agencies handle any surveillance directives.

Nunes apologized to committee members Thursday, according to Democrats, for briefing the president and the public on the information before speaking to the committee.

RELATED: See everything Trump has tweeted since becoming president

290 TWEETS
Trump tweets since becoming president of the United States
See Gallery

Read Lieu's full statement below:

The bombshell revelation that U.S. officials have information that suggests Trump associates may have colluded with the Russians means we must pause the entire Trump agenda. We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House.

Other than allowing routine governmental functions, there must be a total and complete shutdown of any agenda item being pushed by the Trump Administration. Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
breaking-news logo

Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our other newsletters

Emails may offer personalized content or ads. Learn more. You may unsubscribe any time.

Congress must immediately form an independent commission and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the collusion allegations with impartiality and independence. Congress also needs to pass the Resolution of Inquiry, authored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and I, to compel the Trump Administration to publicly disclose information on its Russian ties to the American people. At this point in our nation's history, there is nothing more important than finding out whether or not high crimes were committed by associates of Donald Trump or possibly by Trump himself.


*
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians*



http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/polit...ssociates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/

US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians 14:11
Washington (CNN)The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."
The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said Thursday the Russian government would not comment on information from unnamed sources.
"This is another piece of information without any sources which can't be commented on, neither can it be taken as some serious thing," Peskov told reporters in response to a question about CNN's reporting.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.
"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.
One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.
The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.
The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.
Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.
The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.
Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.
US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.




*
Donald Trump engaged in 'cover up' over Russian links to election campaign, says Carl Bernstein*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ergate-reporter-fbi-james-comey-a7645051.html

There is a “cover up” to hide connections between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia, according to one of the journalists who broke the Watergate scandal. 

Carl Bernstein called the current US leader “more treacherous” than Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign 1974 after, along with Bob Woodward, he helped to unearthed a web of political spying, sabotage and bribery leading back the White House. 

A persistent critic of Mr Trump, Mr Bernstein made the claim after a new report suggested that members of Mr Trump's administration may have coordinated with Russia during the presidential campaign. 

READ MORE
FBI director Comey confirms investigation into Trump-Russia links
'Sex acts' in dossier against Donald Trump 'are true', claims Democrat
Donald Trump's 'false statements are undermining global trust in US'
Republicans demand Trump retracts Obama wiretap allegation
Mr Trump’s election campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was accused of once working to further the interests of the Russian government.

Suspicions over electoral campaign connections to Russia continue to dog the President, who has denied any collusion took place. 

But Mr Bernstein told CNN: "I’ve been saying for a while that there’s a cover-up going on here.

"The cover-up is among those who worked in the Trump campaign and associates of Trump and it’s now becoming much more clear what it is that they have been concealing which are these contacts, which revolve around leaked emails from Podesta's account.”

John Podesta was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign, whose emails were leaked in the lead up to the election. 

Mr Bernstein also questioned the President’s reluctance to be more open about the allegations. 

“What we’re seeing is push back, smoke screens, an attempt to keep away from what really happened here by the President of the United States," he told the broadcaster, adding that it "raises a whole set of additional questions."



0:00
/
0:57

Trump tweets that he is vindicated during Russia hearing, Comey asked about truth of what he says
The President instead should “want to get to the bottom of this,” Mr Bernstein said.

He also raised a distinction between the members of Congress serving under Nr Nixon and Mr Trump. 

"The heroes of Watergate were really Republicans, they were Republicans in the House and the Senate who wanted this investigated to the bottom: ‘What did the president know and when did he know it’," he said. "That’s what we’re not seeing here. We’re not seeing it from the Republicans on the Hill who are consumed by supposedly looking for leaks."

Mr Bernstein also alleged many Republicans condemning leaks had themselves leaked classified information in the past.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sting-coordination-between-trump-aides-russia

BI has info suggesting coordination between Trump aides, Russia: report



The FBI has information suggesting that associates of President Trump may have worked with Russian operatives to release information aimed at hurting former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign, CNN reported Wednesday, citing U.S. officials.

FBI Director James Comey on Monday revealed that his agency is investigating Trump and his aides' potential ties to Russia, as well as possible coordination with Moscow.

The revelation confirmed months-long speculation that Trump's aides were included in federal probes of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Among the information held by the FBI is human intelligence, travel and business records and phone records, according to CNN, though agency officials made clear that the information does not conclusively prove collusion between Trump associates and Russia and would have to be further investigated.

Questions about his and his aides' ties to Russia have roiled Trump's young administration. His first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month amid revelations that he discussed sanctions with Russia's ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign after it was revealed that he failed to disclose two meetings with Kislyak that happened during Trump's presidential bid.

Flynn, along with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone, have already reportedly been the subjects of FBI probes. They have all denied having improper interactions with Russian officials during the campaign.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report released publicly on Jan. 6 that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a massive influence campaign to interfere in the presidential election in favor of Trump.

That conclusion has spurred the Senate and House intelligence panels to investigate the activity, as well as Trump and his aides’ ties to Moscow.

Tensions grew among members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, after the panel’s chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announced that he had seen evidence that the intelligence community incidentally collected information on Trump transition team members as part of routine surveillance of foreign targets.

Without discussing the matter with the Intelligence Committee, Nunes went to the White House to brief Trump on the information, sparking fury among committee Democrats. Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) slammed Nunes’s decision, accusing him of routing the panel and muddying the investigation.

"The Chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation,” Schiff said in a statement on Wednesday.

“I have expressed my grave concerns with the Chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way."

TAGS FBI HILLARY CLINTON JEFF SESSIONS ADAM SCHIFF


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *
> Lawmaker calls for complete shutdown of Trump agenda over possible collusion with Russia
> *
> https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...enda-over-possible-collusion-russia/22009016/
> 
> Congressman Ted Lieu called for a "total and complete shutdown" of any of President Donald Trump's agenda in response to reports that Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians during the campaign.
> 
> The California Democrat issued a fiery statement on Thursday in response to the allegations, arguing that Trump's presidency may be illegitimate and that his policies cannot be pursued until after an independent investigation assesses the claims.
> 
> SEE MORE: Spicer speaks out on Manafort's secret work to benefit Putin
> 
> "Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation," Lieu said in the statement.
> 
> The demand comes in response to a report that emerged Wednesday night on CNN claiming the FBI has evidence to suggest Trump associates "may have coordinated" with Russians to impact the 2016 presidential election by releasing damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
> 
> See the wildest reactions to the allegations against Trump's team:
> 
> 10 TWEETS
> Reactions to reports of possible Trump collusion with Russia
> See Gallery
> 
> On Wednesday, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said in an interview that the evidence against Trump's team was more than circumstantial in nature.
> 
> "I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now," Rep. Adam Schiff said in an interview with MSNBC.
> 
> On Thursday, Schiff's Republican counterpart, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, revealed publicly and to the president that communications of Trump and his associates may have been captured by intelligence agencies conducting surveillance of foreign targets.
> 
> SEE MORE: Anti-Trump tweet posted from Transportation Secretary's account
> 
> Trump set off a political firestorm over possible surveillance of his campaign earlier this month when he claimed in a tweet that Trump Tower had been wiretapped by former President Barack Obama. A spokesman for Obama quickly denied the claim, and officials came forward in the following days to clarify that the Justice Department and other intelligence agencies handle any surveillance directives.
> 
> Nunes apologized to committee members Thursday, according to Democrats, for briefing the president and the public on the information before speaking to the committee.
> 
> RELATED: See everything Trump has tweeted since becoming president
> 
> 290 TWEETS
> Trump tweets since becoming president of the United States
> See Gallery
> 
> Read Lieu's full statement below:
> 
> The bombshell revelation that U.S. officials have information that suggests Trump associates may have colluded with the Russians means we must pause the entire Trump agenda. We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House.
> 
> Other than allowing routine governmental functions, there must be a total and complete shutdown of any agenda item being pushed by the Trump Administration. Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
> breaking-news logo
> 
> Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.
> 
> Subscribe to our other newsletters
> 
> Emails may offer personalized content or ads. Learn more. You may unsubscribe any time.
> 
> Congress must immediately form an independent commission and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the collusion allegations with impartiality and independence. Congress also needs to pass the Resolution of Inquiry, authored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and I, to compel the Trump Administration to publicly disclose information on its Russian ties to the American people. At this point in our nation's history, there is nothing more important than finding out whether or not high crimes were committed by associates of Donald Trump or possibly by Trump himself.
> 
> 
> *
> US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/polit...ssociates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/
> 
> US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians 14:11
> Washington (CNN)The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.
> 
> This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.
> The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.
> In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."
> The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said Thursday the Russian government would not comment on information from unnamed sources.
> "This is another piece of information without any sources which can't be commented on, neither can it be taken as some serious thing," Peskov told reporters in response to a question about CNN's reporting.
> White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.
> "Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.
> One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.
> The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.
> The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.
> One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.
> Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
> The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.
> The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
> FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.
> Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.
> US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
> CNN's Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Donald Trump engaged in 'cover up' over Russian links to election campaign, says Carl Bernstein*
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ergate-reporter-fbi-james-comey-a7645051.html
> 
> There is a “cover up” to hide connections between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia, according to one of the journalists who broke the Watergate scandal.
> 
> Carl Bernstein called the current US leader “more treacherous” than Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign 1974 after, along with Bob Woodward, he helped to unearthed a web of political spying, sabotage and bribery leading back the White House.
> 
> A persistent critic of Mr Trump, Mr Bernstein made the claim after a new report suggested that members of Mr Trump's administration may have coordinated with Russia during the presidential campaign.
> 
> READ MORE
> FBI director Comey confirms investigation into Trump-Russia links
> 'Sex acts' in dossier against Donald Trump 'are true', claims Democrat
> Donald Trump's 'false statements are undermining global trust in US'
> Republicans demand Trump retracts Obama wiretap allegation
> Mr Trump’s election campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was accused of once working to further the interests of the Russian government.
> 
> Suspicions over electoral campaign connections to Russia continue to dog the President, who has denied any collusion took place.
> 
> But Mr Bernstein told CNN: "I’ve been saying for a while that there’s a cover-up going on here.
> 
> "The cover-up is among those who worked in the Trump campaign and associates of Trump and it’s now becoming much more clear what it is that they have been concealing which are these contacts, which revolve around leaked emails from Podesta's account.”
> 
> John Podesta was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign, whose emails were leaked in the lead up to the election.
> 
> Mr Bernstein also questioned the President’s reluctance to be more open about the allegations.
> 
> “What we’re seeing is push back, smoke screens, an attempt to keep away from what really happened here by the President of the United States," he told the broadcaster, adding that it "raises a whole set of additional questions."
> 
> 
> 
> 0:00
> /
> 0:57
> 
> Trump tweets that he is vindicated during Russia hearing, Comey asked about truth of what he says
> The President instead should “want to get to the bottom of this,” Mr Bernstein said.
> 
> He also raised a distinction between the members of Congress serving under Nr Nixon and Mr Trump.
> 
> "The heroes of Watergate were really Republicans, they were Republicans in the House and the Senate who wanted this investigated to the bottom: ‘What did the president know and when did he know it’," he said. "That’s what we’re not seeing here. We’re not seeing it from the Republicans on the Hill who are consumed by supposedly looking for leaks."
> 
> Mr Bernstein also alleged many Republicans condemning leaks had themselves leaked classified information in the past.
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sting-coordination-between-trump-aides-russia
> 
> BI has info suggesting coordination between Trump aides, Russia: report
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI has information suggesting that associates of President Trump may have worked with Russian operatives to release information aimed at hurting former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign, CNN reported Wednesday, citing U.S. officials.
> 
> FBI Director James Comey on Monday revealed that his agency is investigating Trump and his aides' potential ties to Russia, as well as possible coordination with Moscow.
> 
> The revelation confirmed months-long speculation that Trump's aides were included in federal probes of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> Among the information held by the FBI is human intelligence, travel and business records and phone records, according to CNN, though agency officials made clear that the information does not conclusively prove collusion between Trump associates and Russia and would have to be further investigated.
> 
> Questions about his and his aides' ties to Russia have roiled Trump's young administration. His first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month amid revelations that he discussed sanctions with Russia's ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign after it was revealed that he failed to disclose two meetings with Kislyak that happened during Trump's presidential bid.
> 
> Flynn, along with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone, have already reportedly been the subjects of FBI probes. They have all denied having improper interactions with Russian officials during the campaign.
> 
> The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report released publicly on Jan. 6 that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a massive influence campaign to interfere in the presidential election in favor of Trump.
> 
> That conclusion has spurred the Senate and House intelligence panels to investigate the activity, as well as Trump and his aides’ ties to Moscow.
> 
> Tensions grew among members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, after the panel’s chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announced that he had seen evidence that the intelligence community incidentally collected information on Trump transition team members as part of routine surveillance of foreign targets.
> 
> Without discussing the matter with the Intelligence Committee, Nunes went to the White House to brief Trump on the information, sparking fury among committee Democrats. Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) slammed Nunes’s decision, accusing him of routing the panel and muddying the investigation.
> 
> "The Chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation,” Schiff said in a statement on Wednesday.
> 
> “I have expressed my grave concerns with the Chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way."
> 
> TAGS FBI HILLARY CLINTON JEFF SESSIONS ADAM SCHIFF


So more speculation with no proof?


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thats alot of text for speculation and overreaction to speculation. Nothing is going to happen til at least some evidence providing proof that anything people are accusing/suspecting him of comes out.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@birthday_massacre

may be illegitimate

may have coordinated

may have coordinated

Let me know when it IS illegitimate and HAS coordinated.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> So more speculation with no proof?


Leftists don't really like or care for facts or evidence. They just base things on feelings


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL at all the spinning Trump supporters are doing on here.

You guys are such a joke.

When it comes to Manafort its not speculation its a fact that he worked to aid Putin.

And you know Manafort the guy who helped run Trumps campaign in 19 states


And lets not forget how people like Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.

Then there is Sessions lying as well. 

but yeah keep ignoring the evidence of Trump and his crew ties to Russia.



Miss Sally said:


> I expect Trump's resignation by tomorrow since you brought us undeniable proof.


As more and more comes out,Trump gets closer and closer to being impeached. 

the more info that comes come the more it shows Trump and his crew have ties to Russia.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at all the spinning Trump supporters are doing on here.
> 
> You guys are such a joke.
> 
> When it comes to Manafort its not speculation its a fact that he worked to aid Putin.
> 
> And you know Manafort the guy who helped run Trumps campaign in 19 states
> 
> 
> And lets not forget how people like Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.
> 
> but yeah keep ignoring the evidence.


I expect Trump's resignation by tomorrow since you brought us undeniable proof.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Leftists don't really like or care for facts or evidence. They just base things on feelings


LOL that is rich coming from the right who supports Trump and how Trump lies 70% of the time and just tweets out things as facts he gets from info wars or Breitbart lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at all the spinning Trump supporters are doing on here.
> 
> You guys are such a joke.
> 
> *When it comes to Manafort its not speculation its a fact that he worked to aid Putin.
> *
> And you know Manafort the guy who helped run Trumps campaign in 19 states
> 
> 
> And lets not forget how people like Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.
> 
> Then there is Sessions lying as well.
> 
> but yeah keep ignoring the evidence of Trump and his crew ties to Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> As more and more comes out,Trump gets closer and closer to being impeached.
> 
> the more info that comes come the more it shows Trump and his crew have ties to Russia.


That may very well be true, but I still don't see how that equals Trump and his team colluding with the Russians to take down Hillary. Where's the smoking gun, BM?

Do you know the purpose for Flynn's lies?
Do you know the purpose for Sessions lies?

You can't just make up a tale and call it proof. Unless you have evidence, whatever you're thinking in your head is inaccurate. How about you spend less time jumping to conclusions and focus on an actual conclusion. At this point you want us all just to believe you because you say so. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## KingofKings1524

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Leftists don't really like or care for facts or evidence. They just base things on feelings


Our president is the one who stormed to Twitter two minutes after some nobody on Fox News said that Obama tapped Trump Tower before the election, right? Not a whole lot of evidence there if I recall correctly.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryKlayman...ontgomery-whitsleblower/2017/03/19/id/779551/



> The old expression about Washington, D.C., is that if you want a friend, get a dog! In the case of President Donald Trump, this is a lesson he has undoubtedly learned in his thus far short tenure as the commander in chief. Nowhere is this seen more than over the current controversy concerning the president’s claims that he was wiretapped, that is, illegally spied upon, by his predecessor’s administration, former President Barack Obama.
> 
> As I have written in this Newsmax blog and elsewhere particularly of late, my client, former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery, holds the keys to disproving the false claims of those representatives and senators on the House and Senate intelligence committees, reportedly as well as FBI Director James Comey, that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped.
> 
> Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
> 
> But when Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was “blown off;” no one wanted to even hear what he had to say. The reason, I suspect, is that Montgomery’s allegations were either too hot to handle, or the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees already knew that this unconstitutional surveillance was being undertaken. Moreover, given the power of the NSA, CIA, and DNI, for congressional committee heads to take action to legitimately and seriously investigate and if necessary recommend prosecution of officials like Clapper and Brennan could, given the way Washington works, result in the spy agencies disclosing and leaking (as occurred recently with General Michael Flynn), the details of their mass surveillance, ruining the careers if not personal lives of any politician who would take them on.
> 
> After Montgomery was turned away as a whistleblower, he came to me at Freedom Watch. With the aid of the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who I had come to respect and trust over the years of my public interest advocacy, we brought Montgomery forward to FBI Director James Comey, through his General Counsel James Baker. Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia. There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration. He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.
> 
> This interview, conducted and videoed by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since. It would appear that the FBI’s investigation was buried by Comey, perhaps because the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance. In landmark court cases which I filed after the revelations of Edward Snowden, the Honorable Richard Leon, a colleague of Judge Lamberth, had ruled that this type of surveillance constituted a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. (See www.freedomwatchusa.org for more information.)
> 
> A few months ago, given FBI’s seeming inaction in conducting a bona fide timely investigation of the treasure trove of information Montgomery had produced and testified to, I went to Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, as I had done earlier with Senator Grassley, since Montgomery had revealed that judges had been spied upon, and asked his staff to inquire of Director Comey the status of the investigation. I have heard nothing back from Goodlatte or his staff and they have not responded to recent calls and emails.
> 
> So last Thursday, I traveled to Capital Hill to personally meet with Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) of the House Intelligence Committee and, when his scheduler claimed that he was “unavailable,” forcefully pushed for a meeting with one of his committee lawyers, Allen R. Souza, and fully briefed him about Montgomery and the FBI’s apparent cover-up. I told this staff intel lawyer to inform Chairman Nunes of the facts behind this apparent cover-up before the committee holds its hearing on the alleged Trump wiretaps and questions Comey this Monday, March 20, in open session. My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation.
> 
> During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee’s complicity in keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent cover-up of the Montgomery “investigation.”
> 
> And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey’s feet to the fire about the Montgomery investigation?
> 
> Please watch the House Intelligence Committee hearing closely this Monday.
> 
> Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sorry but I am going to take the words of the man that sued the previous administration for secretly bringing in Ebola as seriously as I take Al Sharpton's words. That is, not at all seriously.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



KingofKings1524 said:


> Our president is the one who stormed to Twitter two minutes after some nobody on Fox News said that Obama tapped Trump Tower before the election, right? Not a whole lot of evidence there if I recall correctly.












Have none of you ever played chess before? 

This kind of political theater has existed since time immemorial. It's just that you guys are caught up in the storm as you're taking this shit way too personally. Time to step back a little and plan ahead to who you're going to vote for in 2 years.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place


That is pretty much the gist of everything.


However, if that 47-hard-drives story is accurate, well then holy fuck. Comey needs to be held accountable.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey's job is to investigate and answer questions if called for a summons. If both Republicans and Democrats are annoyed by him, then that means he's a good man.

--


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845117259282432000









This bill needs to burn in hell.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Have none of you ever played chess before?
> 
> This kind of political theater has existed since time immemorial. It's just that you guys are caught up in the storm as you're taking this shit way too personally. Time to step back a little and plan ahead to who you're going to vote for in 2 years.


This is why you and Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously at all. yeah Trump as president can say shit that is not true on twitter because he saw or heard it on TV even when its not true then claim oh we should not take what Trump says and claims seriously. GTFO he is the president. 

This is why you, Trump and his supporters are a joke.

but keep defending Trump it just proves even more how stupid you and his supporters are.


You all cry about fake news when Trump puts out more fake news than anyone. But keep circling jerking.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is why you and Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously at all. yeah Trump as president can say shit that is not true on twitter because he saw or heard it on TV even when its not true then claim oh we should not take what Trump says and claims seriously. GTFO he is the president.
> 
> This is why you, Trump and his supporters are a joke.
> 
> but keep defending Trump it just proves even more how stupid you and his supporters are.
> 
> 
> You all cry about fake news when Trump puts out more fake news than anyone. But keep circling jerking.


Not tonight BM. I'm tired and you need to go get triggered at someone else's expense. I didn't even defend Trump. You just have to rage. Are you drunk?

I'm getting sick of your raging and you need counseling. Go get it.

Just put me on block like you promised and leave me the fuck alone since all you want to do in these threads is be abusive.

Or get a wife, get drunk and beat her nightly because thats the kind if person you sound like. Actually. Don't get a wife. Just get a doll that you can punch till you fall asleep.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Not tonight BM. I'm tired and you need to go get triggered at someone else's expense. I didn't even defend Trump. You just have to rage. Are you drunk?
> 
> I'm getting sick of your raging and you need counseling. Go get it.
> 
> Just put me on block like you promised and leave me the fuck alone since all you want to do in these threads is be abusive.
> 
> *Or get a wife, get drunk and beat her nightly because thats the kind if person you sound like. Actually.* Don't get a wife. Just get a doll that you can punch till you fall asleep.



Sorry if you can't deal in facts when it comes to Trump. Keep living in your little fantasy world like all the Trump supporters do when presented with facts and evidence. You cant seem to take it that is why you resort to bullshit ilke this 

It just shows how pathetic you are that you even have thoughts like this. You keep proving over and over you are the one who truly needs help that you even think of things like that

I really do pity you.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if you can't deal in facts when it comes to Trump. Keep living in your little fantasy world like all the Trump supporters do when presented with facts and evidence. You cant seem to take it that is why you resort to bullshit ilke this
> 
> It just shows how pathetic you are that you even have thoughts like you. You keep proving over and over you are the one who truly needs help that you have thoughts like this.
> 
> I really do pity you.


Considering that every single time you're the one starting shit with me for literally no reason and just being incrediblly angry, don't blame me for thinking that you have serious mental problems and are a serial abuser.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Considering that every single time you're the one starting shit with me for literally no reason and just being incrediblly angry, don't blame me for thinking that you have serious mental problems and are a serial abuser.


Aww do you need a safe space? I replied to laughable post defending Trump but you got all butt hurt over it. Then you tell me to go get a wife and beat her. It just shows what kind of person you really are.

You are the one with mental issues. But keep your projection up. You are exposing more and more what kind of person you are and all your deep seeded issues. They are bubbling up dude. You may need a break from this thread if you cant handle it.


You are melting like the snowflake you really are

I also find it comical how its ok when you or other Trump supporters shit talk and you all circle jerk over it but once the tables are turned you cry like the baby you are.

You cant take it, only dish it out. You are so pathetic.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article140365173.html



> *Trump will keep Obamacare if GOP doesn’t pass health repeal Friday*
> 
> Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., couldn’t get enough votes to pass his health care repeal and replacement bill.
> 
> Donald Trump’s chief lieutenants came to Capitol Hill on Thursday evening with an ultimatum: There will be a vote on Paul Ryan’s health care legislation on Friday, and if it fails Obamacare will remain law.
> 
> Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus and Mick Mulvaney were dispatched from the White House to tell House Republicans that if the bill passes, it will move on to the Senate. If it fails, the White House is prepared to move on from one of its biggest campaign promises and keep Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation.
> 
> “Tomorrow, tomorrow, we will have a vote tomorrow,” Bannon said.
> 
> The gambit is a high-stakes political scare tactic. White House leaders are warning rank-and-file members of Congress that if they vote against the bill on political principle, they will be responsible for keeping Obamacare on the books, not President Trump.
> 
> “It’s done tomorrow or Obamacare stays,” said Rep. Chris Collins of New York after House Republicans met with Bannon, Preibus and Mulvaney. “We are done negotiating, there are no more negotiations.”
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: rest of the article
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to shore up votes before the bill hits the House floor, Republican leaders offered one final amendment. The four-page proposal repeals essential health care benefits and adds a Medicare surcharge for the wealthy that will create a $15 billion flexibility fund.
> 
> “It’s a fact of life that negotiations seem to be closing,” said Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a moderate who does not support the bill. “They will call the roll, and that’ll be that.”
> 
> The amendment comes after a scheduled vote on the bill was delayed on Thursday afternoon as Trump, who touts himself as a deal-maker, was unable to convince skeptical lawmakers to support the much-maligned legislation after multiple meetings with House Republicans at the White House.
> 
> The delay means Republican leaders failed to pass the bill on the seven-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act’s passage, what was supposed to be a symbolic policy triumph for a GOP-led Congress and White House.
> 
> Instead, members will vote on Friday.
> 
> “We are trying to get 30 to 40 no votes to yes,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., to reporters after a closed-door meeting earlier Thursday with members of the Freedom Caucus, a conservative group of lawmakers who have concerns about the bill. “I’d like to see 237 votes but we are not at that particular point.”
> 
> But other conservative factions continue to oppose the bill. The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative group, urged members to vote against the legislation.
> 
> In a circus-like atmosphere throughout Capitol Hill, members shuttled to and from various rooms for meetings with Ryan and leadership throughout the day along with trekking down Pennsylvania Avenue to meet with Trump.
> 
> Few seemed to know exactly what was going on.
> 
> All Democrats are against the bill, so Ryan can only afford about 20 defections from his own party, depending on how many members are present to vote. The current defections include conservative and moderate Republicans. Conservatives do not support provisions in the bill that mandate insurance companies cover certain health services because the coverage would increase premium costs. Moderates are opposed to the bill after it was revealed that some low-income individuals will lose health insurance under the plan.
> 
> “Every moment we go past midnight tonight, I think the chances of passing this bill get less, not greater,” said Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Ala., after meeting with Ryan. “The window for making decisions is rapidly closing. We need a vote or go home.”
> 
> Byrne warned that too many amendments from conservatives and moderates could make the legislation even less popular than it already is.
> 
> “Two groups that don’t represent even a majority of the Republican conference have been given every opportunity to have multiple conversations with the president and leadership,” Byrne said. “At some point you’ve got to say, ‘That’s it.’ And we’re at that point.”
> 
> Trump’s skills as a deal-maker took a hit when he failed to convince the chairman of the Freedom Caucus to support the health care bill earlier on Thursday. Meadows declared that “no deal” was reached after meeting with Trump in the Cabinet room of the White House just hours before the House postponed the vote.
> 
> White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer insisted Thursday afternoon the bill was not in trouble and that they were never seeking a so-called deal.
> 
> Spicer did not provide details of the meetings other than to say that both the president and the Freedom Caucus are committed to implementing a system that will drive down costs and increase access to healthcare.
> 
> Asked during the press briefing, whether Trump was willing to do away with elements of the pre-existing protection as conservatives have pressed, Spicer said the president has made clear those protection must remain.
> 
> Asked about Trump’s ability to strike a deal, Spicer defended the work of his boss, but said he can’t force members to vote.
> 
> “The president has done a phenomenal job, there’s no question,” Spicer said. “And I think when you look at the effort that he’s put in, the number of meetings that he’s had, and the changes that have been made to the bill, there’s no question how hard the president and his team, the vice president have worked to get this done.”
> 
> “And it’s in response – at the end of the day we can’t force somebody to vote, but I think ... I like the direction that this thing is going. I think that we continue to see support go with us,” he said.
> 
> Spicer went on to say that Trump had been on the phone with scores of Republican members, in addition to the in-persons meetings with the Republican Study Committee, the House Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group. He called the bill a truly “collaborative effort” from the beginning.
> 
> “Through an open and deliberative process, the president and his team have helped to negotiate a very, very strong bill,” Spicer said. “He was on the phone last night well into the 11 o’clock hour with members on an individual basis, discussing their support for the bill.
> 
> Trump meanwhile took to Twitter to call on supporters to call their representatives to vote for the bill. Spicer called out Republicans who repeatedly voted to overturn Obamacare so they could brag to constituents.
> 
> “This is a live ball now,” Spicer said. “This is for real, and we’re going to do what we pledged to the American people and keep our word.”
> 
> Raising questions about the lines of communication between Republican leaders and the White House, word began leaking out around 1 p.m. after a leadership meeting that the vote was likely to be delayed. But during the briefing Spicer continued to say the vote was “tonight” and that he did not know of any plans to delay the vote.
> 
> Republicans have been working for seven years to undo former President Barack Obama’s signature policy achievement, and argued that Democrats used their majorities in both houses at the time to slam Obamacare through. Democrats are now accusing Republicans of trying to do the same, holding hearings on the bill before the Congressional Budget Office could determine how the AHCA would impact current coverage. An eventual CBO assessment predicted the Republican plan would make 24 million people uninsured by 2026.
> 
> Over the past several days Trump has lobbied members of Congress to support the bill, to help him fulfill his key campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump pledged his new bill would cost people much less for insurance plans and it would ensure “insurance for everybody.” In its current form, the AHCA does not guarantee either of those conditions will be met.
> 
> Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a leading voice against the legislation, said House conservatives are doing “an outstanding job” in lobbying against the bill.
> 
> A Congressional Budget Office score to a batch of amendments offered by leadership saw a reduction in decreases to the federal deficit but health coverage and premium rates are relatively unchanged.
> 
> “The plea is within our membership to come together,” Collins said. “It’s hard to govern, we’ve been in the opposition party for eight years. Let’s come together, this is our moment.”
> 
> After the announcement that the vote would be delayed, the White House gave its ultimatum. The amendment will be voted on Friday morning with a vote on the bill expected mid-afternoon.
> 
> “Getting this right is more important than getting it done on a particular anniversary date,” said Rep. Daniel Donovan of New York, a moderate Republican who does not support the bill. “When it’s done right we’ll have our own anniversary date.”
> 
> If Ryan eventually gets the bill approved on the House floor, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Aww do you need a safe space? I replied to laughable post defending Trump but you got all butt hurt over it. Then you tell me to go get a wife and beat her. It just shows what kind of person you really are.
> 
> You are the one with mental issues. But keep your projection up. You are exposing more and more what kind of person you are and all your deep seeded issues. They are bubbling up dude. You may need a break from this thread if you cant handle it.
> 
> 
> You are melting like the snowflake you really are


None of anything you're saying makes sense. All I said was that this is political theatre and yiu guys are taking this shit too personally. How did I defend Trump? I just posted an image showing that person where the wiretap claim was originated. 
You went in a totally :triggered tirade and I told you to back off. 

And yeah. Instead of being aggressive in your points you're abusive in delivery. You got bitch slapped by everyone and couldn't handle the fact that you had no proof for your assertions so you decided to take out your frustration on my post.

And the fact that you're accusing me of needing a safe space when you proudly announced that you blocked me is just sad at this point. You keep using words and phrases that you don't know what they mean and don't even care when half a dozen people say the same things to you. The level of your Derangement is something I've never seen in an individual online. 

The only thing that happens every single time you do this is that I gain more friends and fans on this site. Meanwhile you're the forum joke. Literally everyone on here makes fun of you in cbox. 

I also didn't say that I can't take it. I just said that your behavior in this thread indicated to me that you're a serial abuser.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> None of anything you're saying makes sense. All I said was that this is political theatre and yiu guys are taking this shit too personally. How did I defend Trump? I just posted an image showing that person where the wiretap claim was originated.
> You went in a totally :triggered tirade and I told you to back off.
> 
> And yeah. Instead of being aggressive in your points you're abusive in delivery. You got bitch slapped by everyone and couldn't handle the fact that you had no proof for your assertions so you decided to take out your frustration on my post.
> 
> And the fact that you're accusing me of needing a safe space when you proudly announced that you blocked me is just sad at this point.
> 
> The only thing that happens every single time you do this is that I gain more friends and fans on this site. Meanwhile you're the forum joke. Literally everyone on here makes fun of you in cbox.


LOL you are abusive in your posts all the time, you just cant take it when you think people are doing it to you.

If anyone who triggered it was you, especially when your come back is go beat your wife. You act like you have the moral high ground when you dont.

You do need a safe space you keep proving it. 

So keep circling jerking all you want dude. I know it gives your shitty life meaning. That is what you live for. At least you have that. This forum is what gives your life meaning. That is pretty pathetic. you should stop taking it so seriously.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you are abusive in your posts all the time, you just cant take it when you think people are doing it to you.
> 
> If anyone who triggered it was you, especially when your come back is go beat your wife. You act like you have the moral high ground when you dont.
> 
> You do need a safe space you keep proving it.
> 
> So keep circling jerking all you want dude. I know it gives your shitty life meaning. That is what you live for. At least you have that.


I never start shit out of the blue until and unless it's in rants and there it's banter. 

You literally stalk my posts in this thread and have made it a habit of starting a fight with me over nothing. 

I don't need a safe space. I'm just looking at an established pattern in your behavior and developing a character study of yours. 

And you come across as a late night serial abuser and possibly a masochist because you like it when I fight back. I think it might even sexually arouse you and you get off on it. 

I'm OK with helping you baby. But do get some help


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I never start shit out of the blue until and unless it's in rants and there it's banter.
> 
> You literally stalk my posts in this thread and have made it a habit of starting a fight with me over nothing.
> 
> I don't need a safe space. I'm just looking at an established pattern in your behavior and developing a character study of yours.
> 
> And you come across as a late night serial abuser and possibly a masochist because you like it when I fight back. I think it might even sexually arouse you and you get off on it.
> 
> I'm OK with helping you baby. But do get some help


^^

I think the problem is with you if you think BM is stalking you in this thread. Just saying from another guy that you starts shit with/starts shit with you. Also from a guy that shits on BM all the time.

Just the other day you made a stink over a shitpost I made here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I never start shit out of the blue until and unless it's in rants and there it's banter.
> 
> You literally stalk my posts in this thread and have made it a habit of starting a fight with me over nothing.
> 
> I don't need a safe space. I'm just looking at an established pattern in your behavior and developing a character study of yours.
> 
> And you come across as a late night serial abuser and possibly a masochist because you like it when I fight back. I think it might even sexually arouse you and you get off on it.
> 
> I'm OK with helping you baby. But do get some help


You really do have an ego LOL You think I stalk your posts ha ha 

You should stop thinking so highly of yourself. You really do have serious issues.

You are such a narcissists that is why you are acting this way. You just can't stand people disagreeing with you. 

Its also funny you act like I reply to every single one of your posts when that is not even the case.

You know deep down inside you are the one that needs help. You are crying for help this very moment. Its ok, you will get it some day.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> ^^
> 
> I think the problem is with you if you think BM is stalking you in this thread. Just saying from another guy that you starts shit with/starts shit with you. Also from a guy that shits on BM all the time.
> 
> Just the other day you made a stink over a shitpost I made here.


I gave you a fairly standard response and you blew it up so I continued which is something I tend to do. 

This is the 4th time out of the blue BM has started shit over nothing. So when I used the word stalking I'm using it poorly I admit. He probably just sees it and gets triggered. 

There could be many reasons to this but none of them positive.

At least when you and I go at it there is still an attempt on my part to explain things to you even if you refuse to understand. With BM it's just Trump supporters sucks, you sucks, your friends sucks... And the frequency of that happening is and indication that he has a serious problem. You don't.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really do have an ego LOL You think I stalk your posts ha ha
> 
> You should stop thinking so highly of yourself. You really do have serious issues.
> 
> You are such a narcissists that is why you are acting this way. You just can't stand people disagreeing with you.
> 
> Its also funny you act like I reply to every single one of your posts when that is not even the case.
> 
> You know deep down inside you are the one that needs help. You are crying for help this very moment. Its ok, you will get it some day.












I am a narcissist. I never said I'm not. I have an ego. I never said I don't. 

That doesn't change the fact that you regularly start shit with me in this thread even when I'm not bothered or interested in what you have to say. 

I'll post my recent history of how many times you've started a quote war with me and you'll see what I mean. 

I deal in fact, not fantasy. 

Now get back on topic.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I gave you a fairly standard response and you blew it up so I continued which is something I tend to do.


I beg to differ. Go back and read who blew it up first. We were just shitposting until you blew it all out of proportion due to a perceived attack on you. Heck, it all started because you assumed I was saying you were advocating Trump's conspiracy theories.



> This is the 4th time out of the blue BM has started shit over nothing. So when I used the word stalking I'm using it poorly I admit. He probably just sees it and gets triggered.


The fact that you kept count suggests the issue is with you, not him. Not that he is faultless because he post angry almost all of the time.



> There could be many reasons to this but none of them positive.
> 
> At least when you and I go at it there is still an attempt on my part to explain things to you even if you refuse to understand. With BM it's just Trump supporters sucks, you sucks, your friends sucks... And the frequency of that happening is and indication that he has a serious problem. You don't.


When you were arguing with me you were singing his praise. Now that you are in an argument with him, I seem like the lesser evil of the two. :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I am a narcissist. I never said I'm not. I have an ego. I never said I don't.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that you regularly start shit with me in this thread even when I'm not bothered or interested in what you have to say.
> 
> I'll post my recent history of how many times you've started a quote war with me and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> I deal in fact, not fantasy.
> 
> Now get back on topic.



At least you admit you have a problem. That is a great start . I am so proud of you.

You are the one what went off topic with your go beat your wife, get help BS. If anyone needs to get back on topic its you.

As for your post history, how many of your real posts and not these little hissy fits you throw where we go back and forth have I applied to. 

You deal in fantasy all the time when it comes to Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit you have a problem. That is a great start . I am so proud of you.


Being narcissistic and having an ego isn't a negative thing. Having NPD is a mental disorder. If you're not a little narcissistic then you have a problem. And if you pretend that you're not narcissistic then you really have a problem. Narcissism is a basic and positive human trait. :lmao 



> You are the one what went off topic with your go beat your wife, get help BS. If anyone needs to get back on topic its you.


You were never even on topic in response to my post. All you did was the same "Trump this", "Trump supporter that", "rage", "hurr durr". That's not being on topic. That's called raging. So I suggested that you find a better outlet for your rage and made the suggestion that you go beat your wife, but then I said that you shouldn't do that and get a doll to beat up instead. Love the quote-mining there BM. That's literally what you do and why no one can takes you seriously because you quote-mine when it comes to your political opinions as well. 



> As for your post history, how many of your real posts and not these little hissy fits you throw where we go back and forth have I applied to.


You're the one that responded to me with a rage filled post and I quote: 



birthday_massacre said:


> *This is why you and Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously at all. *yeah Trump as president can say shit that is not true on twitter because he saw or heard it on TV even when its not true then claim oh we should not take what Trump says and claims seriously. GTFO he is the president.
> 
> *This is why you, Trump and his supporters are a joke.*
> 
> *but keep defending Trump it just proves even more how stupid you and his supporters are.*
> 
> You all cry about fake news when Trump puts out more fake news than anyone. But keep circling jerking.


You flew off the handle assuming that I'm defending Trump when I did no such thing. All I said was that there's nothing that can be done about who the president is now not because it's Trump but because that's what it is and therefore start preparing to vote for the congressional vote. 



> You deal in fantasy all the time when it comes to Trump.


Nope. Your fantasy is that I support everything Trump does or says. That's on you. I have a clean track record of criticizing his policies, his actions and even his statements. 

You're the only person in this thread who thinks that all Trump supporters are a monolith and that's because you're part of the monolith of extreme SJW opinions. 

In this thread, the ONLY person that has thrown any hissy fits is you. Almost all the posts I go back to from today is you throwing a hissy fit. Here there are:



birthday_massacre said:


> *LOL that is rich coming from the right who supports Trump and how Trump lies 70% of the time and just tweets out things as facts he gets from info wars or Breitbart lol*





birthday_massacre said:


> *LOL at all the spinning Trump supporters are doing on here.
> 
> You guys are such a joke.*


These two posts were made immediately after you failed to persuade people and convince them. You are a terrible persuader - and that's not because people here are involved in a circle jerk (that's just another excuse to maintain the cognitive dissonance you face after your "facts" are revealed to you as merely works of fiction) as many of these same people will on many ocassions disagree with one another. So when you fail to persuade people, you immediately resort to ad hominem instead of further substantiating your argument, or changing your own opinion. The thing is, that this is exactly how cognitive dissonance works. You lose an argument, your brain can't understand why, so you lash out instead. 


You was already showing signs of being :triggered and somehow my post pushed you over the edge and my post had nothing to do with defending Trump but simply pointing out where his wire-tapping claims come from. I've repeatedly said that I'm not interested in this political theatre and I've even said that I know that Trump is likely wrong about the wire-tapping claims. I've shot down right wing conspiracy theories as much as I've shut down left wing ones because I don't believe in conspiracy theories. 

You just so desperately want to express hate and disdain for people who support Trump (and you've done this right from the start) that you don't even bother learning about the people who post in this thread. You are not a serious person and your raging and outrage and pigeon holing of people is one of the reasons why no one takes you seriously and probably won't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Being narcissistic and having an ego isn't a negative thing. Having NPD is a mental disorder. If you're not a little narcissistic then you have a problem. And if you pretend that you're not narcissistic then you really have a problem. Narcissism is a basic and positive human trait. :lmao
> 
> You were never even on topic in response to my post. All you did was the same "Trump this", "Trump supporter that", "rage", "hurr durr". That's not being on topic. That's called raging. So I suggested that you find a better outlet for your rage and made the suggestion that you go beat your wife, but then I said that you shouldn't do that and get a doll to beat up instead. Love the quote-mining there BM. That's literally what you do and why no one can takes you seriously because you quote-mine when it comes to your political opinions as well.
> 
> You're the one that responded to me with a rage filled post and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You flew off the handle assuming that I'm defending Trump when I did no such thing. All I said was that there's nothing that can be done about who the president is now not because it's Trump but because that's what it is and therefore start preparing to vote for the congressional vote.
> 
> Nope. Your fantasy is that I support everything Trump does or says. That's on you. I have a clean track record of criticizing his policies, his actions and even his statements.
> 
> You're the only person in this thread who thinks that all Trump supporters are a monolith and that's because you're part of the monolith of extreme SJW opinions.
> 
> In this thread, the ONLY person that has thrown any hissy fits is you. Almost all the posts I go back to from today is you throwing a hissy fit. Here there are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These two posts were made immediately after you failed to persuade people and convince them. You are a terrible persuader - and that's not because people here are involved in a circle jerk (that's just another excuse to maintain the cognitive dissonance you face after your "facts" are revealed to you as merely works of fiction) as many of these same people will on many ocassions disagree with one another. So when you fail to persuade people, you immediately resort to ad hominem instead of further substantiating your argument, or changing your own opinion. The thing is, that this is exactly how cognitive dissonance works. You lose an argument, your brain can't understand why, so you lash out instead.
> 
> 
> You was already showing signs of being :triggered and somehow my post pushed you over the edge and my post had nothing to do with defending Trump but simply pointing out where his wire-tapping claims come from. I've repeatedly said that I'm not interested in this political theatre and I've even said that I know that Trump is likely wrong about the wire-tapping claims. I've shot down right wing conspiracy theories as much as I've shut down left wing ones because I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> You just so desperately want to express hate and disdain for people who support Trump (and you've done this right from the start) that you don't even bother learning about the people who post in this thread. You are not a serious person and your raging and outrage and pigeon holing of people is one of the reasons why no one takes you seriously and probably won't.



Yes being narcissistic is a bad thing but you are too sick to even realize that. its why you need help.

I also think its funny how you get so upset when I laugh at Trump supporters for ignoring facts but you seem to have an issue when Trump supporters just shit post and spam gifs in response to posts that are not pro Trump. that is what most Trump supporters do in this thread. But since they are pro Trump supporters you are ok with that. You only get your panties in a bunch when anti Trump people do the same type of thing.

You are a hypocrite.

I also dont need to persuade Trump supporters when the facts and evidence back me up. You can deny facts and evidence all you want, it just makes that person look bad who cant accept the truth.

You are showing the most signs of being triggered by your spaming of get help, telling me to beat my wife and other BS. 

But keep projecting. You know deep down inside you are the one who needs help. The sooner you accept it and get help, the better you will be ok


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes being narcissistic is a bad thing but you are too sick to even realize that. its why you need help.


*



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-lunbeck/5-things-you-didnt-know-a_2_b_5107392.html



Click to expand...

*


> 1. Narcissism is by definition bad. No—even Freud, who was neither an optimist nor a positive psychologist, recognized narcissism’s upside. He argued it was necessary to sustain life, and that it was found in everyone. And he admired narcissistic people, “personalities” who were primed for leadership and able to effect change. In the 1970s, when clinicians were delineating the narcissistic personality disorder, it was clear that being a narcissist was problematic—mostly for those around him or her. But narcissism was increasingly seen as a neutral quantity of self-feeling—or self-esteem—that everyone had to regulate in order to feel good. This was a normal, not a pathological process. Without narcissism, you couldn’t survive; with a healthy measure of it, you could thrive. 2. Healthy narcissism is a creation of the Me Decade. Plausible but misleadingly so. Healthy narcissism was popularized within and beyond psychoanalysis in the 1970s, but it was first named in 1930s Vienna, hardly the site of Me Decade excess. Clinicians used the term healthy narcissism then to refer to normal, even desirable, aspects of being in the world: general well-being, self-assurance, self-assertion, satisfaction with who one was. They also argued that it fueled fantasies of love, greatness, and ambition. But, unlike today’s naysayers, they argued that these fantasies were normal, the foundation of actual accomplishment in the world. Healthy narcissism is a bit player in the public debate about narcissism today, which is focused almost entirely on narcissism’s pathologies.
> 3. Narcissists love themselves too much. Psychoanalysts argued that the reverse was true—narcissists, as one put it three decades ago, “love themselves as badly as they love others.” Self-hate was more the problem than excessive self-love. Yet, the association of narcissism—indeed, the default popular definition of narcissism—with unseemly amounts of self-love can be found all over the internet. To be sure, the mythological figure of Narcissus, whose name psychoanalysts appropriated, fell to his death while transfixed by his own image. By the 1970s, however, self-love had been transformed into a positive good, and many psychoanalysts were guided by the idea that, as a popular axiom put it, “you have to love yourself before you can love anyone else.”
> 4. A high score on the popular narcissism personality test means you’re a narcissist. Worried? Take the “Am I a Narcissist” test, any number of websites advise. Variations on psychologists’ “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” (NPI) are easy to find, and easy to score. Thousands of college students have taken it, and the results are marshaled to document the precipitous rise in narcissism among the young. There are several problems here. For one, the test was designed to measure narcissistic traits in the general population, not to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, but in practice it is often used to do so. And two, the test includes items indicative of healthy narcissism alongside such malignant traits as entitlement and manipulativeness, but in determining your score simply adds responses together. Thus, high scores might indicate that you feel good about yourself, are happy, and have healthy self-esteem—healthily narcissistic dispositions that are problematic only to the cultural scolds.
> 5. Narcissism makes people unlikeable and disagreeable, and no one wants to hire them or hang out with them. Actually, psychologists find that in general we find narcissists more likeable, attractive, and exciting than non-narcissists, and that we are drawn to their “sexy” charisma and confidence. In addition, narcissists can succeed in corporate settings, as long as they stay on narcissism’s healthy side. Boards want self-confident, assertive, and creative leaders—all traits fueled by healthy narcissism. The trick is to stay on the healthy side, to not give into the grandiosity and recklessness that can go with pathological narcissism. Among students of management, the question now is not if narcissism is optimal but, rather, how much of it does the leader ideally need.


Narcissism isn't a negative trait. Narcissism Personality Disorder is something completely different. You don't even know the difference between the two :lol 



> I also think its funny how you get so upset when I laugh at Trump supporters for ignoring facts but you seem to have an issue when Trump supporters just shit post and spam gifs in response to posts that are not pro Trump. that is what most Trump supporters do in this thread. But since they are pro Trump supporters you are ok with that. You only get your panties in a bunch when anti Trump people do the same type of thing.


It doesn't upset me. It's just a common trend in your posts and part of why you're incapable of convincing people. If your objective isn't to convince people towards your arguments, then should I assume that the only reason why you try to persuade people is so that once you fail you can be nasty? Because at this point when someone is aware that a certain group is delusional, then that's a self-defeating activity. If you notice, I don't try to convince the extremist democrats of my position, but I refute their positions. I also refute the conspiracy theorists amongst the hardcore republicans. Just ask @glenwo2 . 

However, my goal is to convince people who are on the fence. That's why I choose to communicate with them instead of people who are already firmly on either side. 



> I also dont need to persuade Trump supporters when the facts and evidence back me up. You can deny facts and evidence all you want, it just makes that person look bad who cant accept the truth.


But the facts and evidence don't back you up. What you post are opinions and you have no idea that opinions aren't facts. This has been pointed out to you over several years actually and you still don't understand the difference. Also, if you come in here with the assumption that you're not going to be able to convince Trump supporters, then what is your motivation for the attempt in the first place? 



> You are showing the most signs of being triggered by your spaming of get help, telling me to beat my wife and other BS.


Nope. I do that to mock you and because your meltdowns are fun  



> But keep projecting. You know deep down inside you are the one who needs help. The sooner you accept it and get help, the better you will be.


I was actually in therapy for 3 years and I'm glad I got it. But currently, I have a full clean bill of health, a happy and satisfactory marriage, a nice small business, a pleasant home life and lots and lots of love. I am the very definition of a healthy narcissist  

This forum is a form of entertainment, and you're one of my many entertainers. Keep obliging.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> *
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-lunbeck/5-things-you-didnt-know-a_2_b_5107392.html
> 
> 1. Narcissism is by definition bad.* No—even Freud, who was neither an optimist nor a positive psychologist, recognized narcissism’s upside. He argued it was necessary to sustain life, and that it was found in everyone. And he admired narcissistic people, “personalities” who were primed for leadership and able to effect change. In the 1970s, when clinicians were delineating the narcissistic personality disorder, it was clear that being a narcissist was problematic—mostly for those around him or her. But narcissism was increasingly seen as a neutral quantity of self-feeling—or self-esteem—that everyone had to regulate in order to feel good. This was a normal, not a pathological process. Without narcissism, you couldn’t survive; with a healthy measure of it, you could thrive. *2. Healthy narcissism is a creation of the Me Decade.* Plausible but misleadingly so. Healthy narcissism was popularized within and beyond psychoanalysis in the 1970s, but it was first named in 1930s Vienna, hardly the site of Me Decade excess. Clinicians used the term healthy narcissism then to refer to normal, even desirable, aspects of being in the world: general well-being, self-assurance, self-assertion, satisfaction with who one was. They also argued that it fueled fantasies of love, greatness, and ambition. But, unlike today’s naysayers, they argued that these fantasies were normal, the foundation of actual accomplishment in the world. Healthy narcissism is a bit player in the public debate about narcissism today, which is focused almost entirely on narcissism’s pathologies.
> *3. Narcissists love themselves too much.* Psychoanalysts argued that the reverse was true—narcissists, as one put it three decades ago, “love themselves as badly as they love others.” Self-hate was more the problem than excessive self-love. Yet, the association of narcissism—indeed, the default popular definition of narcissism—with unseemly amounts of self-love can be found all over the internet. To be sure, the mythological figure of Narcissus, whose name psychoanalysts appropriated, fell to his death while transfixed by his own image. By the 1970s, however, self-love had been transformed into a positive good, and many psychoanalysts were guided by the idea that, as a popular axiom put it, “you have to love yourself before you can love anyone else.”
> *4. A high score on the popular narcissism personality test means you’re a narcissist. * Worried? Take the “Am I a Narcissist” test, any number of websites advise. Variations on psychologists’ “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” (NPI) are easy to find, and easy to score. Thousands of college students have taken it, and the results are marshaled to document the precipitous rise in narcissism among the young. There are several problems here. For one, the test was designed to measure narcissistic traits in the general population, not to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, but in practice it is often used to do so. And two, the test includes items indicative of healthy narcissism alongside such malignant traits as entitlement and manipulativeness, but in determining your score simply adds responses together. Thus, high scores might indicate that you feel good about yourself, are happy, and have healthy self-esteem—healthily narcissistic dispositions that are problematic only to the cultural scolds.
> *5. Narcissism makes people unlikeable and disagreeable, and no one wants to hire them or hang out with them.* Actually, psychologists find that in general we find narcissists more likeable, attractive, and exciting than non-narcissists, and that we are drawn to their “sexy” charisma and confidence. In addition, narcissists can succeed in corporate settings, as long as they stay on narcissism’s healthy side. Boards want self-confident, assertive, and creative leaders—all traits fueled by healthy narcissism. The trick is to stay on the healthy side, to not give into the grandiosity and recklessness that can go with pathological narcissism. Among students of management, the question now is not if narcissism is optimal but, rather, how much of it does the leader ideally need.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't upset me. It's just a common trend in your posts and part of why you're incapable of convincing people. If your objective isn't to convince people towards your arguments, then should I assume that the only reason why you try to persuade people is so that once you fail you can be nasty?
> 
> 
> 
> But the facts and evidence don't back you up. What you post are opinions and you have no idea that opinions aren't facts. This has been pointed out to you over several years actually and you still don't understand the difference. Also, if you come in here with the assumption that you're not going to be able to convince Trump supporters, then what is your motivation for the attempt in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I do that to mock you and because your meltdowns are fun
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually in therapy for 3 years and I'm glad I got it. But currently, I have a full clean bill of health, a happy and satisfactory marriage, a nice small business, a pleasant home life and lots and lots of love. This forum is a form of entertainment, and you're one of my many entertainers. Keep obliging.


You are currently having a huge meltdown right now. Just look at you. You got so pissed you said to go beat my wife, you are condining beating a woman. 

You are meltdown so much you act like being a narcissist is a good thing.

You should go back and get more help dude. It obviously did not work as well as you claim. You so so pissed at a silly little message board.

But keep lying to yourself. Whatever makes you feel better.


Now take your own advice and get back on topic.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are currently having a huge meltdown right now. Just look at you. You got so pissed you said to go beat my wife, you are condining beating a woman.


Yup. Because when I said that, I really meant that you should go beat a woman :lol 



> You are meltdown so much you act like being a narcissist is a good thing.


I thought liberalism was open to science and new ideas. Guess not. Anyways, since this is an interesting topic for me, I'm posting this for the benefit of others who might actually be open minded to new ideas. 



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_narcissism
> 
> *Healthy narcissism* is a concept that developed slowly out of the psychoanalytic tradition, and became popular in the late twentieth century.
> The healthy narcissist has been characterised as possessing realistic self-esteem without being cut off from a shared emotional life, as the unhealthy narcissist tends to be.[1]:37
> 
> Solan's healthy narcissismRonnie Solan uses the metaphor of narcissism as an emotional-immune system for safeguarding the familiarity and the well-being of the individual against invasion by foreign sensations (1998) and small differences (Freud 1929–1930) was possible.
> The innate immunization vacillates between well-being, in the presence of the familiar, and alertness as well as vulnerability, facing the stranger. From childhood, the familiar is tempting and the strangeness is intolerable from within (illness) or from outside (otherness). Hence, narcissistic immunization might be compared to the activity of the biological immunological system that identifies the familiar protein of the cell and rejects the foreign protein (bacteria, virus).
> Thus, from infancy to adulthood, getting hurt emotionally is inevitable because the other, even if he or she is a familiar person and dear to us, is still a separate individual that asserts his otherness. The healthy narcissist succeeds in updating narcissistic data (such as acquaintance with the unfamiliar) and in enabling the recovery of self-familiarity from injury and psychic pains. Healthy narcissism activates immunologic process of restoring the stabilization of cohesiveness, integrity and vigorousness of the self and the restoration of the relationship with the other, despite its otherness.
> Impaired functioning of narcissism fails to activate these narcissistic processes and arouses destructive reactions. Thus, the individual steadfastly maintains his anger toward the other that offended him, and might sever contact with him, even to the extent of exacting violent revenge, although this other might be dear to him, possibly leading through impaired narcissism to fragility and vulnerability of the self, to immature individuation, narcissistic disorders and pathological phenomena.
> The healthy narcissism contributes to improving emotional intelligence as part of the process of adapting to changes; to intensifying curiosity and investigating the environment; to relating to otherness, and for enhancing _joie de vivre_.[9][10][11][12][13]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. I clearly fall in the healthy narcissist box





> You should go back and get more help dude. It obviously did not work as well as you claim. You so so pissed at a silly little message board.


If laughing and enjoying myself is called being pissed, then I guess I'm pissed. :kobelol



> But keep lying to yourself. Whatever makes you feel better.


:sleep


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Can you guys please stop? It's making me uncomfortable  .


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hate to say it, but Trump is starting to make mistakes. This healthcare thing is a mess.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> A 19-year-old Jewish teenager with dual Israeli-American citizenship was arrested Thursday by Israeli police as the "main suspect in a wave of bomb threats against Jewish community centers in the United States," the AP reports.
> 
> President Trump was viciously attacked in February for suggesting the threats may have been a false flag to "make people look bad."
> 
> The ADL and other far-left Jewish groups, without any evidence, blamed "white supremacists" who were "embolden by Trump" for being behind the calls.
> 
> It turns out Trump was right and they were wrong...again.


President Trump has tiger blood.

*#Winning*



> Hate to say it, but Trump is starting to make mistakes. This healthcare thing is a mess.


Its Ryan's fault for presenting a half-assed bill to the President. The Republicans can do better and a lot of them know it. They need to go with Rand Paul on a real solution on fixing Obamacare.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Mra22 said:


> Hate to say it, but Trump is starting to make mistakes. This healthcare thing is a mess.


I agree he fucked up here.

Its his first time doing a political deal, and it was messy.

Trump comes from business, where you negotiate with faith because at the end of the day, both sides want to do the deal. In politics, that isnt true. I suspect he fell victim to ryans bullshit about 2nd and 3rd wave revisions. 

He will learn from this, and do better with tax cuts.

As for the leaks, consider the 2 big investigations going on:

Russiagate- breathless headlines where theres all these allegations, yet the concrete facts are no evidence of collusion. At the root of it, wikileaks, with its perfect record for honesty, said IT DIDNT COME FROM THE RUSSIANS. 

And no ones even trying to say russia hacked voting machines.

Democrats will die on this hill, and when nothings found, depress their voters into lower turnout where theyll be stomped in 2018. By then trump will have mastered the political process and stick his foot right up the democrats asses.

Now hilliarygate. Guess what? This is still ongoing, and NO ONES SAYING SHIT about it. Comey talked for half an hour on things hilliary did with state secrets that would have sent anybody to jail for just doing one of them. No leaks, very quiet like.

Its possible that the whole leadership of the democrats, hilliary with the foundation crimes and obamas acts of sedition will bring both of them down.

Talk about draining the swamp. The trials would take a decade to throw all of them in jail.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If you wanna know how a conspiracy theory works, this is how it works: 

Conspiracy: Trump and his administration set up Paul Ryan to fail

Exhibit 1: 









Steve Bannon works for Trump. 
Steve Bannon also has ties with Brietbart
Brietbart publishes several articles associating Ryan with the new bill

Exhibit 2: 









Exhibit 3: Washington Post runs a story about how Donald Trump wants to ruin Paul Ryan's speakership

Exhibit 4: Other outlets have been reporting similar views

Hence conspiracy theory is born.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> This is why you and Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously at all.


Please stop this nonsense, BM. The only one here who isn't taken seriously is you with your constant blanket attacks on US without any kind of real evidence to back up your rant. It's tiresome.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Anyway, I think where Trump fucked up is with giving this idiot Ryan an opportunity to present an awful HealthCare bill and disregarding any alternatives(just in case)....

He should've looked at Rand's proposal and compared the two instead of taking Ryan's as the only one to try and pass. 


Now I'm concerned with the possibility of Obamacare coming back mainly 'cause I'm not sure if that fucking "Penalty" for not having insurance is brought back with it. IT BETTER NOT! Or I will very pissed.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> If you wanna know how a conspiracy theory works, this is how it works:
> 
> Conspiracy: Trump and his administration set up Paul Ryan to fail
> 
> Exhibit 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Bannon works for Trump.
> Steve Bannon also has ties with Brietbart
> Brietbart publishes several articles associating Ryan with the new bill
> 
> Exhibit 2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exhibit 3: Washington Post runs a story about how Donald Trump wants to ruin Paul Ryan's speakership
> 
> Exhibit 4: Other outlets have been reporting similar views
> 
> Hence conspiracy theory is born.



I was sure that this is what Trump did to push something through that he really wanted. lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I was sure that this is what Trump did to push something through that he really wanted. lol


Always be mindful that sometimes we latch on to certain types of evidence because it corroborates what we _want _to believe to be true, not what _is _true. 

#Iamthelastjedi


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I just read ITT that narcissism isn't a problem.

LOL


I'm out of the Trump loop and it feelsbadman. I have no idea what's going on atm.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Always be mindful that sometimes we latch on to certain types of evidence because it corroborates what we _want _to believe to be true, not what _is _true.
> 
> #Iamthelastjedi


Mindful, you are. 

Latch onto certain types, we do. 


Hmmm...


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I just read ITT that narcissism isn't a problem.
> 
> LOL


It's not always a bad thing. But I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into a lengthy debate about it so I'll just make my assertion and leave it at that. 



> I'm out of the Trump loop and it feelsbadman. I have no idea what's going on atm.


There's not much going on. 

CNN ran a news about him being afraid of stairs and a lot of people are :triggered by the fact that he slummed it with the commoners in a mack Truck.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did BM give up? Haven't seen him posting his diatribe lately. 

Maybe he finally got bored of making a complete fool of himself in the political arena? 

or is that just wishful thinking?

I'm not going to pretend I'm some sort of Political dynamo here myself but even I could tell when someone no longer has a valid argument when that person starts insulting people. :shrug


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I just read ITT that narcissism isn't a problem.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> I'm out of the Trump loop and it feelsbadman. I have no idea what's going on atm.


It's starting to look like, in spite of The Donald being his usual imprecise self with his language, myriad actors within Obama's orbit in intelligence agencies and on the periphery of intelligence agencies were indeed using loopholes in U.S. espionage operating procedures to "out" certain players like Mike Flynn. :lol Can't say I'm surprised. All of the efforts to prove a Trump/Putin conspiracy may have resulted in U.S. government officials acting like East German Stasi operatives using what should have been clandestine phone calls as ways to attack political opponents. 

As Devin Nunes noted, agents within the intelligence community evidently picked up numerous names of Trump transition actors during surveillance of foreign targets, all culminating with the "unmasking" of their identity, most infamously so in the case of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, effectively assuring that they would be leaked. 

James Comey was able to confirm that there was no evidence to back up Trump's tweet concerning Obama's ordering of the "wiretapping" but he could not speak to claims concerning electronic surveillance of Trump and his campaign. 

So, as springtime commences, and nine months have yawned out since the exclamation by Democrats that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta's emails and passed them along to WikiLeaks, the question becomes, what is the juicier, less focused-upon matter at hand? Is it that Trump is, as Hillary Clinton continually asserted, a puppet of the Kremlin? After all, "RAND" apparently stands for "Russian Agent, No Doubt," as far as Senator John McCain is concerned, merely because Senator Rand Paul refuses to think that bringing tiny Montenegro--yet another potential tripwire for nuclear holocaust with the Russians over a country ninety percent of Americans could never find on a globe to save their lives--as McCain said of Paul on the floor of the U.S. Senate. @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @virus21

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as ex-CIA Director Mike Morrell have come out and contended that they cannot find a whit of evidence to support the claims that Trump officials have worked hand-in-glove with Russian agents. Senator Chris ***** even backtracked from his overheated claims that Team Trump and Team Russia were conspiring with one another at any point throughout the long campaign. Speaking of the matter of any collusion, ***** finally relented, admitting, "I have no hard evidence of collusion." 

So, here we are, on March 24, 2017, and both Clapper and Morrell are admitting that they have yet to find any evidence to support the argument that Trump surrogates or Trump officials were working with Russians or vice versa, and the question must be asked, what is the evidence which has been poured over for the better part of a year now to compel them to render this public judgment? Senator ***** thoughtlessly stammered and hemmed and hawed and finally indicated that "FBI transcripts!" were pivotal in his recognition that, as far as he can gather, what he once enthusiastically subscribed to did not in fact occur, there was, as far as he can decipher, no evidence with which to cling that indubitably points to a running Kremlin-Mar-a-Lago conspiracy throughout the presidential campaign. Who intercepted these conversations, as rendered through FBI transcripts? Who transcribed them? If it was other intelligence agencies but the FBI, and they passed the information along to the Bureau, who authorized that? How extensive was the surveillance? Which parties were being "wiretapped" to use Trump's hilariously outdated lingo? 

After the better part of a calendar year committed to unearthing connections between Trump and Putin, intelligence agencies are still unable to inform anyone of evidence that the Trumpites colluded with the rascally Russians, at what point is the investigation exhausted? 

Back on January 12, eight days before Trump became president, the _Washington Post_'s David Ignatius wrote, "According to a senior U.S. government official, (Gen. Michael) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials... What did Flynn say?" 

Flynn was both national adviser-designate on Dec. 29 as well as private citizen. He was fulfilling the obligations of his job-to-be while also not yet officially being in government. This recalls how Dwight Eisenhower officials assured the incoming John F. Kennedy team that they would never be monitored by domestic intelligence agencies during the transition between Eisenhower's and Kennedy's respective administrations. So why was Flynn unmasked by operatives within U.S. intelligence? For what purpose? 

Who was the senior U.S. government official left appropriately unnamed by Ignatius's piece? Why did that official effectively "unmask" Flynn himself? Is it conceivable that the official knew precisely how many times Flynn and Kislyak spoke to one another? If procedure were followed, was Kislyak's part of the conversation recorded and combed over, while Flynn's, while his identity was known by intelligence officials, "minimized" as per normal U.S. spying procedures? 

At what point are the eyes of investigators lured toward looking into who the ostensible anti-Trump agent or agents is or are within the U.S. intelligence community? Who used Ignatius? The CIA's usage of the _Washington Post_ was infamous throughout much of the Cold War. 

Trump lost a major ally in Flynn, and because of the particulars of the case, Flynn effectively had to resign, lest the administration lose face. Who sprung the trap? Were FBI agents unleashed by Comey to pursue the unindicted felon and traitor responsible for the unmasking of Flynn? If this never occurred, why did it never occur? 

Dan Henninger of the _Wall Street Journal_ is pointing to a story from _The New York Times_ of March 1. The story commenced thusly: "In the Obama administration's last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election--and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians--across the government." 

Henninger soberly notes, "This is what they did," and quotes the _New York Times_:

"At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government--and, in some cases, among European allies." 

Operatives honeycombing U.S. intelligence agencies, according to the _New York Times_, disseminated secrets which were potentially damaging to the incoming president of their own country, not only to fellow countrymen but to foreign governments and surrogates thereof. 

Henninger goes on, quoting the January 12 _New York Times_ story, saying that the _New York Times_ "reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate 'raw signals intelligence information' to 16 other intelligence agencies."

The investigation into what actors on behalf of Obama's administration, and the Obama administration's Justice Department, as well as potentially myriad U.S. intelligence operatives were doing in unmasking Flynn and spreading intelligence which was widely seen as compromising, needs to be focused on with great intensity now. Was Lynch directed to use as many resources as possible to damage the incoming Trump presidency, as Robert Kennedy was told by JFK to "wiretap" Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders? What was Comey's FBI doing throughout all of this? What did Obama know of the intelligence operatives who may very well have gone rogue without his knowledge? 

These and other questions require swift answering.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Did BM give up? Haven't seen him posting his diatribe lately.
> 
> Maybe he finally got bored of making a complete fool of himself in the political arena?
> 
> or is that just wishful thinking?
> 
> I'm not going to pretend I'm some sort of Political dynamo here myself but even I could tell when someone no longer has a valid argument when that person starts insulting people. :shrug


You posted a few posts ago



glenwo2 said:


> Please stop this nonsense, BM. The only one here who isn't taken seriously is you with your constant blanket attacks on US without any kind of real evidence to back up your rant. It's tiresome.



And now you are trolling trying to start up shit again. then when you or another Trump supporter get trolled back you , like you are doing now, cry about it because you can't take it.

Its just funny how many Trump supporters shit post in this thread and you are ok with it when they do it but when Trump supporters start getting it back oh its a huge issue and that person needs to stop.

If you can't take trolling back stop trolling and shit posting yourself.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

you have that mouthbreathing retard Maxine Waters on camera in 2013 saying Obama has info on 'everybody' and that that info would be 'very useful' in 2016

snowden revealed that the NSA spied on as many people as it could for years and years

lynch's order disseminating information the NSA gathered on :trump to every american intelligence agency in existence to guarantee leaks 

driven by their blind childish hate the democrats have created yet another trap for themselves 

the FBI has been investigating :trump for 9 months and has presented absolutely no evidence of any coordination or collusion between the :trump campaign and the russian government

that's why you have liars like schiff and ***** going on TV almost every day and promising that now there really is "evidence" of their charges

yet the evidence doesn't come out - because it doesn't exist - and they go back on TV and lie again

they know that the political crisis they have manufactured is now bringing blowback to them and their god barack obama and they're getting very desperate

by the end of all this the democratic party will have been revealed as going on the biggest and most baseless political witch hunt of all time, doing far more damage to american democracy than russia ever could do short of nuclear war

it's all unraveling and they're freaking out over it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> It's starting to look like, in spite of The Donald being his usual imprecise self with his language, myriad actors within Obama's orbit in intelligence agencies and on the periphery of intelligence agencies were indeed using loopholes in U.S. espionage operating procedures to "out" certain players like Mike Flynn. :lol Can't say I'm surprised. All of the efforts to prove a Trump/Putin conspiracy may have resulted in U.S. government officials acting like East German Stasi operatives using what should have been clandestine phone calls as ways to attack political opponents.
> 
> As Devin Nunes noted, agents within the intelligence community evidently picked up numerous names of Trump transition actors during surveillance of foreign targets, all culminating with the "unmasking" of their identity, most infamously so in the case of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, effectively assuring that they would be leaked.
> 
> James Comey was able to confirm that there was no evidence to back up Trump's tweet concerning Obama's ordering of the "wiretapping" but he could not speak to claims concerning electronic surveillance of Trump and his campaign.
> 
> So, as springtime commences, and nine months have yawned out since the exclamation by Democrats that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta's emails and passed them along to WikiLeaks, the question becomes, what is the juicier, less focused-upon matter at hand? Is it that Trump is, as Hillary Clinton continually asserted, a puppet of the Kremlin? After all, "RAND" apparently stands for "Russian Agent, No Doubt," as far as Senator John McCain is concerned, merely because Senator Rand Paul refuses to think that bringing tiny Montenegro--yet another potential tripwire for nuclear holocaust with the Russians over a country ninety percent of Americans could never find on a globe to save their lives--as McCain said of Paul on the floor of the U.S. Senate. @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @virus21
> 
> Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as ex-CIA Director Mike Morrell have come out and contended that they cannot find a whit of evidence to support the claims that Trump officials have worked hand-in-glove with Russian agents. Senator Chris ***** even backtracked from his overheated claims that Team Trump and Team Russia were conspiring with one another at any point throughout the long campaign. Speaking of the matter of any collusion, ***** finally relented, admitting, "I have no hard evidence of collusion."
> 
> So, here we are, on March 24, 2017, and both Clapper and Morrell are admitting that they have yet to find any evidence to support the argument that Trump surrogates or Trump officials were working with Russians or vice versa, and the question must be asked, what is the evidence which has been poured over for the better part of a year now to compel them to render this public judgment? Senator ***** thoughtlessly stammered and hemmed and hawed and finally indicated that "FBI transcripts!" were pivotal in his recognition that, as far as he can gather, what he once enthusiastically subscribed to did not in fact occur, there was, as far as he can decipher, no evidence with which to cling that indubitably points to a running Kremlin-Mar-a-Lago conspiracy throughout the presidential campaign. Who intercepted these conversations, as rendered through FBI transcripts? Who transcribed them? If it was other intelligence agencies but the FBI, and they passed the information along to the Bureau, who authorized that? How extensive was the surveillance? Which parties were being "wiretapped" to use Trump's hilariously outdated lingo?
> 
> After the better part of a calendar year committed to unearthing connections between Trump and Putin, intelligence agencies are still unable to inform anyone of evidence that the Trumpites colluded with the rascally Russians, at what point is the investigation exhausted?
> 
> Back on January 12, eight days before Trump became president, the _Washington Post_'s David Ignatius wrote, "According to a senior U.S. government official, (Gen. Michael) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials... What did Flynn say?"
> 
> Flynn was both national adviser-designate on Dec. 29 as well as private citizen. He was fulfilling the obligations of his job-to-be while also not yet officially being in government. This recalls how Dwight Eisenhower officials assured the incoming John F. Kennedy team that they would never be monitored by domestic intelligence agencies during the transition between Eisenhower's and Kennedy's respective administrations. So why was Flynn unmasked by operatives within U.S. intelligence? For what purpose?
> 
> Who was the senior U.S. government official left appropriately unnamed by Ignatius's piece? Why did that official effectively "unmask" Flynn himself? Is it conceivable that the official knew precisely how many times Flynn and Kislyak spoke to one another? If procedure were followed, was Kislyak's part of the conversation recorded and combed over, while Flynn's, while his identity was known by intelligence officials, "minimized" as per normal U.S. spying procedures?
> 
> At what point are the eyes of investigators lured toward looking into who the ostensible anti-Trump agent or agents is or are within the U.S. intelligence community? Who used Ignatius? The CIA's usage of the _Washington Post_ was infamous throughout much of the Cold War.
> 
> Trump lost a major ally in Flynn, and because of the particulars of the case, Flynn effectively had to resign, lest the administration lose face. Who sprung the trap? Were FBI agents unleashed by Comey to pursue the unindicted felon and traitor responsible for the unmasking of Flynn? If this never occurred, why did it never occur?
> 
> Dan Henninger of the _Wall Street Journal_ is pointing to a story from _The New York Times_ of March 1. The story commenced thusly: "In the Obama administration's last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election--and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians--across the government."
> 
> Henninger soberly notes, "This is what they did," and quotes the _New York Times_:
> 
> "At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government--and, in some cases, among European allies."
> 
> Operatives honeycombing U.S. intelligence agencies, according to the _New York Times_, disseminated secrets which were potentially damaging to the incoming president of their own country, not only to fellow countrymen but to foreign governments and surrogates thereof.
> 
> Henninger goes on, quoting the January 12 _New York Times_ story, saying that the _New York Times_ "reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate 'raw signals intelligence information' to 16 other intelligence agencies."
> 
> The investigation into what actors on behalf of Obama's administration, and the Obama administration's Justice Department, as well as potentially myriad U.S. intelligence operatives were doing in unmasking Flynn and spreading intelligence which was widely seen as compromising, needs to be focused on with great intensity now. Was Lynch directed to use as many resources as possible to damage the incoming Trump presidency, as Robert Kennedy was told by JFK to "wiretap" Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders? What was Comey's FBI doing throughout all of this? What did Obama know of the intelligence operatives who may very well have gone rogue without his knowledge?
> 
> These and other questions require swift answering.



You say they were using loopholes to out certain players in Trumps admin, even if that is true, people in Trumps inner circle were still being deceitful with their ties to Russia and hiding it. If they were not being shady with their Russian ties there would be nothing to see here.

Its just funny more and more Trump allies are being outed as having ties to Russia. The worse one being Manafort.

The more digging that goes on the more and more people close to Trump have hidden Russia ties.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Paul Ryan's wet fart bill pulled. Paul Ryan press conference in 15 minutes where hopefully he will announce his resignation as Speaker of the House. Double bonus if he just resigns from Congress altogether. Fucking ball-less idiot, go back to Wisconsin. Get a real conservative as Speaker of the House please, not some bitch-boy whose main job in life is to be a pussy.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It's not always a bad thing. But I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into a lengthy debate about it so I'll just make my assertion and leave it at that.


yeah it'd just be an off topic waste of time. i'd still drink beers with ya.

i just thought it was funny that a self admitted narcissist says it's not a negative character trait. frankly that's perfect for a Trump thread and that's why i laughed.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hahahaha Ryan sounding totally inept as usual. Just resign already loser.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Miss Sally - More fuel for the conspiracy theory :trump


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845371170492858369


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Time for Trump to make lemonade out of this lemon. Encourage an insurrection in the House. Discard the Koch Brothers' plaything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I thought Trump claimed he had some super amazing healthcare plan to replace Obamacare? Are Trump supporters going to admit he was just talking out of his ass when he said that


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> It's starting to look like, in spite of The Donald being his usual imprecise self with his language, myriad actors within Obama's orbit in intelligence agencies and on the periphery of intelligence agencies were indeed using loopholes in U.S. espionage operating procedures to "out" certain players like Mike Flynn. :lol Can't say I'm surprised. All of the efforts to prove a Trump/Putin conspiracy may have resulted in U.S. government officials acting like East German Stasi operatives using what should have been clandestine phone calls as ways to attack political opponents.
> 
> As Devin Nunes noted, agents within the intelligence community evidently picked up numerous names of Trump transition actors during surveillance of foreign targets, all culminating with the "unmasking" of their identity, most infamously so in the case of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, effectively assuring that they would be leaked.
> 
> James Comey was able to confirm that there was no evidence to back up Trump's tweet concerning Obama's ordering of the "wiretapping" but he could not speak to claims concerning electronic surveillance of Trump and his campaign.
> 
> So, as springtime commences, and nine months have yawned out since the exclamation by Democrats that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta's emails and passed them along to WikiLeaks, the question becomes, what is the juicier, less focused-upon matter at hand? Is it that Trump is, as Hillary Clinton continually asserted, a puppet of the Kremlin? After all, "RAND" apparently stands for "Russian Agent, No Doubt," as far as Senator John McCain is concerned, merely because Senator Rand Paul refuses to think that bringing tiny Montenegro--yet another potential tripwire for nuclear holocaust with the Russians over a country ninety percent of Americans could never find on a globe to save their lives--as McCain said of Paul on the floor of the U.S. Senate. @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @virus21
> 
> Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as ex-CIA Director Mike Morrell have come out and contended that they cannot find a whit of evidence to support the claims that Trump officials have worked hand-in-glove with Russian agents. Senator Chris ***** even backtracked from his overheated claims that Team Trump and Team Russia were conspiring with one another at any point throughout the long campaign. Speaking of the matter of any collusion, ***** finally relented, admitting, "I have no hard evidence of collusion."
> 
> So, here we are, on March 24, 2017, and both Clapper and Morrell are admitting that they have yet to find any evidence to support the argument that Trump surrogates or Trump officials were working with Russians or vice versa, and the question must be asked, what is the evidence which has been poured over for the better part of a year now to compel them to render this public judgment? Senator ***** thoughtlessly stammered and hemmed and hawed and finally indicated that "FBI transcripts!" were pivotal in his recognition that, as far as he can gather, what he once enthusiastically subscribed to did not in fact occur, there was, as far as he can decipher, no evidence with which to cling that indubitably points to a running Kremlin-Mar-a-Lago conspiracy throughout the presidential campaign. Who intercepted these conversations, as rendered through FBI transcripts? Who transcribed them? If it was other intelligence agencies but the FBI, and they passed the information along to the Bureau, who authorized that? How extensive was the surveillance? Which parties were being "wiretapped" to use Trump's hilariously outdated lingo?
> 
> After the better part of a calendar year committed to unearthing connections between Trump and Putin, intelligence agencies are still unable to inform anyone of evidence that the Trumpites colluded with the rascally Russians, at what point is the investigation exhausted?
> 
> Back on January 12, eight days before Trump became president, the _Washington Post_'s David Ignatius wrote, "According to a senior U.S. government official, (Gen. Michael) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials... What did Flynn say?"
> 
> Flynn was both national adviser-designate on Dec. 29 as well as private citizen. He was fulfilling the obligations of his job-to-be while also not yet officially being in government. This recalls how Dwight Eisenhower officials assured the incoming John F. Kennedy team that they would never be monitored by domestic intelligence agencies during the transition between Eisenhower's and Kennedy's respective administrations. So why was Flynn unmasked by operatives within U.S. intelligence? For what purpose?
> 
> Who was the senior U.S. government official left appropriately unnamed by Ignatius's piece? Why did that official effectively "unmask" Flynn himself? Is it conceivable that the official knew precisely how many times Flynn and Kislyak spoke to one another? If procedure were followed, was Kislyak's part of the conversation recorded and combed over, while Flynn's, while his identity was known by intelligence officials, "minimized" as per normal U.S. spying procedures?
> 
> At what point are the eyes of investigators lured toward looking into who the ostensible anti-Trump agent or agents is or are within the U.S. intelligence community? Who used Ignatius? The CIA's usage of the _Washington Post_ was infamous throughout much of the Cold War.
> 
> Trump lost a major ally in Flynn, and because of the particulars of the case, Flynn effectively had to resign, lest the administration lose face. Who sprung the trap? Were FBI agents unleashed by Comey to pursue the unindicted felon and traitor responsible for the unmasking of Flynn? If this never occurred, why did it never occur?
> 
> Dan Henninger of the _Wall Street Journal_ is pointing to a story from _The New York Times_ of March 1. The story commenced thusly: "In the Obama administration's last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election--and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians--across the government."
> 
> Henninger soberly notes, "This is what they did," and quotes the _New York Times_:
> 
> "At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government--and, in some cases, among European allies."
> 
> Operatives honeycombing U.S. intelligence agencies, according to the _New York Times_, disseminated secrets which were potentially damaging to the incoming president of their own country, not only to fellow countrymen but to foreign governments and surrogates thereof.
> 
> Henninger goes on, quoting the January 12 _New York Times_ story, saying that the _New York Times_ "reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate 'raw signals intelligence information' to 16 other intelligence agencies."
> 
> The investigation into what actors on behalf of Obama's administration, and the Obama administration's Justice Department, as well as potentially myriad U.S. intelligence operatives were doing in unmasking Flynn and spreading intelligence which was widely seen as compromising, needs to be focused on with great intensity now. Was Lynch directed to use as many resources as possible to damage the incoming Trump presidency, as Robert Kennedy was told by JFK to "wiretap" Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders? What was Comey's FBI doing throughout all of this? What did Obama know of the intelligence operatives who may very well have gone rogue without his knowledge?
> 
> These and other questions require swift answering.


Amazing post. :clap


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I've perused my copy of the Constitution and there's nothing in it that says you can't just try again.

But for some reason it's an UNBREAKABLE LAW that if you introduce an important bill and you have to pull it for lack of votes or it gets voted down, you can't just try again with a (hopefully) better bill on the same issue(s). Very weird.

If I were Speaker of the House I'd get the Republican House and Senate caucuses in a room, get :trump on speakerphone and say let's hammer something out that isn't a shit sandwich and introduce it a week from now. There's nothing stopping us from doing that. Nothing at all. Plus it would be a sign of strength. 

But for whatever reason that never happens.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I personally have a ton of respect for Paul Ryan

He tries so damn hard to keep the republican together and not turn into factional infighting that he tries to please everyone and pleases no one

We need him on that wall


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Paul Ryan and Trump both look like clowns here. Ryan because it's his plan and he kept forcing it. Mr. King of the Deal Trump for pushing it and originally demanding a vote. Now in his press conference he blamed Democrats when he knew from the start that he would have 0 Democratic support and he didn't need them for the bill to pass the House anyway. The real issue was trying to get the Moderate GOP's and the Far Right Conservative GOP's on the same page and that simply didn't happen. 

Oh well. Lesson learned. Welcome to government. It's not the same as the business world.


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Good job Republicans (the few that aren't monsters) for letting Paul Ryan know you're not going to vote for the disastrous Trumpcare bill. Trump must be fuming and I hope Obama has a big smile on his face.

Cucked again Trumpkins!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Good job Republicans (the few that aren't monsters) for letting Paul Ryan know you're not going to vote for the disastrous Trumpcare bill. Trump must be fuming and I hope Obama has a big smile on his face.
> 
> Cucked again Trumpkins!


They are not stupid they knew if they voted for it they would get voted out in 2018 when they were up for re-election. Too many old people in their states would have lost coverage.




stevefox1200 said:


> I personally have a ton of respect for Paul Ryan
> 
> He tries so damn hard to keep the republican together and not turn into factional infighting that he tries to please everyone and pleases no one
> 
> We need him on that wall


How did his plan please anyone but the super rich?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Political power largely comes from acting like you have power. You act like you don't have it, you don't. You act like you do, most of the time you do. Saying "Oh well this move failed so we're not going to try again" is acting like you don't have power. So you don't.

Which is why the GOP leadership pisses me off so much, they act like they don't have power whether they hold a majority in Congress or not. You hold the reins, stop dropping them. Duh.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Good job Republicans (the few that aren't monsters) for letting Paul Ryan know you're not going to vote for the disastrous Trumpcare bill. Trump must be fuming and I hope Obama has a big smile on his face.
> 
> Cucked again Trumpkins!


I'm sure they'll just be happy for Cheeto Lord getting in another full weekend of golf in Florida on the taxpayer's dime after a busy week of 'presidentin. They are truly easy to please.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Paul Ryan and Trump both look like clowns here. Ryan because it's his plan and he kept forcing it. Mr. King of the Deal Trump for pushing it and originally demanding a vote. Now in his press conference he blamed Democrats when he knew from the start that he would have 0 Democratic support and he didn't need them for the bill to pass the House anyway. The real issue was trying to get the Moderate GOP's and the Far Right Conservative GOP's on the same page and that simply didn't happen.
> 
> Oh well. Lesson learned. Welcome to government. It's not the same as the business world.


Agree that it was pretty silly to blame Democrats on this non-vote. :lol Maybe Trump speaking in his usual shorthand might even mean, "Since we can't even get all Republicans together on this, with many factions opposing one another, not having any Democrats doesn't help." 

Anyway, this was a major drain of political capital for the Trump administration, but at least they lanced the boil today by imposing the deadline (for now). Time to move on to other matters.

Looking over Ryancare, it's just such a horrendous bill, worse than Obamacare. It actually _sets premiums based on age and income_. It exacerbates many of Obamacare's greatest faults, and will lead to even more young people balking and refusing to to pay for such absurdly overinflated insurance, which means the entire scheme is yet again doomed to fail.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Political power largely comes from acting like you have power. You act like you don't have it, you don't. You act like you do, most of the time you do. Saying "Oh well this move failed so we're not going to try again" is acting like you don't have power. So you don't.
> 
> Which is why the GOP leadership pisses me off so much, they act like they don't have power whether they hold a majority in Congress or not. You hold the reins, stop dropping them. Duh.


Do you think the GOP healthcare plan was good? I am just curious.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are not stupid they knew if they voted for it they would get voted out in 2018 when they were up for re-election. Too many old people in their states would have lost coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did his plan please anyone but the super rich?


Ryan tries to please all the republican demos from the libertarians, the rich, the Christian right and the poor whites 

The last of which was supported by Obamacare

Paul is stuck between "THROW EVERYTHING OUT" that the first group wants and the "make your lives better" votes that Trump was able to round up among the poor 

The Super Rich are going to end up on top no matter what just becomes they are better educated and far better at hopping on and off the horse when needed


----------



## Klotty23

Eric Fleischer said:


> I'm sure they'll just be happy for Cheeto Lord getting in another full weekend of golf in Florida on the taxpayer's dime after a busy week of 'presidentin. They are truly easy to please.


Maddening isn't it? This is the first message board I've been a part of that has so many Trump fangurls. But science, reading and environmental message boards tend to attract intelligence more than fucking wrestling LMAO.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Ryan tries to please all the republican demos from the libertarians, the rich, the Christian right and the poor whites
> 
> The last of which was supported by Obamacare
> 
> Paul is stuck between "THROW EVERYTHING OUT" that the first group wants and the "make your lives better" votes that Trump was able to round up among the poor
> 
> The Super Rich are going to end up on top no matter what just becomes they are better educated and far better at hopping on and off the horse when needed


It's just too bad he won't make a plan that would benefit the people and not the rich donors or line the rich pockets.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Maddening isn't it? This is the first message board I've been a part of that has so many Trump fangurls. But science, reading and environmental message boards tend to attract intelligence more than fucking wrestling LMAO.


I can never find a "mixed forum"

Its always so factional and territorial


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Obamacare and "Ryancare" are fucked and so is this country when it comes to healthcare for the foreseeable future. All of them have to do better.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Maddening isn't it? This is the first message board I've been a part of that has so many Trump fangurls. But science, reading and environmental message boards tend to attract intelligence more than fucking wrestling LMAO.


I never wander into this circle jerk thread, but I decided to today and it's just as I imagined. A bunch of conspiracy theory tin foilers and textual farting from people who've never followed politics in their life who don't know what just happened except "someone must have screwed my guy!". 

Trump's the epitome of a "successful business dude" they saw on TV for ten/twenty/thirty years and that's why they voted for him, yet they think they're immune from celebrity culture. Hint: Lady GaGa and Katy Perry weren't making policy. 

Then again, neither is Rump, clearly. :rock4

I'm sure one of the nippy little lap dogs will be along to quote me and try to "educate" me. I'll just click it off my notifications and move on.


----------



## Klotty23

Eric Fleischer said:


> I never wander into this circle jerk thread, but I decided to today and it's just as I imagined. A bunch of conspiracy theory tin foilers and textual farting from people who've never followed politics in their life who don't know what just happened except "someone must have screwed my guy!".
> 
> Trump's the epitome of a "successful business dude" they saw on TV for ten/twenty/thirty years and that's why they voted for him, yet they think they're immune from celebrity culture. Hint: Lady GaGa and Katy Perry weren't making policy.
> 
> Then again, neither is Rump, clearly. :rock4
> 
> I'm sure one of the nippy little lap dogs will be along to quote me and try to "educate" me. I'll just click it off my notifications and move on.


Yeah, it's not that I sign up on a wrestling forum to have intellectual political discussions... but, I didn't expect it to be like r/The_Donald here either.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Aside from being cancerous, Ryancare failing is fine by me, considering it further strengthens Trump's threat about republican seats being up for grabs in 2018.

Him blaming the democrats was totally pointless, although unsurprising.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Aside from being cancerous, Ryancare failing is fine by me, considering it further strengthens Trump's threat about republican seats being up for grabs in 2018.
> 
> Him blaming the democrats was totally pointless, although unsurprising.


the republicans that were not going to vote for it saved their seats in 2018. If they voted for this bill they would have lost them for sure


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> the republicans that were not going to vote for it saved their seats in 2018. If they voted for this bill they would have lost them for sure


Congrats to the handful that didn't vote for it. Maybe they'll be able to find compromise with the new faces that will win the seats from the dumbshits that did vote for this tripe.

:yoshi


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Yeah, it's not that I sign up on a wrestling forum to have intellectual political discussions... but, I didn't expect it to be like r/The_Donald here either.


It isn't, The_Donald has had basically nothing to say about TrumpRyanCare. Very disappointed in them. I've seen plenty of people here who support :trump who wanted nothing to do with TrumpRyanCare. 



Eric Fleischer said:


> I never wander into this circle jerk thread, but I decided to today and it's just as I imagined. A bunch of conspiracy theory tin foilers and textual farting from people who've never followed politics in their life who don't know what just happened except "someone must have screwed my guy!".
> 
> Trump's the epitome of a "successful business dude" they saw on TV for ten/twenty/thirty years and that's why they voted for him, yet they think they're immune from celebrity culture. Hint: Lady GaGa and Katy Perry weren't making policy.
> 
> Then again, neither is Rump, clearly. :rock4
> 
> I'm sure one of the nippy little lap dogs will be along to quote me and try to "educate" me. I'll just click it off my notifications and move on.


You're surely going to get thoughtful responses to your litany of insults. Are you sure that's what you were looking for, or were you looking to hang your dick out? Because that's what you did.



> Congrats to the handful that didn't vote for it. Maybe they'll be able to find compromise with the new faces that will win the seats from the dumbshits that did vote for this tripe.


Nobody voted for or against it, it didn't get to a vote. Poor Paul Ryan :lmao


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is from last month (I wasn't posting in here then), but this is great, eh. Obamacare premiums going up in 2017 with few options.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/02/n...hows-rising-costs-and-fewer-options-for-2017/

The chaos awaiting is going to be so :mark: worthy.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I for one welcome all these people who don't like :trump

BM shouldn't have to shoulder such a grave responsibility all on his own. He's not your anti- :trump proletariat, to do all the work himself!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It isn't, The_Donald has had basically nothing to say about TrumpRyanCare. Very disappointed in them. I've seen plenty of people here who support :trump who wanted nothing to do with TrumpRyanCare.
> 
> 
> 
> You're surely going to get thoughtful responses to your litany of insults. Are you sure that's what you were looking for, or were you looking to hang your dick out? Because that's what you did.
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody voted for or against it, it didn't get to a vote. Poor Paul Ryan *:lmao


Poor Trump too since it was also his plan.

Also they had an unofficial vote, they knew who was supporting and who was not, they did not have enough votes for it to pass. That is why they did not bother. Trump did not want to look like the loser he is.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ryan convinced Trump to pull it. Pence and Bannon did not want Trump to pull it apparently. Ryan most likely told Trump the GOP tally and it wasn't as close as Trump said.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Ryan convinced Trump to pull it. Pence and Bannon did not want Trump to pull it apparently. Ryan most likely told Trump the GOP tally and it wasn't as close as Trump said.


Do you think Trump will just go with his plan B, he will just let keep Obamacare and let it so called fail. Or will they double down and make it even worse like taking out the pre-existing condition part and try again?


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Pesidentially pushed bills fail all the time.. but the 'ultimatum' was ridiculous, and bluff calling on it was glorious.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you think Trump will just go with his plan B, he will just let keep Obamacare and let it so called fail. Or will they double down and make it even worse like taking out the pre-existing condition part and try again?


He's going to let it go. He said he wants to move to tax reform. I'm wondering if this failed health care thing will hurt their ability to get tax reform passed in Congress.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> He's going to let it go. He said he wants to move to tax reform. I'm wondering if this failed health care thing will hurt their ability to get tax reform passed in Congress.


It could since the democrats can see if they all vote against Trump they have a chance of bringing some republicans to their side and defeating the bills. But a lot of the democrats have huge donors as well, so some of them will fall in line with the GOP.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lol, poor Trump. He's so shit he blames this on the fucking Democrats ><


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It could since the democrats can see if they all vote against Trump they have a chance of bringing some republicans to their side and defeating the bills. But a lot of the democrats have huge donors as well, so some of them will fall in line with the GOP.


The current democratic approach is that anything involving trump = bad.. even if its something they themselves have been wanting for years. I dont see them breaking ranks for a while yet.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In the end, Obamacare will probably slowly collapse in the coming years while being sustained by borrowed money and the U.S. government will install a national healthcare scheme. It has felt preordained since Obamacare passed. Much of the revolution has hinged upon changing the political culture. Seven years have elapsed since the Affordable Care Act's passage. Millennials view healthcare as a "right" to be guaranteed by the federal government by an overwhelming margin, not that that matters in the midterm elections but it does signpost how politics, while usually downstream from culture, can indeed work the other way around.

Obama and his desire for universal healthcare is today's big winner.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> The current democratic approach is that anything involving trump = bad.. even if its something they themselves have been wanting for years. I dont see them breaking ranks for a while yet.


You mean with republicans and Obama like with Obamacare ? 

I think we can both agree the pissing matches on both sides needs to stop and they should be working together on what best works for the people of the US.




DesolationRow said:


> In the end, Obamacare will probably slowly collapse in the coming years while being sustained by borrowed money and the U.S. government will install a national healthcare scheme. It has felt preordained since Obamacare passed. Much of the revolution has hinged upon changing the political culture. Seven years have elapsed since the Affordable Care Act's passage. Millennials view healthcare as a "right" to be guaranteed by the federal government by an overwhelming margin, not that that matters in the midterm elections but it does signpost how politics, while usually downstream from culture, can indeed work the other way around.
> 
> Obama and his desire for universal healthcare is today's big winner.


Well 84 % of Americans want to keep ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...nt-want-to-keep-obamacares-medicaid-expansion

And sorry but affordable healthcare is a right. You should not die because you cannot afford healthcare.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It could since the democrats can see if they all vote against Trump they have a chance of bringing some republicans to their side and defeating the bills. But a lot of the democrats have huge donors as well, so some of them will fall in line with the GOP.


Republicans aren't going to vote against tax cuts. 

What you had with this obamacare repeal was centrist republicans being terrified of the democrats demagoguing them so they wrote a bill unacceptable to the freedom caucus. There is no amount of demagoguing the democrats can ever do that will make centrist republicans write a tax cut bill unacceptable to the freedom caucus. They could write a bill cutting taxes .000000000001% and all the other Republicans would still vote for it because it is a tax cut. 

Plus the Republicans will now want to get their own back after being embarrassed so they'll write a bill acceptable to the whole caucus and ram it through while gleefully giving the democrats the finger as it steamrolls through. The only person who can fuck up a tax cut bill passing is :trump , actually. He should take a back seat on tax reform and sign whatever the GOP sends him. If he tries to bluster his way through again he might just find out that the Republican party is not his bitch the way he thought it was. He fucks it up again and he'll be a president without a party backing in congress.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean with republicans and Obama like with Obamacare ?
> 
> I think we can both agree the pissing matches on both sides needs to stop and they should be working together on what best works for the people of the US.


I believe there were republicans that voted for it. 

And agreed. Already said robotic rubberstamping was terrible. If its a bill you support, it should not matter who proposed it.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Woooo!!! We are stuck with the terrible Obamacare


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Someone slap that fuckboi Ryan and tell him his garbage plan needs work. Why would you bring such a pile of shit to the table to replace something bad? What incentive is that?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> In the end, Obamacare will probably slowly collapse in the coming years


It won't even last that long. It's been dying a slow, painful death for awhile.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Someone slap that fuckboi Ryan and tell him his garbage plan needs work. Why would you bring such a pile of shit to the table to replace something bad? What incentive is that?


its Trumps garbage plan too.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean with republicans and Obama like with Obamacare ?
> 
> I think we can both agree the pissing matches on both sides needs to stop and they should be working together on what best works for the people of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 84 % of Americans want to keep ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...nt-want-to-keep-obamacares-medicaid-expansion
> 
> And sorry but affordable healthcare is a right. You should not die because you cannot afford healthcare.


I don't agree with the concept of "rights" which is the chief reason why I was chewed up and spat out as a "Conservative" by @CamillePunk's political quiz--will discuss that with the class entire some other time.  

Having said, I do agree with you on the other points, which is that someone should not die because they cannot afford healthcare. The approaches that Bernie Sanders and I would contend be used to ensure that does not happen are wildly different, but nevertheless, there is a reason why Bernie Sanders is today's most beloved politician in the U.S. and this is the chief reason. 

The bitter truth that all sides have to admit to themselves is that the present healthcare scheme in the U.S. is fundamentally flawed for it has ossified the market forces on behalf of the "healthcare industry" without providing consumers with the plethora of choices which stems from the more capitalistic model. With capitalism's greatest quality--the lessened prices with the greater market expansion, i.e., more alternatives to the staid option that everyone is rebelling against, or the increased demand to serve the person seeking healthcare, in this instance, reducing healthcare costs--shattered by governmental protections for insurance companies and the near-monopolization that is created from that set of circumstances. Of course one of the critical problems is that the very term "health insurance" is a misnomer. Insurance is taken by someone who does not believe they will ever have to use it. Dating back thousands of years insurance was the bet, for the lender, that the holder will not call in the liability; for the holder of the insurance, it was a reasonable stopgap hedge against the possibility of highly unlikely but nevertheless potentially devastating turn of events. Like a ship sinking, as codified by the lending agreement protocols and insurance operations approved of by Hammurabi. 

With government keeping insurance companies on their respective perches, within the nominally private system there exist insurance companies that sell access to healthcare. Problematically this creates an industry unto itself, which will have to be addressed for the sake of lowering prices. Underwriters, customer service interlopers, product development, research and development, advertising branch, claims assessors, hospital liaisons, scheduling overseers, and others are all within the healthcare industry as we know it today and they all require salaries to continue working. Beyond them are the actual doctors themselves, and nurses, the people who actually at least administer health treatment to some extent or another. One young person after another I knew at Cal Berkeley was going into "the healthcare industry" and only a few were intent on becoming doctors. Now it may sound as though I am making them all out to be parasites, but the reality is considerably more nuanced. 

The point is, something has to give, with the middle class presently being squeezed almost to death through the Affordable Care Act. Considering where the U.S. is today, it is likelier that some sort of national healthcare fixture is implemented than Rand Paul's bill or something akin to it passes both houses of Congress.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845413605222862850
Cryptic not so cryptic tweet :hmmm

Rand Paul trying to tell us something maybe.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845413605222862850
> Cryptic not so cryptic tweet :hmmm
> 
> Rand Paul trying to tell us something maybe.


:hmmm

I just wanted to finally use that smiley. :sodone


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> I don't agree with the concept of "rights" which is the chief reason why I was chewed up and spat out as a "Conservative" by @CamillePunk's political quiz--will discuss that with the class entire some other time.
> 
> Having said, I do agree with you on the other points, which is that someone should not die because they cannot afford healthcare. The approaches that Bernie Sanders and I would contend be used to ensure that does not happen are wildly different, but nevertheless, there is a reason why Bernie Sanders is today's most beloved politician in the U.S. and this is the chief reason.
> 
> The bitter truth that all sides have to admit to themselves is that the present healthcare scheme in the U.S. is fundamentally flawed for it has ossified the market forces on behalf of the "healthcare industry" without providing consumers with the plethora of choices which stems from the more capitalistic model. With capitalism's greatest quality--the lessened prices with the greater market expansion, i.e., more alternatives to the staid option that everyone is rebelling against, or the increased demand to serve the person seeking healthcare, in this instance, reducing healthcare costs--shattered by governmental protections for insurance companies and the near-monopolization that is created from that set of circumstances. Of course one of the critical problems is that the very term "health insurance" is a misnomer. Insurance is taken by someone who does not believe they will ever have to use it. Dating back thousands of years insurance was the bet, for the lender, that the holder will not call in the liability; for the holder of the insurance, it was a reasonable stopgap hedge against the possibility of highly unlikely but nevertheless potentially devastating turn of events. Like a ship sinking, as codified by the lending agreement protocols and insurance operations approved of by Hammurabi.
> 
> With government keeping insurance companies on their respective perches, within the nominally private system there exist insurance companies that sell access to healthcare. Problematically this creates an industry unto itself, which will have to be addressed for the sake of lowering prices. Underwriters, customer service interlopers, product development, research and development, advertising branch, claims assessors, hospital liaisons, scheduling overseers, and others are all within the healthcare industry as we know it today and they all require salaries to continue working. Beyond them are the actual doctors themselves, and nurses, the people who actually at least administer health treatment to some extent or another. One young person after another I knew at Cal Berkeley was going into "the healthcare industry" and only a few were intent on becoming doctors. Now it may sound as though I am making them all out to be parasites, but the reality is considerably more nuanced.
> 
> The point is, something has to give, with the middle class presently being squeezed almost to death through the Affordable Care Act. Considering where the U.S. is today, it is likelier that some sort of national healthcare fixture is implemented than Rand Paul's bill or something akin to it passes both houses of Congress.



Maybe rights isnt the best word to use. 

The problem with healthcare is how much pill prices are jacked up over the cost they take to make. Its stupid when a pill can cost like $5 to make but they charge a couple of hundred per pill.

Its also BS how much they jack up the prices of hospital stays and DR visits just to stick it to insurance companies.
When I had surgery, i looked at the bill, it for an over night stay the hospital room cost $10,000, there is no way the room cost that. if they would put the real costs of things like that insurance pricies would come way down.

its also insane how the DR who came to check up on me to say oh how do you feel, i am good, then he leaves, costs on the bill like $300 for a one minute visit.

That is the stuff that needs to be fixed to bring healthcare costs down.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> :hmmm
> 
> I just wanted to finally use that smiley. :sodone


Me too :duck


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:hmmm

Truth, or wishful thinking?



> Libertarians are flexing their political muscle
> 
> ￼.jackwhunter74
> 
> 3 hours ago
> 
> ￼
> 
> WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 31: (L - R) Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) exit the Senate chamber after Paul spoke about surveillance legislation on the Senate floor, on Capitol Hill, May 31, 2015 in Washington, DC. The National Security Agency's authority to collect bulk telephone data is set to expire June 1, unless the Senate can come to an agreement to extend the surveillance programs. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
> 
> The American Health Care Act—the “ObamaCare-lite” legislation championed by most Republicans including President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan—is.dead.
> 
> And it was the most libertarian members of Congress who did the most to kill it—from the very beginning.
> 
> Reason’s Eric Boehm.writes, “On January 13, a week before Donald Trump would take the oath of office and just days after the new session of Congress opened, Republicans in the House passed a budget resolution that was the first step, GOP leaders said, to repealing and replacing Obamacare. The bill passed, 227-198, with just nine Republicans defecting from the party-line effort.”
> 
> 
> RELATED:.The House Freedom Caucus is right to oppose Ryancare because it doesn’t restore competition
> 
> “That January 13 vote was the first sign—a telling one, in retrospect—that the Freedom Caucus and other libertarian-leaning members of Congress (like Massie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky) would become the biggest stumbling block to passing the House GOP healthcare plan,” Boehm notes.
> 
> And block it, they have. It has been the House Freedom Caucus that has been the most instrumental force in stopping the American Health Care Act, members of which—or even.close caucus allies.like Rep. Thomas Massie—include the most libertarian members of Congress including.co-founder.Rep. Justin Amash.
> 
> The most well known libertarian Republican active in politics in the U.S. today, Sen. Rand Paul, has also been arguably the most high-profile player in the fight to stop the American Health Care Act as written.
> 
> This is significant.
> 
> Before Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns spawned a “liberty movement” of activists and political leaders, the influence of which is still being felt to this day (just ask.Barack Obama.or.Donald Trump), you would have had a hard time finding libertarians in Congress period, with the exception of Ron Paul.
> 
> But today, and for some time, libertarian Republicans have actually had measurable political clout. This has certainly been true on the.foreign policy.and civil liberties fronts, where, in 2013, it was Rep. Amash who.spearheaded the effort.to reign in the NSA’s controversial mass surveillance practices with a bill that was unsuccessful by only 12 votes. Some could argue that Sen. Paul has been instrumental in shaping President Trump’s state and defense cabinet with his.denunciations.of.prominent neoconservatives.whose names were floated.
> 
> In the House, Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul would often be the sole “no” vote based on his.strict constitutionalist principles. Sen. Paul has been known to be the.sole “no” vote.in the senate—among Republicans or among everyone—where his single vote can sometimes be more effective than a representative’s would be.
> 
> Last week, Sen. Paul.held up.the Balkan nation of Montenegro’s entrance into NATO all by his lonesome, causing the hawkish John McCain to.accuse.Paul of working for Vladimir Putin.
> 
> In 2008, McCain.dismissed.Ron Paul during presidential debates as an “isolationist,” and most Republicans probably agreed with McCain in that still very hawkish post-George W. Bush GOP environment. In 2017, the son of Ron Paul is mucking up McCain’s ability to put America on the hook militarily for yet another foreign country, and while Paul doesn’t have much Senate support, he does have it elsewhere in.conservative.and.libertarian.circles.
> 
> Things.have changed, and libertarians have benefitted.
> 
> Rare’s Barbara Boland.writes.about how instrumental Paul has been in the House Freedom Caucus’ fight with the GOP establishment over the health care bill, “With the help of Rand Paul in the Senate, the caucus is coming into its own.”
> 
> “This time, instead of merely standing against something, the Freedom Caucus is standing.for.what the Republican Party repeatedly promised constituents: a full repeal of Obamacare,” Boland notes. “It also helps that Paul, a physician from Kentucky, has another replacement bill in the Senate that could actually lower the cost of insurance by eliminating government mandates, giving people the freedom to purchase insurance across state lines, allowing customers to join voluntary larger insurance pools and a host of other free-market reforms.”
> 
> Libertarians favor less government, individual choice and free markets in most things, including healthcare. Most conservative Republicans pretend to favor these things too, or at least when Democrats are in control and their hands are tied to actually do anything.
> 
> But when Republicans are in control, these one-time small government advocates behave little differently than Democrats in their zeal to “do something.”
> 
> RELATED:.Hey Republican leadership: Health care reform isn’t just something you “do”
> 
> That’s precisely what Paul Ryan and others have been doing, in their rush to jam through a health care bill that retains the individual mandate Republicans used to say was the.worst part of Obamacare.
> 
> If not for libertarian Republicans, I wouldn’t want much to do with the GOP. They are the best Republicans precisely because they are the most principled.
> 
> Thankfully, they also have political muscle now too, as this week reminds us.
> 
> Disclosure: I co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.
> 
> Categories:.All News,.Rare Liberty,.The Populist
> 
> Tags:.John McCain,.Justin Amash,.ObamaCare,.politics,.POV,.Rand Paul,.Ron Paul,.Thomas Massie


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845413605222862850
> Cryptic not so cryptic tweet :hmmm
> 
> Rand Paul trying to tell us something maybe.


Probably meaningless. Unless rand has been talking with GOP senators and representatives and is building support for a new attempt. Introducing a new bill without lining up support or talking about a new bill doesn't mean shit. 

Now if rand introduces a bill in the senate with say 5-15 GOP senator co sponsors or gets several dozen GOP representatives to sign on to introducing a new bill in the house, that creates a very interesting situation. But if it's just rand paul talking with nobody else sticking their neck out, so what. Senators say shit all the time that never comes to anything.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Based on all I'm reading now it was the Libertarians that destroyed the bill. And that makes me incredibly satisfied 



> MISES WIRE
> 
> A
> 
> .
> 
> A
> 
> Ryancare is Failing — What Should Happen Next?
> 
> [https://mises]
> 
> 37 COMMENTS
> 
> TAGS.Free MarketsHealthU.S. Economy
> 
> 21 HOURS AGOTho Bishop
> 
> The beltway Republicans are scrambling now that it seems the Obamacare replacement package.put forward for Paul Ryan and endorsed by Donald Trump can’t get enough support to get through the House. The failure of the American Health Care Act should surprise no one, as it is a piece of legislation that managed to please no one. The Freedom Caucus, made up of the “true believers”.of the Tea Party, balked.at its similarities to Obamacare, while more moderate members found the bill’s modest change to the ACA too radical for their tastes..
> 
> While the failure of the Ryan/Trump/Whatevercare.represents a political defeat for the president and GOP leadership, it is probably a net-win for those who oppose socialized healthcare. After all, nothing could be more beneficial to the Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic party than for the nominally “free market” Republicans passing its own brand of.reform that.fails to fix America's insurance market. Much like the 2008 financial crisis, its collapse would absurdly be seen as a defeat for “capitalism” and be used as justification for even more government control.
> 
> The unfortunate reality going forward is that more significant approaches to healthcare reform, such as the bill pushed by Senator Rand Paul and his allies in the House, are unlikely to find enough support in the Senate. Further, considering the way the media portrayed the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the ACHA, which noted that 14 million consumers may no longer purchase healthcare without an individual mandate and.therefore are “losing coverage,”.any healthcare plan that comes close to pricing real healthcare risks (like properly accounting for the costs of those with pre-existing conditions) will be skewered relentlessly. This is all before even addressing the problems caused by Medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> This is precisely why attempts to push.grand “free market” reforms.in the Federal government end in failure. Few politicians in DC have the economic lens required to appreciate how necessary these.tough decisions are, so Federal politics simply becomes a race to see which party can.buy more votes than the other.
> 
> Given this grave reality, is there anything that can be done to improve American healthcare?
> 
> The answer is it is already happening.because of the market.
> 
> Increasingly, doctors are abandoning the broken insurance model and claiming their own independence by offering direct patient care..As.Business Insider.profiled recently,.around 1,000 doctors (and counting) are moving toward charging patients a monthly membership fee for service and then patients pay.a la carte.for the services they actually need. This allows clinics to eliminate most of the administrative costs and it restores the relationship between doctor and patient that has been undermined by.a century of government intervention. For more specialized care, clinics such as.The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, also use a cash-for-service business model without the monthly fee..
> 
> Given that this is happening naturally on the market already, the legislative focus for those in Washington concerned about American healthcare should be preventing any future laws and regulations that would destroy this model going forward. Further, rather than trying to completely overhaul Obamacare, simply eliminating the individual mandate tax and allowing Health Savings Accounts to be used for healthcare membership would be subtle ways of empowering the market to revolutionize American medicine. This should be coupled with real tax cuts, not “revenue neutral reform” to help Americans keep their own hard-earned money to help pay for it.
> 
> Steps can also be taken on the state level to further empower medical professionals. For example, expanding the abilities of medical practitioners would help mitigate.doctor shortages. Reforms to medical licensing — such as recognizing the real-world experience of military trained medics — would also make it easier for skilled individuals to enter the market.
> 
> This more modest approach to healthcare reform shouldn’t be seen as a defense of Obamacare or the status quo. It’s not. Obamacare was a deplorable piece of legislation, designed by people who were either utterly delusional or intentionally.crafting a framework that would fail. In a just world, everyone who played a hand in crafting it should be forever stuck with the fruits of their labor for their own personal care.
> 
> Yet we can’t be blind to the realities of modern politics — Washington is dominated.by progressive ideology in both parties. While the long-term solution to this.has to.be political decentralization, in the short term we can settle by defending the ability of markets to compete along side government regulated disasters. This was how Ron Paul sought.to destroy the Fed, it’s how homeschooling parents are able to free their.children from public education,.it’s how Patrick Byrne plans to.undermine government cronies on Wall Street. .
> 
> As the Soviet Union was collapsing, Murray Rothbard wrote a paper outlining.how to desocialize an economy. Gradual reform would fail, he noted, because “the giant socialist bureaucracy will only seize upon such delay to obstruct the goal altogether.” Instead, he advocated prioritizing the protection and normalization of already established black markets.
> 
> America doesn’t yet have completely socialized medicine, but the same approach is true here. As long as we preserve the functioning markets that currently exist, and allow them to grow, Americans can maintain hope for a functioning healthcare system in the future.
> 
> The same cannot be said for Washington politics..


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Freedom Caucus is a joke where by nothing is ever enough so they can keep playing the obstructionist card to stay in power. Paul Ryan is a joke for thinking he could reign them in by using Trump's popularity with the base. Trump is a joke for issuing the ultimatum and then attempt to walk away blame free by blaming everyone else. This debacle shattered the image that Ryan is a policy wonk, and exposed him to be the same as Trump, a showman for the media. Mitch fking Mcconnell wins again by doing nothing.

A new perspective on the fight over the ACA I got after reading this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-obamacare-fight-is-about-way-more-than-health-care/


> In other words, if you love Obama and think Republicans are mean and kind of racist (as some liberals do), the Obamacare fight is a debate for you. (Remember when Clinton called some Trump supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”?)
> 
> If you hate Obama and think Democrats give money to freeloaders who want to sit on their couches and collect government benefits (as some prominent conservatives have all but said), the Obamacare fight is a debate for you. (After his defeat in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney said in a private phone call with donors that Democratic-leaning voters like “gifts” from the government, such as free health care.)
> 
> That’s why health care, more than other hot-button issues, is so polarizing:


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Not sure how opposing a bill that was clearly unacceptable to their philosophy shows how nothing is ever going to be good enough for the freedom caucus. What if rand paul introduces a bill next week that is the freedom caucus's wet dream which is clearly what he is teasing and tossing out a trial balloon on, are they gonna oppose that? Nope. He knows and they know that whatever he's tweeting about will be acceptable to them. He's trying to gauge how open the paul ryan faction is to what he would be selling.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Not sure how opposing a bill that was clearly unacceptable to their philosophy shows how nothing is ever going to be good enough for the freedom caucus. What if rand paul introduces a bill next week that is the freedom caucus's wet dream which is clearly what he is teasing and tossing out a trial balloon on, are they gonna oppose that?


Considering Trump ran on a repeal campaign and only added replace at the end he still has time to return it to what it was in 2010. 

Just repeal the damn thing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When their philosophy is not shared by most of America and the Freedom Caucus are unwilling to make concessions to get things done, then yeah nothing is ever good enough for them. Their claim to power can be simplified to elect me to prove that government suck by destroying it from within.

Trump can't campaign repeal without replace as many of his base among the poor that switched party to win him those closely fought states only got healthcare due to Medicaid expansion. He promised no cuts to entitlements to win those votes.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Talk swirling around DC of a move to get rid of paul ryan as speaker and subsequently introduce a new bill that fully repeals obamacare and then work on a replacement bill. Allegedly the same method used to get boehner to resign as speaker is being floated as the way to get rid of ryan.

Maybe there is some fire to the smoke rand paul is wafting around. Repealing obamacare is 100% dead with ryan as speaker. If he is removed as speaker or removes himself because he sees the writing on the wall with the GOP caucus then things could get very interesting on obamacare repeal 2: rand paul boogaloo.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> When their philosophy is not shared by most of America and the Freedom Caucus are unwilling to make concessions to get things done, then yeah nothing is ever good enough for them. Their claim to power can be simplified to elect me to prove that government suck by destroying it from within.
> 
> Trump can't campaign repeal without replace as many of his base among the poor that switched party to win him those closely fought states only got healthcare due to Medicaid expansion. He promised no cuts to entitlements to win those votes.


We might just get to see your theory re: the acceptability of their philosophy tested very soon. But your claim that "nothing" would be good enough for them is pure nonsense.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Alco @Goku @RipNTear @Alkomesh2 @Pratchett @AryaDark






Let's go Tulsi!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

One of the most interesting things I've seen is GOPers (electorate) that first opposed the bill and claimed that it was shit, are now condemning the GOP for "caving" on the bill. Like do you even know what you want?


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fantastic news that the Ryancare bill is dead on arrival. You did good Rand, you did good .

That healthcare bill was fucking atrocious.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump now saying he's "open" to a new repeal bill at least according to the crawl on my local news.

If true, Paul Ryan you stupid fuck, you got played like the dumbass you are :heston


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*It's good to see even the most radical Republicans agreeing that the UNaffordable Healthcare Act was shit. With that said, LOL @ this idiot who voted for Trump and got her husband deported:*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> One of the most interesting things I've seen is GOPers (electorate) that first opposed the bill and claimed that it was shit, are now condemning the GOP for "caving" on the bill. Like do you even know what you want?


I hate this too, just say the bill was crap and that another bill can be better and then move on. People will understand.


----------



## 3ku1

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And Obamacare wasen't stupid on arrival? Both Health plans from the past two Goverments (GOP and the Dems) have been utter crop.

With the recent terriosim threat in the UK. Trumps Travel Ban does not seem that absurd after all. I mean most of the threats, are deemed low threats by Security and Public Officials. Yet another Muslim just killed 5 people in London a few days ago. I am sorry but a hard line needs to be taken. And the more the courts reject Trump, the more stuff like this is going to happen. America's hell the world's democracy is at stake. 

Doesen't help Trumps cause. When the people he surrounds himself with. Are absolute idiots like Paul Ryan. Reminds me of Keven Dunn and John Lauranitis, the people Vince surrounds himself around. The thing is is Liberal and Mainstream media have such a bias agenda againgst Trump. He is totally non pc. He is an Ultra Nationalist. He is attempting to make some actual change in America. But he gets blocked by incompetence surrounding him every day. The fact he is so heavily scrutinized does not help either. TBH at this point I don't mind Trump. You ask why as a Kiwi, how does this effect me? Well for me suspending the TPP screwed alot of Trade over here in NZ. Seeing we Trade, with Export with Asia. But our Government is currently exploring new avenues. Problem with the "Impeach Trump" Crowd. Is Trump may not have an mandate. And is Approval Rating maybe one of the lowest in history. But he does have congress. So unless Trump walks out onto the middle of Times Square, and shoots a ton of people. He won't be impeached. It has been what 2 months of his Presidency. You got Four more years folks hold on.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










:done


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> The current democratic approach is that anything involving trump = bad.. even if its something they themselves have been wanting for years. I dont see them breaking ranks for a while yet.


I don't think they'll ever break ranks. They're like The Borg. :lol




Legit BOSS said:


> *It's good to see even the most radical Republicans agreeing that the UNaffordable Healthcare Act was shit. With that said, LOL @ this idiot who voted for Trump and got her husband deported:*



Yeah. Although even if she didn't, her husband would've still gotten deported. :shrug

I wonder if she even had an inkling this was coming.....





Klotty23 said:


> Good job Republicans (the few that aren't monsters) for letting Paul Ryan know you're not going to vote for the disastrous Trumpcare bill. Trump must be fuming and *I hope Obama has a big smile on his face.*
> 
> Cucked again Trumpkins!


Trump is still president, Klotty(and will be President for at least these next 4 years). He has no reason to have ANY smile on his face at this point. :shrug


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845363015222542336


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845453917064441857
The best part of that is that both Young and Comstock have come out and said they'd have voted no.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Nobody voted for or against it, it didn't get to a vote. Poor Paul Ryan :lmao


Well fuck, I got my semantics messed up in that case. :serious:

Oh well, good riddance to bad rubbish, regardless. And don't worry, Ryan will still be pretty even though he failed magnificently. 8*D


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845363015222542336


I really want to love this jab because Ryancare really was the drizzling shits. But since Menendez is a corrupt cocksmoker that is gonna be facing court later this year due to being a pristine example of what Trump was talking about when it comes to draining the swamp, I feel conflicted.

Wat do, WF? :lenny2


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I'd say "Nice Burn, Menendez. Now go fuck yourself". Or something to that effect. :shrug


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I really want to love this jab because Ryancare really was the drizzling shits. But since Menendez is a corrupt cocksmoker that is gonna be facing court later this year due to being a pristine example of what Trump was talking about when it comes to draining the swamp, I feel conflicted.
> 
> Wat do, WF? :lenny2


You have to appreciate the burn even if you don't like the source of the burn.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-enquirer-michael-flynn_us_58d562dae4b03692bea5958b

Boy they didn't wait long before twisting the knife in when the guy's no longer part of the team.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> The Freedom Caucus is a joke where by nothing is ever enough so they can keep playing the obstructionist card to stay in power. Paul Ryan is a joke for thinking he could reign them in by using Trump's popularity with the base. Trump is a joke for issuing the ultimatum and then attempt to walk away blame free by blaming everyone else. This debacle shattered the image that Ryan is a policy wonk, and exposed him to be the same as Trump, a showman for the media. Mitch fking Mcconnell wins again by doing nothing.
> 
> A new perspective on the fight over the ACA I got after reading this:
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-obamacare-fight-is-about-way-more-than-health-care/


I applaud the Freedom Caucus for standing up and doing the right thing. :clap They showed that they are actually the most consistent folks in Washington running the show right now. Too many of these jackwagons in DC talk about limited government when they were not in power. Suddenly, that tune changes when in power because they like the whip hand. There are those who want to say that the Freedom Caucus are being obstructionist, moving the goal posts, etc...that's bullshit. They are standing up for what they believe in, and fixing the health care crisis in this country ain't going to cut it with what was a garbage bill. They showed they are holding to their principles, regardless of whether the President has an R or a D next to their name. 

Rand Paul said he went to the Freedom Caucus and used some knowledge from "The Art of the Deal." In the book (which I read several years ago and is actually good reading for those that are in the business world), Trump says to go into negotiations from a position of strength. The last thing you want to do is to seem desperate to get a deal made. Most importantly, when you enter the negotiations, you have to be prepared at any time to get up from the table and walk away. 

To me, the irony here is that Trump didn't follow his own advice from the book. I get that Trump is trying very hard to keep his promises. He gets it that he's in that office right now because many Americans are pissed off at the way that shit isn't getting done and promises aren't being kept. He wants to get everything checked off and say to us, "I kept my promises!" I think that in doing so, he saw an opportunity and fully threw his weight behind the ACHA. What he didn't count on was that many of his own party, even the moderates that usually follow lock-step behind the GOP leadership, were saying "no" even at the threat of being primaried in '18. They knew that this was not a better option to what Obamacare is now, all it did was move a few things around. Many of us want something different, but not this. 

McConnell stepped back and did nothing, he didn't have to get involved as right now the onus was on the House and Ryan. Mitch has 100 cats of his own to herd in the Senate were this bill to have gotten out of the House. 

Time will tell if this helps or hurts Trump in the long run. He has stated he is moving on to tax reform now (which I think they should have done in the first place) and is going to let Obamacare implode (which it is on the verge of doing). At the same time, he did invest a healthy amount of political capital to try to make this happen. So, we'll see what happens, especially when tax reform is something that is more in his wheelhouse. 

At the end of the day, nothing would make me happier then to rip the ACA out by the roots and let it die on the side of the road and go on from there. Yet, I also understand the reality of 20 million people possibly losing their insurance. They need to go back to the drawing board and take their time finding something that works.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I applaud the Freedom Caucus for standing up and doing the right thing. :clap They showed that they are actually the most consistent folks in Washington running the show right now. Too many of these jackwagons in DC talk about limited government when they were not in power. Suddenly, that tune changes when in power because they like the whip hand. There are those who want to say that the Freedom Caucus are being obstructionist, moving the goal posts, etc...that's bullshit. They are standing up for what they believe in, and fixing the health care crisis in this country ain't going to cut it with what was a garbage bill. They showed they are holding to their principles, regardless of whether the President has an R or a D next to their name.
> 
> Rand Paul said he went to the Freedom Caucus and used some knowledge from "The Art of the Deal." In the book (which I read several years ago and is actually good reading for those that are in the business world), Trump says to go into negotiations from a position of strength. The last thing you want to do is to seem desperate to get a deal made. Most importantly, when you enter the negotiations, you have to be prepared at any time to get up from the table and walk away.
> 
> To me, the irony here is that Trump didn't follow his own advice from the book. I get that Trump is trying very hard to keep his promises. He gets it that he's in that office right now because many Americans are pissed off at the way that shit isn't getting done and promises aren't being kept. He wants to get everything checked off and say to us, "I kept my promises!" I think that in doing so, he saw an opportunity and fully threw his weight behind the ACHA. What he didn't count on was that many of his own party, even the moderates that usually follow lock-step behind the GOP leadership, were saying "no" even at the threat of being primaried in '18. They knew that this was not a better option to what Obamacare is now, all it did was move a few things around. Many of us want something different, but not this.
> 
> McConnell stepped back and did nothing, he didn't have to get involved as right now the onus was on the House and Ryan. Mitch has 100 cats of his own to herd in the Senate were this bill to have gotten out of the House.
> 
> Time will tell if this helps or hurts Trump in the long run. He has stated he is moving on to tax reform now (which I think they should have done in the first place) and is going to let Obamacare implode (which it is on the verge of doing). At the same time, he did invest a healthy amount of political capital to try to make this happen. So, we'll see what happens, especially when tax reform is something that is more in his wheelhouse.
> 
> At the end of the day, nothing would make me happier then to rip the ACA out by the roots and let it die on the side of the road and go on from there. Yet, I also understand the reality of 20 million people possibly losing their insurance. They need to go back to the drawing board and take their time finding something that works.


They did the right thing for the wrong reasons though. They are the most consistent in throwing a tantrum until they get their way. Its easy to be 'principled' when they are not the ones suffering the consequences of obstructing government. Their demands would make healthcare more unaffordable to those who need it, while making it cheaper to those who needs it the least. More people buying cheaper options with less coverage, while more who needs the more expensive coverage leave the market, thereby lowering the average premiums.

Trump is almost immune to any criticisms by his base. Everybody is spinning it as Ryan's fault as if Trump had no fault for not reading the plan in detail or at least have his team go over the plan before putting his name behind it in public. They let Trump claim credit for business decisions made prior to the elections but let him shriek responsibility for things he messed up by blaming others. Its almost madness.

Obamacare is imploding in areas where they cut parts of what is supposed to make it work. It is shocking that the party in power is wishing healthcare plans to fail for the poorest in the country just to cut taxes for the richest.

There is nothing that will work that can provide similar coverage other than the American liberal wet dream of single payer. Trump made empty promises of more coverage at less costs throughout the campaign. How does that even work? People are going to lose coverage. One could argue these people wouldn't even have coverage without the ACA so it will be going back to the status quo prior to Obamacare. :shrug

At the end of the day, McConnell wins. Urgh


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ryancare is not what the American people wanted. So glad it failed.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The thing I do like about this is Trump pretty much said to vote yes or no, so they could move on. Good to know at least he does care for bureaucratic bs.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> They did the right thing for the wrong reasons though. *They are the most consistent in throwing a tantrum until they get their way.*


Certainly something the LEFT have PHD's in.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Certainly something the LEFT have PHD's in.


So they are just as bad as the left then. Thanks for agreeing? kay


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I suppose then you agree that "throwing tantrums" is contagious then? 


Damn those Democrats!

They spread their disease-infested Snowflake'ism wherever they go...


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The french revolution was a leftist tantrum. So we need to be careful when it comes to lefties. If they don't get their way, they pull out the guillotines quite literally :draper2


----------



## Cabanarama

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The french revolution was a leftist tantrum. So we need to be careful when it comes to lefties. If they don't get their way, they pull out the guillotines quite literally :draper2


Isn't pretty much any revolution in history (including our own) a "leftist tantrum"


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Cabanarama said:


> Isn't pretty much any revolution in history (including our own) a "leftist tantrum"


Well yah. Most revolutions are basically poor people killing rich people since they don't know how to become rich themselves. 

Even today our societies are filled with such people. The entitlement to someone else's wealth is the real cause of misguided "liberation" movements.

First you label rich people as oppressors and then give yourself the moral right to hate them and hate leads to suffering. Of course, it all starts with anger :draper2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://thehill.com/homenews/325767-report-bannon-told-conservatives-this-is-not-a-debate-you-have-to-vote-for-bill



> Bannon confronted members of the House Freedom Caucus earlier this week during the White House's push for the American Health Care Act, Axios's Mike Allen reported Saturday in his newsletter.
> 
> "Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill,” Bannon reportedly said.
> 
> A Freedom Caucus member reportedly replied: “You know, the last time someone ordered me to something, I was 18 years old. And it was my daddy. And I didn't listen to him, either."


:ha

The only way that could have been more of a southern fuck you is if he somehow squeezed in "bless your heart".


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well yah. Most revolutions are basically poor people killing rich people since they don't know how to become rich themselves.
> 
> Even today our societies are filled with such people. The entitlement to someone else's wealth is the real cause of misguided "liberation" movements.
> 
> First you label rich people as oppressors and then give yourself the moral right to hate them and hate leads to suffering. *Of course, it all starts with anger* :draper2


And Anger leads to Hate.

And Hate leads to suffering. 

Know Jedi wisdom, I do.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Hill is basically Chelsea Clinton's personal blog now so I would take anything they report with a huge grain of salt. It's becoming the left's Infowars. 

Interesting results. Last vote was 37% Pro-trumpers wanting Single-payer and that comes as a surprise to me (46% pro-trumpers were against it). This shows to me that Trump has a very healthy (and still hidden) left-wing supporter base. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845689208844922881


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The Hill is basically Chelsea Clinton's personal blog now so I would take anything they report with a huge grain of salt. It's becoming the left's Infowars.
> 
> Interesting results. Last vote was 37% Pro-trumpers wanting Single-payer and that comes as a surprise to me (46% pro-trumpers were against it).
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845689208844922881


Oh, I know The Hill's biased, but I believe this one. I don't see a 20 something blogger intern from DC writing the house member's reply like that.

It's the specific wording. "You know, the last time someone ordered me to something, I was 18 years old. And it was my daddy. And I didn't listen to him, either."

Think they would have written "father" instead of "daddy" and "ordered me to do something" instead of "ordered me to something". It's those little differences that make it seem authentic to me.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The french revolution was a leftist tantrum. So we need to be careful when it comes to lefties. If they don't get their way, they pull out the guillotines quite literally :draper2


Russian revolution is the same. Mass murder for the greater good etc.

American revolution was bloody but different. American told the British to fuck off. British didn't fuck off. People were killed. Americans won a war for independence.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Oh, I know The Hill's biased, but I believe this one. I don't see a 20 something blogger intern from DC writing the house member's reply like that.
> 
> It's the specific wording. "You know, the last time someone ordered me to something, I was 18 years old. And it was my daddy. And I didn't listen to him, either."
> 
> Think they would have written "father" instead of "daddy" and "ordered me to do something" instead of "ordered me to something". It's those little differences that make it seem authentic to me.


The thing that bothers me is that it goes "a member of the freedom caucus" instead of naming the person who said it ... Uh ... It sounds to me like maybe something got made up during retelling. Anyways, it's a really small thing to be debating over. I don't mean to be as pedantic as I come across sometimes lol.



MrMister said:


> Russian revolution is the same. Mass murder for the greater good etc.


Yeah, if the next leftie revolution comes to America in my lifetime, I'm gonna pretend to be poor so I can survive.

The only way to get the left to like you is to be a poor, marginalized minority. It should be easy for me to infiltrate them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The thing that bothers me is that it goes "a member of the freedom caucus" instead of naming the person who said it ... Uh ... It sounds to me like maybe something got made up during retelling. Anyways, it's a really small thing to be debating over. I don't mean to be as pedantic as I come across sometimes lol.


Oh no, I get it. Should have had a name. Wish he was named. I'm a fan now.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So after seeing The Boomtown Rats live last night (fantastic gig - I met Bob Geldof afterwards ha), and Bob Geldof done his usual political talk, what is the deal with this TrumpCare stuff? How/why is it worse than 'ObamaCare'? I tend not to pay much attention to American politics these days smh...so someone gimme me some insight dammit :lol .


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

List of Trump Promises and Outcomes

Repeal Obamacare - Failed

Come up with better replacement for Obamacare - Failed

Ban Muslims - Failed (twice)

Defeat ISIS in 30 days - Failed (nearly 3x over)

Play golf less often than Obama - Failed

Explore space - Failed (slashed NASA's budget instead)

Get Mexico to pay for the wall - Failed

Drain the swamp - Failed

Make America Great Again - Failed (made Russia great again instead)


Are Trumpkins so tired of winning yet???


----------



## Smarkout

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> List of Trump Promises and Outcomes
> 
> Repeal Obamacare - Failed
> 
> Come up with better replacement for Obamacare - Failed
> 
> Ban Muslims - Failed (twice)
> 
> Defeat ISIS in 30 days - Failed (nearly 3x over)
> 
> Play golf less often than Obama - Failed
> 
> Explore space - Failed (slashed NASA's budget instead)
> 
> Get Mexico to pay for the wall - Failed
> 
> Drain the swamp - Failed
> 
> Make America Great Again - Failed (made Russia great again instead)
> 
> 
> Are Trumpkins so tired of winning yet???



Liberals getting over losing - Failed


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> Liberals getting over losing - Failed


Watching Trump lose on EVERYTHING is winning for me.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Watching Trump lose on EVERYTHING is winning for me.


So him not being able to keep the promise to end terrorism is a win for you. 

And then you people wonder why leftist SJWs aren't taken seriously anymore.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Eh, despite being a leftie in Northern Ireland, when I looked at America in terms of politics - I've never wanted Trump to fail. Would kinda be like wanting your train driver to crash the train you're on, if that makes any sense (putting myself in the position of an American here).

*EDIT:* Carrying on those comments from above, incase anyone wonders what the feck I'm on about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> Liberals getting over losing - Failed


They still have a ways to go (8 years) to tie the record of conservatives when Obama won.




Smarkout said:


> Liberals getting over losing - Failed


They still have a ways to go (8 years) to tie the record of conservatives when Obama won.




RipNTear said:


> So him not being able to keep the promise to end terrorism is a win for you.
> 
> And then you people wonder why leftist SJWs aren't taken seriously anymore.


Its more of an I told you so, when leftist said he would not be able to end ISIS in 30 days. Only Trump and his supporters thought Trump could end ISIS in 30 days. 

Where was Trumps super secret plan he claimed he had? OH that is right he was talking out of his ass once again, just like when he had some amazing secret healthcare plan to replace Obamacare.


----------



## Klotty23

RipNTear said:


> So him not being able to keep the promise to end terrorism is a win for you.
> 
> And then you people wonder why leftist SJWs aren't taken seriously anymore.


Yeah... I mean all those terrorist attacks in the U.S. since Trump was elected sure are alarming!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Yeah... I mean all those terrorist attacks in the U.S. since Trump was elected sure are alarming!


Considering there hasn't been a single terrorist attack in US since he got elected. Guess he's winning. 

But if you are happy that he didn't defeat the ISIS then you're a non serious joke of a person. That may be a failure but to be happy about it makes you sound completely insincere at best and an ISIS apologist at worst. 

However just because you hate Trump doesn't mean you have to revel at 'failures' to end terrorism. It makes you look pathetic and a partisan troll.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Considering there hasn't been a single terrorist attack in US since he got elected. Guess he's winning.
> 
> But if you are happy that he didn't defeat the ISIS then you're a non serious joke of a person. That may be a failure but to be happy about it makes you sound completely insincere at best and an ISIS apologist at worst.
> 
> However just because you hate Trump doesn't mean you have to revel at 'failures' to end terrorism. It makes you look pathetic and a partisan troll.


It actually makes Trump look pathetic he actually thought he could end ISIS in 30 days.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It actually makes Trump look pathetic he actually thought he could end ISIS in 30 days.


And people who are reveling in that failure just as bad if not worse. 

It was a promise that's hard to keep but there's nothing wrong with making such promises because at most this should be a unifying factor instead of a partisan political bitch fest. 

If you guys can't get board with goals of ending terrorism then none of you are worth your own liberal agendas because if wanting to end terrorism isn't a liberal agenda then what are you guys calling yourselves the paragons of human civilization for anyways?


----------



## Smarkout

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It actually makes Trump look pathetic he actually thought he could end ISIS in 30 days.


I know what a joke.. They're the JV team.


----------



## Klotty23

RipNTear said:


> Considering there hasn't been a single terrorist attack in US since he got elected. Guess he's winning.
> 
> But if you are happy that he didn't defeat the ISIS then you're a non serious joke of a person. That may be a failure but to be happy about it makes you sound completely insincere at best and an ISIS apologist at worst.
> 
> However just because you hate Trump doesn't mean you have to revel at 'failures' to end terrorism. It makes you look pathetic and a partisan troll.


Just stating facts based on the words that have come out of the Liar and Chief of the United States. I get it, you snowflakes have no defense for your Cheetoh Jesus any more and that must be incredibly frustrating.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Just stating facts based on the words that have come out of the Liar and Chief of the United States. I get it, you snowflakes have no defense for your Cheetoh Jesus any more and that must be incredibly frustrating.


This isn't about stating facts. This is about reveling in the failure of agendas that have nothing wrong with them in and of itself.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even the self proclaimed socialist on here can see through your partisan hackery. This is really saying something.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> And people who are reveling in that failure just as bad if not worse.
> 
> It was a promise that's hard to keep but there's nothing wrong with making such promises because at most this should be a unifying factor instead of a partisan political bitch fest.
> 
> If you guys can't get board with goals of ending terrorism then none of you are worth your own liberal agendas because if wanting to end terrorism isn't a liberal agenda then what are you guys calling yourselves the paragons of human civilization for anyways?


Who isn't on board with ending terrorism? 

what people are not on board with is Trump lying and claim he has some secret plan to defeat ISIS when he had none.

You act like Obama did not want to end terrorism as well. He just never said stupid shit like Trump does to pander to his supporters like oh I Have a secret plan, and will beat ISIS in 30 days.

Also if Trump was not such a loud mouth and point out others failures, or boast when he so called wins, this kind of stuff would not get thrown back in his face.

Its just funny you and Trump supporters think its great when Trump points out others failures, just look at yesterday you were all having a good laugh when Trump was digging in at Ryan and the failure of the healthcare plan. But i guess its ok when Trump does it, just not when its against Trump right?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who isn't on board with ending terrorism?
> 
> what people are not on board with is Trump lying and claim he has some secret plan to defeat ISIS when he had none.
> 
> You act like Obama did not want to end terrorism as well. He just never said stupid shit like Trump does to pander to his supporters like oh I Have a secret plan, and will beat ISIS in 30 days.
> 
> Also if Trump was not such a loud mouth and point out others failures, or boast when he so called wins, this kind of stuff would not get thrown back in his face.



You guys have lost perspective. You should be dismayed at Trump's failure to end ISIS in 30 days in a very different way than to use it as an excuse to revel in it as a failure.

Name one Democrat at the moment that has a plan to end ISIS and terrorism that is better and I'll give you my thoughts on it. 

The thing is no one knows what to do so instead of focusing on the issue it's low hanging fruit to focus on the failure because it feeds into the partisan hatred you subscribe to.


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I never thought I'd see the day where being anti-hate, anti racist, anti sexist, anti xenophobic would be considered a negative by half of my country.

Scary world we live in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You guys have lost perspective. You should be dismayed at Trump's failure to end ISIS in 30 days in a very different way than to use it as an excuse to revel in it as a failure.
> 
> Name one Democrat at the moment that has a plan to end ISIS and terrorism that is better and I'll give you my thoughts on it.
> 
> The thing is no one knows what to do so instead of focusing on the issue it's low hanging fruit to focus on the failure because it feeds into the partisan hatred you subscribe to.


Trump does not have a plan either, he has already proven that.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump does not have a plan either


I know he doesn't. And that's dismaying for even a Trump supporter like myself. It's not something that makes me happy. I don't go around celebrating it as a failure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> I never thought I'd see the day where being anti-hate, anti racist, anti sexist, anti xenophobic would be considered a negative by half of my country.
> 
> Scary world we live in.


that is how the right is. It's pretty fucked up eh?

they claim the left is intolerant because of the things you just listed. Pretty ironic.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ I'd say "Nice Burn, Menendez. Now go fuck yourself". Or something to that effect. :shrug


That was actually the first thought that popped in my head after reading it. :lol



FITZ said:


> You have to appreciate the burn even if you don't like the source of the burn.


That's a fair enough assessment. :bjpenn


----------



## Klotty23

birthday_massacre said:


> that is how the right is. It's pretty fucked up eh?
> 
> they claim the left is intolerant because of the things you just listed. Pretty ironic.


It sure is.

I actually watched a documentary on Benito Mussolini and his rise to power last night and there are some very, very stark comparisons to what we see happening in the United States right now. It's almost as if it is the same playbook.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ I'd say "Nice Burn, Menendez. Now go fuck yourself". Or something to that effect. :shrug


Obamacare can help with burns you know.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> I never thought I'd see the day where being anti-hate, anti racist, anti sexist, anti xenophobic would be considered a negative by half of my country.
> 
> Scary world we live in.


Keep patting yourselves on the back for fighting strawmen. 

At this point this self promotion has been completely exposed as disingenuous.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Obamacare can help with burns you know.


So can being able to afford your own burn creams by working hard.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So can being able to afford your own burn creams by working hard.


So if someone cant afford burn cream then in your eyes tough shit on them?

The more you post, the more you show how the right has no empathy for anyone but themselves.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if someone cant afford burn cream then in your eyes tough shit on them?
> 
> The more you post, the more you show how the right has no empathy for anyone but themselves.


No. I'd buy them one but I wouldn't ask someone to buy them one because they'd buy them a poor quality burn cream and keep most of the money for themselves and their mafia friends.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No. I'd buy them one but I wouldn't ask someone to buy them one because they'd buy them a poor quality burn cream and keep most of the money for themselves and their mafia friends.


Its the rich that will benefit the repeal of Obamacare not the poor or middle class, the poor and middle class would get fucked the most. 

I always find it funny how the right is always like oh the poor wants hands out or what not yet its the rich how always get the handouts in the millions while fucking over the poor.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its the rich that will benefit the repeal of Obamacare not the poor or middle class, the poor and middle class would get fucked the most.
> 
> I always find it funny how the right is always like oh the poor wants hands out or what not yet its the rich how always get the handouts in the millions while fucking over the poor.


Why are you bringing Obamacare in this.

You don't even understand the concept of libertarianism. Arguing this from a big government perspective is a waste of time.

You said I wouldn't help a poor person and I said I would just without supporting the mafia that is the government in the process. You have no argument because you can't imagine life without government. I can.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Why are you bringing Obamacare in this.
> 
> You don't even understand the concept of libertarianism. Arguing this from a big government perspective is a waste of time.


Because your reply was in regard to my Obamacare comment about the burn.

LOL at you asking why am I bringing obamacare into , our back and forth is about obamacare.

You have lost it


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because your reply was in regard to my Obamacare comment about the burn.
> 
> LOL at you asking why am I bringing obamacare into , our back and forth is about obamacare.
> 
> You have lost it


It's about burn creams. You want the government to tax people to pay for burn creams. I want no government and people to be able to afford it and for people to pay for poor people without involving a government mafia. 

I oppose all forms of government Healthcare and that includes any plans Trump comes out that involves taxation support for any Healthcare at all.

You have no clue that the world can function without a government. That's your loss.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It's about burn creams. You want the government to tax people to pay for burn creams. I want no government and people to be able to afford it and for people to pay for poor people without involving a government mafia.
> 
> I oppose all forms of government Healthcare and that includes any plans Trump comes out that involves taxation support for any Healthcare at all.
> 
> You have no clue that the world can function without a government. That's your loss.


You have no empathy because you are basically like fuck poor people, if they can't afford insurance tough shit, the govt should not help them with getting insurance.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You have no empathy because you are basically like fuck poor people, if they can't afford insurance tough shit, the govt should not help them with getting insurance.


Yeah. I have no empathy because I said that I'll buy the poor person a burn cream directly :kobelol

Not wanting government to steal from people isn't a lack of empathy. Of anything I lack empathy for people who are getting rich off of our taxes. Poor people aren't getting their fairs hare because of the thousands of government officials stealing from them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Yeah. I have no empathy because I said that I'll buy the poor person a burn cream directly :kobelol
> 
> Not wanting government to steal from people isn't a lack of empathy. Of anything I lack empathy for people who are getting rich off of our taxes. Poor people aren't getting their fairs hare because of the thousands of government officials stealing from them.


Also if you are for no govt then why should our tax payer dollars go to military spending then?

Why not let everyone keep all of our pay and not be taxed anything.

Is that something you want?


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear has been peddling the greatness of "white culture" for days and is apparently an avid Trump supporter. Yet he waltzes around calling ME a partisan hack. Just LOL.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also if you are for no govt then why should our tax payer dollars go to military spending then?
> 
> Why not let everyone keep all of our pay and not be taxed anything.
> 
> Is that something you want?


Well sure I want no military spending through taxes. I want military to be privatized as well. I want the police and fire service to be privatized too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well sure I want no military spending through taxes. I want military to be privatized as well. I want the police and fire service to be privatized too.


So should we pay taxes at all?

If so, what should they be used for?


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> @RipNTear has been peddling the greatness of "white culture" for days and is apparently an avid Trump supporter. Yet he waltzes around calling ME a partisan hack. Just LOL.


I've talked to @RipNTear plenty of times, and he hasn't come across as much of a Trump supporter in the general sense. I mean, there's nothing wrong with favoring a couple things Trump has done, and it would be better if we at least tried to work with Trump and not against him by assuming every single thing he does is the dirt worst.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So should we pay taxes at all?
> 
> If so, what should they be used for?


Nope. Taxation is theft


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Nope. Taxation is theft


Ok fair enough, at least you are consistent.

If people were not taxed anything it would help them pay for insurance with that extra money.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ok fair enough, at least you are consistent.
> 
> If people were not taxed anything it would help them pay for insurance with that extra money.


The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars simply maintaining itself and all of that money comes from people. It's the new form of feudalism when you really think about it. That's why it needs to end.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I've talked to @RipNTear plenty of times, and he hasn't come across as much of a Trump supporter in the general sense. I mean, there's nothing wrong with favoring a couple things Trump has done, and it would be better if we at least tried to work with Trump and not against him by assuming every single thing he does is the dirt worst.


 @RipNTear is one of my favourite guys on the forum, man. Love reading his insight into stuff, and making me think on things differently, which can only be a good thing as I'm then not just viewing stuff in just black and white (hell has even made me question socialism itself, and sorta made me think 'well hang on, maybe I'm better centre-left etc.' though this is still an ongoing process, and it's cool to challenge things every now and again, and to keep an open mind ). I know he supports Trump, but as you say, hasn't come off as the 'typical Trump supporter' as MSM usually portray.

Also on my last comment, I do hope Trump succeeds. Do I like the guy, and a lot of things he stands for or does? No.*** However, it doesn't mean I want him to fail. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, and anyone else wrong. Wishing the guy to fail is just going against what folk claim to stand for tbh.

***It's very rare though that I stand for everything someone does.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I wonder what ELSE is going to happen next?


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> @RipNTear is one of my favourite guys on the forum, man. Love reading his insight into stuff, and making me think on things differently, which can only be a good thing as I'm then not just viewing stuff in just black and white (hell has even made me question socialism itself, and sorta made me think 'well hang on, maybe I'm better centre-left etc.' though this is still an ongoing process, and it's cool to challenge things every now and again, and to keep an open mind ). I know he supports Trump, but as you say, hasn't come off as the 'typical Trump supporter' as MSM usually portray.
> *
> Also on my last comment, I do hope Trump succeeds. Do I like the guy, and a lot of things he stands for or does? No.* However, it doesn't mean I want him to fail. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, and anyone else wrong. Wishing the guy to fail is just going against what folk claim to stand for tbh.*
> 
> ***It's very rare though that I stand for everything someone does.


I would be happy if his presidency was a success for America as a whole. And that rests on if he's willing to work with both sides, and if both sides are willing to work in conjunction with him. I don't really see this happening right now with many things, and I think if we get anything major passed, it'll be in spite of the left, which I think isn't the right way to do things. 

It's funny even hoping for a situation where Trump's presidency has positives to it in the end, considering I probably dislike him quite a bit more than the majority of people in this thread. (My stance on Environmental Issues against his probably is telling enough). But I'd rather something get done rather than 4 years of absolutely nothing as we wait till what happens in 2020.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845655850874228737

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/229644347228950528
:hmmm


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We'll have to take it on an issue to issue basis. There are some issues where Democrats are completely off base and some issues that the gop wants to push that are terrible.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I would be happy if his presidency was a success for America as a whole. And that rests on if he's willing to work with both sides, and if both sides are willing to work in conjunction with him. I don't really see this happening right now with many things, *and I think if we get anything major passed, it'll be in spite of the left, which I think isn't the right way to do things.*
> 
> It's funny even hoping for a situation where Trump's presidency has positives to it in the end, considering I probably dislike him quite a bit more than the majority of people in this thread. (My stance on Environmental Issues against his probably is telling enough). But I'd rather something get done rather than 4 years of absolutely nothing as we wait till what happens in 2020.



You are correct and in an ideal world, both parties would work together for the common good.

However, this is not an ideal world nor is this an ideal government(far from it). The Democrats have fallen so far into the realm of insanity, it's unreal. Republicans aren't exactly coming out smelling like roses either, to be fair(as Ryan, that MORON, has shown). 

We live in an imperfect world with an imperfect government and (i'm sure BM, FriedTofu, and the others would be shocked to hear me say this but....) an imperfect President. (*gasp* I know.  )


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845655850874228737
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/229644347228950528
> :hmmm



Right, because Obama never took full advantage of the perks of being President. I'm sure he was there 24/7 working his ass off with no breaks at all. 



BTW, Is that Sean Spicer's real account 'cause it sounds like the voice of another Leftist whiner. :sleep


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Right, because Obama never took full advantage of the perks of being President. I'm sure he was there 24/7 working his ass off with no breaks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Is that Sean Spicer's real account 'cause it sounds like the voice of another Leftist whiner. :sleep


See that little blue check mark? Yea its him. Criticizing Obama in 2012 for exactly what Donny is now doing every week. Hypocrisy. 



> *President Obama spent $97 million on travel while he was in office. Trump is on pace to outspend him in less than one year.*
> 
> In just his first month in office, President Donald Trump has cost taxpayers almost $10 million in travel expenses, according to calculations from the Washington Post — meaning he’s on track to far exceed the amount President Obama’s travel cost in eight years.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/21/14683940/trump-travel-cost-mar-a-lago


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/125990387226652672
He lies through his teeth and you all buy it. Hook, line, sinker.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

According to liberals, Republican Presidents aren't allowed to take vacations or play golf.

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@nucklehead88 did Trump ever say he would work on weekends? Just curious.


----------



## 3ku1

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump prob needs a weekend off, after the at this stage the biggest abject failure of his presidency to date :lol. I feel for Trump. I Think he is attempting to make some real change at the Oval Office. Unfortunately he has push and pull from everyone around him. Republican Party are set in their ways. They rejected Trumps Health Plan. Because Moderately some part of Congress diddn't feel it repelled Obamacare enough. And also 25 million people were set to lose insurance. Trump also surrounds himself around Yes Men like that idiot Paul Ryan. Who well tell him everything he wants to hear. Not what he should be hearing. Right now your a shit president. You have done nothing to stabilize your cabnet and tenure at this point. And you have four years to turn it all around, good luck. And get off twitter! He has done nothing to help the divided countru. Being a ultra nationalist, I diddn't expect that. He seems more concerned about the working man, middle america. Then the rest of the country. He is America First. All is he My People first. I beleive the Dems are no better. Repubs wouldent have to repel such a shit health plan. IF ObamaCare did it's job. People celebrating Trumps Helath Care plan not passing, like its a Victory. When ironically its not. Because your country still has no proper Health Plan.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> According to liberals, Republican Presidents aren't allowed to take vacations or play golf.
> 
> - Vic


Remember when bush went jogging, and they ripped him for it.

Obama went jogging and they were lining up to suck the sweat out of his underwear


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't even care if he wants to take vacations here and there. Obviously he isn't going to be on and working 365 days a year, the idea itself even if he is the president is absurd. The man deserves breaks and vacations just like anybody else who works.

But that vacation spending thing is a problem. Does it not bother anybody that he's on pace to spend over $100 million in taxpayer dollars on travel? And this is coming from a man who is a billionaire? I'm defintely not a fan of that, I'm sorry, as much as it may make me sound like a "whiny liberal."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845655850874228737
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/229644347228950528
> :hmmm












:'(


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Right, because Obama never took full advantage of the perks of being President. I'm sure he was there 24/7 working his ass off with no breaks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Is that Sean Spicer's real account 'cause it sounds like the voice of another Leftist whiner. :sleep


You should check out Trump's account to see what a real Leftist whiner sound like. 

You can't be that dense to miss all the lulz on conservative twitter during Obama's presidency. You sound upset people are digging up baseless criticisms on Obama during his presidency and reapplying them to Trump now.


----------



## skypod

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Nice to see intelligent and well thought out responses to Trumps hypocrisy, as always.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm not a big fan of the president vacation thing 

Camp David is always available, actively maintained and has a bunch of fun stuff to do, I would just spend my off time there


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> They did the right thing for the wrong reasons though. They are the most consistent in throwing a tantrum until they get their way. Its easy to be 'principled' when they are not the ones suffering the consequences of obstructing government. Their demands would make healthcare more unaffordable to those who need it, while making it cheaper to those who needs it the least. More people buying cheaper options with less coverage, while more who needs the more expensive coverage leave the market, thereby lowering the average premiums.
> 
> Trump is almost immune to any criticisms by his base. Everybody is spinning it as Ryan's fault as if Trump had no fault for not reading the plan in detail or at least have his team go over the plan before putting his name behind it in public. They let Trump claim credit for business decisions made prior to the elections but let him shriek responsibility for things he messed up by blaming others. Its almost madness.
> 
> Obamacare is imploding in areas where they cut parts of what is supposed to make it work. It is shocking that the party in power is wishing healthcare plans to fail for the poorest in the country just to cut taxes for the richest.
> 
> There is nothing that will work that can provide similar coverage other than the American liberal wet dream of single payer. Trump made empty promises of more coverage at less costs throughout the campaign. How does that even work? People are going to lose coverage. One could argue these people wouldn't even have coverage without the ACA so it will be going back to the status quo prior to Obamacare. :shrug
> 
> At the end of the day, McConnell wins. Urgh


Remember, I'm not one of the base...there are Trump supporters I know IRL and on other conservative sites that believe I need to go to a re-education camp because I dare question Trump when he goes off the reservation. However, many of them can't use the same arguments they try to use on others because I'm further to the right then them. One lady at work the other day tried the "you support Hillary card." I told her to put down "Rules for Radicals" and that her guy won because he played dirty in the gutter just like the Clintons do but now it's time to stop acting like them. She hasn't talked to me since.  I want Trump to succeed but I have made sure that people know that if things don't go right I'm screaming bloody murder. 

I don't believe it's a tantrum. The Freedom Caucus is doing the exact same thing now that they did in the Obama administration. They are standing up for what they believe in, and these days that's very hard to do. In fact, a Politico article said that Trump might have underestimated Mark Meadows when he supposedly joked about having to get him if he doesn't play ball. Meadows and Jordan have both said that they are willing to go home if it comes to the voters speaking but they were asked by their constituents to repeal Obamacare. Not move around a few things...but repeal the whole thing. This bill does not do that, so they are sending the clear message to Trump and his people. 

As for his base...there are those who will NEVER criticize anything he ever does and will never hold him accountable. That statement is true. Obama had that as well...there were those who loved every little thing he did and he could do no wrong. However, many are having a "wait-and-see" attitude. They understand that the administration has just started and that Trump needs time to make things happen. Rest assured, though...if he doesn't follow through on his promises in regards to jobs, tax reform, improving the business climate, etc...people will take notice and there will be rumblings. For now, he gets the benefit of the doubt...but the expectations are still there for him to deliver. 

I've stated time and again...single-payer health care in the United States, with 300 million people to take care of and limited resources as is, would be an absolute disaster. We already have a national debt spiraling out of control and you would be looking at a budget that would have 1/6 of its resources permanently sourced to health care. Stories you hear about limited resources in other countries where the care isn't there for very ill people would be multiplied ten-fold in this country. It is absolutely not going to work here. 

There are other things that we can do to bring insurance costs down. For example...buying just the insurance you need and not having to select things you don't want or need. How that would work...I'll use my family situation...the ACA requires EVERYTHING to be in our insurance plan. There are some things I really don't need...such as neo-natal care. I had a vasectomy a couple of years ago, so we're not having any more kids (not to mention we're too old to raise another at this stage). I don't need neo-natal coverage. There are other things that a younger person may not need as they are more for senior citizens, etc. You have that option for car insurance...why not for health insurance? 

There are plenty of options and things we can do to bring costs down and keep the government out of it. Besides...our government messes everything else up it gets involved in...I'd be stupid to put my health care into their hands.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What a failure for Trump.

First a couple of crap paper thin muslim ban EO's that were probably written with crayon get struck down for being too non-sensical.

Now his 'great plan, best plan ever' healthcare replacement gets laughed out of town in a majority Repub congress. I bet some Trump fans are starting to think twice about the validity of the steak behind the sizzle.

Of course some other poor Trump fans are still unable to accept any shortcomings of this Used Car Salesman - labelling HIS HealthCare plan someone else's in RyanCare - and basically blaming anyone but Trump. 

Trump's a great negotiator, a master persuader remember? Why wasn't he able to convince his own majority congress? How embarrassing. 










'This politics thing is harder than I thought!'


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I'm not a big fan of the president vacation thing
> 
> Camp David is always available, actively maintained and has a bunch of fun stuff to do, I would just spend my off time there


I don't have an issue with president vacations. I am just enjoying the schadenfreude of using his own words on him. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't have an issue with president vacations. I am just enjoying the schadenfreude of using his own words on him. :lol


I think the idea of bitching about Presidential vacations is ridiculous, TBH. Why the hell does it matter if they go to Florida, Hawaii, Vegas, etc...just make sure you're doing your job when you're working.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> According to liberals, Republican Presidents aren't allowed to take vacations or play golf.
> 
> - Vic


Not when they spent their whole campaign blasting their predecessor for taking vacations or playing golf, then turning around and doing it more often than Obama ever did. Its not the golf. Its the part where he's being a MASSIVE hypocrite. Agian.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Remember, I'm not one of the base...there are Trump supporters I know IRL and on other conservative sites that believe I need to go to a re-education camp because I dare question Trump when he goes off the reservation. However, many of them can't use the same arguments they try to use on others because I'm further to the right then them. One lady at work the other day tried the "you support Hillary card." I told her to put down "Rules for Radicals" and that her guy won because he played dirty in the gutter just like the Clintons do but now it's time to stop acting like them. She hasn't talked to me since.  I want Trump to succeed but I have made sure that people know that if things don't go right I'm screaming bloody murder.
> 
> I don't believe it's a tantrum. The Freedom Caucus is doing the exact same thing now that they did in the Obama administration. They are standing up for what they believe in, and these days that's very hard to do. In fact, a Politico article said that Trump might have underestimated Mark Meadows when he supposedly joked about having to get him if he doesn't play ball. Meadows and Jordan have both said that they are willing to go home if it comes to the voters speaking but they were asked by their constituents to repeal Obamacare. Not move around a few things...but repeal the whole thing. This bill does not do that, so they are sending the clear message to Trump and his people.
> 
> As for his base...there are those who will NEVER criticize anything he ever does and will never hold him accountable. That statement is true. Obama had that as well...there were those who loved every little thing he did and he could do no wrong. However, many are having a "wait-and-see" attitude. They understand that the administration has just started and that Trump needs time to make things happen. Rest assured, though...if he doesn't follow through on his promises in regards to jobs, tax reform, improving the business climate, etc...people will take notice and there will be rumblings. For now, he gets the benefit of the doubt...but the expectations are still there for him to deliver.
> 
> I've stated time and again...single-payer health care in the United States, with 300 million people to take care of and limited resources as is, would be an absolute disaster. We already have a national debt spiraling out of control and you would be looking at a budget that would have 1/6 of its resources permanently sourced to health care. Stories you hear about limited resources in other countries where the care isn't there for very ill people would be multiplied ten-fold in this country. It is absolutely not going to work here.
> 
> There are other things that we can do to bring insurance costs down. For example...buying just the insurance you need and not having to select things you don't want or need. How that would work...I'll use my family situation...the ACA requires EVERYTHING to be in our insurance plan. There are some things I really don't need...such as neo-natal care. I had a vasectomy a couple of years ago, so we're not having any more kids (not to mention we're too old to raise another at this stage). I don't need neo-natal coverage. There are other things that a younger person may not need as they are more for senior citizens, etc. You have that option for car insurance...why not for health insurance?
> 
> There are plenty of options and things we can do to bring costs down and keep the government out of it. Besides...our government messes everything else up it gets involved in...I'd be stupid to put my health care into their hands.


It was always funny to me that some in here tried the same approach with you during the elections as the lady that you worked with. You are probably the most conservative among regular posters in this thread. :lol

As for the freedom caucus, like I said, it is easy to say no all the time as an opposing minority and they are not the ones suffering the consequences.

Care isn't there for those people with or without single payer though. It's a strawman to beat on such a system. The real reason to attack it is the costs associated which you have already mentioned. Americans in general are more vocal against tax increases which would be needed to implement such a system.  The individual mandate is just a taxation in another name to maintain the ACA for people within the system and politicians manage to get people who aren't paying it upset about it. 

I agree with you one of the flaw with the ACA is requiring everything to be covered. But why not work within the ACA instead of a full repeal? Insurance is people not needing the service paying for those who need it anyway so costs are driven down for all. Unless it is ideology and not solving the problem of healthcare that is the issue. One curious thing I've read about the ACA is most of the ideas were conservatives in America borrowing from other system in conservative-governed countries as alternatives to democrat's liberal fantasies. Hence the difficulty in coming up with a replacement plan.

One simple way to bring costs down is spending money in promoting healthier lifestyle choices. But the same obstructinists will spin it into an attack on liberty and choice. :shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When Trump spends more than $96 million in vacations and plays more than 306 days of golf then you have room to talk.

- Vic


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> @nucklehead88 did Trump ever say he would work on weekends? Just curious.


He did say he would rarely leave the White House. Said there was too much work to be done. 


> *Despite vowing during his campaign that he “would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done” and “would not be a president who took vacations” because “you don’t have time to take time off''*


https://thinkprogress.org/trump-mar-a-lago-trump-branded-properties-weekends-41d373bbe97a#.clmc5h8kg

12th Golf trip in 9 weeks since becoming "President" btw. All at taxpayers expense.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> When Trump spends more than $96 million in vacations and plays more than 306 days of golf then you have room to talk.
> 
> - Vic


WHen he does I'm sure that will somehow be Paul Ryan's fault too.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> When Trump spends more than $96 million in vacations and plays more than 306 days of golf then you have room to talk.
> 
> - Vic





> President Donald Trump — who criticized politicians in September for “wasting” taxpayer money — is on track to spend more on travel costs in his first year as president than President Barack Obama did during his entire eight-year tenure in the White House.


http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/trump-on-track-to-spend-more-on-travel-than-obama/

Hes already well on his way to beating that. With 7 years to spare.


----------



## skypod

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I've stated time and again...single-payer health care in the United States, with 300 million people to take care of and limited resources as is, would be an absolute disaster. We already have a national debt spiraling out of control and you would be looking at a budget that would have 1/6 of its resources permanently sourced to health care. Stories you hear about limited resources in other countries where the care isn't there for very ill people would be multiplied ten-fold in this country. It is absolutely not going to work here.



I don't really disagree that what's right in Europe isn't right for the US, but I just wanted to get an American perspective on this. 

Our government in the UK protects us in many ways. 

Holiday days: Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive 28 days’ paid annual leave per year. This is calculated by multiplying a normal week (5 days) by the annual entitlement of 5.6 weeks. 

Healthcare: I can go to a local doctors (theres usually a doctors clinic in most small villages) and sign up easily, say I just live down the street. Name and date of birth. I can get an infection the next day and book an appointment, be seen by a doctor and he hands me a piece of paper. I got to the medicine stand 10 feet away and hand the slip and get a bottle of medicine. No forms, no claiming back money and no hassle. No cash involved. 

If I suffer a disability at work, or something naturally. Or I'm made redundant. Or whatever else is going on that is a change of circumstances, I'm backed by my government so I can still feed and clothe myself to look for other jobs and still live in my accommodation.

I work 35 hours a week and thats enough to pay for my apartment/bills, my car, go out every weekend, and travel overseas at least once a year. And I'm on the lower end of the scale in terms of income compared to most people I know. I speak to Americans and there's people that work almost double and never get to leave the country. Is that a result of leaving everything to companies and not believing in government assistance?

Now granted the system isn't perfect, there's issues within this. But the idea that the government just ruins everything and we should leave it to companies is strange to me. Companies could give a shit about citizens and won't protect them. They only have an obligation to make money. At least the government has the false pretense of being there to help. I'm not sure why a capitalist system is looked upon as the ultimate. Major problems in America are caused by greed and worshiping of the almighty dollar.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845646761704243200
Does anyone think Trump did this on purpose? The first, or one of the first things Jeanine said on the show was that Paul Ryan should step down as Speaker. Surely Trump had to know this would be said ahead of time? So instead of burying Ryan publicly which would have been really bad politically, Trump uses an outlet to do it for him?


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> News that one of the two Maryland high school students accused of raping a schoolmate was allegedly in the country unlawfully has caught the attention of the White House


happened about 20 miles from the White House. :bunk Seems more and more stories of illegal immigrants committing heinous crimes are coming out now, funny we rarely heard any the last 8 years huh :eyeroll


Glad to see more action being taken by :trump2 to start getting these people out who want to commit crimes


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845646761704243200
> Does anyone think Trump did this on purpose? The first, or one of the first things Jeanine said on the show was that Paul Ryan should step down as Speaker. Surely Trump had to know this would be said ahead of time? So instead of burying Ryan publicly which would have been really bad politically, Trump uses an outlet to do it for him?


I still think the Ryancare thing was a setup by Trump to bury Ryan who was at odds with Trump on some stuff.

People said Trump signed off on it and was really trying to push it through but no way that garbage HC plan gets traction. Of course if he is fucking Ryan over, he'd have to play the part that he really really wanted it or else suspicion would fall on him.

Trump may come back to the HC plan and be able to put through what he wants, since the last one failed and people are annoyed the Republicans would have to sign off on it. 

This is all just speculation but think Trump is getting people to turn on his biggest threats, like Ryan etc. This plan isn't a Trump failure, Ryan is the one who championed it, Trump just backed him up. So Ryan has to fall on his sword. Either way true or not, nobody can say Trump did this on purpose with 100% certainty.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845646761704243200
> Does anyone think Trump did this on purpose? The first, or one of the first things Jeanine said on the show was that Paul Ryan should step down as Speaker. Surely Trump had to know this would be said ahead of time? So instead of burying Ryan publicly which would have been really bad politically, Trump uses an outlet to do it for him?


I don't think so because Trump has also come out after the failure of Ryancare and claimed that it showed who are loyal and who are not. While the press is trying to twist that into him talking about democrats being loyal, I think the real context of it is loyalty within the republicans as after that statement he went on to praise Ryan but hint that he doesn't like the various factions within the Republicans (house and Senate)

Trump supported the bill. He doesn't like Ryan and he's upset about the split within the Republicans at this point. The democrats voting no had to have been obvious and I think Trump decided to let Ryan take the lead hoping that Ryan's stamp on the bill might have gotten him some democrat support on in and that's the impression I got from Ryan as well throughout the process. 

It was the freedom caucus and the libertarians in the Republican congress that shot the bill down ultimately.


----------



## TheLapsedFan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> Not when they spent their whole campaign blasting their predecessor for taking vacations or playing golf, then turning around and doing it more often than Obama ever did. Its not the golf. Its the part where he's being a MASSIVE hypocrite. Agian.





Vic Capri said:


> When Trump spends more than $96 million in vacations and plays more than 306 days of golf then you have room to talk.
> 
> - Vic


Shockingly, in all of your replies, you didn't reply to that, Vic. I wonder why. I'm stumped, flabbergasted even. Keep drinking that kool-aid.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> It was always funny to me that some in here tried the same approach with you during the elections as the lady that you worked with. You are probably the most conservative among regular posters in this thread. :lol
> 
> As for the freedom caucus, like I said, it is easy to say no all the time as an opposing minority and they are not the ones suffering the consequences.
> 
> Care isn't there for those people with or without single payer though. It's a strawman to beat on such a system. The real reason to attack it is the costs associated which you have already mentioned. Americans in general are more vocal against tax increases which would be needed to implement such a system.  The individual mandate is just a taxation in another name to maintain the ACA for people within the system and politicians manage to get people who aren't paying it upset about it.
> 
> I agree with you one of the flaw with the ACA is requiring everything to be covered. But why not work within the ACA instead of a full repeal? Insurance is people not needing the service paying for those who need it anyway so costs are driven down for all. Unless it is ideology and not solving the problem of healthcare that is the issue. One curious thing I've read about the ACA is most of the ideas were conservatives in America borrowing from other system in conservative-governed countries as alternatives to democrat's liberal fantasies. Hence the difficulty in coming up with a replacement plan.
> 
> One simple way to bring costs down is spending money in promoting healthier lifestyle choices. But the same obstructinists will spin it into an attack on liberty and choice. :shrug


I prefer to be consistent...people can think I'm full of shit but I'd rather them believe that no matter who is running the show I will not compromise my principles. To be honest, I actually got it worse back in '08. After the bailout that George W Bush initiated and bullied through Congress, it was at that moment that I dropped my registration as a Republican. From what a couple of people said to me, you would think I told them I was going to shoot their dog and serve it to them in the form of burgers. I correct people when they say I'm a Republican...I tell them I'm a conservative and these days in this country there is a HUGE difference. 

I'm all for promoting healthy choices, we try to do that here to an extent with the President's Council on Physical Fitness and I actually appreciated Michelle Obama's wanting nutrition to be better. Problem is, the government screwed that up, with school lunches ending up counting calories to the point kids were not getting enough to eat. Not starving, but for example my older daughter would have lunch late morning at her school. She was starving when she got home and would devour two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...wouldn't want to eat dinner at our normal time because of all that food. 

Plus, at the end of the day healthy choices have to be just that...choices. In recent years I've been more careful about what I eat and also in regards to my family's nutrition. We still allow the occasional foray to McDonald's and a candy bar now and then, but for the most part try to eat healthy. If someone wants to not do that and scarf down huge prime ribs with gravy fries or triple cheeseburgers with extra mayonnaise, that's their choice. Meanwhile, grocery stores here promote organic food, but it is usually twice as expensive as the regular food. For those with low-income families, they're not going to pay $6 for organic potatoes when a bag of regular ones cost $3. 

At this point, the ACA is really beyond repair. Many insurance companies are gone already. In fact, some states only have one option for those that are on that plan. Many doctors don't want to see those patients, plus premiums have skyrocketed. In the last 10 years, my insurance premiums have probably tripled. There are stories of people who signed up for the ACA only they are now to the point they can't afford the insurance. For some, it's becoming a tough choice of either paying for health insurance and medicine or buying food. 

What they should do is reintroduce the bill that was passed several times over the years...one page repealing the ACA and everything about it. In this case, put a deadline of 2-3 years from now, and get it to the President's desk. Then, start working on a replacement that works, and you can take the time needed instead of rushing to check a box. 



skypod said:


> I don't really disagree that what's right in Europe isn't right for the US, but I just wanted to get an American perspective on this.
> 
> Our government in the UK protects us in many ways.
> 
> Holiday days: Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive 28 days’ paid annual leave per year. This is calculated by multiplying a normal week (5 days) by the annual entitlement of 5.6 weeks.
> 
> Healthcare: I can go to a local doctors (theres usually a doctors clinic in most small villages) and sign up easily, say I just live down the street. Name and date of birth. I can get an infection the next day and book an appointment, be seen by a doctor and he hands me a piece of paper. I got to the medicine stand 10 feet away and hand the slip and get a bottle of medicine. No forms, no claiming back money and no hassle. No cash involved.
> 
> If I suffer a disability at work, or something naturally. Or I'm made redundant. Or whatever else is going on that is a change of circumstances, I'm backed by my government so I can still feed and clothe myself to look for other jobs and still live in my accommodation.
> 
> I work 35 hours a week and thats enough to pay for my apartment/bills, my car, go out every weekend, and travel overseas at least once a year. And I'm on the lower end of the scale in terms of income compared to most people I know. I speak to Americans and there's people that work almost double and never get to leave the country. Is that a result of leaving everything to companies and not believing in government assistance?
> 
> Now granted the system isn't perfect, there's issues within this. But the idea that the government just ruins everything and we should leave it to companies is strange to me. Companies could give a shit about citizens and won't protect them. They only have an obligation to make money. At least the government has the false pretense of being there to help. I'm not sure why a capitalist system is looked upon as the ultimate. Major problems in America are caused by greed and worshiping of the almighty dollar.


I live for the government staying out of my business because here with all the red tape that is involved shit does get screwed up. To me, the less the government is involved in the less I feel they would want to control me. It is a rather foreign concept to many outside the States but it is a system that has worked for us. And it's not really leaving it up to the companies, it's leaving it up to the individual. I want the government here in the States to handle the basics...what the Constitution requires it to do and leave the rest up to me. 

I have been at my company 15 years...I am now up to 30 vacation/sick days a year. I do have money left over after my bills are taken care of, etc. I enjoy travelling, and while I don't go overseas we still get the chance to do things as a family. 

There is Social Security, as well as SSDI for those who end up getting injured and unable to work. There is assistance that is there for those that need it. I'm not a cold-hearted bastard who says that we need to just let people starve, I do believe that we should have a safety net for those that truly need it. Unfortunately, some abuse the system. There are folks who choose to stay on welfare, at the same time in some cases they don't make much more working so they choose to stay on welfare. No, that's not all cases but some. 

Now, for a cold that's one thing to just get medicine for it. However, where the rationing of health care comes in is when you have severe illnesses. Stories in countries like the UK and Canada of people who are sick and are basically told nothing can be done. They find their way here to the US to get the health care they need. That is a real thing, and would be a real thing if it took place here in the States that we ever got UHC. 

It's not relying on the companies, but relying on ourselves that makes us unique. I have seen SNAFUs when the government tries to help. Maybe they mean well, but I want to take care of myself. 

"The nine most frightening words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."- Ronald Reagan


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There is an upcoming solution to the Obamacare disaster that may potentially replace insurance, or provide a decent alternative. 

Doctors and hospitals are starting their own insurance and membership plans across the country which are so far more than affordable. It also keeps the doctors honest where they finally have to divulge medical costs, and also less willing to exploit over-diagnostic methods. 

If the government doesn't step in to destroy this emerging market (which I fear they will as they tend to immediately step in and try to exploit emerging market in their and their lobbyists' favors), it has every potential to provide people with affordable healthcare. 

I'm not saying that this replaces every system currently in existence. I'm just saying that as always (and backing up my belief in the free market), if there is a need, the capitalist will step up to fill the need as long as there is money to be made. Obamacare created a huge market for a failing model in order for more enterprising individuals to step up.



BruiserKC said:


> Now, for a cold that's one thing to just get medicine for it. However, where the rationing of health care comes in is when you have severe illnesses. Stories in countries like the UK and Canada of people who are sick and are basically told nothing can be done. They find their way here to the US to get the health care they need. That is a real thing, and would be a real thing if it took place here in the States that we ever got UHC.


Canada's healthcare is shitcare. I'd rather pay 4-6000 once in 3-4 years and get immediate care rather than pay that much every year and get shitcare when I need it. Even with a small population like 3-4 million per city people wait 6-8 months for appointments to see specialists. 
--

@Miss Sally - More fuel for the Trump setting up Ryan conspiracy - His tweet about Judge Jeanine is now being assumed to be about her statements on Ryan. However, the more plausible explanation is that he was likely referring to her reporting on the leaks :lol

---

Meanwhile Chelsea Clinton ... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845751278387052544
Nor surprising considering she fell for the Zika virus hysteria as well as posted some shit study about Global Warming causing Diabetes.


----------



## The Game

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Tired of winning yet Drumpf?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Buzz buzzz buzzzz.....(and me without my repellant)...

Trump is imperfect but he's making an effort to get shit done unlike previous administrations. It hasn't been a bed of roses in some cases but I don't expect it to be when he's got basically almost the entire government(including some of his own constituents) obstructing him at every turn. 

Wish he would've told Ryan to go fuck himself with his RyanCare and looked at Rand's plan instead....(maybe he still will? *crossing fingers*)


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> There is an upcoming solution to the Obamacare disaster that may potentially replace insurance, or provide a decent alternative.
> 
> Doctors and hospitals are starting their own insurance and membership plans across the country which are so far more than affordable. It also keeps the doctors honest where they finally have to divulge medical costs, and also less willing to exploit over-diagnostic methods.
> 
> If the government doesn't step in to destroy this emerging market (which I fear they will as they tend to immediately step in and try to exploit emerging market in their and their lobbyists' favors), it has every potential to provide people with affordable healthcare.
> 
> I'm not saying that this replaces every system currently in existence. I'm just saying that as always (and backing up my belief in the free market), if there is a need, the capitalist will step up to fill the need as long as there is money to be made. Obamacare created a huge market for a failing model in order for more enterprising individuals to step up.
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's healthcare is shitcare. I'd rather pay 4-6000 once in 3-4 years and get immediate care rather than pay that much every year and get shitcare when I need it. Even with a small population like 3-4 million per city people wait 6-8 months for appointments to see specialists.
> --
> 
> @Miss Sally - More fuel for the Trump setting up Ryan conspiracy - His tweet about Judge Jeanine is now being assumed to be about her statements on Ryan. However, the more plausible explanation is that he was likely referring to her reporting on the leaks :lol
> 
> ---
> 
> Meanwhile Chelsea Clinton ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845751278387052544
> Nor surprising considering she fell for the Zika virus hysteria as well as posted some shit study about Global Warming causing Diabetes.


That Zika bullshit caused the death of millions of bees which are already in trouble.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Buzz buzzz buzzzz.....(and me without my repellant)...
> 
> Trump is imperfect but he's making an effort to get shit done unlike previous administrations. It hasn't been a bed of roses in some cases but I don't expect it to be when he's got basically almost the entire government(including some of his own constituents) obstructing him at every turn.
> 
> Wish he would've told Ryan to go fuck himself with his RyanCare and looked at Rand's plan instead....(maybe he still will? *crossing fingers*)


Dude. He's the president, the buck stops with him. Fuck this passing off the responsibility for this health care bill disaster on to others. It's Trump's blunder because he's the top dog - he said he was going to deliver and he didn't. You wouldn't have shifted the blame off Obama for any of his blunders, so why does Trump get a pass?

If this healthcare act was great and a marked improvement on Obamacare this whole thread would be sucking Trump's dick, and Ryan would barely be mentioned.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Trump is acting very machiavelian it seems.

It confuses me, because didnt the liberals claim hes the dumbest president ever?


----------



## amhlilhaus

glenwo2 said:


> Buzz buzzz buzzzz.....(and me without my repellant)...
> 
> Trump is imperfect but he's making an effort to get shit done unlike previous administrations. It hasn't been a bed of roses in some cases but I don't expect it to be when he's got basically almost the entire government(including some of his own constituents) obstructing him at every turn.
> 
> Wish he would've told Ryan to go fuck himself with his RyanCare and looked at Rand's plan instead....(maybe he still will? *crossing fingers*)


Trumps only been in 3 weeks, yet his enemies are trying to gloat? 

Hes going to get the wall built, hes getting a sc judge he wants, hes eo'd limits on regulations which are going to have a big impact in the coming years and he has now learned that government negotiations are a bit different than business. 

Hes a smart guy, he will get better and better. 

As for the travel ban, its clear that he can do it, but these activist judges are a pita. He wont risk it going to the sc with the 4 activist judges there.

The silver lining is 2 of them wont make it his 8 years, so the liberals are going to be set up for massive ass kickings the next decade or two.


----------



## zrc

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Sent from my 4009X using Tapatalk


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Dude. He's the president, the buck stops with him. Fuck this passing off the responsibility for this health care bill disaster on to others. It's Trump's blunder because he's the top dog - he said he was going to deliver and he didn't. *You wouldn't have shifted the blame off Obama for any of his blunders, so why does Trump get a pass?*
> 
> If this healthcare act was great and a marked improvement on Obamacare this whole thread would be sucking Trump's dick, and Ryan would barely be mentioned.


Because Trump is not a puppet of the Government, Senate, and Congress like all career POLITICIANS(*cough* Obama *cough*)? :shrug

Anyway, he's not getting a pass. Even I knew Trump should've considered Rand's proposal. I just mentioned it in my previous post, you know(so I don't know where this "Trump gets a pass" thing is coming from). 

Unless that was not just directed toward me but directed to all the Pro-Trump people...


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










I love partisan hackery :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Because Trump is not a puppet of the Government, Senate, and Congress like all career POLITICIANS(*cough* Obama *cough*)? :shrug
> 
> Anyway, he's not getting a pass. Even I knew Trump should've considered Rand's proposal. I just mentioned it in my previous post, you know(so I don't know where this "Trump gets a pass" thing is coming from).
> 
> Unless that was not just directed toward me but directed to all the Pro-Trump people...


LOL at Trump not being a puppet of Government, Senate, and Congress. He is a puppet of Steve Bannon. He is doing the bidden of Bannon, the GOP and all his rich friends.

It's Bannon and the GOP writing most of Trumps EOs, you can even tell because of the time Trump is reading them for the first time

Trump supporters keep proving how uninformed they are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iew-on-his-falsehoods/?utm_term=.0fb9967ec52b

President Trump’s cascade of false claims in Time’s interview on his falsehoods

President Trump had a remarkable interview with Time magazine on March 22 about falsehoods, in which he repeated many false claims that have repeatedly been debunked. Here’s a round-up of his key misstatements.

“Sweden. I make the statement, everyone goes crazy. The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems. … A day later they had a horrible, horrible riot in Sweden, and you saw what happened.”

This is false. Trump at a rally on Feb. 11 made a reference to “what’s happening last night in Sweden,” confusing people in that country since nothing had happened. Trump then clarified in a tweet that his statement “was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants& Sweden.” Then two days later, riots broke out in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood in the northern suburbs of the country’s capital, Stockholm. But no one died.

“Huma and Anthony, you know, what I tweeted about that whole deal, and then it turned out he had it, all of Hillary’s email on his thing.”

No. Weiner did not have all of Clinton’s emails on his laptop. The FBI ultimately concluded none of the emails added new information to the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

“NATO, obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism. They fixed that, and I said that the allies must pay. Nobody knew that they weren’t paying. I did. I figured it. … What I said about NATO was true, people aren’t paying their bills.”

False on several levels. NATO has been involved in counterterrorism since 1980, and especially since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. As for NATO’s financing, Trump apparently still does not understand how it works. NATO’s guideline, established in 2006, is that defense expenditures should amount to 2 percent of each country’s gross domestic product by 2024. In 2016, only four countries besides the United States met that standard, but NATO documents also show that defense spending has increased about 3 percent from 2015 to 2016. In any case, the money would not be going to the United States or even necessarily to NATO; this is money that countries would spend to bolster their own military.

“Brexit, I was totally right about that. You were over there I think, when I predicted that, right, the day before.”

Trump’s timeline is off. Trump said in March 2016, three months before the June 23 vote on whether Britain should remain part of the European Union, that he thinks “Britain will separate from the EU. I think that maybe it’s time, especially in light of what’s happened with the craziness that is going on with immigration, with people pouring in all over the place I think that Britain will end up separating from the EU.”

He was less sure about it on June 22, the day before the vote: “I don’t think anybody should listen to me because I haven’t really focused on it very much. … My inclination would be to get out, because you know, just go it alone. … I also tell people: ‘Don’t go with the recommendation, because it’s a recommendation that I would make, but that’s where I stand.’”

“Now remember this. When I said wiretapping, it was in quotes. Because a wiretapping is, you know today it is different than wire tapping. It is just a good description. But wiretapping was in quotes. What I’m talking about is surveillance.”

Trump has invented a convenient excuse to cover up the fact that he accused the Obama administration of spying on him. In some tweets, he used quotes. But this is the key tweet: “How low has President Obama gone to tapp phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

“Here, headline, for the front page of the New York Times, ‘Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides.’ That’s a headline. Now they then dropped that headline, I never saw this until this morning. They then dropped that headline, and they used another headline without the word wiretap, but they did mean wiretap. Wiretapped data used in inquiry. Then changed after that, they probably didn’t like it. And they changed the title. They took the wiretap word out. … Front page, January 20th. Now in their second editions, they took it all down under the internet. They took that out. Ok? But that’s the way it is.”

Trump is mixing up different headlines for the print and Internet editions. In print, the headline was: “Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides.” Online, the headline read: “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates.” The headlines were not changed as part of any stealth editing. In any case, the text of the New York Times article did not support in any way the claims made by Trump about Obama. Moreover, both the FBI director and the head of the National Security Agency say the claim is false.

Q: The claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New Jersey…
A: Well if you look at the reporter, he wrote the story in The Washington Post.

This is yet another Four-Pinocchio claim that we have checked over and over. Trump claimed he saw on television thousands of Muslims cheer the collapse of the World Trade Center during the Sept. 11 attacks. There is no TV footage, no newspaper coverage, just scattered, unconfirmed reports of five or six people — not necessarily Muslim, probably teenagers — celebrating. There was a small reference buried deep in an article in The Post. When the reporter said it did not support Trump’s claim, Trump mocked his disability.

“Well, now if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

We’ve repeatedly debunked this. There are instances of people illegally voting, but they are rare. The National Association of Secretaries of State said it did not know of “any evidence” backing up Trump’s claims.

“This just came out. This is a Politico story: Members of the Donald Trump Transition team possibly including Trump himself were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November’s election. House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes told reporters, wow. Nunes said, so that means I’m right, Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been … incidental collection, that does not appear to have been related to concerns over Russia.”

Nunes cited one anonymous source and didn’t provide any details. Still, the same Politico story Trump quotes says Nunes disputed that the information Nunes obtained vindicated Trump: “The White House and Trump’s allies immediately seized on the statement as vindication of the president’s much-maligned claim that former president Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phones — even though Nunes himself said that’s not what his new information shows.”

“What I said, look I said, Donna Brazile had information, and she had information on Hillary’s debate questions. I said, why didn’t Hillary apologize. Donna Brazile just admitted that that was right.”

Trump overstates the disclosure about Clinton getting a debate question. During the Democratic primaries, a debate was held in Flint, Mich., to focus on the water crisis. Donna Brazile, then an analyst with CNN, sent an email to the Clinton campaign saying that a woman with a rash from lead poisoning was going to ask what Clinton as president could do the help the people of Flint.

There’s no indication Clinton was told this information, but in any case it’s a pretty obvious question for a debate being held in Flint. The woman in question also was not happy with Clinton’s answer.

“Well that was in a newspaper. No, no, I like Ted Cruz, he’s a friend of mine. But that was in the newspaper. I wasn’t, I didn’t say that. I was referring to a newspaper. A Ted Cruz article referred to a newspaper story with, had a picture of Ted Cruz, his father, and Lee Harvey Oswald, having breakfast.”

By “newspaper,” Trump is referring to the National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid owned by a prominent supporter. The thinly sourced article alleged that Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, worked with Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Trump has repeatedly ignored the fact that the article was denied and deemed false even before he ever mentioned it on the campaign trail.

“Why do you say that I have to apologize? I’m just quoting the newspaper, just like I quoted the judge the other day, Judge Napolitano, I quoted Judge Napolitano, just like I quoted Bret Baier, I mean Bret Baier mentioned the word wiretap. Now he can now deny it, or whatever he is doing, you know. But I watched Bret Baier, and he used that term. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano, and he said that three sources have told him things that would make me right. I don’t know where he has gone with it since then. But I’m quoting highly respected people from highly respected television networks.”

Fox News said it has no evidence to back up claims by Andrew Napolitano, a judicial analyst and commentator on Fox News. Bret Baier said on his show: “We love the judge, we love him here at Fox, but the Fox News division was never able to back up those claims and was never reported on this show.”

As for Baier, Trump is apparently referring to a March 3 interview with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.). Baier referred to an unconfirmed report that there was a “wiretap at Trump Tower with some computer and Russian banks.” Ryan responded: “I am saying I have seen nothing of that. I have seen nothing come of that.”

“And then TIME magazine, which treats me horribly, but obviously I sell, I assume this is going to be a cover too, have I set the record? I guess, right? Covers, nobody’s had more covers.”

Trump is well behind any sort of record for Time covers. Trump has been on the cover of Time magazine about a dozen times. Richard Nixon holds the record: 55.

“I inherited a mess with jobs, despite the statistics, you know, my statistics are even better, but they are not the real statistics because you have millions of people that can’t get a job, okay.”

The economy was not a mess when Trump became president. The stock market was booming and the unemployment rate was below 5 percent. Trump has falsely claimed that 94 million Americans cannot get a job but most of them do not want a job, as they are retired, in school, taking care of young children or are disabled.

The Pinocchio Test

* Trump consistently astounds us with his inability to acknowledge that he repeatedly gets facts wrong and consistently misleads the American public with inaccurate, dubious claims. He earns Four Pinocchios for this interview.

Four Pinocchios
*


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Cheetoh Jesus has been silent all day... It's the smartest thing he's ever said.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Klotty23 said:


> Cheetoh Jesus has been silent all day... It's the smartest thing he's ever said.


He is cowering somewhere at all the losing he did this week.

And there was no new SNL so he couldn't get triggered by it like the little snowflake he is.


----------



## Klotty23

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is cowering somewhere at all the losing he did this week.
> 
> And there was no new SNL so he couldn't get triggered by it like the little snowflake he is.


His sheeple here (I already have their propaganda leader on ignore) have been pretty silent as well. Been a pretty awesome day.

Rounding it out with some home made tacos, beans and rice to honor my compadres all across America!


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM, Klotty23....admit it. You two miss this :


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I enjoyed something that Trump did yesterday that fooled even Ben Shapiro :lmao 

He basically directed everyone to watch Judge Jeeanine and in doing so led Shapiro down the conspiracy theory minefield. Eventually Shapiro had to tweet a timid retraction :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> He did say he would rarely leave the White House. Said there was too much work to be done.
> 
> 
> https://thinkprogress.org/trump-mar-a-lago-trump-branded-properties-weekends-41d373bbe97a#.clmc5h8kg
> 
> 12th Golf trip in 9 weeks since becoming "President" btw. All at taxpayers expense.


I've mentioned this in the past, presidents are rarely actually on "vacation", they're always on the job. Lots of presidents go on trips at tax payers expense , Obama went on several nearly spending an entire years worth playing golf over 8 years alone. George Bush went to his ranch several times and if I recall correctly went more times on "vacation" than Obama but saved more money in the process because it was his own personal property. With that said, I do think Trump needs to stay at the White House more often , which I do think he'll do. I see it similar to the executive orders he was signing, he'll eventually slow down on that because if you remember, people were acting like he'd sign the most executive orders in history. 

He's not nearly as bad as Trudeau who seemingly is always on vacation


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I prefer to be consistent...people can think I'm full of shit but I'd rather them believe that no matter who is running the show I will not compromise my principles. To be honest, I actually got it worse back in '08. After the bailout that George W Bush initiated and bullied through Congress, it was at that moment that I dropped my registration as a Republican. From what a couple of people said to me, you would think I told them I was going to shoot their dog and serve it to them in the form of burgers. I correct people when they say I'm a Republican...I tell them I'm a conservative and these days in this country there is a HUGE difference.


It is a fine line between not compromising on principles and being stubborn. It is similar to the food argument. Some people would sacrifice food security of others in the name of 'healthier' eating. But they aren't the one starving.



> I'm all for promoting healthy choices, we try to do that here to an extent with the President's Council on Physical Fitness and I actually appreciated Michelle Obama's wanting nutrition to be better. Problem is, the government screwed that up, with school lunches ending up counting calories to the point kids were not getting enough to eat. Not starving, but for example my older daughter would have lunch late morning at her school. She was starving when she got home and would devour two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...wouldn't want to eat dinner at our normal time because of all that food.


 I'm curious whether it is counting calories or the food being unappealing to consume that is the cause of your daughter ending up being hungry at home. Do kids really need to consume that much calories to not feel hungry later?



> Plus, at the end of the day healthy choices have to be just that...choices. In recent years I've been more careful about what I eat and also in regards to my family's nutrition. We still allow the occasional foray to McDonald's and a candy bar now and then, but for the most part try to eat healthy. If someone wants to not do that and scarf down huge prime ribs with gravy fries or triple cheeseburgers with extra mayonnaise, that's their choice. Meanwhile, grocery stores here promote organic food, but it is usually twice as expensive as the regular food. For those with low-income families, they're not going to pay $6 for organic potatoes when a bag of regular ones cost $3.


I was thinking more along the lines of eating more vegetables and cutting down on protein or eating less candy bars and chips as snacks, not choosing organic over regular food items. Sure it is their right if someone wants to scarf down all those cheeseburgers. But they add to the overall costs to the system with those habits if they don't also exercise to lose those extra calories.


> At this point, the ACA is really beyond repair. Many insurance companies are gone already. In fact, some states only have one option for those that are on that plan. Many doctors don't want to see those patients, plus premiums have skyrocketed. In the last 10 years, my insurance premiums have probably tripled. There are stories of people who signed up for the ACA only they are now to the point they can't afford the insurance. For some, it's becoming a tough choice of either paying for health insurance and medicine or buying food.


That is because some states ignored the provisions in place in the ACA that would help keep the insurance companies in place. They made it untenable for these companies to make things work. There is no doubt the ACA needs to be fixed as the relatively new law created a lot of uncertainty. Healthcare costs is always rising due to an ageing population on a health system that didn't expect people to live that long. The debate is whether the ACA increased the rate of increase or decreased it. In general, it seemed to have helped reduce the rate of increase.



> What they should do is reintroduce the bill that was passed several times over the years...one page repealing the ACA and everything about it. In this case, put a deadline of 2-3 years from now, and get it to the President's desk. Then, start working on a replacement that works, and you can take the time needed instead of rushing to check a box.


The problem is it would take away the coverage the ACA medicaid expansion provided and potentially costing them votes. The time argument is also against the GOP because they had campaigned for almost 7 years of repeal and replace. The bill they introduced would not cut mustard upon deeper analysis as they wrote it knowing Obama would veto it. It wasn't a serious attempt at improving healthcare.


----------



## skypod

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I love partisan hackery :lol


I'm not really sure what that proves? Consider that Trump has done more of it in just 3 months plus he himself criticised Obama for it, obviously more people are going to think criticism about Trump is justified?


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846152013389934592
unk2


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ He also wanted to run the Country like he'd run his business and he's learning the hard way that they are completely different. 

So yeah. He WANTED to stay in the WH and work his ass off(he still is, imo) but I guess reality is different. Maybe he decided that this POTUS business is a bit too stressful to deal with, 24/7, and needed to get away for a bit? Can't blame him with everyone on his ass like a bloodhound. :shrug


And besides, as POTUS, Trump is ENTITLED to the perks of the position(we would all do the same thing; don't deny it) but tell me this : 

How are we to know that Obama(for example) didn't take full advantage of all the perks of being POTUS just as often as Trump did? 

The difference is that the Media and everyone else has Trump under a microscope and telling us when he took a friggin' dump while we heard barely anything regarding Obama(surprise, surprise) aside from fluff-news designed to make him look better than he was.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Dunno if there's any fellow Sex Pistols fans in the house here, but just incase - here is John Lydon's thoughts. It may shock many.

_"John Lydon has defended Brexit, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump in a new interview.

The former Sex Pistols frontman (aka Johnny Rotten) appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Monday (March 27) when he described meeting Nigel Farage as “fantastic”.

Lydon continued: “After that up the River Thames argument he had with Bob Geldof I wanted to shake his hand because it was silly beyond belief.”

“Where do I stand on Brexit? Well, here it goes, the working class have spoke and I’m one of them and I’m with them. And there it is.”

The punk icon went on to describe US President Trump as a “complicated fellow”, adding: “One journalist once said to me, ‘is he the political Sex Pistol?’ In a way. ”

“What I dislike is the left-wing media in America are trying to smear the bloke as a racist and that’s completely not true, There are many, many problems with him as a human being but he’s not that and there just might be a chance something good will come out of that situation because he terrifies politicians.”

“This is a joy to behold for me. Dare I say, [he could be] a possible friend,” Lydon said"_


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump....a Political Sex Pistol?

Well he has wanted to grab people by the pussy so...


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Trump....a Political Sex Pistol?
> 
> Well he has wanted to grab people by the pussy so...


To be fair, it's hilarious seeing how many folk on twitter get pissed off about what Lydon has said :HA.

That guy is still punk as hell to this day.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I'm not that familiar with the Sex Pistols(I've heard of them but not listened to any of their music) in general. The Front-man, from what you're telling me is a real dick.

Can you give me the cliff notes of what he had done to deserve your ire?


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ He also wanted to run the Country like he'd run his business and he's learning the hard way that they are completely different.
> 
> So yeah. He WANTED to stay in the WH and work his ass off(he still is, imo) but I guess reality is different. Maybe he decided that this POTUS business is a bit too stressful to deal with, 24/7, and needed to get away for a bit? Can't blame him with everyone on his ass like a bloodhound. :shrug
> 
> 
> And besides, as POTUS, Trump is ENTITLED to the perks of the position(we would all do the same thing; don't deny it) but tell me this :
> 
> How are we to know that Obama(for example) didn't take full advantage of all the perks of being POTUS just as often as Trump did?
> 
> The difference is that the Media and everyone else has Trump under a microscope and telling us when he took a friggin' dump while we heard barely anything regarding Obama(surprise, surprise) aside from fluff-news designed to make him look better than he was.


Jesus christ, you'd defend him if he shot your mum. Just admit it, in this instance he lied his ass off to win over voters. Is it really that hard? You don't have to defend EVERYTHING he does.



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846152013389934592
> unk2


:aryhabama3:kobe11


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Dunno if there's any fellow Sex Pistols fans in the house here, but just incase - here is John Lydon's thoughts. It may shock many.
> 
> _"John Lydon has defended Brexit, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump in a new interview.
> 
> The former Sex Pistols frontman (aka Johnny Rotten) appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Monday (March 27) when he described meeting Nigel Farage as “fantastic”.
> 
> Lydon continued: “After that up the River Thames argument he had with Bob Geldof I wanted to shake his hand because it was silly beyond belief.”
> 
> “Where do I stand on Brexit? Well, here it goes, the working class have spoke and I’m one of them and I’m with them. And there it is.”
> 
> The punk icon went on to describe US President Trump as a “complicated fellow”, adding: “One journalist once said to me, ‘is he the political Sex Pistol?’ In a way. ”
> 
> “What I dislike is the left-wing media in America are trying to smear the bloke as a racist and that’s completely not true, There are many, many problems with him as a human being but he’s not that and there just might be a chance something good will come out of that situation because he terrifies politicians.”
> 
> “This is a joy to behold for me. Dare I say, [he could be] a possible friend,” Lydon said"_


Johnny Rotten, worth millions of dollars and he says he's working class >< Guess being musically irrelevant for decades he's now decided to talk even more shit than he used to.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think Trump is taking a little too much time off for certain things but if he's bringing in people from other nations to work with them I don't see the problem. In the business world people usually have the ones they wish to work with for parties and other events.


----------



## zrc

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










He's gotta catch 'em all!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



zrc said:


> He's gotta catch 'em all!


no holos?

I can't let this man lead me


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-deaths-syria-iraq-middle-east-a7649486.html

*Civilian deaths from US-led airstrikes hit record high under Donald Trump*

A non-profit organisation that tracks civilian casualties caused by airstrikes in the Middle East said it has shifted nearly all of its resources to track a surge of claims regarding US-led strikes in Syria and Iraq.

The group, called Airwars.org, had been tracking deaths caused by both Russian and US airstrikes but said in a statement Friday that it was suspending its work on "alleged Russian actions in Syria -- so as best to focus our limited resources on continuing to properly monitor and assess reported casualties from the US and its allies.

"Almost 1,000 civilian non-combatant deaths have already been alleged from coalition actions across Iraq and Syria in March - a record claim," the statement said. "These reported casualty levels are comparable with some of the worst periods of Russian activity in Syria."

READ MORE
‘Worst yet to come’ in final push to free Mosul from Isis, says UN
Air strikes on Isis-held Mosul 'leave 230 civilians dead'
Isis defeat in Mosul could spark 'genocide', leading cleric warns
In the last week, three mass casualty incidents have been attributed to US.-led forces in Iraq and Syria, making March one of the most lethal months for civilians in the the two-year-old war against the Islamic State.

Last week, US drones targeted what locals deemed a mosque in Aleppo province in a bid to target al-Qaida leaders. US officials said dozens of terrorists were killed, but those on the ground said at least 47 civilians also died in the strikes. The Pentagon denied that there were any civilian casualties but has launched a formal investigation into the incident.

On Monday, a conflict monitoring group, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said a strike near Raqqa targeted a school that was serving as a home for multiple families displaced by fighting in the area, killing at least 33. The Pentagon admitted US aircraft were operating in the vicinity but, according to Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon, the military is having a hard time rectifying the location of the building that was targeted with what was shown as destroyed on social media.

On Thursday, Iraqi media reported that an airstrike in Mosul killed more than 200 people. The Pentagon is investigating the claims.


READ MORE
Last librarian of Mosul prepares for when his city is free from Isis
After the fall of Aleppo to Syrian and Russian forces in December and the recent escalation of the US-led campaigns against the Islamic State in Mosul and Raqqa, claims of civilian casualties caused by American-led forces have outstripped those caused by Damascus and the Kremlin, according to Airwars.

As Syrian forces advance into opposition-held Hama in central Syria, Airwars has recorded roughly 50 civilian casualty events caused by the joint Russian and Syrian air campaign in March.

Airwars uses varying methods to investigate and confirm civilian casualties, relying on a medley of local news outlets, NGOs, civilian volunteers and social media to determine if casualty reports are fair, weak, contested or disproved. For March, nearly half the alleged strikes are contested, according to Airwars data.

In pictures: Mosul offensive
22
show all
*According to Airwars, more than 2,500 civilians have been killed by the US-led coalition, which has admitted to killing only roughly 220 civilians. In recent months, the Pentagon said it has taken strides to investigate a backlog of claims while starting to release monthly civilian casualty assessments.*

"The decision to temporarily suspend our Russia strike assessments has been a very difficult one to take," Chris Woods, the director of Airwars, said in a statement. "Moscow is still reportedly killing hundreds of civilians in Syria every month. But with Coalition casualty claims escalating so steeply - and with very limited Airwars resources - we believe our key focus at present needs to be on the US-led alliance."


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> To be fair, it's hilarious seeing how many folk on twitter get pissed off about what Lydon has said :HA.
> 
> That guy is still punk as hell to this day.












About as punk as Ariana Grande.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> About as punk as Ariana Grande.


Those butter ads :hogan


----------



## IDidPaige

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I love partisan hackery :lol


Conclusions: Libertarians are the most fair-minded political affiliation, and democrats are by far the most ideological and dogmatic, far more than Republicans.

I could've predicted this long before I saw the charts.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ He also wanted to run the Country like he'd run his business and he's learning the hard way that they are completely different.
> 
> So yeah. He WANTED to stay in the WH and work his ass off(he still is, imo) but I guess reality is different. Maybe he decided that this POTUS business is a bit too stressful to deal with, 24/7, and needed to get away for a bit? Can't blame him with everyone on his ass like a bloodhound. :shrug
> 
> 
> And besides, as POTUS, Trump is ENTITLED to the perks of the position(we would all do the same thing; don't deny it) but tell me this :
> 
> How are we to know that Obama(for example) didn't take full advantage of all the perks of being POTUS just as often as Trump did?
> 
> The difference is that the Media and everyone else has Trump under a microscope and telling us when he took a friggin' dump while we heard barely anything regarding Obama(surprise, surprise) aside from fluff-news designed to make him look better than he was.


Obama wasn't under a microscope? Are you kidding me? :lol Don't get butthurt when people are using the criticisms you have been reading about Obama on Trump now. Trump criticised Obama for golfing, why is it not fair game to criticise Trump for it? Unless you are willing to admit you had no issue with President golfing.

Bottomline, Trump tried to bully his way to score a 'win' with the healthcare bill during the first 100 days for his political branding and failed. The ACA took almost a year from proposal to passing. Trump gave up on Trumpcare in less than 3 weeks, and is now rooting for the system to fail to be able to put the blame on the democrats in the future. That is working his ass off to you? He spent more time travelling to rallies. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Obama wasn't under a microscope? Are you kidding me? :lol Don't get butthurt when people are using the criticisms you have been reading about Obama on Trump now. Trump criticised Obama for golfing, why is it not fair game to criticise Trump for it? Unless you are willing to admit you had no issue with President golfing.
> 
> Bottomline, Trump tried to bully his way to score a 'win' with the healthcare bill during the first 100 days for his political branding and failed. The ACA took almost a year from proposal to passing. Trump gave up on Trumpcare in less than 3 weeks, and is now rooting for the system to fail to be able to put the blame on the democrats in the future. That is working his ass off to you? He spent more time travelling to rallies. :lol


Meanwhile Trump is now going after the Freedom Caucus...a group that has said they will work with the President but we need a much better repeal and replace bill. He is blaming them when he should be thanking them from having to deal with a shit bill. 

I don't like this especially if he goes after conservatives who want to hold him to the promises of repeal.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile Trump is now going after the Freedom Caucus...a group that has said they will work with the President but we need a much better repeal and replace bill. He is blaming them when he should be thanking them from having to deal with a shit bill.
> 
> I don't like this especially if he goes after conservatives who want to hold him to the promises of repeal.


I like the Freedom Caucus. Stopping Ryancare was a great idea because even though it was a bill put forward by Republicans, Ryan was clear that he wanted it to appeal to the democrats in not so many hidden words - and even then the democrats were willing to go full out no on it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile Trump is now going after the Freedom Caucus...a group that has said they will work with the President but we need a much better repeal and replace bill. He is blaming them when he should be thanking them from having to deal with a shit bill.
> 
> I don't like this especially if he goes after conservatives who want to hold him to the promises of repeal.


He almost never admit his faults in public due to his fear of hurting his brand.

This is the dude that blamed the banks for lending money to him when he couldn't repay his debt.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Jesus christ, you'd defend him if he shot your mum. Just admit it, in this instance he lied his ass off to win over voters. Is it really that hard? You don't have to defend EVERYTHING he does.



If you don't like that I defend him, then utilize the Ignore List so you won't have to read my posts that defend him. It's that simple. :shrug



I mean holy shit, man. God forbid if I have a Pro-trump post here. It's almost anti-climactic if none of the Liberals here try to take a bite out of my ass. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> If you don't like that I defend him, then utilize the Ignore List so you won't have to read my posts that defend him. It's that simple. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> I mean holy shit, man. God forbid if I have a Pro-trump post here. It's almost anti-climactic if none of the Liberals here try to take a bite out of my ass. :lol


his point is, you blindly follow Trump no matter what, even when Trump is wrong and lies, you still defend him instead of admitting Trump lied.

You can be pro Trump and also admit when he lies. that does not mean you are against him. But it just makes you look bad you cant admit when Trump is lying or wrong


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^


> This message is hidden because birthday_massacre is on your ignore list.


Case in point. I don't want to see BM's garbage so I use the list.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^
> 
> Case in point. I don't want to see BM's garbage so I use the list.












Yup because I hold you to backing up your point of view and you can't. 

You cant even admit Trump lied lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^
> 
> Case in point. I don't want to see BM's garbage so I use the list.





> his point is, you blindly follow Trump no matter what, even when Trump is wrong and lies, you still defend him instead of admitting Trump lied.
> 
> You can be pro Trump and also admit when he lies. that does not mean you are against him. But it just makes you look bad you cant admit when Trump is lying or wrong - _Birthday Massacre_


You're welcome


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're welcome


 glenwo2 is just a troll. He can talk shit about me all he wants, but at least I defend my opinions regardless if people agree with me or not. glenwo2 never even does that, he just makes troll posts when people ask him to defend his position

Just look at the last few pages of his posts in this thread when people that disagree with him call him out to defend his point of view.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846558595512655872
Good. Fuck the enviroment.


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*No one is saying you can't support Donald Trump. The point is that he lied and has no proof to support what he literally made up. That's a totally different conversation than telling someone that they can't support Trump. Get a fucking grip and stop acting like the "whiny liberals" that so many of you conservatives bash on social media as SJW's. You sound just like them when you say things like "I can't even say a pro-Trump comment without being criticized for it", blah, blah, blah. In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger "Stop whining". Plain and simple facts aren't something to have an opinion about. Sorry, but that opinion nonsense doesn't work in the discussion over facts. Trump lied, that's fact. No opinions necessary. If opinions are like assholes are you going around showing everyone your asshole all the time? If you don't like criticism don't share you opinion, in other words cover up your asshole.*


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ you must be fun at parties. 















BTW, *yeahbaby!*, that was real cute. 

You know what happens when you try "cute" shit like that?


You know what happens when you do stuff like this?



This is what happens :


:thelist



> yeahbaby!
> This message is hidden because yeahbaby! is on your ignore list.


Have a nice day!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ you must be fun at parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, *yeahbaby!*, that was real cute.
> 
> You know what happens when you try "cute" shit like that?
> 
> 
> You know what happens when you do stuff like this?
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens :
> 
> 
> :thelist
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day!



And you keep proving what I have been saying about you.

Thanks


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

For a bit of context on the Russian thing

After the cold war the first people to rise to power in the new Russia were people who already had outside connections

this was mostly government officials and mobsters who were largely already friends

In modern Russia there is no gap between business, crime, and the government. Russian mafia types run respected companies and human traffic on the side and while its not legal it is almost seen as acceptable because these are the same people who defined what capitalism was

Unlike the west, you can't make a big business deal in Russia without it running through the top members of Russia and you only get it if they all approve

If you are making a deal in Russia than you are also making deals with both its government and its organized crime because they are all interlaced


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you keep proving what I have been saying about you.
> 
> Thanks


Leave him to his echo chamber.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ "Echo Chamber", huh? Irony is full of Irony. 

(or is it the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?)


Liberals. Pffft!!


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *TRUMP SIGNS NASA BILL, PONDERS SENDING CONGRESS TO SPACE
> *
> BY DARLENE SUPERVILLE
> 
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump signed legislation Tuesday adding human exploration of Mars to NASA's mission. Could sending Congress into space be next?
> 
> Flanked at an Oval Office bill-signing ceremony by astronauts and lawmakers, Trump observed that being an astronaut is a "pretty tough job." He said he wasn't sure he'd want it and, among lawmakers he put the question to, Sen. Ted Cruz said he wouldn't want to be a space traveler, either.
> 
> But Cruz, R-Texas, offered up a tantalizing suggestion. "You could send Congress to space," he said to laughter, including from the president.
> 
> Trump, who faces a crucial House vote later this week on legislation long promised by Republicans to overhaul the Obama-era Affordable Care Act health law, readily agreed. The health care bill is facing resistance from some conservative members of the party.
> 
> "What a great idea that could be," Trump said, before turning back to the space exploration measure sponsored by Cruz and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
> 
> The new law authorizes $19.5 billion in spending for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the budget year that began Oct. 1. Cruz said the authorization bill is the first for the space agency in seven years, and he called it a "terrific" achievement.
> 
> Trump last week sent Congress a budget proposal that seeks $19.1 billion in spending authorization for the agency next year.
> 
> "For almost six decades, NASA's work has inspired millions and millions of Americans to imagine distant worlds and a better future right here on earth," Trump said. "I'm delighted to sign this bill. It's been a long time since a bill like this has been signed, reaffirming our commitment to the core mission of NASA: human space exploration, space science and technology."
> 
> The measure amends current law to add human exploration of the red planet as a goal for the agency. It supports use of the International Space Station through at least 2024, along with private sector companies partnering with NASA to deliver cargo and experiments, among other steps.
> 
> After signing the bill, Trump invited several lawmakers to comment, starting with Cruz. When Trump invited Vice President Mike Pence to speak, he suggested that Nelson be allowed to say a few words. Nelson traveled into space when he was in the House.
> 
> "He's a Democrat. I wasn't going to let him speak," Trump quipped, to laughter. Nelson ultimately got a chance to briefly praise his bill.
> 
> Pence also announced that Trump plans to re-launch the National Space Council, with Pence as chairman, to coordinate U.S. space policy. The council was authorized by law in 1988, near the end of the Reagan administration, but ceased to operate soon after Bill Clinton took office in January 1993.
> 
> 
> hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_NASA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-21-18-37-46



I like that NASA will be focused on space and working with the private sector space programs rather than Obama's plan to have them work on climate change and bringing science to the Middle East.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The fallout of the federal change on Climate Change will be States having to do what they can on their own. It's simply the end of federal money in an effort to balance the budget. From that perspective I'm ok with it. California is a rich enough state, maybe they can find ways to invest all that money into alternative energy sources. Might even get all those actors to chk their carbon footprints. Even if it's in an effort to oppose Trump. :mj 

It's pretty standard for GOP governments to stuff like this (even if it doesn't always succeed) when they assume power.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> . California is a rich enough state, maybe they can find ways to invest all that money into alternative energy sources. Might even get all those actors to chk their carbon footprints. Even if it's in an effort to oppose Trump. :mj


Yeah, the state that won't use wind power because they are to afraid of birds getting in the turbines. Good luck. And I doubt celebs are going to do jack. They'll likely just tell use to check out carbon footprint while doing the same shit.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Yeah, the state that won't use wind power because they are to afraid of birds getting in the turbines. Good luck. And I doubt celebs are going to do jack. They'll likely just tell use to check out carbon footprint while doing the same shit.


It's not just that. Wind Power will essentially make living unaffordable. 

Every single step that has been proposed for climate change is just more and more expenses. When you've got people who live on the streets, making life more unaffordable seems less empathic.

We're already paying for this wishful project through double-taxation. Enough is enough already.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I like that NASA will be focused on space and working with the private sector space programs rather than Obama's plan to have them work on climate change and bringing science to the Middle East.


1)Why does every Trump action have Obama's name attached to it? He's been obsessed with Obama for 5 years. Everyone knows that. But his supporters don't have to spill the same silly rhetoric. If he does something you agree with, cool. Otherwise you look just as obsessed as him by saying "yeah take that Obama!" Obama is traveling the world and going balls deep in that glorious diamond of a woman Michelle Obama every night. He don't care about ya'll.

2)Obama did focus on private sector partnerships and space exploration if you read anything about what he did and didn't do. He's said this multiple times in both terms and it's been shown multiple times. One issue that hindered more possibilities of space exploration was that they had to cooperate with Russia, and that was a situation in itself. In addition to some budget restraints that meant addition projects were not approved. Also, Obama shifted the focus from going to the Moon to going to Mars and that created a lot of mixed reactions from NASA people who wanted to explore the Moon more, and people who wanted to set their sights bigger and higher for planets like Mars.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Important video regarding NATO expansion and Russia. As far as NATO overall goes I'm not really sure on my views on it even being around but one thing I'm certainly against is it's expansion to include former Soviet Union countries. I don't see how it would benefit my countries national security let alone the US's.

Haven't been following this thread too much in the last few days. This is what happens when you are addicted to a new PS4 game :lol.

(@birthday_massacre; knows which one too :lol ).


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> Important video regarding NATO expansion and Russia. As far as NATO overall goes I'm not really sure on my views on it even being around but one thing I'm certainly against is it's expansion to include former Soviet Union countries. I don't see how it would benefit my countries national security let alone the US's.
> 
> Haven't been following this thread too much in the last few days. This is what happens when you are addicted to a new PS4 game :lol.
> 
> (@birthday_massacre; knows which one too :lol ).


Those nations want to be NATO

Russia's government routinely send threats to the former USSR regions to support Russia or else but say fuck you

After Ukraine, those nations are starting to think unless they have NATO Russia will actually send troops to "liberate them from their fascist rulers" which the Russian state sponsored media has been pushing for the last five years 

NATO is just a "money pit" for the bigger members but its the only thing keeping the smaller member alive and independent


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is it too much to hope that trump goes against his entire party and doesnt sign the net neutrality repeal?

Pisses me off on so many levels.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I really hope if that data-sale shit goes all the way to Trump he realises that his biggest supporters outside of ******** who always vote republican are young conservatives and this is an incredibly important thing to people under the age of 30.

THIS might be what I have been waiting for. The make or break legislation that will either make the republican party implode permanently, or Trump lose major support and, as the democrats embarrass themselves further, open up a huge opportunity to trash the two-party system. :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Considering that Google and Facebook, Amazon and other sites (PSN, Microsoft Store, Steam and Nintendo) already know just about everything about you, your purchasing habits, your emails, your friends, your family, where you work etc etc (and they never even needed to buy that data since we literally gave them EVERYTHING), pretty sure the net isn't neutral with regards to opportunities for other companies to capitalize on your data. 

Not that this repeal will help ISP's all that much. But at this point anyone thinking that companies that we use don't already know everything about us isn't looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Considering that Google and Facebook, Amazon and other sites (PSN, Microsoft Store, Steam and Nintendo) already know just about everything about you, your purchasing habits, your emails, your friends, your family, where you work etc etc (and they never even needed to buy that data since we literally gave them EVERYTHING), pretty sure the net isn't neutral with regards to opportunities for other companies to capitalize on your data.
> 
> Not that this repeal will help ISP's all that much. But at this point anyone thinking that companies that we use don't already know everything about us isn't looking at the bigger picture.


I know, right?

I mean...Can you explain to me what the point is?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I know, right?
> 
> I mean...Can you explain to me what the point is?


The net isn't neutral. And no government regulation is going to keep it that way.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Considering that Google and Facebook, Amazon and other sites (PSN, Microsoft Store, Steam and Nintendo) already know just about everything about you, your purchasing habits, your emails, your friends, your family, where you work etc etc (and they never even needed to buy that data since we literally gave them EVERYTHING), pretty sure the net isn't neutral with regards to opportunities for other companies to capitalize on your data.
> 
> Not that this repeal will help ISP's all that much. But at this point anyone thinking that companies that we use don't already know everything about us isn't looking at the bigger picture.


From my understanding, you agree to Google and Facebook hoarding your information and using it to direct other companies advertising to you. What the ISP's want to do is be able to directly sell all your details.

So what I gather, the difference is Google and Facebook have all your details, and use your details to make decisions themselves whereas the ISP's will be giving your details out to whoever wants to buy them.

And anyway, ISP's can see basically EVERYTHING you use the internet for. Google only has what you search through Google and use Chrome for. Facebook only has that and possibly your search history on certain browsers like Chrome.
Then again I'm not a tech-head either. But don't you pretend to be buddy, your know-it-all attitude is getting very overbearing. :mj


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846404105484546048

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846501434636075008Paul Ryan, brave outdoorsman.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Paul Ryan is Trump's worst nightmare. He should kick him to the curb....yesterday. fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Quite happy with this. Anyone thinking we're going to achieve "net neutrality" by having a government program where the FCC regulates the internet is fundamentally ignorant about the results of government programs. :lol All you ever get with government regulation is stifled innovation. Thankfully Trump's FCC chairman seems to get this, and the bill should be signed into law shortly. Hopefully we see the scaling back of the regulatory scope of many more federal departments, as Trump promised during the campaign.

Though it does tickle me to see politicians grandstand about protecting the privacy of Americans. :lol You guys have the power to lock us up practically on a whim and you've got ALL of our information, illegally, without consent. I'm far more worried about that than what a bunch of marketing companies might be able to glean from my internet history and how they might use that information to...*shudder*...TRY TO SELL ME THINGS THEY THINK I MIGHT WANT. :faint:


As for NASA, I think Stefan Molyneux described it best in a recent podcast, it's a vanity project for tech geeks with an enormous opportunity cost that actually hinders real and useful innovation and scientific progress in the only area such things are likely to occur - the private sector. I don't care about having a few astronauts take a trip to the moon or having an international space station that posts neat pictures on twitter. None of this is worth paying for. Let's get civilian shuttles and destination resorts in space, things people actually would want to pay for voluntarily that they might actually use. 






(1:11 to 9:11 for the NASA part)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Quite happy with this. Anyone thinking we're going to achieve "net neutrality" by having a government program where the FCC regulates the internet is fundamentally ignorant about the results of government programs. :lol All you ever get with government regulation is stifled innovation. Thankfully Trump's FCC chairman seems to get this, and the bill should be signed into law shortly. Hopefully we see the scaling back of the regulatory scope of many more federal departments, as Trump promised during the campaign.
> 
> Though it does tickle me to see politicians grandstand about protecting the privacy of Americans. :lol You guys have the power to lock us up practically on a whim and you've got ALL of our information, illegally, without consent. I'm far more worried about that than what a bunch of marketing companies might be able to glean from my internet history and how they might use that information to...*shudder*...TRY TO SELL ME THINGS THEY THINK I MIGHT WANT. :faint:
> 
> 
> As for NASA, I think Stefan Molyneux described it best in a recent podcast, it's a vanity project for tech geeks with an enormous opportunity cost that actually hinders real and useful innovation and scientific progress in the only area such things are likely to occur - the private sector. I don't care about having a few astronauts take a trip to the moon or having an international space station that posts neat pictures on twitter. None of this is worth paying for. Let's get civilian shuttles and destination resorts in space, things people actually would want to pay for voluntarily that they might actually use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1:11 to 9:11 for the NASA part)



You proving once again you truly have no clue what you are talking about if you think the new FCC chairman is going to make the internet better by getting rid of net neutrality.

The new FCC chairman is going to make it possible for internet providers to discriminate against any websites that don't pay up.

They will be allowed to slow down any website they want, how is that a good thing?

Regulations are for our protection but of course people like you don't think companies should have to play for any rules and should be able to do what ever they want to fuck over consumers, be able to pollute at will or put employees safety, lives or health at risk

If you had a clue you would understand the new FCC chairman is going to make the internet worse not better.

But I expect nothing less from you. Do you even understand net neutrality?


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Quite happy with this. Anyone thinking we're going to achieve "net neutrality" by having a government program where the FCC regulates the internet is fundamentally ignorant about the results of government programs. :lol All you ever get with government regulation is stifled innovation. Thankfully Trump's FCC chairman seems to get this, and the bill should be signed into law shortly. Hopefully we see the scaling back of the regulatory scope of many more federal departments, as Trump promised during the campaign.
> 
> Though it does tickle me to see politicians grandstand about protecting the privacy of Americans. :lol You guys have the power to lock us up practically on a whim and you've got ALL of our information, illegally, without consent. I'm far more worried about that than what a bunch of marketing companies might be able to glean from my internet history and how they might use that information to...*shudder*...TRY TO SELL ME THINGS THEY THINK I MIGHT WANT. :faint:


What is being stifled by preventing ISP's from selling your data to whomever they want? Surely the only thing being stifled is their profits.

Also wtf happened to the CamillePunk who was vehemently against government and corporate bodies having free access to your data? I'm pretty sure you strongly opposed the nothing to hide argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> What is being stifled by preventing ISP's from selling your data to whomever they want? Surely the only thing being stifled is their profits.
> 
> Also wtf happened to the CamillePunk who was vehemently against government and corporate bodies having free access to your data? I'm pretty sure you strongly opposed the nothing to hide argument.


When its Obama he is against it when its Trump he is all for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You proving once again you truly have no clue what you are talking about if you think the new FCC chairman is going to make the internet better by getting rid of net neutrality.
> 
> The new FCC chairman is going to make it possible for internet providers to discriminate against any websites that don't pay up.
> 
> They will be allowed to slow down any website they want, how is that a good thing?
> 
> Regulations are for our protection but of course people like you don't think companies should have to play for any rules and should be able to do what ever they want to fuck over consumers, be able to pollute at will or put employees safety, lives or health at risk
> 
> If you had a clue you would understand the new FCC chairman is going to make the internet worse not better.
> 
> But I expect nothing less from you. Do you even understand net neutrality?









Oxi X.O. said:


> What is being stifled by preventing ISP's from selling your data to whomever they want? Surely the only thing being stifled is their profits.
> 
> Also wtf happened to the CamillePunk who was vehemently against government and corporate bodies having free access to your data? I'm pretty sure you strongly opposed the nothing to hide argument.


As usual there's more to the bill than the specific issues raised by the media to dominate public discourse. The FCC should not be regulating the internet, period. The individual consequences of rolling back these regulations is not going to make me think otherwise. 

What does the "nothing to hide" argument have to do with any of this? :lol I don't believe I've ever discussed private actors having access to my internet traffic on here before, so not sure what you're talking about there either. I pay my ISP for a service, what they do with my information is between them and I. No need for the government to get involved in my economic agreements.


birthday_massacre said:


> When its Obama he is against it when its Trump he is all for it.


What is "it"? I was against Obama's net neutrality bill, and I'm glad Trump is rolling it back. How is that not perfectly consistent? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A post from me in a DesolationRow thread from over 2 years ago on this very topic: 



CamillePunk said:


> This is such an important and seemingly unknown aspect of the symbiotic relationship between governments and corporations (a term that in itself describes a legal shield given to large business owners *by the state*).
> 
> People think "Oh, without the government corporations will rule the world and we need the power of the state to keep corporations in check", when in fact with the existence of the state and it's regulations, businesses are *compelled* to petition lawmakers to pass legislation that enhances their ability to compete in the marketplace. The moral businessman in a statist society, who refuses to take advantage of his ability to influence policy via the coercive institute of the state, is a soon-to-be-out-of-businessman as his competitors turn the Leviathan against him. Without the state, the only concern of a business is the needs of it's customers.
> 
> "Net neutrality" policy will *not* ensure fair play between ISPs and their customers (as it stands, in any competitive industry all businesses involved cannot afford to try and "screw over" their customers in any way, despite anti-capitalist propaganda by the state and it's propaganda distribution wing known as the mainstream media), it'll only give a significant advantage to large established ISPs over smaller, newer, potentially more innovative competitors. And of course, as in any industry, the more competition the better the quality and the lower the price of products, which benefits consumers immensely.
> 
> It is a shame how easily and quickly politicians and their minions in the media can convince a populace that a problem exists and requires government action to resolve, where no problem truly exists - and instead that government action will only further empower the powerful, further enrich only the richest, and overall make people's lives worse.


Perfectly. Consistent.

:Will


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well, the minute Google and Facebook (and other major websites like Netflix) launched mega campaigns to push people to support Net Neutrality, I pretty much assumed that it would be bad for customers. I laugh when a mega corporation starts twisting narratives because you know they're only doing it because it benefits them in some way. And if a regulation benefits them, then that means it does nothing good for consumers. 

Here's a Forbes article from 2014 on the subject for people who were hoodwinked back then into thinking that this was a good thing: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#2d870b04dc8f



> Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies
> Jeffrey Dorfman ,
> Contributor
> 
> I use economic insight to analyze issues and critique policy.
> Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama took the time this week to pressure the Federal Communication Commission (a technically independent government agency) to issue a set of net neutrality rules that he favors. Many others with a vested interest in equal internet access for all are also joining in the game of lobbying the FCC for their preferred solution. However, all the noise and poor analogies being used cannot make the proposed net neutrality rules a good idea. Rather, it is just another attempt at government control and enforced equality in a realm where that makes little sense.
> 
> 
> Net neutrality seems like a simple concept: the company that links your computer/tablet/smartphone to the internet should not be able to discriminate among users and providers in the level of connectivity service provided. That is, we should all be able to send and receive the same number of bits of data per second.
> 
> 
> This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products.
> 
> 
> President Obama was quoted in his statement as saying that “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” Yet, oddly enough, President Obama is happy to pick winners and losers in the marketplace for energy services and ideas where he is working hard to make offshore drilling, coal, and shale oil losers while attempting to turn solar, wind, and other renewables into winners. He has similarly interfered in the auto market, both by spending billions to avoid Chrysler and GM from becoming losers and by forcing auto manufacturers to meet gas mileage standards which eliminate many possible car choices from the marketplace.
> 
> The last thing we should want is President Obama or a government agency picking winners and losers on the Internet. And enforcing net neutrality is picking winners and losers even if it looks like it is just “leveling the playing field.” He may think it is not, but it completely blocks certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth. The key point that President Obama has missed along with all the rabid supporters of net neutrality is that ISPs and the companies that control the Internet backbone infrastructure that knits everything together do not have the power to pick winners and losers either. Consumers decide what products and services are successful because we adopt them. If an ISP blocks Netflix NFLX +0.78% because of the bandwidth it requires, consumers who want Netflix will take their business elsewhere. If enough people do so, the ISP will have to change policies or go out of business.
> 
> 
> As the former chief economist for the FCC, Thomas Hazlett, pointed out this week in _Time_, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter TWTR -0.33%, LinkedIn LNKD +% (and many, many more success stories of innovation) all emerged without the benefit of net neutrality. In the time when the government might have been ensuring a level playing field for the Internet pipe into our homes, smartphones and mobile devices completely changed how most people connect to and use the Internet.
> 
> 
> The problem with government regulation of the Internet is that by the time the government studies how it works and what is needed, technology has moved on. Who believes that the government can write a regulation that will still fit the bill in three years when none of us know what the dominant formats, companies, and technology will be that far in advance? Given that the FCC has been proposing net neutrality rules for a decade with little success, why would we expect a change anytime soon?
> 
> 
> Also, we need to stop the poor analogies about net neutrality. Neil Irwin, in _The New York Times_, says it is like deciding whether Internet connections should be like electricity or cable television. His idea is that we all get the same electric service (net neutrality), but can pay for different levels of cable tv. Yet, in many places people pay for different electric service. In California (and other places), customers can get a lower rate if they agree to let the electric utility turn off their air conditioner during peak usage hours.
> 
> 
> That is actually the exactly the sort of thing net neutrality supporters want to prevent. Yet, both parties win: the customer saves money in exchange for a short period of discomfort and the utility saves money by avoiding increases in peak generating capacity. Why would the government allow such an option in the more tightly regulated electricity market where there is almost always a single choice of service provider, yet not allow the same thing for Internet access where most people have multiple providers from which to choose?
> 
> 
> More choices are good for consumers. We win from having multiple flavors of ice cream in the store. We benefit from the large variety of cars available for purchase. The fact that most people cannot afford some of those models does not mean they should be removed from sale. Similarly, the fact that some businesses or consumers may choose to pay for better access to the Internet is not a bad thing. Some people pay more to fly first class, but they do not interfere with my travel in coach.
> 
> 
> As long as the government enforces the antitrust laws and ensures that consumers can choose among methods and providers for how they connect to the Internet, consumers can pick winners and losers by voting with their time, their eyeballs, and their dollars. No government needed, thank you very much.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










It was a good day. :sleep

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well, the minute Google and Facebook (and other major websites like Netflix) launched mega campaigns to push people to support Net Neutrality, I pretty much assumed that it would be bad for customers. I laugh when a mega corporation starts twisting narratives because you know they're only doing it because it benefits them in some way. And if a regulation benefits them, then that means it does nothing good for consumers.
> 
> Here's a Forbes article from 2014 on the subject for people who were hoodwinked back then into thinking that this was a good thing:
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#2d870b04dc8f


it is bad, and if you dont see that, then you are grossly misinformed. Its just funny how its you that is being hoodwinked into thinking its bad because you dont understand what net neutrality really is. 




CamillePunk said:


> A post from me in a DesolationRow thread from over 2 years ago on this very topic:
> 
> Perfectly. Consistent.
> 
> :Will





CamillePunk said:


> This is such an important and seemingly unknown aspect of the symbiotic relationship between governments and corporations (a term that in itself describes a legal shield given to large business owners *by the state*).
> 
> People think "Oh, without the government corporations will rule the world and we need the power of the state to keep corporations in check", when in fact with the existence of the state and it's regulations, businesses are *compelled* to petition lawmakers to pass legislation that enhances their ability to compete in the marketplace. The moral businessman in a statist society, who refuses to take advantage of his ability to influence policy via the coercive institute of the state, is a soon-to-be-out-of-businessman as his competitors turn the Leviathan against him. Without the state, the only concern of a business is the needs of it's customers.
> 
> "Net neutrality" policy will *not* ensure fair play between ISPs and their customers (as it stands, in any competitive industry all businesses involved cannot afford to try and "screw over" their customers in any way, despite anti-capitalist propaganda by the state and it's propaganda distribution wing known as the mainstream media), it'll only give a significant advantage to large established ISPs over smaller, newer, potentially more innovative competitors. And of course, as in any industry, the more competition the better the quality and the lower the price of products, which benefits consumers immensely.
> 
> It is a shame how easily and quickly politicians and their minions in the media can convince a populace that a problem exists and requires government action to resolve, where no problem truly exists - and instead that government action will only further empower the powerful, further enrich only the richest, and overall make people's lives worse.




You were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

Without net neutrality ISPs will be able to slow down websites they don't agree with, or websites that don't pay the fees they want them to pay. How is it a good thing where ISP can charge companies more money to make their sites faster and the ones that won't pay the fee or that go against their views slower?

This will also fuck over newer or start up companies that can pay the fees to compete with their already established companies that pay those fees.

Comcast already fucked up netflix once when they were renegotiating their contracts and they slowed down their streaming service. 


I always love how conservatives act like things that will fuck over the little guy actually help the little guy when it does nothing of the sort.

I think its funny you think its a good thing that ISPs should be able to slow down internet speeds for companies based on if they pay their extra fees or not.

LOL at conservatives.

But what am I not surprised, you are the same people who think corporations shoudl be allowed to pollute rivers and streams too and not making safe working envroments for workers because who needs regulations.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So this kid in Israel who made all those bomb threats and stuff, he started doing it during the Obama administration (in 2015) and kept doing it for the next two years. The investigation was not given a high priority by the Obama DOJ. The media didn't give two shits either.

:trump wins the election and suddenly anti-semitic threats are a huge media story not just in the US but around the world. With :trump being blamed of course.

:trump takes office and a few weeks ago he ordered the FBI to make identifying and capturing the perpetrator a high priority, according to Israeli police sources talking to the Haaretz newspaper in Israel. 

The culprit is caught less than a month after :trump told the FBI to get off its duff and solve the case.

That :trump , such a Nazi. Took him less than a month to do what Obama couldn't be bothered to do in 2 years.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> From my understanding, you agree to Google and Facebook hoarding your information and using it to direct other companies advertising to you. What the ISP's want to do is be able to directly sell all your details.


Every single company in America has the ability to do just that. Your insurance providor. Yup. Can sell your details. Your phone company. Yup. Credit cards. Yup. 

This is a common practice that has been established since time immemorial. What they're not allowed to sell is your social security and that's about it. Everything else is available for purchase - INCLUDING all your public records. Including your criminal history. 



> So what I gather, the difference is Google and Facebook have all your details, and use your details to make decisions themselves whereas the ISP's will be giving your details out to whoever wants to buy them.


Google and Facebook also sell your information. They sell it to their advertisers that's why they're able to advertise to you directly on facebook and google. 



> And anyway, ISP's can see basically EVERYTHING you use the internet for. Google only has what you search through Google and use Chrome for. Facebook only has that and possibly your search history on certain browsers like Chrome.


You're conflating private browsing with the information that an ISP can sell. The ISP only wants to use your information to advertise their own products to you in order to give themselves a level playing field. They don't want to sell your porn browsing habits to anyone. And even if they did, how is that harmful and how does that make you a victim of anything? You do realize that every single company that has your information on the net has the right to sell it to someone else. Why is it of any particular extra harm if it's your ISP that wants to do the same thing? All it really will result in is you as a consumer potentially being made aware of better ISPs in your area since this information will most likely to be sought after by competitors as well. 



> Then again I'm not a tech-head either. But don't you pretend to be buddy, your know-it-all attitude is getting very overbearing. :mj


You're not a tech-head, and yet you think I'm "pretending" to be one even though I clearly have more information on this subject than you do. :mj4


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It seems to me that liberals see the internet and the use of it as yet another "I want to use it, therefore it's a RIGHT and I'm entitled to all these protections regarding it, SIC 'EM GOV'MENT" issue, just like healthcare and private bathrooms. I wonder how long it'll be before Bernie Sanders or some politician like him is demanding everyone get free internet service.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I mean realistically, this probably won't do too much right now. If you've ever been on facebook or something, the majority of ads you see are based on things which you happen to like, because they have your information there already. 

With this though, that doesn't mean I like it even though not much will happen. Although a ton of information which you put out on the internet is already readily available, now basically ALL of it is. And I don't really see much consumer benefit, other than probably making more complicated to pick an ISP, and I can't see it becoming cheaper or anything really. I could be wrong, but why would this change anything ISPs do already? They know they can get people to pay pretty heavy amounts for speeds that sometimes can be considered rather poor, depending on location, so if they know people will pay that, they won't change anything unless their forced. 

I'm also skeptical because this also means they could pass future legislation in the coming years that compromises more. And this is what worries me the most.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I mean realistically, this probably won't do too much right now. If you've ever been on facebook or something, the majority of ads you see are based on things which you happen to like, because they have your information there already.
> 
> With this though, that doesn't mean I like it even though not much will happen. Although a ton of information which you put out on the internet is already readily available, now basically ALL of it is. And I don't really see much consumer benefit, other than probably making more complicated to pick an ISP, and I can't see it becoming cheaper or anything really. I could be wrong, but why would this change anything ISPs do already? They know they can get people to pay pretty heavy amounts for speeds that sometimes can be considered rather poor, depending on location, so if they know people will pay that, they won't change anything unless their forced.
> 
> I'm also skeptical because this also means they could pass future legislation in the coming years that compromises more. And this is what worries me the most.


You guys are viewing this as adding regulation when it's removing regulation and ending duplication and simply adding your own ISP (that already has everything about you) to the already very large list of people who are buying and selling your data all over the internet. When it comes to actual privacy, the laws are all intact and you're in no more danger of losing your privacy today as you were yesterday. There's also no slippery slope with this that I can see. Maybe you're seeing something I'm missing?


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You guys are viewing this as adding regulation when it's removing regulation and ending duplication and simply adding your own ISP (that already has everything about you) to the already very large list of people who are buying and selling your data all over the internet. When it comes to actual privacy, the laws are all intact and you're in no more danger of losing your privacy today as you were yesterday. There's also no slippery slope with this that I can see. Maybe you're seeing something I'm missing?


No you're mostly right, there isn't much too this other than making the ISP on an even playing field as facebook/google when it comes to using your data. If there's anything else, I'd have to read the actual bill itself to figure that out

My main concern stems from this being passed relatively easily. This piece of legislation doesn't do too much to change day to day internet usage, but I hope they don't start getting any crazy ideas and do any more changes to the internet as a whole. Like for example, having sites like google, facebook, and general social media having the biggest cadence and the best overall loading speeds versus a forum like this for example, which could be slowed considerably. When we get to that point, then I'll be very annoyed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> No you're mostly right, there isn't much too this other than making the ISP on an even playing field as facebook/google when it comes to using your data. If there's anything else, I'd have to read the actual bill itself to figure that out
> 
> My main concern stems from this being passed relatively easily. This piece of legislation doesn't do too much to change day to day internet usage, but I hope they don't start getting any crazy ideas and do any more changes to the internet as a whole.* Like for example, having sites like google, facebook, and general social media having the biggest cadence and the best overall loading speeds versus a forum like this for example, which could be slowed considerably. When we get to that point, then I'll be very annoye*d.


The bolded part is why we need to protect net neutrality. If the net neutrality rule that Obama implemented is repealed, that is exactly what is going on happen. Huge sites will pay to have their internet sped up or kept the same where as sites that don't pay like this one will be slowed down.

Anyone who claims that will not be the case is lying to you or doesnt know what they are talking about.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> No you're mostly right, there isn't much too this other than making the ISP on an even playing field as facebook/google when it comes to using your data. If there's anything else, I'd have to read the actual bill itself to figure that out
> 
> My main concern stems from this being passed relatively easily. This piece of legislation doesn't do too much to change day to day internet usage, but I hope they don't start getting any crazy ideas and do any more changes to the internet as a whole. Like for example, *having sites like google, facebook, and general social media having the biggest cadence and the best overall loading speeds versus a forum like this for example, which could be slowed considerably. When we get to that point, then I'll be very annoyed*.


That was a purely hypothetical fear that was never even in any danger of happening. The ISPs would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that because people will switch to ISPs that won't do it. 

Market takes care of itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That was a purely hypothetical fear that was never even in any danger of happening. The ISPs would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that because people will switch to ISPs that won't do it.
> 
> Market takes care of itself.


You are so grossly misinformed it's not even funny. It already happened with Comcast and Netflix.

Comcast was slowing down Netflix until Netflix paid them more money.

But sure it was just a coincidence Netflix was super slow on comast during these negations and it did not speed up again until netflix agreed to pay them more.

And no people won't switch when they are all doing it which they will.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are so grossly misinformed it's not even funny. It already happened with Comcast and Netflix.
> 
> Comcast was slowing down Netflix until Netflix paid them more money.
> 
> But sure it was just a coincidence Netflix was super slow on comast during these negations and it did not speed up again until netflix agreed to pay them more.
> 
> And no people won't switch when they are all doing it which they will.


So you favor Netflix getting favorable treatment by the government and not Comcast? How do you decide? And you never even realize this. 

So sad.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So you favor Netflix getting favorable treatment by the government and not Comcast? How do you decide? And you never even realize this.
> 
> So sad.


Only in the eyes if people like you is everyone getting treated the same (not having their speeds slowed down until they pay more) is getting favorable treatment LOL

How is making sure every internet company keeps every websites loading speed the same favorable treatment?

You are using the same stupid logic conservatives use when they claim its favorable treatment of gay people to allow them to get married.

its not favorable treatment to make sure comcast does not have to pay more to get the same loading speeds as everyone else.

You think it should be ok for an ISP to charge someone more to not slow down their loading speeds?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Only in the eyes if people like you is everyone getting treated the same (not having their speeds slowed down until they pay more) is getting favorable treatment LOL
> 
> How is making sure every internet company keeps every websites loading speed the same favorable treatment?
> 
> You are using the stupid stupid logic conservatives use when they claim its favorable treatment to allow against to get married.


Because in the long term the ISPs that tried to choke Netflix and other companies would have resulted in a long term market correction where in order to compensate other ISPs would have offered better services. 

This is exactly why food, electronics and all highly competitive industries continue to drove consumer costs down. 

When was the last time egg farmers created a cartel and decided that they're all going to charge everyone 5 bucks for a dozen eggs. It doesn't happen because competition doesn't allow it to happen. 

The ISPs would not have formed a cartel as there's smaller ISPs that would have gotten a chance to step in and prevent it from happening. 

But you have no understanding of how business works. You're just another cog in the wheel and why you're not am entrepreneur.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That was a purely hypothetical fear that was never even in any danger of happening. The ISPs would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that because people will switch to ISPs that won't do it.
> 
> Market takes care of itself.


My problem if all of the biggest ISPs collectively went down that path, but I mean that most likely wouldn't happen because one company would always choose not to to boost their sales. 

I'll hope you're right though. Still feel uneasy about this, but I'm trying to keep level-headed which is a huge improvement from how I used to see this sort of stuff :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

All I care about is that people listen even if they don't change their minds


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Because in the long term the ISPs that tried to choke Netflix and other companies would have resulted in a long term market correction where in order to compensate other ISPs would have offered better services.
> 
> This is exactly why food, electronics and all highly competitive industries continue to drove consumer costs down.
> 
> When was the last time egg farmers created a cartel and decided that they're all going to charge everyone 5 bucks for a dozen eggs. It doesn't happen because competition doesn't allow it to happen.
> 
> The ISPs would not have formed a cartel as there's smaller ISPs that would have gotten a chance to step in and prevent it from happening.
> 
> But you have no understanding of how business works. You're just another cog in the wheel and why you're not am entrepreneur.


Your logic makes zero sense and what you are saying is simply not true. You are the one who does not know how business works. 

Once ISPs are allowed to slow down websites based on what that site pays them, those sites will be forced to pay those fees and once other ISPs see they can make more money doing the same thing they will follow suit. That is business works not the fairytale world you live in where things get cheaper .

Things don't get cheaper they get more expensive.




Dr. Middy said:


> My problem if all of the biggest ISPs collectively went down that path, but I mean that most likely wouldn't happen because one company would always choose not to to boost their sales.
> 
> I'll hope you're right though. Still feel uneasy about this, but I'm trying to keep level-headed which is a huge improvement from how I used to see this sort of stuff :lol


it would happen and it will happen. Why would one company miss out on all the extra money they can make because all the other companies are doing it. Not to mention with ISPs its basically a monopoly at this point, and you cant even get every ISP in every area. In some areas you only have one choice.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your logic makes zero sense and what you are saying is simply not true. You are the one who does not know how business works.
> 
> Once ISPs are allowed to slow down websites based on what that site pays them, those sites will be forced to pay those fees and once other ISPs see they can make more money doing the same thing they will follow suit. That is business works not the fairytale world you live in where things get cheaper .
> 
> Things don't get cheaper they get more expensive.


They were able to do it for almost 10 years before the law was passed. YouTube launched in 2005 not 2014 and yet it was never an issue till Google created one out of thin air in order to get regulation favoring them.

Streaming sites were around well before this. 

Competition was preventing them from doing it and it will continue to prevent it from happening. It's an irrational phobia based on not understanding market dynamics.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your logic makes zero sense and what you are saying is simply not true. You are the one who does not know how business works.
> 
> Once ISPs are allowed to slow down websites based on what that site pays them, those sites will be forced to pay those fees and once other ISPs see they can make more money doing the same thing they will follow suit. That is business works not the fairytale world you live in where things get cheaper .
> 
> Things don't get cheaper they get more expensive.


I get what Reaper is saying though. It would be a really unlikely scenario for all the ISPs to agree to the same parameters with throttling speeds for certain sites while keep popular ones fast, because most likely there will always be one company who wouldn't do it. That company would be the ISP that everybody would then flock to because of less regulation on speeds, which everybody would favor more. That company could also make even more money that the ISPs with speed regulations.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did you know that Google's net neutrality propaganda exists till to date that even when their own servers experience problems they give you the ISP data throttling page despite the fact that laws exist to prevent exactly that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> They were able to do it for almost 10 years before the law was passed. YouTube launched in 2005 not 2014 and yet it was never an issue till Google created one out of thin air in order to get regulation favoring them.
> 
> Streaming sites were around well before this.
> 
> Competition was preventing them from doing it and it will continue to prevent it from happening. It's an irrational phobia based on not understanding market dynamics.


It's not a phobia when it already happened and netflix paid up to not have their service slowed down.




Dr. Middy said:


> I get what Reaper is saying though. It would be a really unlikely scenario for all the ISPs to agree to the same parameters with throttling speeds for certain sites while keep popular ones fast, because most likely there will always be one company who wouldn't do it. That company would be the ISP that everybody would then flock to because of less regulation on speeds, which everybody would favor more. That company could also make even more money that the ISPs with speed regulations.


Don't say I did not warn you. You are living a pipe dream if you think IF and that is a big IF one company did not do it, everyone would flock to them. That simply would not happen. And again that is IF that provider is even provided in your area.

ISPs have been colluding for these, and if a tiered internet speed ever came out, all the ISPs would adopt it, don't kid yourself they wouldn't.

If they can make more money by charging websites more to have their sites sped up, or not slowed down, they are going to do it.

Also tell me.

So are you going to tell me if wrestling forum (or some indie webiste you like) was slow on comast that you would drop them for verizon to have it run normal?

Even if on comast google, netflix, facebook and other major sites that paid those fees ran extra fast but on verizon it ran normal?

I highly doubt it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not a phobia when it already happened and netflix paid up to not have their service slowed down.


And Netflix paying extra hurts you how? If Netflix charge you higher (which they raised prices even with net neutrality laws in place), I didn't see anyone complain.

Keeping costs low was one of the driving forces behind net neutrality and clearly thru didn't keep their promise as they were never going to.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are so grossly misinformed it's not even funny. It already happened with Comcast and Netflix.
> 
> Comcast was slowing down Netflix until Netflix paid them more money.
> 
> But sure it was just a coincidence Netflix was super slow on comast during these negations and it did not speed up again until netflix agreed to pay them more.
> 
> And no people won't switch when they are all doing it which they will.


So, none of this is correct.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/



> Did Netflix, the self-anointed champion of Net neutrality and higher broadband speeds, deliberately cause an Internet slowdown for its own subscribers?
> 
> *New research from computer scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis shows that, as its traffic increased in the last two years, Netflix forced it through clogged delivery routes, when less congested channels were available.*
> 
> The scientists concluded the data “strongly suggest that the correct response to growing congestion” was for Netflix to use different connections for its traffic, not for Comcast to add capacity. This corroborates Comcast’s argument that “Netflix has not been honest.”
> 
> *Evidence also suggests that, at the same time Netflix allowed congestion to increase until it affected performance, Netflix published misleading data casting the blame on Comcast.
> 
> This one-two punch prompted Netflix subscribers to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to adopt policies supposedly designed to reduce congestion but that were actually aimed at lowering Netflix’s costs of doing business. In other words, Netflix first gamed the network, and then the policymakers themselves.*
> 
> Here’s how Netflix did it. In June 2012, Netflix launched a “content delivery network” or “CDN” service to stream video to Internet providers. CDNs are basically middlemen that specialize in carrying large volumes of traffic across the backbone of the Internet. Netflix said it hoped to shift most of its traffic from its existing routes to its new CDN.
> 
> *But Netflix wasn’t telling the whole story. It recently admitted that in early 2012 it also began shifting its traffic onto what are called “settlement free” routes for delivery to Comcast’s network. These “settlement free” routes were cheaper for Netflix, but lacked flexibility and capacity. Netflix knew this decision, entirely within its own control, was degrading its own subscribers’ service. Predictably, the settlement-free routes Netflix chose were overwhelmed by Netflix’s enormous streaming volume.*
> 
> According to Comcast and the MIT and CAIDA scientists, Netflix could have eliminated the congestion overnight by shifting traffic to uncongested routes on which Comcast had capacity. This would have solved the service problem, but would have cost Netflix some of the profits it was saving by avoiding commercial CDNs.


I'm not sure why people who are so anti-corporation give corporations like Netflix the benefit of the doubt. :lol They lied because they couldn't handle their own user demand so they started taking shortcuts to save money and then blamed the ISP for the degraded service, and then started supporting legislation that would make them even more money at the expense of ISPs. This is what corporations do, game the system to enrich themselves - just like Bernie always talked about, Netflix isn't some grand exception of moral purity because they have shows you like. :lol 

It's interesting how liberals will side with and believe a corporation if their narrative happens to support expanding government power though. :mj Very interesting indeed. 

Here's a similar report: https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

So yeah, the nightmare scenario of ISPs extorting content providers and slowing down your traffic because someone else paid a higher price just wasn't happening. The public got hoodwinked by greedy corporations and a power-hungry regulatory state, as usual.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Don't say I did not warn you. You are living a pipe dream if you think IF and that is a big IF one company did not do it, everyone would flock to them. That simply would not happen. And again that is IF that provider is even provided in your area.
> 
> ISPs have been colluding for these, and if a tiered internet speed ever came out, all the ISPs would adopt it, don't kid yourself they wouldn't.
> 
> If they can make more money by charging websites more to have their sites sped up, or not slowed down, they are going to do it.


I mean, if that ever does happen, realistically there's jack shit I could do about it, which does suck. Here's hoping something like that remains unfeasible and doesn't happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> So, none of this is correct.
> 
> http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/
> 
> I'm not sure why people who are so anti-corporation give corporations like Netflix the benefit of the doubt. :lol They lied because they couldn't handle their own user demand so they started taking shortcuts to save money and then blamed the ISP for the degraded service, and then started supporting legislation that would make them even more money at the expense of ISPs. This is what corporations do, game the system to enrich themselves - just like Bernie always talked about, Netflix isn't some grand exception of moral purity because they have shows you like. :lol
> 
> It's interesting how liberals will side with and believe a corporation if their narrative happens to support expanding government power though. :mj Very interesting indeed.
> 
> Here's a similar report: https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
> 
> So yeah, the nightmare scenario of ISPs extorting content providers and slowing down your traffic because someone else paid a higher price just wasn't happening. The public got hoodwinked by greedy corporations and a power-hungry regulatory state, as usual.


yeah that is why it just so happened during the time they were in negotiations with comast then once they signed the deal the speeds spiked up again. And you think comast was not slowing them down LOL
then why did netlfix pay more if they did not have to

Come on dude.





Dr. Middy said:


> I mean, if that ever does happen, realistically there's jack shit I could do about it, which does suck. Here's hoping something like that remains unfeasible and doesn't happen.


Its gong to happen but dont say I did not warn you.

But dont just listen to people on a message board, do your own research and make your own decision. There is tons of info out there.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I mean, if that ever does happen, realistically there's jack shit I could do about it, which does suck. Here's hoping something like that remains unfeasible and doesn't happen.


It won't happen. Just like it hasn't happened in the food, clothing, electronics, phone and many other industries. It'll remain competitive.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its gong to happen but dont say I did not warn you.
> 
> But dont just listen to people on a message board, do your own research and make your own decision. There is tons of info out there.


I'm somewhere in the middle when it comes to this. But in general, I'm basically a cenrist who _slightly _leans liberal, and I used to be a lot more liberal. 

This thread just provides some nice insight onto the libertarian and conservative sides of arguments, which I don't get from many people I know.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is why it just so happened during the time they were in negotiations with comast then once they signed the deal the speeds spiked up again. And you think comast was not slowing them down LOL
> then why did netlfix pay more if they did not have to
> 
> Come on dude.


The article, backed by MIT research, explains it perfectly, you just aren't capable of understanding it. :draper2


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It won't happen. Just like it hasn't happened in the food, clothing, electronics, phone and many other industries. It'll remain competitive.


I'm just hopefully assuming everything says the same.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> The article, backed by MIT research, explains it perfectly, you just aren't capable of understanding it. :draper2


Ignore the facts all you want. If netflix did not have to pay more they would not have.




Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just hopefully assuming everything says the same.


it wont, if it was going to stay the same there would not be this huge fuss over overturn net neutrality.

But when sites start getting slowed down that cant afford to pay the fees, remember this thread.

I just think its funny reaper and cam are against making sure every website is loading at the same speed


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just hopefully assuming everything says the same.


If there's money to be made it'll get better.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> it wont, if it was going to stay the same there would not be this huge fuss over overturn net neutrality.
> 
> But when sites start getting slowed down that cant afford to pay the fees, remember this thread.
> 
> I just think its funny reaper and cam are against making sure every website is loading at the same speed


I don't think they don't care about that, rather that they just think that the chance of it happening is so low, and that realistically it wouldn't happen in the current market.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If all consumers were fully informed and rational there would be no problem and they'd just flock to the "good isp", the problem is neither of those things are true, hence Apple's existence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I don't think they don't care about that, rather that they just think that the chance of it happening is so low, and that realistically it wouldn't happen in the current market.


But it is going to happen that is why ISPs are fighting so hard to make sure net neutrality is struck down.

last thing ill say on this.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I don't think they don't care about that, rather that they just think that the chance of it happening is so low, and that realistically it wouldn't happen in the current market.


I for one don't care. If there's an influencer in the market then there is always a response. 

For example there was a huge hooplah over the diabetes drug that had a huge price hike. Well the market responded with pushing generics and now a new competitor launched in Feb. 

Boom. Market correction. Always more efficient and effective than any bullshit the government does.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Every single company in America has the ability to do just that. Your insurance providor. Yup. Can sell your details. Your phone company. Yup. Credit cards. Yup.


Not comparable to an ISP.



> This is a common practice that has been established since time immemorial. What they're not allowed to sell is your social security and that's about it. Everything else is available for purchase - INCLUDING all your public records. Including your criminal history.


Not comparable to an ISP.



> Google and Facebook also sell your information. They sell it to their advertisers that's why they're able to advertise to you directly on facebook and google.


Not comparable to an ISP.



> You're conflating private browsing with the information that an ISP can sell. The ISP only wants to use your information to advertise their own products to you in order to give themselves a level playing field. They don't want to sell your porn browsing habits to anyone. And even if they did, how is that harmful and how does that make you a victim of anything? You do realize that every single company that has your information on the net has the right to sell it to someone else. Why is it of any particular extra harm if it's your ISP that wants to do the same thing? All it really will result in is you as a consumer potentially being made aware of better ISPs in your area since this information will most likely to be sought after by competitors as well.


What is "private browsing"? Using a VPN to encrypt your internet usage is about as "private" as you get. As of right now, ISPs can see every website you go to if they want to look at it. And after they repeal this, they'll sell any of it they want.

There is a HUGE difference between your insurance provider "selling off" your information, compared to an ISP "selling off" your data. Your insurance company needs your details, and they can sell that shit if they please, sure, whatever.

Do they know the websites you visit? Do they know what you use the internet for? Can they trace your IP back to websites like www.wrestlingforum.com and see you called someone a mean name and made a joke in rants?

Some people might be concerned that the ISPs will sell your odd fetish porn history off to some weird group of people who want to know peoples' names, but that isn't my concern. I don't care if Hollywood marketing agents find out I like trannies.

No one would give out their porn history or even some of their hobbies like pro wrestling to an insurance company because they value at least a little bit of privacy. The idea that an ISP hoards this information because they can is a worry to some people but ultimately doesn't concern most because we know _they have no reason to look into it_. And if it is repealed then they have every reason to.



> You're not a tech-head, and yet you think I'm "pretending" to be one even though I clearly have more information on this subject than you do. :mj4


Yes, because like I told you before, there's some point where people have to look at how you supposedly know more about everyone else here about almost everything and question which of those you actually do know, or are just mirroring talking points from who you listen to. :jericho2

The fact you said this: "*The ISP only wants to use your information to advertise their own products to you in order to give themselves a level playing field*" makes me think you really don't, though, because they can already do that since they hoard the information themselves.

If Verizon wanted to advertise Verizon to you then they can do it because they have your details. The difference is a company being able to sell ALL of YOUR details as THEY see fit. The difference is an insurance company only needs your personal details and some contact info, whereas ISPs can sell literally anything you use your internet connection for.

And I don't see how anyone who supports Trump can actually support this shite anyway. Less power to the people. The house of representatives not representing their constituents, rather being bribed by corporations. Thus more power to corporations, more government corruption, and another massive step in further cementing the United States Corporatocracy.



CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that liberals see the internet and the use of it as yet another "I want to use it, therefore it's a RIGHT and I'm entitled to all these protections regarding it, SIC 'EM GOV'MENT" issue, just like healthcare and private bathrooms. I wonder how long it'll be before Bernie Sanders or some politician like him is demanding everyone get free internet service.


Disappointed I woke up to Reaper responding to me but no CamillePunk response on me calling out his vehement opposition to wrecking privacy. :hmm:


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I for one don't care. If there's an influencer in the market then there is always a response.
> 
> For example there was a huge hooplah over the diabetes drug that had a huge price hike. Well the market responded with pushing generics and now a new competitor launched in Feb.
> 
> Boom. Market correction. Always more efficient and effective than any bullshit the government does.


Guess that makes sense :shrug. 

We're always gonna be on opposite sides when it comes to the government though :lol I'm too tired to go into that can of worms.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So someone catch me up, what's been going on the last day or so? Haven't been checking up


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ignore the facts all you want. If netflix did not have to pay more they would not have.


I literally posted the facts, you're just repeating Netflix's side of the story as if it is fact. :lol Netflix paid more because they had more traffic than they could connect to Comcast's network without taking shortcuts that degraded their service (and saved them money). The internet isn't magic, there are capacity constraints and hardware involved, all of which requires someone paying for. Why should Comcast pay more money to help out Netflix's traffic issues? They're not responsible for making sure all of Netflix's users get served, that's Netflix's problem, which is why Netflix had to fork over the money to solve the issue. There was no extortion or intentional "slow-down" involved.


Oxi X.O. said:


> Disappointed I woke up to Reaper responding to me but no CamillePunk response on me calling out his vehement opposition to wrecking privacy. :hmm:


I did respond, you had no idea what you were talking about as usual.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I did respond, you had no idea what you were talking about as usual.


If you agree with me I'm gonna give you a like! But if you don't, buddy you don't know what yer talking about. :trump3

Where? I didn't get a notification.

Nvm I found it :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> If you agree with me I'm gonna give you a like! But if you don't, buddy you don't know what yer talking about. :trump3
> 
> Where? I didn't get a notification.
> 
> Nvm I found it :mj


Had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. You brought up bizarre arguments that had nothing to do with this issue and ascribed positions to me that I've never expressed. I think I'm being generous to say you had no idea what you were talking about rather than just saying you're intellectually dishonest and frankly not very smart, which would be closer to the truth. There was no need for me to be rude, though.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. You brought up bizarre arguments that had nothing to do with this issue and ascribed positions to me that I've never expressed. I think I'm being generous to say you had no idea what you were talking about rather than just saying you're intellectually dishonest and frankly not very smart, which would be closer to the truth. There was no need for me to be rude, though.


Nah I remember a few years back there being a discussion on government surveilling internet activity to which you were (rightfully) totally against. Being an anarchist and all. Right? I mean you might see it as different since it's a non goverment body, but I see it as all too similar. You can calm down on the condescension for a little while can't you buddy?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Nah I remember a few years back there being a discussion on government surveilling internet activity to which you were (rightfully) totally against. Being an anarchist and all. Right? I mean you might see it as different since it's a non goverment body, but I see it as all too similar. You can calm down on the condescension for a little while can't you buddy?


I'm against the government existing so clearly I'm against government surveillance. 

There is no similarity between that and this issue, at all. Let me know when Comcast has the power to steal your money, lock you up, and kill you if you resist. Then I might see a similarity or two.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @glenwo2 @Beatles123 @Vic Capri






Looks like CNN's Jim Acosta is about to lose the "real beauty" status that Teflon Don Juan mockingly bestowed upon him.

:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LUMPY THAT VIDEO IS 2 WEEKS OLD AND WAS POSTED BACK THEN 

Not mad though because seeing Lauren Southern's face is just :kobe6


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm against the government existing so clearly I'm against government surveillance.
> 
> There is no similarity between that and this issue, at all. Let me know when Comcast has the power to steal your money, lock you up, and kill you if you resist. Then I might see a similarity or two.


They have the power to bribe politicians with measly amounts of money. And companies are working together to monopolise.

Slippery slope. :mj

Government > corporate rule btw. And the free market is a MYTH.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> They have the power to bribe politicians with measly amounts of money. And companies are working together to monopolise.
> 
> Slippery slope. :mj


Indeed, which is a very good argument AGAINST expanding the power of the state to include more internet regulation. Glad to see we're on the same page. 



> Government > corporate rule btw.


Government _is_ corporate rule. Corporations are constructs of the state. Businesses really have no choice but to become corporations and use the power of the state against their competitors in order to survive. If they don't, others will, hence I'm against a state. Read my post I quoted when I established my consistency on this issue after you and BM erroneously challenged it by making stuff up like the non-serious charlatans you are, where I described the symbiotic relationship between corporations and the state.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> LUMPY THAT VIDEO IS 2 WEEKS OLD AND WAS POSTED BACK THEN
> 
> Not mad though because seeing Lauren Southern's face is just :kobe6


My bad. :serious: Been busy due to my grandmother's health issues and I only just heard about her going independent a few days ago, as well as Tomi Lahren being axed from The Blaze.


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oxi Clinton


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Not comparable to an ISP.


It is because your entire argument is based on what you think you know about how much your ISP actually knows. 



> Not comparable to an ISP.


It is because your entire argument is based on what you think you know about how much your ISP actually knows. 




> Not comparable to an ISP.


It is because your entire argument is based on what you think you know about how much your ISP actually knows. 

In fact, FB and Google know far more about you than your ISP does because the vast majority of websites you visit - especially password protected sites are completely hidden from your ISP. 



> What is "private browsing"? Using a VPN to encrypt your internet usage is about as "private" as you get. As of right now, ISPs can see every website you go to if they want to look at it. And after they repeal this, they'll sell any of it they want.


No. They don't see the vast majority of websites you go to. They see data packets. And once you're on any https:// site the ISP is practically blind. Almost all websites now employ They have a general idea of where you might have gone and which site you might have seen depending on the IP addresses all that information from the original servers is passing through. But that's all data and not information 




> There is a HUGE difference between your insurance provider "selling off" your information, compared to an ISP "selling off" your data. Your insurance company needs your details, and they can sell that shit if they please, sure, whatever.


No there isn't. There isn't much the ISP even knows about you. 



> Do they know the websites you visit? Do they know what you use the internet for? Can they trace your IP back to websites like www.wrestlingforum.com and see you called someone a mean name and made a joke in rants?


You're over-exaggerating how much your ISP even knows about you. 



> Some people might be concerned that the ISPs will sell your odd fetish porn history off to some weird group of people who want to know peoples' names, but that isn't my concern. I don't care if Hollywood marketing agents find out I like trannies.


You're also not getting the point of this law at all. Right now Pornhub can sell your personal information. Your ISP that you're using to access pornhub cannot. How is your privacy protected just because your ISP can't sell it and Pornhub can?



> No one would give out their porn history or even some of their hobbies like pro wrestling to an insurance company because they value at least a little bit of privacy. The idea that an ISP hoards this information because they can is a worry to some people but ultimately doesn't concern most because we know _they have no reason to look into it_. And if it is repealed then they have every reason to.


People who own wrestlingforum can sell your information of what you do on WF, but your ISP can't. The law should either be universally applicable one way or the other. Since you're a registered user on WF, therefore it uses encryption to prevent your ISP from knowing it's you. @one of the mods to clarify this please. 



> Yes, because like I told you before, there's some point where people have to look at how you supposedly know more about everyone else here about almost everything and question which of those you actually do know, or are just mirroring talking points from who you listen to. :jericho2


I always admit that I don't know certain things when I don't and I don't comment on them either. What the hell is going through your head with this nonsense anyways? There are some things that I requote on the forum and I indicate where I got them from and sometimes I will do 20-30 minutes of study before commenting on something and sometimes I will continue to research and gain more knowledge as I get deeper into a topic. 

You sound petty with this bullshit "know-it-all" BS so cut it out. 



> The fact you said this: "*The ISP only wants to use your information to advertise their own products to you in order to give themselves a level playing field*" makes me think you really don't, though, because they can already do that since they hoard the information themselves.


No they can't. They're not allowed to. That was the whole point of reversing this legislation. 



> If Verizon wanted to advertise Verizon to you then they can do it because they have your details. The difference is a company being able to sell ALL of YOUR details as THEY see fit. The difference is an insurance company only needs your personal details and some contact info, whereas ISPs can sell literally anything you use your internet connection for.


Do you know how much an insurance company actually knows about you because you give them your SS? Look it up. You'll be surprised. 



> And I don't see how anyone who supports Trump can actually support this shite anyway. Less power to the people. The house of representatives not representing their constituents, rather being bribed by corporations. Thus more power to corporations, more government corruption, and another massive step in further cementing the United States Corporatocracy.


The only reason why I support this is because this is deregulation of an existing regulation.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Pastor Imprisoned In Turkey On False Charges Pleads For Help From Trump*
> 
> Where is the outrage? In a story largely ignored by the mainstream media, an American pastor has been detained by the Turkish government after living there for over twenty years.
> 
> Pastor Andrew Brunson and his wife had pastored a Christian church in the city of Izmir in the country of Turkey. They were arrested in October 2016 initially for immigration violation charges. Mrs. Brunson was released, but the Turkish government has held Andrew and has bumped up the charges to terrorism. The Turkish government has offered no evidence of terrorism, but is saying Brunson is connected to Fethullah Gulen. Cleric Gulen is self-exiled in Pennsylvania.
> 
> In court, prosecutors have produced no evidence of any connection betwen Brunson and Gulen, or to any other known terrorists, for that matter.
> 
> Originally, the Turkish government had Brunson in solitary confinement, but has since moved him to the general population of the prison.
> 
> According to The Daily Caller, Pastor Brunson has written a letter to President Donald Trump begging for help from his country. The letter was published by the American Center For Law and Justice (ACLJ).
> 
> “I plead with my government — with the Trump Administration — to fight for me,
> 
> Will the Turkish government face no consequence for stubbornly continuing to hold an American citizen as a political prisoner?
> 
> (The) Turkish government has produced no proof and has rebuffed numerous attempts by the American government to secure my return to the United States.
> 
> In fact they are treating the US government with contempt and paying no price for it.”
> 
> I plead with my government — with the Trump Administration — to fight for me. I ask the State Department to impose sanctions. I appeal to President Trump: please help me. Let the Turkish government know that you will not cooperate with them in any way until they release me. Please do not leave me here in prison.”
> 
> Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, has openly called Brunson a terrorist and has even claimed that he was behind a coup in July. Once again, there is no evidence that confirms this accusation.
> 
> In a statement, the ACLJ has called on the Trump Administration to help, stating, "The U.S. government must take a more active role in fighting for Pastor Andrew’s release. He has done nothing wrong. He is a U.S. citizen wrongfully imprisoned in a foreign land because of his Christian faith. He deserves to be free.”
> 
> The ACLJ asked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to get involved and discuss Brunson’s case with Erdogan when he meets with him in Ankara on Thursday.
> 
> The State Department has not yet confirmed if they will bring this circumstance up during the meeting.
> 
> When U.S. Marine reservist Sgt. Andrew Paul Tahmooressi was detained in Mexico on a false gun running charge for seven months, the Obama Administration did nothing. They sat on their hands and let an American citizen suffer at the hands of a foreign government. Only after the media picked up the story did the former administration take action.
> 
> Now an American pastor is being held on made-up charges in Turkey. Turkey has used their state-run media to spread propaganda against him.
> 
> Let us hope that history does not repeat itself and Pastor Brunson will be allowed to return home.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/14907...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

This hasn't been getting much of any mainstream attention. He's been arrested since October, so roughly 5-6 months have gone by and no ones really talking about it. I wonder if this even reaches Trump, let alone if he'll help the guy


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Indeed, which is a very good argument AGAINST expanding the power of the state to include more internet regulation. Glad to see we're on the same page.


Are we really calling legislation preventing ISPs from selling your data "internet regulation"? 

Either way, I think you are wrong. People are inherently infinitely more critical of the government than they are business. Government introducing or changing legislation gets way more eyes and ears than a business doing something people don't like. You believe the free market corrects itself, and even if that were wholly true, it's not as easy as ousting a politician when voting time comes around.



> Government _is_ corporate rule. Corporations are constructs of the state. Businesses really have no choice but to become corporations and use the power of the state against their competitors in order to survive. If they don't, others will, hence I'm against a state. Read my post I quoted when I established my consistency on this issue after you and BM erroneously challenged it by making stuff up like the non-serious charlatans you are, where I described the symbiotic relationship between corporations and the state.


So then, we agree on corporatocracy existing? How is it we come to completely different finishing points? I know you hate all gubment mister anarchist, but surely you believe a government can exist without bending over to money.

Are the ISPs that collectively worked together using the power of the state against each other, or are they using corruption to work together? :hmmm

Glad you were able to not be a condescending child for one post though, good effort. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Are we really calling legislation preventing ISPs from selling your data "internet regulation"?


That's not what the legislation is about and I already went over that. If you aren't going to show any sign that you're comprehending my points and you're not going to ask for clarification on things you don't understand then I'm going to stop engaging you. That is merely a potential effect of the legislation. 



> Either way, I think you are wrong. People are inherently infinitely more critical of the government than they are business. Government introducing or changing legislation gets way more eyes and ears than a business doing something people don't like. You believe the free market corrects itself, and even if that were wholly true, it's not as easy as ousting a politician when voting time comes around.


I don't know what point you're even responding to here. 



> So then, we agree on corporatocracy existing? How is it we come to completely different finishing points? I know you hate all gubment mister anarchist, but surely you believe a government can exist without bending over to money.


Yes we live under a corporatist economic system. I've argued that many times on here for years. I'd prefer free market capitalism, which is not at all what we have. I'm not anti-government due to some irrational hatred. I'm anti-government because I believe voluntary interactions are good and involuntarily interactions are bad, and apply that rule universally. I don't care what kind of different governments can exist, they all require force and thus I'm against it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

America is an oligarchy ... (and honestly with the Bushes and Clintons, sometimes feels like a monarchy masquerading as a democracy). There is absolutely no free market capitalism going on here in any industry. Everything is tied down through a very intricate network of regulations, subsidies, restrictions that keep the market from achieving its full potential and correcting itself the best that it can if there was no government interference. 

I've cited several examples of how the market attempts to correct itself, but as long as the government and lobbying exists, we'll never be a laissez faire economy.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> your entire argument is based on what you think you know


And you know everything. :jericho2



> No. They don't see the vast majority of websites you go to. They see data packets. And once you're on any https:// site the ISP is practically blind. Almost all websites now employ They have a general idea of where you might have gone and which site you might have seen depending on the IP addresses all that information from the original servers is passing through. But that's all data and not information


A secure connection doesn't stop your ISP from knowing what websites you go to. It might encrypt it but like you said yourself, if they want to know they'll find out. And when you let them want to know, then guess what? They'll find out.
Furthermore not all that many websites have a secure connection. This site doesn't. 4chan doesn't. Generally I would assume websites people go to that they don't necessarily want advertisers to know about, don't use a secure connection.



> No there isn't. There isn't much the ISP even knows about you.


Again, what's stopping them? The only thing stopping them is not encryption. It's the fact they don't need to know. As soon as they can make money off of it they're going to want to know.



> You're over-exaggerating how much your ISP even knows about you.


No I am not. I am saying they can know if they want. And making money will make them want.

Think about it this way. For them to harvest all the data they can about their users, they'd have to spend money on a fairly expensive automated system to mine the data and sort it. Right? So why would they spend the money if they get nothing from it? So once you give them a way to make, let's use arbitrary figures, $100,000,000 through this data, they're going to spend $1,000,000 on this automated system.



> You're also not getting the point of this law at all. Right now Pornhub can sell your personal information. Your ISP that you're using to access pornhub cannot. How is your privacy protected just because your ISP can't sell it and Pornhub can?
> 
> People who own wrestlingforum can sell your information of what you do on WF, but your ISP can't. The law should either be universally applicable one way or the other. Since you're a registered user on WF, therefore it uses encryption to prevent your ISP from knowing it's you. @one of the mods to clarify this please.


Like I said:
Pornhub knows what you let Pornhub know.
And Google knows what you let Google know (which is pervasive enough but I can accept it since it's a free service and you can actually see where the money goes for some of it).

VerticalScope, Pornhub, all of these lone sites are like roadside traders hundreds of years ago. You might get what you want but who the fuck cares when there's a market city (ISPs) where you can probably just get EVERYTHING?




> No they can't. They're not allowed to. That was the whole point of reversing this legislation.


They can't advertise their own products to you, or they can't hold the information? They can advertise to you, because they do. And regarding holding information I'm gonna need a source on that shit. :cudi




> Do you know how much an insurance company actually knows about you because you give them your SS? Look it up. You'll be surprised.


They probably shouldn't, but at least they have better reason than "we just want all the browsing history we can possibly get to... advertise to you...".




> The only reason why I support this is because this is deregulation of an existing regulation.


So this is all just about reducing power of the government because they can't be trusted, we can do better without them, they ruin everything kind of deal, then? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc?


I want you to tell me in one paragraph (keep it direct) why you think this deregulation is good and why of all companies in the world, ISP companies should have the right to sell your info.


edit: I don't know if it's the forum or my internet (SHADY) fucking up right now but I probably won't respond until the pages stop fucking up.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> And you know everything. :jericho2


Either accept or refute what I say. Your entire argument previously was based on assuming all the thangs the ISP already knows about you and that point I was refuting that you seem to think they know more than they do. 



> A secure connection doesn't stop your ISP from knowing what websites you go to. It might encrypt it but like you said yourself, if they want to know they'll find out. And when you let them want to know, then guess what? They'll find out.


Actually it does. ISP's know which connections you're using, they don't know where you're going. Of course, they can find out specifics if they really wanted to - and in the case of criminals they already do that. ISP's have been instrumental in the many crackdowns on child pornographers and pedophiles as they will cooperate with homeland security. It is, however, really up to the company as well. Some companies like the big ones may want to convert this information and profit off of it (the ones that are part of this bill) and others might not. 

The thing is, it's there, potentially accessible to them if they wanted. ANd that's fine. However, what's been missing throughout this discussion is this very important bit of information here:



> “The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers,” she explained. “That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that. They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. They have traditionally been our nation’s primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it.”
> 
> ...
> 
> “What the Obama administration did – and I will say they did this against this, against the wishes of a lot of Democrats – they reclassified your Internet service as Title II, which is a common carrier classification. It is the rule that governs telephone usage,” Blackburn responded. “Those rules were put on the books in the thirties. So what the Democrats did, and this was pushed by the White House in the last administration, they reclassified Internet, which is an information service, as a telephone service, and then put those 1930s-era rules on top of your Internet service.”
> 
> “They did that so they could tax it, so they could begin to regulate it. Then one of the additional regulations – which is going to cost money for compliance and paperwork and additional bureaucrats – one of those regulations is privacy. But as we say, the authority that they need to oversee broadband is already articulated in Section 222 of the Communications Act,” she said.
> 
> “You don’t need another layer of regulation. It’s like flashing alerts: We don’t need net neutrality. We don’t need Title II. We don’t need additional regulations heaped on the Internet under Title II. The Internet is not broken. It has done just fine without the government controlling it. That’s the way it should stay,” she contended.


 Quoted from Marsha Blackburn directly. So basically, we've been getting outraged over nothing (and I myself admit that I didn't have complete information on this). But it seems like the deregulation has been from one agency, meanwhile another is still around to protect our privacy. She makes it sound like a redundancy in the existed regulations have been decreased - and people seem to be drumming up hysteria over nothing. 

And if that turns out to be right, then all of our discussions have been for nought. 



> Furthermore not all that many websites have a secure connection. This site doesn't. 4chan doesn't. Generally I would assume websites people go to that they don't necessarily want advertisers to know about, don't use a secure connection.


Here is another issue that you're giving into alarmism over. I don't understand why all of these websites that already have your data are perfectly ok and that you're using the iSP to access them is ok, but all of a sudden advertisers, marketing agencies and your ISP itself is something you don't want compiling that data? Don't agencies already exist that are already doing it to the best of their ability anyways. 



> Again, what's stopping them? The only thing stopping them is not encryption. It's the fact they don't need to know. As soon as they can make money off of it they're going to want to know.


At the moment the laws and lack of financial incentive is stopping them. Some are still keeping logs, some aren't. It really depends on the ISP at this point. Maybe some have already had this infrastructure in place and were just waiting for the deregulation. 



> No I am not. I am saying they can know if they want. And making money will make them want.


Well at first you were saying that they already knew. 



> Think about it this way. For them to harvest all the data they can about their users, they'd have to spend money on a fairly expensive automated system to mine the data and sort it. Right? So why would they spend the money if they get nothing from it? So once you give them a way to make, let's use arbitrary figures, $100,000,000 through this data, they're going to spend $1,000,000 on this automated system.


I'm pretty sure some have already put in the money considering they lobbied for the deregulation so that they can get the early movers advantage. However, what I want to know is the final impact of this data collection and selling. How does it negatively impact people and outside of "they _could _do nefarious things", what are the negative impacts? As far as doing illegal things are concerned ISP's are already helping law enforcement agencies anyways. So how is this worse? 



> Like I said:
> Pornhub knows what you let Pornhub know.
> And Google knows what you let Google know (which is pervasive enough but I can accept it since it's a free service and you can actually see where the money goes for some of it).
> 
> VerticalScope, Pornhub, all of these lone sites are like roadside traders hundreds of years ago. You might get what you want but who the fuck cares when there's a market city (ISPs) where you can probably just get EVERYTHING?


That makes no sense at all because marketing agencies are already doing a great job of direct marketing even without the ISP selling the data. What I really think is going to happen is that it is entirely possible that the ISPs might be over-estimating the worth of the data they have - or they're just happy squeezing that little bit extra. In essence it doesn't matter if it's a bunch of separate websites that are selling your data, or if it's an ISP selling all your data because your data is being sold and that is still the part of this argument that you're not understanding. It does not make it any worse than it already is simply because it's your ISP that's doing it. I don't know how marketing agencies work, but if I had to guess, I'd probably simply collect IP addresses from say a pool of regularly visited websites, sort the data by IP and find out where one particular user went. 



> They can't advertise their own products to you, or they can't hold the information? They can advertise to you, because they do. And regarding holding information I'm gonna need a source on that shit. :cudi


What? We're talking about them selling your information and one of the previous law stated that they couldn't sell it. The deregulation simply means that they can sell it now without your permission (they could sell it before by asking for your permission) It was after I made that comment that I realized that they can also sell it to advertisers and that would be of interest to competitors as well. And even after that that I realized that there are redundancies and there are still privacy laws in place (though as I pointed out, I'm still continuing to learn about this stuff. 



> They probably shouldn't, but at least they have better reason than "we just want all the browsing history we can possibly get to... advertise to you...".


And there comes the paranoid alarmism. I can't really address that. They can use your data for anything. They can sell it to advertisers. Use it themselves. Attract marketing agencies to advertise directly to customers through them. Give it to the NSA. Give it to whomever they want. Guess what happens when they do that? 

I've been with my ISP for 3 years. If they had any nefarious intentions with me or my data, something would have come up by now. Worrying and conjecturing about corporates getting involved in shady business with customer information is Alex Jones's forte, not mine. 



> So this is all just about reducing power of the government because they can't be trusted, we can do better without them, they ruin everything kind of deal, then? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc?


Yes. 



> I want you to tell me in one paragraph (keep it direct) why you think this deregulation is good and why of all companies in the world, ISP companies should have the right to sell your info.


I have been nothing but direct. The simplest answer to this is why not? Why out of all the companies in the world are you so much more afraid of your ISP?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Why out of all the companies in the world are you so much more afraid of your ISP?


Speaking for myself here, the difference between my ISP and say... the people who sell the icecream I like is that the people who sell the icecream I like don't have access to the porn I look at or the people I talk to.

Now telephone companies do have access to my private personal information, and going by your article from earlier in the thread all this regulation did was extend the protections that had been in place to stop telephone companies sharing your information without your permission since the 30s to internet companies. 

This seems perfectly reasonable. 

Different types of companies have different levels of information about their consumers and should have different levels of privacy regulation applied as such. 

Now seeing as you oppose these regulations for internet companies, and all they did was extend the same protections that have been in place for telephone companies, do you oppose those regulations for telephone companies? 

And if not, then what's the difference? Why should internet companies have lower levels of privacy regulation than telephone companies?


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I feel a bit sad agreeing with the Trumpers but I really couldn't care less about this Privacy change, my information is pretty much out there for everyone anyway, I had an ex-directory phone number still got cold called, still get spammed all the time on emails. Maybe I'll get more adverts for anal babes or whatever but I really don't mind.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Pratchett @RipNTear


http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/03/29/audit-fed-bill-advances-house/



> Somewhere in Texas, former Congressman Ron Paul is smiling knowing that his long-held push to audit the Federal Reserve may finally become a reality.
> The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform passed Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) bill to audit the Fed by voice vote after roughly 30 minutes of debate.
> 
> Auditing the Fed has been a dream for libertarian-leaning Republicans for decades, and a bill demanding more transparency passed the House overwhelmingly in 2012, but stalled after President Obama told Congress he would veto the legislation and Harry Reid refused to let it come to a vote in the Senate.
> President Trump said during his campaign that he’d be willing to sign the legislation if it passed Congress.
> Some Democrats in the committee opposed the bill because it would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve.
> “It is ironic that the arsonists that caused the financial collapse are now being given credit…for putting out the fire,” Massie said in response to the criticism from Democrats. “Almost every macroeconomist concedes in retrospect that [the Fed’s] extended period of easy money led to the financial crisis.”
> Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, and if it passes the House in full floor vote, he will look to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to help win over some Democrats


Well done that man Thomas Massie!

Soon it will be down to Rand and the Senate I reckon. This is perhaps the best chance of actually getting Audit the FED through both chambers we've ever had.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress, which was fairly drawn up to be the first branch of government by Article I of the American Constitution, @L-DOPA. The momentum exists, the political will is evident... It would seem as though the Republicans are on the two-yard line with four chances to punch it in.

I will sit in the stands expecting the usual fumble.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> It was a good day. :sleep
> 
> - Vic


Totally gonna take my political advice from Deuce Bigalow.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Death.
To.
Globalism.

Imma' keep saying it and yall'll keep goin' "WHAT DOES HE MEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN????" :trump3


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





My god this hilarious 






At this point CNN is The Onion


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> Totally gonna take my political advice from Deuce Bigalow.


But is he wrong?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @L-DOPA; @Miss Sally 












> THE MISLEADING CLAIM: A free market is WHY healthcare costs are rising so high. Government is the solution.
> 
> THE REALITY: It's a myth that we had free market healthcare. The government has been distorting healthcare markets for decades, thereby significantly contributing to higher prices. Government is not the solution, it's the problem.
> 
> Medicaid and Medicare became law after President Johnson signed the amendments to the Social Security Act in 1965. They then took effect in 1966. [a] When examining inflation, this also happens to be when medical care costs began significantly diverging from other living expenses, rapidly inflating faster than overall CPI. * [c] You can see this for yourself in the attached chart. This is due, in large part, to the expansion of demand WITHOUT an equal expansion in supply. As Milton Friedman concluded in his 1992 research paper "Input and Output in Medical Care," "The federal government’s assumption of responsibility for hospital and medical care of the elderly and the poor provided a fresh pool of money, and there was no shortage of takers." [d] He observed three notable stages regarding medical care prices.
> 
> Stage One:
> After the birth of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, precursors to modern health insurance, Friedman observed the following: From 1929-1940, cost per patient day was indeed rising, but it only rose MODESTLY. [d] It wasn't alarming, as the average of ALL things were also rising modestly, including wages.
> 
> Stage Two:
> After the birth of employer sponsored healthcare, which today is the most common way citizens receive "private market" health insurance, Friedman observed that "cost per patient day tripled from 1946 to 1965." [d]
> 
> Stage Three:
> After the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965-1966, which significantly subsidized healthcare spending, Friedman observed that "cost per patient day then multiplied a further EIGHTFOLD." [d]
> 
> The point? The birth of private market health insurance wasn't in and of itself the driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs. Having it tied to your employer moderately contributed to the rise in prices, likely because it added one new layer of bureaucracy to the process, but it too wasn't the PRIMARY cause. What truly and most SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to sky rocketing prices was the government's policy of broadly subsidizing healthcare via the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> Let's back up and walk through each step to see what went wrong.
> 
> BIRTH OF MODERN HEALTH INSURANCE:
> 
> • Blue Cross - In the 1930s, hospitals banded together via the AHA (American Hospital Association) to offer groups of employees "pre-paid" plans, agreeing to give them X number of days in the hospital in exchange for Y amount of dollars a month. This operated as a non-profit and was therefore not taxed, unlike traditional commercial insurance companies. [e]
> 
> • Blue Shield - Physicians, seeing the growing popularity of Blue Cross, feared they'd lose autonomy over their practices if hospitals expanded into their services, and thus banded together via the AMA (American Medical Association) to offer groups of employees "pre-paid" physician services, similar to the Blue Cross plans. [e]
> 
> For decades, traditional insurance firms had shied away from offering health insurance since they feared it wasn't actuarially sound [e], but the aforementioned non-profit models seemed to work because they stuck to employed individuals, naturally avoiding the elderly who are both retired AND the most expensive to care for. All that was needed now, for this new model to be cemented, was an unnatural spike in demand for this particular type of health insurance which was specifically tied to groups of employed people.
> 
> UNNATURAL GROWTH IN DEMAND:
> 
> "Because much of America’s work force was off fighting World War II, the Roosevelt administration feared that the domestic demand for workers would outpace labor supply, leading to a spiral of higher wages and runaway inflation." [y] "To combat inflation, the 1942 Stabilization Act was passed. [x] "The 1942 law mandated wage ceilings for a broad range of occupations, and required federal approval for any changes thereof. ...But fringe benefits, such as health insurance, were not covered under the 1942 wage controls. As a result, many employers started offering health benefits as a way around the new federal wage limits. This loophole gained further strength when, in 1943, a federal court held that employer-sponsored health insurance was exempt from taxation." [y] Then, Congress passed a comprehensive revision of the federal tax code in 1954 which "officially excluded employer-sponsored health insurance from taxation." [y] As a result of this tax-free form of compensation, "the demand for [employer-sponsored] health insurance further increased throughout the 1950s (Thomasson 2003)." [e]
> 
> Ideologically, those who favor reduced taxation may be thinking "but making it tax free sounds good!" While that's understandable, let's clarify that the danger isn't necessarily in the tax free status but the unnatural incentive created when only ONE form of compensation is allowed to be tax free. In other words, to avoid unnaturally incentivizing the growth of this or any other insurance model, it would have been preferential to have all forms of compensation taxed in the same way, even if it meant reducing all tax rates in order to tax the insurance benefits without seeing a net increase in overall tax burden. Whatever the course of action, for the price mechanism to work as it does in most functioning industries, markets must be crafted from the organic and natural feedback of consumers, NOT the inorganic and unnatural feedback resulting from government taxing one form of compensation but not another. The government, without realizing it, accidentally incentivized the widespread adoption of employee-sponsored health insurance, which destroyed any business incentive to create a functioning private health insurance model which catered to ALL individuals, since now, the only individuals left in the individual pool were unemployed, disabled, and retired (the elderly).
> 
> Then came the most significant distortion to the healthcare market ever. In 1965-1966, Medicare and Medicaid were implemented, subsidizing health insurance for millions. This was no small change. By 2015, while employer-based insurance covered approximately 55.7% of the population and directly purchased insurance (not through an employer) covered only 16.3%, Medicaid had grown to cover around 19.6% of the population and Medicare another 16.3%. (With an additional 4.7% for military coverage.) [f] Note, the reason these figures add up to more than 100% is because some individuals are “Dual eligible beneficiaries," enrolled in both Medicare AND Medicaid. [g] That means roughly 40%  of the healthcare industry buys from one customer: the government. This is important not only because it represents a massive surge in demand, which means higher prices if supply isn't drastically increased, but because it gives the government enormous power over suppliers. They can, and do, underpay while pushing responsibility onto us. "Payment rates for Medicare and Medicaid, with the exception of managed care plans, are set by law rather than through a negotiation process as with private insurers. These payment rates are currently set below the costs of providing care resulting in underpayment." [h] In the aggregate, both Medicare and Medicaid payments fall below costs. See examples below:
> 
> • Combined underpayments were $51 billion in 2013. This includes a shortfall of $37.9 billion for Medicare and $13.2 billion for Medicaid. [h]
> 
> • For Medicare, hospitals received payment of only 88 cents for every dollar spent by hospitals caring for Medicare patients in 2013. [h]
> 
> • For Medicaid, hospitals received payment of only 90 cents for every dollar spent by hospitals caring for Medicaid patients in 2013. [h]
> 
> • In 2013, 65 percent of hospitals received Medicare payments less than cost, while 62 percent of hospitals received Medicaid payments less than cost.
> 
> That means costs are shifted away from Medicare and Medicaid as hospitals charge the privately insured inflated prices to make up for the shortfall. Of course the government only gets away with this thievery BECAUSE it's the government.
> 
> THE SHORTAGE IN SUPPLY:
> 
> Around 1969, the number of prospective physicians applying for residency training began to out pace the number of offered residency positions, which only increased slightly. [j] This gap continued to widen significantly over the last several decades. Today, we have a significant shortage of physicians and it's expected to get much worse. The AAMC estimated that the number of physicians per capita will decrease in the next decade if we don’t train more doctors. [k] Only 17.6% of all hospitals are "teaching hospitals." [k] This makes it difficult to train new physicians quick enough to react to the supply shortage, since no physician can practice without first completing residency training. [k] This is why the AAMC projects that, by 2025, we'll have a 46,100 – 90,400 shortage of physicians, further compounding the problem of increased demand with restricted supply. [k]
> 
> "Over half a century ago, Milton Friedman examined the political economy of occupational licensing. He recognized that regulating the professions was not really intended to promote the public interest. Instead, it was demanded by the members of a profession to promote their economic interests. In essence, members of an occupation recognize that fees, prices, wages, and income cannot rise above the competitive level without attracting entry, which expands supply and thereby causes fees and income to decline." [L] Licensing physicians limits entry, curtails supply, increases fees, and reduces the quantity of physician services offered. [L] As a result, those who continue to consume those services are made worse off by higher prices, but perhaps more importantly, some consumers will go without..." [L]
> 
> Milton Friedman and Simon Kuznets, who each won the Nobel Prize in economics, argued that "the difference in ease of entry reflects a deliberate policy to limit the total number of physicians to prevent so-called overcrowding of the profession." [m] Friedman and Kuznets attribute the deliberate restrictions of supply to the AMA and its Council on Medical Education. (Friedman 1998). [m] This restriction in supply is exacerbated by the aforementioned subsidization/expansion of demand. Anytime demand is artificially increased while supply artificially decreased, prices skyrocket. This is exactly what we've experienced.
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> Let's envision a hypothetical America where nutritionists were long ago gifted the power - via legislation - to prescribe each of our meals. You'd be free to pay them for permission to access food, but only the food they recommended for you (and little more). Run through the mock history of this fictitious "food-care" industry while paralleling it to the healthcare industry. Instead of the "affordable care act," envision the "affordable feeding act" which mandated that everyone sign up for monthly pre-paid feeding plans, whether they wanted it or not. Prior to that, envision the implementation of massive government feeding programs, titled "Foodicare" and "Foodicaid," designed to give millions of individuals free access to the aforementioned pre-paid feeding plans. Prior to that, envision that these monthly pre-paid feeding plans were the only form of untaxed compensation, and firms therefore began offering them in lieu of dollars, as a way to save on employment costs. Remember that, under this scenario, there would also be a massive shortage of nutritionists, despite the government mandating widespread demand for them, pushing prices sky high. Of course this all sounds preposterous, since we all know that no such "food-care" industry is needed for 300 million U.S. civilians to readily access food. But the same is true about medical care, yet people forget how unnatural our healthcare system is and act like healthcare wouldn't be accessible if not for the government. The truth is, it's only become prohibitively expensive BECAUSE the healthcare market has been severely harmed through government meddling. It wasn't natural for us to go down this route. Misguided Government policies took us here. Since WWII, our healthcare industry has NOT been the result of free market policies. It has NOT been an accumulation of consumer choices. It is NOT a failed capitalist experiment. It is - quite literally - a failed FASCIST experiment, where the government colluded with a limited group of private enterprises, burdened entities via costly regulation, unnaturally created the dominant form of employer-sponsored, bureaucratically heavy insurance we see today, controlled the market by forcing individuals to purchase a product they then forced others to offer, while subsidizing more than a third of purchases via taxation. Bureaucracy expanded. Demand shot up. Supply was constrained. The results have been tragically indefensible, and it's the government's fault. Get them out of the healthcare business!
> ----------------------
> Sources:
> [a]
> https://www.medicareresources.org/basic-medicare-information/brief-history-of-medicare/
> 
> 
> U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Medical Care [CPIMEDSL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL, March 26, 2017.
> 
> [c]
> U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items [CPIAUCSL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL, March 26, 2017.
> 
> [d]
> http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/other_commentary/Stanford.01.01.1992.pdf
> 
> [e]
> http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneil...1-25/1.2 thomasson health insurance in us.pdf
> 
> [f]
> https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.pdf
> 
> [g]
> https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Ed..._Beneficiaries_Dual_Eligibles_At_a_Glance.pdf
> 
> [h]
> http://www.aha.org/content/15/medicaremedicaidunderpmt.pdf
> 
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/095.pdf
> 
> [j]
> http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/9B6576225E874669A71834248F665B5B.ashx
> 
> [k]
> https://www.aamc.org/download/428616/data/20150401_projbriefingppt.pdf
> 
> [L]
> http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1728&context=facultypub
> 
> [m]
> http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=up_press
> 
> [x]
> https://www.griffinbenefits.com/
> 
> [y]
> https://m.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ons-is-better-than-obamacares/?c=0&s=trending*


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:lmao I watched the salad dressing one this morning :lmao.

Mark Dice is great if anything for pointing out the lunacy of the Democrats, the mainstream media and the authoritarian leftists. He isn't particularly great himself in terms of when he projects his own political views but my god is he good at tearing apart the leftists and also RINO's like John McCain.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/14955/freedom-caucus-slams-trump-after-trump-bashes-them-hank-berrien



> Thursday, after President Trump ripped the conservative Freedom Caucus on Twitter, threatening “we must fight them” because they stood up for conservative principles and derailed his healthcare plan, one Freedom Caucus member and another GOP House member who supports them struck back with a vengeance, noting that Trump’s campaign promises to “drain the swamp” were precisely the reverse of what had eventuated.
> 
> Trump prompted the fiery responses with this:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847435163143454723
> Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) of the Freedom Caucus struck back less than an hour later:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847448570081005568
> Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is not in the Freedom Caucus but often aligns with them, tweeted at Trump at precisely the same time as Amash:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/47448896708108290
> If Trump thought his bullying tactics were going to force conservatives to back down, he was disabused of that notion on Thursday.


Sorry Trump supporters, the freedom caucus are correct with this one.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That was very dumb of Trump. You can attack the Democrats all you want, but attacking people in your own party is a big no no. Those Freedom members seats are set. They don't have to worry about losing their spots in the next election. All you're doing now is making it harder to get your legislation passed through the House and creating un-necessary division in your own party. 

He can't bully his way through people in politics the way he can in business. When will he learn.:francis


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I agree with Liner and Dopa on this. Trump's failure with the ACA was trying to appease democrats who will oppose him on ideological grounds. His attempts to do so will consistently backfire. The solution is to unify his party which is in the majority and not try to create a coalition with the opposition. He shouldn't need to considering that Republicans are more likely to work with him than Democrats at this point. 

I posted soon as Rand Paul was frozen out of Ryancare that it was not going to pass. Republicans are underestimating the fact that at this point the Freedom Caucus is make or break for his government. He needs to get them on board and make compromises towards their ideas if he has any hopes of getting any of the big issue bills to pass.


----------



## dewberry

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I agree with @L-DOPA @Headliner and @DripNTear on this. Donald Trump is a ****** idiot.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



dewberry said:


> I agree with @L-DOPA @Headliner and @DripNTear on this. Donald Trump is a ****** idiot.


how does an idiot become president, become a billionaire? :hmmm


----------



## dewberry

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> how does an idiot become president, become a billionaire? :hmmm


Idiots voting for him? Also wtf "become a billionaire" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> how does an idiot become president, become a billionaire? :hmmm


Trump's daddy gave him the money. And idiots became president before, just look at GW Bush.

And you honestly dont think Trump is worth 10 billion like he claims do you? He is lucky to be worth even one billion.


----------



## dewberry

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's daddy gave him the money. And idiots became president before, just look at GW Bush.
> 
> And you honestly dont think Trump is worth 10 billion like he claims do you? He is lucky to be worth even one billion.


He'd be worth many many many many more dollas if he had just invested his pappy's money in ANY index fund instead of trying to swing his tiny dik around :surprise: with Russian mobsters LMAO!!!!!!:ghost:ghost:ghost


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> That was very dumb of Trump. You can attack the Democrats all you want, but attacking people in your own party is a big no no. Those Freedom members seats are set. They don't have to worry about losing their spots in the next election. All you're doing now is making it harder to get your legislation passed through the House and creating un-necessary division in your own party.
> 
> He can't bully his way through people in politics the way he can in business. When will he learn.:francis


All he knows is attack attack attack the people who even think about opposing you, regardless of who they are or where they come from - that's clear as day by now.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is quickly reaching a crossroads in his presidency. At the moment he is shockingly at a point where, if he is not careful, he is going to alienate both the populist and libertarian wings of the Republican Party. 

Trump's own positions are largely those championed by the Republicans' moderate center-left, like the Tuesday Group. Except he brandishes his views bombastically, often via twitter. 

Setting himself up to fight the Freedom Caucus over the spilled milk of not replacing the Obamacare boondoggle with Paul Ryan's boondoggle is a mistake. Ryancare had almost no support whatsoever outside of the Ryan-shepherded "Better Way" neocons and typical mainline jellyfish Republicans. Populists despised it; libertarians loathed it. 

If Trump is going to back something up at the expense of making enemies he better be sure that that which he is supporting is even remotely popular. 

From a purely political standpoint, Trump would be better off returning to the ideals he championed in his own book _The Art of the Deal_. He effectively said that he was a conservative on myriad matters but a liberal on healthcare and he argued on behalf of single-payer "universal healthcare." 

If he wanted to get into the middle of the street and tussle with Rand Paul, Justin Amash and company over healthcare he should have outflanked most Republicans on the issue and tried to appeal to as many Democrats and moderate-left Republicans as he could. Then stand with the Freedom Caucus on tax cuts (not saying that reducing taxes and implementing universal healthcare make any fiscal sense when paired together, but just speaking purely politically; it's evident that the national debt is not going to be paid down anytime soon so that will have to be resolved through other, perhaps more dramatic means). 

Going up against the libertarian wing of the GOP while merely attempting to apply several massive band-aids to Obama's corporatist healthcare scheme modeled on the Heritage Foundation's late-'80s, early-'90s concoctions was a major miscalculation. Populists are looking forward to restructured trade with China; the Freedom Caucus is generally in agreement with Trump's budget proposals and they, like the populists, want America's entire immigration project considerably altered. The Ryan-spearheaded mushy "Better Way" branch will be disinterested in seeing the battles over trade and immigration won, so appeasing it with Ryancare was always a political error.

Wanted to believe, ever so briefly, that Trump was playing a game with the objective of flushing Ryan out after Ryancare's defeat which never quite happened only because the writing was so indelibly on the wall the bill was pulled. All signs now, however, point to Trump being sincere in his attempts to see Ryancare passed. 

Beyond doing the right thing for the U.S., it would appear that the people immediately surrounding Trump are, at best, unaccustomed to achieving victories in the hazardous and perilous game of politics. The Freedom Caucus is to the right of Trump on immigration in terms of actual concrete policy, opposing DACA while Trump retains it. Ryan and his associates will doubtless be too timid in support of Trump's budget sent to Congress, while the Freedom Caucus will champion almost everything about it, save perhaps some spending proposals. And while Trump stands against the Freedom Caucus on, say, trade, he could use the caucus as a powerful ally for now before working with Democrats and moderate Republicans on matters like the aforementioned trade. Throwing dust in the caucus's eyes over Ryancare is at best most peculiar indeed. 

Trump calling out Mark Meadows, among other Freedom Caucus members, while standing with Paul Ryan, is just such a terrible sight to see. Ryan and numerous high-ranking Republican leaders were attempting to sabotage Trump just a couple of short weeks before the 2016 election while Meadows stood steadfast behind Trump and told Ryan and other craven Republicans to stand alongside the next president.

Trump's ostensible reading of the room is unquestionable cause for concern.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Apparently, according Kevin Ryan who's fast becoming one of my favorite reporters on the net. All the hue and cry over the Internet Bill is over a bunch of nothing. 

I don't know if I should laugh at the reporters' incompetence, or everybody else's raging over nothing (including myself). 

Life is really becoming a parody with this government and its detractors. It's surreal. 



> *REPUBLICANS END AN INTERNET REGULATION THAT NEVER TOOK EFFECT by Kevin Ryan*
> 
> The media is portraying it as dastardly blow to our rights. Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike are up in arms about it. And social media is lit with memes and tweets pronouncing it the death of privacy as we know it.
> 
> Republicans have passed a bill that, among other things, would overturn a regulation put in place last fall requiring telecom companies to get customers’ to opt-in before sharing their web-browsing and app usage history with third parties. But here's the thing: the regulation being overturned never went into effect, and nearly every major ISP already has opt-in policies. Overturning the regulation doesn't affect anything.
> 
> The FCC regulation was approved just a few days before the election. It was controversial because it only targeted ISPs and left internet giants like Google and Facebook free to share customer data. The telecom industry slammed the rules, saying it forced them to abide by more stringent regulations than every other type of company operating in the sprawling digital media, ad and data industries. They called for a “consistent policy…regardless of the type of company”. Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai accused the commission majority of “corporate favoritism” benefiting businesses such as Google. And many others were wary of what they saw as increasing government control of the internet.
> 
> What's more, most companies already had opt-in policies, which give customers a box that they have to check in order to authorize the sharing of their data, adopted years before the regulation. Indeed major ISPs abide by a set of voluntary privacy principles stating they will give broadband customers “opt-in consent for the use and sharing of sensitive information as defined by the FTC”, and “a clear, comprehensible, accurate, and continuously available privacy notice that describes the customer information we collect, how we will use that information, and when we will share that information with third parties.”
> 
> *Further, the regulation was NEVER ENACTED, so repealing it doesn't affect your current services one way or the other.
> 
> *Despite all this, the public outcry is already making headlines. It's just another example of how politically tone-deaf Republicans have been since taking full control of Congress. The regulation could have been dealt with or fixed a myriad other ways that didn't involve a high profile vote in congress. Instead, Republicans have given their opponents yet another public relations disaster to use against them.
> Republicans really could use a refresher course in politics.
> 
> SOURCES: https://www.wsj.com/…/with-washingtons-blessing-telecom-gia…
> https://www.wsj.com/…/fcc-approves-new-customer-privacy-rul…
> http://6abc.com/…/house-sends-bill-to-trump-blocki…/1824198/


I guess we can stop moralizing about the "death of privacy" and "muh constitution" now :kobelol


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is not good and depending on what Flynn says, this might not be good for Trump. Remember, Flynn turned on Obama after Obama fired him. Who's to say he won't do the same to Trump? I always got grade A snake vibes from this guy.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847576806307897348

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847592974108299264
If he's asking for immunity then he knows he fucked up royally. He said this himself months ago. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847596132826058754


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> This is not good and depending on what Flynn says, this might not be good for Trump. Remember, Flynn turned on Obama after Obama fired him. Who's to say he won't do the same to Trump? I always got grade A snake vibes from this guy.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847576806307897348
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847592974108299264
> If he's asking for immunity then he knows he fucked up royally. He said this himself months ago.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847596132826058754


The thing with immunity is that, you can say anything it doesn't necessarily have to be true. This isn't defending Trump, this is just going off true crime podcasts that delve deep into criminals being offered "immunity" for information. Sometimes, the information ends up being nothing at all. Saying that, this is definitely interesting


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Trump is quickly reaching a crossroads in his presidency. At the moment he is shockingly at a point where, if he is not careful, he is going to alienate both the populist and libertarian wings of the Republican Party.
> 
> Trump's own positions are largely those championed by the Republicans' moderate center-left, like the Tuesday Group. Except he brandishes his views bombastically, often via twitter.
> 
> Setting himself up to fight the Freedom Caucus over the spilled milk of not replacing the Obamacare boondoggle with Paul Ryan's boondoggle is a mistake. Ryancare had almost no support whatsoever outside of the Ryan-shepherded "Better Way" neocons and typical mainline jellyfish Republicans. Populists despised it; libertarians loathed it.
> 
> If Trump is going to back something up at the expense of making enemies he better be sure that that which he is supporting is even remotely popular.
> 
> From a purely political standpoint, Trump would be better off returning to the ideals he championed in his own book _The Art of the Deal_. He effectively said that he was a conservative on myriad matters but a liberal on healthcare and he argued on behalf of single-payer "universal healthcare."
> 
> If he wanted to get into the middle of the street and tussle with Rand Paul, Justin Amash and company over healthcare he should have outflanked most Republicans on the issue and tried to appeal to as many Democrats and moderate-left Republicans as he could. Then stand with the Freedom Caucus on tax cuts (not saying that reducing taxes and implementing universal healthcare make any fiscal sense when paired together, but just speaking purely politically; it's evident that the national debt is not going to be paid down anytime soon so that will have to be resolved through other, perhaps more dramatic means).
> 
> Going up against the libertarian wing of the GOP while merely attempting to apply several massive band-aids to Obama's corporatist healthcare scheme modeled on the Heritage Foundation's late-'80s, early-'90s concoctions was a major miscalculation. Populists are looking forward to restructured trade with China; the Freedom Caucus is generally in agreement with Trump's budget proposals and they, like the populists, want America's entire immigration project considerably altered. The Ryan-spearheaded mushy "Better Way" branch will be disinterested in seeing the battles over trade and immigration won, so appeasing it with Ryancare was always a political error.
> 
> Wanted to believe, ever so briefly, that Trump was playing a game with the objective of flushing Ryan out after Ryancare's defeat which never quite happened only because the writing was so indelibly on the wall the bill was pulled. All signs now, however, point to Trump being sincere in his attempts to see Ryancare passed.
> 
> Beyond doing the right thing for the U.S., it would appear that the people immediately surrounding Trump are, at best, unaccustomed to achieving victories in the hazardous and perilous game of politics. The Freedom Caucus is to the right of Trump on immigration in terms of actual concrete policy, opposing DACA while Trump retains it. Ryan and his associates will doubtless be too timid in support of Trump's budget sent to Congress, while the Freedom Caucus will champion almost everything about it, save perhaps some spending proposals. And while Trump stands against the Freedom Caucus on, say, trade, he could use the caucus as a powerful ally for now before working with Democrats and moderate Republicans on matters like the aforementioned trade. Throwing dust in the caucus's eyes over Ryancare is at best most peculiar indeed.
> 
> Trump calling out Mark Meadows, among other Freedom Caucus members, while standing with Paul Ryan, is just such a terrible sight to see. Ryan and numerous high-ranking Republican leaders were attempting to sabotage Trump just a couple of short weeks before the 2016 election while Meadows stood steadfast behind Trump and told Ryan and other craven Republicans to stand alongside the next president.
> 
> Trump's ostensible reading of the room is unquestionable cause for concern.


Regarding the healthcare bill failure (which let's face it should really be known as TrumpCare if we're being fair):

This is a question born of my ignorance of the American system - but is there reason why Trump didn't take more ownership / show more leadership / put more Presidential Oomph personally behind the Healthcare bill if he wanted to pass it?

Is it the case that the President is shackled by Congress and the speaker when it comes to big bills like this, or any bills? I know of course it needs to be passed by congress, I know how bills work to that extent, but It just seems like Trump was too much in the background on that whole 'deal' and he could've and should've pushed a lot harder.


I mean, considering the massive Repub win and the stacked congress and senate etc - things like this should be a slam dunk for them no? I'm getting the feeling Trump is finding this politics game a bit harder than he thought....


----------



## Eric Fleischer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Regarding the healthcare bill failure (which let's face it should really be known as TrumpCare if we're being fair):
> 
> This is a question born of my ignorance of the American system - but is there reason why Trump didn't take more ownership / show more leadership / put more Presidential Oomph personally behind the Healthcare bill if he wanted to pass it?
> 
> Is it the case that the President is shackled by Congress and the speaker when it comes to big bills like this, or any bills? I know of course it needs to be passed by congress, I know how bills work to that extent, but It just seems like Trump was too much in the background on that whole 'deal' and he could've and should've pushed a lot harder.
> 
> 
> I mean, considering the massive Repub win and the stacked congress and senate etc - things like this should be a slam dunk for them no? I'm getting the feeling Trump is finding this politics game a bit harder than he thought....


Because Trump is fundamentally lazy. Hence why he just signs a bunch of executive orders rather than doing real work. If you saw that press briefing where Spicer compared the physical paper size of the two bills, it shows how Trump thinks.

At the end of the day, repeal of Obamacare combined with massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, etc. was something even an ideologue like Bannon realized was dangerous waters politically (Once the complete rooked Trump voters realize who porked them drydock), hence they are going to try to hang this on someone else and not go down with the ship.

Trump's not lying when he says his real concern is tax reform. And we all know who's gonna benefit from that. Certainly not the dopes in Pissbag County, PA or Elkdung, WI who gave him the backdoor cover.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Regarding the healthcare bill failure (which let's face it should really be known as TrumpCare if we're being fair):
> 
> This is a question born of my ignorance of the American system - but is there reason why Trump didn't take more ownership / show more leadership / put more Presidential Oomph personally behind the Healthcare bill if he wanted to pass it?
> 
> Is it the case that the President is shackled by Congress and the speaker when it comes to big bills like this, or any bills? I know of course it needs to be passed by congress, I know how bills work to that extent, but It just seems like Trump was too much in the background on that whole 'deal' and he could've and should've pushed a lot harder.
> 
> 
> I mean, considering the massive Repub win and the stacked congress and senate etc - things like this should be a slam dunk for them no? I'm getting the feeling Trump is finding this politics game a bit harder than he thought....


Well, Trump did meet with Congress on Capitol Hill personally five times, which is a rather stunning number. By comparison, Obama only went to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress fifteen times throughout his entire eight-year presidency. So Trump seemed to place a considerable amount of pressure/campaigned/cheer-led/cajoled/bribed, etcetera, as much as any president has since the days of Lyndon Johnson for a bill he wanted passed, and of course he came up empty. 

My reading of the matter is that the grave problem was Trump backed the wrong horse. Ryancare/Trumpcare enjoyed a measly 17% approval in the aggregate of polls nationwide. That's abominable. It was insufficient for libertarian/free market types and it was too disruptive for those who would be most directly affected by the loss of insurance right away, a major number of whom belonged almost stereotypically to Trump's bread-and-butter voter base, rural residents of states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio and Pennsylvania (as well as several Southern states). It satisfied no one and made just about nobody but Ryan and his acolytes happy. 

Calling it Trumpcare is fine with me, though I would personally reserve that for when/if it ever finally passed both houses of Congress and was subsequently signed into law by Trump himself. Then, no matter what occurred in Congress--black magic, orgies, Disney movie marathons, endless games of Twister, whatever--in the creation of the bill, it would truly belong to Trump, not just formally and ideologically but most importantly publicly. His name would literally be on it. 

This is why Hillary Clinton's would-be healthcare scheme worked on by her and her committee in 1993 will forever be known as "Hillarycare," but if it had somehow passed both houses of Congress and had been signed into law by her husband, in some alternate timeline, it would then doubtless simply be referred to as "Clintoncare." Haha. Anyway, enough pedantic rambling on my part...

Based on what we know of Trump's meetings with members of Congress, though, which is admittedly not too much, it would seem as though he gave it the old college try, whatever else may be said about his backing of Ryan's bill. Again, though, if contradictory evidence becomes available I will be open to looking at it. There's part of me that hopes it exists! Because otherwise Trump's far less "aware" than many of his supporters would most certainly like him to be. Based on his tweeting over the past couple of days the unaware Trump seems to be the real one--unless it's a political "long con," haha. Seriously, though, it pretty clearly is not. Why Trump seems to feel such loyalty to the Republican establishment is becoming a critical mystery that should be unwrapped or at least deciphered.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think the Russian stuff is a bunch of nothing, if it isn't then it should be handled properly.

Trump really needs to get on board with the Freedom Caucus, the Ryan bill was garbage. Trying to work with Democrats and appease the Neocons will never work, they'll never want to work with you.

What this election has shown me is that most of these Politicians are out of touch with reality and completely petty and ignorant.

While I support the Democrats/Republicans working together I don't like it when it's in the mustache twirling sense which is going on right now.

Never before have both parties look like one party until now. This would have been the perfect time for Libertarians to strike but nope, went with Johnson.

Trump needs to stick to his plans and do what he needs to. It's going to be a rough 4 years so may as well at least get the Republicans behind you even if many of them are Rinos and Neocons.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Never before have both parties look like one party until now. This would have been the perfect time for Libertarians to strike but nope, went with Johnson.












Did someone say Johnson? 

I think that Generation Z is probably our last hope to regain some sort sense of individual liberty, but they have to battle a decade and a half of indoctrination in schools and colleges.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm curious, but also pretty sure that the left is setting itself up for another huge disappointment with the Flynn thing. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847645563117912067
Apparently, it's fake news. WSJ going down the shitter since they broke the news that Pewdiepie is a Nazi.


----------



## Genking48

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Hand on top, a proper smack, that smile, 10/10 handshake.

A handshake like he just made a good deal at a market, or when you have to shake the hand of your father in law for the first time.

Of course might be he made a good deal 










:dandance2


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785291193194254336
There really is a Trump tweet for every occasion


----------



## Stadhart02

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I'm curious, but also pretty sure that the left is setting itself up for another huge disappointment with the Flynn thing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847645563117912067
> Apparently, it's fake news. WSJ going down the shitter since they broke the news that Pewdiepie is a Nazi.


why does that not surprise me...

the liberal twats at the bbc were wetting themselves over this story this morning so if it is fake it will be hilarious


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I'm curious, but also pretty sure that the left is setting itself up for another huge disappointment with the Flynn thing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847645563117912067
> Apparently, it's fake news. WSJ going down the shitter since they broke the news that Pewdiepie is a Nazi.


Why would his attorney release such a statement, though?

But in general, I'm getting pretty tired of this huge distraction that is the alleged Trump-Russia love-affair. So far I've seen nothing in international relations that suggest Russia and the US prancing around the scene hand in hand. Untill that happens, I'M NOT INTERESTED.


----------



## The Game

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Drumpf may be extremely ignorant, but at least he's not Mike Pence. Someone with similar views but actually seems malicious. I'd rather have a stupid motherfucker as president than an evil one. Oh my god he makes my skin crawl. It's like he time travelled from the 1800s.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stadhart02 said:


> why does that not surprise me...
> 
> the liberal twats at the bbc were wetting themselves over this story this morning so if it is fake it will be hilarious


Find it pretty hilarious that people are calling this fake news (not you) when his own lawyer tweeted out the statement. Fucking facepalm.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA @AryaDark @DesolationRow

A day after Donald Trump attacks the Freedom Caucus over the GOP's initial failed attempt to pass a healthcare bill, a very animated Senator Rand Paul comes to the defense of Trump's wiretapping claims in light of recent reports:






He also speaks diplomatically about the possibility of the GOP still being able to pass an acceptable healthcare bill. 

I must say, the Senator has certainly been _navigating_ quite _nimbly_ recently. :mj 

Here's some supplemental reading on the healthcare topic by Dilbert creator and author of the amazing book _How To Fail At Everything And Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life_ Scott Adams, who explains how the systems-oriented Trump could be failing his way to success on the topic of healthcare. 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158964329946/the-systems-president


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847727130939015169


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Trump is quickly reaching a crossroads in his presidency. At the moment he is shockingly at a point where, if he is not careful, he is going to alienate both the populist and libertarian wings of the Republican Party.
> 
> Trump's own positions are largely those championed by the Republicans' moderate center-left, like the Tuesday Group. Except he brandishes his views bombastically, often via twitter.
> 
> Setting himself up to fight the Freedom Caucus over the spilled milk of not replacing the Obamacare boondoggle with Paul Ryan's boondoggle is a mistake. Ryancare had almost no support whatsoever outside of the Ryan-shepherded "Better Way" neocons and typical mainline jellyfish Republicans. Populists despised it; libertarians loathed it.
> 
> If Trump is going to back something up at the expense of making enemies he better be sure that that which he is supporting is even remotely popular.
> 
> From a purely political standpoint, Trump would be better off returning to the ideals he championed in his own book _The Art of the Deal_. He effectively said that he was a conservative on myriad matters but a liberal on healthcare and he argued on behalf of single-payer "universal healthcare."
> 
> If he wanted to get into the middle of the street and tussle with Rand Paul, Justin Amash and company over healthcare he should have outflanked most Republicans on the issue and tried to appeal to as many Democrats and moderate-left Republicans as he could. Then stand with the Freedom Caucus on tax cuts (not saying that reducing taxes and implementing universal healthcare make any fiscal sense when paired together, but just speaking purely politically; it's evident that the national debt is not going to be paid down anytime soon so that will have to be resolved through other, perhaps more dramatic means).
> 
> Going up against the libertarian wing of the GOP while merely attempting to apply several massive band-aids to Obama's corporatist healthcare scheme modeled on the Heritage Foundation's late-'80s, early-'90s concoctions was a major miscalculation. Populists are looking forward to restructured trade with China; the Freedom Caucus is generally in agreement with Trump's budget proposals and they, like the populists, want America's entire immigration project considerably altered. The Ryan-spearheaded mushy "Better Way" branch will be disinterested in seeing the battles over trade and immigration won, so appeasing it with Ryancare was always a political error.
> 
> Wanted to believe, ever so briefly, that Trump was playing a game with the objective of flushing Ryan out after Ryancare's defeat which never quite happened only because the writing was so indelibly on the wall the bill was pulled. All signs now, however, point to Trump being sincere in his attempts to see Ryancare passed.
> 
> Beyond doing the right thing for the U.S., it would appear that the people immediately surrounding Trump are, at best, unaccustomed to achieving victories in the hazardous and perilous game of politics. The Freedom Caucus is to the right of Trump on immigration in terms of actual concrete policy, opposing DACA while Trump retains it. Ryan and his associates will doubtless be too timid in support of Trump's budget sent to Congress, while the Freedom Caucus will champion almost everything about it, save perhaps some spending proposals. And while Trump stands against the Freedom Caucus on, say, trade, he could use the caucus as a powerful ally for now before working with Democrats and moderate Republicans on matters like the aforementioned trade. Throwing dust in the caucus's eyes over Ryancare is at best most peculiar indeed.
> 
> Trump calling out Mark Meadows, among other Freedom Caucus members, while standing with Paul Ryan, is just such a terrible sight to see. Ryan and numerous high-ranking Republican leaders were attempting to sabotage Trump just a couple of short weeks before the 2016 election while Meadows stood steadfast behind Trump and told Ryan and other craven Republicans to stand alongside the next president.
> 
> Trump's ostensible reading of the room is unquestionable cause for concern.


I listened last night to a little bit of Joe Walsh's show (the former Congressman not the rock legend) and he said that what Trump is doing now is the same thing that Boehner tried to do the last couple of elections. They turned all their energy on the conservatives (DesoRow I would disagree with your distinction as the Freedom Caucus are true conservatives as the term defines while Rand Paul is more libertarian) because they felt the FC was a true threat to their grip on power. 

We're seeing the same thing now. Ryan is trying to convince the President his way is best and that he knows what he's talking about. He is starting to regard the FC in much the same way and is going out of his way to undermine what they are trying to do. Meanwhile, the Tea Party and the FC stood behind Trump because they saw him as the answer to their prayers to finally shake up Washington to its core. The idea of alienating people who were openly supporting you is asinine and stupid. 

Now, what I see happening here (and I know that I may risk the wrath of the Trump cultists on this site who may call for me to be once again sent to a reeducation camp) is the one thing that could be Trump's undoing. Saw this theory over by a poster at Conservative Review who told me that Trump's vanity is something that could be very dangerous. Trump wants to be liked, he wants to be loved, which is part of the reason IMO you see these rallies taking place. He feeds on the adulation of the people, which is why he wants to position himself as a populist President. If you like him, he wants to hang with you. However, the moment you disagree with him on ANYTHING you end up on his shit list. That's what makes this a very fluid situation. He is populist, populism in itself is not something that is set in principles but ebbs and flows with public opinion. Leadership has to be set with some principles, same with government or it doesn't work. 

The trial balloons sent up by his aides that saying that possibly he would now be willing to work out with Democrats to get things done is an example of this. However, Trump has succeeded in alienating the Democratic leadership to the point they would vote against him if he brought up the idea of Pizza Hut for a Congressional luncheon in favor of Papa John's just to say they opposed him. The end result of that bill would be even further watered down then the AHCA was now. I am not opposed to compromise, but the problem is that when the compromise really doesn't accomplish anything to the point that it was a waste of time. Not to mention he would risk a good portion of his voter support turn on him for even considering reaching out to the Democrats. 

This is part of the reason I couldn't vote for him, and I'm starting to seem that I was right. Normally, I love that concept as I hate being wrong, but I really was hoping that I would have been dreadfully wrong and that he would actually be the one to get shit done in Washington. There's still time to right the ship, but he needs to pull his head out of his ass. 




yeahbaby! said:


> Regarding the healthcare bill failure (which let's face it should really be known as TrumpCare if we're being fair):
> 
> This is a question born of my ignorance of the American system - but is there reason why Trump didn't take more ownership / show more leadership / put more Presidential Oomph personally behind the Healthcare bill if he wanted to pass it?
> 
> Is it the case that the President is shackled by Congress and the speaker when it comes to big bills like this, or any bills? I know of course it needs to be passed by congress, I know how bills work to that extent, but It just seems like Trump was too much in the background on that whole 'deal' and he could've and should've pushed a lot harder.
> 
> 
> I mean, considering the massive Repub win and the stacked congress and senate etc - things like this should be a slam dunk for them no? I'm getting the feeling Trump is finding this politics game a bit harder than he thought....


I think it's an idea, IMHO, of he wants to get shit done right meow. He has complained about how slow stuff is in Washington to get done, it's a different world from being the executive that with a stroke of the pen can set company policy. Truth be told, while they complain about the speed of the signing of the ACA, Obamacare in reality was almost two years in the making and had been crafted by many different ideas and policies from both sides of the aisle. He wanted to get this done quickly so he could show his base that he is getting all this done in record time. However, Washington doesn't work that way, especially when the end result was not going to be good. 

I think Trump sat back to let Paul Ryan take the lead, probably believing that by designating this to him that he could sit back and let it get done and then come in to close the deal. Business execs do that a lot, have someone they trust make the pitch and then if necessary come in to finish things off. Obama was involved in EVERY SINGLE detail about his health care idea. He talked to leaders, etc, and was hands-on. Trump is more interested in things like tax reform, I see him being more hands-on there as that is something he passionate about.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785291193194254336
> There really is a Trump tweet for every occasion


The Flynn story seems to be fake so I fail to see the point of this post.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

ITs fake guys, its fake news. His lawyer posted it, but its fake news. Just fake news.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> ITs fake guys, its fake news. His lawyer posted it, but its fake news. Just fake news.


Has it been verified as true? :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Has it been verified as true? :draper2


Has what been verified? The tweet? Or are you saying his lawyer is acting outside of his clients instructions and just randomly throwing out a very clear statement? 

Now, his wanting to talk is not itself an admission of guilt or Russian collusion. but the story about him wanting to talk about it is not a fake news story, its covered by every channel including Fox News because his own damn laywer released a statement, now the immunity bit is where the issue becomes cloudier but does that really matter?

Trump getting all hellbent and blaming the Dems and media for what is a Bi-partisan investigation sums up his consistent persecution complex.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Has what been verified? The tweet? Or are you saying his lawyer is acting outside of his clients instructions and just randomly throwing out a very clear statement?
> 
> Now, his wanting immunity is not itself an admission of guilt or Russian collusion. but the story about him wanting to get immunity and talk about it is not a fake news story, its covered by every channel including Fox News because his own damn laywer released a statement.


Well your post seemed to imply the WSJ was correct and that Reaper's post was incorrect so I'm trying to see if you know something we don't.

Because if not then the Tweet I mentioned has no context at all if this is all much ado about nothing.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sorry, never falling for the "he's asking for immunity so he has some incriminating evidence". People are too quick to come to that conclusion when it turns out to be nothingburgers. Recent example: See Gruccifer's immunity deal. Everyone thought that was leading to a smoking gun, and ended up with nothing useful.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Sorry, never falling for the "he's asking for immunity so he has some incriminating evidence". People are too quick to come to that conclusion when it turns out to be nothingburgers. Recent example: See Gruccifer's immunity deal. Everyone thought that was leading to a smoking gun, and ended up with nothing useful.


Indeed, like when the FBI were investigating Hilary then Trump jumped to the conclusion he had hit the mother load and...well he didn't. Never get too excited.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Sorry, never falling for the "he's asking for immunity so he has some incriminating evidence". People are too quick to come to that conclusion when it turns out to be nothingburgers. Recent example: See Gruccifer's immunity deal. Everyone thought that was leading to a smoking gun, and ended up with nothing useful.


But asking for immunity means the person getting it was guilty of something.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But asking for immunity means the person getting it was guilty of something.


Flynn did lie to Pence didn't he? Maybe he got some kickbacks and will only talk about it if he won't get into trouble. I have no clue, your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> Why would his attorney release such a statement, though?
> 
> But in general, I'm getting pretty tired of this huge distraction that is the alleged Trump-Russia love-affair. So far I've seen nothing in international relations that suggest Russia and the US prancing around the scene hand in hand. Untill that happens, I'M NOT INTERESTED.


The statement says:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847590500056137728
Sounds to me like this is isn't a request/bid for immunity, but rather a man trying to protect his reputation as the media and people (which you can see in the hystericism in this thread alone that some people have gone absolutely mad over this and are frothing at the mouth to find something that would prove that Americans that have served them for decades are traitors) are simply losing their minds. All this says is that he has a story to tell but he won't tell it because there are people who will drag him to court unfairly. 

This is madness. It needs to stop. But I don't blame people nowadays for lacking the ability to understand something and looking up to others to explain it to them.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BTW, there's also claims now that this letter comes from an unverified twitter account. So this entire letter could be a fabrication.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847610617644990467


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> BTW, there's also claims now that this letter comes from an unverified twitter account. So this entire letter could be a fabrication.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847610617644990467


If the letter is fake would not surprise me if it came from the Trump admit just to leak it, then say SEE FAKE NEWS.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in this thread doing some actual digging. Ya'all need to step up your games yo :cudi


birthday_massacre said:


> If the letter is fake would not surprise me if it came from the Trump admit just to leak it, then say SEE FAKE NEWS.


It's possible, but to release it through a very randomly picked Twitter user doesn't make sense to me. 

The guy's twitter account is talking about everything from calculus in high school to making statements about how we're all bots to how Mossad are hacking baseball. 

It just does not seem right at all. A high profile lawyer to a high profile american sounding like a typically random college student is a pathetically weird choice :lmao 

This is a classic "who is this 4chan" moment for WSJ (They are the same outlet that called Pewdiepie a Nazi). Stupid. Stupid all around.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But asking for immunity means the person getting it was guilty of something.


Sure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in this thread doing some actual digging. Ya'all need to step up your games yo :cudi
> 
> 
> It's possible, but to release it through a very randomly picked Twitter user doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> The guy's twitter account is talking about everything from calculus in high school to making statements about how we're all bots to how Mossad are hacking baseball.
> 
> It just does not seem right at all. A high profile lawyer to a high profile american sounding like a typically random college student is a pathetically weird choice :lmao
> 
> This is a classic "who is this 4chan" moment for WSJ (They are the same outlet that called Pewdiepie a Nazi). Stupid. Stupid all around.


Didnt Trump retweet some random high school student before?

Anything is possible with the Trump admin at this point. Not saying its what happened but I would not put it past them.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Didnt Trump retweet some random high school student before?


Trump has tweeted nonsense before. He's easily duped :draper2 

Pretty much everyone is these days. I'm one of the few last stalwarts of real news now. Fighting the good fight to help people in this thread maintain their sanity :quite

Edit: Looks like I snuffed this argument too. +1 for me.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



dewberry said:


> Idiots voting for him? Also wtf "become a billionaire" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


60+ million americans are idiots...right anyways im not sure u r aware but one of his building he owns is worth like 700 million, 
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-trump-mitt-romney-gucci-claim-true/28443013/


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Scavet said:


> Drumpf may be extremely ignorant, but at least he's not Mike Pence. Someone with similar views but actually seems malicious. I'd rather have a stupid motherfucker as president than an evil one. Oh my god he makes my skin crawl. It's like he time travelled from the 1800s.


Question for you :

What's up with this "Drumpf" stuff?

Is that supposed to be considered funny, clever or something? :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Trump has tweeted nonsense before. He's easily duped :draper2
> 
> Pretty much everyone is these days. I'm one of the few last stalwarts of real news now. Fighting the good fight to help people in this thread maintain their sanity :quite
> 
> Edit: Looks like I snuffed this argument too. +1 for me.


So you're saying you've never been fooled before by fake news? :hmmm




:wink2:


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Drumpf was Trumps family name until they legally changed it a little before 1900. There was a john oliver episode that was pretty popular for a while.


----------



## The Game

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Question for you :
> 
> What's up with this "Drumpf" stuff?
> 
> Is that supposed to be considered funny, clever or something? :shrug


Nah. I set it months ago so it autocorrects to 'Drumpf'. It's literally just his old family name yet people get sooo mad about it. It's so fun to say. It also just sums up Donald to me.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> So you're saying you've never been fooled before by fake news? :hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :wink2:


I have my bad moments, but I keep checking.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL Current year man.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @Alco @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Pratchett @samizayn @Miss Sally @ShowStopper @The Dazzler @Goku @2 Ton 21 @A-C-P @NotGuilty @birthday_massacre @Lumpy McRighteous @Oda Nobunaga @virus21

It would appear that Obamacare's collapse is predictably accelerating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/u...-could-go-from-one-to-zero-in-some-areas.html

Linked story has a cool MAP~!



> Obamacare Choices Could Go From One to Zero in Some Areas
> 
> Margot Sanger-Katz @sangerkatz MARCH 31, 2017
> 
> Parts of the country are in jeopardy of not having an insurer offering Obamacare plans next year.
> 
> Many counties already have just one insurer offering health plans in the Obamacare marketplaces, and some of those solo insurers are showing signs that they are eyeing the exits.
> 
> Humana announced this year that they’d be leaving the markets altogether next year. That means there are parts of Tennessee that will have no insurance options unless another insurer decides to enter.
> 
> And Anthem, which operates in 14 states, is getting nervous, an industry analyst told Bloomberg News this week. Its departure would be a much bigger problem. According to an analysis of government data by Katherine Hempstead at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Anthem is currently the only insurance carrier in nearly 300 counties, serving about a quarter of a million people.
> 
> As you can see on our map of those counties, an Anthem departure could leave coverage gaps in substantial parts of Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and Colorado, as well as smaller holes in other states. In places where no insurance company offers plans, there will be no way for Obamacare customers to use subsidies to buy health plans.
> 
> Without an option for affordable coverage, they would become exempt from the health law’s mandate to obtain coverage. A result could be large increases in the number of Americans without health insurance.
> 
> The Affordable Care Act set up new markets for people who don’t get insurance through work or the government. About 11 million people bought coverage on those state markets last year. But the system depends on the voluntary participation of private insurance companies. And some parts of the country have proved more popular for insurers than others.
> 
> In the last year, several large commercial insurance companies decided to stop offering insurance in the markets. And some carriers that continued to offer Obamacare plans scaled back on the number of counties they served. In general, the places without much remaining insurance competition tend to be rural and expensive. (These areas tend to have fewer hospitals and doctors to choose from, reducing the ability of insurers to negotiate lower prices.)
> 
> There are a number of solo-carrier counties served by other companies, but none by as many as Anthem, Ms. Hempstead’s analysis shows. Cigna, the company with the next-largest potential impact, is the only carrier in 14 counties, containing about 100,000 insurance customers.
> 
> Anthem could well stay in the markets. It may simply be floating the option of departure to improve its negotiating position with the Trump administration over various regulatory requests. Or it may be expressing anxiety about the future. Insurers around the country are worried about the policy environment surrounding the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Trump has said that the health law “will explode” — a comment that may suggest he will do little to help the markets, or could even set the fuse.
> 
> When insurers left communities in recent years, the Obama administration and local officials worked hard to recruit replacements. The Trump administration might not do the same. So far, no carrier has come forward publicly to say it will serve the counties in Tennessee that Humana is leaving.
> 
> Insurers are making initial decisions about where to sell their products and how much to charge. But the final lineup of insurers is still several months away. Some states require companies to file initial requests this month, and the Trump administration has asked for price proposals in late June. If, after that, insurers decide the political or regulatory outlook looks less favorable, they will still have several months to leave the markets.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Alco @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Pratchett @samizayn @Miss Sally @ShowStopper @The Dazzler @Goku @2 Ton 21 @A-C-P @NotGuilty @birthday_massacre @Lumpy McRighteous @Oda Nobunaga @virus21
> 
> It would appear that Obamacare's collapse is predictably accelerating:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/u...-could-go-from-one-to-zero-in-some-areas.html
> 
> Linked story has a cool MAP~!












I'd love for my GF to get some form of reimbursement once it dies, considering she lost $700 out of her $1300 tax return for this year because of that horseshit penalty simply because she wanted to save up for a new car instead of gubmint-mandated fuckery.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






:lol

I think he got mad about a Michael Flynn question and walked off. Is funny to see him treat Pence like Smithers.

"Uh sir you forgot to sign the order."

"Then bring them to me! And when the reporters get out to the lawn...


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Drumpf was Trumps family name until they legally changed it a little before 1900. There was a john oliver episode that was pretty popular for a while.


Well I'll be damned. :hmmm


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Alco @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Pratchett @samizayn @Miss Sally @ShowStopper @The Dazzler @Goku @2 Ton 21 @A-C-P @NotGuilty @birthday_massacre @Lumpy McRighteous @Oda Nobunaga @virus21
> 
> It would appear that Obamacare's collapse is predictably accelerating:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/u...-could-go-from-one-to-zero-in-some-areas.html
> 
> Linked story has a cool MAP~!


This is one part of the story that has been ignored. The media is willing to shine the spotlight on the inner cities that will be dealing with the collapse of the ACA. Yet, they ignore flyover country and the rural areas that will no doubt feel the pinch as bad or even worse. Here in Iowa, you have towns with no medical facilities at all. In my wife's hometown, the nearest doctor's office is 15 miles away, the nearest hospital about 30. Massive emergencies and health crises cause folks to get LifeFlighted via helicopter to either here or Omaha (both of which are an hour away from the town). The removal of the mandate basically speeds up the process (I'm sure that was by design when Trump signed the E.O. that the mandate was unenforceable). 

I stand by my belief that Obamacare was deliberately set up this way to fail. The end game for the Dems and progressives was that they could say they attempted this half socialist/half free market experiment and that it failed. The only fix then coming would be the move to single-payer (which I have already stated would be far worse with a huge chunk of government revenue permanently assigned to what would be a health care monstrosity). 

For now, Trump is willing to step back and let the whole thing collapse. However, one thing he needs to be careful of is waiting too long before it reaches the point that action needs to be taken. For now, people are more willing to lay blame at the feet of Paul Ryan (justifiable), the Democrats unwilling to move (I can see that) or the Freedom Caucus (bullshit as they actually are voting how the people want them to and that is to get rid of the whole thing). Eventually, something will need to be done and they will expect action to be taken. Yes, Obama gave us a terrible health care plan which has proven to be as bad as advertised. Nevertheless, Trump was elected to get shit done and the people will accept nothing less. Sooner or later, he will start catching heat from the people who elected him who will tell him, "Mr. President, we don't want excuses. We want results."


----------



## amhlilhaus

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Alco @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Pratchett @samizayn @Miss Sally @ShowStopper @The Dazzler @Goku @2 Ton 21 @A-C-P @NotGuilty @birthday_massacre @Lumpy McRighteous @Oda Nobunaga @virus21
> 
> It would appear that Obamacare's collapse is predictably accelerating:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/u...-could-go-from-one-to-zero-in-some-areas.html
> 
> Linked story has a cool MAP~!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare Choices Could Go From One to Zero in Some Areas
> 
> Margot Sanger-Katz @sangerkatz MARCH 31, 2017
> 
> Parts of the country are in jeopardy of not having an insurer offering Obamacare plans next year.
> 
> Many counties already have just one insurer offering health plans in the Obamacare marketplaces, and some of those solo insurers are showing signs that they are eyeing the exits.
> 
> Humana announced this year that they’d be leaving the markets altogether next year. That means there are parts of Tennessee that will have no insurance options unless another insurer decides to enter.
> 
> And Anthem, which operates in 14 states, is getting nervous, an industry analyst told Bloomberg News this week. Its departure would be a much bigger problem. According to an analysis of government data by Katherine Hempstead at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Anthem is currently the only insurance carrier in nearly 300 counties, serving about a quarter of a million people.
> 
> As you can see on our map of those counties, an Anthem departure could leave coverage gaps in substantial parts of Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and Colorado, as well as smaller holes in other states. In places where no insurance company offers plans, there will be no way for Obamacare customers to use subsidies to buy health plans.
> 
> Without an option for affordable coverage, they would become exempt from the health law’s mandate to obtain coverage. A result could be large increases in the number of Americans without health insurance.
> 
> The Affordable Care Act set up new markets for people who don’t get insurance through work or the government. About 11 million people bought coverage on those state markets last year. But the system depends on the voluntary participation of private insurance companies. And some parts of the country have proved more popular for insurers than others.
> 
> In the last year, several large commercial insurance companies decided to stop offering insurance in the markets. And some carriers that continued to offer Obamacare plans scaled back on the number of counties they served. In general, the places without much remaining insurance competition tend to be rural and expensive. (These areas tend to have fewer hospitals and doctors to choose from, reducing the ability of insurers to negotiate lower prices.)
> 
> There are a number of solo-carrier counties served by other companies, but none by as many as Anthem, Ms. Hempstead’s analysis shows. Cigna, the company with the next-largest potential impact, is the only carrier in 14 counties, containing about 100,000 insurance customers.
> 
> Anthem could well stay in the markets. It may simply be floating the option of departure to improve its negotiating position with the Trump administration over various regulatory requests. Or it may be expressing anxiety about the future. Insurers around the country are worried about the policy environment surrounding the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Trump has said that the health law “will explode” — a comment that may suggest he will do little to help the markets, or could even set the fuse.
> 
> When insurers left communities in recent years, the Obama administration and local officials worked hard to recruit replacements. The Trump administration might not do the same. So far, no carrier has come forward publicly to say it will serve the counties in Tennessee that Humana is leaving.
> 
> Insurers are making initial decisions about where to sell their products and how much to charge. But the final lineup of insurers is still several months away. Some states require companies to file initial requests this month, and the Trump administration has asked for price proposals in late June. If, after that, insurers decide the political or regulatory outlook looks less favorable, they will still have several months to leave the markets.
Click to expand...

Republican propaganda.

Fake news at its finest.

Theres NO way the democrats would have passed sich a horrible bill.

This is all the greedy insurance companies putting profits over people

The 21 million people who got healthcare that were denied before know the truth


----------



## amhlilhaus

draykorinee said:


> Sweenz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, never falling for the "he's asking for immunity so he has some incriminating evidence". People are too quick to come to that conclusion when it turns out to be nothingburgers. Recent example: See Gruccifer's immunity deal. Everyone thought that was leading to a smoking gun, and ended up with nothing useful.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, like when the FBI were investigating Hilary then Trump jumped to the conclusion he had hit the mother load and...well he didn't. Never get too excited.
Click to expand...

You forget that comey rattled on for 30 minutes of shit hiliary did that wouldve landed ANYONE else in prison.

You also are not aware that the investigation is ongoing.

At the end of it, people tied up with the clinton foundation are going to jail.

Obama offered hiliary a pardon, and she arrogantly refused. That may have been a terrible mistake.

By the way, if they had ANYTHING on trump, it WOULD have leaked by now.

The plan is simple: keep it ongoing to erode peoples perceptions of trump so he can be beaten next election


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Republican propaganda.
> 
> Fake news at its finest.
> 
> Theres NO way the democrats would have passed sich a horrible bill.
> 
> This is all the greedy insurance companies putting profits over people
> 
> The 21 million people who got healthcare that were denied before know the truth


I can'y even tell if you're serious.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Roger Stone on Bill Maher :mark:

I was agreeing with RICK SANTORUM. When RICK SANTORUM is the voice of reason, you know the Dems are fucked.


Why are people thinking Obamacare was made by Democrats or even Republicans (of Congress)?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848218576964210690
See a need. Fill a need. We need more of THIS and less of government interference. *$10-$50 for personal emergency care. *



> UPMC launches app-based ER telemedicine program for health plan members statewide
> 
> Even though emergency room professionals are providing video visits, the AnywhereCare app is actually intended for non-emergency ailments such as sore throats and respiratory illnesses
> 
> University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan has launched an app-based, 24/7 telemedicine service for its members across Pennsylvania, offering video visits from UPMC emergency room clinicians.
> 
> First launched as a desktop service for UPMC Health Plan employees in November 2016, the new app version of AnywhereCare is now available to all patients within the state.
> 
> Even though emergency room professionals are providing the service, the AnywhereCare app is actually intended for non-emergency ailments that nonetheless require urgent care, such as sore throats and respiratory illnesses. Powered by American Well and white-labeled under UPMC, the video visit app is available for free on smartphones, tablets or desktop computers, and users can expect to wait a little over six minutes, on average, to see a clinician.
> 
> [Also: Microsoft partners with UPMC, launches patient engagement, population health initiatives]
> 
> "Consumers are seeking convenient and high quality care, when and where they need it. Using AnywhereCare, patients can initiate a visit with a UPMC physician without traveling to an office or taking time off of work,” Kim Jacobs, UPMC’s vice president of consumer innovation said in a statement. “AnywhereCare visits are low cost, typically about half the cost of a health care plan copay, and they allow patients within Pennsylvania to be cared for by UPMC clinicians in their homes, at work, or on the road.”
> 
> UPMC is one of the largest health systems and insurers in the state, counting 3,600 physicians across 25 hospitals and 600 offices and outpatient clinics. There are more than 3 million members under UPMC Health Plan, but AnywhereCare is available to anyone in the state regardless of their plan. Depending on coverage, the video consultations range from $10 to $49 per visit. Healthcare professionals conducting a visit can also send prescriptions directly to the patient’s pharmacy, if need be, saving the patient even more time.
> 
> A spokesperson for UPMC said the organization eventually plans to expand the applications on AnywhereCare, bringing in other departments besides the non-emergency basics, but there are no currently no official plans in the works. For now, the service is still expected to relieve a considerable amount of strain on patients, clinicians and emergency rooms.
> 
> "The platform allows patients to use technology to be seen by doctors more quickly," stated Jacobs. "AnywhereCare also helps to free the backlog in doctor's offices, urgent care facilities, and hospital emergency rooms and allows doctors to spend more time with patients who suffer from chronic conditions. Nearly 90 percent of patient issues are resolved during the AnywhereCare virtual visit and do not require follow-up care."
> 
> In addition to providing care, UPMC also runs a venture arm called UPMC Enterprises that invests in health technology companies developed under the Pittsburgh Health Data Alliance. Last year, they invested in six health tech projects within the state as well as San Francisco-based Lantern, which makes web and mobile mental health coaching.
> 
> This story first appeared on MobiHealthNews.
> 
> Twitter: @HealthITNews


Brought to my attention by Scott Adams.
@DesolationRow; @L-DOPA; @CamillePunk; @Miss Sally

Part II of We are Capitalists' essays on Healthcare. 



> In a prior essay, we explained that a shortage of supply relative to an increase in demand significantly contributed to the healthcare industry's alarming inflation. [a] Many people questioned if there truly was a "shortage," given that both the number of physicians AND the overall number of healthcare related professionals HAS increased. We address this below.
> • Physicians:
> 
> First, let us clarify. It IS true that the number of physicians is increasing. In 2009, the number of “total active physicians” in the United States was about 256 per 100,000 people. *
> In 2012, it increased to 280. [c] By 2014, it was 287. [d] Clearly the number IS going up. That much is acknowledged. What's important in economics, however, is observing supply RELATIVE to demand. In other words, the number of physicians is increasing at too slow a rate to keep up with how fast demand is increasing. We lose physicians each year to deaths or retirements, even as we gain new ones, so accounting for this loss, the net average increase - lately - has been around 12,168 new physicians a year (Based on figures from 2014-2016). [d] Despite that growth, the AAMC still recommends around "a 30% increase in U.S. medical school enrollment and an expansion of Graduate Medical Education (GME) positions"  to address an impending shortage of up to 90,400 physicians by 2025. [e]
> 
> • The Bureaucracy:
> Physicians aren't the only ones in high demand. ALL healthcare professionals are seeing job openings quickly outpace job hires. [f] "As large as job growth may be [in this field], the growth in job openings is much larger. At the end of 2015, there were hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs in the healthcare industry." [f] What's extremely eye-opening, however, is viewing the attached chart which illustrates where nearly all the growth in healthcare jobs went over the last 4-5 decades. As the graphic demonstrates, the vast majority of new healthcare professionals have NOT been physicians, but have instead been ADMINISTRATORS. [g] The expansion of administrators, rather than the people who actually offer care, is one of the main arguments Milton Friedman used in reference to "Gammon's Law," aka "The Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement." (developed by Dr Max Gammon) In his words, “in a bureaucratic system ... increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production ... Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes,’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted’ production.” [h] This is because efforts are diverted towards complying with the administrative state rather than affording actual care. With the expansion of the regulatory environment came an expansion in bureaucracy and administrators. To be clear, these are people NOT directly providing care.
> 
> • WHAT THE DOCTORS SAY:
> In a formal survey completed by over 2,300 physicians, doctors warned that "the private practice model is going extinct due to burdensome compliance and administrative costs." [j] In reference to the shortage of physicians, the following responses are also noteworthy:
> • 40% of physicians said they would soon drop out of patient care. (Although some of these were due to retirement) [j]
> • The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform [from the ACA] will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients. [j]
> • 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care. [j]
> • The great majority of physicians (89%) believe the traditional model of independent private practice is either “on shaky ground” or “is a dinosaur soon to go extinct.” [j]
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> The growth of the administrative state has diverted resources away from training new nurses and doctors but towards compliance efforts and paper-pushers. There was an undeniable explosion in administrators matched by a disturbing lull in physician growth. This dysfunctional system has us focusing on office work rather than TRUE healthcare, and the shortage of doctors that contributes to healthcare inflation is largely due to a regulatory environment which is squeezing the private practice model out of existence.
> -------------------
> Sources:
> [a]
> https://www.facebook.com/WeAreCapitalists/posts/682335178604694:0
> 
> http://www.nationalahec.org/pdfs/fsmbphysiciancensus.pdf
> [c]
> https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/Census/census.pdf
> [d]
> https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/Census/2014census.pdf
> [e]
> https://www.aamc.org/…/42…/data/20150401_projbriefingppt.pdf
> [f]
> http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/…/looking-ahead-2016-w…
> [g]
> https://www.google.com/…/the-chart-that-could-undo-the-us-…/
> [h]
> http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/…/…/newsweek/NW.11.07.1977.pdf
> 
> http://www.healthcaresalaryonline.com/healthcare-administra…
> [j]
> http://www.physiciansfoundation.org/…/Health_Reform_and_the…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*

Compliance here basically refers to having to keep up with all the government regulations in place. This is not commenting on what kinds of rules are in place specifically, but basically giving us an overall idea of the impact of government regulations has had on the healthcare industry in America which is a topic that's not often talked about. 

What people need to understand about the costs of healthcare in America is that while we assume that the real villains are the pharmaceuticals and "the greedy capitalists" what has happened is that the government regulation has created an industry within and industry that is feeding off of individuals' care costs. When we go to the doctor, we're not just paying the doctor. We're paying the dozens of administrators and lawyers that exist only because of an overly regulated environment.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848641200286552064


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:mark:


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A lot of that Administrative cost is Medical Billing jobs,and those do not go away 1 iota even if everyone in the Usa switched from Medicare/Medicaid to private for profit insurance companies.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> A lot of that Administrative cost is Medical Billing jobs,and those do not go away 1 iota even if everyone in the Usa switched from Medicare/Medicaid to private for profit insurance companies.


How much of the administrative cost is medical billing?


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Noone thats sitting in the senate minority likes the "nuclear option", that is until they become the majority.. then its a wonderful wonderful thing. Hipocracy on both sides.

Supreme court appointees should not get lifetime jobs.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes exposed as being elbows deep in the dirty work of spying against :trump and "unmasking" various :trump transition officials whose names were incidentally collected during spying operations. When Americans are incidentally caught up in such spying their names are not supposed to be released to the public. Rice requested permission to ignore that rule.

Still no evidence presented that :trump coordinated or colluded with the Russian government.

More evidence coming out every day that the Obama administration spied on :trump, the spying starting before he won the GOP nomination and well before the McCarthyist witch hunt over Russia was begun against him. 

If things continue in this fashion :trump will end up being completely exonerated and several high-ranking members of the Obama administration will be looking at jail time. In particular, Clapper, Brennan, Rice and Rhodes should all get big-time lawyers on speed dial. In a better world Obama would too but from all appearances he was smart enough not to directly give orders to his lackeys and running dogs to spy on :trump. 

Shockingly un-American behavior on the part of the Obama administration in its final year. What they did to :trump is what shithole authoritarian governments like Venezuela's or Russia's do to opposition politicians.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Noone thats sitting in the senate minority likes the "nuclear option", that is until they become the majority.. then its a wonderful wonderful thing. Hipocracy on both sides.
> 
> Supreme court appointees should not get lifetime jobs.


I disagree. The Supreme Court is a body that simply exists to uphold the constution and interpret the law as per its guidelines. While we can disagree on whether or not it's a perfect document, but given the largely static nature of the document itself, term limits are entirely unnecessary because new incumbents would all tend to have similar judgements (or they should). 

I think that limiting the Supreme Court terms would give rise to populism, instability and chaos ... In extreme cases a situation similar to what we're seeing in Venezuela now.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I disagree. The Supreme Court is a body that simply exists to uphold the constution and interpret the law as per its guidelines. While we can disagree on whether or not it's a perfect document, but given the largely static nature of the document itself, term limits are entirely unnecessary because new incumbents would all tend to have similar judgements (or they should).
> 
> I think that limiting the Supreme Court terms would give rise to populism, instability and chaos ... In extreme cases a situation similar to what we're seeing in Venezuela now.


I agree that's how it should of been. Judge the cases based on what the law states. But the current trajectory(and quite likely just a majority vote to appoint someone going forward) is that a party could win the proverbial lotto and lock in their people for possibly 40 years, and are becoming a method of making law rather than interpreting it against presented scenarios.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> I agree that's how it should of been. Judge the cases based on what the law states. But the current trajectory(and quite likely just a majority vote to appoint someone going forward) is that a party could win the proverbial lotto and lock in their people for possibly 40 years, and are becoming a method of making law rather than interpreting it against presented scenarios.


But the exact same thing could happen more regularly and could even cripple the supreme court. As it stands, with no term limits it just takes longer to install your own people in there and it's part of the reason why SC decisions are respected as everyone realizes that ones it's ruled on an issue it won't change the ruling as quickly. If the SC becomes a revolving door, the decisions it takes will end up becoming convoluted over time and may even lose power. 

I understand the problem in your scenario, but I think the same issues won't be resolved with shorter terms and would give arise to less lasting decisions too.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> But the exact same thing could happen more regularly and could even cripple the supreme court. As it stands, with no term limits it just takes longer to install your own people in there and it's part of the reason why SC decisions are respected as everyone realizes that ones it's ruled on an issue it won't change the ruling as quickly. If the SC becomes a revolving door, the decisions it takes will end up becoming convoluted over time and may even lose power.
> 
> I understand the problem in your scenario, but I think the same issues won't be resolved with shorter terms and would give arise to less lasting decisions too.


"Revolving door" sounds like I'm suggesting 2/4/8 year terms. And I'm not. But potentially 40 year terms(or more) is crazy imo, especially when we are quickly approaching a situation where bipartisanship is no longer needed to appoint one. Future judge appointees are going to be very agenda driven. Just look at the questioning of the latest one. Questioning specific cases looking for (in their eyes) the correct ruling/answer, instead of seeking to see if his approach to the topic is fair.

Look at the current situation. With good amount of probability.. Trump could end up nominating 4 supreme court justices. And with the Nuclear Option, Democrats could have no say in it at all.

- Scalia (who was the 3rd most conservative justice) is likely to be replaced with Gorsuch.
- GINSBURG (who is 85 now, and would be 89 by the time trump's first term is over, or 93 if trump wins a 2nd term) Who is the 3rd most liberal justice.. side note but leans more left(on average by volume) than the most right leaning justice leans right on issues. 
- Kennedy (Who is 80 now.. 84 by end of Trumps 1st term.. 88 by end of 2nd term) Who is essentially center leaning right. 
- Bryer (who is 78 now.. 82 by end of Trumps 1st tern.. 86 by end of 2nd term) Who is essentially center leaning left(but could be argued just left instead of left center)

So the ratio of left/lean left/lean right/right could go from 3/1/1/4, to possibly 2/0/0/7, and nothing can be done to stop it. They could also find justices that are quite young so that it is a long time before the left has a chance to try to balance things back out again.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I see what you're saying now. It seems more like an unexpected and unique situation that probably wasn't expected to happen but did. 

While I see the problem I think that the Congress is where the Democrats can use to claw their way back if such a massive shift in the Supreme Court seemed to unfold. 

Congress majority would allow this from happening no?


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Congress majority would allow this from happening no?


Yes. It would. Fair point. 

Though it doesn't change my opinion(cause the president could just keep nominating people that majority congress would deny... thus not making progress towards evening it out, just preventing more damage).. it does soften my stance a little.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Judiciary committee passes Gorsuch on to the full Senate in a party-line vote of 11-9.

John McCain says he will vote to drop the nuke if it comes to that Friday. With that it looks like McConnell will have the votes to go nuclear by then. McCain was one of the 3 best hopes for the Democrats to not vote for changing the rules.


----------



## Rigby

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

McCain's a self-serving bastard. He cashed in his integrity a decade ago.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849262797649174529

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849263790847913984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848940890236256260


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What smoking gun? Did Rand even real the article?

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. *who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping*, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."


Play Video
Nunes Says Trump Team Caught in U.S. Surveillance Net
NUNES SAYS TRUMP TEAM CAUGHT IN U.S. SURVEILLANCE NET
The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. 

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of *Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.*

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, *were swept up in incidental intelligence collection*, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

R*ice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim. *

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Looks like the degree to which Trump's claims are credible is the degree to which you believe that the government only "inadvertently" surveilled Trump's team. 

Personally, I'm skeptical, as the government tends to be notoriously dishonest regarding surveillance.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Looks like the degree to which Trump's claims are credible is the degree to which you believe that the government only "inadvertently" surveilled Trump's team.
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical, as the government tends to be notoriously dishonest regarding surveillance.


No his claims are not credible to any degree, he was talking out of his ass and lying like he does all the time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL at posting a Stefan Molyneux video.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Here's a nuanced take on the Susan Rice story from _Reason_:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/04/sen-rand-paul-wants-to-use-fight-over-tr


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Patriot Act means anyone can be spied on at any given time. Could have Trump been spied on? It's possible but who knows? Even if true his critics won't care because they're not interested in the truth.

That being said, the US has gone to far with spying on it's own citizens. It needs to be reigned in.

I'm getting my phone and emails watched but nobody is watching the people draining the welfare system or Politicians burdening the tax payers with asinine nonsense. That seems a little odd.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The Patriot Act means anyone can be spied on at any given time. Could have Trump been spied on? It's possible but who knows? Even if true his critics won't care because they're not interested in the truth.
> 
> That being said, the US has gone to far with spying on it's own citizens. It needs to be reigned in.
> 
> I'm getting my phone and emails watched but nobody is watching the people draining the welfare system or Politicians burdening the tax payers with asinine nonsense. That seems a little odd.


Hopefully, this leads Trump to do a turnaround and put an end to the Patriot Act and crush any concept of allowing the NSA to access our records again (Trump was on record with supporting the renewal of the Patriot Act and allowing the NSA to monitor us). It starts as simply harmless gathering of information, but can end up being more of a Big Brother-esque situation we have dealt with since 9/11.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The Patriot Act means anyone can be spied on at any given time. Could have Trump been spied on? It's possible but who knows? Even if true his critics won't care because they're not interested in the truth.
> 
> That being said, the US has gone to far with spying on it's own citizens. It needs to be reigned in.
> 
> I'm getting my phone and emails watched but nobody is watching the people draining the welfare system or Politicians burdening the tax payers with asinine nonsense. That seems a little odd.


So what is your take on this


Trump Administration Considers Far-Reaching Steps for ‘Extreme Vetting’

*Foreigners entering U.S. could be forced to hand over phones, answer questions on ideology; changes could apply to allies like France and Germany*

*Foreigners who want to visit the U.S., even for a short trip, could be forced to disclose contacts on their mobile phones, social-media passwords and financial records, and to answer probing questions about their ideology, according to Trump administration officials conducting a review of vetting procedures.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Scott Adams went on the Art of Charm podcast and defended his contention that President Donald Trump is a Master Persuader who won the election via his persuasion skills:

https://theartofcharm.com/podcast-episodes/scott-adams-master-persuader-episode-605/


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Pratchett @RipNTear @samizayn

All right, so once the Affordable Care Act was finally signed into law in 2010, eleven thousand documents have yet to be released pertaining to the Obama administration's efforts to have funds from one "container" of government money shifted to another "container," in something of a dubious shell game by which the Department of Health and Human Services redirected federal funds earmarked for various matters and sending those funds instead to insurance companies to pay for the subsidies in Americans' healthcare insurance. A federal judge ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services could not proceed with this shady tactic any longer, but only a month later the subsidies for the insurance companies were funded, against the majority-Republican House of Representatives' majority-collective will. 

Questionable budgetary tactics were employed by the Obama White House in order to secure funds by which Obamacare would limp along throughout Obama's presidency. 

Eleven thousand documents have yet to be released but based on the post-January inauguration-revealed documents left over from the Obama administration, there is legitimate reason to surmise that these crucial-to-Obamacare's-existence funds were diverted by Obama administration bureaucrats from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If this is the case, as some documents suggest based on reports, Obamacare was evidently illegally fueled by tens of billions of dollars diverted from federal government-sponsored and -backed enterprises which served as conduits by which Americans could accomplish their dream of owning a home. A significant segment of Fannie and Freddie shareholders have sued the federal government to receive the dividend payments that had been pocketed by the government as Obama administration actors reportedly skimmed profits from those shareholders in order to fund Affordable Care Act subsidies once the House of Representatives refused to fund the insurance company subsidies scheme. More details are emerging this week concerning the case as culling of Fannie and Freddie profits, known as the "Net Worth Sweep," is a maneuver receiving increasing critical examination. By the majority of counts and reports I have personally read the Obama administration stealthily and illegally diverted as much as $250 billion and no fewer than $235 billion in dividends accrued from Fannie and Freddie profits for shareholders in order to keep Obamacare afloat. 

More needs to be studied because this is quite the potential time bomb of a story.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/269465.htm










:lol 

Most people have no idea what to make of this, but I'm guessing this is a message to the neocons who've been slowly trying to turn NK into another Iraq.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Roger Stone is accusing Jared Kushner of leaking to Joe Scarborough.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:woah Interesting development to be sure. Makes me re-think this whole God Empress Ivanka plan if Kushner turns out to be a shady character.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Roger Stone is a Swamp Thing if there ever was one. His entire political career up until he hitched himself to :trump's rising star has been as a proud denizen of the swamp. I don't like :trump's association with him at all.



RipNTear said:


> https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/269465.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> Most people have no idea what to make of this, but I'm guessing this is a message to the neocons who've been slowly trying to turn NK into another Iraq.


The only group currently saying or doing anything that resembles turning NK into another Iraq is the :trump State Department. 

I'm guessing it is another veiled threat tossed at Pyongyang, as the :trump administration has been more hawkish on North Korea than any "neocon" ever has. For whatever reason the administration has decided to see what can be accomplished by responding to the incessant threats of the Norks in kind, just not as bluntly. The statements coming from the :trump administration over the last 2 weeks regarding the NK government remind me greatly of the 2002 rhetoric of the Bush Administration regarding Saddam Hussein's government. All options are on the table, American patience is wearing very thin, other countries will greatly regret it if they don't get in line with what the United States wants (this time it's China, then it was France and Germany), the behavior and rhetoric of the target government is growing more dangerous at an intolerable rate, something must be done, etc.

Except it took the Bush administration 6 months to reach the level of threat-making that it has taken 2 weeks for the :trump administration to reach. They should chill the fuck out, North Korea has never responded to American pressure save when it has been applied indirectly through China. And these days Chinese pressure, whether applied because Washington asks Beijing to apply it and Beijing for its own reasons agrees to do so, or applied wholly independently by Beijing, also has little influence on Pyongyang.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849363033419902977
U.S. Border Patrol insisting that illegal alien arrests at Mexican border are down by slightly over 40% from January 1 through March 31 as opposed to January 1 through March 31 last year. 

That's good. Aside from all other points of consideration, a lot of illegal aliens end up dead along the border or some distance into the U.S. every year, so the fewer coming in general, the fewer lives lost in vain.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council in shakeup

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/05/stev...ional-security-council-in-reorganization.html


White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has been removed from his National Security Council role, reversing one of the most controversial decisions of Trump's young administration.

A Tuesday filing in the Federal Register did not list Bannon as a regular attendee of NSC "principals committee" meetings, as he previously was. The change adds Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, back to the committee.

Bloomberg first reported the news Wednesday.

In late January, Bannon was given a full seat in a move that downgraded the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence. It is a highly unusual to give a political advisor a seat on the committee.

Trump sparked concerns with the move to make Bannon, the former Breitbart News chairman and driving force behind Trump's nationalism and populism, a permanent member.

Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against ousted National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, a top White House official told NBC News. However, Bannon only attended one meeting and felt he was no longer needed in that role after the selection of H.R. McMaster as national security advisor.

McMaster, who Bannon wanted in the role, was given authority to reorganize the committee when he joined the White House, according to NBC.

The change also downgrades the role of Homeland Security advisor Thomas Bossert's role.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849363033419902977
> U.S. Border Patrol insisting that illegal alien arrests at Mexican border are down by slightly over 40% from January 1 through March 31 as opposed to January 1 through March 31 last year.
> 
> That's good. Aside from all other points of consideration, a lot of illegal aliens end up dead along the border or some distance into the U.S. every year, so the fewer coming in general, the fewer lives lost in vain.


Illegal border crossings down 67% since :trump took office.

Another quarter million new jobs last month. 

Revelations of the Obama administration's un-American skullduggery coming out every day now.

Repealing Obamacare still on the table despite the lying media's attempts to sabotage the WH-Freedom Caucus talks of the last week.

No I am not tired of all the winning.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Illegal border crossings down 67% since :trump took office.
> 
> Another quarter million new jobs last month.
> 
> Revelations of the Obama administration's un-American skullduggery coming out every day now.
> 
> Repealing Obamacare still on the table despite the lying media's attempts to sabotage the WH-Freedom Caucus talks of the last week.
> 
> No I am not tired of all the winning.


You do know Obama is credited with the jobs for the first quarter right LOL

Trump had nothing to do with those.

As for this whole border crossing, sure he prevented some from coming into the country but he kept out more from leaving the country.

Idiots like you dont realize more illegals were leaving the US than coming into the country.

But hey facts, who needs them right


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Someone doesn't like America winning again :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848946338859536384

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848946566182424576
And this is why Socialism is cancer. These people don't even know just how many people a simple stone actually does feed. 

Trump gave Melania a $3 million ring for the proposal, so I'm guessing this is probably around $5 million. 

The markup on Diamond rings is somewhere around 25-70% so let's assume that this ring was marked up 50% - meaning that the retailer made about $2.5 million. A large-scale retailer employs anywhere from 100-1000 people (if not more). The profit that the store owner made is likely reinvested in the business as well as pays the people that work in it. Assume that the owner kept about 20% for himself and his family. $500k of the ring went to the family - which was then likely spent on other goods in the market. $500k was probably then spread between at least 100 other families of about 2-4 people. So that's at least 400 people who ate just from the 20% of the money that the family kept for themselves - who then managed to feed 100's if not 1000's of other people who purchased goods from other thousands of people. 

The rest of the 2.5 million was spent on overheads, extraction, transportation, shaping which involves at least a 1000 people in the process. Which then gets redistributed to thousands more. 

So a simple rock probably ended up feeding at least a million people - if not more and is still feeding people. 

This is why socialism is cancer because they have no idea how capitalism works and how many people a simple rock can feed over the lifetime of getting from the ground to the end consumer. It's just a rock that has value because people assign it value and through that value addition feeds millions of people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Someone doesn't like America winning again :draper2


American was winning with jobs under Obama already, and with more illegals leaving the country than coming in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848946338859536384
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848946566182424576
> And this is why Socialism is cancer. These people don't even know just how many people a simple stone actually does feed.
> 
> Let's assume that this is the same ring that was gifted to her in the proposal, so it would be worth around $3 million.
> 
> The markup on Diamond rings is somewhere around 25-70% so let's assume that this ring was marked up 50% - meaning that the retailer made about $1.5 million. A large-scale retailer employs anywhere from 100-1000 people (if not more). The profit that the store owner made is likely reinvested in the business as well as pays the people that work in it. Assume that the owner kept about 20% for himself and his family. $300k of the ring went to the family - which was then likely spent on other goods in the market. $300k was probably then spread between at least 10 other families of about 2-4 people. So that's at least 40 people who ate just from the 20% of the money that the family kept for themselves.
> 
> The rest of the 1.5 million was spent on overheads, extraction, transportation, shaping which involves at least a 1000 people in the process. Which then gets redistributed to thousands more.
> 
> So a simple rock probably ended up feeding at least $100,000 people - if not more and is still feeding people.
> 
> This is why socialism is cancer because they have no idea how capitalism works and how many people a simple rock can feed over the lifetime of getting from the ground to the end consumer. The number is probably in the millions.



what is the real cancer is republicans taking away programs for people that really need them like meals with wheels, planned parenthood, the UN population fund etc etc. Not to mention how they totally are trying to fuck over the middle class and the poor with Trumpcare.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> what is the real cancer is republicans taking away programs for people that really need them like meals with wheels, planned parenthood, the UN population fund etc etc. Not to mention how they totally are trying to fuck over the middle class and the poor with Trumpcare.


Why don't you and your socialist buddies make it up through voluntary donations?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Perhaps the huge decrease in illegal border crossings has something to do with there being more illegals being deported and leaving voluntarily than there are illegals coming in.

I just don't know, BM seems to think there is no connection between more leaving than entering and much fewer illegal border crossings. I think there might just be a connection between the two situations. Just maybe. A winning connection, as it were :trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Why don't you and your socialist buddies make it up through voluntary donations?


Because our tax payer dollars should go helping each other, not the rich like it does now and not the military like it does now

But you keep proving what POS republicans are


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because our tax payer dollars should go helping each other, not the rich like it does now and not the military like it does now
> 
> But you keep proving what POS republicans are


We've been over this. The government requires as much money (if not more) to maintain itself than money that gets down to people down the line. You don't even want to learn how much of the tax money actually gets to people. The solution to alleviating poverty isn't to keep giving the government more money so that it can consume more money for itself. 

You are better off giving the money directly. So just do it instead of moaning and virtue signaling. I posted a huge post about how government spending and taxes have not done anything positive for poverty at all, but I'm guessing that was too complex for you to understand. 

I don't know why you just simply don't want to learn anything about anything and every few weeks post the same things over and over again without showing a single hint of having actually absorbed any new information about anything. But that's par for the course for Socialists. Economics is simply too complex for you people to understand.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> We've been over this. The government requires as much money (if not more) to maintain itself than money that gets down to people down the line.
> 
> You are better off giving the money directly.
> 
> I don't know why you just simply don't want to learn anything about anything and every few weeks post the same things over and over again without showing a single hint of having actually absorbed any new information about anything.


The govt was funding them just fine before Trump, but sure lets let thousands of people die. 

Its not about learning anything new. You just get all pissy because I don't agree with you. Maybe you should learn not everyone is going to agree with you.

But if you are cool with people dying or not getting the treatment they need but happy with it. It just proves what kind of person you and the republicans are


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The govt was funding them just fine before Trump, but sure lets let thousands of people die.
> 
> Its not about learning anything new. You just get all pissy because I don't agree with you. Maybe you should learn not everyone is going to agree with you.
> 
> But if you are cool with people dying or not getting the treatment they need but happy with it. It just proves what kind of person you and the republicans are


This crap about people dying because of lack of government programs is completely bullshit. 

- You ignore all the posts about why the healthcare industry is more expensive because of government regulations
- You ignore all the posts about how much bloat the government creates and misappropriates funds
- You ignore all the posts about how donating to charities directly is a superior solution because less money gets take away to feed government fat cats
- You deflect from the actual topic (about how a diamond ring feeds millions of people) and post nonsense that has nothing to do with my post

I get pissy because I am sick and tired of having to talk to someone that has shown the learning capability of a rock over his lifetime of posts in this section. 

People are not dying from the government not getting taxes. People are in high levels of debt (and not dying) because of the regulated environment driving up costs that should never have been as high without government regulations. If people can't afford services they would have been able to afford those services if the market was allowed to compete and entrepreneurship was valued more than giving money to a callous mafia that has made millions off of those taxes that they had no right to. 

The only people that are callous are the government fatcats that pay themselves to virtue signal to people like you who think that governments have better intentions than capitalists because somehow "Greed" no longer becomes a factor as soon as someone becomes a politician and that too from a party you personally support. You're a partisan hack and don't have the ability to view anything objectively at all. 

I don't give a fuck about republicans or democrats and I've been over this a hundred times with you, but since you can't view the world in any way other than your partisan hackery, talking to you is a waste of time. And I just wasted more time.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'll make your post for you BM. 

"LOL You don't care about people and you are a blind trump supporter and you are projecting and you are a partisan hack and you are projecting and you are incapable of learning anything"

:mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This crap about people dying because of lack of government programs is completely bullshit.
> 
> - You ignore all the posts about why the healthcare industry is more expensive because of government regulations
> - You ignore all the posts about how much bloat the government creates and misappropriates funds
> - You ignore all the posts about how donating to charities directly is a superior solution because less money gets take away to feed government fat cats
> - You deflect from the actual topic (about how a diamond ring feeds millions of people) and post nonsense that has nothing to do with my post
> 
> I get pissy because I am sick and tired of having to talk to someone that has shown the learning capability of a rock over his lifetime of posts in this section.
> 
> People are not dying from the government not getting taxes. People are in high levels of debt (and not dying) because of the regulated environment driving up costs that should never have been as high without government regulations. If people can't afford services they would have been able to afford those services if the market was allowed to compete and entrepreneurship was valued more than giving money to a callous mafia that has made millions off of those taxes that they had no right to.
> 
> The only people that are callous are the government fatcats that pay themselves to virtue signal to people like you who think that governments have better intentions than capitalists because somehow "Greed" no longer becomes a factor as soon as someone becomes a politician and that too from a party you personally support. You're a partisan hack and don't have the ability to view anything objectively at all.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about republicans or democrats and I've been over this a hundred times with you, but since you can't view the world in any way other than your partisan hackery, talking to you is a waste of time. And I just wasted more time.


Its not bullshit.

And I get it, you are happy as long as the rich are getting all the breaks, you don't give a shit about the poor or middle class.

You are so full of bullshit your eyes are turning brown. And I have been over all your points before in numerous threads, I am not going over them again point by point just because you bring them up again.

Not everyone agrees with your way, its just comical you think people dont leanr things becasue they disagree with you lol

You are the one who cant view anything as objective. You just think your way is the way and look down upon anyone that disagrees.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not bullshit.
> 
> And I get it, you are happy as long as the rich are getting all the breaks, you don't give a shit about the poor or middle class.
> 
> You are so full of bullshit your eyes are turning brown.


Yah. I don't care about poor or middle class because I oppose government :mj4


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bannon claiming he wasn't removed from the NSC, he got on it to clean it up and mission accomplished so he doesn't need to be on it anymore.

I smell the stink of spin wafting around here.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Surely the anti-Trump crowd have to believe Bannons version of events, right? After all, he is the de facto president and puppeteer of Donald Trump. Makes zero sense, according to their worldview, that Trump could or would reduce his role in any capacity.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This crap about people dying because of lack of government programs is completely bullshit.
> 
> - You ignore all the posts about why the healthcare industry is more expensive because of government regulations
> - You ignore all the posts about how much bloat the government creates and misappropriates funds
> - You ignore all the posts about how donating to charities directly is a superior solution because less money gets take away to feed government fat cats
> - You deflect from the actual topic (about how a diamond ring feeds millions of people) and post nonsense that has nothing to do with my post
> 
> I get pissy because I am sick and tired of having to talk to someone that has shown the learning capability of a rock over his lifetime of posts in this section.
> 
> *People are not dying from the government not getting taxes. People are in high levels of debt (and not dying) because of the regulated environment driving up costs that should never have been as high without government regulations. If people can't afford services they would have been able to afford those services if the market was allowed to compete and entrepreneurship was valued more than giving money to a callous mafia that has made millions off of those taxes that they had no right to. *
> 
> The only people that are callous are the government fatcats that pay themselves to virtue signal to people like you who think that governments have better intentions than capitalists because somehow "Greed" no longer becomes a factor as soon as someone becomes a politician and that too from a party you personally support. You're a partisan hack and don't have the ability to view anything objectively at all.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about republicans or democrats and I've been over this a hundred times with you, but since you can't view the world in any way other than your partisan hackery, talking to you is a waste of time. And I just wasted more time.


I get how a lot of the government can misappropriate funds and in the entire history of the county the government has never been really truthful with using all their funds to the best ability they can. But I find it completely out there that environmental regulations has caused debt for the vast majority of the American people.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> We've been over this. The government requires as much money (if not more) to maintain itself than money that gets down to people down the line. You don't even want to learn how much of the tax money actually gets to people. The solution to alleviating poverty isn't to keep giving the government more money so that it can consume more money for itself.


*To a certain extent it does. The Government does cost quite a fortune to maintain itself. You're forgetting one thing. Those are jobs, because humans maintain things. Those are quality careers and not some minimum waged form of employment that does nothing to enhance society. The costs of which you speak of requires humans to fix it, file it, review the costs, etc. Things don't fix themselves and of course you don't actually think the Government is some separate entity outside of the people who operate it. 

The Government actually functions because there are people hired, voted, selected, etc to do what it is they do. Since we're talking politics I guess it makes sense just to stick to the politicians. Before I get to those folks lets cover some ground first. Lets get back to this cost. When it comes to how the Government balances their costs compared to the Private sector doesn't even compare. Our Government does far better by a huge margin. There are several examples all throughout the energy sector where The Government is more efficient and consumer driven. David Cay Johnston written about this in full detail. 

The issue with the Private sector is this. It's not about being fair, or having a competitive market. You're living in the 50's. Competition doesn't create money for everyone. That's not how it works. Competition is the enemy of the Capitalists. That's dated bullshit that doesn't work with today's conversation about Economics. Our Government is involved with some inappropriate spending, but why is the ultimate question, right? We hardly ever want to really know why. Government spending typically goes toward the private sector. Here is the facts. Most Military Contracts are done with the Private Sector. Most of your hard working dollar goes towards this, more than half. Do you know why?

Because the most reliable tax base in the country right now would be America. Why not hustle every nickel, dime, and penny when you can? Lobbyists aren't doing their jobs for free and they aren't doing their jobs if their boss doesn't get their way politically. Have you a clue as to how much The United States Government hands out to the Private sector in subsidies? I'm not talking mom and pop stores either. We're talking Walmart, McDonald's, K Mart, Sports Stadiums, Amusement Parks, Malls, etc. Do you know what a subsidy is? It's taxpayer money for the wealthy who don't want to pay for their own private establishment.

Do you know why communities all over the United States are refusing Wal Marts? Because these white, right wing, folks found out that their favorite shopping center was asking for their tax dollars to pay for their building and it's taxes. Not only that, but also raising the cost of property tax of the local homeowners all the while driving the costs of some of the homes in the surrounding area down in the process and also killing jobs of local middle class businesses. These are facts. When you start talking about Government and it's wasteful spending you have to bring your "A" game because it's not so simple no matter which side of the argument you're on.

When you understand this topic like I do you realize how much of your hard earned money goes towards the ones that don't actually need the money at all. Here is an assignment and go back to just 50 years. I want you to do some research for yourself. Research how many sports stadiums in the United States have been paid for by taxpayers in the surrounding. Not only that, but I want you to read the actual costs in taxpayer money. You can include costs to implode the stadiums since so many new ones have been rebuilt since the 60's. 

I would rather have my tax payer money go to poor people and middle class businesses, or perhaps lower the costs of College for everyone. The Government is made up of people who aren't like you, me, or the girl next door. They're Lawyers, Judges, Executives, Surgeons, ex-CEO's, ex-Vice CEO's, ex-Board Members of Fortune 500 companies, etc. These people don't have you, or my interests in mind. The idea, or false notion that regulations are keeping wages down, or keeping these companies from really doing much better for society is completely untrue. What regulations do you speak of? Have you any idea how many regulations there are? 

Yes, many regulations, but don't act as if even half of them are unnecessary. That's beyond foolish and ignorant on your end. So many regulations have made working conditions so much more efficient, made our food better, keeps disease from spreading, keeps the communities we live in clean, etc? Do you know the history of America? People lived in terrible conditions in terms of work and their environment. Pittsburgh is a great example. Hundred years ago the air quality in Pittsburgh was just god awful. Just google it, add it to your assignment that I gave you earlier. 

Please lets not act like we cover everything just because we say "regulations". These private titans would eat us alive if it weren't for the regulations you think are actually destroying the Free Market. Your logic isn't logic at all. These titans are making record profits. These are facts. Most of established chains in the Capitalists Nation that is America like Food, Oil, Housing, etc aren't going anywhere and they are in the Golden Years. The amount of deregulation that has been going on proves this. Record profits can't happen if regulations are slowly killing the private sector. Something doesn't add up here. It would have to be the opposite. 

Our Government simply deregulates the market all the time. The fact that you aren't aware of this, or at least don't appear to be tells me you aren't very knowledgeable on this topic. Surprise me. It baffles me when folks like you attempt to use this false theory that The Government can't do anything when it actually does what it's supposed to do very well for the Private Sector. Law's are created all the time how even more so "Business Laws", or regulations are created, or deregulated all the time. I think it's some 80,000 per year that Congress looks over, or will have presented. Look at how long the seats in the House and Senate have gone on. That doesn't happen without lobbying and quality campaign control, or Rich People money.

It's a you scratch our backs and then we scratch your back by keeping you in office, but we can't guarantee anything since it's a "Democracy". If you think Socialism is the problem and if you think poor people are the financial problem in this country then you are dead wrong. That's not up for debate. Socialism is the least of our financial matters. A Government lobbied to by the Private Sector would never think to appropriately distribute our tax dollars. The wealthiest 1/10 of 1% own nearly 70% of all financial estates, names, rights, properties, etc. The Government doesn't operate for you and I. It's operates to the hand that feeds it, The Private Sector. Big Tobacco used to be the most well known culprit until people started to listen to science and learn that Nicotine is actually very harmful for you. Then those regulations kick in. Damn those regulations that saved lives.*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



blackholeson said:


> *To a certain extent it does. The Government does cost quite a fortune to maintain itself. You're forgetting one thing. Those are jobs, because humans maintain things. Those are quality careers and not some minimum waged form of employment that does nothing to enhance society. The costs of which you speak of requires humans to fix it, file it, review the costs, etc. Things don't fix themselves and of course you don't actually think the Government is some separate entity outside of the people who operate it.
> 
> The Government actually functions because there are people hired, voted, selected, etc to do what it is they do. Since we're talking politics I guess it makes sense just to stick to the politicians. Before I get to those folks lets cover some ground first. Lets get back to this cost. When it comes to how the Government balances their costs compared to the Private sector doesn't even compare. Our Government does far better by a huge margin. There are several examples all throughout the energy sector where The Government is more efficient and consumer driven. David Cay Johnston written about this in full detail.
> 
> The issue with the Private sector is this. It's not about being fair, or having a competitive market. You're living in the 50's. Competition doesn't create money for everyone. That's not how it works. Competition is the enemy of the Capitalists. That's dated bullshit that doesn't work with today's conversation about Economics. Our Government is involved with some inappropriate spending, but why is the ultimate question, right? We hardly ever want to really know why. Government spending typically goes toward the private sector. Here is the facts. Most Military Contracts are done with the Private Sector. Most of your hard working dollar goes towards this, more than half. Do you know why?
> 
> Because the most reliable tax base in the country right now would be America. Why not hustle every nickel, dime, and penny when you can? Lobbyists aren't doing their jobs for free and they aren't doing their jobs if their boss doesn't get their way politically. Have you a clue as to how much The United States Government hands out to the Private sector in subsidies? I'm not talking mom and pop stores either. We're talking Walmart, McDonald's, K Mart, Sports Stadiums, Amusement Parks, Malls, etc. Do you know what a subsidy is? It's taxpayer money for the wealthy who don't want to pay for their own private establishment.
> 
> Do you know why communities all over the United States are refusing Wal Marts? Because these white, right wing, folks found out that their favorite shopping center was asking for their tax dollars to pay for their building and it's taxes. Not only that, but also raising the cost of property tax of the local homeowners all the while driving the costs of some of the homes in the surrounding area in the process and also killing jobs. These are facts. When you start talking about Government and it's wasteful spending you have to bring your "A" game because it's not so simple no matter which side of the argument you're on.
> 
> When you understand this topic like I do you realize how much of your hard earned money goes towards the ones that don't actually need the money at all. Here is an assignment and go back to just 50 years. I want you to do some research for yourself. Research how many sports stadiums in the United States have been paid for by taxpayers in the surrounding. Not only that, but I want you to read the actual costs in taxpayer money. You can include costs to implode the stadiums since so many new ones have been rebuilt since the 60's.
> 
> I would rather have my tax payer money go to poor people and middle class businesses, or perhaps lower the costs of College for everyone. The Government is made up of people who aren't like you, me, or the girl next door. They're Lawyers, Judges, Executives, Surgeons, ex-CEO's, ex-Vice CEO's, ex-Board Members of Fortune 500 companies, etc. These people don't have you, or my interests in mind. The idea, or false notion that regulations are keeping wages down, or keeping these companies from really doing much better for society is completely untrue. What regulations do you speak of? Have you any idea how many regulations there are?
> 
> Yes, many regulations, but don't act as if even half of them are unnecessary. That's beyond foolish and ignorant on your end. So many regulations have made working conditions so much more efficient, made our food better, keeps disease from spreading, keeps the communities we live in clean, etc? Do you know the history of America? People lived in terrible conditions in terms of work and their environment. Pittsburgh is a great example. Hundred years ago the air quality in Pittsburgh was just god awful. Just google it, add it to your assignment that I gave you earlier.
> 
> Please lets not act like we cover everything just because we say "regulations". These private titans would eat us alive if it weren't for the regulations you think are actually destroying the Free Market. Your logic isn't logic at all. These titans are making record profits. These are facts. Most of established chains in the Capitalists Nation that is America like Food, Oil, Housing, etc aren't going anywhere and they are in the Golden Years. The amount of deregulation that has been going on proves this. Record profits can't happen if regulations are slowly killing the private sector. Something doesn't add up here. It would have to be the opposite.
> 
> Our Government simply deregulates the market all the time. The fact that you aren't aware of this, or at least don't appear to be tells me you aren't very knowledgeable on this topic. Surprise me. It baffles me when folks like you attempt to use this false theory that The Government can't do anything when it actually does what it's supposed to do very well for the Private Sector. Law's are created all the time how even more so "Business Laws", or regulations are created, or deregulated all the time. I think it's some 80,000 per year that Congress looks over, or will have presented. Look at how long the Seats in the House and Senate have gone on. That doesn't happen without lobbying and quality campaign control, or Rich People money.
> 
> It's an you scratch our backs and then we scratch your back by keeping you in office, but we can't guarantee anything since it's a "Democracy". If you think Socialism is the problem and if you think poor people are the financial problem in this country then you are dead wrong. That's not up for debate. Socialism is the least of our financial matters. A Government not lobbied to by the Private Sector would never think to appropriately distribute our tax dollars. The wealthiest 1/10 of 1% own nearly 70% of all financial estates, names, rights, properties, etc. The Government doesn't operate for you and I. It's operates to the hand that feeds it, The Private Sector. Big Tobacco used to be the most well known culprit until people started to listen to science and learn that Nicotine is actually very harmful for you. Then those regulations kick in. Damn those regulations that saved lives.*


Get rid of the government you get rid of the capitalists ' ability to create monopolies and unfair competition. 

If you don't even understand what the relationship between regulation and the economy us then how can you even understand what the real problem is?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


"Miss, we've traced the call and the MAGA is coming from inside the house!"


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Get rid of the government you get rid of the capitalists ' ability to create monopolies and unfair competition.
> 
> If you don't even understand what the relationship between regulation and the economy us then how can you even understand what the real problem is?


*What are you some Anarchist now? You don't just get rid of your Government. Seriously, you responded to my post with two sentences? I'm actually disappointed in you. You seem to make rather lengthy debates. I was wrong.*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I get how a lot of the government can misappropriate funds and in the entire history of the county the government has never been really truthful with using all their funds to the best ability they can. But I find it completely out there that environmental regulations has caused debt for the vast majority of the American people.


 Environmental regulations have taken thousands of private sector jobs in several industries. Of course that creates debt and poverty.

Also, why are you trying to make it just about environmental regulations. Government regulations don't operate independent of one another. Environmental regulations contribute to poverty as it raises the tax burden. It's one of those dozens of taxes in there that eventually find its way to the end consumers. If you raise the tax on a company that uses coal in order to "promote" a "cleaner environment", who do you think is paying the cost in the end? 

Now think of a 100 industries - some of which are subsidized with the belief that they're going to reduce the costs. Where is that subsidy coming from? Another industry that is now being forced to raise its prices. It's like chaos theory in a sense where in the web of government regulations that reduce the cost of your toilet paper could be raising the cost of your your children's college text books.

How? It's not that out there when you think about it. There is a finite amount of trees available to be cut. It is determined by the government that toilet paper is more important than text books therefore the government introduces legislation that taxes those companies that print text books more than companies that make toilet paper. Can you see where this is headed? 

It's simpler economics than people seem to think.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



blackholeson said:


> *What are you some Anarchist now? You don't just get rid of your Government. Seriously, you responded to my post with two sentences? I'm actually disappointed in you. You seem to make rather lengthy debates. I was wrong.*


Not everything requires a thousand words. When there's no government you reduce all kinds of corruption and capitalist collusion. It's not like any of you pro big government people ever bother changing your minds anyways. Why should I waste time? I only post foe the benefit of people who are on the fence. Not people on the far left. 

I've been an anarchist for nearly a decade.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

67%, @deepelemblues... :banderas


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Environmental regulations have taken thousands of private sector jobs in several industries. Of course that creates debt and poverty.
> 
> Also, why are you trying to make it just about environmental regulations. Government regulations don't operate independent of one another. Environmental regulations contribute to poverty as it raises the tax burden. It's one of those dozens of taxes in there that eventually find its way to the end consumers. If you raise the tax on a company that uses coal in order to "promote" a "cleaner environment", who do you think is paying the cost in the end?
> 
> It's simpler economics than people seem to think.


Actually, I just re-read your post and realized that I had just misunderstood you. You mentioned this...



> People are not dying from the government not getting taxes. People are in high levels of debt (and not dying) because of the regulated environment driving up costs that should never have been as high without government regulations. If people can't afford services they would have been able to afford those services if the market was allowed to compete and entrepreneurship was valued more than giving money to a callous mafia that has made millions off of those taxes that they had no right to.


I for some reason switched up where you mentioned "regulated environment," and thought that you were merely talking only about environmental regulations specifically. Apparently you mention the whole idea of governmental regulation. 

Carry on.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Actually, I just re-read your post and realized that I had just misunderstood you. You mentioned this...
> 
> 
> 
> I for some reason switched up where you mentioned "regulated environment," and thought that you were merely talking only about environmental regulations specifically. Apparently you mention the whole idea of governmental regulation.
> 
> Carry on.


:lol It happens. I do it too sometimes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Not everything requires a thousand words. When there's no government you reduce all kinds of corruption and capitalist collusion. It's not like any of you pro big government people ever bother changing your minds anyways. Why should I waste time? I only post foe the benefit of people who are on the fence. Not people on the far left.
> 
> *I've been an anarchist for nearly a decade.*


THEN WHY WERE WE ARGUING ABOUT GUN CONTROL LIKE 3 YEARS AGO


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Maybe his anarchist utopia is all into the badlands-y where everybody has sick swords and knives and shit and guns don't exist for some weird reason


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Maybe his anarchist utopia is all into the badlands-y where everybody has sick swords and knives and shit and guns don't exist for some weird reason


I'd be down for that tbh


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> THEN WHY WERE WE ARGUING ABOUT GUN CONTROL LIKE 3 YEARS AGO


Because I hadn't connected all the issues as intricately as I have over the last 2 years. I was pro self governance. I just didn't know how to make it work as well as I do now.

You have to give me credit for being from the part of the world where no one believes in individual liberty and managing to break away as early as I did even if it was all fucked up at one point.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Bannon claiming he wasn't removed from the NSC, he got on it to clean it up and mission accomplished so he doesn't need to be on it anymore.
> 
> I smell the stink of spin wafting around here.





CamillePunk said:


> Surely the anti-Trump crowd have to believe Bannons version of events, right? After all, he is the de facto president and puppeteer of Donald Trump. Makes zero sense, according to their worldview, that Trump could or would reduce his role in any capacity.


All we've heard is that Bannon is no longer on the NSC, it doesn't mean Trump has fired him completely from his inner circle. If that was the case, I don't think Bannon is the type who is loyal to someone that dumps him and I'm sure he'd be talking about it. He's still part of Trump's advising team, just being moved elsewhere.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>



I love this

Hes gonna grab that pussy


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Not everything requires a thousand words. When there's no government you reduce all kinds of corruption and capitalist collusion. It's not like any of you pro big government people ever bother changing your minds anyways. Why should I waste time? I only post foe the benefit of people who are on the fence. Not people on the far left.
> 
> I've been an anarchist for nearly a decade.


*It's not about changing minds, it's about educating people when they're wrong. People through all generations fail to listen. When that happens we become a society based on opinions, feelings, and other things that don't necessarily make a difference for say taxes, labor, wages, etc. Society and what happens inside should be based on facts and logic. Don't get me wrong for the most part it is. It's why our homes have heat, electricity, and why we can drive to work or take another form of transportation. To often I see people fall into their own bubble of politics and such that it troubles me. What baffles me even more is that you are an Anarchists coming up with some of the arguments in this topic. Most Anarchists come from a far Left mind set. I am no stranger to Anarchism, it's in my blood. I just understand that no matter what people will always organize into groups of rule and governance. That's fact.*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



blackholeson said:


> *It's not about changing minds, it's about educating people when they're wrong. People through all generations fail to listen. When that happens we become a society based on opinions, feelings, and other things that don't necessarily make a difference for say taxes, labor, wages, etc. Society and what happens inside should be based on facts and logic. Don't get me wrong for the most part it is. It's why our homes have heat, electricity, and why we can drive to work or take another form of transportation. To often I see people fall into their own bubble of politics and such that it troubles me. What baffles me even more is that you are an Anarchists coming up with some of the arguments in this topic. Most Anarchists come from a far Left mind set. I am no stranger to Anarchism, it's in my blood. I just understand that no matter what people will always organize into groups of rule and governance. That's fact.*


The reason why I'm so dismissive of left-wing arguments now is that for 15 years I argued your side using literally the same argument structure, same content and same language even. Then I poked holes into my own arguments. 

Notice the amount of my posts in this thread and I can tell you that I have already addressed the same arguments different people bring up at some point or the other in a lot of detail. It just gets tiring having to repeat myself and it's no longer worthwhile from that perspective when I read something I've already addressed elsewhere in much greater detail - only to have it completely ignored or rejected without even given any consideration. 

Take the entire debate around the so-called roll-back on internet privacy and the amount of time I spent debunking, researching and elaborating on my own points as well as addressing every single point by point. What was the outcome of that investment other than the fact that I spent a significant amount of time on a subject that eventually turned out to be a non-issue. 

Sure, people will always form governments and groups, but that doesn't mean that it's the right or best solution especially when a better option exists and people haven't even explored or examined the ideas of laissez faire capitalism. At some point it's like trying to argue that the devil isn't evil with creationists as that's how religiously anti-capitalist leftists are.

When you people say "there will always be a government" to me it's like saying that people will always shit in the ground even though an entire sewage system and comfortable commodes exist and I wonder why people simply don't use the commodes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Devin Nunes to Step Aside From House Russia Investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...ee-russia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


WASHINGTON — Representative Devin Nunes, the embattled California Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, announced on Thursday he would step aside from leading his committee’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to disrupt last year’s presidential election.



His announcement was made on the same morning that the House Committee on Ethics said Mr. Nunes was under investigation because of public reports that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”

The congressman has been under growing criticism for his handling of the Russian inquiry. Many on Capitol Hill have said he is too eager to do the White House’s bidding and cannot be an impartial investigator into questions about any role President Trump’s associates may have had in last year’s Russian campaign to disrupt the election.


Mr. Nunes said that his decision came after “left-wing activist groups” filed accusations against him with the Office of Congressional Ethics. He called the charges “entirely false and politically motivated,” but he said it was in the committee’s best interests for him to temporarily step aside from the investigation.

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the panel’s top Democrat, praised Mr. Nunes’s decision, saying it was made in the “best interests of the investigation.”

“It will allow us to have a fresh start moving forward,” he told reporters.

Mr. Nunes came under fire last month after he announced that he believed Mr. Trump or members of his transition team may have been “incidentally” caught up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies. He cited “dozens” of intelligence reports he described as classified, which The New York Times later revealed had been provided to him by White House officials.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Senate democrats = nuked. Nurked. Nukt. 

Dingy Harry reid and all the rest of them just got their hubris from when they thought America was going to be a one party state forever more ruled by the Democratic party thrown back in their faces. All the doddering old libs on the supreme court better keep doddering on, or the court will be conservative dominated until the 2040s at least.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Republicans going to this immediately - fpalm

Dems not letting this one go through so they can fillibuster an actual extreme conservative candidate later - fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Republicans going to this immediately - fpalm
> 
> *Dems not letting this one go through so they can fillibuster an actual extreme conservative candidate later - fpalm*


Dude you are a moron, the dems were not even allowed to filibuster this nominee what makes you think they would have been allowed to do the same to an actual extreme conservative candidate later ? They would have done the same thing. Its good the dems stuck to their guns on this one, And Gorsuch is pretty right winged. you should do more research on him


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Reported. (edit: cause there's not need for another post that would be off topic.. but I didn't actually report him.. so I was not the reason he got humbled)

And Gorsuch is one of the least right winged person they will get nominated under trump. Dems digging their heels on a guy that many of the dems themselves supported earlier for a different position was stupid. Had they waited, they could still fillibuster the next one, and would have more support than they do for walking back support for a guy now that he's a trump pick. This was a terrible move for them and will likely bite them in the ass. Then they will be the ones that look like complete morons.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Reported.


poor snowflake


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> poor snowflake


You should learn what the term means before using it. But definitions are usually lost on you, so what's the point.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> poor snowflake


hypocrite


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Dems have no one but themselves to blame for this as apparently they were the ones that set the precedent of ending filibusters when it suited them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think both sides will regret this down the line. What happens when Ds gets in and have a majority? They can push through someone who is everything conservatives hate. Said the same thing when Reid nuked the other one, but for the other side.

Both sides have just become so hard line about everything. I get they have their base that wants them to take an iron stance, but compromise is how government has worked. Nobody gets exactly what they want, but they get what they can live with. Now it's just going to be one side passing something and then when the other side gets back in, repealing it back and forth forever. Rs repeal Obamacare, Ds get back in power and repeal it's replacement and so on and so on. 

Rs need to understand that going forward that every failure, and there will be failures, will be considered there's. Ds need to understand this too when they get back in power.

And anyone that thinks that one side won't get back in power is kidding themselves. People get sick of the status quo. They blame who's in power and throw them out.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Reported.
> 
> And Gorsuch is one of the least right winged person they will get nominated under trump. Dems digging their heels on a guy that many of the dems themselves supported earlier for a different position was stupid. Had they waited, they could still fillibuster the next one, and would have more support than they do for walking back support for a guy now that he's a trump pick. This was a terrible move for them and will likely bite them in the ass. Then they will be the ones that look like complete morons.


Democrats just want to oppose anything they can. They're willing to goto war over the smallest of things. These next 4 years will be incredibly long if they feel the need to find a fight in everything


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I understand why Reid did it and I understand why McConnell did it. If Reid didn't do it, there would be a lot more lower court vacancies during Obama's term because of the obstruction that was happening. And McConnell did it because Democrats are really mad that McConnell fucked them over with the Merrick Garland thing which he did and truthfully, it was bullshit that he didn't get a hearing or vote.

This will haunt both Dems and Reps as time moves forward and majority shifts. As long as this doesn't boil over into legislation then I'm fine.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Dems need to be focusing on the Herculean task of winning more seats back in the mid terms. Gorsuch is going to be confirmed regardless what grandstanding occurs. It's grown adults basically throwing temper tantrums.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Scott Adams on the Syrian gas attack and how Trump could be employing his persuasion skills with his comments about it:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion



> According to the mainstream media – that has been wrong about almost everything for a solid 18 months in a row – the Syrian government allegedly bombed its own people with a nerve agent.
> 
> The reason the Assad government would bomb its own people with a nerve agent right now is obvious. Syrian President Assad – who has been fighting for his life for several years, and is only lately feeling safer – suddenly decided to commit suicide-by-Trump. Because the best way to make that happen is to commit a war crime against your own people in exactly the way that would force President Trump to respond or else suffer humiliation at the hands of the mainstream media.
> 
> And how about those pictures coming in about the tragedy. Lots of visual imagery. Dead babies. It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.
> 
> Interesting timing.
> Super-powerful visual persuasion designed for Trump in particular.
> Suspiciously well-documented event for a place with no real press.
> No motive for Assad to use gas to kill a few dozen people at the cost of his entire regime. It wouldn’t be a popular move with Putin either.
> The type of attack no U.S. president can ignore and come away intact.
> A setup that looks suspiciously similar to the false WMD stories that sparked the Iraq war.
> I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.
> 
> My guess is that President Trump knows this smells fishy, but he has to talk tough anyway. However, keep in mind that he has made a brand out of not discussing military options. He likes to keep people guessing. He reminded us of that again yesterday, in case we forgot.
> 
> So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?
> 
> He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart.
> 
> Watch now as the world tries to guess where Trump is moving military assets, and what he might do to respond. The longer he drags things out, the less power the story will have on the public. We’ll be wondering for weeks when those bombs will start hitting Damascus, and Trump will continue to remind us that he doesn’t talk about military options.
> 
> Then he waits for something bad to happen to Assad’s family, or his generals, in the normal course of chaos over there. When that happens on its own, the media will wonder if it was Trump sending a strong message to Assad in a measured way. Confirmation bias will do the rest.
> 
> There is also a non-zero chance that Putin just asked Assad to frame one of his less-effective Syrian generals for going rogue with chemical weapons, and executing him just to calm things down.
> 
> I don’t think we’ll ever know what’s going on over there. But I think we can rule out the idea that Assad decided to commit suicide-by-Trump.


Hoping that Scott is correct, as he always has been.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Everyone has a recording device in their pocket these days. It's very likely this would be caught on camera actually.

You don't need a film crew with a real camera to document anything anymore.

But yeah, I'm skeptical of what the fuck happened here as well. We've heard so much talk of WAR by too many people the past year or so.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation but Tillerson's comments are beginning to sound like Trump's WMDs. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...get-assad-trump-hearing-military-options.html


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850066762208903170
My interpretation is that it's a strong response designed to make it look like the Trump administration is angry and will do something, but actually not. 

If you watch the video (in the link to the article), there is a part in there were Tillerson clearly states that they want to remove Assad "politically" (whatever the fuck that means) indicating that there is no intention of an all out war to remove him --- but to make it sound like there is to pacify anger stirred up by the chemical attack.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

From what I've read Tillerson's coalition comments basically mean:

-strengthen the Western coalition fighting ISIS in Syria
-finish kicking ISIS's butt in Syria
-use the improved position gained from kicking ISIS's butt in Syria to drive a wedge between Assad and Russia, which is already happening a little bit with Russia's comments about its support for Assad not being unconditional suppport
-get Assad to step down

So basically a redux of Obama's strategy. That worked out so well at getting Assad to step down :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What I'm hoping for is that this is just lip-service. 

That said, the rate at which airstrikes are currently happening flies in the face of that hope.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Democrats just want to oppose anything they can. They're willing to goto war over the smallest of things. These next 4 years will be incredibly long if they feel the need to find a fight in everything



They will. They oppoose everything republicans do. Democrats in their arrogance brought this on themselves.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> They will. They oppoose everything republicans do. Democrats in their arrogance brought this on themselves.


It's kinda sad and infuriating really considering I generally am leaning towards that side. Sitting there opposing the other side with fingers jammed into their ears isn't going to do anything. The best option right now is to suck it up and try to work with Trump and get him to listen to them as much as possible, and win back the people who they scared away.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I understand why Reid did it and I understand why McConnell did it. If Reid didn't do it, there would be a lot more lower court vacancies during Obama's term because of the obstruction that was happening. And McConnell did it because Democrats are really mad that McConnell fucked them over with the Merrick Garland thing which he did and truthfully, it was bullshit that he didn't get a hearing or vote.
> 
> This will haunt both Dems and Reps as time moves forward and majority shifts. As long as this doesn't boil over into legislation then I'm fine.


Folks, the filibuster is now dead...there ain't no coming back from this. It's a matter of time before this boils over into legislation as well...where it will take a simple majority to get bills passed. Right now it is only in use in regards to nominating and putting judges in their seats...but down the road I see them looking to make this happen. 

Welcome to the world of unintended consequences...the Dems should have seen this coming when Reid went nuclear. Now, down the road if the GOP fucks things up and the Dems get back into power, we could see it used on them. 




CamillePunk said:


> Scott Adams on the Syrian gas attack and how Trump could be employing his persuasion skills with his comments about it:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion
> 
> Hoping that Scott is correct, as he always has been.


As much as I like Scott Adams' work all these years, I think he's wrong on this one. 

I'm about to lay this out here for everyone on this forum anyway...as a former member of the military and someone who studies very intensely military history, I understand there are a lot of emotions that are going to run with this whole situation. There are those who think the whole thing is a false flag and is deliberately set up by someone to provoke a response. We have people who are hell bent on war/peace depending on if you are a supporter of the President or not. Of course, there are also the chickenhawks who just want to go nuts and say NUKE ALL OF THEM FUCKERS FOR MURRICA! And of course, the pacifists who look for any excuse to NEVER, EVER, use military force even if ISIS was on our doorstep ready to kick the door in. 

While many here don't want to get involved over in the Middle East in another war (and trust me, I don't want to get mixed up either), one of the biggest messes from the Obama administration is that the world doesn't look to us for guidance anymore. Our allies don't think we are willing to support them, and our enemies don't think we'll stop them from doing whatever it is they want. This creates a power vaccuum, one that the villains of the world are more than happy to fill the void as a result. 

Obama stated that a red line that he would consider unacceptable to cross was if there was a chemical attack in Syria. When such an attack happened several years ago, we did nothing. The world lost much respect for Obama and for America, even though the irony at the time was that Trump himself said don't get involved and many of our Congressional leaders were hesitant to authorize action. As a result, we lost face. 

Part of what is the plan known as MAGA is going to be putting us in a position of strength again. We need to show the rest of the world we won't start a fight, but have no problem with finishing one. Everyone else can do whatever they want, as long as they leave us alone and they need to see there is consequences for messing with us. Now, part of that involves the use of chemical weapons. There is no question Assad has had no problem with slaughtering his own people, I wouldn't put it beyond him to use those weapons on his own people. 

Now, we don't have to respond immediately. If there is doubt as to who did this...let's start by looking into who did it. It shows that we are willing to do whatever it takes to find who is responsible for it. Maybe it's Assad, maybe it was ISIS framing him...etc. Meanwhile, we can position ourselves to respond. Reach out to Israel for pointers, for example. While Israel hasn't dove headlong into the conflict, they strike only when there is concern the civil war will spill over towards their border. 

Then, when we find who did it...let's say it was Assad at his order. We don't have to send millions of troops when we have the airpower to take care of business. An example was when Reagan ordered a military airstrike against Qadafi's installations in Libya as well as his palace. It sent a message that messing with us is a major mistake. A perfectly timed simultaneous air strike against Syria military installations and ISIS strongholds can do a substantial amount of damage and send the same message. We don't have to send ground forces...we have the air power to really cause havoc. Look at the bombings done during the first Persian Gulf War...minimal casualties and made the ground game that much easier when it was time to kick the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait. 

What does this do for Trump and his reputation around the world and in this country? I think people will support this move if they deem it necessary and we can do it with as little casualties as possible. GOP folks will love it because it shows the America that is strong is back. Democrats will appreciate the fact that maybe Trump does care about people and is willing to use American might to do the right thing. It will cheer up our allies and we can once again be seen as someone the world can look up to. To our enemies, it sends a message that challenging us is a bad idea. Most importantly, it could kill any silliness regarding Russian involvement. After all, Putin and Assad are very close and by responding in such a way it sends a message that we will do what is in America's best interests even if other people see it differently. 

Now...the other option is to sit back and do nothing...but this holds very bad ramifications as well. People will see Trump as someone who can't keep his word. After all, he has said this crosses many red lines so now he's on the hook to do something. He will lose face with many of his own base, because many of them believe in strength and flexing it when necessary. He will be mocked by liberals who will point out that he doesn't care about helping children, not to mention that their own leader was panned for not responding. To the world, the talk about response will be just that...tough talk that in the end means nothing. Regardless of whether it's a lecture from Obama or Trump saying we are not going to tolerate it, talk with no action means nothing in the long run. 

Should we get involved in another war in the Middle East? I don't believe we should. However, if a leader is using chemical weapons and using him on his own people, that is not something that we can accept as normal. Again, we need to take the time to determine if he did do that, but if we find he did then we have to take some action. To do so will make us safer as a nation. Plus, now we can see what Trump is made of. People love the fact he is a man of his word, etc...now's the time to prove it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How many more innocent lives will be lost during the course of an American intervention? What kind of leader will replace Assad, and how much support could he possibly have in that region, with the specter of the much hated America looming behind him? How many more innocent lives will be lost during the ensuing civil war? And what of when either our installed leader or the winner of the civil war, turns out to be a bad guy willing to commit atrocities to hold power as well? How many more innocent lives lost then?

Sound and reasonable arguments, to be sure, @BruiserKC, but there is no clean or right solution here. Unfortunately the Middle East is a region full of superstitious people who subscribe to a vicious, bloodthirsty cult, with over a millenias worth of grievances with the west and blood feuds among various factions within the region. No matter what course of action our surely wise and prescient leaders *aha* take, there will be blood. Why, tell me, should it be on the hands of my country? Why should I, albeit via force, be indirectly tied to the weapons of death and the tragedies they visit upon innocents? It's an unconscionable thing, in my mind, and something I'd prefer to have no part in.


----------



## Headliner

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850154183697334272
Not sure how valid this is but I've been glued to different news outlets for updates. NBC News was saying that miltary action could happen in the next few hours. We'll see.

Double post. I'll merge later. CNN Pentagon just confirmed this tweet:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850154542851395584


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Personally I think losing face is not as bad as losing another generation of young men for someone else's war.


----------



## Captain Edd

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Reading multiple reports that the USA launched about 50 missiles, shit just got real


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I was hoping President Trump wouldn't do anything to avoid another Iraq fiasco, but he would've been crucified for it. Damn if you do. Damn if you don't.






- Vic


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fuck the idea of getting involved in another war. I get Obama not keeping to his word with the red-line stuff, but could you not do proper investigation before actually going through with such a drastic measure? It's only been what, barely 2 days?

This isn't going to be good...


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That's great, it starts with an earthquake... or you know, 50 Tomahawk missiles...


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

just read these figures. 59 missiles in 60 seconds. 1.4 million per missile. An $82.6 million minute. Imagine how much firepower that was.

Also, the president might want to take his own advice.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/375609403376144384


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So it begins. The US has attacked the Syrian government directly with 50+ airstrikes on Syrian airfields, just as Hillary Clinton prescribed earlier this morning. It seems US foreign policy remains in the hands of the bipartisan neocon warhawks who want to see the World War III they grew up hearing about before they are lowered into their graves, unscathed by any direct involvement with the conflict they've been striving to create in the world for decades. Well, I rarely conduct my lavatorial affairs outside, but for the graves of these most vile and irredeemable of souls, I'm quite keen to make an exception. John McCain should have died in that Vietnamese prison, and the world would have been much better for it. 

The Democrats and various anti-Trump factions should take comfort as well. Trump is not the Russian stooge you concocted him to be without evidence as an emergency reality-coping mechanism in the face of your utter defeat in the 2016 election. Here he is now, brashly attacking a government being militarily aided in a civil war by Russia, drawing the US further into a conflict it should have no part in, which could very well light the fuse that begins World War III. Of course, this means you've spent the last several months of your lives playing the part of complete and utterly deluded fools, but I'm sure you'll find those clothes rather comfortable and familiar.

Even some of Trump's most ardent followers cannot support him in this most condemnable action, attacking the Syrian government so soon after a highly suspicious "chemical attack", without sufficient investigation, without Congressional approval, and in direct contradiction to all of his campaign rhetoric and indeed YEARS of political commentary. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850075185285824515

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850162532568317952

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850161750221697024


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm personally fine with this

I believe in the mission even if the people planning have less moral reasons I support at least the stated goal


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This all goes back to Trump's emotional and impulsive demeanor that people tried to warn ya'll about. Me personally, I think Trump seen those images of hurt kids and got in his emotions which led to him becoming reactive.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> So it begins. The US has attacked the Syrian government directly with 50+ airstrikes on Syrian airfields, *just as Hillary Clinton prescribed earlier this morning*. It seems US foreign policy remains in the hands of the bipartisan neocon warhawks who want to see the World War III



The stupidity coming from the left on twitter right now is fucking insane. They all act like Trump went insane and made this decision on his own when the entire establishment, left and right, was pushing for this. Why does everyone have to be so stupid?




> This all goes back to Trump's emotional and impulsive demeanor that people tried to warn ya'll about. Me personally, I think Trump seen those images of hurt kids and got in his emotions which led to him becoming reactive.


What are you talking about? Again, the entire establishment was pushing for this. This has nothing to do with Trump being unable to control his emotions. FUCK!


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



KC Armstrong said:


> The stupidity coming from the left on twitter right now is fucking insane. They all act like Trump went insane and made this decision on his own when the entire establishment, left and right, was pushing for this. Why does everyone have to be so stupid?


Because Twitter has made people stupid.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850092707435425792


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In theory if the Syrian airforce is knocked out all the sides will be pretty even again

I'm not worried, Trump has two of the best military minds of their generation in Mattis and McMaster


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And here comes World War 3, this is Bible prophecy being fulfilled too.

The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. (Isaiah 17:1)

Also, Russia warned us to not get involved....


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



KC Armstrong said:


> What are you talking about? Again, the entire establishment was pushing for this. This has nothing to do with Trump being unable to control his emotions. FUCK!


Sure. I knew he was going to take military actions the moment he made that speech about what happened. I just didn't think it would be so soon. 






I never forgot this speech. Because even though he was talking about ISIS, I knew it was something he would keep in mind for situations like this. You guys are acting surprised and you're figuring out something I already knew. :toomanykobes


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's statement regarding the US strikes in Syria:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850169496694177792


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm just hoping that this is a message sent that using inhumane biological weapons isn't going to be tolerated in any cost. Feels like this hearkens back to Obama's failure to abide by his word when he mentioned that such actions would step over his "red line" and that such actions would have consequences. 

I hope they don't start sending more troops over there though, for their sake.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Sure. I knew he was going to take military actions the moment he made that speech about what happened. I just didn't think it would be so soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never forgot this speech. Because even though he was talking about ISIS, I knew it was something he would keep in mind for situations like this. You guys are acting surprised and you're figuring out something I already knew. :toomanykobes



... and I have seen establishment Dems and Repubs recommending military strikes against Syria, including Hillary. So the point remains, the fact that this happened has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's temper. He did not throw a fit and say "AHHH, FUCK IT, JUST BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM". 

It just goes to show that even in this fucked up election, you really didn't have a choice. No matter who wins the WWE style election, the result will be the same.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I was hoping President Trump wouldn't do anything to avoid another Iraq fiasco, but he would've been crucified for it. Damn if you do. Damn if you don't.


That is what crucifies him?? Hardly. There's a reason he polls low, the guy doesn't give a goddamn about "what it looks like" or who he upsets. He's probably in the best position of any president to say no.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did Hillary want to bomb Syrian airfields this morning because of her temper, too? 

This is the deep state. This is the military industrial complex. Trump was the only realistic option that could have won the election and resisted them. He won the election. He failed to resist being manipulated by those cancerous elements in our government by a possibly fake chemical attack, and did the opposite of what he has said the US should be doing for years on end.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










McCain and Lindsey Graham are jerking each other off as we speak.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just hoping that this is a message sent that using inhumane biological weapons isn't going to be tolerated in any cost. Feels like this hearkens back to Obama's failure to abide by his word when he mentioned that such actions would step over his "red line" and that such actions would have consequences.
> 
> I hope they don't start sending more troops over there though, for their sake.


When Obama asked Congress to authorize more action against Syria, they wouldn't do it. I've always held both Congress and Obama responsible for Syria. 

One interesting take from this is that Rand Paul said earlier today that Trump would need congressional authority for this:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/kfile-rand-paul-syria-trump/


The law and line on whether a President needs Congress approval for war since WWII has been stepped over repeatedly because Presidents have been able to twist legal words and definitions to justify their reasoning for military action without Congress.

I just want to see what happens when Congress is back in session.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"If you vote for Hillary, we'll be at war with Syria in six months!"

Gotta give Trump credit, he's faster than that.

Suckers.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Eh it's about time the United states instead of russia was the country showing off its power.

The US is already fighting in syria, and this is a targeted strike on the air base the chemical weapons attack was launched from. Good. The United states should bomb the piss out of anywhere wmd attacks come from. That doesn't mean start a general campaign. It means punish and frighten assholes who use poison gas. 

Maybe now we can crack the right wing unity around here since all the neo isolationist bullshit so popular here doesnt match the real world and is a childish fantasy. 

A nice bit of 8d chess from :trump as long as events and policy decisions over the weekend are carefully managed.

The war powers act is unconstitutional, rand paul can suck a dick and cry about it all he wants. Even if it were constitutional it essentially gives the president 90 days to fight a war without any congressional approval, with some limitations that kick in if the number of soldiers involved gets high enough. If Im remembering the language right. 

Say it was a false flag like some 911 troofer or cry about neocons like a daily kos drone, if you wanna toss out the don't use wmd rule because the deep state something something then just say so. I say fuck that, it's about time someone stood up for the goddamn moral principle the world voluntarily signed on to after hiroshima and nagasaki. Don't fucking use wmd or something will be done about it.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



KC Armstrong said:


> ... and I have seen establishment Dems and Repubs recommending military strikes against Syria, including Hillary. So the point remains, the fact that this happened has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's temper. He did not throw a fit and say "AHHH, FUCK IT, JUST BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM".
> 
> It just goes to show that even in this fucked up election, you really didn't have a choice. No matter who wins the WWE style election, the result will be the same.


The truth is, I don't know, and you don't know. I am going off his behavior. Trump's entire tweet history and interviews has been defensive and reactive. That's my opinion. My opinion is that right after the speech Trump wanted to attack them but wanted to figure out the best way to do it.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Eric Fleischer said:


> "If you vote for Hillary, we'll be at war with Syria in six months!"
> 
> Gotta give Trump credit, he's faster than that.
> 
> Suckers.



It wouldn't have taken Hillary 6 months, either. She said it herself.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Apparently the Pentagon warned Russia about the strike in advance in case they had any personnel in the area.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> "If you vote for Hillary, we'll be at war with Russia in six months!"


EFA.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850166028738973696
The MSM is vile. Totally controlled by the merchants of death.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850162697354326016
I guess he is no longer #LiterallyHitler


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The stupidity coming from the left on twitter right now is fucking insane. They all act like Trump went insane and made this decision on his own when the entire establishment, left and right, was pushing for this. Why does everyone have to be so stupid?





Random Twitter hater said:


> Impeach Trump! He's going to get us all killed!


:lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

While the leftist MSM corporations fawn over the man they regularly portrayed as Hitler because he served the will of their war-hungry masters, so-called "Fake news" alternative media personalities who heavily supported Trump such as Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich (who correctly reported 3 hours before the attack that it would occur), and others stand against these actions and condemn Trump, as men of principle. Perhaps people who look down on the alternative media and still buy the shit that these vile MSM corporations put out should meditate on that for a spell.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Alex Jones often talks about satanists, CIA child sacrifices and chemtrailing 

The alternative media bar is so fucking low


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850171163527581697
Who is this?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850171163527581697
> Who is this?


The guy who pushed the #BLMkidnapping on twitter when those guys kidnapped that mentally handicapped kid


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So basically to not be considered Hitler these days is to start a war.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So basically to not be considered Hitler these days is to start a war.


Sounds about right.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Who is this?


Some right wing thot


CamillePunk said:


> Did Hillary want to bomb Syrian airfields this morning because of her temper, too?
> 
> This is the deep state. This is the military industrial complex. Trump was the only realistic option that could have won the election and resisted them. He won the election. He failed to resist being manipulated by those cancerous elements in our government by a possibly fake chemical attack, and did the opposite of what he has said the US should be doing for years on end.


Okay thanks for the clarification, because I also had the feeling this was uncharacteristic of him and I was struggling to understand it from him. Outside influence would make most sense. Too bad, so sad.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850171163527581697
> Who is this?


Infowars/prison planet nutjob


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Eh it's about time the United states instead of russia was the country showing off its power.
> 
> The US is already fighting in syria, and this is a targeted strike on the air base the chemical weapons attack was launched from. Good. The United states should bomb the piss out of anywhere wmd attacks come from. That doesn't mean start a general campaign. It means punish and frighten assholes who use poison gas.
> 
> Maybe now we can crack the right wing unity around here since all the neo isolationist bullshit so popular here doesnt match the real world and is a childish fantasy.
> 
> A nice bit of 8d chess from :trump as long as events and policy decisions over the weekend are carefully managed.
> 
> The war powers act is unconstitutional, rand paul can suck a dick and cry about it all he wants. Even if it were constitutional it essentially gives the president 90 days to fight a war without any congressional approval, with some limitations that kick in if the number of soldiers involved gets high enough. If Im remembering the language right.
> 
> Say it was a false flag like some 911 troofer or cry about neocons like a daily kos drone, if you wanna toss out the don't use wmd rule because the deep state something something then just say so. I say fuck that, it's about time someone stood up for the goddamn moral principle the world voluntarily signed on to after hiroshima and nagasaki. Don't fucking use wmd or something will be done about it.


How interesting the attack is taking place as Trump was having dinner with the Chinese President. This was definitely Godfather-worthy...and Assad just had the equivalent of waking up next to the horse's head. He just sent a message to our enemies in Iran, China, North Korea, etc. If we deem it necessary to act, we are going to do so. It's doing the right thing. And it points out to them that they could be next if so pushed. 

I know everyone is freaking out right now and going crazy (and possibly abandoning the Trump train), but let's take a step back. This was a limited strike, targetting Syrian airfields and military installations. Trump stayed out of the way and allowed the military to run the show, which is more than Obama did for eight years. While Tillerson is talking about possible regime change, etc...I think Trump is more than willing to give Assad a chance to call for peace. What happened tonight sent the message that we will take you out if it comes down to it. The choice is his, and how Assad reacts will determine what's next. 

I fully understand people are nervous right now. If we never had to raise another gun at an enemy or launch another missile, I'd be happy as all get out. Unfortunately, we live in a world where pacifism is not an option. Obama chose not to take action, and we paid for it with loss of face around the world, not to mention ISIS and people that were inspired by them to launch attacks in this country. They did so knowing there would be little to no retribution. Many of you now blasting Trump for this move were bitching about Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks taking place in this country. Those attacks were partially inspired by leadership that apologized for everything America did or didn't do. If we can somehow send a message that this will not stand, wouldn't it be worth it to possibly be safer? Notice we really haven't heard much about attacks here in the States since Trump was sworn in...coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. 

Besides...what's to say he's going to be interested in nation-building? Perhaps he's going to take care of business and then let the Syrian people decide how they want to resolve their lives from there. I sure as hell don't want to be an occupying force, that's not our job. We should be able to go in, take care of business, be allowed to let the military do their job...and get the hell out. 

I will say this...tonight I was impressed. Trump said he was not going to allow this gas attack to go unpunished, and he followed through on his word. Now, I'd personally have had him say during his comments that it is now Assad's move on how he wants to take care of things rather than promise a coalition to take him out, but otherwise he said the right things. 

I applaud him for what he did...now let's see how this plays out. Well played, Mr. President, well played.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Who is this?


A bullshit filter.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

the pentagon presented two plans to :trump

launch cruise missiles at only the air base the gassing attacks were launched from

or conduct multiple strikes with missiles _and_ warplanes against syrian military bases in general, weapons depots, roads, bridges, utilities, command-and-control headquarters, etc. which likely would have resulted in the deaths of russians

:trump chose option 1


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm not abandoning anything. But what are we as constituents if we don't hold our leaders accountable to their own fucking promises?

I don't care if this is a limited strike that may not even lead to war. I care that the man promised a non interventionist international policy.

Attacking a Syrian airbase does nothing to end terrorism. It may not lead to an increase in it but how exactly does it end ISIS or even begin to do so?


----------



## Neuron

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850089008990494720

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850178510262087680
Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson are coming out of the woodwork to praise this.

That's a very bad sign.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is Hitler narrative is officially dead. Dems can't walk back their support of airstrikes against Syria when "literally Hitler you guyz" is the one doing it. If Trump was "literally Hitler you guys" then they would be condemning this as an attack on Muslims. Yet, they're gushing. Scott Adams makes more and more sense every day.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN :done

Very mixed on this. On one hand, I agree with @deepelemblues and @BruiserKC that such a callous usage of WMDs needs to be penalized accordingly. Yet on the other hand, I didn't want us to get involved in yet another region of Bumfuckistan and was *somewhat* hopeful that Teflon Don Juan would make sure that wouldn't happen, since Hilldog is still hell-bent on gunning for Syria and Russia even though her decrepit ass can't do shit.

If this airstrike does indeed wind up being analogous to Bruiser's Godfather comparison, I'll be pretty damn relieved. Hopefully that turns out to be the case.

:lenny2


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I'm not abandoning anything. But what are we as constituents if we don't hold our leaders accountable to their own fucking promises?
> 
> I don't care if this is a limited strike that may not even lead to war. I care that the man promised a non interventionist international policy.
> 
> Attacking a Syrian airbase does nothing to end terrorism. It may not lead to an increase in it but how exactly does it end ISIS or even begin to do so?


it has nothing to do with ISIS and terrorism

it has to do with you don't fucking gas people and if you do you're gonna regret it

each time deserves a very forceful response and the times in the past after 1945 when that response has not been forthcoming are a shame and a disgrace


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> it has nothing to do with ISIS and terrorism
> 
> it has to do with you don't fucking gas people and if you do you're gonna regret it
> 
> each time deserves a very forceful response and the times in the past after 1945 when that response has not been forthcoming are a shame and a disgrace


Two full wars and starting a third is basically doing the same thing expecting different results each time. 

You're saying that 16 years if 2 wars isn't a forceful enough response? So we go out and start a third

Senseless.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

opcorn opcorn opcorn


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I applaud him for what he did...now let's see how this plays out. Well played, Mr. President, well played.


Where's the evidence that Assad committed a chemical attack against his own people? Why not wait for the investigation? Why are you applauding before you have the facts? 

I don't think we should have attacked even if Assad really did order the chemical attack, but if you are on the side that says we should attack, you still don't have the evidence to support your position yet. 



deepelemblues said:


> the pentagon presented two plans to :trump
> 
> launch cruise missiles at only the air base the gassing attacks were launched from
> 
> or conduct multiple strikes with missiles _and_ warplanes against syrian military bases in general, weapons depots, roads, bridges, utilities, command-and-control headquarters, etc. which likely would have resulted in the deaths of russians
> 
> :trump chose option 1


He's the president. Shooting down both options is an option as well.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The US can not retain its global presence and the general peaceful state the world is in without showing that they are willing to fight 

Dictators took advantage of the US's weak stomach after Vietnam and did whatever the fuck they wanted and they did the same after Iraq

You need to have a spine and you need to have someone who is willing to do the things that need to be done


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> The US can not retain its global presence and the general peaceful state the world is in without showing that they are willing to fight
> 
> Dictators took advantage of the US's weak stomach after Vietnam and did whatever the fuck they wanted and they did the same after Iraq
> 
> You need to have a spine and you need to have someone who is willing to do the things that need to be done


Are you talking about the dictators that the US installed or the dictators that the US supported because they were "benevolent '.

You shouldn't give me the dictator speech because America supported two dictators that played a huge role in creating the Pakistan that exists today.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

CNN just said that Pence was in The Situation Room in the White House while Trump was eating dinner with the Chinese President at Trump's mansion in Florida. This indicates to me that Pence was running things from the military room in coordination with Trump, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> The US can not retain its global presence and the general peaceful state the world is in without showing that they are willing to fight
> 
> Dictators took advantage of the US's weak stomach after Vietnam and did whatever the fuck they wanted and they did the same after Iraq
> 
> You need to have a spine and you need to have someone who is willing to do the things that need to be done


I agree with the notion that if people want to start needless shit, they should be punished accordingly. But being triggered to the point of blindly going in guns blazing instead of being pragmatic about the situation isn't the best course of action. Vietnam and Iraq were perfect examples of that and I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not fond of "third time's the charm" when it comes warfare and that is especially in regard to conflicts started out of knee-jerk reactions.

I hope that this airstrike really is just a very stern warning toward Assad to tell him that just because he pissed on Obama's red line, he won't be so lucky if he feels froggy enough to jump against Trump.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Pretty boring video but it was just released. The launch of the missiles.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I agree with the notion that if people want to start needless shit, they should be punished accordingly. But being triggered to the point of blindly going in guns blazing instead of being pragmatic about the situation isn't the best course of action. Vietnam and Iraq were perfect examples of that and I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not fond of "third time's the charm" when it comes warfare and that is especially in regard to conflicts started out of knee-jerk reactions.
> 
> I hope that this airstrike really is just a very stern warning toward Assad to tell him that just because he pissed on Obama's red line, he won't be so lucky if he feels froggy enough to jump against Trump.


The thing is, the machine could've waited another week and within that week Assad could've gassed them again, who knows? 

It's fucked up, there's no right answer is here. But I feel like if you have the capabilities to stop a dictator using chemical weapons then you should probably do it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We don't even know he gassed them the first time. It's a highly suspicious incident. The rebels have a history of using chemical weapons AND faking chemical attacks.

It's enough to say we should have an investigation and wait for the results before taking any action. Anyone applauding the attack with the information we have now is just showing their hawkish inclinations, war for the sake of war. Lizard brain caveman bullshit. It's disgusting and offensive to peaceful, rational people.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Are you talking about the dictators that the US installed or the dictators that the US supported because they were "benevolent '.
> 
> You shouldn't give me the dictator speech because America supported two dictators that played a huge role in creating the Pakistan that exists today.


Are we talking about the real world or the Luap Nor-Noam Chomsky double power hour? 

Discovering that America held and holds her interests in higher regard than what you believe Pakistan's interests were or are doesn't change what happens when America decides to not be on top of things, whether it is because of Obama's anachronistic anti-colonialism inspired dithering or Luap Nor style neo isolationism.



CamillePunk said:


> Where's the evidence that Assad committed a chemical attack against his own people? Why not wait for the investigation? Why are you applauding before you have the facts?
> 
> I don't think we should have attacked even if Assad really did order the chemical attack, but if you are on the side that says we should attack, you still don't have the evidence to support your position yet.


I'm just wondering, what are you suggesting? You clearly don't just want to see the evidence.

That darn deep state, fabricating evidence that the gas attack originated from this particular Syrian air base for the pentagon to show to :trump

There is no excuse for countenancing the use of poison gases. Ideologies that provide justification for such a position are morally bankrupt. 

We already know that any evidence will be discounted anyway as the various troofer brigades roar into action to prove it was really George Soros and the CIA.

I do wonder how the rebels have managed to carry out this aerial gas attack when they don't have any aircraft :draper2

Perhaps it was CIA drones every time


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm just wondering, what are you suggesting? You clearly don't just want to see the evidence.
> 
> That darn deep state, fabricating evidence that the gas attack originated from this particular Syrian air base for the pentagon to show to :trump
> 
> There is no excuse for countenancing the use of poison gases. Ideologies that provide justification for such a position are morally bankrupt.


I'm suggesting we don't try to solve the problems that are partially a result of US intervention with more US intervention. There is no scenario where the US intervenes in the Middle East and then good things happen. It's going to be a shitshow no matter what, so let's not get any of it on us. Let them figure out their own shit while the US takes care of itself. I'm just saying EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP SAID FOR YEARS AND THROUGHOUT HIS CAMPAIGN.

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar with a great article about how Trump has betrayed his campaign's foreign policy vision with today's attacks, and why the "Assad chemical attack" story is so questionable: 

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/04/06/trump-versus-trumpism-syria-in-the-crosshairs/


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> We don't even know he gassed them the first time. It's a highly suspicious incident. The rebels have a history of using chemical weapons AND faking chemical attacks.
> 
> It's enough to say we should have an investigation and wait for the results before taking any action. Anyone applauding the attack with the information we have now is just showing their hawkish inclinations, war for the sake of war. Lizard brain caveman bullshit. It's disgusting and offensive to peaceful, rational people.


The "first time," if you are referring to the Ghouta massacre, was a massive, well-planned and well-coordinated attack with surface-to-surface rockets requiring the handling of huge amounts of chemicals, on a scale never seen from any opposition group in Syria. Because none of them have access to such quantities or the capability to handle and employ them in such a fashion. 

The largest gas attack by an opposition group (Islamists attacking Kurds) resulted in 23 deaths and over a hundred wounded. Dwarfed by the Ghouta attacks and those on April 4th. 

There is nothing peaceful or rational about your position in the slightest. Gas attacks cannot be tolerated by peaceful, rational people. I'll applaud the Tomahawk strikes all day. If the next time it's rebels using chlorine gas (the agent used in the overwhelming majority of gas attacks by rebel groups) they can get bombed too.



CamillePunk said:


> I'm suggesting we don't try to solve the problems that are partially a result of US intervention with more US intervention. There is no scenario where the US intervenes in the Middle East and then good things happen. It's going to be a shitshow no matter what, so let's not get any of it on us. Let them figure out their own shit while the US takes care of itself. I'm just saying EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP SAID FOR YEARS AND THROUGHOUT HIS CAMPAIGN.
> 
> Justin Raimondo of AntiWar with a great article about how Trump has betrayed his campaign's foreign policy vision with today's attacks, and why the "Assad chemical attack" story is so questionable:
> 
> http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/04/06/trump-versus-trumpism-syria-in-the-crosshairs/


It's questionable to Raimondo because he is a Luap Nor troofer type with a severely blinkered ideology

I'm sure your explanation as to why gas attacks in Syria are partially a result of US intervention would not be convoluted and tendentious in the extreme.

US intervention indirectly bears responsibility for ISIS-related problems

US _retrenchment_ under Obama bears direct and heavy responsibility for the Gulf States deciding to execute their own clandestine policies in Syria with the result being 8 million different non-ISIS Sunni Islamist groups running around Syria flush with Saudi and Emirati and Bahraini and Qatari and Kuwaiti provided weapons and cash.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> The thing is, the machine could've waited another week and within that week Assad could've gassed them again, who knows?
> 
> It's fucked up, there's no right answer is here. But I feel like if you have the capabilities to stop a dictator using chemical weapons then you should probably do it.


I would've much rather have preferred for more intel and a precise plan instead of what could be comparable to sabre rattling, since this could very well be yet another example of us having failed to learn from Vietnam and Iraq that short-sighted hawkish tactics = Fuckery of global proportions waiting to ensue.

And callous as it may sound, it wasn't *our* people who were gassed, but rather the people of a war-torn shithole that is within a region that is renowned for being ass-backwards in this day and age, to the point that they're barbarians at best and cavemen at worst. There's no denying that the victims needlessly died, but we are doing them and any potential future ones no favors by mindlessly and hollowly swearing vengeance in their name when we should be worrying about our own folks first and foremost.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Are we talking about the real world or the Luap Nor-Noam Chomsky double power hour?
> 
> Discovering that America held and holds her interests in higher regard than what you believe Pakistan's interests were or are doesn't change what happens when America decides to not be on top of things, whether it is because of Obama's anachronistic anti-colonialism inspired dithering or Luap Nor style neo isolationism.


I don't give a fuck about Noam-Chomsky and you need to stop strawmanning simply because you're on a quest to justify an action that is born out of haste and lacks the required nuance necessary to actually justify it. Nice deflection into a completely different point and blatant attempt to change the context of the post that was being addressed. 

You have taken a point addressing how we should "take out dictators" to which my response was that "America supports dictators" to "Yeah because American self-interests" is a piss poor excuse of an argument. 

Stevefox and BruiserKC seem to be of the old guard that likes to believe that all American action abroad is because we're paragons of virtue - and while I can respect that position to an extent because it's a really nice, warm and fuzzy almost comfortable position to hold, I have to point out that it is a well crafted delusion. You on the other hand at least seem to grasp that there is a shadier game at play but while admitting that it's about "america self-interests" you seem to be masquerading that as somehow being aligned with a similar viewpoint of "paragons". It's a nice pair of rose-colored glasses and nothing more. 

There is no virtue or intellect in repeating the same thing over and over and over again expecting different outcomes each and every single time. It's called foolishness.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






I miss pre-April Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/255784560904773633
:hmm


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How does method of death make one death worse than another? This is a "progressive" and narcissistic position in that it allows us to pretend that one form of death is worse than another. 

When you're dead - how you die only matters to the living. This to me is starting to become another form of virtue signalling that somehow being blown to bits is not as bad as being gassed to death. Both are acts of war. Both are irrational and unnecessary. How exactly is one worse than another in a world where we all possess weapons of mass destruction and we blanket bomb sites at will?

It's a narrative. It's a feeling. It's irrational.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> How does method of death make one death worse than another? This is a "progressive" and narcissistic position in that it allows us to pretend that one form of death is worse than another.
> 
> When you're dead - how you die only matters to the living. This to me is starting to become another form of virtue signalling that somehow being blown to bits is not as bad as being gassed to death. Both are acts of war. Both are irrational and unnecessary. How exactly is one worse than another in a world where we all possess weapons of mass destruction and we blanket bomb sites at will?
> 
> It's a narrative. It's a feeling. It's irrational.


It's just another excuse for the war fetishists to justify military action.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/255784560904773633
> :hmm


Dear Donald,










Sincerely yours,









@Headliner :yoshi


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> It's just another excuse for the war fetishists to justify military action.


It certainly seems that way. The label "chemical attack" alone screams pseudo-science to me and the drummed up hysteria around it completely irrational.


----------



## Captain Edd

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just to double check: There is no evidence that Assad actually used "chemical weapons", right? Because I can't find anything that would 100% convince me that he did it. I also don't understand why he would do it, he risks losing russian support and angering the United States (which already happened tonight). 

So, what am I missing?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Dear Donald,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Headliner :yoshi


There's even more if you need some laughs during this horrible presidency. From Trump and other politicians.

http://time.com/4730219/syria-missile-attack-donald-trump-tweets/

https://twitter.com/KFILE/with_replies


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Captain Edd said:


> Just to double check: There is no evidence that Assad actually used "chemical weapons", right? Because I can't find anything that would 100% convince me that he did it. I also don't understand why he would do it, he risks losing russian support and angering the United States (which already happened tonight).
> 
> So, what am I missing?


The people who have been wanting the US to invade Syria for years are saying it happened so it must have happened.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> There's even more if you need some laughs during this horrible presidency. From Trump and other politicians.
> 
> http://time.com/4730219/syria-missile-attack-donald-trump-tweets/
> 
> https://twitter.com/KFILE/with_replies


I wouldn't say his presidency has been horrible, since he did manage to save thousands of jobs by threatening companies not to short-change American employees. I'd say that his own personal job rating of a C+ at best is right on the money, but I could easily see it entering into D or even F territory if he escalates this fuckery with Syria.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I just don't know how Scott Adams is now going to be able to spin Trump being duped by a fake attack as another master stroke of 4D chess master persuasion.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850088127955963905
At the very least it is a valid question worth asking. 

Moreover, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's remarks that "...steps are underway..." for an international coalition to topple the eye doctor Bashar al-Assad regime begs the question, what on earth comes after Assad? Because Syria is a madhouse of a country. Divided into three autonomous regions by the French, with distinct fiefdoms for Alawis on the coast and the Druze in the south, the entire nation could splinter into little pieces (granted, it already has for the most part). The transitory Kingdom of Syria under Emir Faisal I of the Hashemites beginning in 1919 was probably the last time Syria was independent of a foreign power using the country as a satellite state. 

The bright side, if it can be called such, is that at least Trump went with the dramatically less-intrusive and less-crippling action against Assad's regime of the two proposals drawn up for him by the Pentagon. Numerous buildings were evidently not targeted for fear of Russians being in them just for starters. 

Lots of fine posts here, agreeing with a lot of what @CamillePunk and @RipNTear are saying. At the same time I do agree with @Headliner that Trump's personality probably played a part in this. Trump's response to the footage of the children ostensibly being gassed was apparently extremely visceral. When it comes down to it, for all of the machinery involved from the executive branch to intelligence agencies to the military and beyond, personalities are usually at the forefront of concern, most emphatically with presidents. It is an unfortunate reality that sentiments and pictures are among the most critical elements of critical turns in American foreign policy. The 1990s saw the U.S. and NATO effectively establish what has predictably developed into becoming a Muslim Mafia beachhead state with Kosovo because of sad stories of Serbian atrocities, the human trafficking and crime capital of Europe. Pristina, capital of Kosovo, features Hillary Clinton as memorialized with a massive store named "Hillary," featuring women's clothing modeled on Hillary's typical wardrobe, just a block away from a main thoroughfare named after her husband. As Gail Sheehy noted with her biography of Hillary, it was she who played an indispensable role in convincing her husband to follow the neoconservative and neoliberal path in the Balkans, which meant assisting the Kosovo Liberation Army, predictably chock full of Islamist fighters backed by Islamist clerics and Islamist organizations which saw Kosovo as a crucial battle against non-Muslims. As Serbs in the northern sector of Kosovo demanded a sort of partitioning so as to keep themselves at least reasonably safe from the nearly constant violent assaults by Kosovar ultra-nationalists, Hillary traveled to Kosovo to keep her Kosovar friends safe. As she said, "For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal." 

Hillary's glee at seeing Trump fall in line with the emotionalism of his address, in which he took on at least a slice of the hubristic rhetoric of George W. Bush, perilously approaching hubris levels as high as Bush's second inaugural address--"to end terrorism... of all kinds... and of all types..." does not surprise.

Marco Rubio's application of the Book of Proverbs via twitter--""Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished" Proverbs 11:21..."--is one of the more telling pieces of rejoicing, effectively equating the U.S. government with God's punishment of the wicked in the afterlife. 

Bill Kristol may take the prize yet, however, cooing that he may now no longer be a "NeverTrumper" after all. Nothing like the firing of missiles to make a president presidential. 

According to multiple reports, 112 civilian bodies were pulled from the location of an anti-ISIS coalition air strike in Mosul about a week ago. Maybe we can finish liberating the Iraqis before we move on to the Syrians?


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Peter Hitchens is a prick, but he's spot on in this, what an absurd thing to do when you finally have an American president who at worst didn't want you out and at best would ignore everything else you did.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I still believe it's a fake attack and either the rebels, the CIA or some other Government is behind it to form a wedge between the US and Russia further, it wouldn't shock me if it was a European government that set it up.

I know Trump wants to show everyone he isn't to be fucked with. Assad gained nothing from this attack if he did it but watching the big grins on the neoconservatives makes me suspicious. 

The fact the US intelligence agencies are having turmoil within and constant leaks from the White House makes me worry. They're not leaks to whistle blow but people vying for control. 

I wish Trump had waited until the investigation was done but this feels more like a move to show everyone he will not fuck around.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't know if Trump realizes this, but once he decided to do this, he's in now. In for a while. He can't just back out. Especially now with Russia's reaction:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850258133704298496


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love theorycrafting. It's so much fun. 

But it doesn't translate well to the human element. I just have to laugh when the "but why would they do that? It's so stupid, they know better!" line of argument is brought up. Peter Hitchens knows history but he hasn't learned it. Something being a really stupid idea has never stopped men and women from doing things that are allegedly so completely deleterious to their interests that it is inconceivable they would do them. It is such a glaringly obvious fact of human nature and behavior that it should not even need to be discussed. 

Why would assad do it? Because he'd gotten away with it before. Because he wanted to test the new american president. Because he'd just been briefed about the situation in the area that got gassed and for some reason he blew his top. Because his officers told him it was a propitious time to make an example of somewhere and he said sure okay and left the wheres and hows up to them. Bad things have happened for all of those reasons in war and they'll happen for all those reasons and many more again. 

Now that is a very nice story about bill and hillary making themselves quasi nobility in some parts of the Balkans but the whole place was already a bloody shithole, there is the question of whether tit for tat massacres without end with the serbians generally killing more would be better than a mafia Muslim state. 

There's also the very real part where bill Clinton and the US foreign policy establishment felt likr big assholes overy Rwanda and there was huge pressure from everybody for never again. Serbias bad luck that it was the very next place to get some very widely publicized massacring going on. 

But really I'm not sure why hillary Clintons Balkan vacation took up like 55% of the post. These are some very _fine_ webs being weaved to connect that to syria. 

Anyway to get back into less war is the health of the state territory, a pentagon spokesman has said there are no further american plans for hitting the syrian government unless assad decides to make :trump feel really bad again. 

Lesson: don't make :trump feel bad by going off and gassing people

Also puts his good buddy puppetmaster sensei vladimir in a bit of a spot, assad is no doubt squalling like the branded calf to Moscow. Syria was almost a done deal, assad was winning, the US and Europe were bombing ISIS for him and assad... now there is the threat of America destroying more Syrian planes and air bases. Just the thing to force a lengthy prolongation of russias own going on 2 year intervention in syria. When he started withdrawing a good bit of russias ground forces last year. And tried to make the Syrians feel good about it by saying look over here we're sending more s300s and some s400s! Since then Israel and America both have successfully attacked the syrian government through the air. 

The whole situation after tonight can't make vlad too happy in any kinda way

:trump no doubt just playing a rambunctious little prank on his sensei vladimir. They'll have a good laugh over it when they go bear riding in the fall, right?


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I have thought so before, but now I am convinced that Trump is employing the Nixonian "Madman Strategy".
Nixon, if you recall, wanted to bomb the shit out of Cambodia to terrify the Vietnamese into peace talks. His reasoning was that if they thought Nixon was an erratic and violent opponent, they would respect his strength and agree to a deal.
It's a risky strategy, but only a man like Trump could ever attempt it.


----------



## Captain Edd

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> I love theorycrafting. It's so much fun.
> 
> But it doesn't translate well to the human element. I just have to laugh when the "but why would they do that? It's so stupid, they know better!" line of argument is brought up. Peter Hitchens knows history but he hasn't learned it. Something being a really stupid idea has never stopped men and women from doing things that are allegedly so completely deleterious to their interests that it is inconceivable they would do them. It is such a glaringly obvious fact of human nature and behavior that it should not even need to be discussed.
> 
> Why would assad do it? Because he'd gotten away with it before. Because he wanted to test the new american president. Because he'd just been briefed about the situation in the area that got gassed and for some reason he blew his top. Because his officers told him it was a propitious time to make an example of somewhere and he said sure okay and left the wheres and hows up to them. Bad things have happened for all of those reasons in war and they'll happen for all those reasons and many more again.


Aren't you theorycrafting yourself right now? :hmmm


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Deepenemablues chiding others for not learning from history is remarkably hilarious given his repeated support for US interventions. Totally detached from reality. knows his history but understands none of it, seemingly.


----------



## Irish Jet

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This could get really bad.

Russia has invested a shit ton into Syria – I can’t see them backing down meekly if it comes to direct intervention. If these strikes continue it’s a matter of time before it escalates. I’d imagine that a political solution would have to be worked out but that won’t be simple– Russia saying their support for Assad is not unconditional allows some room for negotiation but Assad stepping down and US sponsored regime change are entirely different outcomes. Russia were willing to pressure him into stepping aside in 2012 but the US rejected it, wanting to ensure Assad and his regime are replaced with their guys. Anyone who doesn’t think that is still the goal is absolutely delusional.

Even assuming Assad committed this crime, which I don’t believe for a second, there is no humanitarian motivation here. People need to get a grip – Including Trump supporters. Atrocities are being carried out on both sides – The US are killing civilians in Mosul, overseeing funerals bombed in Yemen and according to their own narrative these very same game changing crimes were committed in 2013. The idea that Trump and his administration have simply been humbled by some images is a fucking farce – And horrifying in itself. It’s all blatantly put out there to sway the public , to have you care about the atrocities they want you to care about. Trump’s was either given a reality check behind the scenes as to how things work or just as likely he never really cared to begin with and was pushing anti-interventionism to get elected ala Obama. 

I’m laughing at the lack of critical thinking we’re seeing. Al Nusra and ISIS are about to watch their two biggest threats tear each other apart over a crime they and their moderate allies wouldn’t blink at. The same little girl in Aleppo, who was about to die 1000 times but never did, is back in front of the cameras, almost on cue, speaking for a nation of 17 million people. You couldn’t make this shit up. 

To be honest I’ve been pretty fucking alienated with life in general lately, fucking United and their draws. Unleash the nukes.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Nawp. still don't regret my vote. Disagree with the decision, maybe. Still a damn good president compared to the turd we coulda had.

Wall. Give.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm going on the assumption here is that the evidence was there that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons...we do have troops on the ground there that are in advisory role to some of the rebel groups including the Kurds. 

Again, I get the concern on this site of many of you regarding the action Trump authorized. I hope that if this becomes something that he has to do again (I hope not but that's now up to Syria and Assad), that he goes to Congress and gets their approval (remember he has 60 days to do so). Part of being safe, unfortunately, is to show that we are willing to flex our muscle to do that. There are some bad motherfuckers out there who want to do us harm and want us dead. Nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are our enemies and do not have our best interests. Plus, the idea of chemical weapons is horrible...period. There is absolutely no spin on this to justify it ever. Even for those of you that are clearly pacifists and believe there is NO justification of war EVER even when it is unfortunately necessary...to do nothing would have reinforced the message Obama sent with his inaction and that was it is OK to use chemical weapons on your own people. 

Plus, for those of you that embraced and loved Trump before this and are now ready to abandon him...part of his goals were to make America safer. Part of this is that sometimes it is necessary to use our military to make a point and send a message. We are not sending thousands of ground troops, so let's take a step back and breathe. There's not going to be a massive ground war anytime soon, this was sending a message to the bad guys in the area that there is some shit we're not going to put up with. MAGA means having that muscle and using it when necessary. Can't have it both ways. Nothing would make me happier then for us to play in our corner of the sandbox and they play over there if we can't get along. Unfortunately, that ain't happening in this world. 

I have that perspective as someone who has served, I understand fully what's at stake. I know most of you here do not so I am trying to do my best to explain that this is not some warmongering insanity going on here. Hopefully some of you understand, but if you don't that is something you have to figure out for yourself. There is still right and wrong in this world, and I'll choose what's right everytime. I think this move was the right thing.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What do you know, Trump doesn't drain the swamp and brings in Neocon's to his admin and we have war policy that McCain,L Graham and Hillbot can rub one out too.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Approximate best case scenario: Trump and Tillerson walk back the "regime change" rhetoric, which is a direct and utter contradiction of Trumpism entire, as Tillerson meets with the Russians over Syria next week. After a little more bluster here and there by all parties cooler heads prevail and the U.S. adopts a coherent policy.

Approximate worst case scenario: @CamillePunk and @Pratchett probably recall that post I wrote some months ago before the election when I was in one of my moods, about how Trump, were he to win the presidency, would be duped into plunging U.S. blood and treasure into Syria. The U.S. follows through with Tillerson's spoken project of disposing Assad, aligning willy-nilly with rebel groups, several of which--even when limited to "homegrown" Syrian Sunni fighter networks--are in direct conflict with one another. As the advance toward Raqqa continues between the Turks and Kurds, Erdogan vows that the Kurds cannot be allowed to take Raqqa; any establishing of a de facto Kurdistan stretching through a large swath of Syria cannot be tolerated by Turkey. The conflict escalates while ISIS and al-Qaeda realize that it is in their interest to perform false flag operations involving chemical weapons so that the U.S. will come to their aid once again.

Nietszche for the win! "A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters..."


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I'm going on the assumption here is that the evidence was there that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons...we do have troops on the ground there that are in advisory role to some of the rebel groups including the Kurds.


But why? Especially considering that at least based off of history Americans are piss poor detectives when it comes to foreign intel. 



> Again, I get the concern on this site of many of you regarding the action Trump authorized. I hope that if this becomes something that he has to do again (I hope not but that's now up to Syria and Assad), that he goes to Congress and gets their approval (remember he has 60 days to do so). Part of being safe, unfortunately, is to show that we are willing to flex our muscle to do that. There are some bad motherfuckers out there who want to do us harm and want us dead. Nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are our enemies and do not have our best interests. Plus, the idea of chemical weapons is horrible...period. There is absolutely no spin on this to justify it ever. Even for those of you that are clearly pacifists and believe there is NO justification of war EVER even when it is unfortunately necessary...to do nothing would have reinforced the message Obama sent with his inaction and that was it is OK to use chemical weapons on your own people.


Hydrogen, TNT, Nuclear Weapons aren't chemicals? What about Lead, Mercury, Uranium (heavy metals) that impact pregnant women? 

Think kind sir. Why is one type of chemical worse than another? WHy are you giving into this pseudo-scientific hysteria about "chemicals" . Everything is a chemical. Do you not know that thousands of babies have been born with defects as a result of continued American bombing and action in parts of the world still today and that can be traced to the intruments of war? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...cords-huge-rise-in-birth-defects-8210444.html

All chemicals used in war are harmful. All bombs are chemicals. Why is this attack worse in particular? Who decided that the chemicals used in conventional weapons are somehow "humane" and "not as bad" as these particular chemicals? Scientists certainly didn't come to that conclusion. 



> Plus, for those of you that embraced and loved Trump before this and are now ready to abandon him...part of his goals were to make America safer. Part of this is that sometimes it is necessary to use our military to make a point and send a message. We are not sending thousands of ground troops, so let's take a step back and breathe. There's not going to be a massive ground war anytime soon, this was sending a message to the bad guys in the area that there is some shit we're not going to put up with. MAGA means having that muscle and using it when necessary. Can't have it both ways. Nothing would make me happier then for us to play in our corner of the sandbox and they play over there if we can't get along. Unfortunately, that ain't happening in this world.


Why a "chemical" attack though. There have been plenty of incidents that are worse both in scale and in scope that have been worse than this particular attack. It's a great use of the fear of "biological" weaponry (when in fact all weaponry causes biological harm to its victims). 

I want America to be safe. I just don't think anyone has a good explanation over this in particular except saying "it's worse because we believe it to be worse". Give me a good explanation why a hydrogen bomb (or some other bomb), or a car bomb outside a cafe, or a suicide bomb vest is not as bad as this "chemical" bomb? Give me a rational, scientific answer to why I should believe that it's worse and the deaths as a result of it are worse and warrant such an over-reaction.



> I have that perspective as someone who has served, I understand fully what's at stake. I know most of you here do not so I am trying to do my best to explain that this is not some warmongering insanity going on here. Hopefully some of you understand, but if you don't that is something you have to figure out for yourself. There is still right and wrong in this world, and I'll choose what's right everytime. I think this move was the right thing.


Nah. The people who are supportive of it need to make more rational arguments to explain to the rest of us and I'm sorry, the rationale is incredibly weak in response.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Russian response is a lot less than I would have expected at this point 

Its also feels nice to for the US to be condemned by its rivals and being praised by its allies instead of the opposite for the first time in like 6 months


----------



## Vic Capri

I can't tell if Russia is illegitimately pissed (Why would they be? I thought Putin hates Assad?) or if its just all theatrics.

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I can't tell if Russia is illegitimately pissed (Why would they be? I thought Putin hates Assad?) or if its just all theatrics.
> 
> - Vic


There response is much less aggressive than I expected

Its very "I don't want us to accidentally bomb each other" which I guess could be taken as a threat but cuts both ways


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear I appreciate your angle of asking the question why are "chemical" attacks the final straw. It has such an insidious connotation; maybe it dates back to the Holocaust (HITLER!), but in the end, death is death. "Chemical attacks on babies" is definitely an emotion stirring concept, but it's good to break out of that box and question it. It's not like no babies have died in this awful civil war.

I wonder if Trump had that same visceral reaction a lot of people had. I had it myself, but now that the strikes have happened so quickly, the emotion is replaced by concern over strategy, intel, and where this all leads. I hope the president didn't act rashly, that's the last thing a president should do. But hey, all those networks that hate everything Trump does are saying how presidential he is now.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> @RipNTear I appreciate your angle of asking the question why are "chemical" attacks the final straw. It has such an insidious connotation; maybe it dates back to the Holocaust (HITLER!), but in the end, death is death. "Chemical attacks on babies" is definitely an emotion stirring concept, but it's good to break out of that box and question it. It's not like no babies have died in this awful civil war.


I may not be able to get my point across to a lot of people, but every single time I get someone to think in a new way I feel like my time wasn't wasted. Thanks for acknowledging. Appreciated.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I may not be able to get my point across to a lot of people, but every single time I get someone to think in a new way I feel like my time wasn't wasted. Thanks for acknowledging. Appreciated.


No problem. The times we're in make me see value in questioning things. At first it didn't even cross my mind that this may not even be Assad's doing. You know it's "Assad - chemicals - babies - ATTACK, because it's the right thing to do!" It's scary to think I'd just go along with this stuff.

If we or some international coalition were to remove Assad from power, we pretty much have to try and install a new government, which we've shown time and time again that we absolutely suck at doing. If we don't, it's another Libya situation. It all seems like bad news.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> If we or some international coalition were to remove Assad from power, we pretty much have to try and install a new government, which we've shown time and time again that we absolutely suck at doing. If we don't, it's another Libya situation. It all seems like bad news.


Basically. As much as I hate the overall concept of governments (and I want the world to become decentralized through peaceful understanding and slow evolution towards that kind of ideal), in the case of the middle east a strong dictator while a murderous and sick human being can become the final stop before descent into true chaos. History has taught us this repeatedly. Every single country in the middle east where America has intervened is now suffering even more. The Assad must go rhetoric needs to die. Yes, the country is in chaos right now and we all want a solution, but a regime change is not the right one.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So apparently 9 people were killed, but more importantly 4 of the 9 were kids. I hate when this happens to kids no matter who is at fault.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



KC Armstrong said:


> ... and I have seen establishment Dems and Repubs recommending military strikes against Syria, including Hillary. So the point remains, the fact that this happened has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's temper. He did not throw a fit and say "AHHH, FUCK IT, JUST BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM".
> 
> It just goes to show that even in this fucked up election, you really didn't have a choice. No matter who wins the WWE style election, the result will be the same.





CamillePunk said:


> Did Hillary want to bomb Syrian airfields this morning because of her temper, too?
> 
> This is the deep state. This is the military industrial complex. Trump was the only realistic option that could have won the election and resisted them. He won the election. He failed to resist being manipulated by those cancerous elements in our government by a possibly fake chemical attack, and did the opposite of what he has said the US should be doing for years on end.


This is what it all really boils down to. We, as Americans, have no option of voting against war. Everyone who wanted to keep Hillary out of office due to the certainty that wars would escalate with her in the WH were correct. However, anyone who truly believed wars would _*not*_ escalate under Trump were duped. As long as the deep state/military industrial complex owns DC, war will always be inevitable.

The reality is, Trump is doing the _*exact*_ same thing Obama did. They both ran populist anti-war campaigns to get elected and once elected, they both turned their back on the people who got them elected and ramped up the wars.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So apparently 9 people were killed, but more importantly 4 of the 9 were kids. I hate when this happens to kids no matter who is at fault.


This is the worst part of it all :

Collateral damage.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> This is what it all really boils down to. We, as Americans, have no option of voting against war. Everyone who wanted to keep Hillary out of office due to the certainty that wars would escalate with her in the WH were correct. However, anyone who truly believed wars would _*not*_ escalate under Trump were duped. As long as the deep state/military industrial complex owns DC, war will always be inevitable.
> 
> *The reality is, Trump is doing the exact same thing Obama did.* They both ran populist anti-war campaigns to get elected and once elected, they both turned their back on the people who got them elected and ramped up the wars.



No he isn't doing the EXACT same thing because Obama threatened Assad with an attack but DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT!!! 

Trump did. 

Am I happy about this? Not really 'cause this shit could escalate. BUT THAT SAID, Assad committed such a terrible act that there was no choice but to "send a message" to him. 

I just hate the Collateral damage(headliner mentioned it) that inevitably occurs, though.


----------



## Amphetamean

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So apparently 9 people were killed, but more importantly 4 of the 9 were kids. I hate when this happens to kids no matter who is at fault.


Of course that's the narrative you pick from it. :rock5


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Amphetamean said:


> Of course that's the narrative you pick from it. :rock5


I'm sorry that I hate seeing innocent kids get killed.


----------



## Amphetamean

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I'm sorry that I hate seeing innocent kids get killed.


Just going right down the checklist, huh?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Jesus, Amp. What the fuck?

No sympathy for those children getting killed? C'mon now...


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Amphetamean said:


> Just going right down the checklist, huh?


Goodbye [user]lectoryo[/user].


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> No he isn't doing the EXACT same thing because Obama threatened Assad with an attack but DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT!!!
> 
> Trump did.
> 
> Am I happy about this? Not really 'cause this shit could escalate. BUT THAT SAID, Assad committed such a terrible act that there was no choice but to "send a message" to him.
> 
> I just hate the Collateral damage(headliner mentioned it) that inevitably occurs, though.


No one has yet answered my question why this particular set of chemicals is so much worse than the other chemicals, heavy metals, materials and shrapnel present in other bombs. So put the question to you as well. 

Surely all those people claiming that it's worse have to have a rationale as to why it's worse other than simply making a feelings-based assertion that it's worse.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No one has yet answered my question why this particular set of chemicals is so much worse than the other chemicals, heavy metals, materials and shrapnel present in other bombs. So put the question to you as well.
> 
> Surely all those people claiming that it's worse have to have a rationale as to why it's worse other than simply making a feelings-based assertion that it's worse.


The answer to your question is that there's no real answer to your question.

As far as I'm concerned, all chemical warfare should be condemned. 

I think the outcry is more apparent because it's news that is actually being reported for once instead of being hidden behind propaganda(remember Fake news is all around us). 

This shit has been going on far longer than just this recent attack.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> The answer to your question is that there's no real answer to your question.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, all chemical warfare should be condemned.
> 
> I think the outcry is more apparent because it's news that is actually being reported for once instead of being hidden behind propaganda(remember Fake news is all around us).
> 
> This shit has been going on far longer than just this recent attack.


So it's feigned moral outrage just because?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> No one has yet answered my question why this particular set of chemicals is so much worse than the other chemicals, heavy metals, materials and shrapnel present in other bombs. So put the question to you as well.
> 
> Surely all those people claiming that it's worse have to have a rationale as to why it's worse other than simply making a feelings-based assertion that it's worse.


Old school chems were one of the first things banned after WW1 and one of the few conditions that have been more or less universally accepted

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (who did test them on the Chinese) never used chems as weapons even in their dying days

Is it a bit silly for it the be the reddest of red lines? sure 

But the willingness to use chems shows the willingness to break even the most basic of wartime regulations


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Old school chems were one of the first things banned after WW1 and one of the few conditions that have been more or less universally accepted


I did do the research on the history. It was contested and not unanimous, but that's besides the point. 



> Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (who did test them on the Chinese) never used chems as weapons even in their dying days


I think that's somewhat irrelevant. 



> Is it a bit silly for it the be the reddest of red lines? sure


I'm not even saying it's a bit silly. I'm saying it's _completely_ unjustifiable and arbitrary and you haven't provided me any reasons to change my mind.



> But the willingness to use chems shows the willingness to break even the most basic of wartime regulations


So a 100 different ways are acceptable but the 101st is the only one that's actually a "break" from "fair" and "justifiable" massacring? Including Nuclear Weapons I might add. 

I mean, if I'm a soldier I can go and shove a grenade up someone's ass and watch it explode, but I can't spray them in the face with poisonous gas?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I did do the research on the history. It was contested and not unanimous, but that's besides the point.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's somewhat irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even saying it's a bit silly. I'm saying it's _completely_ unjustifiable and arbitrary and you haven't provided me any reasons to change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> So a 100 different ways are acceptable but the 101st is the only one that's actually a "break" from "fair" and "justifiable" massacring?
> 
> I mean, if I'm a soldier I can go and shove a grenade up someone's ass and watch it explode, but I can't spray them in the face with poisonous gas?


I get what you are saying completely but i think the idea is "if you are willing to break the easiest rule you are must willing to break the more nuanced ones"

A backwater nation will never be able to create "effective" chems that are more effective than a conventional weapons but if a major nation ever got the idea it was acceptable than you would have a near nuclear situation, if Russia or the US for instance used a large scale chemical attack on the other they would be MADed in return


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I get what you are saying completely but i think the idea is "if you are willing to break the easiest rule you are must willing to break the more nuanced ones"


Civil War ... nuance .. war .. nuance .. what is this you're speaking of because given all the kinds of heinous war crimes in the world with conventional weapons, I fail to see why such a "nuance" in such a destructive field remotely applicable in the first place. 



> A backwater nation will never be able to create "effective" chems that are more effective than a conventional weapons but if a major nation ever got the idea it was acceptable than you would have a near nuclear situation, if Russia or the US for instance used a large scale chemical attack on the other they would be MADed in return


So it's ok to have one type of weapon of mass destruction (nuclear bombs), but not two types of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs and chemical bombs)? Why not?

I'm really, really not mocking or giving you a hard time - at least not intentionally. I also hope I'm not oversimplifying the issue. I'm just trying to get at the root of the disgust for chemical weapons in particular on their own merit as _relatively_ worse. I don't think that a slippery slope argument justifies this considering that Nuclear weapons exist and act as deterrents. Why wouldn't other WMD's act as deterrents but only act as "slippery slopes"? .


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> But why? Especially considering that at least based off of history Americans are piss poor detectives when it comes to foreign intel.
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen, TNT, Nuclear Weapons aren't chemicals? What about Lead, Mercury, Uranium (heavy metals) that impact pregnant women?
> 
> Think kind sir. Why is one type of chemical worse than another? WHy are you giving into this pseudo-scientific hysteria about "chemicals" . Everything is a chemical. Do you not know that thousands of babies have been born with defects as a result of continued American bombing and action in parts of the world still today and that can be traced to the intruments of war?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...cords-huge-rise-in-birth-defects-8210444.html
> 
> All chemicals used in war are harmful. All bombs are chemicals. Why is this attack worse in particular? Who decided that the chemicals used in conventional weapons are somehow "humane" and "not as bad" as these particular chemicals? Scientists certainly didn't come to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why a "chemical" attack though. There have been plenty of incidents that are worse both in scale and in scope that have been worse than this particular attack. It's a great use of the fear of "biological" weaponry (when in fact all weaponry causes biological harm to its victims).
> 
> I want America to be safe. I just don't think anyone has a good explanation over this in particular except saying "it's worse because we believe it to be worse". Give me a good explanation why a hydrogen bomb (or some other bomb), or a car bomb outside a cafe, or a suicide bomb vest is not as bad as this "chemical" bomb? Give me a rational, scientific answer to why I should believe that it's worse and the deaths as a result of it are worse and warrant such an over-reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. The people who are supportive of it need to make more rational arguments to explain to the rest of us and I'm sorry, the rationale is incredibly weak in response.


People that hold the mindset of "War is never the answer" will never understand. That is the vibe I am getting . If so just be honest about it because some people will always find rationale for never fighting. I don't want to fight either but allowing someone to intentionally gas his own people can never be acceptable no matter how weary we are of war,


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> People that hold the mindset of "War is never the answer" will never understand. That is the vibe I am getting . If so just be honest about it because some people will always find rationale for never fighting. I don't want to fight either but allowing someone to intentionally gas his own people can never be acceptable no matter how weary we are of war,


You haven't answered any of my points and are trying to discredit my opinion as a "never war" person. That's a label and you of all people should avoid using such stereotypes to discredit opinion. 

I'm all for justifiable and justified war. I have asked you to give me justifications for _this _strike and escalation. Also, I've raised this point in several posts as well - why are chemical weapons so much worse? I need a scientific explanation for this, not a feelings-based assertion that it is worse because it's said or believed to be worse. I can understand differences when they're explained to me rationally. I'm just failing to see after all my research why "gassing" is so much more immoral than other forms of inflicting death.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Civil War ... nuance .. war .. nuance .. what is this you're speaking of because given all the kinds of heinous war crimes in the world with conventional weapons, I fail to see why such a "nuance" in such a destructive field remotely applicable in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok to have one type of weapon of mass destruction (nuclear bombs), but not two types of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs and chemical bombs)? Why not?
> 
> I'm really, really not mocking or giving you a hard time - at least not intentionally. I also hope I'm not oversimplifying the issue. I'm just trying to get at the root of the disgust for chemical weapons in particular on their own merit as _relatively_ worse. I don't think that a slippery slope argument justifies this considering that Nuclear weapons exist and act as deterrents. Why wouldn't other WMD's act as deterrents but only act as "slippery slopes"? .


I get it "bullets and gas both lead to dead bodies, suffering and carnage yet one is fine and the other is unforgivable" 

Really it comes down to this, most banned war weapons are more psychological than anything else to soldiers or are flat out useless on anything but unarmored civilian targets 

For the first soldiers are less likely to fight effectively if they think the enemy has death gas waiting for them. The average person can understand bombs and bullets but can't handle a gas attack. Gas made war that much harder and slowed things down too much. In brutal terms it made wars harder and slower and made soldiers less reliable. You can argue if the rule was made to protect troops or to make war more convenient and easier to digest, its likely a bit of both.

Now and days any major army has chem training up the ass and can fight in a hot zone so its only real effect is as a terror weapon to target civilians and to frighten reporters who then publish stories about how the enemy has a super weapon. 

War rules make it easier to just attack nations because you feel like on the negative side but they can also weaken the damage truly rouge nations can do and can make so if said nation needs to be stopped it will not be a slow uphill affair

so really it makes war easier for better or worse

I personally think that WW1 was such a grind that everyone agreed to "fighting like gentlemen" again and by WW2 new inventions had been made that were so convenient that no one wanted to do without them so that idea went out the window and back to "If its painful and deadly purely for psychological reasons its gone" as no one wants their troops going crazy and refusing to fight


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Gassing isn't any worse. Gassing is a hold over from WWI where that was a horrific way of dealing with your enemies. Machine guns were ok and probably/definitely killed more soldiers, but gassing was "below the belt". It was a devious technology that skirted rules of engagement pretty much. 

If you want to put on your tinfoil hat then there's this bit of craziness that may or may not be reality. If you have a certain action that makes aggression totally ok, then you can covertly commit this action in order to justify your pending aggression.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I appreciate your response. I think given the topic of conversation I may be rubbing people the wrong way in trying to get answers. 



stevefox1200 said:


> Really it comes down to this, most banned war weapons are more psychological than anything else to soldiers or are flat out useless on anything but unarmored civilian targets


Yeah, the psychological aspect of it definitely came up in my research, but do we really no in modern times (since there's really no modern data reference to this) that that psychological fear is even exclusively as a result of chemical weapons, or in part due to the fact that war itself is a harrowing experience. I felt that that research seemed a little incomplete so I can't draw any conclusions. I'd say the archaic nature of that argument at most makes it harder to draw conclusions from. 



> For the first soldiers are less likely to fight effectively if they think the enemy has death gas waiting form them. The average person can understand bombs and bullets but can't handle a gas attack. Gas made war that much harder and slowed things down too much. In brutal terms it made wars harder and slower and made soldiers less reliable. You can argue if the rule was made to protect troops or to make war more convenient and easier to digest, its likely a bit of both.


You know where this actually points to as a feasible solution, right? You're making it sound more like a deterrent and a regulation of convenience rather than one borne out of morality. Which I'm ok with. I can definitely see the regulations against gas weapons a method of one side giving themselves the advantage over another. 



> Now and days any major army has chem training up the ass and can fight in a hot zone so its only real effect is as a terror weapon to target civilians and to frighten reporters who then publish stories about how the enemy has a super weapon.


But the fact is that we don't know who has them and who doesn't so passing a law saying that they can't be used makes no difference. That would be like saying "I have now made lightning illegal therefore go forth my minions thou shalt not be struck by lightning!" ... I don't think it works that way. 



> War rules make it easier to just attack nations because you feel like on the negative side but they can also weaken the damage truly rouge nations can do and can make so if said nation needs to be stopped it will not be a slow uphill affair


So a key strategic advantage to your side then? 



> so really it makes war easier for better or worse


So then the logical conclusion to this is that chemical weapons should be allowed and their deterrence used as a method of reducing the amount of wars we have ...


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/7/pentagon-investigating-russia-cover-up-syria/



> *Pentagon probes possible Russian cover-up of Syria strike*
> 
> Pentagon officials are exploring the possibility that Russian warplanes struck a Syrian hospital treating victims of Tuesday’s chemical attack in an attempt to destroy evidence linking Damascus to the deadly strike.
> 
> U.S. officials are still trying to determine who is responsible for the hospital strike, which took place hours after forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad launched a chemical strike against the rebel stronghold of Idlib province. The attack, in which munitions were armed with sarin nerve gas, left over 70 dead, including 11 children.
> 
> The Arleigh-Burke class destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross launched 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles early Friday morning into Alawite-dominated region of western Syria in response to the chemical strike.
> 
> The strikes were centered on the al Shayrat airfield near the western Syrian city of Homs, from where U.S. intelligence officials believe the chemical strikes were launched. The airfield was roughly 100 miles south of Latakia, Russia’s main military hub in the country.
> 
> American commanders did notify their Russian counterparts ahead of the naval bombardment, according to the Pentagon.
> 
> Initial damage assessments show Syrian aircraft and support facilities at the airfield had been destroyed, “reducing the Syrian Government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said in a statement Thursday night, shortly after the U.S. counter-strike.
> 
> Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack was the third time regime forces used such weapons since a 2013 pact with Russia to dismantle his chemical stockpile and the deadliest since a Syrian attack using weaponized chlorine bombs struck Idlib that year.
> 
> “We know the Russians have chemical weapons expertise in country,” a senior military official said, noting any details regarding collusion between Moscow and Damascus on chemical weapon capabilities could not be discussed publicly.
> 
> “We are carefully assessing any information that would implicate that the Russians knew or assisted with this Syrian [chemical weapons] capability,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
> 
> “At a minimum, the Russians failed to reign in Syrian activity” regarding the regime’s chemical weapons program, the official told reporters at the Pentagon Friday. At worst, Moscow actively took measures to willfully destroy any evidence of Assad forces using chemical weapons.
> 
> U.S. intelligence officials spotted a Russian drone conducting aerial surveillance over hospital, which was being used as a casualty collection point for victims of the Idlib strike.
> 
> “Some hours later, the [drone] returned and the hospital was struck” by a conventional airstrike, the official said.
> 
> “We don’t know who struck [the hospital], we do not have positive accountability yet,” the official said. “But the fact that someone would strike the hospital — potentially to hide the evidence of a chemical attack … is a question that we are very interested in.”
> 
> Moscow thus far has denied any involvement with the sarin attack or any subsequent strikes against anti-government targets in the area. Officials from the Russian Ministry of Defense on Friday said it was suspending communications with U.S. counterparts geared toward deconflicting operations in Syria.
> 
> U.S. and Russian commanders have kept close communications since Moscow began its Syrian operations in support of the Assad regime in earnest. Moscow and Washington say the communications were strictly designed to ensure American and Russian air assets do not interfere with each other’s operations.
> 
> The ongoing offensive by al Qaeda factions in Syria against government positions in the country’s north prompted the Idlib chemical strike, according to the Defense Department.
> 
> Fighters from Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, a faction of the former Syrian al Qaeda cell now known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, have overrun government forces in the central Syrian cities of Qomhana and Ma’an, 30 miles south of anti-government stronghold of Idlib.
> 
> As Syrian forces continued to lose ground, fears grew that the regime’s military airfield in Hama was at risk of being overrun, the official said Friday.
> 
> “This was a significant risk to the regime,” the official said, characterizing the sarin gas attack was “a battlefield desperation decision to stop the opposition from seizing those key regime elements.”


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850177148803481601
Well, Johnson voters have every right to be feeling smug right about now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We'd be in the same boat with Johnson too. He let the SJW virtue signalers bully him into giving up key libertarian principles, how do you think he would've fared against the deep state?


Paul Joseph Watson debates Trump loyalist Bill Mitchell regarding the Syria strikes:

https://www.pscp.tv/yourvoiceradio/1YqKDXqZOaNKV


----------



## KingCosmos

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So who's ready to free the shit out of Syria. Democracy is non-negotiable


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

By popular demand, here is Scott Adams' take on the Syrian strikes: 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159300836386/the-syrian-air-base-attack


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So it's feigned moral outrage just because?


I don't know what you want from me....

Are you saying that I'm feigning moral outrage?


'Cause if that's the case, that's fucked up, Rip. :no:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bannon might have been against the Syrian strikes, while Jared Kushner may have pushed for them:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ns-waning-influence.html?mid=twitter-share-di


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I don't know what you want from me....
> 
> Are you saying that I'm feigning moral outrage?
> 
> 
> 'Cause if that's the case, that's fucked up, Rip. :no:


I suppose that was uncalled for. 

I guess the moral outrage is real even if it's based on collective hysteria. 

This is not a slight even though it may sound like it. I'm genuinely trying not to run people the wrong way on this issue.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ I get it and just so you understand, your reply to me made it sound like I have no REAL sympathy to those children who were killed. NO ONE(aside from those who love to murder) is that heartless.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850177148803481601
> Well, Johnson voters have every right to be feeling smug right about now.


"What the fuck is an Appello?"

"Is it like a drink?"


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ I get it and just so you understand, your reply to me made it sound like I have no REAL sympathy to those children who were killed. NO ONE(aside from those who love to murder) is that heartless.


I get it. We're allowed to be picky about what outrages us. Most of us do it subconsciously. 

My point was why so much more outrage over a chemical attack. 

That discussion isn't going anywhere. Probably best to just let it go.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Syria isn't the only place children are being murdered. The strikes happened because a lot of people in the government have been wanting to get more directly involved in Syria for years. The chemical attack was a fake because to do what they've been wanting to do for a long time now.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I get it. We're allowed to be picky about what outrages us. Most of us do it subconsciously.
> 
> My point was why so much more outrage over a chemical attack.
> 
> That discussion isn't going anywhere. Probably best to just let it go.


Pretty much.

But I have another question for you :

What do you think Syria's response would be(if any) for the bombings?


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Syria isn't the only place children are being murdered. The strikes happened because a lot of people in the government have been wanting to get more directly involved in Syria for years. The chemical attack was a fake because to do what they've been wanting to do for a long time now.


A "fake" attack? 

Sounded very real to me. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> A "fake" attack?
> 
> Sounded very real to me. :shrug


A fake because is a reason to do something you wanted to do anyway but lacked justification for. I didn't say the attack was fake, although I have my skepticism about it.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


Those are excellent drawings of Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. Looks just like 'em.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> But I have another question for you :
> 
> What do you think Syria's response would be(if any) for the bombings?


Assad will get cozier with Russia which he already was so not much difference. Overall. Not much difference. Americans have already been funding anti Assad forces for years. I don't see him viewing a direct attack as worse. I do expect him to use this to his advantage just like Americans used the chemical attack to theirs. 

I have more conjecture but there's no point in sharing it here.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Trump’s Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted*
April 6, 2017
Press Release

Honolulu, HI—Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.

“This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”

SOURCE


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Those are excellent drawings of Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. Looks just like 'em.


Thats John McCain


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The strikes are funny because now the celebs are saying the US shouldn't have did airstrikes but before were saying we need to get involved. Can't do anything right it seems!

Hopefully this is the last of the strikes.. no more conflicts like this.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Thats John McCain














Tater said:


> *Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Trump’s Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted*
> April 6, 2017
> Press Release
> 
> Honolulu, HI—Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:
> 
> “It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.
> 
> “This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”
> 
> SOURCE


BASED Gabbard dropping the most potent bomb of them all: The truth. :drose


----------



## .MCH

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> *Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Trump’s Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted*
> April 6, 2017
> Press Release
> 
> Honolulu, HI—Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:
> 
> “It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.
> 
> “This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”
> 
> SOURCE


If Sanders runs again in 2020, he'd be smart to pick her as his running mate.

Though I do have a problem with her refusing to hold Assad accountable.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The strikes are funny because now the celebs are saying the US shouldn't have did airstrikes but before were saying we need to get involved. Can't do anything right it seems!
> 
> Hopefully this is the last of the strikes.. no more conflicts like this.


Celebs are only a step up from automatons


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The strikes are funny because now the celebs are saying the US shouldn't have did airstrikes but before were saying we need to get involved. Can't do anything right it seems!
> 
> Hopefully this is the last of the strikes.. no more conflicts like this.





virus21 said:


> Celebs are only a step up from automatons


You elected a celebrity to be president. :draper2


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"Morning Joe" and CNN and all of the mainstream media ostensibly went from "he's a Russian traitor" to "he's our president now!!!!" in about two minutes flat last night, watching the coverage. :lol



Headliner said:


> So apparently 9 people were killed, but more importantly 4 of the 9 were kids. I hate when this happens to kids no matter who is at fault.


This is horrific. Just as the circumstances of the "gassing" attack should have been more thoroughly investigated, this should be as well. The Syrian state media is reporting this but they have actually had a largely accurate track record when it comes to civilian deaths by coalition forces with certain strikes.



Headliner said:


> Goodbye [user]lectoryo[/user].


:lmao This makes so much sense. 



CamillePunk said:


> We'd be in the same boat with Johnson too. He let the SJW virtue signalers bully him into giving up key libertarian principles, how do you think he would've fared against the deep state?


All Johnson would need to hear is that homosexuals are not being allowed to buy wedding cakes in Syria, and the missiles would launch minutes later.

Also, if the rumors are true that Steve Bannon was knocked off of the National Security Council because he adamantly opposed a strike on the Syrian government, and Jared Kushner is taking over in the vacuum in the president's ear, this is genuinely bad news. 



Tater said:


> Those are excellent drawings of Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. Looks just like 'em.


:lmao


Benjamin Netanyahu is aggressively advocating the creation of buffer zones against the Syrian regime-aligned Hezbollah and Iranian fighter forces on Syria's western borders with Israel and Jordan. 

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.782143



> Netanyahu Seeks Buffer Zones Against Iran and Hezbollah on Syria’s Borders With Israel and Jordan
> 
> Netanyahu wants buffer zones to be part of any future deal to end Syrian civil war, to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from establishing foothold; premier discusses issue with Trump administration, other international actors
> 
> Barak Ravid Apr 07, 2017 9:45 AM
> 
> read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.782143
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is urging that any agreement to end the Syrian civil war include the establishment of buffer zones on both the border between Syria and Israel and the border between Syria and Jordan, to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from establishing a presence in those areas.
> 
> According to sources involved in the issue, who asked to remain anonymous, Netanyahu has raised this idea in his talks with the U.S. administration and with other international actors in recent weeks.
> 
> During these talks, Netanyahu argued that if Iran and Hezbollah were to establish themselves along either the Syrian-Israeli border, which is located in the Golan Heights, or the Syrian-Jordanian border, this would undermine the stability of the region and threaten the security of both Israel and Jordan. He therefore wants buffer zones established on the Syrian side of the border, to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from approaching the border fence and make it harder for them to launch attacks.
> 
> Netanyahu has not explained how he thinks such buffer zones could be established or who would control who enters them and supervise what happens within them. But he wants them to be on the Syrian side of the border, and does not want Israeli troops to be present in them.
> 
> Despite the lack of detail, this proposal constitutes a significant evolution in Israel’s position on a solution to the Syrian civil war. Until now, Israel has refrained from presenting a position on what such a solution should look like, so as not to be accused of intervening in the civil war. Instead, it has merely said it opposes allowing Iran and Hezbollah to consolidate their presence in Syria.
> 
> The Prime Minister’s Office did not deny this report, saying merely that Netanyahu “has brought up Israel’s opposition to the presence of Iran and its satellites in Syria and along our northern border” in his conversations with both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The issue of Iran’s presence in Syria once the civil war ends was also discussed by the security cabinet at its meeting last Thursday. A minister who attended that meeting said Iran is increasingly consolidating its position in Syria, with all that implies for Israel. Another issue discussed at the meeting, the senior minister said, was Israel’s growing fear that its air force’s freedom of action in Syria is becoming more complicated.
> 
> On Sunday, the security cabinet is supposed to hold another meeting on the Syrian situation, especially in light of the recent chemical weapons attack near Idlib, which Israel and other Western countries say was perpetrated by the Assad regime. Several members of the security cabinet, including Interior Minister Arye Dery, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz and Education Minister Naftali Bennett have recently called for Israel to increase its aid to Syrian refugees or even take in Syrian children whose lives are in danger.
> 
> A few weeks ago, Channel 10 television reported that Dery and Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky were pushing a plan to bring about 100 Syrian orphans who are currently in refugee camps to Israel and grant them residency here. So far, however, Netanyahu hasn’t agreed to this proposal.
> 
> On Thursday Netanyahu and Putin spoke by telephone. Netanyahu was the one who made the call, whose official purpose was to express condolences over the terror attack in St. Petersburg. But the two leaders also discussed the Syrian situation and the chemical weapons attack near Idlib. The attack killed more than 100 people, many of them children, and wounded hundreds of others.
> 
> The Prime Minister’s Office said Netanyahu told Putin he was deeply shocked by the chemical weapons attack, and that “the international community must complete the effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, as agreed in 2013.” Putin, for his part, said it was unacceptable to make unfounded accusations about which of the parties to the civil war was responsible for the Idlib attack before a thorough, objective international investigation has taken place.
> 
> Over the last few days, America, Britain and other Western countries have openly accused the Syrian army of responsibility for the attack. But Netanyahu, despite harshly denouncing the attack, has thus far refrained from directly blaming the Assad regime.
> 
> In contrast, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserted in an interview published in Yedioth Ahronoth on Thursday that Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the attack. “This was a Syrian action by Assad, from A to Z,” Lieberman said. “I say this with 100 percent certainty.”


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> You elected a celebrity to be president. :draper2


First, I didn't vote. Second, this argument needs to end since Trump was a successful business man for years before the Apprentice. I would also like to point out that both Obama and Hilary acted more like celebs than Trump did.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850444554931195904


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



.MCH said:


> If Sanders runs again in 2020, he'd be smart to pick her as his running mate.
> 
> Though I do have a problem with her refusing to hold Assad accountable.


I fail to see how her statement can be construed as refusing to hold Assad accountable. She is simply advocating for actually having proof Assad was the perpetrator of the chemical strike before actually doing something about it. She also says that if he were proven to be responsible, she'd want him tried and executed by international courts. Calling for someone's execution if they are convicted of committing war crimes is certainly what I would call holding them accountable. It's a shame people in the American government aren't held to those same standards...

Personally, I don't believe for a second that Assad did this. Considering everything he has already been through to this point and the fact that he is winning the war, it makes zero sense that he would intentionally gas his own people. Everyone, including Assad, knows what the consequences of that would be. Say what you will about the man but he is certainly someone who is fighting to maintain control of Syria. He wouldn't have come this far only to, what others have accurately described as, commit suicide-by-Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> First, I didn't vote. Second, this argument needs to end since Trump was a successful business man for years before the Apprentice. I would also like to point out that both Obama and Hilary acted more like celebs than Trump did.


I'm sorry, thought you were American.

Trump was a struggling casino mogul that couldn't get loans from American banks due to their lack of trust in him keeping his word before the Apprentice changed his image globally. Talk about celebs being automation, what about fanboys? :ha

Obama and Hilary acted more like celebs than Trump? Have you read any of Trump's tweets during Obama's presidency? :ha


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I'm sorry, thought you were American.
> 
> Trump was a struggling casino mogul that couldn't get loans from American banks due to their lack of trust in him keeping his word before the Apprentice changed his image globally. Talk about celebs being automation, what about fanboys? :ha
> 
> Obama and Hilary acted more like celebs than Trump? Have you read any of Trump's tweets during Obama's presidency? :ha


I am American. Second, Im not a fanboy. In fact, I kind of soared on him as of late. Though thats mostly my soared view of politics in general,

Third, who spent their presidency and campaign rubbing elbows with Hollywood douchbags?


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The strikes are funny because now the celebs are saying the US shouldn't have did airstrikes but before were saying we need to get involved. Can't do anything right it seems!


I was thinking the same thing. The same people condemning the strikes would be the same ones attacking Trump for taking no action at all. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

I may have my issues with the guy but at least he acted and took a stance.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I fail to see how her statement can be construed as refusing to hold Assad accountable. She is simply advocating for actually having proof Assad was the perpetrator of the chemical strike before actually doing something about it. She also says that if he were proven to be responsible, she'd want him tried and executed by international courts. Calling for someone's execution if they are convicted of committing war crimes is certainly what I would call holding them accountable. It's a shame people in the American government aren't held to those same standards...
> 
> Personally, I don't believe for a second that Assad did this. Considering everything he has already been through to this point and the fact that he is winning the war, it makes zero sense that he would intentionally gas his own people. Everyone, including Assad, knows what the consequences of that would be. Say what you will about the man but he is certainly someone who is fighting to maintain control of Syria. He wouldn't have come this far only to, what others have accurately described as, commit suicide-by-Trump.


Assad could be under the impression that nobody would hold him responsible for such attacks. Trump's administration has been signalling that they don't care how Assad does it as long as Assad is fighting ISIS. 

Or the chemical attacks were common place in the war that wasn't as widely reported before. The administration just took advantage of the latest attack to divert attention from the political crisis they are facing domestically.

Personally I feel the second one is more logical than a false flag attack to push America into a proxy war with Russia. :shrug


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

More from Tulsi:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850476478026436609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850477212864270339

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850477798657576961

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850478407544647680
It wouldn't be the first time in history that attacks were carried out to cover up for the fact that the attacks were based on lies in the first place.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> I am American. Second, Im not a fanboy. In fact, I kind of soared on him as of late. Though thats mostly my soared view of politics in general,
> 
> Third, who spent their presidency and campaign rubbing elbows with Hollywood douchbags?


Then why are you objecting to the notion that you elected Trump as president? Are you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking?

You are a fanboy if you buy into the nonsense that he isn't a celebrity.

Trying to gain celeb backing is now considered acting like celeb? How about who has been making ridiculous statements to gain attention? Who has been tweeting nonsense during Obama's presidency to get attention? Who has been criticising others with feign outrage to gain attention? Who has been famous for being famous and treating their brand as the most important thing?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Then why are you objecting to the notion that you elected Trump as president? Are you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking?
> 
> You are a fanboy if you buy into the nonsense that he isn't a celebrity.
> 
> Trying to gain celeb backing is now considered acting like celeb? How about who has been making ridiculous statements to gain attention? Who has been tweeting nonsense during Obama's presidency to get attention? Who has been criticising others with feign outrage to gain attention? Who has been famous for being famous and treating their brand as the most important thing?


Because I didn't vote. And I never said he wasn't a celeb, just the idea that "We elected a celeb" talk when Trump is a business man and wasn't the first to be elected president. My criticisms of Obama and Hilary acting like celebs go beyond just getting backing by them. Just look how they acted among them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Because I didn't vote. And I never said he wasn't a celeb, just the idea that "We elected a celeb" talk when Trump is a business man and wasn't the first to be elected president. My criticisms of Obama and Hilary acting like celebs go beyond just getting backing by them. Just look how they acted among them.


So what if you didn't vote? You are part of the electorate that elected him is it not?

He is a celeb and a businessman is your argument against my statement that Trump is a celebrity. kay

They act like people looking for endorsement among them, something I noticed Trump doing when he is among the Evangelicals during the campaign. I.e awkward. I think you are confusing celebs fanboying for them to them acting like celebs.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Then why are you objecting to the notion that you elected Trump as president? Are you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking?
> 
> You are a fanboy if you buy into the nonsense that he isn't a celebrity.
> 
> Trying to gain celeb backing is now considered acting like celeb? How about who has been making ridiculous statements to gain attention? Who has been tweeting nonsense during Obama's presidency to get attention? Who has been criticising others with feign outrage to gain attention? Who has been famous for being famous and treating their brand as the most important thing?





FriedTofu said:


> So what if you didn't vote? You are part of the electorate that elected him is it not?
> 
> He is a celeb and a businessman is your argument against my statement that Trump is a celebrity. kay
> 
> They act like people looking for endorsement among them, something I noticed Trump doing when he is among the Evangelicals during the campaign. I.e awkward. I think you are confusing celebs fanboying for them to them acting like celebs.


Again I never said Trump wasn't, I was arguing against people saying that's all he is and using that as a criticism, ignoring the fact that he's was a business man.

And Obama and Hilary's behavior goes far beyond just fanboying.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850514759644590080
:lmao


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850514759644590080
> :lmao


Seems about right. Also, we need more Dave.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> More from Tulsi:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850476478026436609
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850477212864270339
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850477798657576961
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850478407544647680
> It wouldn't be the first time in history that attacks were carried out to cover up for the fact that the attacks were based on lies in the first place.


And just like that, I'm pretty much convinced that she has virtually ruined any desire she may have of becoming president. Not because she dropped truth bombs due to being pragmatic in regard to warfare, as evident by her having risen to the rank of Major and having fought in the sandy shithole known as Iraq.

Rather, it's because the dems just can't accept that for all of their big talk about inclusiveness, they'll be damned if they so much as give the time of day to someone who supported Bernie, was willing to break bread with Trump during his transition and is someone who Bannon has declared himself to be a "big fan" of. Even if said someone is a biracial female Hindu, which is basically a progressive trifecta.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And just like that, I'm pretty much convinced that she has virtually ruined any desire she may have of becoming president. Not because she dropped truth bombs due to being pragmatic in regard to warfare, as evident by her having risen to the rank of Major and having fought in the sandy shithole known as Iraq.
> 
> Rather, it's because the dems just can't accept that for all of their big talk about inclusiveness, they'll be damned if they so much as give the time of day to someone who supported Bernie, was willing to break bread with Trump during his transition and is someone who Bannon has declared himself to be a "big fan" of. Even if said someone is a biracial female Hindu.


Watch some of Jimmy Dore's videos. His views on the Democrats is pretty logical. He doesn't have much love for the Republicans either.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Watch some of Jimmy Dore's videos. His views on the Democrats is pretty logical. He doesn't have much love for the Republicans either.


Had I not seen Jimmy Dore spit in Alex Jones' face simply because Jones was harmlessly trolling Cenk Ugyur, I would've taken your advice.

However, even before that pitiful display, I came to the conclusion that avoiding anything related to TYT would be the best route to take, on the grounds that they're cancerous cunts.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Had I not seen Jimmy Dore spit in Alex Jones' face simply because Jones was harmlessly trolling Cenk Ugyur, I would've taken your advice.
> 
> However, even before that pitiful display, I came to the conclusion that avoiding anything related to TYT would be the best route to take, on the grounds that they're cancerous cunts.


Dore doesn't seem to bad, especially compared to Ugyur.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Dore doesn't seem to bad, especially compared to Ugyur.


That was my opinion of him prior to his spitting shenanigans. Now I view him as being just as cancerous as the rest of TYT.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> That was my opinion of him prior to his spitting shenanigans. Now I view him as being just as cancerous as the rest of TYT.


Fair enough. Can't say I like everything Dore says or does. Cenk is complete garbage though. I can see why Dave Rubin left TYT.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Fair enough. Can't say I like everything Dore says or does. Cenk is complete garbage though. I can see why Dave Rubin left TYT.


Considering he identifies as a classical liberal, I don't blame him in the least for abandoning them when he started seeing the writing on the wall. And honestly, I'm glad for his sake that he did: he's free to take aim at anyone and everyone instead of being in lockstep with liberals over promoting progressivism, his show has been picked up for TV viewing and he's not tethered to the sinking ship known as TYT.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Here we go... Good thing Americans voted against moar pointless wars and moar Islamist refugees...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850424514932609024


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Here we go... Good thing Americans voted against moar pointless wars and moar Islamist refugees...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850424514932609024


Goddamn it, I was hoping she went back into the woods or something. :tripsscust

Surprisingly enough, her VP pick / method of trolling minorities wasn't on board with Trump's airstrike. This means that Kaine could possibly wind up dying either due to:

- Suicide that actually looks too suspicious to actually be a suicide
- Being used as a blood sacrifice to Moloch

:kappa


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And just like that, I'm pretty much convinced that she has virtually ruined any desire she may have of becoming president. Not because she dropped truth bombs due to being pragmatic in regard to warfare, as evident by her having risen to the rank of Major and having fought in the sandy shithole known as Iraq.
> 
> Rather, it's because the dems just can't accept that for all of their big talk about inclusiveness, they'll be damned if they so much as give the time of day to someone who supported Bernie, was willing to break bread with Trump during his transition and is someone who Bannon has declared himself to be a "big fan" of. Even if said someone is a biracial female Hindu, which is basically a progressive trifecta.


Possibly. It's hard to hold a good leader down though. The Dem establishment certainly won't be able to rid themselves of her because we fucking love her out here. They can try to primary her but it won't work.

That last line really makes me fpalm. Seriously, identity politics needs to fucking die. All it does is keep the majority divided so they can't unite against those at the top; which is precisely it's intent.



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Had I not seen Jimmy Dore spit in Alex Jones' face simply because Jones was harmlessly trolling Cenk Ugyur, I would've taken your advice.
> 
> However, even before that pitiful display, I came to the conclusion that avoiding anything related to TYT would be the best route to take, on the grounds that they're cancerous cunts.


A: I think we're all in agreement on the fuck TYT sentiment.

B: Alex Jones is a delusional jackass in his own right.

C: While what Dore was stupid and immature, I'm willing to give him a pass on it because it was a bad decision in a heated moment. It happens to the best of us. And he really does do great work on his own show.

He deserves credit for not bowing at the feet of Clinton like the rest of the bitches at TYT after the DNC stole the nomination for her. I won't watch him when he is on their show because there is never a good reason to watch that garbage but I really enjoy watching his channel. 

Seriously, watch the rant at the end of this video he makes again Keith Ellison. It is glorious, as his rants usually are. You might still not like the guy but this rant alone is worth the time.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Possibly. It's hard to hold a good leader down though. The Dem establishment certainly won't be able to rid themselves of her because we fucking love her out here. They can try to primary her but it won't work.
> 
> That last line really makes me fpalm. Seriously, identity politics needs to fucking die. All it does is keep the majority divided so they can't unite against those at the top; which is precisely it's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> A: I think we're all in agreement on the fuck TYT sentiment.
> 
> B: Alex Jones is a delusional jackass in his own right.
> 
> C: While what Dore was stupid and immature, I'm willing to give him a pass on it because it was a bad decision in a heated moment. It happens to the best of us. And he really does do great work on his own show.
> 
> He deserves credit for not bowing at the feet of Clinton like the rest of the bitches at TYT after the DNC stole the nomination for her. I won't watch him when he is on their show because there is never a good reason to watch that garbage but I really enjoy watching his channel.
> 
> Seriously, watch the rant at the end of this video he makes again Keith Ellison. It is glorious, as his rants usually are. You might still not like the guy but this rant alone is worth the time.


I think Gabbard definitely deserves a chance, though they might use her status as a biracial female Hindu as a way to promote her in order to jerk off progressives and add fuel to the anti-Trump fire. But if it helps getting her into serious contendership for the presidency, I can stomach that to see what she brings to the table.

Jones is a geek, there's no denying that. But he didn't deserve that regardless of his thoughts and opinions, especially since what he was doing was harmless. By extension, the same can be said about Richard Spencer's sucker punch incident.

And that rant was rather well done. Not fond whatsoever of his hard-on for progressivism or his desire for Bernie to lead a party, but he was spot-on for his criticism regarding the dems and their horseshit. 7.25/10, would likely watch again.

:bjpenn


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





 @CamillePunk


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Rebel Media and Infowar's people no longer support the president

Its like all my Christmases came at once 

Now if Trump can just shake off the "non-whties are genetically driven to crime" guys we might have a real president on our hands

Soon it will acceptable to like Trump around people who don't rank Chem trailing and Gang stalking in their top political concerns


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't know who started what in Syria, but this I sure as shit know. The MSM and all the Dems that are supporting what Trump did and saying the US should get more heavily involved in Syria, will most definitely stab him in the back if this escalates into a full blown war.

Right now Trump showed the feels, and it's got the Dems all wet with excitement because for the first time they see how and what ways they can pull his strings. You watch, if this deal in Syria heats up, we'll hear less and less about collusion with Russia and we'll hear more about how Trump is "Presidential".

I don't like it one bit. Something is assuredly not right.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Rebel Media and Infowar's people no longer support the president
> 
> Its like all my Christmases came at once
> 
> Now if Trump can just shake off the "non-whties are genetically driven to crime" guys we might have a real president on our hands
> 
> Soon it will acceptable to like Trump around people who rank Chem trailing and Gang stalking in their top political concerns


There were going to tun on Trump sooner or later. Anti-establishment rhetoric is more profitable for these media to sell to their audience. On both sides of the political spectrum. Just convince a few of them to spend a few bucks a month to listen to things they want to hear instead of need to hear. I am just surprised how soon it happened because I thought they could milk it for much longer. Some seem to be betting on that by saying it is a false flag attack and Trump is not to blamed.

Reminds me of liberal youtubers crying about youtube pulling ads on their videos recently because corporate advertisers pulling out of youtube due to concerns about their brand image. Anti-corporatists 'media' whining about corporate advertisers not giving them money. :lol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Here we go... Good thing Americans voted against moar pointless wars and moar Islamist refugees...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850424514932609024


She looks like a corpse.



stevefox1200 said:


> Rebel Media and Infowar's people no longer support the president
> 
> Its like all my Christmases came at once
> 
> Now if Trump can just shake off the "non-whties are genetically driven to crime" guys we might have a real president on our hands
> 
> Soon it will acceptable to like Trump around people who don't rank Chem trailing and Gang stalking in their top political concerns


Rebel has started to get to extreme as of late.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> There were going to tun on Trump sooner or later. Anti-establishment rhetoric is more profitable for these media to sell to their audience. On both sides of the political spectrum. Just convince a few of them to spend a few bucks a month to listen to things they want to hear instead of need to hear. I am just surprised how soon it happened because I thought they could milk it for much longer. Some seem to be betting on that by saying it is a false flag attack and Trump is not to blamed.
> 
> Reminds me of liberal youtubers crying about youtube pulling ads on their videos recently because corporate advertisers pulling out of youtube due to concerns about their brand image. Anti-corporatists 'media' whining about corporate advertisers not giving them money. :lol


I always enjoy people calling the mainstream media sell outs and running to "alternative" media which is trying to sell them things 

Bretbart runs just as many ads and pushes just as many books as Huffington and Infrowars promotes just as many products as CNN 

I tend to dislike the former more as it takes real balls to try to sell me survival kits for an great global NWO/deep-state/illumate/rothschild war where the money they earned would be worthless


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I think Gabbard definitely deserves a chance, though they might use her status as a biracial female Hindu as a way to promote her in order to jerk off progressives and add fuel to the anti-Trump fire. But if it helps getting her into serious contendership for the presidency, I can stomach that to see what she brings to the table.


Well, one would hope that if we ever get to the point of a Gabbard run, it would be a part of a much larger overhaul of the DNC, so the same identity politics neoliberals in charge now aren't out there making it about her gender, religion or race. Those things shouldn't matter. What does matter is policy and she has been out there pushing for many of the policies that are most important to me. Being anti-neocon is a pretty fucking big one but there are many others. She wants to decriminalize pot. She wants Glass-Steagall reinstated. She's even shown concern for the dying bee populations and I don't think I've heard a single other politician even mention it. It's a lot bigger deal than most people realize. Hell, most people don't even know it's a problem due to rampant ignorance.


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't mind the strike, the government there is a p.o.s who has used chemical weapons on their people several times and those were proven by Obama and the UN and people did nothing. I suspsect the sudden strike was to also send a message to the nutcase in North Korea that if you continue to push the worlds buttons there will be consequences.


:trump2 making moves


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850176732871221250


----------



## MontyCora

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850176732871221250


If there's one positive in the last few days it's laughing my tits off at all of the hypocritical tweets surfacing.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

From Brietbart so grain of salt needed but LOL

*On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” anchor Lawrence O’Donnell stated that “if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for.” O’Donnell then floated a theory that Putin told Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to launch a small chemical attack that was big enough to attract media attention and prompt President Trump into launching a missile strike, which would then change the subject from Russian influence.

O’Donnell said, “[W]ouldn’t it be nice if it was just completely, totally, absolutely impossible to suspect that Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week so that his friend in the White House could have a big night, with missiles, and all of the praise he’s picked up over the last 24 hours? Wouldn’t it be so nice if you couldn’t even in your wildest dreams imagine a scenario like that?”

He added, “I don’t know what it is. Is it a 2% chance? Is it a 50% chance? Is — I don’t know. But what — I don’t think it’s a 0% chance, and it used to be, with every other president prior to Donald Trump.”*

I think some of the Left just stepped into the Chem trail lane as this is hilarious. Everything is a move for Russia or to cover up the fact Trump is working for Russia!


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm a bit out of the loop but I can see this being a false flag. I can understand people no longer supporting Trump but I can't understand how some people will still trash him if they agree with this move.

I think it's very interesting that both sides mainstream arguments are basically conspiracy "what if?" theories at this point though.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thought I had during a discussion..

All of this talk about unmasking is going to lead to nowhere and here's why. Something happened in the Obama administration. We may not know exactly what, but something did happen. Shortly after the election, if you remember, Obama said that he would speak up if Trump did something he didn't like. He didn't use those exact words, but it was to that effect. Anyways, Trump brought up the "wiretapping" to give him his famous two ways to win. One, it got the media talking about something else other than collusion, and two it's a trump card, pun not intended, any time Trump thinks Obama is going to butt into his business. So, for instance, if Obama tries to speak up, Trump will just drop a tweet that'll say something like...

What's going on with the investigation about Obama wiretapping me?

And BOOM, the media will lose it's shit and Obama will sit back down. You see, something did happen, and Obama knows about it, and the last thing Obama wants to do is get involved, so he'll slither back into the shadows. It's a no win situation for Obama, he'll have to stay quiet. That's why I think nothing will happen with all this. Why bust the "fall guys" when you can use it to quiet your opposition?

The same goes for Hillary. If Hillary decides to come out and talk shit about Trump, we'll see a tweet about whether the DOJ should investigate the Clintons. Then Hillary will sit back down, because she also doesn't want to have to answer questions, because as we all know, she's guilty of something.

Anyways, just a thought I had.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Goku @GOON @Headliner @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @MillionDollarProns @Neuron @Oda Nobunaga @RipNTear 

Maybe I can sneak in three hours of sleep before this. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850444821697372161


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> I'm a bit out of the loop but I can see this being a false flag. I can understand people no longer supporting Trump but I can't understand how some people will still trash him if they agree with this move.
> 
> I think it's very interesting that both sides mainstream arguments are basically conspiracy "what if?" theories at this point though.


Then there are the people who have complained about the company Trump kept leading up to the election in the form of folks like Bannon and Conway, only to ridicule him now for those that he might be exchanging them for...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/07/the-kids-take-over-and-turn-trump-into-dubya.html

So hanging out with the alt-right bad, now hanging out with his family and what they deem are neocons is doubleplusbad? 



stevefox1200 said:


> Rebel Media and Infowar's people no longer support the president
> 
> Its like all my Christmases came at once
> 
> Now if Trump can just shake off the "non-whties are genetically driven to crime" guys we might have a real president on our hands
> 
> Soon it will acceptable to like Trump around people who don't rank Chem trailing and Gang stalking in their top political concerns


I'm more amazed that some of these nutjobs can type with all the tinfoil wrapped around their bodies. They are as bad sometimes as liberals who run around protesting everything, but really don't have a plan for what comes next. Ranting and raving about shit with no real solutions eventually becomes just background noise. 



CamillePunk said:


> Bannon might have been against the Syrian strikes, while Jared Kushner may have pushed for them:
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ns-waning-influence.html?mid=twitter-share-di


Could explain the move of Bannon away from the NSC. You can see more and more now Trump's children, especially Ivanka, jockeying for position in Dad's ear the way basketball players post up and throw elbows looking for that rebound. 



RipNTear said:


> You haven't answered any of my points and are trying to discredit my opinion as a "never war" person. That's a label and you of all people should avoid using such stereotypes to discredit opinion.
> 
> I'm all for justifiable and justified war. I have asked you to give me justifications for _this _strike and escalation. Also, I've raised this point in several posts as well - why are chemical weapons so much worse? I need a scientific explanation for this, not a feelings-based assertion that it is worse because it's said or believed to be worse. I can understand differences when they're explained to me rationally. I'm just failing to see after all my research why "gassing" is so much more immoral than other forms of inflicting death.


What is going on in Syria is very complicated, there might not be a good solution. Keeping Assad in power is not exactly preferential, but neither is the alternative which could be some group like the Free Syria Army come to power and move to place in power an Islamic theocracy much like Iran is. Or...the possibility of a complete takeover of ISIS (long odds on that right now but things change) could come to fruition. We're not just looking at the difference between a giant turd and a douche sandwich...the whole cafeteria of options is pretty piss-poor. 

Yet, back in 2013, when Obama failed to respond to the red line in Syria with the use of chemical weapons, this is what led us to this path. Yes, we as a nation were weary of over a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and really didn't have the stomach for another possible military conflict (some for true war-weariness, some assholes in the world opposed it simply for partisan bullshit reasons which I detest). Many applauded Obama's restraint. However, that sent a message to the rest of the world that he was not serious about acting in this situation. By not acting, as well as the nuclear deal with Iran where we had all the leverage and pissed it away, is that the bad guys could do whatever the hell they want and they could act with impunity. Obama wanted to talk, but that was it...talk after a while becomes background noise and people tuned him out like Charlie Brown's teacher. 

Yes, the United States has made mistakes when it comes to actions during war. It's a messy business and not something you can do clean as a whistle. Nevertheless...the idea of ANYONE using chemical weapons in a deliberate fashion is just not acceptable. Especially when you are deliberately killing civilians in the gruesome fashion sarin gas is known for. No one deserves that. 

I'm not going to bullshit and give a scientific reason that is devoid of compassion and feelings. This is a situation that I can't (more like won't) do that. At the same time, part of America First is going to be doing what we need to do to keep ourselves safe and in exchange show the rest of the world we will do what is necessary to do so and to challenge those who might be a threat. If the world thinks we're going to strike if we feel we are being threatened, they are not likely to want to mess with us. On the other hand, an isolationist America that doesn't react will continue to be poked and prodded until it reaches a breaking point. I would love to let the rest of the world figure it out for themselves, but sometimes we have to let people know we're still here. 

At the end of the day, Trump did the right thing. For the alt-right and fringe, that might not be acceptable. For others, they might be skeptical of the reasons he did it. However, I have said that I will give credit where credit is due. Remember, I was arguably THE MOST critical of him this past year, even more then BM and other progressives on here. If I'm giving him props, then maybe he is doing something right. 

What you will learn, sir, if you wish to become a true conservative, is that things are not always based on science and reason. It's looking at a situation and knowing what is right or wrong. Yes, it's not black and white over there and there is a lot of gray in the world. I understand that America has not always done the right thing, yet I would still like to believe that there is still good in this world and that someone can do something for the right thing. Sometimes, doing the right thing is not popular, and people will shit on your rationale or not believe that you are doing it just because it's the right thing. Nevertheless, you have to be willing to stand up and say that this is wrong, period. That is how my moral compass works, anyway. It's not something you can turn on and off. 

This is my lesson to you for the day in Conservatism 101.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@BruiserKC I love how you just assume we are being told the truth about Assad using chemical weapons on his own people (both in 2013 and recently) and never question the narrative of using our military as the world's police. Also, it's pretty goddamned hilarious that you think the rest of the world views us as pussies and the only way to solve that problem is by dropping a hundred million worth of bombs on somebody. Like, a true gut buster there. I mean, it's understandable. Obama only dropped over 19,000 bombs on 7 different countries during 2016. It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks they can poke and prod us. No one takes any country seriously that isn't dropping at least 50,000 bombs on at least 15 different countries.

America! Fuck yeah!


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> @BruiserKC I love how you just assume we are being told the truth about Assad using chemical weapons on his own people (both in 2013 and recently) and never question the narrative of using our military as the world's police. Also, it's pretty goddamned hilarious that you think the rest of the world views us as pussies and the only way to solve that problem is by dropping a hundred million worth of bombs on somebody. Like, a true gut buster there. I mean, it's understandable. Obama only dropped over 19,000 bombs on 7 different countries during 2016. It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks they can poke and prod us. No one takes any country seriously that isn't dropping at least 50,000 bombs on at least 15 different countries.
> 
> America! Fuck yeah!


Any investigation is fucked up now but imagine if proof the CIA gave the gas to do this attack to the rebels? Oh my! Sadly any chance of an investigation is gone now.

Now we got Democrat and Republican warhawks eager to start another war while trying to bring more refugees here.

It boggles the mind!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> What is going on in Syria is very complicated, there might not be a good solution. Keeping Assad in power is not exactly preferential, but neither is the alternative which could be some group like the Free Syria Army come to power and move to place in power an Islamic theocracy much like Iran is. Or...the possibility of a complete takeover of ISIS (long odds on that right now but things change) could come to fruition. We're not just looking at the difference between a giant turd and a douche sandwich...the whole cafeteria of options is pretty piss-poor.


I probably have a deeper understanding of what's going in Syria than most people because I'm from a part of the world that was fucked up by American neoconservatism combined with terrorists they couldn't suppress at the height of my youth. I was a supporter of American operation then as well - but I also saw with my own eyes the victims of both terrorism as well as American drone bombs and to me there is no difference between a dead child at the hands of Americans and a dead child at the hands of the Taliban. I'm anti-war not because of ideological reasons of being a pacifist. I'm anti-war for the most part because the agents bringing war are incompetent - and as proud as you are of your military, I've lived the consequences of its arrogance and incompetence. Killing civilians and going "oops" is something I saw one too many times in my own sovereign country. They maligned Pakistanis as terrorist harbouring people in order to justify their border excursions and didn't even give Pakistanis the right to complain. The arrogance and incompetence of the top brass of the American military (the ones making decisions) at this point really should be taken to task before they're allowed to indiscriminately get involved in escalations again. 

I was hoping with Trump's rhetoric that he was going to improve the military and its standards before getting involved in other conflicts around the world and that is an absolute must. I still think he can do that, but at this point I'm scared that he's going to take the same practices, same intel, same "dropping bombs" ideology without internalizing and developing a stronger military. He only made a surgical strike and is planning to step away again. Just how exactly is this a "strong message"? How is this a world changing event? How exactly is this a prelude to the massive war that will heal everything? 



> Yes, the United States has made mistakes when it comes to actions during war. It's a messy business and not something you can do clean as a whistle. Nevertheless...the idea of ANYONE using chemical weapons in a deliberate fashion is just not acceptable. Especially when you are deliberately killing civilians in the gruesome fashion sarin gas is known for. No one deserves that.


No one deserves to have bombs dropped on their heads as much as they don't deserve to be gassed by terrorists or their own government. I'm not saying there needs to be a diplomatic and diplomatic solution alone. I believe that America needs to be under real threat in order to get involved in external conflicts at this stage in history. I'm also not for selective moral outrage because it comes across as disingenuous (I'm not talking about you personally, I'm talking about a selective war policy that chooses targets based on convenience and political capital instead of humanity). If humanity was the valid justification for American wars, we'd be fighting 100 wars instead of 7 or 8. So don't fault me for questioning these wars and "precision" strikes when they happen in oil rich areas and not in North Korea. (And of course countries that have no nuclear weapons and therefore don't pose a real threat to Americans)



> I'm not going to bullshit and give a scientific reason that is devoid of compassion and feelings. This is a situation that I can't (more like won't) do that. At the same time, part of America First is going to be doing what we need to do to keep ourselves safe and in exchange show the rest of the world we will do what is necessary to do so and to challenge those who might be a threat. If the world thinks we're going to strike if we feel we are being threatened, they are not likely to want to mess with us. On the other hand, an isolationist America that doesn't react will continue to be poked and prodded until it reaches a breaking point. I would love to let the rest of the world figure it out for themselves, but sometimes we have to let people know we're still here.


Scientific inquiry is a tool that has helped us determine our morality for centuries. At first we used to hang people. Then we determined that it was inhumane because it caused suffering. Then we electrocuted people and determined that it was inhumane too. So we put people to permanent sleep because it is humane. Science itself is neutral. But science can help us develop a more reasoned and nuanced response instead of knee-jerk reactions based on outrage to something we're indoctrinated to feel outraged by. I understand your feelings now, but I reject them because through scientific inquiry we can determine whether those feelings are rational or irrational and that any action taken as a result of that strong emotion is sane or insane. There was a time when people used to have such moral indignation and outrage to Blasphemy, and then we recognized over time through rational debate that blasphemy isn't a crime worthy of punishment. This is why scientific inquiry around the real harm of chemical weapons (relative to other weapons) is an absolute must so we don't have terrible knee-jerk reactions based on going insane over a crime that is _perceived _to be worse. Is it _really _worse is a fair and valid question. 



> At the end of the day, Trump did the right thing. For the alt-right and fringe, that might not be acceptable. For others, they might be skeptical of the reasons he did it. However, I have said that I will give credit where credit is due. Remember, I was arguably THE MOST critical of him this past year, even more then BM and other progressives on here. If I'm giving him props, then maybe he is doing something right.


He did the right thing in your eyes. But he lied to his constituents. That makes it a moral wrong in those people's eyes who believed him about his non-interventionist strategy. 



> What you will learn, sir, if you wish to become a true conservative, is that things are not always based on science and reason. It's looking at a situation and knowing what is right or wrong. Yes, it's not black and white over there and there is a lot of gray in the world. I understand that America has not always done the right thing, yet I would still like to believe that there is still good in this world and that someone can do something for the right thing. Sometimes, doing the right thing is not popular, and people will shit on your rationale or not believe that you are doing it just because it's the right thing. Nevertheless, you have to be willing to stand up and say that this is wrong, period. That is how my moral compass works, anyway. It's not something you can turn on and off.


TBH if ignoring scientific inquiry and rationale is part of conservatism (which I don't believe it is), then I'd rather not be a conservative. My moral compass is defined by rationality not emotion. I feel emotions, but my job is to suppress that emotion and respond rationally. It's an ideal that's developed through years of practicing restraint. Something I only wish our leaders had. 

I just don't think that you have justified this particular escalation or strike very well. I'm not convinced.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> What you will learn, sir, if you wish to become a true conservative, is that things are not always based on science and reason. It's looking at a situation and knowing what is right or wrong. Yes, it's not black and white over there and there is a lot of gray in the world. I understand that America has not always done the right thing, yet I would still like to believe that there is still good in this world and that someone can do something for the right thing. Sometimes, doing the right thing is not popular, and people will shit on your rationale or not believe that you are doing it just because it's the right thing. Nevertheless, you have to be willing to stand up and say that this is wrong, period. That is how my moral compass works, anyway. It's not something you can turn on and off.
> 
> This is my lesson to you for the day in Conservatism 101.


Conservatives have no monopoly on morality, especially as many of you claim to be Christian and then advocate for actions in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ. Suffice to say, the credibility of Christians who support war is lacking, at best, if not entirely bankrupt. I have a hard time taking such people seriously, and thus must refuse the lesson in Conservatism 101, and suggest a course renaming to "Hypocrisy 101" may be in order.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So much for sleeping. Who was I kidding? :lol
@Tater's last post made me laugh. 
@RipNTear's argument about the fetishizing of "chemical gas" deaths resonates. Furthermore, looking at the footage, should not at least a few of the individuals who attempted to save the lives of the children be dead at this point? Perhaps they are. Because sarin gas requires full Hazmat suits to be handled, as is the case with people suffering from it. The formula of C4H10FO2P is shockingly potent. Several of the would-be rescuers were wearing carrying kids around and pressing their bare hands against the faces of the children in the footage. There are many reasons why the story should be more exhaustively investigated.

At best, a chemical attack actually was performed by Assad, and actors within the highest echelons of power seized on the opportunity to emotionally manipulate an untutored president. Hillary Clinton hired a psychologist who analyzed Donald Trump before the presidential debates and that psychologist theorized that the word "father" would trigger Trump and get under his skin from repressed father-related issues, and so she used it, according to multiple sources close to her campaign. Over the past decade or so many near Trump have said that he has become increasingly soft-hearted toward children. 

All due respect to @BruiserKC the term "true conservative" these days makes me wince. You deserve credit for supporting your position against an oft-hostile crowd, *Bruiser* but some of the rationalization seems to be working backward to justify the aforesaid label. When I give talks at Cal Berkeley usually someone will attempt to say I'm a conservative because of this or that, and while technically it may be true, I always reflexively and humorously reject the label because to be perfectly honest, few spectacles have been so embarrassing as the U.S.'s post-World War II Conservatism, Inc. as it sprung up in the 1950s and somehow persists to this day. It has been the ultimate Faustian bargain with Big Government (Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House today and the best they can do in the realm of healthcare is Obamacare-lite Ryan/Heritage Foundation-care and there is widespread talk that the window for meaningful tax reform is closing and fast) since Dwight Eisenhower's presidency, and on the cultural front it has predictably been one bust after another. 

However, I will steal the "true conservative" label by saying that I'm once again rereading Marcus Tullius Cicero's consideration of just war in his _De Officiis_, along with Augustine's theory of just war.

All right, time to watch this Mises special, haha!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> “Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates,” the conservative commentator Ann Coulter, one of Trump’s biggest champions in the right-wing media, wrote on Twitter. “Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. *Then he saw a picture on TV.*”


She also tweeted this: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850360659501957124


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Just another puppet , Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't do selective morality and the US military doesn't drop bombs on one country and not on another for humanitarian reasons. Military intervention is all about selecting targets based on (1) ease of achieving goals versus risk, (2) ability to frame it as palatable at home and (3) the economic and political value of a particular show of power. The welfare of average Syrians has very little, if anything, to do with this latest foray into the Middle East. 

So much for that sea change in foreign policy and swamp drain at home many Trump voters were hoping for.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Saw that as well, @RipNTear. 

And again I remark on how much the American left went apoplectic over a ninety-day travel ban but the establishment of the left, at any rate, seems deliriously enthused by firing missiles toward the facilities of a sovereign government. Of course, when was leftism ever pacific? From Robespierre to Trotsky, from Lenin and Stalin to Mao or Ho Chi Minh? Charles Schumer defended Bill Clinton's decision to scorch the Branch Davidians near Waco but of course he purrs today, "Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do." Writing in the blood-soaked rag the _Weekly Standard_, Elliot Abrams boasts that Trump, as of these past couple of days, has "finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World... [T]he strike at Syria had at its heart precisely that kind of global leadership, to enforce the century-old ban on chemical warfare--in the interest of decency and peace." Abrams evoking images of one of the American regime's bogeymen--chemical weapons--to justify airstrikes or whatever forms of skullduggery on the ground as necessary, this from the same Abrams who was instrumental in coordinating one dirty war after another in Central America, wars which cost many thousands of lives and subsequently lied to Congress. Rarely has such a paragon of remorseless slaughter been so prominent; you almost have to respect him for the brazenness of his public displays of shameless warmongering. 

As Nietzsche viewed the burgeoning modern-state as it had come to be known at the time of most of his writings, it was "...the coldest of all cold monsters..." So if Trump's not letting sentiment--a wonderful element in life but which can be dangerously misapplied in matters of statecraft--dictate his moves, is he rather using it as a smokescreen? Trump has endeavored to cultivate an image which is that of the cut-throat businessman willing to fire anyone who does not deliver in his interests. Well, as Trump may see it, what use do Syrians serve here but to be bombed? Neil Gorsuch and the "nuclear option" drama in Congress was barely covered by most news outlets, and the mood of Washington has seemed to change with the coming of spring and bloodletting of Syrians by U.S. tomahawk missiles. Perhaps Gorsuch is a nasty "originalist," as they complain on "Morning Joe," maybe Trump used the Russians to get elected, as Chris Matthews apparently feverishly believes, maybe the environment will be ruined by Donald Trump, says Brian Williams, but so what? This man is a killer, this man is to be taken seriously. Williams was particularly obeisant, referring to the firing of the tomahawk missiles as "beautiful" four times in under a minute the other night, while Joe Scarborough was finally ready to quit investigating those terrible Trump-Putin connections because now Trump, in authorizing death and destruction of Assad forces and equipment because he saw some upsetting images on television, had joined the presidential club.

So myriad media figures, and Democrats, are suddenly off of Trump's back in a way that seemed unthinkable just a few days ago. Trump may have actual freedom of movement by which he can talk with the Russians, and talk with Putin, without being drawn as Moscow's puppet. Of course some on the left will not let go--Lawrence O'Donnell was spinning more conspiracy theories, saying, effectively, that this entire week was essentially a production by Putin, Assad and Trump to advance their collective agenda of global villainy. Nevertheless, in the short-term, politically, Trump has already gained quite a bit. Perhaps @CamillePunk's Scott Adams is correct in his analysis. One may hope so.

Julius Caesar would say of himself, "aut Caesar aut nihil." If Trump is a weak reed being blown in the wind, an easily-steered vehicle by which neoconservatives and neoliberals can return to their stalled projects, we will be in trouble. At this point, let us hope Trump is Caesar.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> @BruiserKC I love how you just assume we are being told the truth about Assad using chemical weapons on his own people (both in 2013 and recently) and never question the narrative of using our military as the world's police. Also, it's pretty goddamned hilarious that you think the rest of the world views us as pussies and the only way to solve that problem is by dropping a hundred million worth of bombs on somebody. Like, a true gut buster there. I mean, it's understandable. Obama only dropped over 19,000 bombs on 7 different countries during 2016. It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks they can poke and prod us. No one takes any country seriously that isn't dropping at least 50,000 bombs on at least 15 different countries.
> 
> America! Fuck yeah!


I have made very clear we should not be the world's police. What Obama did was the bare minimum required when it comes to force (yes it's somewhat of a contradiction when it comes to war but it rings true here). A few bombs dropped here, a drone mission here, and he could point and say, "I DID SOMETHING!" That's not worth the trouble and if you're going to do that you might as well stay home. It is the equivalent of a five-year-old throwing a tantrum...yes it's doing something by kicking its legs and flailing around but in reality the child isn't getting anywhere. Granted, in the eyes of many one bomb is still one too many, but it was merely token action. Again, the concept of token military action might be a contradiction as it's not something to take lightly. Nevertheless, he only did enough to get by. 



RipNTear said:


> I probably have a deeper understanding of what's going in Syria than most people because I'm from a part of the world that was fucked up by American neoconservatism combined with terrorists they couldn't suppress at the height of my youth. I was a supporter of American operation then as well - but I also saw with my own eyes the victims of both terrorism as well as American drone bombs and to me there is no difference between a dead child at the hands of Americans and a dead child at the hands of the Taliban. I'm anti-war not because of ideological reasons of being a pacifist. I'm anti-war for the most part because the agents bringing war are incompetent - and as proud as you are of your military, I've lived the consequences of its arrogance and incompetence. Killing civilians and going "oops" is something I saw one too many times in my own sovereign country. They maligned Pakistanis as terrorist harbouring people in order to justify their border excursions and didn't even give Pakistanis the right to complain. The arrogance and incompetence of the top brass of the American military (the ones making decisions) at this point really should be taken to task before they're allowed to indiscriminately get involved in escalations again.
> 
> I was hoping with Trump's rhetoric that he was going to improve the military and its standards before getting involved in other conflicts around the world and that is an absolute must. I still think he can do that, but at this point I'm scared that he's going to take the same practices, same intel, same "dropping bombs" ideology without internalizing and developing a stronger military. He only made a surgical strike and is planning to step away again. Just how exactly is this a "strong message"? How is this a world changing event? How exactly is this a prelude to the massive war that will heal everything?
> 
> 
> 
> No one deserves to have bombs dropped on their heads as much as they don't deserve to be gassed by terrorists or their own government. I'm not saying there needs to be a diplomatic and diplomatic solution alone. I believe that America needs to be under real threat in order to get involved in external conflicts at this stage in history. I'm also not for selective moral outrage because it comes across as disingenuous (I'm not talking about you personally, I'm talking about a selective war policy that chooses targets based on convenience and political capital instead of humanity). If humanity was the valid justification for American wars, we'd be fighting 100 wars instead of 7 or 8. So don't fault me for questioning these wars and "precision" strikes when they happen in oil rich areas and not in North Korea. (And of course countries that have no nuclear weapons and therefore don't pose a real threat to Americans)
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific inquiry is a tool that has helped us determine our morality for centuries. At first we used to hang people. Then we determined that it was inhumane because it caused suffering. Then we electrocuted people and determined that it was inhumane too. So we put people to permanent sleep because it is humane. Science itself is neutral. But science can help us develop a more reasoned and nuanced response instead of knee-jerk reactions based on outrage to something we're indoctrinated to feel outraged by. I understand your feelings now, but I reject them because through scientific inquiry we can determine whether those feelings are rational or irrational and that any action taken as a result of that strong emotion is sane or insane. There was a time when people used to have such moral indignation and outrage to Blasphemy, and then we recognized over time through rational debate that blasphemy isn't a crime worthy of punishment. This is why scientific inquiry around the real harm of chemical weapons (relative to other weapons) is an absolute must so we don't have terrible knee-jerk reactions based on going insane over a crime that is _perceived _to be worse. Is it _really _worse is a fair and valid question.
> 
> 
> 
> He did the right thing in your eyes. But he lied to his constituents. That makes it a moral wrong in those people's eyes who believed him about his non-interventionist strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> TBH if ignoring scientific inquiry and rationale is part of conservatism (which I don't believe it is), then I'd rather not be a conservative. My moral compass is defined by rationality not emotion. I feel emotions, but my job is to suppress that emotion and respond rationally. It's an ideal that's developed through years of practicing restraint. Something I only wish our leaders had.
> 
> I just don't think that you have justified this particular escalation or strike very well. I'm not convinced.


I appreciate what you grew up with and lived with...you do have the perspective many of us don't have. 

That being said, war is an ugly business. There's no amount of lipstick I'm going to put on that pig to pretty it up. I don't want another war, and I sure as hell don't want our troops pulled into something again. If it happens, I want a plan that is clearly thought out, a clear strategy, the opportunity to let our military do its job, and then bring them home when it's over. 

What you unfortunately witnessed is the incompetence of the military over the years, (as someone who has served I have a perspective there that few have on this site as well) and that's because you have had dumbfucks running the military. They are pencil-pushers who were more concerned with the bottom line. They were also civilians who probably shunned military duty themselves and thought they understood more about military life then the folks who are actually serving. That's what the real neocon is...people running the military who have never actually done the heavy lifting themselves of picking up a gun and defending a post. 

Public opinion and politicization of the job has made things worse. I saw it somewhat when I served in Kosovo and the Balkans, but it was far worse according to people that served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Too many restrictions, too much bullshit, hell in some towns sneezing the wrong way at someone would risk a court-martial. Think of the times you've had a job and your boss keeps meddling in every single thing you are doing. That's how these soldiers felt. It probably pissed them off and affected their job, it would with anyone else. Unfortunately, this is a job where sometimes lives are at stake. The military, like anyone else, just wants to do their job and then come home. Unfortunately, that can be an issue when you have civilians running the show that don't have that experience. That wasn't an issue under George HW Bush, he served in WW2 and was shot down. Clinton, Dubya, Obama...not so much. Especially Obama who was notoriously anti-military and looked down on them. 

That is part of why many military members loved Trump...that is one place I think he might actually get it. He deferred several times from serving himself, that in the past would raise eyebrows. But those who were advisers to him that have military experience, they have pointed out to him that they want someone as Commander-in-Chief that will allow them to do their job. No unreasonable restrictions, no red tape, no PC bullshit. Just let them do what they need to do and give them the tools to make it happen. Trump did that with Mattis as Sec of Def, and maybe sent another message to them regarding that with moving Bannon out of the NSC. I'm pretty sure that there was some griping by McMasters to the POTUS saying that Bannon is going to gum up the works because he doesn't understand what the military is supposed to do. 

As far as Trump breaking promises...he already has several times. I don't see Hillary in an orange or striped jumpsuit. Repeal and replace was not that when it came to the AHCA, it just moved shit around. And who's to say that this isn't a one-time attack, and if Assad gets the message that it won't be necessary to become involved. So, let's not completely go into panic mode just yet as far as Syria goes. Besides, there are times a promise is not feasible to keep. My son came to me with a situation where a friend of his was having problems but my son had promised not to say anything. I told him that if your friend was in danger sometimes you have to break that promise. Perhaps Trump tried to keep that promise, but felt in this case he had to make an exception. Whether it's the exception or the norm we will have to see. Just take a deep breath and see how this plays out. 

The perception I'm sure that you got from your experiences in Pakistan is one that I think we have to change...it's that many in the world think we just flat out don't give a shit about them. I think that might be the real issue here. We have to find that balance with putting America First and for showing the world that we do have a heart and will do the right thing when called upon. No, we can't expect to do everything for everyone and I won't ask us to. But if we can use our influence to at least try to do the right thing, then I think we can use that when needed. It's not being a globalist or a puppet, it's doing what's right. Our allies think we don't care, that's a perception that has to change for us to be truly safe. Yes, there will always be haters, but I don't give a shit about them. 

As far as conservatism not being for you...it's using both rationale and emotion and knowing when to use which. I have learned over the years to balance both. It's a hard thing to do, but it is doable. It's also not a sexy thing to be, as you see these days with the assault in the media, the progressives, and the CINOs in Congress that are attacking the Freedom Caucus for standing on their principles. They are all trying to make them the scapegoat for the failure of the AHCA. Do what is best for you. I will still respect you no matter the path you take.  I will not attack you like that little fuckwad Gandhi here did for people disagreeing. 



CamillePunk said:


> Conservatives have no monopoly on morality, especially as many of you claim to be Christian and then advocate for actions in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ. Suffice to say, the credibility of Christians who support war is lacking, at best, if not entirely bankrupt. I have a hard time taking such people seriously, and thus must refuse the lesson in Conservatism 101, and suggest a course renaming to "Hypocrisy 101" may be in order.


Never said I had a monopoly on morality. War, unfortunately, is a necessity at times. Is it always required, no...but the idea of it never being an option just doesn't work for me. Trump still feels the same way, he did what he thought was right. Besides, reading Scott Adams' piece you posted earlier, he gets it. Trump doesn't want war, but sometimes the way to prevent it is to show you are prepared to fight. If we can avert a full-scale bloodbath in the ME by flexing a little muscle, then maybe it will all be worth it and Trump can once again be your hero. 

Along those lines...a word to the wise. As I stated here many times, Trump is not who everyone thinks he is. He's not going down the path I want, and recent events show he's not going to completely skip down that primose path you and many others have put out for him. He's going to do what he thinks needs to be done, ideology and politics be damned. You can either accept that and hope he does some of what you want him to do, or disown him and have a long four years of agony. 

You voted for this, it's up to you now to decide if that vote was wasted or not. But I think there's a little moral bankruptcy on your part that when he has already walked back other promises of his that now you're ready to abandon him. 



DesolationRow said:


> So much for sleeping. Who was I kidding? :lol
> @Tater's last post made me laugh.
> @RipNTear's argument about the fetishizing of "chemical gas" deaths resonates. Furthermore, looking at the footage, should not at least a few of the individuals who attempted to save the lives of the children be dead at this point? Perhaps they are. Because sarin gas requires full Hazmat suits to be handled, as is the case with people suffering from it. The formula of C4H10FO2P is shockingly potent. Several of the would-be rescuers were wearing carrying kids around and pressing their bare hands against the faces of the children in the footage. There are many reasons why the story should be more exhaustively investigated.
> 
> At best, a chemical attack actually was performed by Assad, and actors within the highest echelons of power seized on the opportunity to emotionally manipulate an untutored president. Hillary Clinton hired a psychologist who analyzed Donald Trump before the presidential debates and that psychologist theorized that the word "father" would trigger Trump and get under his skin from repressed father-related issues, and so she used it, according to multiple sources close to her campaign. Over the past decade or so many near Trump have said that he has become increasingly soft-hearted toward children.
> 
> All due respect to @BruiserKC the term "true conservative" these days makes me wince. You deserve credit for supporting your position against an oft-hostile crowd, *Bruiser* but some of the rationalization seems to be working backward to justify the aforesaid label. When I give talks at Cal Berkeley usually someone will attempt to say I'm a conservative because of this or that, and while technically it may be true, I always reflexively and humorously reject the label because to be perfectly honest, few spectacles have been so embarrassing as the U.S.'s post-World War II Conservatism, Inc. as it sprung up in the 1950s and somehow persists to this day. It has been the ultimate Faustian bargain with Big Government (Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House today and the best they can do in the realm of healthcare is Obamacare-lite Ryan/Heritage Foundation-care and there is widespread talk that the window for meaningful tax reform is closing and fast) since Dwight Eisenhower's presidency, and on the cultural front it has predictably been one bust after another.
> 
> However, I will steal the "true conservative" label by saying that I'm once again rereading Marcus Tullius Cicero's consideration of just war in his _De Officiis_, along with Augustine's theory of just war.
> 
> All right, time to watch this Mises special, haha!


Believe me, I'm one of the last true conservatives left. I have howled about how the GOP talks about limited government but when they gain power they choose to do their own version of overreach. There are CINOs crawling everywhere. Hell, even here in Iowa the GOP is now starting to fuck things up because they are using their newfound control in the state legislature to push for control. They were going to do away with the red-light cameras (which are about money and not safety) but now feel they can keep them. They want to destroy the Des Moines Water Works because they were mad the Water Works sued some counties in northern Iowa and then will turn power over to the city of Des Moines (which BTW just had to pay out $40 million because they tried to add illegal franchise fees to our power bill). I could see another Flint situation brewing, to the point I went out yesterday and invested in about 5 5-gallon jugs (I get my water now at the filtration stations they have at Wal-Mart and most grocery stores). 

Not to mention that right now the Freedom Caucus is the enemy of the CINO wing of the GOP, the media, and the progressives. Believe me, the progressives think I'm the enemy and many Trump supporters think I'm the enemy because I won't go along with every single thing they believe. 

If the day ever comes they send me off to an Agenda 21esque camp, you will know why. Actually, you'll hear it because I won't go peacefully. :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Well, one would hope that if we ever get to the point of a Gabbard run, it would be a part of a much larger overhaul of the DNC, so the same identity politics neoliberals in charge now aren't out there making it about her gender, religion or race. Those things shouldn't matter. What does matter is policy and she has been out there pushing for many of the policies that are most important to me. Being anti-neocon is a pretty fucking big one but there are many others. She wants to decriminalize pot. She wants Glass-Steagall reinstated. *She's even shown concern for the dying bee populations* and I don't think I've heard a single other politician even mention it. It's a lot bigger deal than most people realize. Hell, most people don't even know it's a problem due to rampant ignorance.


I read up on her policies out of curiosity and I'm largely in favor of what she's about. But that bolded part...










That fucking settles it. Gabbard 2020.

Book it, overhauled DNC. :vince$


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SpeedStick said:


> Just another puppet , Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton


Quoted for truth.



BruiserKC said:


> I have made very clear we should not be the world's police. What Obama did was the bare minimum required when it comes to force (yes it's somewhat of a contradiction when it comes to war but it rings true here). A few bombs dropped here, a drone mission here, and he could point and say, "I DID SOMETHING!" That's not worth the trouble and if you're going to do that you might as well stay home. It is the equivalent of a five-year-old throwing a tantrum...yes it's doing something by kicking its legs and flailing around but in reality the child isn't getting anywhere. Granted, in the eyes of many one bomb is still one too many, but it was merely token action. Again, the concept of token military action might be a contradiction as it's not something to take lightly. Nevertheless, he only did enough to get by.


Everything you said after the first sentence contradicts what you said in the first sentence. You claim we should not be the world's police but then go on to say that Obama _wasn't doing enough_. Turns out I may have undersold him at only 19k bombs.



> *Here's How Many Bombs Obama Dropped In 2016*
> 
> Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his *"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,*" despite having been in office for less than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.
> 
> According to an analysis of Defense Department data from the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think tank, the majority of Obama's 2016 bombs were dropped on Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, Afghanistan, a country President Obama vowed U.S. troops would evacuate completely by the end of his Presidency, was also bombed over 1,300 times, a 40% increase over 2015. Per McClatchy DC:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. dropped 79 percent of the anti-Islamic State group coalition bombs in Syria and Iraq, totaling 24,287. That figure, along with others analyzed by CFR, is likely lower than the actual number dropped because one airstrike can involved multiple bombs.
> 
> 
> Obama did authorize a troop surge in Afghanistan — a conflict he pledged to end during his campaign — where the U.S. dropped 1,337 bombs in 2016. There are currently 8,400 U.S. troops left in the country, more than Obama initially wanted to keep there at the end of his term. The U.S. only dropped 947 bombs in Afghanistan in 2015.
> 
> 
> The U.S. also dropped more bombs in Libya in 2016 than it did in 2015. Nearly 500 bombs were dropped in the North African country that has essentially been ungoverned since the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. He was captured and killed during the Libyan Civil War, kicked off by the Arab Spring protests that also began the Syrian conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE


You and I have very different definitions of "a few bombs".

Oh and btw, the Obama years saw *increases* in military spending and bombing compared to the previous Bush administration. If you think Obama was weak, I can only imagine how much of a giant pussy you saw Dubya as.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

As weird as it sounds I don't care for the reasons so much as I do the effects

I support the rebels over Assad so I don't care if the US hated him because of his drapes

As for the pipeline, if it was built it would destroy all of Russia's clout in middle and eastern Europe and would basically cripple them in everything but military


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










It's always the older generation that is more pro war. But not this time apparently.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It's always the older generation that is more pro war. But not this time apparently.


That's pretty interesting.

Seems like it's an overwhelming majority this time from everybody involved that this leading to war of any kind would be a pretty horrible thing.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Disappointed that Southern's video regarding the airstrike was taken down, considering she had valid criticisms and mildly, yet effectively roasted a number of notable names who supported it, such as Graham and McCain. Good to see she's at least keeping her eyes and ears on this situation, though.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

One day Bruiser might respond to someone's points instead of droning on about his delusional worldview where he's the ultimate principled citizen while littering his posts with contradictions poorly disguising his fetish for war, BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY. All right, enough of that.


I'm not off the Trump train. I disagree with the attack and if it escalates into a full-scale intervention effort as opposed to this one attack (with a weak justification in my view) with the intention of regime change I will almost certainly change my mind. Deso already gave away a lot of my thinking on the matter in his excellent posts above.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Thought I had during a discussion..
> 
> All of this talk about unmasking is going to lead to nowhere and here's why. Something happened in the Obama administration. We may not know exactly what, but something did happen. Shortly after the election, if you remember, Obama said that he would speak up if Trump did something he didn't like. He didn't use those exact words, but it was to that effect. Anyways, Trump brought up the "wiretapping" to give him his famous two ways to win. One, it got the media talking about something else other than collusion, and two it's a trump card, pun not intended, any time Trump thinks Obama is going to butt into his business. So, for instance, if Obama tries to speak up, Trump will just drop a tweet that'll say something like...
> 
> What's going on with the investigation about Obama wiretapping me?
> 
> And BOOM, the media will lose it's shit and Obama will sit back down. You see, something did happen, and Obama knows about it, and the last thing Obama wants to do is get involved, so he'll slither back into the shadows. It's a no win situation for Obama, he'll have to stay quiet. That's why I think nothing will happen with all this. Why bust the "fall guys" when you can use it to quiet your opposition?
> 
> The same goes for Hillary. If Hillary decides to come out and talk shit about Trump, we'll see a tweet about whether the DOJ should investigate the Clintons. Then Hillary will sit back down, because she also doesn't want to have to answer questions, because as we all know, she's guilty of something.
> 
> *Anyways, just a thought I had.*



Holy Tin-foil hats, Batman! :sleep


I mean look at this : "All of this talk about unmasking is going to lead to nowhere and here's why."

REALLY?!?!

Right here, you're stating this as if it's FACT when it's all just more needless speculation and conspiracy-theory on your part. C'mon, man.... :lol


Could there be something going on behind the scenes? OF COURSE. IT'S FRIGGIN' POLITICS! 

Everyone is stabbing everyone in the back. 

It's the nature of the business. 

But it's all still speculation until it's proven not to be. :shrug



Now I'm still behind our POTUS but he'd have to pretty much plunge our country into a place where I knew deep in my bones that Hilary would have(WORLD WAR 3) or murder someone before I'd change my mind about him. 

He's got a little over 3 years(minimum) remaining in office. Here's hoping he sticks with "America First!".


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> No offense but I think you should loosen up the strap on that tin-foil hat you're wearing.
> 
> It's a bit too tight, I think. :sleep
> 
> 
> I mean look at this : "All of this talk about unmasking is going to lead to nowhere and here's why."
> 
> REALLY?!?!
> 
> Right here, you're stating this as if it's FACT when it's all just more needless speculation and conspiracy-theory on your part. C'mon, man.... :lol
> 
> 
> Could there be something going on behind the scenes? OF COURSE. IT'S FRIGGIN' POLITICS!
> 
> Everyone is stabbing everyone in the back.
> 
> It's the nature of the business.
> 
> But it's all still speculation until it's proven not to be. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm still behind our POTUS but he'd have to pretty much plunge our country into a place where I knew deep in my bones that Hilary would have(WORLD WAR 3) or murder someone before I'd change my mind about him.
> 
> He's got a little over 3 years(minimum) remaining in office. Here's hoping he sticks with "America First!".


All I'm saying is that the threat of more information coming to light, if Hillary and Obama have done wrong, will keep both from working to undermine Trump's administration. There's more dirt out there, on Hillary, left to be discovered. The thought of a looming investigation is going to keep her in the shadows. The most important thing to Obama is his legacy. The thought that it could further erode is going to keep him in the shadows. Neither one of them want to put themselves in a position to have to answer questions, so they'll just remain quiet.

Maybe a deeper investigation on "wiretapping" or "pay for play" will garner no new information, but the thought that it could neuters them. That's why I think all of this "wiretapping" stuff is really designed to gather as much information as possible and then hold it in front of Obama every time he tries to undermine Trump. 

It's genius and I don't think it's far off from reality.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> One day Bruiser might respond to someone's points instead of droning on about his delusional worldview where he's the ultimate principled citizen while littering his posts with contradictions poorly disguising his fetish for war, BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY. All right, enough of that.
> 
> 
> I'm not off the Trump train. I disagree with the attack and if it escalates into a full-scale intervention effort as opposed to this one attack (with a weak justification in my view) with the intention of regime change I will almost certainly change my mind. Deso already gave away a lot of my thinking on the matter in his excellent posts above.


Fetish for war...hardly. Here we go again...every time someone dares to disagree the Trumpers up the ante again. It's as bad as when the progressives blast anyone who didn't agree with Obama. Quite tiresome, really. I put up with that for eight years. I don't expect a cookie for actually agreeing with him on something, but we're not going down this road again. He has to give me a valid reason for me to give the slightest bit of consideration to further escalating the fight in Syria. Right now, this is a one-time thing. If he can't justify further action, I'm not going along with it. Simple. The difference is that you will not support such action at all under any circumstances, which is fine. But that doesn't mean I'm creaming in my pants ready to send us off to war. That has been my stance all along and that will never change. I'm going to stay consistent and true to what I believe in, I don't change my mind like someone changes socks unless I have solid reason to do so. 

I get it...your man won. I have accepted that...you don't see me rioting in the streets like the nutjobs are. Trump and his followers won by going down in the gutter like the libs do. Beat them at their own game...kudos. Now, it's really time to put down "Rules For Radicals" and stop with the smear tactics. Anyone who dared question the mighty Emperor Obama got both barrels for eight years. Not going to go through this again. :lol


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Non topic as hell, but how come birthday_massacre got banned? Is it permanent?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Non topic as hell, but how come birthday_massacre got banned? Is it permanent?


I'd like to know this as well. I like BM and @RipNTear, though I wasn't fond of them getting very antagonistic with each other, which I assume was one reason why he got banned.

Personally, I hope it isn't permanent. I think BM just needed to cool his jets, which I would like to assume happened with his banning.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I'd like to know this as well. I like BM and @RipNTear, though I wasn't fond of them getting very antagonistic with each other, which I assume was one reason why he got banned.
> 
> Personally, I hope it isn't permanent. I think BM just needed to cool his jets, which I would like to assume happened with his banning.


This one I had nothing to do with. 

He got banned for insulting Sweenz.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Non topic as hell, but how come birthday_massacre got banned? Is it permanent?


Called someone a moron, got moron'd. Pot meets kettle situation.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wow, it must have been something for BM to finally get smacked down. Dude danced on the line repeatedly, I think he was fairly close to getting banned on several occasions.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I'd like to know this as well. I like BM and @RipNTear, though I wasn't fond of them getting very antagonistic with each other, which I assume was one reason why he got banned.
> 
> Personally, I hope it isn't permanent. I think BM just needed to cool his jets, which I would like to assume happened with his banning.


I like both guys :quimby

Though admittedly BM needs to calm down a bit sometimes. Hopefully it's not permanent. Would miss reading those debates with @RipNTear which is actually more insightful and thought provoking than any political show you'd see on telly when it comes to American politics :shrug


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This one I had nothing to do with.
> 
> He got banned for insulting Sweenz.





Tater said:


> Called someone a moron, got moron'd. Pot meets kettle situation.


:dylan

Goddamn it, BM. :armfold


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah. This thread is serious and I like it that way. Too many insults and it brings the overall quality down. 

You wanna mess around and let the emotions run wild, there's always rants.


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This one I had nothing to do with.
> 
> *He got banned for insulting Sweenz.*


That never ends well.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Would miss reading those debates with @RipNTear which is actually more insightful and thought provoking than any political show you'd see on telly when it comes to American politics :shrug


Word. And I'd say not being corporate shills is one reason why their debates were so worthwhile.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Wow, it must have been something for BM to finally get smacked down. Dude danced on the line repeatedly, I think he was fairly close to getting banned on several occasions.


Long overdue, imo.

Kept attacking those who said anything remotely positive about Trump and continued to antagonize posters like Rip(for example) just for the sake of antagonizing them.

He didn't want debate. 

He wanted flame wars.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If the ban is permanent, I shall be mourning the departure of birthday_massacre :hogan :mj2 :vince7


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Long overdue, imo.
> 
> *Kept attacking those who said anything remotely positive about Trump* and continued to antagonize posters like Rip(for example) just for the sake of antagonizing them.
> 
> He didn't want debate.
> 
> He wanted flame wars.


That wasn't entirely true. I didn't vote for Trump, but I became a fan of his when he started mercilessly attacking the GOP and other republican candidates who were the most critical of him. And throughout this entire time as a Trump fan, BM never negged me or badmouthed me over my status as such.

His passion is very fiery, there's no denying that, but I sincerely doubt that it would blaze to the point of wanting flame wars. I didn't like how he would come off like an attack dog, but his criticisms of the DNC were very spot-on.

:draper2


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> Long overdue, imo.
> 
> Kept attacking those who said anything remotely positive about Trump and continued to antagonize posters like Rip(for example) just for the sake of antagonizing them.
> 
> He didn't want debate.
> 
> He wanted flame wars.





Lumpy McRighteous said:


> That wasn't entirely true. I didn't vote for Trump, but I became a fan of his when he started mercilessly attacking the GOP and other republican candidates who were the most critical of him. And throughout this entire time as a Trump fan, BM never negged me or badmouthed me over my status as such.
> 
> His passion is very fiery, there's no denying that, but I sincerely doubt that it would blaze to the point of wanting flame wars. I didn't like how he would come off like an attack dog, but his criticisms of the DNC were very spot-on.
> 
> :draper2


I disagreed with BM, but it never reached the point of flaming. And we are as far apart politically on this site as you can get. 

I can respect someone I disagree with as long as they are respectful about it. I don't expect people to agree with everything, it'd make for a boring world.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

GREAT interview with Tulsi here.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850859731107422208
Tulsi out there dropping truth bombs and Tucker sitting with a dumb look on his face like he is struggling to comprehend what is being said because it's not the same war mongering talking points you hear from the establishment. Then, like the retard he is, he had to end the interview with a crack about Russian hacking when Tulsi is out there giving a serious interview about a very serious topic. You could tell that she was not amused by his antics.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm OK with Tulsi to am extent. Her antiwar stuff is fine. But she's a brainwashed liberal SJW as far as her views on Islam and Mohammad are concerned.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Gabbard has the street cred of being a former soldier herself. She understands what it means to put herself in harm's way. I don't agree with her a lot, but she gets my respect for putting on the uniform. 

What annoys me regarding this are the political pundits who were all too quick to condemn Obama for not acting, but cheer Trump like crazy or vice-versa simply because he has the R at the end of his name on the Sunday talk shows. You can tell who they are, it's obvious. For example, as I listen to Elizabeth Warren condemn Trump for taking action, I ask myself...if HRC was in that spot right now and she had called for military action against Syria in much the same fashion...would she be pleasuring herself on the floor of the Senate in joy because it was one of her own in charge? 

Meanwhile...while I am a fan of Mark Levin, something about this doesn't sit well with me. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/...ution-war-powers-act-for-modern-circumstances

Levin's logic is that with the way the world is now, the President should be able to have the power to declare war almost immediately and to hell with the authorization of Congress. I understand the logic to an extent behind it because with the way war weapons are now, there is the potential for a missile attack to reach American targets in a matter of minutes. 

Yet, the War Powers Act does give the President the authority to act in the event of a national emergency. That is the idea...that given the situation the President can act on his own as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours of taking action. This solves the issue of having to act in the event of a massive situation where the shit is about to get real. 

Again, Congress needs to get off its ass and be talking about this. This shit about going on vacation is ridiculous, get them back to Washington to have a discussion about this if this intends to go any further. 

There is the verbage of the War Powers Act. 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> If the ban is permanent, I shall be mourning the departure of birthday_massacre :hogan :mj2 :vince7


Same. :'(



BruiserKC said:


> I disagreed with BM, but it never reached the point of flaming. And we are as far apart politically on this site as you can get.
> 
> I can respect someone I disagree with as long as they are respectful about it. I don't expect people to agree with everything, it'd make for a boring world.


Indeed. From what I saw, he only got needlessly heated with RipNTear and CamillePunk, but still brought up valid criticisms despite some of his arguments being quite faulty or just too fiery. However, I had been lurking on the thread since the inauguration and only just got back in the saddle after the airstrike, so I could've very well missed any signs that he might've been getting to intense like @glenwo2 mentioned.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wait, so Trump is president, we blew the shit out of childkillers, AND BM is gone?!!

WHAT A GREAT WEEK! :trump2

(I jest...mostly )


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Wait, so Trump is president, we blew the shit out of childkillers, AND BM is gone?!!
> 
> WHAT A GREAT WEEK! :trump2
> 
> (I jest...mostly )


Before you start going to town fapping with joy, it most likely is a temporary ban for BM. Don't think he's done enough yet to warrant a permanent ban. Now, if he comes back and continues to do this and reach Gandhi-esque levels of fuckery, that might change.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> GREAT interview with Tulsi here.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850859731107422208
> Tulsi out there dropping truth bombs and Tucker sitting with a dumb look on his face like he is struggling to comprehend what is being said because it's not the same war mongering talking points you hear from the establishment. Then, like the retard he is, he had to end the interview with a crack about Russian hacking when Tulsi is out there giving a serious interview about a very serious topic. You could tell that she was not amused by his antics.


Uh, Tucker is a libertarian and has been bringing the warmongers onto his show and confronting them. Pretty sure he's very familiar with Tulsi's position on this and likely agrees with her a great deal. The fact he barely interrupted or challenged her in any significant way - as he always does towards people he disagrees with - is signatory of that kinship. You've totally misrepresented him here.

He also brought Nigel Farage on his show who also expressed that Trump supporters must be anxious about this turn in policy, and again he was receptive toward what Farage was saying, most likely because he agrees.

Contrast Tucker's interview with Tulsi Gabbard to his interview with Lindsey Graham, who never saw a chance for US intervention he didn't like:






A much more confrontational interview and its clear where Tucker stands. He's a great voice to have on the MSM networks for those of us who want a peaceful foreign policy.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Uh, Tucker is a libertarian and has been bringing the warmongers onto his show and confronting them. Pretty sure he's very familiar with Tulsi's position on this and likely agrees with her a great deal. The fact he barely interrupted or challenged her in any significant way - as he always does towards people he disagrees with - is signatory of that kinship. You've totally misrepresented him here.


Fair enough. Since you mentioned it, I do appreciate the fact that he mostly let her talk without interrupting her. I can't stand it when everyone bickers and talks over each other. I don't generally watch MSM because fuck that corporate propaganda garbage. The only reason I saw it was because Tulsi tweeted it. *shrugs* Maybe Tucker isn't so bad, as you say. All I know in my limited experience with him is that he usually ends up saying something stupid, like at the end of this particular interview. Who knows? Maybe that was his considerate listening face and it was pure coincidence that he looked like an idiot. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Before you start going to town fapping with joy, it most likely is a temporary ban for BM. Don't think he's done enough yet to warrant a permanent ban. Now, if he comes back and continues to do this and reach Gandhi-esque levels of fuckery, that might change.


Excuse you, I've been fapping with joy since the election ended. :trump3


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Fair enough. Since you mentioned it, I do appreciate the fact that he mostly let her talk without interrupting her. I can't stand it when everyone bickers and talks over each other. I don't generally watch MSM because fuck that corporate propaganda garbage. The only reason I saw it was because Tulsi tweeted it. *shrugs* Maybe Tucker isn't so bad, as you say. All I know in my limited experience with him is that he usually ends up saying something stupid, like at the end of this particular interview. Who knows? Maybe that was his considerate listening face and it was pure coincidence that he looked like an idiot. :lol




^ Tucker always has that "WTF?" look during every interview, whether he's on-point or not.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ Tucker always has that "WTF?" look during every interview, whether he's on-point or not.


If I had to deal with College kid Cuckwads every night I'd be making that face too.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Just like Milo has that "Are you fucking kidding me?" smirk when he's dealing with SJW's?


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ Tucker always has that "WTF?" look during every interview, whether he's on-point or not.


:lmao

Good to know. I'll mark it down for future reference.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Gabbard has the street cred of being a former soldier herself. She understands what it means to put herself in harm's way. I don't agree with her a lot, but she gets my respect for putting on the uniform.
> 
> What annoys me regarding this are the political pundits who were all too quick to condemn Obama for not acting, but cheer Trump like crazy or vice-versa simply because he has the R at the end of his name on the Sunday talk shows. You can tell who they are, it's obvious. For example, as I listen to Elizabeth Warren condemn Trump for taking action, I ask myself...if HRC was in that spot right now and she had called for military action against Syria in much the same fashion...would she be pleasuring herself on the floor of the Senate in joy because it was one of her own in charge?
> 
> Meanwhile...while I am a fan of Mark Levin, something about this doesn't sit well with me.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/...ution-war-powers-act-for-modern-circumstances
> 
> Levin's logic is that with the way the world is now, the President should be able to have the power to declare war almost immediately and to hell with the authorization of Congress. I understand the logic to an extent behind it because with the way war weapons are now, there is the potential for a missile attack to reach American targets in a matter of minutes.
> 
> Yet, the War Powers Act does give the President the authority to act in the event of a national emergency. That is the idea...that given the situation the President can act on his own as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours of taking action. This solves the issue of having to act in the event of a massive situation where the shit is about to get real.
> 
> Again, Congress needs to get off its ass and be talking about this. This shit about going on vacation is ridiculous, get them back to Washington to have a discussion about this if this intends to go any further.
> 
> There is the verbage of the War Powers Act.
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf


Mark explained it as the president being able to launch actions like the syrian airstrike without tipping our hand. Unfortunantly hes right.

Intelligence brings intercepted messages from nkorea to ready their nukes to launch and has sattelite images of the launch site. Whats the president supposed to do? Call congress for approval or blow the area up first?


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> If I had to deal with College kid Cuckwads every night I'd be making that face too.



He has too many of them on.

Almost like he wants to highlight the failing educational system


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> He has too many of them on.
> 
> Almost like he wants to highlight the failing educational system


Wouldn't you if you could?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> He has too many of them on.
> 
> Almost like he wants to highlight the failing educational system





virus21 said:


> Wouldn't you if you could?


You're both correct. fair play to him for shedding light on how much of an SJW breeding ground schools are. You know why most people hate the south, or any kind of right leaning thing as if it were inherently bad? The answer is because those kids are leaning to the left as a result of biased education and end up deciding how to market and teach everything in whatever field they go into. Books, movies, TV, even video games. It all leans left and It happens because kids like those Tucker talks to are the little pieces of over sensitive shit we've bred to run it all instead of promoting two ideas as both having good and bad to them.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You're noth correct. fair play to him for shedding light on how much of an SJW breeding ground schools are. You know why most people hate the south, or any kind of right leaning thing as if it were bad? The answer is because the left controls it all. Books, movies, TV, even video games. It happens because kids like those are the little pieces of over sensitive shit we've bred to run it all instead of promoting two ideas as both having good and bad to them.


And now some in the government (Canada in particular seems to be pushing this) is trying to clamp down on home schooling or school choice period.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Edited my rushed post a bit.



virus21 said:


> And now some in the government (Canada in particular seems to be pushing this) is trying to clamp down on home schooling or school choice period.


I've said it before: Smaller classrooms helped me a hell of a lot more than public school classes with 20, 30, 40 kids in it. 

Comon core can blow me.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Common core can blow me.


No kidding. And I didn't even have it when I was in school.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> No kidding. And I didn't even have it when I was in school.


if i ever have kids they'll be seeing their teacher through a video on a computer screen if i have anything to do with it. Private and one on one.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is pretty hilarious. Nearly three months after one punched him in the side of the head on Inauguration Day, here are videos of Antifa thugs trying to shut down white nationalist and enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter (until now?) Richard Spencer's antiwar rally across the street from the White House last night, by default once again being nothing more than shock troops for the establishment. :lmao 

The behavior by these ostensible communist agitators is beyond revolting, including the one thug's remarks that he looks forward to the revolution, after which he can freely murder anyone whose politics he finds just too disagreeable to bear. These idiots fell right into Spencer's trap. :lol

When you have been brought up by a rotten educational system and media to simply scream "RACIST!" and "NAZI!" as loudly as possible, this is perhaps the result for a fair number of troubled youth. :lmao

2017 trying to be the best sequel to 2016 possible. 

Anyway, fun videos ahoy!


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> if i ever have kids they'll be seeing their teacher through a video on a computer screen if i have anything to do with it. Private and one on one.



^ I've seen that on TV where a teacher teaches Japanese children via video conference or something. 

Pretty nifty way to teach. Plus you don't have to fly halfway across the world to do it.

I'm thinking that Home-schooling will eventually become a more popular alternative to Public Schooling with the technology we have today. It will also put a stop to bullying since the student will be safe from that shit in his/her own home.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> The behavior by these ostensible communist agitators is beyond revolting, including the one thug's remarks that he looks forward to the revolution, after which he can freely murder anyone whose politics he finds just too disagreeable to bear. These idiots fell right into Spencer's trap. :lol


Funny considering this little bitches would be the first killed if such a thing happened. They're all talk when they think they aren't going to get an ass kicking.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> This is pretty hilarious. Nearly three months after one punched him in the side of the head on Inauguration Day, here are videos of Antifa thugs trying to shut down white nationalist and enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter (until now?) Richard Spencer's antiwar rally across the street from the White House last night, by default once again being nothing more than shock troops for the establishment. :lmao
> 
> The behavior by these ostensible communist agitators is beyond revolting, including the one thug's remarks that he looks forward to the revolution, after which he can freely murder anyone whose politics he finds just too disagreeable to bear. These idiots fell right into Spencer's trap. :lol
> 
> When you have been brought up by a rotten educational system and media to simply scream "RACIST!" and "NAZI!" as loudly as possible, this is perhaps the result for a fair number of troubled youth. :lmao
> 
> 2017 trying to be the best sequel to 2016 possible.
> 
> Anyway, fun videos ahoy!



DesolationRow, they really should make it illegal to wear anything that covers your face from identity in PUBLIC(unless you're a construction worker or something). Too many times, there are protestors who attack PEACEFUL ones and we don't get immediate arrests because their faces are covered. I mean...anyone who wears anything to cover up their face while being seen walking toward someone or something should be considered up to no good.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Irish Jet @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Tater

Nikki Haley is effectively saying that ousting Assad, that regime change in Damascus, is on the menu now for the Trump administration:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-trumps-un-envoy-says-ouster-of-al-assad-is-a-priority-of-us-2017-4



> Nikki Haley: Regime change and the end of Assad is Trump's next priority in Syria


A meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been removed from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's schedule for his Moscow trip this week. Tillerson is declaring that the Russians were complicit in the usage of chemical weapons by Assad's regime.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are playing pivotal parts in drawing up plans to have as many as 5,000-10,000 U.S. troops sent into Syria with the Pentagon reportedly working on multiple courses of action involving major U.S. ground troops. Graham was just on "Meet the Press" likening Trump, favorably, to Ronald Reagan, and McCain was quoted as saying that Trump is correcting the previous eight years of U.S. foreign policy. These two cannot get enough of Trump now.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Maybe if Trump hinted that he was Pro-War during his campaign, he might have even won over some of the Democrats. :lol :lol :lol

This is hilarious.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> . These two cannot get enough of Trump now.


They always change with the direction of the wind. Loyalty doesn't exist


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You know why most people hate the south, or any kind of right leaning thing as if it were inherently bad? The answer is because those kids are leaning to the left as a result of biased education and end up deciding how to market and teach everything in whatever field they go into. Books, movies, TV, even video games. It all leans left and It happens because kids like those Tucker talks to are the little pieces of over sensitive shit we've bred to run it all instead of promoting two ideas as both having good and bad to them.


This is a comment I feel I am uniquely qualified to respond to because A: I am a far leftist and B: I was born n raised in Alabama.

I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I personally hate the South and it's mainly because the place is populated by a bunch of fucking racist religitards. Left/right has nothing to do with it. I have many conservative friends who are not racist nor religitarded. That whole combo is a very Southern thing.

If you believe education has a leftist bias, it's probably because of the many religitards on the right who want to teach creationism bullshit instead of actual scientific fact. Science does not have a left/right bias. Science doesn't give a shit what you believe. Science deals in fact only. The reason people on the right have such a problem with that is because they want to teach ideology over fact. It's important to note that I am a libertarian leftist, *not* an authoritarian leftist. I care about education in the sense that kids should be taught how to accurately do math and understand the factual world around them. Teaching ideology has no place in schools. School should be for education of fact and teaching of how to critically think for yourself but ideology should never play a role in that.

Where you'll really find me in agreement with you is about the oversensitive little shit monsters raised by participation trophy culture. Little Johnny needs to have his feelings hurt every once in awhile because he fucking sucks at baseball. He doesn't need a goddamned trophy for finishing last.



virus21 said:


> And now some in the government (Canada in particular seems to be pushing this) is trying to clamp down on home schooling or school choice period.


I am vehemently opposed to the government having the authority to tell you how to raise your children. While I believe that the government should offer a non-biased, factually based education, I do not believe they should be able to force you to send your kids to those schools if it is against your wishes as a parent. A lot of my more authoritarian leftist friends will disagree with me on this topic but it is my belief that every parent should have the right to raise their own children in the manner that they see fit. It's just too slippery of a slope for me to start down. No matter how good the education offered might be, that can always change by time or by region. I think we should try to educate the public on why we should be teaching non-biased fact but giving a government the authority to force it upon you is a step too far for me.

Freedom and liberty are important values that should not be compromised. _*Ever.*_


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> This is a comment I feel I am uniquely qualified to respond to because A: I am a far leftist and B: I was born n raised in Alabama.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I personally hate the South and it's mainly because the place is populated by a bunch of fucking racist religitards. Left/right has nothing to do with it. I have many conservative friends who are not racist nor religitarded. That whole combo is a very Southern thing.
> 
> If you believe education has a leftist bias, it's probably because of the many religitards on the right who want to teach creationism bullshit instead of actual scientific fact. Science does not have a left/right bias. Science doesn't give a shit what you believe. Science deals in fact only. The reason people on the right have such a problem with that is because they want to teach ideology over fact. It's important to note that I am a libertarian leftist, *not* an authoritarian leftist. I care about education in the sense that kids should be taught how to accurately do math and understand the factual world around them. Teaching ideology has no place in schools. School should be for education of fact and teaching of how to critically think for yourself but ideology should never play a role in that.
> 
> Where you'll really find me in agreement with you is about the oversensitive little shit monsters raised by participation trophy culture. Little Johnny needs to have his feelings hurt every once in awhile because he fucking sucks at baseball. He doesn't need a goddamned trophy for finishing last.
> 
> 
> 
> I am vehemently opposed to the government having the authority to tell you how to raise your children. While I believe that the government should offer a non-biased, factually based education, I do not believe they should be able to force you to send your kids to those schools if it is against your wishes as a parent. A lot of my more authoritarian leftist friends will disagree with me on this topic but it is my belief that every parent should have the right to raise their own children in the manner that they see fit. It's just too slippery of a slope for me to start down. No matter how good the education offered might be, that can always change by time or by region. I think we should try to educate the public on why we should be teaching non-biased fact but giving a government the authority to force it upon you is a step too far for me.
> 
> Freedom and liberty are important values that should not be compromised. _*Ever.*_


Education should be based on facts and the discussion of them. School should teach you how to think, how to process information, not what to think.

Sadly "Leftist" types have got into education, you can see it from the top of Colleges to grade schools trying to fear monger or refusing to acknowledge Trump as President. Kids being suspended for wooden "guns", Teachers and faculty obsessed over inclusive locker rooms over actual curriculum.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Education should be based on facts and the discussion of them. School should teach you how to think, how to process information, not what to think.
> 
> Sadly "Leftist" types have got into education, you can see it from the top of Colleges to grade schools trying to fear monger or refusing to acknowledge Trump as President. Kids being suspended for wooden "guns", Teachers and faculty obsessed over inclusive locker rooms over actual curriculum.


Agreed. Which is precisely why we should never give government the authority to force parents into sending their children to government schools.

It's like Obama and national surveillance. There are many people who didn't care about the government spying on their every move while Obama was in office but those very same people are now freaking out with Trump in office. No government should have the power to spy on their citizens. Principled people should oppose that regardless of who is in power.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Many of you have seen my rants about the meaning of liberalism. It's time for another.

Something that has been circulating recently is the letter FDR was going to send to the DNC in 1940 if they were unwilling to get on board with his change in VP. Turns out, he never had to send the letter because Eleanor Roosevelt made a speech that got them to change their minds. It's still an important read and still very relevant to modern Democrats.



> Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention
> 
> July 18, 1940
> 
> Members of the Convention:
> 
> In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.
> 
> The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.
> 
> The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.
> 
> The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.
> 
> It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.
> 
> Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.
> 
> It is best not to straddle ideals.
> 
> In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.
> 
> It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.
> 
> I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.
> 
> By declining the honor of the nomination for the presidency, I can restore that opportunity to the convention. I so do.


See, this is the kind of liberalism that I always thought liberalism was supposed to mean; mainly, standing up for the common man against the interests of corporations and rich elites. Nowadays, modern liberalism bows at the feet of corporatism for the sake of SJW fucktards. They've changed it from the common man fighting against the powerful for a fair society to divisive identity politics that bows at the feet of the moneyed elite. Modern liberals act like it doesn't matter that you are a slave to the owner class as long as blacks and whites and gays and straights and males and females can all equally share in that servitude. 

It's fucking bullshit, if you ask me. I don't give a flying fuck what your skin color is or what your gender is or who you want to rub your genitalia against. What I care about is a society that doesn't funnel all the power and wealth into a handful of people at the very top. That's what liberalism used to mean. What it means now can fuck right the fuck off and take their fucking identity politics with them.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sun (so I take it with a grain of salt) is reporting that Trump's sudden change in foreign policy is due to Ivanka crying fpalm fpalm fpalm

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286978/trump-airstrike-syria-daughter-heart-break/



> 'PROUD OF MY FATHER' *Trump’s dramatic U-turn on air strikes in Syria ‘was sparked by daughter Ivanka’s heartbreak after gas attack’*
> 
> Ivanka Trump had previously shared that she was 'heartbroken and outraged' by the attack
> 
> DONALD Trump’s dramatic U-turn on taking military action in Syria was sparked by the heartbreak of his daughter Ivanka, it has been claimed.
> The US President, who had previously been opposed to the US launching airstrikes on Syria, announced that the gas attack could not be tolerated and ordered the 59-missile bombing of an airbase involved in the fatal chemical assault.
> 
> 
> Trump's stance hardened after his 35-year-old daughter condemned the attack on Wednesday morning, with Ivanka writing that she was "heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack yesterday".
> Hours later, Trump himself spoke out, saying: "Yesterday's chemical attack against innocent people - their deaths were an affront to humanity.
> "These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated."
> 
> 
> He added that the attack, which killed dozens, including children, was "unacceptable", saying "it’s already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
> Ivanka later tweeted: "The times we are living in call for difficult decisions - Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity".
> The Mirror reported that a source close to the first family said: "Increasingly, Ivanka is having more and more influence over her father. She often counsels her father and was very clear that action needed to be taken against Assad in some form."


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Irish Jet @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Tater
> 
> Nikki Haley is effectively saying that ousting Assad, that regime change in Damascus, is on the menu now for the Trump administration:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-trumps-un-envoy-says-ouster-of-al-assad-is-a-priority-of-us-2017-4
> 
> 
> 
> A meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been removed from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's schedule for his Moscow trip this week. Tillerson is declaring that the Russians were complicit in the usage of chemical weapons by Assad's regime.
> 
> John McCain and Lindsey Graham are playing pivotal parts in drawing up plans to have as many as 5,000-10,000 U.S. troops sent into Syria with the Pentagon reportedly working on multiple courses of action involving major U.S. ground troops. Graham was just on "Meet the Press" likening Trump, favorably, to Ronald Reagan, and McCain was quoted as saying that Trump is correcting the previous eight years of U.S. foreign policy. These two cannot get enough of Trump now.


Finding a country McCain and Lindsay Graham don't want to send ground troops into is like finding a beer Ted Kennedy wouldn't drink . These same Hawks still think the Quagmire of Iraq was good foreign policy.

Like saying goes "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Enjoy having a never ending presense in yet another middle eastern country.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Multiple sources have relayed that same story. 

To think that Ivanka's tears may launch the next American Middle Eastern folly. :lol

The two of them are indeed unreconstructed hawks of an unparalleled sort, @HandsomeRTruth.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Where you'll really find me in agreement with you is about the oversensitive little shit monsters raised by participation trophy culture. Little Johnny needs to have his feelings hurt every once in awhile because he fucking sucks at baseball. He doesn't need a goddamned trophy for finishing last.


You'd be surprised how many of even our current generation agree with that. From my own experiences, it's not the kids who get all oversensitive and annoyed if they finish last in a tournament or if they aren't very good at something, yet are happy when they get that infamous "participation award." Instead, the parents drive this mentality. It's their parents who think Little Johnny is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and their special snowflake has to be protected and deserves an award even if they didn't do anything to deserve one. 

I was in a bowling league as a kid for years. I had stupid trophies for something like 10th place out of like 16 teams in a league. I could care less if I got a trophy for that, I knew it meant nothing, and that it really only mattered if you finished in the top three, or got some of the individual awards that reward the best overall bowlers in the league. 

But if they decided to take all those precipitation trophies out, you bet they're be one parent who doesn't understand the reasoning, and demand their special snowflake get a medal or a trophy to acknowledge their hard work and effort. Really, all the kid cares about is having some fun, and that should be the intention with all these sports and other sorts of things.

So really, I don't think the majority of children, teens and young adults are oversensitive about their feelings getting hurt or their opinions clashing with somebody else who doesn't agree with them. The ones who really cannot bear to hear different opinions and criticism are the ones who make the most noise and cause the most ruckus, and this is evident from grade school all the way to college and beyond. And it's sad, because I bet the parents in those scenarios are very similar thinkers who push that sort of behavior and encourage it.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Don't care for CNN, but I thought this was interesting. The ayes have it!

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA 

Mike Cernovich, the journalist who broke the Susan Rice unmasking story AND the Syria strikes hours before the attack, is now reporting that National Security Adviser H.R McMaster, who replaced Flynn, has been manipulating intelligence reports to President Trump and pushing for 150,000 U.S ground troops in Syria:

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-m...150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA
> 
> Mike Cernovich, the journalist who broke the Susan Rice unmasking story AND the Syria strikes hours before the attack, is now reporting that National Security Adviser H.R McMaster, who replaced Flynn, has been manipulating intelligence reports to President Trump and *pushing for 150,000 U.S ground troops in Syria*:
> 
> https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-m...150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99


Fuck me, now I'm just pissed off. 

If there's one instance I hope that it's fake, it's this. Please keep our men and women out of there.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I haven't been following this thread or politics for at least a week or so but I want to post some quick thoughts on the Syria situation with the chemical attack and response. First of all, with the attack itself the MSM and world leaders in general are claiming that it was Assad who launched the chemical attack against his own people yet to my knowledge there hasn't been any substantial proof been provided to confirm that it was indeed an attack by the Assad administration. If that is the case then this smells exactly like the last time whereby a chemical attack was launched which was the initial reasoning for the US to get involved with the civil war in Syria. Later on after it was investigated it turned out that in fact it was not Assad who launched the chemical attack. The thing in particular that does not make any sense with this latest attack is that the free Syrian army and Assad have had an uptick in momentum in recent months in the civil war with the retaking of Aleppo so it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons now and jeopardize his position to completely ousted the "moderate rebels" from Syria. Now I'm not saying that this is a false flag or anything like that, but you would think at the very least there would be an international investigation into the attack to properly determine where the source of the attack has come from. Instead it seems as though the warhawks/neo-con's in Washington are using this to push for further intervention with of course McCain and Graham leading the charge to try and put troops on the ground in the region. We have to remember what happened the last two times there was a full scale invasion and a toppling of secular dictators. The regions were completely destabilized and radical Islamic terrorist groups filled the void taking the areas and strengthening their position. ISIS and other terrorist groups have grown stronger every time there has been intervention, which is why the US and other western countries need to think through what it is we want to actually achieve rather than just reacting to events that have transpired. More often than not the rash responses that have sometimes come out have made the situation worse not better.

The other question is something which my mum perfectly put it, which is when will it ever end? The US has been at perpetual war in the middle east for 15 years, millions of people dead, hundreds of billions spent, thousands of US soldiers killed only for the situation to be that much worse. When will we realize that perhaps that full scale wars and nation building are not the answer and that perhaps we should look to different solutions? I'd rather there be a political solution to what is happening in Syria and at least if conflict has to be made then for god sake make sure you know who you are attacking and at least focus on taking out ISIS and not funding and fighting multiple sides of this war. I would hope at the very least before deciding to intervene that a full investigation into the chemical attack was done so we definitely know for sure the source. But I know at this point it is too much to ask for.

From an American perspective, it also once again brings into question the role of government and the constitution when it comes to the declaration of war. Ever since the Iraq war, that same declaration of war on terrorism has been used to launch interventions in 6 other different countries. There has not been a congressional vote on war since 2002. That's almost 15 years. The founding fathers knew that the executive was the most likely to go to war which is why they specifically gave that responsibility to congress and not the president. Too much executive power has been given leeway meaning that each successive intervention and act of war has been done so in an unconstitutional manner and in a way which has allowed the president far too much power. Will congress reclaim that power? Discussions surrounding Montenegro's joining of NATO already sheds some light into that with members of the Senate not even being for having a proper debate over whether NATO should expand. There has even been suggestion that should Montenegro be attacked that instead of using congressional authority that they would use article 5 of the NATO treaty as authority for the president to declare war without a vote from congress. This is something everyone should be worried about, the growing power of the executive, for a president to keep declaring wars on his own without any support from the house or the senate.

Now as far as the attack is concerned on the Syrian airbase by the Trump administration. It should be no surprise to anyone that I was against the response which was essentially based on reporting that was not investigated or verified. It marks essentially another act of war by the US without a proper declaration. Having said that, on it's own the attack is pretty light as a response compared to what has been done in Syria and in Yemen for example for a number of years. Should that be the end of it and we move forward to having a more political solution to the Syrian conflict, then I'll mark it down as a slap on the wrist as what Lauren Southern said so herself. Time will tell in what direction this goes but I hope Trump remains strong in the face of pressure and keeps to his promise of no more full scale wars and nation building and putting America first. In terms of foreign policy that means putting American interests ahead of the globalists and the military industrial complex. And right now I see no American interest in conducting a full scale war against Assad, it would only make ISIS grow stronger.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Now I'm beginning to see that similar things happened with Obama and Bush before him.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA Wonderful post that sums up basically a lot of my thoughts as well. I'll never like Trump, and I really don't like his views on many things, but I'll defintely support if keeps by his word and keeps America out of any more conflicts, especially any more Middle East conflicts that clearly have done next to nothing in the long run.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Many of you have seen my rants about the meaning of liberalism. It's time for another.
> 
> Something that has been circulating recently is the letter FDR was going to send to the DNC in 1940 if they were unwilling to get on board with his change in VP. Turns out, he never had to send the letter because Eleanor Roosevelt made a speech that got them to change their minds. It's still an important read and still very relevant to modern Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is the kind of liberalism that I always thought liberalism was supposed to mean; mainly, standing up for the common man against the interests of corporations and rich elites. Nowadays, modern liberalism bows at the feet of corporatism for the sake of SJW fucktards. They've changed it from the common man fighting against the powerful for a fair society to divisive identity politics that bows at the feet of the moneyed elite. Modern liberals act like it doesn't matter that you are a slave to the owner class as long as blacks and whites and gays and straights and males and females can all equally share in that servitude.
> 
> It's fucking bullshit, if you ask me. I don't give a flying fuck what your skin color is or what your gender is or who you want to rub your genitalia against. What I care about is a society that doesn't funnel all the power and wealth into a handful of people at the very top. That's what liberalism used to mean. What it means now can fuck right the fuck off and take their fucking identity politics with them.


I'm with you, that's what I thought liberalism was too. Instead it's about bra burning and identity politics. It's not about keeping any corporations in check, it's about suppressing corporations you don't like while getting money from ones you do. It's not about protecting free speech, it's about protecting yourself from any critique. It's not protecting education from Religious ideology and pseudoscience, it's about putting their own ideology and pseudoscience and their own "facts" in books and teaching kids what to think. It's not about protecting people from the elites, it's about getting as many Elites as you can on your side and kissing their asses. The celeb worship is strong with them.

Thanks to these clowns, it seems like most College classes are based around feelings, whatifs and skewed statistics that are taught as facts. It's turned Professors from being Teachers into street Preachers for stupid people who want something to believe in and need their asses tickled because if not for mommy/daddy's money they never would have made it into College.

The biggest joke is they believe they preach equality, sure if you believe in what they say. If you're black and go against what they say, you're not going to get any love from this lot. The only equality they clamor for is the equality for everyone to be poor, to have to listen to them, celebrate them and obey them while they live life high on the hog and you do all their work for them. "Equality in servitude and diversity for thee but not for me!" Should be their mantra considering that's exactly what they want. These people don't want to help the common person, they think they're better than common people.

I believe it started to go down when it was infested with commies and then by hippies. Now you got commie leaning morons who protest over everything and have no real goals or clear agenda, they become militant over nothing. Just angry people angry for no real reason and we all must placate their every whim.


----------



## Pratchett

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA
> 
> Mike Cernovich, the journalist who broke the Susan Rice unmasking story AND the Syria strikes hours before the attack, is now reporting that National Security Adviser H.R McMaster, who replaced Flynn, has been manipulating intelligence reports to President Trump and pushing for 150,000 U.S ground troops in Syria:
> 
> https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-m...150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99


This is disturbing as hell, if true. Even for someone as paranoid as myself, I suspect the rabbit hole goes much deeper than I ever want to truly find out about.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm with you, that's what I thought liberalism was too. Instead it's about bra burning and identity politics. It's not about keeping any corporations in check, it's about suppressing corporations you don't like while getting money from ones you do. It's not about protecting free speech, it's about protecting yourself from any critique. It's not protecting education from Religious ideology and pseudoscience, it's about putting their own ideology and pseudoscience and their own "facts" in books and teaching kids what to think. It's not about protecting people from the elites, it's about getting as many Elites as you can on your side and kissing their asses. The celeb worship is strong with them.
> 
> Thanks to these clowns, it seems like most College classes are based around feelings, whatifs and skewed statistics that are taught as facts. It's turned Professors from being Teachers into street Preachers for stupid people who want something to believe in and need their asses tickled because if not for mommy/daddy's money they never would have made it into College.
> 
> The biggest joke is they believe they preach equality, sure if you believe in what they say. If you're black and go against what they say, you're not going to get any love from this lot. The only equality they clamor for is the equality for everyone to be poor, to have to listen to them, celebrate them and obey them while they live life high on the hog and you do all their work for them. "Equality in servitude and diversity for thee but not for me!" Should be their mantra considering that's exactly what they want. These people don't want to help the common person, they think they're better than common people.
> 
> I believe it started to go down when it was infested with commies and then by hippies. Now you got commie leaning morons who protest over everything and have no real goals or clear agenda, they become militant over nothing. Just angry people angry for no real reason and we all must placate their every whim.


I couldn't have said it better myself. :applause


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself. :applause


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm with you, that's what I thought liberalism was too. Instead it's about bra burning and identity politics. It's not about keeping any corporations in check, it's about suppressing corporations you don't like while getting money from ones you do. It's not about protecting free speech, it's about protecting yourself from any critique. It's not protecting education from Religious ideology and pseudoscience, it's about putting their own ideology and pseudoscience and their own "facts" in books and teaching kids what to think. It's not about protecting people from the elites, it's about getting as many Elites as you can on your side and kissing their asses. The celeb worship is strong with them.
> 
> Thanks to these clowns, it seems like most College classes are based around feelings, whatifs and skewed statistics that are taught as facts. It's turned Professors from being Teachers into street Preachers for stupid people who want something to believe in and need their asses tickled because if not for mommy/daddy's money they never would have made it into College.
> 
> The biggest joke is they believe they preach equality, sure if you believe in what they say. If you're black and go against what they say, you're not going to get any love from this lot. The only equality they clamor for is the equality for everyone to be poor, to have to listen to them, celebrate them and obey them while they live life high on the hog and you do all their work for them. "Equality in servitude and diversity for thee but not for me!" Should be their mantra considering that's exactly what they want. These people don't want to help the common person, they think they're better than common people.
> 
> I believe it started to go down when it was infested with commies and then by hippies. Now you got commie leaning morons who protest over everything and have no real goals or clear agenda, they become militant over nothing. Just angry people angry for no real reason and we all must placate their every whim.


I'm in the most hilarious college course right now. Ostensibly an art class, called "Visual Literacy" :lmao. I thought it'd be learning to recognize different techniques in art, and I had to take some goofy filler elective so I give it a whirl. It's actually a hackneyed social psychology course where they over-analyze things to hell and back, so you're being taught someone else's analysis. Insanely stupid shit that no one should even bother thinking about. The reading for last week literally contained the word "phallocentricism" in the first paragraph.

The biggest problem with higher education is the stupid classes you have to take to fulfill these liberal arts education requirements and get a 4 year degree that should take 2 years. I shouldn't have to pay to learn about diversity and "critical thinking skills" (that's what Visual Literacy is supposed to teach me) to get a science degree, it's absurd. I thought I was done with these trash classes, but I transferred and I have to fulfill the new school's silly requirements as well, because everyone who goes there has to take a few certain kinds of courses to receive a degree from there.

This isn't mommy and daddy's money by the way, it's the government's. I'll pay them back, I swear :ambrose2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> This is a comment I feel I am uniquely qualified to respond to because A: I am a far leftist and B: I was born n raised in Alabama.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I personally hate the South and it's mainly because the place is populated by a bunch of fucking racist religitards. Left/right has nothing to do with it. I have many conservative friends who are not racist nor religitarded. That whole combo is a very Southern thing.


It's not a southerner thing. It's just the way a portion of it happens to be. aside from that aspect, there are actually Few of us that don't want you to have rights. The notion that we are all backwoods, inbred slobs that hate gays is, while based in some nugget of truth, still not as bad---nay, nothing at ALL like most people believe it is. Most of us won't fuck with you if you don't fuck with us, but they're fucking with us. They're trying to paint us like neanderthals for simply HAVING religion regardless of whether we "force it" or not. Some of us don't necessarily THINK a belief in a higher power is a bad thing for society when applied correctly but Just because we have that belief doesn't mean we're going to try and ruin your life with it or automatically try to pray the gay away, and it doesn't mean that "The South" should be seen as a dirty or evil place. That's all. I think you can agree with that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> I'm in the most hilarious college course right now. Ostensibly an art class, called "Visual Literacy" :lmao. I thought it'd be learning to recognize different techniques in art, and I had to take some goofy filler elective so I give it a whirl. It's actually a hackneyed social psychology course where they over-analyze things to hell and back, so you're being taught someone else's analysis. Insanely stupid shit that no one should even bother thinking about. The reading for last week literally contained the word "phallocentricism" in the first paragraph.
> 
> The biggest problem with higher education is the stupid classes you have to take to fulfill these liberal arts education requirements and get a 4 year degree that should take 2 years. I shouldn't have to pay to learn about diversity and "critical thinking skills" (that's what Visual Literacy is supposed to teach me) to get a science degree, it's absurd. I thought I was done with these trash classes, but I transferred and I have to fulfill the new school's silly requirements as well, because everyone who goes there has to take a few certain kinds of courses to receive a degree from there.
> 
> This isn't mommy and daddy's money by the way, it's the government's. I'll pay them back, I swear :ambrose2


That's a problem with a lot of these things, these Colleges stretch out stuff so they can bleed you until you're dry, all while getting massive grants from private citizens to babysit their inept spawn and funds from the Government.

Lot of these courses and stuff is complete nonsense and no way should anyone get paid to teach it, it's just busy work. You know what they say about idle hands, it gets you 50 new courses on random stupid shit. 

Colleges nowadays are all about taking your money, getting as much money as possible while forcing you to learn their ideology over what you actually need. It's a money making racket.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Pratchett Some corroboration for the story @RipNTear posted... 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cal-attack-sarin-idlib-province-a7674951.html



> Ivanka Trump 'pushed for her father to bomb Syria'
> 
> First daughter's position on atrocity a 'significant influence in the Oval office'
> 
> Harriet Agerholm |
> @HarrietAgerholm |
> 9 hours ago|
> 
> Donald Trump’s daughter persuaded him to strike targets in Syria, according to reports of a diplomatic memo.
> 
> A cable briefing to Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson by Britain’s ambassador to Washington Sir Kim Darroch said Ms Trump was influential in bringing about the bombings, those who saw the memo said.
> 
> It claimed Mr Trump was “genuinely shaken” by pictures of more than 80 who died in a Sarin nerve gas attack that were broadcast on cable television, according to The Sunday Times.
> 
> Sources who read the message said the first daughter's position on the atrocity was a “significant influence in the Oval Office”. Ministers were told it meant the administration’s reaction was “stronger than expected”.
> 
> Sir Kim reportedly pointed to a tweet sent by Ms Trump in which she announced she was “heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack”.
> 
> Marking a striking U-turn from the anti-interventionist stance Mr Trump took during his campaign, on Friday he ordered the firing of 59 cruise missiles at a military target in the war-torn country.
> 
> Reports said the barrage of Tomahawk missiles, fired from two US Navy vessels located in the Mediterranean Sea, targeted Al Shayrat air base in the central city of Homs, from which Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack.
> 
> After the missile strike, Ms Trump wrote on Twitter: “The times we are living in call for difficult decisions. Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”
> 
> The military campaign has been praised internationally as well as by Democrats and liberal media outlets.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Great video from PJW on this subject.

I think judging from the responses I've seen from the likes of PJW, Lauren Southern, Milo Yiannopolous, Mike Cernovich etc. that quite a few of the most prominent Trump supporters have come out against the escalation in Syria and are keeping Trump accountable. That is more than what can be said about prominent Obama supporters from the so called anti-war left so gotta give them credit.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> I'm in the most hilarious college course right now. Ostensibly an art class, called "Visual Literacy" :lmao. I thought it'd be learning to recognize different techniques in art, and I had to take some goofy filler elective so I give it a whirl. It's actually a hackneyed social psychology course where they over-analyze things to hell and back, so you're being taught someone else's analysis. Insanely stupid shit that no one should even bother thinking about. The reading for last week literally contained the word "phallocentricism" in the first paragraph.
> 
> The biggest problem with higher education is the stupid classes you have to take to fulfill these liberal arts education requirements and get a 4 year degree that should take 2 years. I shouldn't have to pay to learn about diversity and "critical thinking skills" (that's what Visual Literacy is supposed to teach me) to get a science degree, it's absurd. I thought I was done with these trash classes, but I transferred and I have to fulfill the new school's silly requirements as well, because everyone who goes there has to take a few certain kinds of courses to receive a degree from there.
> 
> This isn't mommy and daddy's money by the way, it's the government's. I'll pay them back, I swear :ambrose2


Eh, I've taken countless Art in the Dark classes (the one's where you sit in a dimmed auditorium looking at pics of artwork while a prof tells you what it all means) along with Look at my Fav Films (same thing, only with film profs) and all of them were slightly goofy, not to mention just someone regurgitating their own opinions, along with a few facts, for a captive audience.:lol

The thing about university courses is that's there's really not a set curriculum but instead a basic course outline that's influenced by the instructor's specialty. For example, I enrolled in an intro sociology course that had four different profs you could encounter depending on which days you chose based on fit for your schedule. I landed in the one taught by the campus feminism expert. Lectures were little more than her platform for whining about men. I learned nothing about the topic I signed up for from her, and that was fine by the school because the course material was covered in the assigned texts with the lectures intended as supplemental. Anyone who didn't like it was free to drop the course. The experience soured me on sociology in general and, going forward, I avoid that department when choosing electives.

But this influence on how a topic is taught holds true for 'conservative' profs too. One of the two universities I attended required me to take what was called _History of Western Civilization_, a two-term course. During first term, we quickly covered the basics of the classical period all the way to early modern Europe. Second term was devoted to analysis of the Bible. Anyone in an arts program - I was double majoring in fine arts/biology - had to pass this course to graduate.

I was not attending a religious school but a highly ranked university that I chose specifically for its theatre program. However, like many Canadian universities, it had started as a seminary that evolved into a government funded, secular school. Ok, fine, I have friends who attended schools with the same history and it certainly could have been worse - one of the universities in my city is still openly religious, requiring all students to attend church and prohibiting couples living together (those enrolling do know what they're getting into) - but I was taken aback when my Western Civ prof announced to the class that, while it was within our rights to analyze the Bible as literature, he was a believer and this should be taken into account at all times. 

That's great. I'm not Christian and the only Bible I'd ever read was a Catholic one. My close friend in that class was Jewish. Another was Baha'i. Most were atheist. I would have no issue with a required one-term comparative religion course that took a clinical, just the facts approach to world faiths but telling me I had to analyse a protestant version of a Christian religious book for four months, treating it as the single most important aspect of western civilization, was not cool, imo, and not any better than my miserable intro sociology experience.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> Eh, I've taken countless Art in the Dark classes (the one's where you sit in a dimmed auditorium looking at pics of artwork while a prof tells you what it all means) along with Look at my Fav Films (same thing, only with film profs) and all of them were slightly goofy, not to mention just someone regurgitating their own opinions, along with a few facts, for a captive audience.:lol
> 
> The thing about university courses is that's there's really not a set curriculum but instead a basic course outline that's influenced by the instructor's specialty. For example, I enrolled in an intro sociology course that had four different profs you could encounter depending on which days you chose based on fit for your schedule. I landed in the one taught by the campus feminism expert. Lectures were little more than her platform for whining about men. I learned nothing about the topic I signed up for from her, and that was fine by the school because the course material was covered in the assigned texts with the lectures intended as supplemental. Anyone who didn't like it was free to drop the course. The experience soured me on sociology in general and, going forward, I avoid that department when choosing electives.
> 
> But this influence on how a topic is taught holds true for 'conservative' profs too. One of the two universities I attended required me to take what was called _History of Western Civilization_, a two-term course. During first term, we quickly covered the basics of the classical period all the way to early modern Europe. Second term was devoted to analysis of the Bible. Anyone in an arts program - I was double majoring in fine arts/biology - had to pass this course to graduate.
> 
> I was not attending a religious school but a highly ranked university that I chose specifically for its theatre program. However, like many Canadian universities, it had started as a seminary that evolved into a government funded, secular school. Ok, fine, I have friends who attended schools with the same history and it certainly could have been worse - one of the universities in my city is still openly religious, requiring all students to attend church and prohibiting couples living together (those enrolling do know what they're getting into) - but I was taken aback when my Western Civ prof announced to the class that, while it was within our rights to analyze the Bible as literature, he was a believer and this should be taken into account at all times.
> 
> That's great. I'm not Christian and the only Bible I'd ever read was a Catholic one. My close friend in that class was Jewish. Another was Baha'i. Most were atheist. I would have no issue with a required one-term comparative religion course that took a clinical, just the facts approach to world faiths but telling me I had to analyse a protestant version of a Christian religious book for four months, treating it as the single most important aspect of western civilization, was not cool, imo, and not any better than my miserable intro sociology experience.



100% goes both ways, analyzing isn't a problem if it's looked at and discussed in a manner in which the topic can be dissected but taught as gospel is so much. 

Also glad you're posting in here! Your opinion is always welcomed.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Bernie Sanders' new york nothingburger*

Another great bit of cutting through the political hype and BS by my now favorite author: 



> *A LESSON IN POLITICS, by Kevin Ryan*
> 
> 
> Headlines around the country are trumpeting New York state's new "free college tuition" program, with photos of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and neighboring Senator Bernie Sanders standing triumphantly on stage boasting of this great achievement...
> ...except it actually adds very little to what's already available to New York students. In fact, once you look at the numbers, you realize it's a political nothingburger.
> • It's not universal. It only applies to students from families below a certain income limit.
> • It only applies for those attending full-time at the State University of New York or City University of New York.
> • It only applies to TUITION, with accounts for only 25% of college costs. The student must pay for the other 75% of college costs, or roughly $20,000 per year.
> • Students ALREADY receive enough aid on average to pay for their entire tuition via existing programs. Students receive on average $7,000 in federal Pell Grants and New York TAP (Tuition Assistance Program) Grants, and that doesn't even include scholarships, tax credits, and supplemental grants via FSEOG... more than enough to pay the entire tuition. The new scholarship will likely amount to just a few hundred dollars to cover whatever tuition isn't already covered by these other grants.
> • The "free" education will just be paid by NY residents in other ways (higher taxes, borrowing). It's essentially what all politics is about... taking money away from people quietly and giving it back to them loudly.


Not surprised. 

The socialists keeps trying to fill the deep end of the pool by grabbing a bucket and pouring the water from the shallow end into the deep end :kobelol

Here's a capitalist analysis of the bill:





> New York State just passed a bill guaranteeing free tuition to SUNY and CUNY colleges for those whose families make less than $100K a year. The income cap will lift to $110,000 next year and will reach $125,000 in 2019. The scholarship covers the cost of tuition, which is currently $6,470 annually at four-year schools and about $4,350 a year at community colleges.
> Students will still need to cover fees and other expenses. For students living on-campus, fees, room, and board is about $14,150 this year, plus another ~$1000 for textbooks.
> Some requirements do apply, such as the usual full-time (30 credit) courseload, and after they graduate, students who received the scholarship must live and work in New York for the same number of years they received funding. If they leave the state, their scholarship will be converted into a loan.
> The big question is, who is going to pay for it? "The state will increase spending on higher education to cover the cost of the program. The governor's office said it expects it to cost $163 million in the first year, before it's fully phased in." That leave quite an open end for the final cost, which will surely be much higher than that, sitting on the shoulders of taxpayers.
> Here's what I predict will happen:
> 1. Overall cost to go to college will increase for those whose families make over $100K a year, as they now have to subsidize the education of the others. While that increase is capped at $200 this year, the increase in room and board, which isn't capped by statute, will increase due to increasing demand, as more students flood the dorms and dining halls.
> $100,000 might sound like a lot, but not for NYC area. About 25% of NYC family income exceeds $100,000 (compared to 22% nationwide), and while numbers vary depending on who you ask, in New York City, a family would have to make between $100,000 to $158,000 to "live comfortably."
> 2. Those who were borderline admissible will now be rejected, edged out by some of those who would have otherwise gone to private schools but will now choose to attend public schools instead. This will hurt the kids from the underperforming school districts the most, especially urban areas, as the statistically higher-scoring kids from suburbia will now take their seats in class.
> The average SAT writing for NYC in 2016 was 440, compared to 489 for the rest of the state, and 472 national average. In math, NYC averaged 466, rest of the state scored 517, and national average was 494.
> 3. There will be a contraction in hours worked from those who are near the $100K cutoff. There's no sliding-scale... if your parents make $99,999, free ride. If they make $1 more, full tuition. As empirically proven by those hovering at the welfare-cliff, workers will intentionally sand-bag their earnings to get under the cutoff. Husband and wives making, say, $26/h at 2000 hours a year each, will find ways to shave off 150 hours between the 2 of them, to get under the cap.
> 4. We will have an influx of young adults holding unmarketable degrees, as the financial risk is no longer on their back. If you have to pay for your degree, you'll see it as an investment, an investment that must pay for itself. If they don't have to pay for it, then taxpayers are shouldering the financial risk of 4 years of partying while working towards a basket-weaving degree. I like my art the same way I like my economics: neo-classical. But I'm not paying $120,000 for an art-history degree that won't pay for itself.
> 5. NY will have the most well educated barista corp in the nation. Now they will have a cultural-studies degree while they priv-shame you.
> 
> 
> Source


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Democrats are so salty about Neil Gorsuch. Merrick Garland wasn't owed shit!

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> The Democrats are so salty about Neil Gorsuch. Merrick Garland wasn't owed shit!
> 
> - Vic


The Senate can do whatever the fuck it wants with presidential nominees. Confirm them, reject them, ignore them, whatever. The power of the Senate when it comes to presidential nominees is absolute, unless it is in recess.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@RipNTear @CamillePunk @DesolationRow

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...federal-agencies-to-prepare-for-massive-cuts/

"CUT ME, MICK!" :trump3


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> The Democrats are so salty about Neil Gorsuch. Merrick Garland wasn't owed shit!
> 
> - Vic


The Dems are weak. They knew what was at stake with the presidential election. 

They blame the Russians instead of taking any real responsibility for not realizing that running up the score in California is irrelevant.

It's just too fucking funny (and pathetic).


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Get ready for economically illiterate leftists to complain about jobs being lost due to cuts to government agencies.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> The Dems are weak. They knew what was at stake with the presidential election.
> 
> They blame the Russians instead of taking any real responsibility for not realizing that running up the score in California is irrelevant.
> 
> It's just too fucking funny (and pathetic).


And Trump is like


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851527805129023488
Is it, though?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah because Trump is suddenly racist against Asians. :lol

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851527805129023488
> Is it, though?


It's hard not to see the connection between a republican being president and people turning into completely retarded moonbats.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> @RipNTear @CamillePunk @DesolationRow
> 
> YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...federal-agencies-to-prepare-for-massive-cuts/
> 
> "CUT ME, MICK!" :trump3


Best news in a while. Let us hope the cuts are as vast and deep as politically possible.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


On a reverse image search, this image shows up as having been around since Nov 2016 at least.

https://shadowproof.com/2016/11/24/video-shows-white-helmets-staging-fake-rescue-syria/


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Yeah because Trump is suddenly racist against Asians. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Didn't you know? He's literally Hitler


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah most memes are bullshit, it did make me laugh though. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Didn't you know? He's literally Hitler


Well all it took for him to be universally loved by Democrats and Republicans was a highly publicized attack on another government, I'm beginning to think him being Hitler wasn't a fear but a desire.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well all it took for him to be universally loved by Democrats and Republicans was a highly publicized attack on another government, I'm beginning to think him being Hitler wasn't a fear but a desire.


It sure seems that way


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851527805129023488
> Is it, though?


Donald Trump ran this ad in NYC papers in 1989
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/30/nyregion/NYTRUMPweb2/NYTRUMPweb2-blog427.jpg

The young black men he advocated be put to death were later exhonerated by DNA evidience,he has never apologized to them or their families.Trump so far is the only candidate of either party running for major office who has appeared on Racist Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones website.

Now I don't think the majority of Trump supporters are racist at all,but his behaivor and actions have emboldened the fringe element in his party in a way that didn't exist with W,Romney,Papa Bush etc. And yes some people feel less safe because of it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Donald Trump ran this ad in NYC papers in 1989
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/30/nyregion/NYTRUMPweb2/NYTRUMPweb2-blog427.jpg
> 
> The young black men he advocated be put to death were later exhonerated by DNA evidience,he has never apologized to them or their families.Trump so far is the only candidate of either party running for major office who has appeared on Racist Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones website.
> 
> Now I don't think the majority of Trump supporters are racist at all,but his behaivor and actions have emboldened the fringe element in his party in a way that didn't exist with W,Romney,Papa Bush etc. And yes some people feel less safe because of it.


Alex Jones is racist too? :lol What's your evidence for that claim?


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Alex Jones is racist too? :lol What's your evidence for that claim?


This guy has talked about the "Jewish mafia" and Jewish conspiracy to run the world or that Israel was behind 9-11.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851527805129023488
> Is it, though?


No, its not hard not to see a connection between the environment Trump has created and Hollywood cocksuckers finding ways to bitch because their sugar momma didn't win a fucking election.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*
















So were a lot of these Republicans just thirsty for war as much as Hilary,McCain ,Graham and the military industrial establishment, but 70% of them would have been opposed to Obama doing something even if his policy was making a ham sandwich?

Or are there a sizeable enough number of Republicans who are just Trumpista's who will twist themselve in pretzels to support whatever Trump is supporting.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^Pretty much all of the above. Republicans generally have always been more pro-war than Democrats.
---
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ses-a-dozen-cargo-ships-of-north-korean-coal/

This is a very important piece of news coming out of China. 



> *Economic Diplomacy – China Refuses a Dozen Cargo Ships of North Korean Coal…*
> 
> During the February 2016 GOP primary debate candidate Trump told the world what he would do in response to continued North Korean missile aggression –SEE HERE– In January of 2017 President Trump repeated the message –SEE HERE–
> 
> 
> On April 6th and 7th, last week, President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a two day summit discussing trade and North Korea. The United States and China are the two largest economies in the world. Now see this:
> 
> A fleet of North Korean cargo ships is heading home to the port of Nampo, the majority of it fully laden, after China ordered its trading companies to return coal from the isolated country, shipping data shows.​ […] To curb coal traffic between the two countries, China’s customs department issued an official order on* April 7* telling trading companies to return their North Korean coal cargoes, said three trading sources with direct knowledge of the order.
> […] Shipping data on Thomson Reuters Eikon, a financial information and analytics platform, shows a dozen cargo ships on their way to North Korea’s main west coast port of Nampo, almost all carrying cargoes from China. (read more)
> 
> […] To make up for the shortfall from North Korea, China has ramped up imports from the United States in an unexpected boon for U.S. President Donald Trump, who has declared he wants to revive his country’s struggling coal sector.
> Eikon data shows no U.S. coking coal was exported to China between late 2014 and 2016, but shipments soared to over 400,000 tonnes by late February.
> This trend was exacerbated after cyclone Debbie knocked out supplies from the world’s top coking coal region in Australia’s state of Queensland, forcing Chinese steel makers to buy even more U.S. cargoes. (read more)


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> So were a lot of these Republicans just thirsty for war as much as Hilary,McCain ,Graham and the military industrial establishment, but 70% of them would have been opposed to Obama doing something even if his policy was making a ham sandwich?
> 
> Or are there a sizeable enough number of Republicans who are just Trumpista's who will twist themselve in pretzels to support whatever Trump is supporting.



I supported obamas strike.

I supported the drone airstrikes as well.

Everybodys so partisan, when i talk politics i always ask name one thing the other side did or thinks that you approve of. I havent kept score but its less than 20%


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> The Democrats are so salty about Neil Gorsuch. Merrick Garland wasn't owed shit!
> 
> - Vic


Exactly. If it was the other way no way in fuck would dems seat a conservative justice in an election year


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I support it at this time. Doesn't mean I want us going full on war.

These schmucks had this coming tho.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I support it at this time. Doesn't mean I want us going full on war.
> 
> These schmucks had this coming tho.


Ivanka's tears are deadly tho.

I hope nothing ever makes her cry again because daddy might nuke 'em.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> *Bernie Sanders' new york nothingburger*
> 
> Another great bit of cutting through the political hype and BS by my now favorite author:
> 
> Not surprised.
> 
> The socialists keeps trying to fill the deep end of the pool by grabbing a bucket and pouring the water from the shallow end into the deep end :kobelol
> 
> Here's a capitalist analysis of the bill:


I can tell you that tuition being only 25% of costs is a very conservative estimate based on college room and board and bookstore prices, all of which are heavily inflated. You can live off campus, buy your own food, and find most books way cheaper on Amazon. In my case tuition comes to $9800, books like $200, and living expenses around $15000. But grants cover all but about $3000 of the tuition.

In the current system, which is flawed, it provides some relief to poor and middle class students. If nothing else, it will cut down on loans/debt. But, it's always going to be about taxes, who's paying the most and who benefits the most.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@SureUmm - I think the answers to your questions are already in the two articles I posted, but if not, I'll look back and get back to you. 

---
@DesolationRow ; @CamillePunk ; @Miss Sally 

I don't know how often you guys listen to him, but he's made interesting points worth giving a listen to:






It's probably the best commentary on the subject I've seen so far.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sean Spicer

:nowords


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Donald Trump ran this ad in NYC papers in 1989
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/30/nyregion/NYTRUMPweb2/NYTRUMPweb2-blog427.jpg
> 
> The young black men he advocated be put to death were later exhonerated by DNA evidience,he has never apologized to them or their families.Trump so far is the only candidate of either party running for major office who has appeared on Racist Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones website.
> 
> Now I don't think the majority of Trump supporters are racist at all,but his behaivor and actions have emboldened the fringe element in his party in a way that didn't exist with W,Romney,Papa Bush etc. And yes some people feel less safe because of it.


Trump never apologies to anyone though and he held the belief that because they admitted they were guilty therefore they were guilty. He's still wrong though but don't expect an apology, nor does that make him racist. Is Alex Jones racist? I have heard this in the past but I've never actually seen anyone bring up actual proof behind it. For someone who is complaining about Trump and his unfounded accusations, you're not exactly helping yourself here. 

Last time I checked it was the left who has been acting violent and has been divisive for many years. It's the left that accuses people of being racist or sexist if they aren't democrats, it's the left that insults black , latino or female republicans with sexist and or racist comments. It's been the left who has rioted in the streets, its been the left who punish Asians on SAT scores and rewards blacks and Latino's . It's been the left who has made false hate crimes to frame republicans. It's been the left who attack women for not voting in Hilary Clinton, its been the left who attack "racist whites" for not voting Democrats etc etc . It's been the left the entire time. Thats not to say republicans don't have shitty people because of course they do, but its incredibly bullshit to suggest one side is completely guilty while the other side is innocent.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Trump never apologies to anyone though and he held the belief that because they admitted they were guilty therefore they were guilty. He's still wrong though but don't expect an apology, nor does that make him racist. Is Alex Jones racist? I have heard this in the past but I've never actually seen anyone bring up actual proof behind it. For someone who is complaining about Trump and his unfounded accusations, you're not exactly helping yourself here.
> 
> Last time I checked it was the left who has been acting violent and has been divisive for many years. It's the left that accuses people of being racist or sexist if they aren't democrats, it's the left that insults black , latino or female republicans with sexist and or racist comments. It's been the left who has rioted in the streets, its been the left who punish Asians on SAT scores and rewards blacks and Latino's . It's been the left who has made false hate crimes to frame republicans. It's been the left who attack women for not voting in Hilary Clinton, its been the left who attack "racist whites" for not voting Democrats etc etc . It's been the left the entire time. Thats not to say republicans don't have shitty people because of course they do, but its incredibly bullshit to suggest one side is completely guilty while the other side is innocent.


A google search shows Alex seems to have a massive problem with "the Jewish elite"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Sean Spicer
> 
> :nowords


You're talking about this, right?



> *Spicer says even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons*
> 
> White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Adolf Hitler "didn't even sink to using chemical weapons" -- a comment at odds with Hitler's extermination of Jews during the Holocaust using gas chambers.
> 
> Spicer was attempting to discuss the horror of the chemical weapons attack last week in Syria that the administration is blaming on President Bashar Assad.
> 
> "We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II," said Spicer, adding that "someone as despicable as Hitler... didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
> 
> Minutes later, Spicer delivered a garbled defense of his remarks in which he tried to differentiate between Hitler's actions and the gas attack on Syrian civilians last week. The attack in northern Syria left nearly 90 people dead, and Turkey's health minister said tests show sarin gas was used.
> 
> "I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no, he (Hitler) was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing," Spicer said. "There was clearly....I understand your point, thank you. There was not...He brought them into the Holocaust center I understand that."
> 
> "I appreciate the clarification. That was not the intent," he said.
> 
> After the briefing, Spicer emailed a statement to reporters: "In no way was I trying to lessen the horrendous nature of the Holocaust. I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centers. Any attack on innocent people is reprehensible and inexcusable."
> 
> Spicer's comments came on the second day of Passover and a day after the White House held a Seder dinner marking the emancipation of the Jewish people, a tradition started during the Obama administration. According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Nazis experimented with poison gas in late 1939 with the killing of killing of mental patients, which was termed "euthanasia."
> 
> It was the second day in a row in which Spicer appeared to have trouble articulating the president's foreign policy at a critical time.
> 
> The comments came a day after the White House was forced to walk back remarks Spicer made from the podium that the use of barrel bombs by Assad's government might lead to further military action by the United States.
> 
> In an exchange with reporters on Monday, Spicer appeared to draw a new red line for the Trump administration when he told reporters that if a country gases a baby or it puts "a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from this president."
> 
> Until Monday the administration had maintained that last week's airstrikes was in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. A White House spokesman said later that "nothing has changed in our posture" and the president retains the option to act if it's in the national interest.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I guess you could argue that Hitler never technically used chemical weapons offensively in a battle situation 

but if you have to say "technically" or "argue" it should likely not be part of an official press briefing


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> April 11, 2017
> *Assad Had the Upper Hand So Why Would He Gas His Own People?*
> by Dina Formentini – Chris Ernesto
> 
> On March 30, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the future leader of Syria should be determined by the people of Syria.
> 
> This major policy statement by the US took regime change off the table, and was obviously great news for Bashar al-Assad. Combined with Syrian military gains on the ground, Assad was in the strongest position he’d been in since the war in Syria began.
> 
> So, why 5 days later would he gas his own people?
> 
> But even without a thorough investigation, and less than 72 hours after the alleged chemical attack took place, American political leaders and establishment media claimed that Assad carried out the attack on April 4. Hours later, the US launched 59 tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian airfield based on these unproven allegations, killing 9 civilians including 4 children in Idlib province.
> 
> Common sense, historical facts and circumstantial evidence suggest that it’s unlikely that Assad gassed his own people earlier this week. In fact, it’s much more likely that the chemical weapons were from al-Qaeda, ISIS and/or other anti-Assad factions. Indeed, a case can be made that the attack was coordinated by the White Helmets, with US neoconservatives providing the script.
> 
> In 2013, US-supported, anti-Assad forces were losing ground in the war in Syria. Assad claimed that the rebels were using chemical weapons in Aleppo in a last-ditch effort to hold territory. Assad asked the UN to investigate his claims, and they agreed, and began an investigation in Syria. Within days of the UN inspectors’ arrival, another chemical weapon attack occurred in Syria. Western media was quick to blame Assad, even though it defied logic that Assad would use chemical weapons when chemical weapons inspectors were inside Syria at his invitation.
> 
> As conservative columnist Pat Buchanan said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence…might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”
> 
> 
> 
> Former member of congress Ron Paul pointed out, “the group that is most likely to benefit from a chemical attack is Al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad.”
> 
> And Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “There is every reason to believe sarin gas was used, not by the Syrian army, but by opposition forces to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.”
> 
> Nonetheless, the Obama administration and other western leaders blamed Assad, and talk of US military action in Syria was contemplated.
> 
> Fortunately, journalists like Seymour Hersh helped put a halt to war talk, by revealing that it was indeed the US-supported rebels who used chemical weapons – weapons they received from Turkey, a US ally.
> 
> The sarin gas attack that just occurred in Syria is eerily similar to the attack that occurred in 2013: US-backed anti-Assad rebels are losing ground, a sarin gas attack occurs and US politicians quickly blame Assad without an investigation. One difference between today and 2013 is that the US military actually bombed a Syrian military target in “retaliation.” Another difference is that this time, Russian military is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, so the risk of military confrontation with Russia is real.
> 
> The US announcement on March 30 that it would not seek regime change in Syria was a massive blow to neoconservatives, liberal interventionists, ISIS, al-Qaeda and all other anti-Assad factions who have been trying to oust Assad for years. In 2016 alone, the CIA reportedly spent $1 billion supplying and training the rebel forces attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.
> 
> The Assad opposition is willing to revert to any means necessary, as history showed in 2013, so it’s conceivable that this week’s chemical attack was perpetrated by one of those factions who saw the window of opportunity to oust Assad closing.
> 
> And the US has a long history of making false claims to go to war, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Iraq WMD claims — both of which led to major wars.
> 
> Given this, it is conceivable that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was perpetrated by The White Helmets, with the goal of tricking the US into taking military action against Assad, something the White Helmets have pushed for years.
> 
> As Max Blumenthal points out, The White Helmets, who call for a military imposed no-fly zone in Syria, were founded in collaboration with a wing of the USAID — the wing that has promoted regime change around the world — and have been provided with $23 million in funding from the department.
> 
> Money to the White Helmets is just part of the $339 million that the USAID has allotted for “supporting activities that pursue a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria.”
> 
> Russian deputy ambassador to the UN said on Wednesday that allegations that Assad used chemical weapons this week are based on “falsified reports from the White Helmets”, an organization that has been “discredited long ago”.
> 
> This doesn’t mean the White Helmets were involved in Tuesday’s attack, or that the attack itself didn’t really happen, we’re just asking the question.
> 
> With that said, clearly the neocons and all anti-Assad forces have a lot more to gain from this week’s chemical attack than does Assad. And Assad has much more to lose than any of those groups. And this week’s attack followed the same script used during the 2013 attack, and that attack was wrongly blamed on Assad, as we suspect this attack is as well.
> 
> Although, it is too early to know what really happened, one of the possibilities is that the Syrian military bombed an al-Qaeda hideout, not knowing that chemical weapons were in the building, and the gas spread, killing people, as Russian officials have pointed out. But it’s odd that the White Helmets just happened to be on the ground, and rapidly produced an HD video complete with a script that was read on most major media outlets within hours of the attack.
> 
> Other than the people responsible for the alleged chemical attack this week, nobody really knows what happened, including us. Now that the US has attacked Syria, Russia’s ally, the question is, will Russia back down? If they don’t, we may look back at this week’s attack as a flashpoint to the start of a military confrontation with Russia. And given that this could lead to World War III, we think it’s worth the time to consider all possibilities, including the ones mapped out here.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

:draper2


----------



## Irish Jet

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"We didn't use Chemical weapons in WWII"

Yeah. The US really held back.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Irish Jet said:


> "We didn't use Chemical weapons in WWII"
> 
> Yeah. The US really held back.


Nobody held back in WW2.* They don't call it "total war" for nothing.

*Except, interestingly enough, from using poison gases on the battlefield, which all the major powers had literally tons and tons of. Nobody wanted to use them because they were afraid of retaliation. 



Tater said:


> :draper2


I really don't get the limited thinking behind those kinds of columns. Human beings have a wonderful track record of doing precisely what a disinterested observer would call batshit insane stupid. Why would they do this? Why would anyone do anything that seems to be completely against their interests? Happens all the time, that's why. Any time someone asks that question you can pretty safely conclude they have no clue what they're talking about. 

Assad's ground forces being largely in tatters and his 'winning' the war coming almost exclusively via indiscriminate aerial bombing from his own helicopters and warplanes and from Russian warplanes probably has something to do with it, though. The Syrian Army was on the verge of collapse through attrition in the middle of 2015. Then Russia intervened. The Syrian Army hasn't done too good a job of replenishing its ranks though, that's why there's ten thousand Hezbollah fighters + another ten thousand non-Hezbollah Shiite fighters and thousands more Iranian soldiers in the country. The Hezbollah commitment in particular has been larger and gone on longer than Hezbollah ever expected when it started sending fighters to Syria.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sean Spicer is the gift that keeps on giving. I had to google Obamas press secretaries name, everyone knows Spicer, and its not often for positive things lol. Even Hitler....Oh dear, where to begin.



stevefox1200 said:


> I guess you could argue that Hitler never technically used chemical weapons offensively in a battle situation
> 
> but if you have to say "technically" or "argue" it should likely not be part of an official press briefing


Neither did Assad, he used it to kill civilians, not sure what battle situation all those kids were in. (Well, if in fact he even did gas them which is unlikely)


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> @RipNTear @CamillePunk @DesolationRow
> 
> YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...federal-agencies-to-prepare-for-massive-cuts/
> 
> "CUT ME, MICK!" :trump3


Great news, let's hope it ends up being significant (Y).


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Tulsi is pissing off all the right people. Corporate Dem's can go fuck themselves.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Tulsi gabbard is a piece of shit

You don't have to carry water for brutal murderous assholes like assad to be anti war but pieces of shit like her have never figured that out

They're always willing to stand up for some guy who slaughters people like cattle 

What the fuck is anti war about sucking assads dick while he levels entire neighborhoods 

Not a single thing anti war about it


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> @RipNTear @CamillePunk @DesolationRow
> 
> YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...federal-agencies-to-prepare-for-massive-cuts/
> 
> "CUT ME, MICK!" :trump3





> In the new administration’s first White House budget, Trump ordered record cuts for a number of federal agencies, including a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, a 28 percent cut to the State Department, and a 17.9 percent cut to the Department of Health and Human Services. It also proposed eliminating funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well as the endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs both saw a 10 percent increase, as well *$3 billion in resources for the Department of Homeland Security to bolster immigration enforcement and construct a wall *on the southern border.


How predictable he cuts the EPA - but it's the right move since all that environment stuff is all bullshit and the science is not yet confirmed really. Really it isn't. There's plenty of scientist's out there who dispute man-made climate change.

Also funny you didn't mention the 3b to build the wall? I thought Mexico was going to pay for that weren't they? Isn't that really just wastage which flies in the face of saving money by making cuts? Not to mention a complete 180 for Trump?


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Sean Spicer
> 
> :nowords


Utterly WOAT. Shows where his mind is, at least.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Tulsi gabbard is a piece of shit


Everybody smells like a piece of shit when your name is deepenemablues. If it was fun, they'd call it deepenemacheery.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Utterly WOAT. Shows where his mind is, at least.


The thing that bothers me more than this just being Sean Spicer - is that it is representative of the kind of conversations that go on behind the scenes and the sheer utter imcompetence of Trump's media team. 

While I was sick of Obama's polished "written by a professional PR team" crap and was hoping for a little less refinement and more relateability, I certainly wasn't expecting this. This is the kind of disaster that I haven't even seen from the likes of Alex Jones. 

At least with Alex Jones when he talks conspiracies, he at least sounds convincing and it entertains you in a weird sort of way. 

Sean Spicer just sounds like that stupid geek who lurks in the corner of the boys locker room is now trying to relay locker room talk in his own words.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Spicer just having a great night overall :kobelol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851941602184581127
I don't even know anymore. This stupid fuck needs to be fired and just forgotten that he ever existed. I don't think SNL writers can write a parody better than this man is in reality. 

Absolutely stupid fuck. Probably the most stupid fuck I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to in such a high position.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:ha

O.K. I give up. This can't be reality. Sean Spicer is the Michael Scott of the White House.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well, he's not wrong about the destabilization bit. :lmao

Yeah I don't see Trump keeping him around much longer.

Well in Trump's most recent interview, with Fox Business's Maria Bartiromo, he said he doesn't want to get more involved in Syria and indicated that the recent strikes were a slap on the wrist for the chemical attack. Hopefully he sticks to that. I'm skeptical that the neocons he's surrounded himself with won't manipulate him into getting us more involved though.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> :ha
> 
> O.K. I give up. This can't be reality. Sean Spicer is the Michael Scott of the White House.


I think he just wants to get fired and go back to a lower profile job. Defending this administration and having to elevate fringe media outlet on a regular basis takes its toll.


----------



## Irish Jet

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Nobody held back in WW2.* They don't call it "total war" for nothing.
> 
> *Except, interestingly enough, from using poison gases on the battlefield, which all the major powers had literally tons and tons of. Nobody wanted to use them because they were afraid of retaliation.


I know. But Spicer shouldn't be really boasting of the humane restraint shown when the US were willing to eviscerate hundreds of thousands with nuclear weapons and set cities ablaze with fire bomb raids.

Poison gas wasn't used because it has almost no strategic value. Fear of retaliation wasn't preventing some of the most horrific crimes on the Eastern front so I doubt it prevented poison gas.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






It's still in the realm of remote possibilities, but it's probably worth giving a listen to. Not for PJW as he's just being a journalist in this one. 

Trump also confirmed that an Armada is heading towards North Korea. 

http://santamariatimes.com/news/wor...tml_b1c3e5d4-6c7b-5874-a9a7-a8f9d4a18944.html

China just backed out of a coal deal with North Korea and has put their army on an alert. 

Something big is coming and I'm hoping against hope that this is just posturing.

The neocons and warmongerers are probably jizzing their pants that the American government is finally going to do something about North Korea.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @SureUmm - I think the answers to your questions are already in the two articles I posted, but if not, I'll look back and get back to you.
> 
> ---
> @DesolationRow ; @CamillePunk ; @Miss Sally
> 
> I don't know how often you guys listen to him, but he's made interesting points worth giving a listen to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably the best commentary on the subject I've seen so far.


A most excellent look at the subject indeed, *Reaper*. Thank you for sharing!

At this juncture I am unsure what we can make of the Trump administration and the possibility of being tied up in Syrian silly string.

Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley are saying, through a few qualifiers here and there, that the U.S. is looking forward to regime change, with Tillerson positing that ISIS is the first target but Assad must eventually go; Haley's position seems to be more reactive. Donald Trump, the president, finally emphatically said, "We're not going into Syria" (while more U.S. Marines are being sent in--but of course U.S. soldiers and intelligence officers and trainers were there and have been there for years, so his statement must be read in the context of being a declaration that no invasion which seeks Assad's removal is going to be taking place anytime soon). Secretary of Defense Mattis says that all options are on the table including full-scale invasion but that such an invasion will not be occurring and that the U.S. seeks all other methods, while continuing the fight against ISIS in the eastern half of Syria. John McCain says that the Trump administration officials assure him that they recognize the reality that Assad must, before too much longer, go. The communicatively-challenged Press Secretary Sean Spicer hems and haws and when pressed on the matter says of Assad's forces, should another purported Assad-sanctioned attack with chemical weapons take place, "We'll still bomb 'em."


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think that Trump is looking for "success" elsewhere after the complete failure of two major domestic policy changes (immigration reform and healthcare). 

It seems that nothing unites Americans better than the smell of napalm in the morning. 

Even PJW whose audience was once made up of 70-30 anti-war people is now polling at 50-50 in support of foreign wars.

My take on this is that his own executive team is horrendously incompetent which has opened the door for the more seasoned establishment neocons to influence policy matters. That, or worse - his entire campaign was a huge lie. I'm no longer able to defend Trump's promises as genuine as his foreign interventionist attitude seems to have become the main focal point of his administration - especially against North Korea which hasn't done anything remotely out of its normal routine as I've been following most developments there for at least the past 5-6 years.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I have nothing good to say about the Trump team but I'm just as, if not more, leary of the hawks and their plans. It's now becoming a combination of the worst possible domestic and foreign policies - imo, of course. 

If clueless statements such as most everything Spicer comes out with - his latest gaff concerning chemical weapons and WWII included - are anything to go by, ineptitude being taken advantage of by experienced heads is a near certainty. It also explains why the established folks who should have been opposed to Trump's rhetoric didn't do much about his candidacy. They saw a possibility he could win by appealing to voters they couldn't get while also evaluating his team as easy targets for manipulation. I feel Trump's ego is also a liability in this regard; he's susceptible to criticism, praise and reward (and supposedly also his daughter's wishes) which simplifies getting his ear to promote any pet agenda with success so long as it's framed as good for his bank accounts and, especially, his reputation. Again, imo, of course.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump got a lot of people to believe he was non-interventionist by point-blank stating we're not going to get involved in unnecessary wars (very subjective word), but he also pledged "strength" and "toughness" around the world and ran a very pro-military campaign, which struck me as code for having a quick trigger and flexing military might at the drop of a hat. Now, pro-military people like that he's "letting the military guys run the show", my dad being one of them, while the anti-war side is feeling anxious, if not betrayed.

It's what has both scared and captivated me about him over the last 2 years. Trump is dangerously good at seeming authentic and grabbing support from different directions, sometimes contradictory ones. So many different groups had this "FINALLY!" reaction to a guy like him having a serious presidential candidacy: anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-PC, pro-police, pro-military, Christian conservatives, constitutional conservatives, libertarians, actual racists, business owners, manufacturing workers, coal miners, whoever 4Chan is, the list goes on and on.

What worries me with Trump is that people are more invested in him than the usual politician, to the point where they'll give him some rope when he does something they don't like. Plus, he's incredible at marginalizing his competition and critics, so even if he pisses his base off, they'll still think he's better than any of the other options out there and that his critics are merely out to get him. This results in a man with a lot of power and a lot of political leeway. And if the #FireKushner crowd is correct, a man of serious malleability, because if Trump is being influenced by his daughter's husband on foreign policy and national security, that reflects much more poorly on him than anyone else.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When even Russia is having buyer's remorse getting this guy elected, why are there still supporters out there thinking they are not going to get screwed by Trump's incompetence? Unless of course all they really cared about was getting a conservative supreme court justice in the culture war and everything else be damned. Or is it 4-D chess still to hire a bunch of bumbling fools to make him look better?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So how exactly is Assad NOT hitler tho? He's still killing people up the ass. :hmm:


----------



## blackholeson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Prepare. This is the mother of all wars that Hussein spoke of. This is the beginning of WW III.*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Today Trump was praising China, floating the idea of another term for Janet Yellen, and praised NATO saying it's no longer obsolete.

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but anyone remember this Bill Hicks bit?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> So how exactly is Assad NOT hitler tho? He's still killing people up the ass. :hmm:


It isn't comparing Assad to Hitler that is the issue, it is the attempt to defend their policy by trying to say that Assad is worse than Hitler which forced Spicer into a corner where he had to defend Hitler's actions compared to Assad's.








2 Ton 21 said:


> Today Trump was praising China, floating the idea of another term for Janet Yellen, and praised NATO saying it's no longer obsolete.
> 
> I'm not a conspiracy guy, but anyone remember this Bill Hicks bit?


You forgot tanking the US dollar by saying it was getting too strong because of the confidence in him.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Death in war is death in war. Whether by chemical weapons or dropping bombs, one is no worse or more humane than the other. "I have the moral high ground because at least blowing up people to smithereens is instantaneous and they don't feel a thing!" :heston


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Honestly I dont give a fuck if we did blow a childkiller to hell.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Honestly I dont give a fuck if we did blow a childkiller to hell.


Then Trump should be blown to hell too since he's ordered strikes that have killed children as well.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Then Trump should be blown to hell too since he's ordered strikes that have killed children as well.


In exchange for the lives they took and for the safety of our own?

Im sorry. everything I research shows me the country had it coming.

Yet this is coming from me, a crazy guy who has no pronlem with war if anyone threatens our shit. Im probably insane. 0


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Death in war is death in war. Whether by chemical weapons or dropping bombs, one is no worse or more humane than the other. "I have the moral high ground because at least blowing up people to smithereens is instantaneous and they don't feel a thing!" :heston


Well there is kind of a difference in coughing your lungs up to death and slowly suffocating (don't quote me on that but you get my point) and getting instantly blown up and eviscerated - to the victim, and it makes a difference to the evidence and effect is has.

It's almost a bit like the 'one death is a tragedy but 100 deaths is a statistic' type effect.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> In exchange for the lives they took and for the safety of our own?
> 
> Im sorry. everything I research shows me the country had it coming.
> 
> Yet this is coming from me, a crazy guy who has no pronlem with war if anyone threatens our shit. Im probably insane. 0


Who is they? I don't think most of the kids the US kills have killed anyone.


----------



## Neuron

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> In exchange for the lives they took and for the safety of our own?
> 
> Im sorry. everything I research shows me the country had it coming.
> *
> Yet this is coming from me, a crazy guy who has no pronlem with war if anyone threatens our shit.* Im probably insane. 0


Can you explain to me how Assad is a threat to the United States?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> In exchange for the lives they took and for the safety of our own?
> 
> Im sorry. everything I research shows me the country had it coming.
> 
> Yet this is coming from me, a crazy guy who has no pronlem with war if anyone threatens our shit. Im probably insane. 0



What? In exchange for the lives who took? The innocent kids that were blown up? Newsflash Trump has also been behind many drone strikes already that have undoubtedly claimed innocents - so a statement like CP's could apply to many military actions.

You can't be that naive to think military strikes are called only to protect your own either.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In spite of the fun had during the Great Election Battles of 2016 and subsequent excitement over Donald Trump's winning of the presidency, something to never be relinquished was, beneath the banter, the commitment to keep Trump accountable just like any other politician. When one runs as an outsider and a populist, campaign promises mean even more than they do for your standard-issue inside-the-Beltway politician. 

Either Trump, as @2 Ton 21 and others have noted, has undergone some sort of "come to globalist neocons" moment, over the course of a mere week commencing with his daughter's tears over a situation that MIT Professor Theodore A. Postol's studying thereof finds that evidence for Assad using sarin gas is "nonexistent" in a vastly more thorough and frankly more convincing analysis than anything the White House has even remotely belched out (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view ), with a new DEA head whose record is that of championing Obama-era "open borders" to flip-flopping on his stance concerning "the false song of globalism" vis-à-vis NATO which went from being "obsolete" a few months ago to now quintessential in the U.S.'s quest to play brinksmanship with Moscow to Steve Bannon being marginalized within the inner-circle following battles with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner (whose admission to Harvard was simply a case of his crooked father paying the "Harvard Price" as myriad teachers of his stated, just for the record), to flipping on "regime change" which was, as Trump argued passionately, a "disaster" of a course for the U.S. in the Middle East, but is now desired in Damascus... The latest rhetorical sacrifice would appear to be Trump seeking to have China stipulated as a currency manipulator, plus any considerable traction toward making the trade situation between the two countries less devastating to the U.S.'s presently shrinking middle class. The pages of the _Wall Street Journal_ are ebullient over Trump not wanting to have a "trade war with China" but of course if one simply moves about the newspaper a little bit, one finds one cheerleading article for actual military conflict war after another, from Syria to Iran to North Korea. As Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and John McCain have said on behalf of neocons, Assad is the appetizer after a sort; the Iranians are the prize. For whom remains a mystery but surely the U.S. will be doing the right thing because those Assad forces and Iranian Revolutionary Guard are a nasty sort. Evidently Hezbollah will have to be dismantled by the U.S., too, which goes without saying as Trump bombastically speaks of endeavoring to end terrorism wherever it may be found. The man went apparently went from Stephen Miller-penned speeches to prime George W. Bush speechifying from the assemblage of words performed by David Frum in a few short days. 

This is either _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ material or @Tater was right all along, and Trump just waited until he was nearly at one hundred days to "unmask" himself in a way apart from Susan Rice's mendacious shenanigans. 

On some matters, one can see the utility in lying. For example, Trump may be acting extra-chummy with the Chinese in order to ensure that the North Koreans are neutralized, and perhaps such a move is genuinely warranted. 

Taken as a whole, however, Trump's last seven days have been a dizzying spectacle to behold. Even with Neil Gorsuch being confirmed in the middle of it all--a bright spot, to be sure--it has felt like a nearly ceaseless barrage of ostensible incendiary betrayals. With Bannon one of the only tried and true "America-Firsters" in the inner sanctum left, should Trump dump him as he strongly hints toward doing in the pages of the _New York Post_ (definitely a warning, at the least), that will be the likely signal that whatever Trump himself believes or does not, and however it was carried out, something of a commandeering of the man's presidency took place, as surely as George W. "Humble Foreign Policy" Bush's mediocre, mostly planned-to-be-uneventful presidency was by sinister forces within the halls of his administration and the national security mega-bureaucracy and dozen or so failed Washington, D.C. think tanks in the days that immediately followed September 11, 2001.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> In spite of the fun had during the Great Election Battles of 2016 and subsequent excitement over Donald Trump's winning of the presidency, something to never be relinquished was, beneath the banter, the commitment to keep Trump accountable just like any other politician. When one runs as an outsider and a populist, campaign promises mean even more than they do for your standard-issue inside-the-Beltway politician.
> 
> Either Trump, as @2 Ton 21 and others have noted, has undergone some sort of "come to globalist neocons" moment, over the course of a mere week commencing with his daughter's tears over a situation that MIT Professor Theodore A. Postol's studying thereof finds that evidence for Assad using sarin gas is "nonexistent" in a vastly more thorough and frankly more convincing analysis than anything the White House has even remotely belched out (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view ), with a new DEA head whose record is that of championing Obama-era "open borders" to flip-flopping on his stance concerning "the false song of globalism" vis-à-vis NATO which went from being "obsolete" a few months ago to now quintessential in the U.S.'s quest to play brinksmanship with Moscow to Steve Bannon being marginalized within the inner-circle following battles with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner (whose admission to Harvard was simply a case of his crooked father paying the "Harvard Price" as myriad teachers of his stated, just for the record), to flipping on "regime change" which was, as Trump argued passionately, a "disaster" of a course for the U.S. in the Middle East, but is now desired in Damascus... The latest rhetorical sacrifice would appear to be Trump seeking to have China stipulated as a currency manipulator, plus any considerable traction toward making the trade situation between the two countries less devastating to the U.S.'s presently shrinking middle class. The pages of the _Wall Street Journal_ are ebullient over Trump not wanting to have a "trade war with China" but of course if one simply moves about the newspaper a little bit, one finds one cheerleading article for actual military conflict war after another, from Syria to Iran to North Korea. As Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and John McCain have said on behalf of neocons, Assad is the appetizer after a sort; the Iranians are the prize. For whom remains a mystery but surely the U.S. will be doing the right thing because those Assad forces and Iranian Revolutionary Guard are a nasty sort. Evidently Hezbollah will have to be dismantled by the U.S., too, which goes without saying as Trump bombastically speaks of endeavoring to end terrorism wherever it may be found. The man went apparently went from Stephen Miller-penned speeches to prime George W. Bush speechifying from the assemblage of words performed by David Frum in a few short days.
> 
> This is either _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ material or @Tater was right all along, and Trump just waited until he was nearly at one hundred days to "unmask" himself in a way apart from Susan Rice's mendacious shenanigans.
> 
> On some matters, one can see the utility in lying. For example, Trump may be acting extra-chummy with the Chinese in order to ensure that the North Koreans are neutralized, and perhaps such a move is genuinely warranted.
> 
> Taken as a whole, however, Trump's last seven days have been a dizzying spectacle to behold. Even with Neil Gorsuch being confirmed in the middle of it all--a bright spot, to be sure--it has felt like a nearly ceaseless barrage of ostensible incendiary betrayals. With Bannon one of the only tried and true "America-Firsters" in the inner sanctum left, should Trump dump him as he strongly hints toward doing in the pages of the _New York Post_ (definitely a warning, at the least), that will be the likely signal that whatever Trump himself believes or does not, and however it was carried out, something of a commandeering of the man's presidency took place, as surely as George W. "Humble Foreign Policy" Bush's mediocre, mostly planned-to-be-uneventful presidency was by sinister forces within the halls of his administration and the national security mega-bureaucracy and dozen or so failed Washington, D.C. think tanks in the days that immediately followed September 11, 2001.


My money is on there are certain things Trump just doesn't have a clue how to handle, Foreign Policy being one. But he can't reveal that to anyone, he probably can't admit it to himself. So he follows what the machine tells him to do.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> This is either _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ material or @Tater was right all along


Trump was always going to be a puppet of the establishment.

This is from an article I posted last August:



> It is clear that Clinton is the pick of the establishment, which explains the largely negative coverage of Trump in the mainstream media. But considering the nature of the advisers surrounding Trump, the establishment has pulled its usual trick of ensuring that it controls both major candidates in the presidential race.
> 
> Trump’s Connections to Wall Street, Soros, Blackwater and the CFR


Hillary might have been their first choice but the people who really run the USA always hedge their bets by investing in both sides. Obama ran as an anti-war "outsider" too and ended up being an establishment tool. We've seen this story before.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> My money is on there are certain things Trump just doesn't have a clue how to handle, Foreign Policy being one. But he can't reveal that to anyone, he probably can't admit it to himself. So he follows what the machine tells him to do.


Certainly possible. Since Trump has said nothing to argue that the _New York Post_'s story concerning his remarks about Bannon is bogus, that story would certainly serve as possible telltale demonstration that he is all too concerned with petty matters such as, from Trump's perspective, that Bannon is somehow taking credit for his ideas, for his campaign, etcetera. 

Trump does not seem to grasp that for many voters Bannon is a symbol of their lifeline to this administration. Or any and all considerations were thrown out on to Pennsylvania Avenue when Bannon began battling Trump's son-in-law. The men serving Assad's military and the children blown to smithereens by the airstrike last week learned the hard way not to upset Ivanka. Bannon might consider himself lucky to be fired.

As an aside, @Beatles123, you may be fine with the U.S. going around the world slaying child-killers--on to China, Nigeria and Sudan!--but Assad for all of his terribleness at the very least serves as a counterbalance to ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Syrian arm of al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front. As a Hillary Clinton-addressed email by a policy advisor from February 2012 spelled out,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852266094379380738


----------



## SovereignVA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

NATO's no longer obsolete, y'all.

I imagine to Trump supporters that him turning into a neocon puppet this week feels a lot like The Rock joining the corporation in 98.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am so glad Trump is acting like a fucking world leader and not an internet "liberation" anymore

The "just ignore it till it goes away" that people have been pushing for international relations is one of the dumbest ideas that got mainstream traction

"I don't want the GLOBAL ELITE to manipulate me so I'll just sit in my cave alone, eating rats because that's REAL FREEDOM!2!!" 

With his new NATO support and getting China on his side Trump is reaching socially acceptable levels

all he has to do is knock out North Korea and I will call his first term good


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am so glad Trump is acting like a fucking world leader and not an internet "liberation" anymore
> 
> The "just ignore it till it goes away" that people have been pushing for international relations is one of the dumbest ideas that got mainstream traction
> 
> "I don't want the GLOBAL ELITE to manipulate me so I'll just sit in my cave alone, eating rats because that's REAL FREEDOM!2!!"
> 
> With his new NATO support and getting China on his side Trump is reaching socially acceptable levels
> 
> all he has to do is knock out North Korea and I will call his first term good


Bit of a low bar there champ.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Bit of a low bar there champ.


You have no idea how low my expectations were 

I expected him to back out of NATO, boycott China and let Russia annex everything to Poland


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Bit of a low bar there champ.


North Korea is a pretty high bar to cross if he can get it done. Maybe the only way to resolve that longstanding issue is to outcrazy the crazy leader there and only Trump is crazy enough to do it. :shrug

Or he could just start off WW3. Coin flip really.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> *North Korea is a pretty high bar to cross if he can get it done*. Maybe the only way to resolve that longstanding issue is to outcrazy the crazy leader there and only Trump is crazy enough to do it. :shrug
> 
> Or he could just start off WW3. Coin flip really.












Keep forgetting sarcasm means nothing in the written word.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't want Trump listening to Repubs or dems. I just want him to wreck anyone that dare fuck with the USA in a smart manner. Hopefully we dont go to full on war with Syria and Trump can bitchslap Un without ground troops.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch can make people cry and that will in turn make me happy.


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't want Trump listening to Repubs or dems. I just want him to wreck anyone that dare fuck with the USA in a smart manner. Hopefully we dont go to full on war with Syria and Trump can bitchslap Un without ground troops.
> 
> Meanwhile, Gorsuch can make people cry and that will in turn make me happy.


Russia has boots on the ground in Syria, so little chance of Assad backing down if Russia doesn't retract its support.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hitler is getting a PR boost by Republicans this week. :lmao

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/larry-p...lator-compares-lincoln-to-hitler-on-facebook/


> CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A North Carolina legislator used his Facebook campaign page on Wednesday to compare President Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Cabarrus County Republican Rep. Larry Pittman posted the comment in response to a torrent of criticism over legislation he and two others sponsored in the General Assembly to restore a state ban on same-sex marriage.
> 
> In the lengthy thread, someone posted that “the Civil War is over. The Fed won. Get over it.”
> 
> In an apparent response, Pittman said,* “And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant.”*
> 
> Pittman wrote on his page that Lincoln was “personally responsible for the deaths of 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional.”
> 
> The web site www.civilwar.org says an estimated 620,000 men died in the line of duty during the Civil War. But a 2012 story in The New York Times said a historian from Binghamton University in New York recalculated the death toll and raised it to 750,000.
> 
> Pittman didn’t return a phone call to his legislative office seeking comment.
> 
> North Carolina Democratic Party chairman Wayne Goodwin called on Republican leaders to condemn Pittman’s comments.
> 
> “Representative Pittman and his ultra-conservative allies in the General Assembly have no sense of decency, no sense of shame and no sense of historical fact,” Goodwin said in a statement.
> 
> The bill co-sponsored by Pittman claims the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped with its 2015 ruling that effectively voided an amendment to North Carolina’s constitution forbidding same-sex marriage. Voters approved the amendment in 2012.
> 
> On Wednesday, House Speaker Tim Moore of Kings Mountain said in a statement that the bill introduced this week won’t be considered because the nation’s highest court “has firmly ruled on the issue.”


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump backtracking on 5 campaign promises in the time-span of a day. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-12/trump-flips-five-core-key-campaign-promises-under-24-hours



> *Blink, and you missed Trump's blistering, seamless transformation into a mainstream politician.*
> 
> *In the span of just a few hours, President Trump flipped to new positions on several core policy issues, backing off on no less than five repeated campaign promises.
> *
> In a WSJ interview and a subsequent press conference, Trump either shifted or completely reversed positions on a number of foreign and economic policy decisions, including the fate of the US Dollar, how to handle China and the future of the chair of the Federal Reserve.
> 
> *Goodbye strong dollar and high interest rates
> *
> In an announcement that rocked currency markets, Trump told the WSJ that the U.S. dollar “is getting too strong” and he would prefer the Federal Reserve keep interest rates low. “I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you,” Mr. Trump said. “I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that’s my fault because people have confidence in me. But that’s hurting—that will hurt ultimately,” he added. “Look, there’s some very good things about a strong dollar, but usually speaking the best thing about it is that it sounds good.”
> 
> Trump then said the one thing that every other currency manipulator realizes all too well: “It’s very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency.”
> 
> During his campaign Trump had repeatedly said that a "strong dollar" policy would be beneficial for the US economy, despite our repeat warnings that he will inevitably reverse on this, especially if and when the "Goldman" circle of advisors starts providing macroconomic advice.
> 
> It is unclear if the shift in Trump's policy will mean that US economic data will now "mysteriously" begin to deteriorate to justify not only his request for a weaker dollar, but to also hit the breaks on Yellen's plans for further rate hikes over the next 2-3 years. In any case, the debate over the Fed's balance sheet unwind, and the trajectory of Fed hikes, is now on indefinite hiatus.
> 
> The biggest loser here, again, are America's savers who may have been hoping that their bank deposits will finally earn some interest.
> 
> As for the most notable outcome from this Trump statement, is that it counters his "desire" for a weaker dollar with the Fed's tightening bias. Will fireworks fly as Trump realizes that Yellen's actions are prompting the strong dollar? Stay tuned for what may be the most entertaining clash yet: Trump vs Yellen.
> 
> * * *
> 
> *Labeling China a currency manipulator
> *
> Trump also told the Wall Street Journal that China is not artificially deflating the value of its currency, a big change after he repeatedly pledged during his campaign to label the country a currency manipulator.
> 
> "They’re not currency manipulators," the president said, adding that China hasn’t been manipulating its currency for months, and that he feared derailing U.S.-China talks to crack down on North Korea. Trump routinely criticized President Obama for not labeling China a currency manipulator, and promised during the campaign to do so on day one of his administration.
> 
> Trump's declaration also means that Peter Navarro may as well pack his bags, as the Goldman economic advisory team has now won its contest with the "Bannon nationalist" circle.
> 
> * * *
> 
> *Yellen's future
> *
> Trump also told the Journal he’d consider re-nominating Yellen to chair the Fed's board of governors, after attacking her during his campaign." I like her. I respect her,” Trump said, “It’s very early.”
> 
> Trump called Yellen “obviously political” in September and accused her of keeping interest rates low to boost the stock market and make Obama look good. “As soon as [rates] go up, your stock market is going to go way down, most likely,” Trump said. "Or possibly.”
> 
> * * *
> 
> *Export-Import Bank
> *
> Trump also voiced support behind the Export-Import Bank, which helps subsidize some U.S. exports, after opposing it during the campaign.
> 
> “It turns out that, first of all, lots of small companies are really helped, the vendor companies,” Trump told the Journal. “Instinctively, you would say, ‘Isn’t that a ridiculous thing,’ but actually, it’s a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money.”
> 
> Trump’s support will anger conservative opponents of the bank, who say it enables crony capitalism.
> 
> * * *
> 
> *NATO
> *
> Finally, Trump said NATO is "no longer obsolete" during a Wednesday press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, backtracking on his past criticism of the alliance. During the campaign, he frequently called the organization "obsolete," saying did little to crack down on terrorism and that its other members don’t pay their “fair share.”
> 
> “I said it was obsolete. It is no longer obsolete," the president said Wednesday.
> 
> Trump has gradually become more supportive of NATO after it ramped up efforts to increase U.S. and European intelligence sharing regarding terrorism. Trump still insisted that NATO allies “meet their financial obligations and pay what they owe.” He said he discussed with Stoltenberg his desire that allies put 2 percent of their gross domestic products into defense by 2024.
> 
> * * *
> 
> Add to this Trump's first, most prominent reversal, the launch of air strikes on Syria last Friday after repeatedly bashing Obama for even considering that, and Trump's transformation into a mainstream politician now appears complete.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fuck NATO. All they want is for us to pay more money and hide behind daddy so they can spend their money on social programs and "refugees". 

They don't pay enough as is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Fuck NATO. All they want is for us to pay more money and hide behind daddy so they can spend their money on social programs and "refugees".
> 
> They don't pay enough as is.


Well, technically he didn't say anything about not making them pay - so far.


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And so Washington has succesfully made a conformist out of Trump. Thanks for the share, Rip.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Seems like it. I'm about to start getting a lot of flack from Trumpsters for "abandoning" him. There are some policy positions I still support. I think that some of his most extreme positions could have been more tempered right from the start - and even if I agree with a change in position on his that agrees with mine, it doesn't mean that he deserves to be applauded as much as he was for abandoning his policy of non-intervention. I may also get accused of getting over-critical, which is not my intent. I think that while there is a rational case to be made for lending ones support to the changes in rhetoric - the thing that is of importance to me (as many policy positions simply don't impact me) is that now I have no idea what to expect. The certainty behind Trump that was there is shaken and that impacts the amount of trust I'm willing to place in him. 

Personally, I still think he's a better candidate than Hillary, but he's starting to get closer and closer and that's not a good sign.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> And so Washington has succesfully made a conformist out of Trump.


As if there was ever any doubt. :lol


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I never thought about how many manipulative 'experts' with vested interest are in the president's ear all day, every day. It's creepy the way Trump has been compromised.

And the irony is, I was worried about Trump being abnormal. But normal just swallowed him up, and now I'm wondering if that's worse.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I feel ill. Even Trump's not immune to the sickness that is Politics? Shit.


And the NATO thing is what really pisses me off and I hope he was just giving lip service and sticks by the stance of them paying what is owed instead of the U.S. paying it for them.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852558316945498112Is this getting pretty serious or


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Remind me again which candidate would be the most likely to start WW3?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/...how-syrian-military-planning-chemical-attack/

Of course even once the audio is released that won't be enough for the troofers of the world.

It's rather sad to see the trooferism that birthed the modern iteration of the neo-isolationist right (neo-neo-isolationist right? the original neo-isolationist righties were the Birchite-Goldwaterites, anyway) take firm grip of its faculties once more.

It failed with Luap Nor, it's going to fail now. Not that that will stop them from trying their hardest and troofiest. Or from clinging as hard as they can to NKVD/KGB agitprop created and initially developed in the 1930s that is the intellectual foundation of both the troofer left and right, their protestations that they are not useful idiots and that their thinking (very loosely speaking) was not originally spun from whole Stalinist cloth notwithstanding.



SureUmm said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852558316945498112Is this getting pretty serious or


What does that have to do with anything? US bombs terrorists in Afghanistan with fancy bomb. Russia takes note and the world keeps spinning. Both Russia and the United States did that many a time during the Cold War. Nobody launched nuclear missiles or bombers at the other in response, though.



FriedTofu said:


> Remind me again which candidate would be the most likely to start WW3?


 

Russia isn't going to war with the United States and the United States isn't going to war with Russia. You know that. Everyone here does. Some have just decided to forget :draper2

Oh yeah I forgot.

Theodore Postol is the guy who claimed that Israel's Iron Dome defense system was garbage based wholly on his viewing of Youtube videos of the system in action :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston

Their best, they aren't sending to be professors at MIT, are they folks? No. They aren't.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852558316945498112Is this getting pretty serious or


How does a bigger bomb make it worse than it is other than the media's selective outrage?

That said, it's huge waste of money and a stupid as fuck tactic, which coming from the US military in Afghanistan comes as no surprise. The neocons and their supporters are so butthurt over losing the war in Afghanistan that they are now literally swooning over an expensive fireworks show as a form of "look daddy, we did a thing" - as that has always been the intent of this bomb, nothing more.


----------



## Banez

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump dropping bombs while shouting "you ain't gonna fuck with me boys"


----------



## -XERO-

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Crazy ass shit.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852563930547453953
(I'm sorry, y'all. :lol)






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852570121532874752


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Wait, so Trump is president, we blew the shit out of childkillers, AND BM is gone?!!
> 
> WHAT A GREAT WEEK! :trump2
> 
> (I jest...mostly )


Sorry to break it to you beatles


----------



## nyelator

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Seems like it. I'm about to start getting a lot of flack from Trumpsters for "abandoning" him. There are some policy positions I still support. I think that some of his most extreme positions could have been more tempered right from the start - and even if I agree with a change in position on his that agrees with mine, it doesn't mean that he deserves to be applauded as much as he was for abandoning his policy of non-intervention. I may also get accused of getting over-critical, which is not my intent. I think that while there is a rational case to be made for lending ones support to the changes in rhetoric - the thing that is of importance to me (as many policy positions simply don't impact me) is that now I have no idea what to expect. The certainty behind Trump that was there is shaken and that impacts the amount of trust I'm willing to place in him.
> 
> Personally, I still think he's a better candidate than Hillary, but he's starting to get closer and closer and that's not a good sign.


Could be a front though doubt Trump will back down that much


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Seems like it. I'm about to start getting a lot of flack from Trumpsters for "abandoning" him. There are some policy positions I still support. I think that some of his most extreme positions could have been more tempered right from the start - and even if I agree with a change in position on his that agrees with mine, it doesn't mean that he deserves to be applauded as much as he was for abandoning his policy of non-intervention. I may also get accused of getting over-critical, which is not my intent. I think that while there is a rational case to be made for lending ones support to the changes in rhetoric - the thing that is of importance to me (as many policy positions simply don't impact me) is that now I have no idea what to expect. The certainty behind Trump that was there is shaken and that impacts the amount of trust I'm willing to place in him.
> 
> Personally, I still think he's a better candidate than Hillary, but he's starting to get closer and closer and that's not a good sign.


At least you will admit when Trump does things you disagree with and would stop backing him if he crossed a line which is more than a lot of Trump supporters do that support him blindly no matter what.

The funny thing is Trumps policies or actions are starting to affect his supporters, its funny to see them be like wait I didnt think Trump would do things to affect me. Like his supporters that wanted a wall but now if the wall is build it would put some of their property behind the wall in Mexico or how that one lady who was Pro Trump and deporting illegals then her husband gets deport or what is even more ironic the Trump supporters now realized the ACA is Obamacare and if Trump gets rid of it, it will affect them.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852577329394188288
:con3


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

GOP now playing CoD basically.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> GOP now playing CoD basically.


And Trump is like one of those annoying 14 year olds that play COD with a headset lol

Do you think Trump and the GOP are going to start a war?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump is like one of those annoying 14 year olds that play COD with a headset lol
> 
> Do you think Trump and the GOP are going to start a war?


Possibly, yes. 

I already made a post yesterday on the subject of a potential new war in NK yesterday. It's still in the realm of weak possibilities, but the possibility is bigger than had a democrat come in power as they would have likely maintained their focus on escalating existing wars and not starting a new one. 

The least I can hope for is that a war against NK has a higher chance of having a positive outcome as SK is prepared to deal with a power vacuum in NK and there is no ideological reason for international terrorism to ensue as there was in the Muslim countries. 

This is not me supporting a war btw. This is just me saying that pragmatically if one was to be started by the GOP neocons, NK is probably the best place to do so with regards to positive future outcomes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Possibly, yes.
> 
> I already made a post yesterday on the subject of a potential new war in NK yesterday. It's still in the realm of weak possibilities, but the possibility is bigger than had a democrat come in power as they would have likely maintained their focus on escalating existing wars and not starting a new one.
> 
> The least I can hope for is that a war against NK has a higher chance of having a positive outcome as SK is prepared to deal with a power vacuum in NK and there is no ideological reason for international terrorism to ensue as there was in the Muslim countries.
> 
> This is not me supporting a war btw. This is just me saying that pragmatically if one was to be started by the GOP neocons, NK is probably the best place to do so with regards to positive future outcomes.


That is because with Hillary she would be running the show where as now with Trump basically generals are running the show when it comes to war and Trump will just do what they want. Also Trump is super impsulive and will act without thinking where as Hillary would be more meticulous,

So Trump and the current war mongering generals is a bad combo. Trumps already drone striking at 5 times the rate Obama did.

And Trump was supposed to be hands off and not get involved.


----------



## SureUmm

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> How does a bigger bomb make it worse than it is other than the media's selective outrage?
> 
> That said, it's huge waste of money and a stupid as fuck tactic, which coming from the US military in Afghanistan comes as no surprise. The neocons and their supporters are so butthurt over losing the war in Afghanistan that they are now literally swooning over an expensive fireworks show as a form of "look daddy, we did a thing" - as that has always been the intent of this bomb, nothing more.


Just the intuitive sense that bigger bomb = more destruction over larger area. I'm aware it's an oversimplified way of looking things, I was sort of fishing for specifics. There's a feeling of increased aggression and I don't know if it's just being covered more now or what the situation is..


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because with Hillary she would be running the show where as now with Trump basically generals are running the show when it comes to war and Trump will just do what they want. Also Trump is super impsulive and will act without thinking where as Hillary would be more meticulous,
> 
> So Trump and the current war mongering generals is a bad combo. Trumps already drone striking at 5 times the rate Obama did.
> 
> And Trump was supposed to be hands off and not get involved.


McCain's reaction to this woman says everything I need to know about the current GOP. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852301243737395200
He's treating her as if she isn't even there, nor speaking. 

I thought Trump himself would have been a mitigating factor because his rhetoric was different at the time. As I've said now he was either lying, or got completely duped after coming into power. 

The thing is that with Hillary you still don't know because she was the primary architect behind Libya and Syria. She had lent her support behind all existing wars as well as new wars so you really can't say that she wouldn't have started a new war when she had done so without even being president. It was either believe the agent of change, or expect something different from the established neocon ... Believing the agent of change was the more rational choice obviously. Same as it was with Obama in 2008. 

What I wasn't expecting at all was that Tillerson would become the new Hillary. You don't associate an oil CEO with being a full-fledged pro-war neocon. This calls into memory everything I read during the early 2000's about how oil companies used the power of African military and militia in order to vacate and decimate villages so that they could mine the areas where those villages were. I suppose it's something that I shouldn't have ignored as it was something I believed once. It seems truer now that I'm seeing a warmongering CEO in power.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> McCain's reaction to this woman says everything I need to know about the current GOP.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852301243737395200
> He's treating her as if she isn't even there, nor speaking.
> 
> I thought Trump himself would have been a mitigating factor because his rhetoric was different at the time. As I've said now he was either lying, or got completely duped after coming into power.
> 
> The thing is that with Hillary you still don't know because she was the primary architect behind Libya and Syria. She had lent her support behind all existing wars as well as new wars so you really can't say that she wouldn't have started a new war when she had done so without even being president.
> 
> What I wasn't expecting at all was that Tillerson would become the new Hillary. You don't associate an oil CEO with being a full-fledged pro-way neocon.


Trump was telling people what they wanted to hear, and it worked. The only reason he won is because he faced Hillary. Bernie would have destroyed Trump. Some people though Trump would be the GOP version of Bernie but he never was. He was just lying to get the votes. Because even back then you could tell because he would contradict himself all the time.

Its just funny most of the stuff I said would happen under Trump is happening or starting to happen. It's only going to get worse. 

With Hillary she is a war hawk as well, she very well could have started a war but it would probably be a different war than the one Trump and the GOP will start.

its just too bad we had two awful choices for president. Bernie or Rand Paul would have been much better choices.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I also think that dropping the MOAB on ISIS is a subtle message to North Korea :shrug

But that's not something I believe to be completely true - just one of my conjectures. This bomb got noticed more. Pretty sure that North Korea noticed it as well.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I lost my shit when I heard people say that you DON'T USE HITLER ANALOGIES (talking about the Spicer thing).


I also don't know why people are shitting on Trump about this war stuff. This was always going to happen. If you don't think the industrial military complex is not going to get their way, you haven't been paying attention to Murican politics since WWII. Trump does have say in how involved the US gets, how deep and how far the US goes. 

Trump will have more restraint than Hillary hopefully.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> McCain's reaction to this woman says everything I need to know about the current GOP.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852301243737395200
> He's treating her as if she isn't even there, nor speaking.
> 
> I thought Trump himself would have been a mitigating factor because his rhetoric was different at the time. As I've said now he was either lying, or got completely duped after coming into power.
> 
> The thing is that with Hillary you still don't know because she was the primary architect behind Libya and Syria. She had lent her support behind all existing wars as well as new wars so you really can't say that she wouldn't have started a new war when she had done so without even being president. It was either believe the agent of change, or expect something different from the established neocon ... Believing the agent of change was the more rational choice obviously. Same as it was with Obama in 2008.
> 
> What I wasn't expecting at all was that Tillerson would become the new Hillary. You don't associate an oil CEO with being a full-fledged pro-war neocon. This calls into memory everything I read during the early 2000's about how oil companies used the power of African military and militia in order to vacate and decimate villages so that they could mine the areas where those villages were. I suppose it's something that I shouldn't have ignored as it was something I believed once. It seems truer now that I'm seeing a warmongering CEO in power.


I hate this "crying widow" bullshit

McCain has been doing this longer than most people have been alive

you HAVE to harden your heart to the "BUT THE CHILDREN" in the name of effectiveness

Can you imagine what would happen if the government went balls to the wall and tried to listen to "the people" in today's social media world?

Remember fucking Ebola a few years ago?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can you imagine *what would happen if the government went balls to the wall and tried to listen to "the people"* in today's social media world?


I can't believe you just said that. 

So they should only listen to the people you agree with?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I also think that dropping the MOAB on ISIS is a subtle message to North Korea :shrug
> 
> But that's not something I believe to be completely true - just one of my conjectures. This bomb got noticed more. Pretty sure that North Korea noticed it as well.


Did Trump really say he did not authorize the strike?




stevefox1200 said:


> I hate this "crying widow" bullshit
> 
> McCain has been doing this longer than most people have been alive
> 
> you HAVE to harden your heart to the "BUT THE CHILDREN" in the name of effectiveness
> 
> Can you imagine what would happen if the government went balls to the wall and tried to_ listen to "the people" _in today's social media world?
> 
> Remember fucking Ebola a few years ago?


That is what the GOVT is supposed to do lol

That is why we voted them into office to listen to the people.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did Trump really say he did not authorize the strike?
> 
> That is why we voted them into office to listen to the people.


They're creating a non-story. Here are the direct quotes: 



> "Everybody knows exactly what happens, so, and what I do is I authorize my military," Trump said. "We have the greatest military in the world, and they've done a job as usual, so we have given them total authorization. And that's what they're doing. And frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."


Sounds like he's taking a hands-off approach after giving a standing order to do what it necessary.

I'm now in the wait and see camp. Pakistan launched massive military campaigns against the Taliban in 2014 and they reduced the amount of terrorist activity by over a 100% in Pakistan. I don't have to like Trump's approach, but the ISIS problem has to be dealt with and changing the approach might accomplish a net positive outcome.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> They're creating a non-story. Here are the direct quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like he's taking a hands-off approach after giving a standing order to do what it necessary.
> 
> I'm now in the wait and see camp. Pakistan launched massive military campaigns against the Taliban in 2014 and they reduced the amount of terrorist activity by over a 100% in Pakistan. I don't have to like Trump's approach, but the ISIS problem has to be dealt with and changing the approach might accomplish a net positive outcome.


So be basically told the military he authorizes them to do what is necessary before they do anything but he is not authorizing every little strike before it happens.

Do you think this is a good idea to give them cartblanche and not look at every strike individually before giving the ok?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So be basically told the military he authorizes them to do what is necessary before they do anything but he is not authorizing every little strike before it happens.


Basically. Let's see how this pans out. One of the bigger criticisms of Obama's failure to reign in ISIS was his supposed extreme control on the military ... Not sure which approach is more or less effective, but what better way to find out than to waste $15.7 million dollars on a single strike. 

A part of me feels like this is like a bull in a china shop strategy ... Not too confident. But what can I do?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I can't believe you just said that.
> 
> So they should only listen to the people you agree with?


By "the people" I mean mass hysteria

how many time do people say "Someone should do something!!" when they some asshole blows up a bus, or see kids starving, or insane dictator come to power?

and then when the government goes "hey this seems to be important, should we do something?" it suddenly becomes "NO BLOOD FOR OIL, MAH TAX DOLLARS, NOT MY PROBLEM NON SECULAR USA DOES IT TOO"

The "peoples" idea of action is to complain and change their facebook profile to a support picture for a week

being a leader means making hard decisions and doing what others cannot not, to take that outrage and shape it into something effective 

I was taught that "if you have the power to help others you" do and "if you see something bad you do something about it", being a leader is about making that more than just all talk 

The current line of thinking is "if you see something bad, complain that no one will stop it and when someone tries bitch them out because it was none of their business"

We have leaders and government because we have accepted that the average person is all talk, they just say what makes them feel righteous and do nothing, and we need men (and women) to be able to rise above the noise and accomplish great things

Its one of the reasons I love Cold War politics so much, motherfuckers were doing things, there was not sitting back, what mattered over there mattered here and it was a constant effort to reshape the world into unified and power linked societies and when it was over it created the most advanced and peaceful times in human history


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Basically. Let's see how this pans out. One of the bigger criticisms of Obama's failure to reign in ISIS was his supposed extreme control on the military ... Not sure which approach is more or less effective, but what better way to find out than to waste $15.7 million dollars on a single strike.
> 
> A part of me feels like this is like a bull in a china shop strategy ... Not too confident. But what can I do?


Its probably better the experts are making the call then Trump anyways on most of these. If Trump stays hands off and lets them do their job then I think we will be better off.

I also think Trump doing this, is his way of saying he is keeping his promise of being hands off while still getting involved with other countries, he can just say well I didnt make the call they did.



stevefox1200 said:


> By "the people" I mean mass hysteria
> 
> how many time do people say "Someone should do something!!" when they some asshole blows up a bus, or see kids starving, or insane dictator come to power?
> 
> and then when the government goes "hey this seems to be important, should we do something?" it suddenly becomes "NO BLOOD FOR OIL, MAH TAX DOLLARS, NOT MY PROBLEM NON SECULAR USA DOES IT TOO"
> 
> The "peoples" idea of action is to complain and change their facebook profile to a support picture for a week
> 
> being a leader means making hard decisions and doing what others cannot not, to take that outrage and shape it into something effective
> 
> I was taught that "if you have the power to help others you" do and "if you see something bad you do something about it", being a leader is about making that more than just all talk
> 
> The current line of thinking is "if you see something bad, complain that no one will stop it and when someone tries bitch them out because it was none of their business"
> 
> We have leaders and government because we have accepted that the average person is all talk, they just say what makes them feel righteous and do nothing, and we need men (and women) to be able to rise above the noise and accomplish great things
> 
> Its one of the reasons I love Cold War politics so much, motherfuckers were doing things, there was not sitting back, what mattered over there mattered here and it was a constant effort to reshape the world into unified and power linked societies and when it was over it created the most advanced and peaceful times in human history


Trump is a hypocrite, he claims the attack on the children in Syria had a big impact on him and I quote "I now have responsibility, and I will have that responsibility and carry it very proudly." yet these are the same kids he is trying to block from coming into the country.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> By "the people" I mean mass hysteria
> 
> how many time do people say "Someone should do something!!" when they some asshole blows up a bus, or see kids starving, or insane dictator come to power?
> 
> and then when the government goes "hey this seems to be important, should we do something?" it suddenly becomes "NO BLOOD FOR OIL, MAH TAX DOLLARS, NOT MY PROBLEM NON SECULAR USA DOES IT TOO"
> 
> The "peoples" idea of action is to complain and change their facebook profile to a support picture for a week
> 
> being a leader means making hard decisions and doing what others cannot not, to take that outrage and shape it into something effective
> 
> I was taught that "if you have the power to help others you" do and "if you see something bad you do something about it", being a leader is about making that more than just all talk
> 
> The current line of thinking is "if you see something bad, complain that no one will stop it and when someone tries bitch them out because it was none of their business"
> 
> We have leaders and government because we have accepted that the average person is all talk, they just say what makes them feel righteous and do nothing, and we need men (and women) to be able to rise above the noise and accomplish great things
> 
> Its one of the reasons I love Cold War politics so much, motherfuckers were doing things, there was not sitting back, what mattered over there mattered here and it was a constant effort to reshape the world into unified and power linked societies and when it was over it created the most advanced and peaceful times in human history


I actually already knew what you meant. I'm not that dumb  I just don't think that you're right in the implication that the government should do or listen to only things that you tend to agree with. I already know your stance on America being global police and I staunchly disagree with it. So why should my voice for example matter less than yours? That was what I really meant in response to you. 

Explain to me the cost benefit of dropping a MOAB on a single ISIS facility? Do you think it will reduce their influence? Do you think that it'll make them go "ok, big bomb, let's stop". Again, I'm questioning the rationale behind and benefit of this particular bombing. As I asked previously, how does a bigger bomb than usual make a bigger difference? 

I don't see any military action in the Cold War. I only saw more prosperity as an outcome of ending the cold war. Both Cold Wars. I don't see how a new Cold War benefits anyone except the neoconservatives. Even with China, allowing them to come out of their communist mindset is what worked. We didn't go in there with our guns to bring them to democracy did we? They sorted their own shit on their own. Why not use the same approach for the middle east? 

What would you have said to a coalition of international armies preventing or interfering with America's civil war in the 1800s? What would your reaction had been if Britain for example dropped bombs on us during our civil rights' movement in the 60s? 



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a hypocrite, he claims the attack on the children in Syria had a big impact on him and I quote "I now have responsibility, and I will have that responsibility and carry it very proudly." yet these are the same kids he is trying to block from coming into the country.


That's not entirely true. Trump is currently outpacing Obama with regards to Syrian resettlement in America. (which is something I disagree with, but while the facts support the administration's failure to uphold its promise for some of us, for your group it's a win).


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That's not entirely true. Trump is currently outpacing Obama with regards to Syrian resettlement in America. (which is something I disagree with, but while the facts support the administration's failure to uphold its promise for some of us, for your group it's a win).


Its not by choice, he is trying to block them from coming into the country but failing to block them because of the courts. So what I said was not false. He is trying to block them.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Welcome back BM! 

It's about time the original anti-:trump proletarian got back on the job. These people newly disappointed in :trump are so disappointing.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not by choice, he is trying to block them from coming into the country but failing to block them because of the courts


There are other ways. He can clog up the system, make the processes longer etc etc. 

It's something a few phone calls to the right places can take care. 

I'm not saying he should do that - I'm saying that if he really wanted to, he could.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> There are other ways. He can clog up the system, make the processes longer etc etc.
> 
> It's something a few phone calls to the right places can take care.
> 
> I'm not saying he should do that - I'm saying that if he really wanted to, he could.


the process is already 18-24 months. Not sure why some people dont think that is enough vetting. And like I have pointed out before. zero fatal terrorist attacks on American citizens have come from those countries on the ban list in the past 40 years. So at least for those countries the vetting is working.

The countries he left off are the ones that need better vetting like Saudia Arabia


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I actually already knew what you meant. I'm not that dumb  I just don't think that you're right in the implication that the government should do or listen to only things that you tend to agree with. I already know your stance on America being global police and I staunchly disagree with it. So why should my voice for example matter less than yours? That was what I really meant in response to you.
> 
> Explain to me the cost benefit of dropping a MOAB on a single ISIS facility? Do you think it will reduce their influence? Do you think that it'll make them go "ok, big bomb, let's stop". Again, I'm questioning the rationale behind and benefit of this particular bombing. As I asked previously, how does a bigger bomb than usual make a bigger difference?
> 
> I don't see any military action in the Cold War. I only saw more prosperity as an outcome of ending the cold war. Both Cold Wars. I don't see how a new Cold War benefits anyone except the neoconservatives. Even with China, allowing them to come out of their communist mindset is what worked. We didn't go in there with our guns to bring them to democracy did we? They sorted their own shit on their own. Why not use the same approach for the middle east?
> 
> What would you have said to a coalition of international armies preventing or interfering with America's civil war in the 1800s? What would your reaction had been if Britain for example dropped bombs on us during our civil rights' movement in the 60s?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not entirely true. Trump is currently outpacing Obama with regards to Syrian resettlement in America. (which is something I disagree with, but while the facts support the administration's failure to uphold its promise for some of us, for your group it's a win).


I do feel our current military strategy is wasteful 

Groups like the Iraqi army are actually very skilled and more money and time should be spent on listening to their needs and their ideas rather than "daddy knows best" 

I understand your position and don't feel there is any "wrong" or "invalid" nor do I think that someone's opinion is less valuable than mine, everyone is valid and becomes of that I don't hold great weight to the "I lost my son and I hate the war" and "I lost my son and I support the war", I hate cries to basic emotions

I support nation building and I support "red lines"

I am fine with the government not taking my stance on issues but I feel when it does take stances it must be firm and must be well thought out because its important and has long reaching effects, not because it was trending today

I just feel in today's world that want government actions on all of their concerns the moment they have them and feel they are not being "listened to" if they don't get an fast response or statement 

As for Syria I feel that ship has sailed and constructive action could have been done earlier and too much time and buildup has happened which turns it into a slog


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> the process is already 18-24 months. Not sure why some people dont think that is enough vetting. And like I have pointed out before. zero fatal terrorist attacks on American citizens have come from those countries on the ban list in the past 40 years. So at least for those countries the vetting is working.
> 
> The countries he left off are the ones that need better vetting like Saudia Arabia


I won't disagree with that. 

The 18-24 months isn't spent on vetting one individual. It's a result of sifting through millions of files. Most of the refugees are processed externally. Papers can be bought or forged. Many have no way of determining their backgrounds. 

I agree with the fact that America should have a full adversarial relationship with Saudi Arabia and not creating another Syria in Yemen. Stupid Americans don't even bother to find out that in Yemen they're simply supporting a Sunni (KSA) ethnic cleansing of Shia (yemen). Something that the sunnis have been trying to do since the day their pedophile prophet died.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852586455197261825


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

NOW WHERE WILL THE REFUGEES FROM AF-SAND-ISTAN LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE? D:

Oh wait, I know:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This bomb is the cave dweller version of the Daisy Cutter that was used in Vietnam and we all know how we won that war so things look good for our military now.

Trump is actually playing 4-D chess with his own electorate by giving the military (basically children the key to a candy store) free reign thereby absolving himself of all responsibility when this move eventually fails as well.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

To get the minnow details out of the way: of all the things to comment on, I don't exactly see the complaints about this being a waste of money. The bomb was built already. Sunk cost, and this administration didn't even fund it.

As for everything else, I hope that Trump dickriders (and to be absolutely, crystal clear, I do not mean all Trump supporters, or even most, or even most on this forum. Just the worryingly significant hard core that are determined to be worshippers and fans of this dude instead of being in favour of certain political ideals of his) finally see exactly what it is that his detractors have been saying about him. It's all fun and games to look at the wonderful and elaborate games of "4D chess" you think he's trying to play, but the way he conducts himself has always been in the manner of someone who's not entirely, and I don't know how to phrase this less harshly, but someone who is not entirely with it. So when people point out that it's not normal that he goes on endless tirades against the media and clothing lines and whoever the latest person to bruise his ego is, it's not that they're jealous haters just out to get him. It's because he shows his reactive temperament, which is about one of the worst things you can have in the world of politics, because the sociopaths that fill this sphere are going to get a read on you at the drop of a hat, and once they do you're nothing but a plaything. And that's purely talking about the people who work inside the White House - once you get to foreign officials? Forget about it.

So now you have a staunchly anti-interventionist President who within 100 days, literally drops the Mother Of All Bombs on a place he claimed we'd have nothing to do with. But completely and totally according to him, of course. No one's idea but his own...


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

its crazy how anything involving military is bad to people.

For my mind, not that I want war, but we should have dropped bombs like this a long time ago on a lot of places. :shrug:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> its crazy how anything involving military is bad to people.
> 
> For my mind, not that I want war, but we should have dropped bombs like this a long time ago on a lot of places. :shrug:


I don't want to get into this with you Beatles, but anything involving the military is currently bad because it's poorly planned. And it is still poorly planned. I don't need to be a military strategist to compare notes with the past and realize that fighting a conventional war against guerrilla fighters is not America's forte and suddenly won't become it with the change of presidency in just 100 days. There is no grand strategy here. There is reactionary violence in destablized areas that are going to get destabilized even more. People are claiming that this is a success and no one has even commented on what it achieved - if anything at all. Do you know how many ISIS it killed? Did it get their head honcho? Did they put a massive dent in their arsenal? Will a dropped MOAB in Afghanistan prevent a 20 year old terrorist from running down people in Sweden? 

The irony here is that Trump dropping bombs seems to be magically superior to Obama dropping bombs simply because of partisanship at this point.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Why is this the mother of all bombs when Fat Man and Little Boy were far more powerful?

murican marketing even with destruction:brady6


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not by choice, he is trying to block them from coming into the country but failing to block them because of the courts. So what I said was not false. He is trying to block them.


*Right? So much hypocrisy has come out of his and his supporters' mouths the last month. They bitched about Obama golfing all the time, yet excuse Trump for doing it damn near every week. Trump questioned Obama's intelligence for wanting to attack Syria 3 years ago, yet he's doing the same thing WITHOUT congressional approval. Trump tried to ban Syrians, and now all of a sudden we're supposed to believe he cares about the very people he didn't want in this country, who are trying to escape the exact tyranny he's claiming to combat? Please :tripsscust*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/373146637184401408

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/373527227935518720


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I don't want to get into this with you Beatles, but anything involving the military is currently bad because it's poorly planned. And it is still poorly planned. I don't need to be a military strategist to compare notes with the past and realize that fighting a conventional war against guerrilla fighters is not America's forte and suddenly won't become it with the change of presidency in just 100 days. There is no grand strategy here. There is reactionary violence in destablized areas that are going to get destabilized even more. People are claiming that this is a success and no one has even commented on what it achieved - if anything at all. Do you know how many ISIS it killed? Did it get their head honcho? Did they put a massive dent in their arsenal? Will a dropped MOAB in Afghanistan prevent a 20 year old terrorist from running down people in Sweden?
> 
> The irony here is that Trump dropping bombs seems to be magically superior to Obama dropping bombs simply because of partisanship at this point.


To be fair, I wouldn't have opposed obama doing this.

Now, if we put troops on the ground without cause, i may buy into the theory people are persuading him. I don't want unneeded conflict, but never did I ever say I want a president that wouldn't be willing to blow shit up if needed. No. I don't want us to be the world's policeman, but if we need a second Hiroshima, I want a president ballsy enough to admit it. 


IF he has been compromised, fuc it. I casted my vote and i'd still rather have him than the alternative at the time. I made the best choice for the country. We all knew Rand would never get in.

For now though, Im going to hold out. I gave him shit for Ryancare. I did NOT give him shit over gorsuch because thats a win, and if he can wipe Kim Jong off the face of the earth that's a win too. Don't care how he does it.

Waiting on medicare reform and Wall-senpai. We'll see.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> To be fair, I wouldn't have opposed obama doing this.


Obama dropped almost 23 thousand bombs of varying payloads in just 2016 and he also gave his military a lot of leeway. He wasn't sitting there micro-managing them either. 



> Now, if we put troops on the ground without cause, i may buy into the theory people are persuading him. I don't want unneeded conflict, but never did I ever say I want a president that wouldn't be willing to blow shit up if needed. No. I don't want us to be the world's policeman, but if we need a second Hiroshima, I want a president ballsy enough to admit it.


America doesn't have the strength to put boots on the ground. Yeah, we have plenty of airforce strength, but it's misused in the Afghani terrain. The bombs are supposed to work in theory but if they're warning the Afghan government before launching the bomb, they're warning the terrorists imo as I would find it unlikely that an organization as intricate as ISIS won't be aware of communication between Americans and the Afghan government. 

The last Daisy Cutter dropped in Afghanistan was supposed to kill Osama based on military intelligence that he was there. He wasn't. 

As for North Korea, I'm ok with America taking him out as long as it's a rational "see it all the way through at all costs" kind of commitment. But we know that it's not going to happen that way. 



> For now though, Im going to hold out. I gave him shit for Ryancare. I did NOT give him shit over gorsuch because thats a win, and if he can wipe Kim Jong off the face of the earth that's a win too. Don't care how he does it.


I'm doubting Gorsuch because I turned out to be wrong on Tillerson. I thought he would not be a neoconservative. This brings me in to doubt Gorsuch. It's still a win I believe based on what I know so far, but the problem is that with so much uncertainty at this point, I can't also be sure there anymore. 



> Waiting on medicare reform and Wall-senpai. We'll see.


Well, I guess that's up to Ivanka's ability to keep her tears in check. One picture of a dead child at the border and the wall gets scrapped.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> To be fair, I wouldn't have opposed obama doing this.
> 
> Now, if we put troops on the ground without cause, i may buy into the theory people are persuading him. I don't want unneeded conflict, but never did I ever say I want a president that wouldn't be willing to blow shit up if needed. No. I don't want us to be the world's policeman, but if we need a second Hiroshima, I want a president ballsy enough to admit it.
> 
> 
> IF he has been compromised, fuc it. I casted my vote and i'd still rather have him than the alternative at the time. I made the best choice for the country. We all knew Rand would never get in.
> 
> For now though, Im going to hold out. I gave him shit for Ryancare. I did NOT give him shit over gorsuch because thats a win, and if he can wipe Kim Jong off the face of the earth that's a win too. Don't care how he does it.
> 
> Waiting on medicare reform and Wall-senpai. We'll see.


Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning. 

Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.


You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?

What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition. 

Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> To get the minnow details out of the way: of all the things to comment on, I don't exactly see the complaints about this being a waste of money. The bomb was built already. Sunk cost, and this administration didn't even fund it.


It gives them a reason to spend even more to replace it though. Gotta keep that sweet sweet taxpayer dime rolling into the defense contractors. That's how the MIC works.

Oh and the thing we were blowing up? Yeah, we paid for that too.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852597443237732352


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Afghan defense ministry is reporting 36 ISIS militants killed by the MOAB.*


----------



## Ace

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Pepperidge farm remembers. 










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The area bombed is reported to have been completely under the control of ISIS.


----------



## Genking48

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

MOAB and only got 36 ISIS soldiers

oh god

:heyman6


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If anyone thinks just bombs will eradicate terrorism, they've got another thing coming. :hmmm


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well yeah, I'm pretty sure that now that Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium and London have fully operational localized terrorist cells coordinating recruitment and attacks from within, pretty sure bombing in the Middle East won't achieve anything anymore. It's much too late. The time to destroy ISIS was in early 2012-13 and everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) missed the opportunity and instead handed money over to ISIS sympathizers instead. Just as the ISIS was forming, Germany was opening its borders indiscriminately and so were many other European countries. The damage is done. Now the next step left is localized internal "wars" to eradicate the menace. 

ISIS have now fully infiltrated Europe. If people think that these attacks in France are via proxy through long distance, then I don't know what to say except I believe that that's delusional. 

These bombs are merely theatrics to help a certain (but very large) group of American electorate believe that a promise is being kept. It's like calling in a maid who sweeps one corner of the house and you give her a hundred thousand dollars as a tip and tell everyone that she's doing an amazing job because she told you so. 

This is now a fully ideological war - and given how resistant Islam is to reformation, Europe is in this for a few hundred years until and unless they throw certain "rules" out the window and start cleaning up the mess that's already crept inside their borders.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning.
> 
> Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.
> 
> 
> You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?
> 
> What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.


Heeeeeeey you took me off ignore. :trump You might wanna fix that.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The area bombed is reported to have been completely under the control of ISIS.


Victory.


----------



## Alco

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well yeah, I'm pretty sure that now that Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium and London have fully operational localized terrorist cells coordinating recruitment and attacks from within, pretty sure bombing in the Middle East won't achieve anything anymore. It's much too late. The time to destroy ISIS was in early 2012-13 and everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) missed the opportunity and instead handed money over to ISIS sympathizers instead. Just as the ISIS was forming, Germany was opening its borders indiscriminately and so were many other European countries. The damage is done. Now the next step left is localized internal "wars" to eradicate the menace.
> 
> ISIS have now fully infiltrated Europe. If people think that these attacks in France are via proxy through long distance, then I don't know what to say except I believe that that's delusional.
> 
> These bombs are merely theatrics to help a certain (but very large) group of American electorate believe that a promise is being kept. It's like calling in a maid who sweeps one corner of the house and you give her a hundred thousand dollars as a tip and tell everyone that she's doing an amazing job because she told you so.
> 
> This is now a fully ideological war - and given how resistant Islam is to reformation, Europe is in this for a few hundred years until and unless they throw certain "rules" out the window and start cleaning up the mess that's already crept inside their borders.


Unfortunately, you're right. These attacks are initiated, planned, prepared, coordinated and obviously executed from within Europe and -most importantly- BY EUROPEAN CITIZENS. Attacking ISIS in the Middle East literally resolves NOTHING. 

If you don't subscribe to a certain set of norms and values, then get the fuck out. It's time we recognize as well that having "no-go zones" in big cities should be treated as top priority and these burrows should be cleaned up ASAP. It's an enormous problem in Paris, it's a huge problem in Brussels and no doubt in other cities as well. The time of backing down in the name of tolerance, diversity and acceptance should really be over. 

Unless of course people in power are really craving for parties of the far right and left to rise further and fuck everything up like they did in the 30's and 40's.



Beatles123 said:


> Victory.


You can't possibly believe killing 35 terrorists suddenly makes them lose control over the area ?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> Unfortunately, you're right. These attacks are initiated, planned, prepared, coordinated and obviously executed from within Europe and -most importantly- BY EUROPEAN CITIZENS. Attacking ISIS in the Middle East literally resolves NOTHING.
> 
> If you don't subscribe to a certain set of norms and values, then get the fuck out. It's time we recognize as well that having "no-go zones" in big cities should be treated as top priority and these burrows should be cleaned up ASAP. It's an enormous problem in Paris, it's a huge problem in Brussels and no doubt in other cities as well. The time of backing down in the name of tolerance, diversity and acceptance should really be over.
> 
> Unless of course people in power are really craving for parties of the far right and left to rise further and fuck everything up like they did in the 30's and 40's.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't possibly believe killing 35 terrorists suddenly makes them lose control over the area ?


No. The original argument as i understood it was that the area wasnt isis occupied and therefore a waste. Now we have a valid reason to drop em. (IMO)

But hey, i didnt join here to be popular..


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Victory.


In a small sense yes. I won't fault them dropping the bomb itself. I'm pro change in tactics. However, this isn't exactly a change as this was American strategy throughout Bush's second term which enabled the Taliban to burrow deep inside Pakistan. 

Hopefully Pakistanis will make sure this doesn't happen again. Working separately towards the same goal may actually work.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Hopefully Pakistanis will make sure this doesn't happen again. Working separately towards the same goal may actually work.


that's how we shut Japan's mouth.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> that's how we shut Japan's mouth.


The Japanese weren't fighting a guerrilla war. The Vietnamese did and so are ISIS. And we lost Vietnam.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The Japanese weren't fighting a guerrilla war. The Vietnamese did and so are ISIS. And we lost Vietnam.


we gave up on veitnam, at least IMO. 

Anyway, fuck it. Its high time someone dropped a bomb on Kim anyway.

you look at me like:

:taker

:shrug You all know someone was gonna war with him eventually. I was tired of his shit long ago.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> we gave up on veitnam, at least IMO.
> 
> Anyway, fuck it. Its high time someone dropped a bomb on Kim anyway.
> 
> you look at me like:
> 
> :taker
> 
> :shrug You all know someone was gonna war with him eventually. I was tired of his shit long ago.


Maybe South Korea should be the one to foot the bill there. Doesn't have to be us.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Maybe South Korea should be the one to foot the bill there. Doesn't have to be us.


No one wants it to be. You know what though? We just may have to if no one steps up.

See, im not someone that LIKES war...I just understand that wars are sometimes a necessity. My hope was that Trump could keep us out of the middle east, and im not going to sugarcoat that now that this has happened (@BruiserKC yer welcome) but at no point did Trump EVER say we would not do what he felt we had to to EXTERMINATE foes. In fact:


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kim is a fool. We could destroy Pyangyong at any moment just like that.

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Maybe South Korea should be the one to foot the bill there. Doesn't have to be us.


Should be the dumbass UN since NK portrays itself as a threat to the rest of the world. SK wouldn't win and though I know fuck all about Korean history I'm fairly sure the US has reason to help.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Well yeah, I'm pretty sure that now that Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium and London have fully operational localized terrorist cells coordinating recruitment and attacks from within, pretty sure bombing in the Middle East won't achieve anything anymore. It's much too late. The time to destroy ISIS was in early 2012-13 and everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) missed the opportunity and instead handed money over to ISIS sympathizers instead. Just as the ISIS was forming, Germany was opening its borders indiscriminately and so were many other European countries. The damage is done. Now the next step left is localized internal "wars" to eradicate the menace.
> 
> ISIS have now fully infiltrated Europe. If people think that these attacks in France are via proxy through long distance, then I don't know what to say except I believe that that's delusional.
> 
> These bombs are merely theatrics to help a certain (but very large) group of American electorate believe that a promise is being kept. It's like calling in a maid who sweeps one corner of the house and you give her a hundred thousand dollars as a tip and tell everyone that she's doing an amazing job because she told you so.
> 
> This is now a fully ideological war - and given how resistant Islam is to reformation, Europe is in this for a few hundred years until and unless they throw certain "rules" out the window and start cleaning up the mess that's already crept inside their borders.


People thought ISIS was nothing, even Obama called them a JV team. His administration seen 1 billion in cash and arms go to ISIS and other sympathizers and terrorists. It's not just on him but nobody took these people seriously and pretty soon they'll pay the price.

People have been smuggling weapons into Europe, terrorist cells are growing. The migrant crisis isn't adverted and millions more are looking to get to Europe. Germany would rather spend NATO cash on refugees and social programs while Europe pisses off Russia and expects Daddy America to back them up and pay for everything. Europe is fucked, if these goobers think they have a chance at changing Europe, which they do, more terrorists are going to go there. 

All this makes me wonder with how full Europe's prisons are with Muslims, how much tax strain these "refugees" are and how many terror threats are adverted daily, just how much money are these nations spending just to fund their anti-terror ops? I bet a loooooot more than before they invited all these people!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The only thing that makes North Korea a hard target is their artillery and nukes 

Fighting them is a race to beat them before they hit South Korean cites with too much heavy firepower

Fighting North Korea is to aid South Korea but it taking a nuke to the face would kind of defeat the point


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...emptive-strike-north-korea-ahead-nuclear-test



> *US May Launch Preemptive Strike On North Korea Ahead Of Nuclear Test*
> 
> With just two days to go until North Korea's "Day of the Sun" celebrations, when as reported yesterday it may conduct its 6th nuclear test at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, NBC reports citing multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials that in the latest stepwise escalation, the U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that Kim Jong-Un's nation North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test. Note: North Korea does not even have to carry out the text: mere conviction on the side of the US that it would, is sufficient.
> 
> As first reported yesterday, North Korea warned that a "big event" is near, and U.S. officials say signs point to a nuclear test that could come as early as this weekend. According to multiple sources, the U.S. intelligence community has reported with "moderate confidence" that North Korea is preparing for its sixth underground nuclear test, though the U.S. is also in the dark regarding the specific timing.
> 
> The launch of a preemptive attack would naturally threatens a counterattack by Kim: the U.S. is thus "worried" that its strikes could provoke the volatile and unpredictable North Korean regime to launch its own blistering attack on its southern neighbor. "The leadership in North Korea has shown absolutely no sign or interest in diplomacy or dialogue with any of the countries involved in this issue," said Victor Cha, the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
> 
> Meanwhile, intelligence officials have told NBC News that the U.S. Navy has positioned two destroyers capable of shooting Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, one just 300 miles from the North Korean nuclear test site. Additionally, American heavy bombers are also positioned in Guam to attack North Korea should it be necessary, and earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group was being diverted to the area.
> 
> Earlier in the week, North Korea said it would "hit the U.S. first" with a nuclear weapon should there be any signs of U.S. strikes. On Thursday, North Korea warned of a "merciless retaliatory strike" should the U.S. take any action. It is almost as if the U.S. is eager to provoke the "irrational" North Korean dictator.
> 
> "By relentlessly bringing in a number of strategic nuclear assets to the Korean peninsula, the US is gravely threatening the peace and safety and driving the situation to the brink of a nuclear war," said North Korea's statement, which actually sounded quite rational and measured.
> 
> Futhermore, virtually everyone knows that Kim's threats are those of a paper tiger: North Korea is not believed to have a deliverable long-range nuclear weapon, according to U.S. experts, nor does it yet possess an intercontinental missile. Which begs the question: why is the US getting involved in yet another regime change operation half way around the world?
> 
> South Korea's top diplomat said today that the U.S. would consult with Seoul before taking any serious measures, or at least he hoped: "U.S. officials, mindful of such concerns here, repeatedly reaffirmed that (the U.S.) will closely discuss with South Korea its North Korea-related measures," foreign minister Yun Byung told a special parliamentary meeting. "In fact, the U.S. is working to reassure us that it will not, just in case that we might hold such concerns."
> 
> Of course, if the U.S. does not "closely discuss" any pre-strike plans, then... oops.
> 
> In any case, a new war may break out as soon as this weekend: "Two things are coming together this weekend," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, former commander of NATO and an NBC analyst. "One is the distinct possibility of a sixth North Korean nuclear weapons detonation and the other is an American carrier strike group, a great deal of firepower headed right at the Korean Peninsula."
> 
> 
> The U.S. is aware that simply preparing an attack, even if it will only be launched if there is an "imminent" North Korean action, increases the danger of provoking a large conflict, multiple sources told NBC News.
> 
> "It's high stakes," a senior intelligence official directly involved in the planning told NBC News. "We are trying to communicate our level of concern and the existence of many military options to dissuade the North first."
> 
> "It's a feat that we've never achieved before but there is a new sense of resolve here," the official said, referring to the White House.​
> The unofficial admission that a preemptive strike is imminent comes on the same day the U.S. announced the use of its MOAB in Afghanistan, attacking underground facilities, and on the heels of U.S. missile strikes on a Syrian airbase last week, a strike that took place while President Trump was meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago.
> 
> Earlier today, Trump gave China what amounted to a tacit ultimatum: deal with North Korea, or Trump will.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852508752142114816
> And as the clock is ticking, officials have told NBC that Trump has talked to Chinese president Xi twice about North Korea since their Florida summit.
> 
> China has since sent its top nuclear negotiators to Pyongyang to communicate the gravity of the situation to the North, officials say. On Wednesday, President Xi called for a peaceful resolution to the escalating tensions.​
> It's not just China: "Moscow has weighed in as well: "We are gravely concerned about Washington's plans regarding North Korea, considering hints about the unilateral use of a military scenario" the Putin government said in a press release issued on Tuesday."
> 
> Ultimately, the only thing standing between Kim and a Tomahawk is a decision by South Korea, where as a reminder, the political regime has been in chaos since the impeachment of former president Park.
> 
> Implementation of the preemptive U.S. plans, according to multiple U.S. officials, depends centrally on consent of the South Korean government. The sources stress that Seoul has got to be persuaded that action is worth the risk, as there is universal concern that any military move might provoke a North Korean attack, even a conventional attack across the DMZ.​
> Tensions have escalated on the Korean Peninsula, as this Saturday marks the anniversary of the birth of the nation's founder — Kim il-Sung, grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jong-un. At the highest levels in South Korea and the U.S., sources told NBC News, there are fears North Korea could mark the "Day of the Sun" by testing a nuclear device. As discussed yesterday, North Korea in the past has used these national holidays to celebrate the strengths of the regime and to reinforce the national narrative of their independence, as confirmed by Cha.
> 
> "I think that is what President Trump is getting trying to get the Chinese to do," said Cha. "[It] would impose real pain and force real choices on North Korea — whether the costs are worth it for them to continue to pursue this program if they no longer have any sustenance."
> 
> In addition to the coal ships, the Chinese made an important gesture at the UN Thursday: A surprising abstention on a Security Council resolution condemning a Syrian chemical weapons attack. China didn't stand with the Russians on Syria, as it has in the past.
> 
> But the biggest indicator may have been the market: for the first time in month, the S&P closed on the lowest tick of the day ahead of a long weekend, almost as if traders had no desire to go long into a the 72 hours in which there is a non-trivial chance that, in some form or another, a nuclear device may go off, coupled with the launch of an unknown number of US Tomahawk missiles.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Heeeeeeey you took me off ignore. :trump You might wanna fix that.


Answer the question. Unless you can't because you just agree with anything that Trump does and cant back up your reasoning for why you support his decisions. 




Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning. 

Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.


You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?

What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition. 

Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Gotta say I am warming up to the idea of a Trump who's not afraid to flex his military muscle. If he keeps this up I might just become a fan. :mj

Not that I am clamouring for death and destruction or anything like that. :woah I just respect that he's willing to stand up to dictators (If only he'd do the same with Putin but alas that's a tricky situation.)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Blackbeard said:


> Gotta say I am warming up to the idea of a Trump who's not afraid to flex his military muscle. If he keeps this up I might just become a fan. :mj
> 
> Not that I am clamouring for death and destruction or anything like that. :woah I just respect that he's willing to stand up to dictators (If only he'd do the same with Putin but alas that's a tricky situation.)


That is ironic because Trump is the dictator lol

Ill ask you the same question I asked beatles. You are ok with Trump just going off and bombing people before having all the info? Look at Assad , do you really think he would bomb his own people when he was winning? that made no sense. And Trump just bombed him wiilly nilly. Not to mention when he bombed them he did not even take out their airfield which the very next say had plans taking off from and launching attacks.

the attack may not even be legal since he did not even get approval (or inform) from congress. 


Lets also not forget Trump may have made money off of that bombing.

Trump the the kind of person who would bomb a country over a tweet against him.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Blackbeard said:


> (If only he'd do the same with Putin but alas that's a tricky situation.)


Seems like I'm quoting you a lot more today than usual :lol 

But you can't really say that after he bombed one of Putin's allies.


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This guy just had the best week of his presidency(though there's still room for improvement), and yet plenty of his so-called "hardcore supporters" think it's his worst.


> What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan?


It gets rid of that stupid tax penalty for starters.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> But you can't really say that after he bombed one of Putin's allies.


I'll wait and see how Trump acts the next time Putin decides to annex another part of Ukraine.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Marv95 said:


> This guy just had the best week of his presidency(though there's still room for improvement), and yet plenty of his so-called "hardcore supporters" think it's his worst.
> 
> It gets rid of that stupid tax penalty for starters.


How was it his best?


And what else do you like about Trumps plan? You like how they will screw over people with pre-existing conditions? Under Trump womens healthcare will be cut, also it would let the insurance companies set their own prices, that is an awful idea, that will totally fuck over older people who would get charged way more for insurance, Trumps plan was so bad even some Reps opposed it because they knew it would screw over a lot of people in their states.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Seems like I'm quoting you a lot more today than usual :lol
> 
> But you can't really say that after he bombed one of Putin's allies.


He told Russia before he bombed Assad then Russia told him the US was bombing him and Trump bombing did nothing to stop Assad, like I said Trump did not even bomb the run way. That whole bombing was just for show to say see Trump isnt a puppet of Putin.

It was all a misdirect and fo course its working with some people.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question. Unless you can't because you just agree with anything that Trump does and cant back up your reasoning for why you support his decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning.
> 
> Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.
> 
> 
> You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?
> 
> What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.


Don't look at me, @Oda Nobunaga !










:justsayin


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He told Russia before he bombed Assad then Russia told him the US was bombing him and Trump bombing did nothing to stop Assad, like I said Trump did not even bomb the run way. That whole bombing was just for show to say see Trump isnt a puppet of Putin.
> 
> It was all a misdirect and fo course its working with some people.


You're starting to sound like the reverse Alex Jones on this whole Russian puppet thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You're starting to sound like the reverse Alex Jones on this whole Russian puppet thing.


I dont think so, since more and more people in Trumps admin have ties to Russia.

Lets not forgot how that Russian Bank (Alfa) kept pinging a random Trump computer server in the middle of no where.

Trump has ties to Russia, the more digging that goes on the more evidence there is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is for Deep, Stevefox, BruiserKC and Beatles. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/middleeast/syria-conflict/index.html


> (CNN)Investigations are continuing Friday into a "misdirected" US-led coalition airstrike that killed 18 allies in Syria earlier this week.
> 
> The strike, carried out Tuesday near the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, killed members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which the US and other nations have backed and coordinated with to fight ISIS militants in the country.
> 
> The latest deaths come amid mounting concern over the civilian toll of coalition airstrikes, as efforts to drive ISIS from Raqqa, its de facto Syrian capital, and Mosul in Iraq intensify, and in the wake of last week's US missile strike against a Syrian government target.
> 
> SDF General Command's senior military adviser, Nasser Haj Mansour, told CNN that members of the SDF had coordinated the airstrike, based on inaccurate information.
> He said there was an ongoing investigation to find out the circumstances of the accident.
> 
> "We have no doubt on the coalition's support and capability, and there is a high level of coordination with our friends in the coalition," he added.
> 
> Mansour said 17 SDF members had been killed in the strike south of Tabqa, a strategically important town south of Raqqa -- one fewer than the number given by US Central Command.
> 
> 'Tragic incident'
> 
> US Central Command acknowledged the strike in a statement Thursday and said the coalition was assessing the incident.
> 
> "The strike was requested by the partnered forces, who had identified the target location as an ISIS fighting position. The target location was actually a forward Syrian Democratic Forces fighting position," it said.
> 
> "The coalition's deepest condolences go out to the members of the SDF and their families. The coalition is in close contact with our SDF partners who have expressed a strong desire to remain focused on the fight against ISIS despite this tragic incident."
> 
> A coalition official told CNN the SDF had asked for the coalition to perform the strike. The official said the coalition did not realize the error and was investigating how the mistake occurred and how it could be prevented in the future.
> 
> The airstrike was carried out in a key area for the coalition as allied forces on the ground close in on Raqqa, held by ISIS since early 2014.
> 
> It's not the first time the US-led coalition has been involved in a friendly fire incident involving allied forces in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The Iraqi military said its forces suffered casualties during coalition airstrikes on ISIS positions near the Iraqi city of Falluja in late 2015.







Please explain to me how Trump giving free reign to the military has suddenly made them more "competent" ...

I personally don't think anyone is a US ally, but you still have to ask - what the actual FUCK are these baffoons doing?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This is for Deep, Stevefox, BruiserKC and Beatles.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/middleeast/syria-conflict/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to me how Trump giving free reign to the military has suddenly made them more "competent" ...
> 
> I personally don't think anyone is a US ally, but you still have to ask - what the actual FUCK are these baffoons doing?


To be fair, even in far more "noble wars" with clear uniformed adversaries we were mowing ourselves down all the fucking time 

In "From Pusan to Panmunjom" Paik Sun Yup noted that in the early stage of the war their US air support hit his South Korean troops more than it hit the North Koreans and the same thing happened in Vietnam all the time and those were in wars with static enemy positions with spotters

The current US strategy is to only use air strikes with only over head spotting to figure out if those dots are enemy dots or friendly dots by purely looking at a schedule to see which is more active in the area or really on hastily trained locals 

In Korea 8% of troops lost were from non-enemy factors like friendly fire and various other accidents, in Vietnam it was 19% and a majority of those deaths were due to miss-aimed airstrikes 

With air strikes being FAR more common that number has only really gone up a few percent in the last few years

In short it is extremely common to hit your own men and really sucks but most rather have the support and risk a misfire than not having it, the alternative is heavy swarm tactics which fucking suck

In the "War on Terror" the friendly fire death count was at 4% of non enemy related death 

These reaction videos and news stories are very over-dramatic and ignore actual military history, procedure and exceptions to sell an over-dramatic piece to a public that neither knows nor understands what is to be expected

In war you are FAR more likely to blow yourself up with a mechanical malfunction than you are to hit by friendly fire


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alco said:


> Unfortunately, you're right. These attacks are initiated, planned, prepared, coordinated and obviously executed from within Europe and -most importantly- BY EUROPEAN CITIZENS. Attacking ISIS in the Middle East literally resolves NOTHING.
> 
> If you don't subscribe to a certain set of norms and values, then get the fuck out. It's time we recognize as well that having "no-go zones" in big cities should be treated as top priority and these burrows should be cleaned up ASAP. It's an enormous problem in Paris, it's a huge problem in Brussels and no doubt in other cities as well. The time of backing down in the name of tolerance, diversity and acceptance should really be over.
> 
> Unless of course people in power are really craving for parties of the far right and left to rise further and fuck everything up like they did in the 30's and 40's.
> 
> 
> *
> You can't possibly believe killing 35 terrorists suddenly makes them lose control over the area ?*


If you think the goal was to only kill ISIS fighters then, ya, that wouldn't account for much of a victory. Yet, if the goal was to destroy the entire tunnel system, show the world the US is ready to do what is necessary, and, oh, kill some ISIS fighters, then dropping the MOAB was a success. Plus, the 35 terrorists could have included high ranking officials withing ISIS, we don't know yet.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you think the goal was to only kill ISIS fighters then, ya, that wouldn't account for much of a victory. Yet, if the goal was to destroy the entire tunnel system, show the world the US is ready to do what is necessary, and, oh, kill some ISIS fighters, then dropping the MOAB was a success. Plus, the 35 terrorists could have included high ranking officials withing ISIS, we don't know yet.












You mean the intricate network of tunnels that the US built and let terrorists occupy? 

Yup. A remnant of Operation Cyclone. EVERYTHING in that part of the world right now goes back to Operation Cyclone and the billions americans spent on mujahideen (many of which formed the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, got recruited by Al-Qaeda and then ISIS). They are now repeating the exact same thing with the Syrian "rebels" creating another army of religious mujahideen which are already becoming a major source of man power to the Middle-Eastern ISIS and have changed nothing in their methods of continuing to create the monster they fight. 

So, while I understand that SteveFox has his rationale for friendly fire deaths, my question still remains. 

What in the FUCK are these buffoons doing and have been doing for nearly 40 fucking years.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You mean the intricate network of tunnels that the US built and let terrorists occupy?
> 
> Yup. A remnant of Operation Cyclone. EVERYTHING in that part of the world right now goes back to Operation Cyclone and the billions americans spent on mujahideen (many of which formed the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, got recruited by Al-Qaeda and then ISIS). They are now repeating the exact same thing with the Syrian "rebels" creating another army of religious mujahideen which are already becoming a major source of man power to the Middle-Eastern ISIS and have changed nothing in their methods of continuing to create the monster they fight.
> 
> So, while I understand that SteveFox has his rationale for friendly fire deaths, my question still remains.
> 
> What in the FUCK are these buffoons doing and have been doing for nearly 40 fucking years.


I hate that people think mujahideen=Taliban/Al-Qaeda

mujahideen

The core group who became the Taliban were largely rich Saudi Arabian kids and spent the entire Soviet-Afghan hiding out in the mountains and taking over opium fields. I believe that the US tried to arm them once and they refused to fight. By the time the war was over the other tribes were ground down and what were basically drug lords had sat on their guns and money the entire time.

As for Snowden, I have zero clue what the fuck his point is. If I built a bunker for ally and the enemy later took it over and used it than its dumb to think "Oh, I should have never built it". His point is like saying that French and Eastern Europe should have not built bunkers or created weapons because the Nazis could just capture them and use them.

Its not like the US was expecting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to be the last man standing nor did they expect that these groups to have so much aspirations in place were most armed forces were glorified raiders 

It would be like if the Cartel officially took over a nation, you can look and say "well they have the guns and the money" but to actually have the will to carve up a nation and try to rule it was near unheard of for a group that size in that time


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I hate that people think mujahideen=Taliban/Al-Qaeda
> 
> mujahideen


I hate it when Americans try to tell me about the history of my own neighbors as though they know it better than I do because they read it in books written by their own people and assume that they've never been lied to and therefore that gives their knowledge precedence over someone's personal experience growing up in the middle of the crisis. 

And yes, for this, I will use the "I grew up there so I know more" card. My sources are military vets, generals, tacticians and people involved directly in operation cyclone and their children talking about stuff that American history books conveniently leave out to make themselves look as good as possible. 

Taliban are the mujahideen. The word Talib itself comes from "student". Taliban is plural of the word student. Guess what they are students of. Yes, the very same medressahs medressahs (religious schools) that were created as fronts to provide fundamentalist Islamic teachings to ALL mujahideen combined with military training (the schools were a ruse but also established the ideological core of the Taliban). The Americans cannot admit that their funding was used to create the ideological centers that gave birth to the Taliban and that's why you have this misdirection around their origins. 

The Taliban and Mujahideen are one and the same people from the same schools and training facilities. The labels are created later in order to separate the identities of the same group of people.

Mujahideen simply means someone who is engaged in Jihad. There are no "original" jihadis that had fundamentally better values than the Taliban. They just fought a different war and then were eventually overthrown by another group from the same medressahs and training facilities. They are all from the same schools (in Pakistan and Afghanistan) with eventually one group of mujahideen (the Taliban who are from the same original source) eventually defeated the "older" mujahideen and took over Afganistan and thousands of "original" mujahideen were either slaugthered or assimilated into their faction. Ultimately the Taliban are just another faction of the mujahideen. The original source remains the same - the consequence of the proxy war Americans fought in Afghanistan against Russia.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I hate it when Americans try to tell me about the history of my own neighbors as though they know it better than I do because they read it in books written by their own people and assume that they've never been lied to and therefore that gives their knowledge precedence over someone's personal experience growing up in the middle of the crisis.
> 
> And yes, for this, I will use the "I grew up there so I know more" card.
> 
> Taliban are the mujahideen. The word Talib itself comes from "student". The were taught in the same medressahs that were created as fronts to provide fundamentalist Islamic teachings to mujahideen combined with military training (the schools were a ruse).
> 
> The Taliban and Mujahideen are one and the same people from the same schools and training facilities. The labels are created later in order to separate the identities of the same group of people.


I don't like to use "mujahideen" because its such an umbrella term like "the allies"

My basic knowledge is that the mujahideen were a loosely connected groups of tribes and groups who were largely only united by their hatred of the Soviets and religious reasons then the war ended and they went back fighting each other and some of the more ambitious ones started taking over whole regions and expand their influence with their new guns and money 

I am not the most informed on the religious details and motivations but on paper it looks like the Communist and Home army in Poland or the Nationals and Communists where they were "united" against one common foe but one side let the other side do a lion share of the fighting and death while the other waited until the right moment to take over with their "WE FOUGHT THE ENEMY" credibility to paint the entire struggle around their ideology

In both of those previous cases I blame the US and allies for not continuing to support the National government and letting the rebels who sat on the sidelines and saved their strength run wild over the weakened nation 

Don't think I am an apologist for the US, I just feel their mistakes were letting their allies lose due to not wanting to spend money is the mistake


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I don't like to use "mujahideen" because its such an umbrella term like "the allies"


It's an umbrella term, but where I'm from it's specifically used as the plural of mujahid. Mujahid means "one who fights in the way of allah". Mujahideen basically means jihadist. It does not mean ally. They were never "allies" of the US. They were a creation of Pakistan at America's behest and support because America did not and could not get approval to fight yet another war so soon after their Vietnam failure. 



> My basic knowledge is that the mujahideen were a loosely connected groups of tribes and groups who were largely only united by their hatred of the Soviets and religious reasons then the war ended and they went back fighting each other and some of the more ambitious ones started taking over whole regions and expand their influence with their new guns and money


The mujahideen that I'm referring to were specifically chosen warriors that Zia Ul Haq (America's favorite dictator at the time) trained through a number of strategically placed "religious schools" that were fronts for major guerrilla war training facilities and fed to the the afghan coalition consistent. It wasn't a coalition as much as it was a fully funded and trained non-sanctioned militia created specifically for the purpose of fighting off the Russian Invasion. The history books have erred in that regard where they've played up the role of the existing coalition and completely downplayed the constant funding of warriors into their midst by Pakistan. There was a constant exchange of military personnel that started right around the time of Operation Cyclone and by the time the "Taliban" organized as a singular group, the mujahideen were not just weakened, but also badly infilterated which is why they were taken down so easily. Many simply refused to fight and just did the fealty to Mullah Omar. He didn't come to power by squashing all the opposition. He was largely accepted in many areas as well and hence the older mujahideen became part of the Taliban. 

All of this history has been presented in a disorganized manner I believe in order to keep people from making the connection to the Taliban and Operation Cyclone - which is exactly what I see happening with you. 

In the end, the same schools that were used as fronts to train the mujahideen also trained the Taliban (hence the word "students"). They weren't more ambitious in the sense that you're thinking of them. Zia Ul Haq was a full on religious conservative and extremist. Pakistan already had massive internal militias of Islamists (several parties, the main one being Jamaat-e-Islami) that had already wreaked havoc in Bangladesh and were used to train the mujahideen. 

The taliban are basically the people who continued to be trained using those resources even after the war was over. Yes, there was definitely factionism, but the reason why the Taliban were so successful was because they were younger and hungrier and had been fed the ideology of the caliphate through a very intricate network of cross-functioning medressahs and support from various other middle-eastern countries. 

The thing you guys miss is that none of these groups developed in isolation with one another. There was a consistent exchange of ideology as well as inflow and outflow of militants from other groups which is why the Taliban are so successful in their wars. 



> I am not the most informed on the religious details and motivations but on paper it looks like the Communist and Home army in Poland or the Nationals and Communists where they were "united" against one common foe but one side let the other side do a lion share of the fighting and death while the other waited until the right moment to take over with their "WE FOUGHT THE ENEMY" credibility to paint the entire struggle around their ideology


Well perhaps you should. Mujahideen in Afghanistan were only slightly different ideologically than the Taliban who came later. The Taliban only came later because it was a decades long struggle and in a decade the medressahs in Pakistan and Afghanistan had managed to cement their ideologies and yes, they moved farther towards extremism - but what they were being taught wasn't that different from what the mujahideen wanted to implement themselves. The older Afghan coalitions had the same basic training, but the Taliban were in the ideological incubator longer hence more driven. 

They never "waited" in the sense you're saying. They were simply the later warriors churned out from the same system that the mujahideen came from. In fact, Taliban are STILL being trained in Pakistani medressahs which is why it's a never ending supply.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When you put it like that it does seem like a bad idea

It looks like case of picking the wrong man for the job

Zia-ul-Haq looks like he had the skills and the knowledge but also the extremism and the desire to spread his ideology 

He reminds me a bit of Chiang Kai Shek's mindset of using what your rivals have to make yourself strong rather than rejecting but while Chiang was using western might to beef up a confucianist society Zia-ul-Haq was pushing a fundamentalist one

and using your state sponsored rebel training camps to push your religious interpretations, now that is 4D chess

I am going to write Trump and tell him to only support people who have at least a semi-orgnized government

I can see why no-one can seem to do anything right in the middle east government wise, the place seem rather tricky


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> When you put it like that it does seem like a bad idea
> 
> It looks like case of picking the wrong man for the job
> 
> Zia-ul-Haq looks like he had the skills and the knowledge but also the extremism and the desire to spread his ideology
> 
> He reminds me a bit of Chiang Kai Shek's mindset of using what your rivals have to make yourself strong rather than rejecting but while Chiang was using western might to beef up a confucianist society Zia-ul-Haq was pushing a fundamentalist one
> 
> I am going to write Trump and tell him to only support people who have at least a semi-orgnized government


Or better yet. Simply ignore these places or fight a completely legit war instead of proxy wars where you arm and fund the same side that has a history of fundamentalism and back-stabbing. 

They're already siding with Saudi Arabia with the ethnic cleansing of the Shia? How many more "mistakes" can America make before it's no longer a "mistake"?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Pat Buchanan with an interesting column about Christianity in the Middle East after a decade and a half of American adventurism there:



> Will Christianity Perish in Its Birthplace?
> 
> “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)” Those are among Jesus’ last words on the Cross that first Good Friday.
> 
> It was a cry of agony, but not despair. The dying Christ, to rise again in three days, was repeating the first words of the 22nd Psalm.
> 
> And today, in lands where Christ lived and taught and beyond where the Christian faith was born and nourished, the words echo. For it is in the birthplace of Christianity that Christians face the greatest of persecutions and martyrdoms since the time of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin.
> 
> President Donald Trump, outraged by pictures of infants and children who had perished in the nerve gas attack in Syria, ordered missile strikes on the air base from which the war crime came.
> 
> Two days later, Palm Sunday, 44 Coptic Christians celebrating Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem were martyred in terrorist attacks in Egypt. The first bombing was at St. George’s Church in Tanta, the second at St. Mark’s in Alexandria, where the Coptic Pope Tawadros II was at Mass.
> 
> The pope was unhurt, but 100 Christians were injured in the attacks. At St. George’s, one witness described the scene after the bomb exploded near the altar: “I saw pieces of body parts. … There was so much blood everywhere. Some people had half of their bodies missing.”
> 
> The Islamic State group claims credit for the murders, and the pictures of dead children from those churches were surely as horrific as the pictures the president saw after the gas attack.
> 
> Copts are among the earliest Christians, dating to the first century A.D., when St. Mark, one of the Twelve Apostles, established the first church outside the Holy Land and became bishop of Alexandria.
> 
> The Copts make up 10 percent of Egypt’s population. They have been especially targeted for terrorist attacks since the 2013 overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, who had been elected president after the ouster of longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.
> 
> In the subsequent struggle between Egypt’s Islamists, whose base is in Sinai, and the Cairo regime of Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who was welcomed to the White House in March, the Copts are seen as soft-target allies of Gen. el-Sissi’s and hated for their faith.
> 
> Whatever they did for democracy, the U.S. interventions in the Middle East and the vaunted Arab Spring have proved to be pure hell for Arab Christians.
> 
> In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Christians were left alone if they did not interfere in politics. Indeed, they prospered as doctors, lawyers, journalists, academics, engineers, businessmen. A Christian, Tariq Aziz, was Saddam’s foreign minister who negotiated with Secretary of State James Baker to try to prevent what became the Gulf War.
> 
> 
> Before 2003, there were still 800,000 Christians in Iraq. But after a decade of church bombings and murders of priests, their numbers have plummeted. When the Islamic State seized a third of Iraq, Christians under the group’s rule had to convert to Islam and pay a tax or face beheading.
> 
> On Dec. 26, St. Stephen’s Day, which honors the first martyr, Pope Francis hailed the Iraqi Christians lately liberated from Islamic State rule, noting, “They are our martyrs of today, and there are so many we can say that they are more numerous than in the first centuries.”
> 
> In 2016, an estimated 90,000 more Christians worldwide died for their faith.
> 
> Under Syria’s dictator Hafez al-Assad and son Bashar, Christians have been 10 percent of the population and protected by the regime. They thus have sided with Assad against the terrorists of the Islamic State and al-Qaida, whose victory would mean their expulsion or death.
> 
> Of the 10 nations deemed by Christianity Today to be the most hateful and hostile toward Christianity, eight are majority-Muslim nations, with the Middle East being the site of the worst of today’s persecutions.
> 
> Afghanistan, which we “liberated” in 2001, is listed as the third-most hostile nation toward Christians. The punishment for baptism there is death. A decade ago, a Christian convert had to flee his country to avoid beheading.
> 
> Consider. Christianity, whose greatest feast day we celebrate Sunday, is the cradle faith of the culture and the civilization of the West. And in our secularized world, Christianity remains the predominant faith.
> 
> A millennium ago, Christendom mounted crusades to ensure that its pilgrims would not lose the right to visit the Holy Land in peace.
> 
> Now, a decade and a half after we launched invasions and occupations of the Muslim world in Afghanistan and then Iraq to bring the blessings of democracy, the people there who profess that Christian faith are being persecuted as horribly as they were under the Romans in Nero’s time.
> 
> Where are the gains for religious freedom and human rights to justify all the bombings, invasions and wars we have conducted in the lands from Libya to Pakistan — to justify the losses we have endured and the death and suffering we have inflicted?
> 
> Truth be told, it is in part because of us that Christianity is on its way to being exterminated in its cradle.
> 
> Happy Easter!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Or better yet. Simply ignore these places or fight a completely legit war instead of proxy wars where you arm and fund the same side that has a history of fundamentalism and back-stabbing.
> 
> They're already siding with Saudi Arabia with the ethnic cleansing of the Shia? How many more "mistakes" can America make before it's no longer a "mistake"?


I can see why they fell into the trap

most conflicts during the Cold War were government vs government

both sides were organized 

you then go to Afghanistan thinking it will be the same way and you can fund Pakistan the same way you did to Thailand and Taiwan to support your allies in the region and the man you give the cash to creates religious schools with the money and spread his personal ideology 

After the previous 40 year you think you know it all and then you find that the general you funded is not like the others and pushing an ideology that he intends to spread

4d Chess

Its like Chinese did with Pol Pot, you think you are funding a government and instead are funding a cult of personality


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Its like Chinese did with Pol Pot, you think you are funding a government and instead are funding a cult of personality


Don't blame just Zia on this lol. You and I both are fully aware that the root of the problem is the religion itself here which is why when they attempted the same in Iraq, the same thing happened. Then they attempted it in Syria and the same thing happened. 

Yah, as long as it involves a Muslim country, it will ALWAYS result in the same reprisal of more terrorist groups. I won't say creation, because they're already there. You destabalize people who keep them under control and you give them the opportunity to rise to power. You need to let the existing governments there take care of their own terrorist problem like Jordan did, like Indonesia does, like Malaysia did and like Pakistan is now finally doing.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Don't blame just Zia on this lol. You and I both are fully aware that the root of the problem is the religion itself here which is why when they attempted the same in Iraq, the same thing happened. Then they attempted it in Syria and the same thing happened.
> 
> Yah, as long as it involves a Muslim country, it will ALWAYS result in the same reprisal of more terrorist groups. I won't say creation, because they're already there. You destabalize people who keep them under control and you give them the opportunity to rise to power. You need to let the existing governments there take care of their own terrorist problem like Jordan did, like Indonesia does, like Malaysia did and like Pakistan is now finally doing.


I was just comparing them in the way that you fund a guy who's idea of ideology and religion is "KILL EVERYONE!!!!!!!!" 

Bo one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Liberals yesterday: Trump is Putin's puppet!

Liberals today: Why isn't Trump Putin's puppet?

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Liberals yesterday: Trump is Putin's puppet!
> 
> Liberals today: Why isn't Trump Putin's puppet?
> 
> - Vic


What are you talking about, libs still know Trump is Putin's puppet.

Like I said that whole bombing was just for show to misdirect so Trump can claim see im not his puppet. The US told Russia they were doing the strike. If Trump was not his puppet he would not have told Russia before bombing Syria.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You're starting to sound like the reverse Alex Jones on this whole Russian puppet thing.


But aren't they the best to just listen to? The hypocrisy that comes from them is hilarious, you can't call them out on something even with proof but they can call people out with no proof. You'd think the bombing of an ISIS base(or whatever its called) in Syria would indicate that maybe Trump is not in his pocket but nope, they just double and triple down on it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> But aren't they the best to just listen to? The hypocrisy that comes from them is hilarious, you can't call them out on something even with proof but they can call people out with no proof. You'd think the bombing of an ISIS base(or whatever its called) in Syria would indicate that maybe Trump is not in his pocket but nope, they just double and triple down on it.


I have already given evidence bur you keep ignoring it. 

Look at all the people on Trump's team or got fired because of their ties to Russia and like I said before how a random Trump sever in the middle of no where was pinned by a Russian bank thousands fo times.

Oh yeah there is no evidence. You really need to open your eyes and look at the evidence

And I already told you why that bombing does not show how Trump isn't in Putin's pocket. He told Russia they were going to do it.

That just shows Trump is in their pocket. But keep ignoring all the evidence.

There is also this

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868











































































Bur sure keep ignoring all the evidence and pretend its not there


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have already given evidence bur you keep ignoring it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And there is this that came out today

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...oborative-evidence-of-collusion-a7683386.html

Concrete evidence of collusion between Trump team and Russia' handed to official investigation
New evidence comes as sources reveal British spy agency GCHQ played pivotal role in uncovering interactions between US President and Russian operatives

he official investigation into relations between Donald Trump and Russia now has "specific, concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion", it has been reported.

New evidence proves discussions took place “between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material,” a source allegedly told the Guardian.

The developments come as it has emerged that Britain’s spy agencies were among the first to alert their American counterparts to contact between members of Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives.

READ MORE
What Trump said about war in Afghanistan before dropping a bomb
Protesters arrested after storming Trump Tower
Don't believe what Trump says about his relations with Russia
British and other European intelligence agencies first intercepted suspicious “interactions” between people associated with the US President and Russian officials in 2015 as part of routine surveillance of Russia, intelligence sources have confirmed to a number of different publications.

Spy agencies, including GCHQ, were not deliberately targeting members of the Trump team but rather recorded communications through “incidental collection,” CNN reports.

This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information under the "Five Eyes“ agreement, which calls for open sharing of certain types of information among member nations the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern in communications between the Republican's inner circle and Russian operatives. For six months, until summer 2016, these interactions were repeatedly flagged to intelligence officials in the US, who sources have said were slow to act.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” a source told the Guardian. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

GCHQ's involvement in the investigation is controversial, with Mr Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, having previously accused the "British spying agency" of bugging Trump Tower on behalf of Barack Obama. Mr Spicer cited an unsubstantiated report on Fox News, from which the television station later distanced itself. 

At the time GCHQ diverged from its usual policy of refraining from commenting to the media, describing the allegations as "nonsense". 

World news in pictures
38
show all
“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored,” a spokesperson for the agency said.

But both US and UK intelligence sources now acknowledge that GCHQ played an early and important role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.

One source told the Guardian the British eavesdropping agency was the “principal whistleblower”.

A GCHQ spokesperson declined to comment on the revelations, saying: “It is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters”.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


>


typical, just ignore the facts and post a stupid meme.

You just got shown tons of evidence, something you claimed there was none of and that is all you can post .


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> typical, just ignore the facts and post a stupid meme.
> 
> You just got shown tons of evidence, something you claimed there was none of and that is all you can post .


I've come to the conclusion that there's no point in discussing anything with you. You read what you want, you make things up about what people say and you demand people agree with you or you throw a hissy fit and resort to SJW tropes . I simply do not care, it's hilarious watching you lose your shit :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I've come to the conclusion that there's no point in discussing anything with you. You read what you want, you make things up about what people say and you demand people agree with you or you throw a hissy fit and resort to SJW tropes . I simply do not care, it's hilarious watching you lose your shit :lol


There is no point because all you do is lie and claim you are never shown evidence then when you it, you just post meme to deflect and not even speak to the evidence and pretend it was never given.

You are the one throwing a hissy fit here, I gave you clear evidence and you are the one who posted the meme. 

The only person here losing their shit is you because you cant refute the evidence I showed


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Liberals yesterday: Trump is Putin's puppet!
> 
> Liberals today: Why isn't Trump Putin's puppet?
> 
> - Vic


To be fair, modern libs are a bunch of massive fucking retards. So there's that. Asking them to say anything intelligent is like asking a creationist to explain how evolution works.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I visited a Russian porn site therefore I'm a member of the KGB. 

That's the criteria for BM's evidence at this point.

That's all what those graphics show as evidence. It's literally illuminati shit :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no point because all you do is lie and claim you are never shown evidence then when you it, you just post meme to deflect and not even speak to the evidence and pretend it was never given.
> 
> You are the one throwing a hissy fit here, I gave you clear evidence and you are the one who posted the meme.
> 
> The only person here losing their shit is you because you cant refute the evidence I showed


:lol You don't even know the meaning behind "losing your shit" . You're so triggered it's hilarious,you've even resorted to playing ghost like a petulant child :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I visited a Russian porn site therefore I'm a member of the KGB.
> 
> That's the criteria for BM's evidence at this point.


Way to deflect when that is not what the evidence shows. But keep deflecting.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Let's take just one example shall we

Trump's daughter is friends with a friend of an oligarch who is a friend of Putin :lmao

Kinda reminds me of this shit:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Let's take just one example shall we
> 
> Trump's daughter is friends with a friend of an oligarch who is a friend of Putin :lmao


But of course ignore the ones like Flynn who had to step down because of his connections with Russia


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> :lol You don't even know the meaning behind "losing your shit" . You're so triggered it's hilarious,you've even resorted to playing ghost like a petulant child :lol


I get it you are not smart enough to refute the evidence so you just play childish games with memes.

Its cool dude.

Go to the kiddie pool if you cant swim with the adults. Dont forget your floaties

I know now to not even bother with you.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

let's calm down and be thankful no one has been nuked since WWII.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> let's calm down and be thankful no one has been nuked since WWII.


Trump may change that.

If anyone is going to start WWIII its going to be him. And the fucked up thing is, it could be over Tweets between Trump and N. Korea.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

that should be how we go out to be fair. so obsessed with Twitter bullshit we literally kill ourselves.

there will be 13 reasons why too.


----------



## IDidPaige

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have already given evidence bur you keep ignoring it.
> 
> Look at all the people on Trump's team or got fired because of their ties to Russia and like I said before how a random Trump sever in the middle of no where was pinned by a Russian bank thousands fo times.
> 
> Oh yeah there is no evidence. You really need to open your eyes and look at the evidence
> 
> And I already told you why that bombing does not show how Trump isn't in Putin's pocket. He told Russia they were going to do it.
> 
> That just shows Trump is in their pocket. But keep ignoring all the evidence.
> 
> There is also this
> 
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bur sure keep ignoring all the evidence and pretend its not there


Mods: Can we please delete conspiracy theory nonsense like the above? I get diversity of opinion being accepted, but when we have posters stooping to the level of fake news conspiracy theories, the whole forum goes down several levels.

Thanks.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> You mean the intricate network of tunnels that the US built and let terrorists occupy?
> 
> Yup. A remnant of Operation Cyclone. EVERYTHING in that part of the world right now goes back to Operation Cyclone and the billions americans spent on mujahideen (many of which formed the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, got recruited by Al-Qaeda and then ISIS). They are now repeating the exact same thing with the Syrian "rebels" creating another army of religious mujahideen which are already becoming a major source of man power to the Middle-Eastern ISIS and have changed nothing in their methods of continuing to create the monster they fight.
> 
> So, while I understand that SteveFox has his rationale for friendly fire deaths, my question still remains.
> 
> What in the FUCK are these buffoons doing and have been doing for nearly 40 fucking years.


I won't even defend the continual stupidity of arming groups in the ME, because every single time they do that those groups somehow ending up being enemies of America. It's beyond stupid. That being said, if ISIS is using the tunnels, and it's making it harder to eradicate them in that area, then it's a good idea to go ahead and blow them up. I certainly don't want America choosing not to act because they had them built. If they've been taken over by the enemy then they gotta go.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But of course ignore the ones like Flynn who had to step down because of his connections with Russia


Fake news 


Flynn was dismissed because he lied to Pence. You cannot prove unequivocally that this is false.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Fake news
> 
> 
> Flynn was dismissed because he lied to Pence. You cannot prove unequivocally that this is false.


Flynn has ties to Russia


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

TBH Trump had/has bush leaguers(no pun intended) in his staff, especially for PR. Incompetent morons who have made him look bad. From Flynn and Conway(is she still on board?) to now Bannon, Kuschner, Reince, Spicer, etc. Get 'em out and hire folks who know what they're doing even if the "alt-right" don't like them. I don't care if he doesn't like echo chambers; if they help you get your agendas accomplished then go for it FFS. Stephen Miller appears to have his head on straight, for now anyways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Marv95 said:


> TBH Trump had/has bush leaguers(no pun intended) in his staff, especially for PR. Incompetent morons who have made him look bad. From Flynn and Conway(is she still on board?) to now Bannon, Kuschner, Reince, Spicer, etc. Get 'em out and hire folks who know what they're doing even if the "alt-right" don't like them. I don't care if he doesn't like echo chambers; if they help you get your agendas accomplished then go for it FFS. Stephen Miller appears to have his head on straight, for now anyways.


Trump is incompetent himself of course he hires incompetent people. What would you expect?

Trump has been a disaster.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Does Fedor really have a tangible business association with Donald Trump beyond Trump being a fan? I mean, everyone - even Americans - were fans of Fedor in his prime.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Flynn has ties to Russia


Define "ties".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Define "ties".


He had undisclosed meetings with the russian ambassador back December to name one


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He had undisclosed meetings with the russian ambassador back December to name one


Now when you say "undisclosed meetings", do you know what took place in these meetings?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Now when you say "undisclosed meetings", do you know what took place in these meetings?


Its said to have been about the sanctions the US has on Russia. Not to mention Flynn lied about having the meetings.

So how is this not a Flynn tie to Russia? Are you going to pretend that its not?

Why would he lie about having them?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its said to have been about the sanctions the US has on Russia. Not to mention Flynn lied about having the meetings.
> 
> So how is this not a Flynn tie to Russia? Are you going to pretend that its not?
> 
> Why would he lie about having them?


What do you mean by "It's said to have been about sanctions the US has on Russia"? They either did or they didn't. Do you have proof that they discussed that?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'm still trying to understand how you're so positive something nefarious happened. The best way to do that is to break it down, so, please be a little more patient.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> What do you mean by "It's said to have been about sanctions the US has on Russia"? They either did or they didn't. Do you have proof that they discussed that?
> 
> Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'm still trying to understand how you're so positive something nefarious happened. The best way to do that is to break it down, so, please be a little more patient.


If there was nothing "nefarious " going on why would he lie about it and hide the fact he had the meetings?

The reason I used the wording its been said because officals say that is what was dicussed but Flynn said it was not. But can you believe him at this point since he liked about having the meetings

Here is an article about it.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.157a0cc6b147


National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say


National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Trump's Transition: Who is Michael Flynn? Embed Share Play Video1:58
President-elect Donald Trump named retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn his national security adviser on Nov. 18, but Flynn has a history of making incendiary and Islamophobic statements that have drawn criticism from his military peers. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

[FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit]

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said .Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.

Officials also cited political sensitivities. Prominent Americans in and out of government are so frequently in communication with foreign officials that singling out one individual — particularly one poised for a top White House job — would invite charges of political persecution.

Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.

“As a former diplomat and U.S. government official, one needs to be able to have contact with foreigners to do one’s job,” McFaul said. McFaul, a Russia scholar, said he was careful never to signal pending policy changes before Obama took office.

On Wednesday, Flynn said that he first met Kislyak in 2013 when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow. Kislyak helped coordinate that trip, Flynn said.

Flynn said that he spoke to Kislyak on a range of subjects in late December, including arranging a call between Russian President Vladi.mir Putin and Trump after the inauguration and expressing his condolences after Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was assassinated. “I called to say I couldn’t believe the murder of their ambassador,” Flynn said. Asked whether there was any mention of sanctions in his communications with Kislyak, Flynn said, “No.”

Kislyak characterized his conversations with Flynn as benign during a brief interview at a conference this month. “It’s something all diplomats do,” he said.

Kislyak said that he had been in contact with Flynn since before the election, but declined to answer questions about the subjects they discussed. Kislyak is known for his assiduous cultivation of high-level officials in Washington and was seated in the front row of then-GOP candidate Trump’s first major foreign policy speech in April of last year. The ambassador would not discuss the origin of his relationship with Flynn.

In his CBS interview, Pence said that Flynn had “been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security adviser should do.”

Official concern about Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak was heightened when Putin declared on Dec. 30 that Moscow would not retaliate after the Obama administration announced a day earlier the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian spies and the forced closure of Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York.

Instead, Putin said he would focus on “the restoration of .Russia-United States relations” after Obama left office, and put off considering any retaliatory measures until Moscow had a chance to evaluate Trump’s policies.

Trump responded with effusive praise for Putin. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a posting to his Twitter account. “I always knew he was very smart.”

Putin’s reaction cut against a long practice of reciprocation on diplomatic expulsions, and came after his foreign minister had vowed that there would be reprisals against the United States.

Putin’s muted response — which took White House officials by surprise — raised some officials’ suspicions that Moscow may have been promised a reprieve, and triggered a search by U.S. spy agencies for clues.

“Something happened in those 24 hours” between Obama’s announcement and Putin’s response, a former senior U.S. official said. Officials began poring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and diplomatic cables, and saw evidence that Flynn and Kislyak had communicated by text and telephone around the time of the announcement.

Trump transition officials acknowledged those contacts weeks later after they were reported in The Washington Post but denied that sanctions were discussed. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said Jan. 13 that Flynn had “reached out to” the Russian ambassador on Christmas Day to extend holiday greetings. On Dec. 28, as word of the Obama sanctions spread, Kislyak sent a message to Flynn requesting a call. “Flynn took that call,” Spicer said, adding that it “centered on the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and [Trump] after the election.”

Other officials were categorical. “I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever,” a senior transition official told The Post at the time. When Pence faced questions on television that weekend, he said “those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”

Current and former U.S. officials said that assertion was not true.

Like Trump, Flynn has shown an affinity for Russia that is at odds with the views of most of his military and intelligence peers. Flynn raised eyebrows in 2015 when he appeared in photographs seated next to Putin at a lavish party in Moscow for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network.

In an earlier interview with The Post, Flynn acknowledged that he had been paid through his speakers bureau to give a speech at the event and defended his attendance by saying he saw no distinction between RT and U.S. news channels, including CNN.

[Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin and why Russia Today is just like CNN]

A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, Flynn served multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — tours in which he held a series of high-level intelligence assignments working with U.S. Special Operations forces hunting al-Qaeda operatives and Islamist militants.

Former colleagues said that narrow focus led Flynn to see the threat posed by Islamist groups as overwhelming other security concerns, including Russia’s renewed aggression. Instead, Flynn came to see America’s long-standing adversary as a potential ally against terrorist groups, and himself as being in a unique position to forge closer ties after traveling to Moscow in 2013 while serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Sign up
Flynn has frequently boasted that he was the first DIA director to be invited into the headquarters of Russia’s military intelligence directorate, known as the GRU, although at least one of his predecessors was granted similar access. “Flynn thought he developed some rapport with the GRU chief,” a former senior U.S. military official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies say they have tied the GRU to Russia’s theft of troves of email messages from Democratic Party computer networks and accuse Moscow of then delivering those materials to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, which published them in phases during the campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic rival.

Flynn was pushed out of the DIA job in 2014 amid concerns about his management of the sprawling agency. He became a fierce critic of the Obama administration before joining the Trump campaign last year.

Karen DeYoung, Tom Hamburger, Julie Tate and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> typical, just ignore the facts and post a stupid meme.
> 
> You just got shown tons of evidence, something you claimed there was none of and that is all you can post .


There are no facts you're just ridiculous. Get a life


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Most of you guys won't care but I've managed to detach myself so much from American politics I don't give a fuck anymore. :trump
It's easier to have a good time. Some of you guys should try to zone out for a few days and focus on how your lives haven't changed for the worse. :mj


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> It's easier to have a good time. Some of you guys should try to zone out for a few days and focus on how your lives haven't changed for the worse. :mj


I've already done that. Aside from the Syrian/Afghan bombs, I've kind of zoned out myself from American politics at the moment. Feel much better, actually. :trump3

And guys, keep the baiting out. Or else.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Has this been posted?






Oof. Might as well just say "I don't work for you. You should be on your knees kissing my ass for taking the time out of my busy life to "represent" you pieces of shit."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Most of you guys won't care but I've managed to detach myself so much from American politics I don't give a fuck anymore. :trump
> It's easier to have a good time. Some of you guys should try to zone out for a few days and focus on how your lives haven't changed for the worse. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> There are no facts you're just ridiculous. Get a life


Keep ignoring facts and evidence, its ok. Like Trump said he loves the uneducated and uninformed.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Edited: You know what, no, not gonna even try. im done with that. :justsayin


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You have beautiful jugular veins.


And you have beautiful legs

Also how about answering my questions instead of trying to have a pissing match. I am still waiting for your answers.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you have beautiful legs


Welp, since you quoted it.

Thank you. They're going to fetch a killing on Ebay.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring facts and evidence, its ok. Like Trump said he loves the uneducated and uninformed.


I choose to not be delusional like all of the liberals.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> I choose to not be delusional like all of the liberals.


You choose to put your head in the sand and ignore the facts and evidence which is fine. It just makes you look uninformed. if anyone is delusional its people like you that ignore it.





Beatles123 said:


> Welp, since you quoted it.
> 
> Thank you. They're going to fetch a killing on Ebay.


Last time answer the question instead of trolling. Unless you can't because you just agree with anything that Trump does and cant back up your reasoning for why you support his decisions. 




Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning. 

Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.


You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?

What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition. 

Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.

are you that uninformed you cant answer these simple questions


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You choose to put your head in the sand and ignore the facts and evidence which is fine. It just makes you look uninformed. if anyone is delusional its people like you that ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time answer the question instead of trolling. Unless you can't because you just agree with anything that Trump does and cant back up your reasoning for why you support his decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning.
> 
> Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.
> 
> 
> You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?
> 
> What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.
> 
> are you that uninformed you cant answer these simple questions


How many times do you have to be told?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @RipNTear @Goku 

Scott Adams weighs in on the current state of US-Russian relations and "the North Korea re-framing". 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159526704931/us-and-russian-relationship-at-a-low

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159495094661/the-north-korea-reframe


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk, on the U.S.-Russian relations piece by Scott Adams, I myself have been entertaining almost precisely that same exact possibility. Perhaps it is merely a fantasy engendered by well wishes and hopes. Attempting to better relations with Russia was a consistent piece of Trump's foreign policy platform while running for president, and if he has merely caved in to the caterwauling critics who will nevertheless continue to pine for his removal from office by almost any means necessary, resulting in the Trump administration's newfound detestation of the Assad regime, it is a multi-tiered disappointment. Recall Trump, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, saying that Assad and Putin could have Syria for all he cared. 

Based on the back-and-forth between Sergey Lavrov and Rex Tillerson, however, I am unconvinced that this ostensible turn in Trump administration policy is all for show. Moscow seems irate and the Russians have established the policy post-April 6 that any further attacks by the U.S. on Assad's forces "will not be tolerated." If this is all a method by which to give Trump clearance in bettering relations with Russia, it is a most circuitous route indeed. And who knows? It may even have started that way but with all of the neocons and neolibs pining for the extension of the neocon _eminence grise_ Victoria Nuland-spearheaded Cold War II with Russia ensconced within the U.S.'s national security bureaucracy--whatever his faults Mike Flynn seemed eager to at least attempt to seek steady, gradual improvement in U.S.-Russian relations--such a shell game could and probably would become hijacked early on, potentially to perilous results. 

Assad is a critical ally for Moscow and Syria provides the Russians with a naval base in the Mediterranean. The Russians are coy when they want to be--"We're not married to Assad..."--but they continually underscore how important Assad is in the scheme of Russia's geopolitical concerns. 

Of course, the U.S. ought to back off from Assad for reasons unrelated to Russia in any event.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @RipNTear @Goku
> 
> Scott Adams weighs in on the current state of US-Russian relations and "the North Korea re-framing".
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159526704931/us-and-russian-relationship-at-a-low
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159495094661/the-north-korea-reframe





DesolationRow said:


> @CamillePunk, on the U.S.-Russian relations piece by Scott Adams, I myself have been entertaining almost precisely that same exact possibility. Perhaps it is merely a fantasy engendered by well wishes and hopes. Attempting to better relations with Russia was a consistent piece of Trump's foreign policy platform while running for president, and if he has merely caved in to the caterwauling critics who will nevertheless continue to pine for his removal from office by almost any means necessary, resulting in the Trump administration's newfound detestation of the Assad regime, it is a multi-tiered disappointment. Recall Trump, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, saying that Assad and Putin could have Syria for all he cared.
> 
> Based on the back-and-forth between Sergey Lavrov and Rex Tillerson, however, I am unconvinced that this ostensible turn in Trump administration policy is all for show. Moscow seems irate and the Russians have established the policy post-April 6 that any further attacks by the U.S. on Assad's forces "will not be tolerated." If this is all a method by which to give Trump clearance in bettering relations with Russia, it is a most circuitous route indeed. And who knows? It may even have started that way but with all of the neocons and neolibs pining for the extension of the neocon _eminence grise_ Victoria Nuland-spearheaded Cold War II with Russia ensconced within the U.S.'s national security bureaucracy--whatever his faults Mike Flynn seemed eager to at least attempt to seek steady, gradual improvement in U.S.-Russian relations--such a shell game could and probably would become hijacked early on, potentially to perilous results.
> 
> Assad is a critical ally for Moscow and Syria provides the Russians with a naval base in the Mediterranean. The Russians are coy when they want to be--"We're not married to Assad..."--but they continually underscore how important Assad is in the scheme of Russia's geopolitical concerns.
> 
> Of course, the U.S. ought to back off from Assad for reasons unrelated to Russia in any event.


Trump shattered the concept of being Russia's puppet (which was never true to start with) with the missile attack on Syria. Trump is not under control of the so-called deep state/military-industrial complex...he knows exactly what he's doing and understands what is going on. He clearly wants better relations with Russia and still does, but he is sending the message that Russia needs to do its share in taking care of the situation in Syria. Ditto with North Korea, he has sent the message to China to get little brother back on his Ritalin. 

Part of our involvement in both situations boils down to one thing. As much as we want to sit back and let the world figure the shit out for themselves, part of getting the United States back on strong footing means hoping to find resolution for these situations that have threatened to destabilize the world. The problem is now, the extreme incompetence of the Obama administration exacerbated what was originally a no-win situation and has now made it even worse. It was Obama's cut-and-run in Iraq that led to the strengthening of ISIS. Meanwhile, it was also Obama's willingness to provide food and supplies to North Korea everytime their leadership flexed its muscles that emboldened Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un to continue its nuclear program and the occasional missile fired off into the sea. What was originally a bad Catch-22 has now grown exponentially worse. As many of you want for us to sit on the sidelines and just let them sort it out (contrary to what many might think I am among the group), I think Trump realizes that may no longer be an option at this time. He doesn't want to go this direction, he still wants to go with the mantra of "America First" (especially when he said we're not going to get into a ground war in Syria), but he also knows MAGA is easier to obtain when the world around us isn't burning. 

Europe and the Middle East have had to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Syrian civil war. As a result, you have nations in Europe that are buckling under the weight of these people coming in to the point we have more and more screaming outright, "We don't want these people here at all! Send them away!" Problem is, the conflict isn't ending anytime soon. Putin and Assad do just the bare minimum to combat ISIS, but the real brunt of attacks are on the various rebel groups that want Assad ousted from power. While Russian and Syrian firepower is mainly targetted on them, ISIS and Hezbollah runs around in another part of the country wreaking havoc. By subtly pushing the instability along, Russia positions itself as a power broker for the ME while keeping everyone busy fighting each other. So, while Putin gives lip-service to helping, more and more people are looking for refuge around the world. The end result is more and more terror attacks in Europe and the Middle East. 

North Korea, to me, is a much scarier situation. For years, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama gave North Korea whatever it wanted just so that it would hopefully play nice. The lions share of the money went to the military to help its funding for their nuclear program. The food ends up going to the military and the high-ranking officials and their families. Meanwhile, starvation is a constant for the people. We have watched North Korea develop a nuclear program as a result and while some missile launches haven't gone well, the time is coming when that will no longer be true. I don't foresee it becoming like a real-life playing out of "Homefront" the video game, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that one day Kim Jong-Un would threaten to nuke Tokyo or Seoul and possibly the West Coast of the US and have the proven capability to do it. This makes the Asian economy that much more unstable and makes everyone there nervous. 

Again, I know most of you would rather sit on the sidelines. Trump wants to as well. However, after reading the briefings and seeing what shape the world is in now, he has come to the realization that we need to once again flex our muscle to show the world that we mean business and MAGA involves confronting and potentially neutralizing threats to our security and allies. Obama didn't do shit, he retreated from the world stage and blamed America for all the fault in the world. We have not always done things right, but not every little thing is our fault. As a country, we need to get over that mindset. People still look to us around the world. 

Trust me, I'm very concerned on where we're heading with all of this. Ted Cruz said that toppling Assad is not really feasible because who comes after him might be much worse.  North Korea does have the military firepower to lash out at South Korea and possibly Japan were we to take some type of military action against them. There are no easy solutions on either. However, wishing everything away and putting our heads in the sand ain't working. It sure as hell didn't work for the last 8 years. I'd rather deal with these situations now while there is still a good chance at a favorable resolution as far as we're concerned rather than ignore it to the point it finally blows up in our face and we are forced to lash out because there is no other alternative. 

President Trump clearly knows what he's doing on this...while I have been very critical of him I think he fully understands the ramifications and is willing to do what is right to keep us all safe. That has been missing from the US since 9/11, really. The posts here about terrorism, refugees, etc...plays this out where many of us don't feel safe. Trump feels he's doing the right thing and in his mind he will do the right thing in this case regardless of public opinion. To me, fighting and violence are always a last resort, but we have the means to take care of things now before it becomes the only option. Regrettably, we have to have it as an option and keep that arrow in the quiver. 

So, everyone take a breath and relax. I think if Trump continues to show this type of leadership at home and abroad, he might be a leader I can fully get behind. Right now, my main concern is keeping his progressive daughter and husband out of his realm of advisement but otherwise I think he is starting to get it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump shattered the concept of being Russia's puppet (which was never true to start with) with the missile attack on Syria. Trump is not under control of the so-called deep state/military-industrial complex...he knows exactly what he's doing and understands what is going on. He clearly wants better relations with Russia and still does, but he is sending the message that Russia needs to do its share in taking care of the situation in Syria. Ditto with North Korea, he has sent the message to China to get little brother back on his Ritalin.
> 
> Part of our involvement in both situations boils down to one thing. As much as we want to sit back and let the world figure the shit out for themselves, part of getting the United States back on strong footing means hoping to find resolution for these situations that have threatened to destabilize the world. The problem is now, the extreme incompetence of the Obama administration exacerbated what was originally a no-win situation and has now made it even worse. It was Obama's cut-and-run in Iraq that led to the strengthening of ISIS. Meanwhile, it was also Obama's willingness to provide food and supplies to North Korea everytime their leadership flexed its muscles that emboldened Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un to continue its nuclear program and the occasional missile fired off into the sea. What was originally a bad Catch-22 has now grown exponentially worse. As many of you want for us to sit on the sidelines and just let them sort it out (contrary to what many might think I am among the group), I think Trump realizes that may no longer be an option at this time. He doesn't want to go this direction, he still wants to go with the mantra of "America First" (especially when he said we're not going to get into a ground war in Syria), but he also knows MAGA is easier to obtain when the world around us isn't burning.
> 
> Europe and the Middle East have had to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Syrian civil war. As a result, you have nations in Europe that are buckling under the weight of these people coming in to the point we have more and more screaming outright, "We don't want these people here at all! Send them away!" Problem is, the conflict isn't ending anytime soon. Putin and Assad do just the bare minimum to combat ISIS, but the real brunt of attacks are on the various rebel groups that want Assad ousted from power. While Russian and Syrian firepower is mainly targetted on them, ISIS and Hezbollah runs around in another part of the country wreaking havoc. By subtly pushing the instability along, Russia positions itself as a power broker for the ME while keeping everyone busy fighting each other. So, while Putin gives lip-service to helping, more and more people are looking for refuge around the world. The end result is more and more terror attacks in Europe and the Middle East.
> 
> North Korea, to me, is a much scarier situation. For years, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama gave North Korea whatever it wanted just so that it would hopefully play nice. The lions share of the money went to the military to help its funding for their nuclear program. The food ends up going to the military and the high-ranking officials and their families. Meanwhile, starvation is a constant for the people. We have watched North Korea develop a nuclear program as a result and while some missile launches haven't gone well, the time is coming when that will no longer be true. I don't foresee it becoming like a real-life playing out of "Homefront" the video game, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that one day Kim Jong-Un would threaten to nuke Tokyo or Seoul and possibly the West Coast of the US and have the proven capability to do it. This makes the Asian economy that much more unstable and makes everyone there nervous.
> 
> Again, I know most of you would rather sit on the sidelines. Trump wants to as well. However, after reading the briefings and seeing what shape the world is in now, he has come to the realization that we need to once again flex our muscle to show the world that we mean business and MAGA involves confronting and potentially neutralizing threats to our security and allies. Obama didn't do shit, he retreated from the world stage and blamed America for all the fault in the world. We have not always done things right, but not every little thing is our fault. As a country, we need to get over that mindset. People still look to us around the world.
> 
> Trust me, I'm very concerned on where we're heading with all of this. Ted Cruz said that toppling Assad is not really feasible because who comes after him might be much worse. North Korea does have the military firepower to lash out at South Korea and possibly Japan were we to take some type of military action against them. There are no easy solutions on either. However, wishing everything away and putting our heads in the sand ain't working. It sure as hell didn't work for the last 8 years. I'd rather deal with these situations now while there is still a good chance at a favorable resolution as far as we're concerned rather than ignore it to the point it finally blows up in our face and we are forced to lash out because there is no other alternative.
> 
> President Trump clearly knows what he's doing on this...while I have been very critical of him I think he fully understands the ramifications and is willing to do what is right to keep us all safe. That has been missing from the US since 9/11, really. The posts here about terrorism, refugees, etc...plays this out where many of us don't feel safe. Trump feels he's doing the right thing and in his mind he will do the right thing in this case regardless of public opinion. To me, fighting and violence are always a last resort, but we have the means to take care of things now before it becomes the only option. Regrettably, we have to have it as an option and keep that arrow in the quiver.
> 
> So, everyone take a breath and relax. I think if Trump continues to show this type of leadership at home and abroad, he might be a leader I can fully get behind. Right now, my main concern is keeping his progressive daughter and husband out of his realm of advisement but otherwise I think he is starting to get it.


YOUR FACE TURN IS ALMOST COMPLETE, MANG! roud


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> YOUR FACE TURN IS ALMOST COMPLETE, MANG! roud


Not yet...his daughter might still bring about the progressive streak that is lurking under the surface. I'd tap Ivanka all day long and into the night but she needs to be kept away from him as an advisor.

However I do appreciate the fact he realizes on the international stage that the status quo of the last eight years ain't worked and WE are hitting the reset button this time. Say what you want about not getting entangled in foreign affairs, what we have done or not done has solved nothing and the powers that be aren't doing squat either.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Not yet...his daughter might still bring about the progressive streak that is lurking under the surface. I'd tap Ivanka all day long and into the night but she needs to be kept away from him as an advisor.


Ivanka only has as much power as Trump is willing to relinquish and I hate to sound like an old misogynist, but when a man's own position and stances are ideologically weak, only then does he relinquish that much power to someone else's politics - even if it's their own child. The fact that his entire policy change was caused by his child's tantrum makes me question the strength of his anti-interventionist attitude. 

The other problem is as I tried to debate earlier that it wasn't just him going back on his words (he's free to change his policy direction and that's a risk we all take when we vote someone in power) but continuing the old and failed strategy of regime change in Syria that is simply the wrong policy direction for America.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Anyways, I think we can all do with some positive press for a change. I have been quietly admiring Melania's development into America's first lady and it's refreshing to see something other than a fucking smear piece on the poor woman. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.8f7887dbf535


> *Melania Trump seemed like a rebellious first lady. She’s turning out to be a retro one.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melania Trump’s first act as first lady suggested she might play the rebel.
> 
> When she announced that she would not move to the White House right away — and instead remained in her New York penthouse with her young son while her husband began rolling out controversial executive orders in Washington — she flouted the most basic of all first lady traditions.
> 
> Now, after weeks of shirking the spotlight, Trump has begun to emerge from her cocoon, taking tentative steps to establish herself in her new role. In her first public events and statements, Trump has hewed surprisingly close to the historical expectations of first ladies.
> 
> Rather than rebellious, she is shaping up to be retro.
> 
> “As people get to know her, [they will see] she has been so focused on tradition and family and children,” said Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s spokeswoman.
> 
> Earlier this month, Trump released her official portrait, a signal that she would be ramping up her official duties. The portrait echoed in style and aesthetic the official photographs of two of her Republican predecessors. She stood in front of an ornate window in the White House, as did Nancy Reagan, and wore a black blazer and folded her arms as did Laura Bush.
> 
> Two days later, Trump hosted Jordan’s Queen Rania for the most conventional of first lady activities — a tour of an all-girls public charter school that included a stop in a visual arts class. “Beautiful,” Trump said softly, while looking at a painting by one of the students. Last week, she took Peng Liyuan, the wife of the visiting Chinese president, to tour a middle school in West Palm Beach, Fla.
> 
> Her conventional approach is in line with her personality and style, said an associate who has known the family for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity, lacking authorization by the Trumps to speak the press.
> 
> “She is steeped in Eastern European history,” the associate said. “You can’t grow up in her region without being that way, and Mrs. Trump has a high appreciation for the thread of history and its passing from generation to generation, administration to administration and empire to empire.”
> 
> Trump’s ceremonial role as the nation’s hostess will take center stage Monday when she hosts her largest event yet at the White House. The annual Easter Egg Roll, which had grown into a carnivallike celebration of healthy eating and exercise under Michelle Obama, will shrink in the Trump era.
> 
> “This year being our first, we’ve chosen to focus on the historic aspect of the Easter Egg Roll,” Grisham said. She said the first lady was concerned that the event had grown too large — 35,000 attendees last year — creating long waits for some activities.
> 
> The scaled-back event — the White House won’t say how many are expected, but noted that 18,000 souvenir eggs will be given to children — will recall an era when the biggest star in attendance was the Easter Bunny, who first appeared in 1969 when a member of Pat Nixon’s staff wore the furry costume. During the Obama years, the Easter Egg Roll drew performances by Justin Bieber and Idina Menzel, clinics by sports pros and presentations by celebrity chefs.
> 
> This year the only announced performers are little-known bands Bro4 and Martin Family Circus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This pivot away from pop culture is a safe tack for the new first lady, who has been acquainting herself with the way things have historically been done at the White House.
> 
> While she has spent relatively little time in Washington, she has borrowed books from the White House Historical Association’s archives, which describe the antiques and traditions of the executive mansion, said Anita McBride, who served as chief of staff to Laura Bush and sits on the association’s board.
> 
> “She is very interested in past practice and in precedent, and that gives you context for where you can do things your way and you make your mark,” McBride said. “She has a respect and reverence for the White House and its traditions and the opportunities that she has to follow in the footsteps of her predecessors even without residing there.”
> 
> [In New York, searching for the reclusive and elusive Melania Trump]
> 
> Even still, Trump’s moves to follow her predecessors have all been tentative and excruciatingly slow to some onlookers.
> 
> “She is embracing the ceremonial aspects of the role but we have not seen any advocacy,” said Myra Gutin, a professor of communication at Rider University and author who has studied first ladies.
> 
> Trump said during the campaign that she would like to lead an initiative to combat cyberbullying, but has not yet taken any public steps in that direction. She has a small staff in place at the White House, and associates say she is building a rapport with them while moving cautiously to establish herself. She is keen to avoid any big mistakes particularly after the embarrassment she suffered following a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention that she later acknowledged contained lines plagiarized from Michelle Obama.
> 
> “She is going to try to take time to do things right,” Grisham said, explaining the pace of the first lady’s activity. “The fact that it takes time to do it right doesn’t faze her at all.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initially, the first lady relied heavily on her friend and senior adviser Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a fashion industry event planner who helped organize President Trump’s inauguration but had no experience in the White House or in politics. Trump has since added several experienced Republicans to her team, including a chief of staff, social secretary and director of the White House Visitors Office — all key to planning events at the executive mansion.
> 
> As the first lady’s team works to put the Easter Egg Roll together, they are getting to know Trump, who has popped into Washington to host a luncheon celebrating International Women’s Day, held a reception for senators with her husband and helped hand out awards celebrating women at the State Department.
> 
> The public glare still seems challenging for the first lady, who is said to cherish her privacy. At the awards ceremony, Trump read from a teleprompter and seemed uncomfortable behind the microphone, but warmly embraced the awardees, looking visibly relaxed when her speech was over.
> 
> Trump also seemed especially at ease during the visit with Queen Rania, a woman who also had to adjust to life as a high-profile spouse.
> 
> The Jordanian queen, now 46, once described in an interview with Oprah Winfrey the steep learning curve she faced upon her coronation. “You grow into the role,” she said. “You take it by your stride.”
> 
> During their visit to the Excel Academy Charter School in Southeast Washington, the two women had a roundtable with school officials, parents and students. As cameras broadcast their meeting to the world, Queen Rania asked question after question. Trump sat silently at the center of the table, watching her.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Not yet...his daughter might still bring about the progressive streak that is lurking under the surface. I'd tap Ivanka all day long and into the night but she needs to be kept away from him as an advisor.
> 
> However I do appreciate the fact he realizes on the international stage that the status quo of the last eight years ain't worked and WE are hitting the reset button this time. Say what you want about not getting entangled in foreign affairs, what we have done or not done has solved nothing and the powers that be aren't doing squat either.


Ivanka doesn't worry me, it's her wanker placed puppet husband for special interests that concerns me. He just screams of some guy that a bunch of wealthy elites groomed to marry into ultra wealthy/political families so they have their tendrils into everything.

Ivanka seems inexperienced, her hubby seems dangerous and a willing crony to anyone who would give him a little snippet of power.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Ivanka only has as much power as Trump is willing to relinquish and I hate to sound like an old misogynist, but when a man's own position and stances are ideologically weak, only then does he relinquish that much power to someone else's politics - even if it's their own child. The fact that his entire policy change was caused by his child's tantrum makes me question the strength of his anti-interventionist attitude.
> 
> The other problem is as I tried to debate earlier that it wasn't just him going back on his words (he's free to change his policy direction and that's a risk we all take when we vote someone in power) but continuing the old and failed strategy of regime change in Syria that is simply the wrong policy direction for America.


The status quo has been everyone burying their heads in the sand and wishing everything away. It's not working. Plus having him say one thing and willingly letting Haley and Tillerson say something else is par for the course. He does not want regime change in Syria. However, unlike our previous POTUS, Trump is willing to give the impression all options are on the table. He understands what is at stake and is willing to let the military do its job. Part of negotiations is putting all options on the table, if you take some options off before you start there is no point.  

Going down the path we have of just hoping and praying hasn't worked. Let's give him a chance to do this and see what happens.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Let us not forget that bannon is still on staff and he has supposedly held Cuckner in check as much as he could so far. That might come at the cost of throwing him a bone sometimes.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump is not under control of the so-called deep state/military-industrial complex...he knows exactly what he's doing and understands what is going on.





BruiserKC said:


> I do appreciate the fact he realizes on the international stage that the status quo of the last eight years ain't worked and WE are hitting the reset button this time. Say what you want about not getting entangled in foreign affairs, what we have done or not done has solved nothing and the powers that be aren't doing squat either.


Honestly, man. Sometimes I wonder what reality you're living in because it sure ain't this one.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Honestly, man. Sometimes I wonder what reality you're living in because it sure ain't this one.


This is because of our idealogical barrier tater. You as a leftist won't like Trump. :shrug we'll always be at war.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump is willing to give the impression all options are on the table. He understands what is at stake and is willing to let the military do its job. Part of negotiations is putting all options on the table, if you take some options off before you start there is no point.
> 
> Going down the path we have of just hoping and praying hasn't worked. Let's give him a chance to do this and see what happens.


Actually, the path of ignoring does work. Malaysia had a burgeoning terrorist problem recently (as did almost all muslim countries at the same time). The locals took care of their own and people in America didn't even realize it was happening. Indonesia has been dealing with their ideological terrorists for decades on their own. Pakistan took care of their own after their "red line" was finally crossed (a massive attack on military families where Taliban hopped a school wall and butchered hundreds of children). Jordan was infilterated by the PLO and Hamas (I believe - too lazy to confirm) a few decades ago and they fought an internal war to end the terrorist threat. 

Syria was a secular state before American intervention. They need to leave it the fuck alone and not add to the casualties that are going to happen anyways. America has basically created a huge mess there that may not have happened. Assad is a lesser evil than ISIS. America is the unfortunate villain in the Syrian conflict (as the path to evil can sometimes be paved with good intentions) and it needs to get out. Assad will definitely not get in bed with ISIS because they pose the same threat to him as America does. Look at it from his perspective. ISIS wants to dethrone him as much as America does and what does that mean? That means that America and ISIS have become unfortunate allies having different intentions, but a common goal. 

I hope that Trump is aware of this --- if he's not, then america's interference represents as great a threat to the future of the region and also Europe as their proclaimed enemies. 

America needs to get out of Syria. Let them deal with ISIS however they want. Let Russia and Syria forge a temporary alliance. There's no other option at this point so I don't see the idea that "all options are on the table" means anything because there is only one right option at this point and that is non-intervention.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> This is because of our idealogical barrier tater. You as a leftist won't like Trump. :shrug we'll always be at war.


I know I can always count on you for a nonsensical reply. (Y)

Left/right has nothing to do with the absurdity of claiming Trump is not in the pocket of the MIC. I may be a far left libertarian but I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul and he'll tell you the exact same thing from his far right libertarian position.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> President Trump is raising money toward a bid for a second term earlier than any incumbent president in recent history, pulling in tens of millions of dollars in the months after his election and through his inauguration.
> Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday showed that Mr. Trump’s campaign brought in $7.1 million during the first three months of 2017, on top of over $23 million raised with the Republican Party. By contrast, President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee brought in a total of about $15 million during the first three months of his first term in 2009.
> A vast majority of Mr. Trump’s donors gave small amounts, and relatively little came in large checks from wealthy Republican benefactors. That suggests that Mr. Trump is relying heavily on the grass-roots donors who provided much of the cash — aside from his own fortune — he used for his campaign.
> Mr. Trump’s campaign committee spent $6.3 million from January through March, including $1.2 million on merchandise and “Make America Great Again” hats, sales of which helped his fund-raising.
> As it did during the presidential race, Mr. Trump’s campaign also spent significantly on Trump properties. Trump Tower in Manhattan, where the campaign is based, collected $300,000 in rent. At least another $25,000 went to other properties, including Mr. Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas and a golf course he owns in Florida. Such transactions are legal, and required to ensure he pays fair market rate for campaign costs.
> Get the Morning Briefing by Email
> What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
> 
> Enter your email address
> Sign Up
> 
> Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
> Recaptcha requires verification
> I'm not a robot
> reCAPTCHA
> Privacy - Terms
> SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
> The campaign disbursed tens of thousands of dollars to a firm owned by Mr. Trump’s chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon. The bill was for “administrative assistant/secretarial” services.
> Meredith McGehee, the policy chief at the government reform policy group Issue One, said that Mr. Trump’s early fund-raising showed there were few downsides to seeking donations so early in his presidency. Mr. Trump lacks the campaign infrastructure of past presidents and needs to build a foundation of support ahead of an expected fund-raising push by Democrats, she said.
> “They know the Democrats are already raising a lot of money by people who may not have liked Hillary or were not engaged, but have become engaged because of their reaction to the president,” Ms. McGehee said.
> Ms. McGehee also noted that Mr. Trump had more control over rallies run by his re-election campaign, as they allow him to make sure crowds are full of his supporters. The president held his first campaign rally, in an airplane hangar in Florida, about four weeks after taking office.
> Mr. Trump filed for the 2020 race the day of his inauguration. Filing quickly allowed him to continue to raise money and tap the small donors whose enthusiasm was critical to his campaign, with a heavy dose of email blasts and requests for help against the proverbial Washington establishment.
> The Trump campaign has been hawking the hats and other collectibles to members of its email list, at campaign events and at Trump Tower, where the iconic red version of his hat was sold out on Friday.
> “It’s the same story of a president who has chosen not to disentangle himself from his business interests,” Ms. McGehee said.


https://archive.fo/vXEqK#selection-2087.0-2353.125


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Actually, the path of ignoring does work. Malaysia had a burgeoning terrorist problem recently (as did almost all muslim countries at the same time). The locals took care of their own and people in America didn't even realize it was happening. Indonesia has been dealing with their ideological terrorists for decades on their own. Pakistan took care of their own after their "red line" was finally crossed (a massive attack on military families where Taliban hopped a school wall and butchered hundreds of children). Jordan was infilterated by the PLO and Hamas (I believe - too lazy to confirm) a few decades ago and they fought an internal war to end the terrorist threat.
> 
> Syria was a secular state before American intervention. They need to leave it the fuck alone and not add to the casualties that are going to happen anyways. America has basically created a huge mess there that may not have happened. Assad is a lesser evil than ISIS. America is the unfortunate villain in the Syrian conflict (as the path to evil can sometimes be paved with good intentions) and it needs to get out. Assad will definitely not get in bed with ISIS because they pose the same threat to him as America does. Look at it from his perspective. ISIS wants to dethrone him as much as America does and what does that mean? That means that America and ISIS have become unfortunate allies having different intentions, but a common goal.
> 
> I hope that Trump is aware of this --- if he's not, then america's interference represents as great a threat to the future of the region and also Europe as their proclaimed enemies.
> 
> America needs to get out of Syria. Let them deal with ISIS however they want. Let Russia and Syria forge a temporary alliance. There's no other option at this point so I don't see the idea that "all options are on the table" means anything because there is only one right option at this point and that is non-intervention.


I look at your post and I see Iraq and what happened with the removal of Saddam. He and his sons were butchers, but the region was relatively stable.

It doesn't seem like there is a good solution, just bad ones of varying degrees. Leave him in power slaughtering some of his people or repeat one of our biggest modern mistakes and plunge the region into further instability.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Saw that story that @virus21 posted and :mase accordingly. I like Teflon Don, but if he keeps cutting it so close to the point that he's very likely not playing 4D chess, he'll be hurting his momentum and viability for a second term.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I know I can always count on you for a nonsensical reply. (Y)
> 
> Left/right has nothing to do with the absurdity of claiming Trump is not in the pocket of the MIC. I may be a far left libertarian but I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul and he'll tell you the exact same thing from his far right libertarian position.



You dont really expect beatles to give an informed post on something do you? He can't even answer a few simple questions about Trump bombing Assad or why he likes about Trumps healthcare plan or what he likes about Gorsuch.

All he does is post things like you quoted.

But he has his memes as his gotcha instead of trying to say why he disagrees with someones post.

That is why he is the perfect Trump supporter, uninformed and will blindly follow Trump no matter what.




Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Saw that story that @virus21 posted and :mase accordingly. I like Teflon Don, but if he keeps cutting it so close to the point that he's very likely not playing 4D chess, he'll be hurting his momentum and viability for a second term.


Trump is not playing 4D chess, Trump is an idiot. He is dumber than GW Bush. The guy couldn't even remember what country he bombed but he remembered he had chocolate cake.

Just listen to the guy talk, he is always talking out of his ass and always speaks all over the place. He will contradict himself in the same thought sometimes

This notion of Trump playing 4D chess is laughable.





virus21 said:


> https://archive.fo/vXEqK#selection-2087.0-2353.125
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump is raising money toward a bid for a second term earlier than any incumbent president in recent history, pulling in tens of millions of dollars in the months after his election and through his inauguration.
> Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday showed that Mr. Trump’s campaign brought in $7.1 million during the first three months of 2017, on top of over $23 million raised with the Republican Party. By contrast, President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee brought in a total of about $15 million during the first three months of his first term in 2009.
> A vast majority of Mr. Trump’s donors gave small amounts, and relatively little came in large checks from wealthy Republican benefactors. That suggests that Mr. Trump is relying heavily on the grass-roots donors who provided much of the cash — aside from his own fortune — he used for his campaign.
> Mr. Trump’s campaign committee spent $6.3 million from January through March, including $1.2 million on merchandise and “Make America Great Again” hats, sales of which helped his fund-raising.
> As it did during the presidential race, Mr. Trump’s campaign also spent significantly on Trump properties. Trump Tower in Manhattan, where the campaign is based, collected $300,000 in rent. At least another $25,000 went to other properties, including Mr. Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas and a golf course he owns in Florida. Such transactions are legal, and required to ensure he pays fair market rate for campaign costs.
> Get the Morning Briefing by Email
> What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
> 
> Enter your email address
> Sign Up
> 
> Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
> Recaptcha requires verification
> I'm not a robot
> reCAPTCHA
> Privacy - Terms
> SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
> The campaign disbursed tens of thousands of dollars to a firm owned by Mr. Trump’s chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon. The bill was for “administrative assistant/secretarial” services.
> Meredith McGehee, the policy chief at the government reform policy group Issue One, said that Mr. Trump’s early fund-raising showed there were few downsides to seeking donations so early in his presidency. Mr. Trump lacks the campaign infrastructure of past presidents and needs to build a foundation of support ahead of an expected fund-raising push by Democrats, she said.
> “They know the Democrats are already raising a lot of money by people who may not have liked Hillary or were not engaged, but have become engaged because of their reaction to the president,” Ms. McGehee said.
> Ms. McGehee also noted that Mr. Trump had more control over rallies run by his re-election campaign, as they allow him to make sure crowds are full of his supporters. The president held his first campaign rally, in an airplane hangar in Florida, about four weeks after taking office.
> Mr. Trump filed for the 2020 race the day of his inauguration. Filing quickly allowed him to continue to raise money and tap the small donors whose enthusiasm was critical to his campaign, with a heavy dose of email blasts and requests for help against the proverbial Washington establishment.
> The Trump campaign has been hawking the hats and other collectibles to members of its email list, at campaign events and at Trump Tower, where the iconic red version of his hat was sold out on Friday.
> “It’s the same story of a president who has chosen not to disentangle himself from his business interests,” Ms. McGehee said.



he is doing that so he can funnel that money into his businesses like he did during his campaign.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I know I can always count on you for a nonsensical reply. (Y)
> 
> Left/right has nothing to do with the absurdity of claiming Trump is not in the pocket of the MIC. I may be a far left libertarian but I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul and he'll tell you the exact same thing from his far right libertarian position.


What? my man, what I said isn't nonsensical. We'll always be disagreeing about trump more than agreeing no matter what it is regardless.. Left/right ALWAYS has to do with it in the end.

Dont call me nonsensical, I like you. :mj2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You dont really expect beatles to give an informed post on something do you? He can't even answer a few simple questions about Trump bombing Assad or why he likes about Trumps healthcare plan or what he likes about Gorsuch.
> 
> All he does is post things like you quoted.
> 
> But he has his memes as his gotcha instead of trying to say why he disagrees with someones post.
> 
> That is why he is the perfect Trump supporter, uninformed and will blindly follow Trump no matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is not playing 4D chess, Trump is an idiot. He is dumber than GW Bush. The guy couldn't even remember what country he bombed but he remembered he had chocolate cake.
> 
> Just listen to the guy talk, he is always talking out of his ass and always speaks all over the place. He will contradict himself in the same thought sometimes
> 
> This notion of Trump playing 4D chess is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is doing that so he can funnel that money into his businesses like he did during his campaign.


I owe you nothing. I'll talk to Tater about anything he wants, but the story between you and I is over. The Mods should have informed you of this if i'm not correct.

Im not going down this path with you anymore.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If there was nothing "nefarious " going on why would he lie about it and hide the fact he had the meetings?
> 
> The reason I used the wording its been said because officals say that is what was dicussed but Flynn said it was not. But can you believe him at this point since he liked about having the meetings
> 
> Here is an article about it.


I found this...



> According to the Washington Post, Mr Flynn "privately discussed US sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office."
> 
> Mr Flynn himself admits in his resignation letter that the discussions took place.
> 
> That would appear to be a breach of the 1799 Logan Act, though legal analysts are split on the issue.
> 
> Not a single person has ever been prosecuted under the act since the 18th century, suggesting that it is unlikely Mr Flynn would face charges.
> 
> To date, no one in the US government has attempted to bring proceedings against Mr Flynn under the Logan Act.


Here is what the Logan Act is..



> The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.


Now, in your opinion would you equate discussing with negotiating? I think you would admit that you can discuss something without negotiating, correct?

You're saying that if nothing nefarious happened then why did he lie? I have no idea, but neither do you. That's the whole point. If I am to believe that Flynn did something that broke the law then I better better be damn sure he actually broke the law. Don't you follow the same ethos?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I look at your post and I see Iraq and what happened with the removal of Saddam. He and his sons were butchers, but the region was relatively stable.
> 
> It doesn't seem like there is a good solution, just bad ones of varying degrees. Leave him in power slaughtering some of his people or repeat one of our biggest modern mistakes and plunge the region into further instability.


One of the main reasons why I brought up this concept of the "red line" when talking about the mid-east now is that Americans aren't the only ones in the world who have these "red lines". Other places do as well ... They may not always align with the American "red line", but they definitely align with their own and then they are compelled to act. 

Assad has been in power since 2000. America/Iraq war happened 2004. Assad was America's ally during the Afghan war. Everyone was chummy and Assad's dad was one of America's favored dictators. The Arab spring while having its share of problems remained off the radar of people till Assad basically refused to support America's second war (where he eventually turned out to be right to oppose as we all know the outcome of the Iraq war). 

So basically, America creates the war in Iraq - therefore creating Iraqi refugees and the entire Iraqi insurgency - while at the same time there's now clear evidence that American players were heavily involved in creating the existing anti-Assad sentiment in Syria. Assad ruled Syria as a secular "president" for 11 full years without any incident and then suddenly turns out that he has chemical weapons (which was eventually determined that he didn't). They create a second WMD disaster in Syria. They go in for a regime change. They create the ENTIRE refugee crisis in Europe. Other countries pile on and non-syrian economic migrants take advantage of the refugee crisis. Sweden goes under. France has terrorism. Germany has rape gangs. 

Now imagine a similar situation in the US. Say you have Group Defectors who start a minor insurgency in the south. America decides to deal with this by any means necessary and the situation escalates to a military confrontation. Now let's say that China decides that it wants to support this insurgency in America. They start funding this group that opposes the US government for humanitarian reasons since America shouldn't be killing its own citizens, then they convince Mexico to allow them to build bases in Mexico. Mexico complies. Now there's a huge build up of Chinese forces in Mexico who are secretly arming and funding this American insurgency. The situation continues to escalate. America decides it wants to now bomb its own people. China now starts creating a coalition of Chinese allies against this Brutal American Dictator who's killing his own people. 

And so the story goes. I don't give a fuck about how brutally Syrian dictators are killing Syrians. American interference for "humanitarian reasons" is morally wrong just as Chinese interference in an American insurgency would be. The morality of non-intervention and allowing people to resolve their own conflicts trumps the hero complex.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> One of the main reasons why I brought up this concept of the "red line" when talking about the mid-east now is that Americans aren't the only ones in the world who have these "red lines". Other places do as well ... They may not always align with the American "red line", but they definitely align with their own and then they are compelled to act.
> 
> Assad has been in power since 2000. America/Iraq war happened 2004. Assad was America's ally during the Afghan war. Everyone was chummy and Assad's dad was one of America's favored dictators. The Arab spring while having its share of problems remained off the radar of people till Assad basically refused to support America's second war (where he eventually turned out to be right to oppose as we all know the outcome of the Iraq war).
> 
> So basically, America creates the war in Iraq - therefore creating Iraqi refugees and the entire Iraqi insurgency - while at the same time there's now clear evidence that American players were heavily involved in creating the existing anti-Assad sentiment in Syria. Assad ruled Syria as a secular "president" for 11 full years without any incident and then suddenly turns out that he has chemical weapons (which was eventually determined that he didn't). They create a second WMD disaster in Syria. They go in for a regime change. They create the ENTIRE refugee crisis in Europe. Other countries pile on and non-syrian economic migrants take advantage of the refugee crisis. Sweden goes under. France has terrorism. Germany has rape gangs.
> 
> Now imagine a similar situation in the US. Say you have Group Defectors who start a minor insurgency in the south. America decides to deal with this by any means necessary and the situation escalates to a military confrontation. Now let's say that China decides that it wants to support this insurgency in America. They start funding this group that opposes the US government for humanitarian reasons since America shouldn't be killing its own citizens, then they convince Mexico to allow them to build bases in Mexico. Mexico complies. Now there's a huge build up of Chinese forces in Mexico who are secretly arming and funding this American insurgency. The situation continues to escalate. America decides it wants to now bomb its own people. China now starts creating a coalition of Chinese allies against this Brutal American Dictator who's killing his own people.
> 
> And so the story goes. I don't give a fuck about how brutally Syrian dictators are killing Syrians. American interference for "humanitarian reasons" is morally wrong just as Chinese interference in an American insurgency would be. The morality of non-intervention and allowing people to resolve their own conflicts trumps the hero complex.



In a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue. We'd all get along or play in our own little corner of the sandbox. Hell, in a perfect world even Beatles and BM would be able to sit down together, drink a beer or four and exchange bro-hugs before going to the titty bar together with the intent of making it rain. Alas, we don't live in a perfect world. 

I don't care about the hero complex, to be honest. If we could guarantee that Syria would take care of its own shit and ISIS, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, Assad is more focused on the rebels who want him ousted more than he is on ISIS. That's why we see stories of civilians being beheaded, burned in cages, or tied to old pillars and then blown up. Putin is backing Assad, but only to crush the rebels and stir the pot enough so that the Syrians keep fighting each other. The problem is by not having the matter settled, the situation further deteriorates. More refugees, more possible terrorists, more recruits because ISIS points a finger at us if we don't get involved and points a finger at us if we do get involved. The region needs to be stabilized somehow to solve the problem. If the civil war gets resolved, the refugee problem can be solved. 

I'd be perfectly willing to step back and let them figure it out, but where we would reserve the right to step in if need be. Maybe offer to mediate a discussion among the different parties. We sent a message to Assad, another couple of days of planning we could have wiped out most of his air force if need be. We didn't because we want him to stick around really, he's a better option then a theocratic leader or ISIS taking control. But, let him think we will do it if necessary and maybe things change. 

Again, involvement should be a final resort, but don't let them think that.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.cato.org/blog/jeff-sessions-gets-it-wrong-drug-war



> *Jeff Sessions Continues to Hint at Escalating the Drug War*
> 
> As a candidate, Donald Trump held a relatively moderate line on drug prohibition, often arguing that issues like marijuana legalization should be left to state governments. His selection of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, however, sent an entirely different message. Sessions is a long-time champion of the federal drug war, and since taking over the Justice Department he has continued to make statements that hint at a return to a much harsher federal approach to drug prohibition.
> 
> The Washington Post ran a story this weekend detailing some of the shifts taking place at the Department of Justice, including a green light for federal prosecutors to step up prosecutions for low-level offenses and to rely on heavy mandatory minimums to leverage plea deals.
> 
> Sessions is also expected to take a harder line on the punishment for using and distributing marijuana, a drug he has long abhorred. His crime task force will review existing marijuana policy, according to a memo he wrote prosecutors last week.
> 
> The Post story also highlights the central role of Steven H. Cook, a former police officer and federal prosecutor, within the Sessions Department of Justice. Cook has been traveling with Sessions as the Attorney General makes the case for a return to the “tough-on-crime” posture of the 80s and 90s, arguing that efforts to treat even low-level drug offenses as anything less than violent crimes are misguided and “soft.”
> 
> Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, expressed his alarm to the Post:
> 
> “If there was a flickering candle of hope that remained for sentencing reform, Cook’s appointment was a fire hose. There simply aren’t enough backhoes to build all the prisons it would take to realize Steve Cook’s vision for America.”
> 
> Cook, like Sessions, believes that the drug market is inherently violent and therefore the only response is to crack down:
> 
> “Drug trafficking is inherently violent. Drug traffickers are dealing in a heavy cash business. They can’t resolve disputes in court. They resolve the disputes on the street, and they resolve them through violence.”
> 
> It’s true that the black market for drugs relies on cash transactions and violence, but Cook and Sessions ignore the obvious implication. The drug market has to rely on cash transfers and violence because drugs are illegal. Drug market violence is a function of the market’s illegality, not of the drugs themselves. The same was true of alcohol distributors under prohibition. In 2017 if two alcohol distributors have a dispute, they settle it in court. If two alcohol distributors in 1929 had a dispute, they settled it on the street corner with Tommy guns and Molotov cocktails.
> 
> Drug trafficking isn’t inherently violent; drug prohibition is.
> 
> The Trump Administration has yet to announce much in the way of concrete policy changes, but the personnel choices and the drug warrior rhetoric coming from the new administration are causes for concern looking forward.
> 
> For more on drug policy recommendations, the Director of Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice Tim Lynch recently produced a chapter on the federal drug war for Cato’s Handbook for Policymakers. The chapter calls for the repeal of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the abolition of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
> 
> Those with an interest in the mass incarceration problem in America may also be interested in an upcoming book forum featuring Fordham law professor John Pfaff, whose new book argues that local prosecutors are a primary and underappreciated force behind mass incarceration. The forum will take place at the Cato Institute on April 26.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fuck this Jeff Sessions idiot. One of Trump's really bad appointments.

Ben Carson doesn't count because HUD isn't really a thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I owe you nothing. I'll talk to Tater about anything he wants, but the story between you and I is over. The Mods should have informed you of this if i'm not correct.
> 
> Im not going down this path with you anymore.


Its because you cant defend your opinions that is why you just troll when I ask you about your views.

And the mods said to stop this trolling BS but that is all you do toward me. You know posts like this


Beatles123 said:


> You have beautiful jugular veins.


 that is what the mods want stopped

I can ask you political questions all I want since its not trolling or baiting


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I found this...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the Logan Act is..
> 
> 
> 
> Now, in your opinion would you equate discussing with negotiating? I think you would admit that you can discuss something without negotiating, correct?
> 
> You're saying that if nothing nefarious happened then why did he lie? I have no idea, but neither do you. That's the whole point. If I am to believe that Flynn did something that broke the law then I better better be damn sure he actually broke the law. Don't you follow the same ethos?


Yes discussions can be negotiations depending on what was discussed.
If Flynn discussed with Russia the lifting of the Russia sanctions if Trump became president in exchange for something that would indeed violate the Logan act would it not?

That being said, Flynn having discussions with the Russian Embassador is proof he has ties to Russia does it not?


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> What? my man, what I said isn't nonsensical. We'll always be disagreeing about trump more than agreeing no matter what it is regardless.. Left/right ALWAYS has to do with it in the end.
> 
> Dont call me nonsensical, I like you. :mj2


No, friend, it is _*not always*_ about left vs right. Maybe you forgot but there are 4 corners to the political spectrum. Oftentimes, it is libertarian vs authoritarian more than it is left vs right, especially when it comes to opposing the neocon controlled US government. When it comes to opposing the MIC, I'll take my allies wherever I can find them.








2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.cato.org/blog/jeff-sessions-gets-it-wrong-drug-war


I say let Sessions ramp up the drug war. I don't think he's smart enough to realize just how badly it will damage the Republican party in future elections.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> No, friend, it is _*not always*_ about left vs right. Maybe you forgot but there are 4 corners to the political spectrum. Oftentimes, it is libertarian vs authoritarian more than it is left vs right, especially when it comes to opposing the neocon controlled US government. When it comes to opposing the MIC, I'll take my allies wherever I can find them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say let Sessions ramp up the drug war. I don't think he's smart enough to realize just how badly it will damage the Republican party in future elections.


More to what you are saying even in the democratic party for example its not just the "left". 

Hillary Clinton and the corp dems are more center right than left, tha is why I call her republilcan lite.

Then you have people like Bernie Sanders or Keith Ellison who are super progressive.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because you cant defend your opinions that is why you just troll when I ask you about your views.
> 
> And the mods said to stop this trolling BS but that is all you do toward me. You know posts like this that is what the mods want stopped
> 
> I can ask you political questions all I want since its not trolling or baiting


They're tired of BOTH OF US and I refuse to take part in it anymore. The whole reason I posted that was to avoid YOUR trolling, like you are now. Thay's why i edited it. YOU are the problem right now and this is the last reply you'll get from me. I'll answer posters I actually respect. Im not opening a shitstorm with you again.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> No, friend, it is _*not always*_ about left vs right. Maybe you forgot but there are 4 corners to the political spectrum. Oftentimes, it is libertarian vs authoritarian more than it is left vs right, especially when it comes to opposing the neocon controlled US government. When it comes to opposing the MIC, I'll take my allies wherever I can find them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say let Sessions ramp up the drug war. I don't think he's smart enough to realize just how badly it will damage the Republican party in future elections.


You say oftentimes, but I'll argue I've never seen such a battle. Sure, it may be divided into 4 corners but at the end of the day we all want our HALF to have superiority. the only difference is to what extent.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> They're tired of BOTH OF US and I refuse to take part in it anymore. The whole reason I posted that was to avoid YOUR trolling, like you are now. Thay's why i edited it. YOU are the problem and this is the last reply you'll get from me. I'll answer posters I actually respect.


No dude you are the problem. You are the one that always starts the trolling with your memes, and your troll comments like I quoted.

I always try to have a political discussion with you and instead of you answering the questions you make troll posts then cry and pretend I started the trolling.

Not sure how you dont respect this post you refuse to answer

Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning. 

Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.


You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?

What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition. 

Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.


Its asking you to back up your opinions and why you support each thing mentioned. You are the one who keeps trolling to avoid answering the questions.

If any poster or even mods want to tell me what is wrong wiht those questions, id be happy to listen. Not sure how that post is trolling.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No dude you are the problem. You are the one that always starts the trolling with your memes, and your troll comments like I quoted.
> 
> I always try to have a political discussion with you and instead of you answering the questions you make troll posts then cry and pretend I started the trolling.
> 
> Not sure how you dont respect this post you refuse to answer
> 
> Do you think Trump had good reason to drop those missiles on Syria? Do you think Assad gassed his own people? If so why? It made no sense, he was winning.
> 
> Also why didn't Trump hit the runway when he dropped the missiles? Syria used that very same airfield the next day.
> 
> 
> You also dont care how Trump wipes Kim Jong off the face off the either even if it means killing thousands of innocent women, men and children? You would really be ok with that?
> 
> What exactly do you like about Trumps healthcare plan? You like how he wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? Trump is pushing for that. You do know that could fuck you over right since you have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> Also Gorsuch is a huge loss for the American people. He is in the pockets of corporations. Do you even know what he stands for? If you did you would not like him, you only like him because Trump picked him.
> 
> 
> Its asking you to back up your opinions and why you support each thing mentioned. You are the one who keeps trolling to avoid answering the questions.


Dude, no. You fucking know whats going to happen: If I respond to your post and answer those questions, you'll throw out your "You don't know the facts" strawman. Then I'll argue I do, then it'll escalate like it always does. I'm not GOING to answer you. Not because I can't, but because at this point I don't care about it enough to go to war with you over it. I'd rather debate ANY leftist than you at this point and im not getting caught in your shitposting just to counter the shitposting with MY shitposting. It's done. You already ignored me once and I know the mods gave you the same talk they gave me. We will solve NOTHING continuing our squabbling. It's over.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> One of the main reasons why I brought up this concept of the "red line" when talking about the mid-east now is that Americans aren't the only ones in the world who have these "red lines". Other places do as well ... They may not always align with the American "red line", but they definitely align with their own and then they are compelled to act.
> 
> Assad has been in power since 2000. America/Iraq war happened 2004. Assad was America's ally during the Afghan war. Everyone was chummy and Assad's dad was one of America's favored dictators. The Arab spring while having its share of problems remained off the radar of people till Assad basically refused to support America's second war (where he eventually turned out to be right to oppose as we all know the outcome of the Iraq war).
> 
> So basically, America creates the war in Iraq - therefore creating Iraqi refugees and the entire Iraqi insurgency - while at the same time there's now clear evidence that American players were heavily involved in creating the existing anti-Assad sentiment in Syria. Assad ruled Syria as a secular "president" for 11 full years without any incident and then suddenly turns out that he has chemical weapons (which was eventually determined that he didn't). They create a second WMD disaster in Syria. They go in for a regime change. They create the ENTIRE refugee crisis in Europe. Other countries pile on and non-syrian economic migrants take advantage of the refugee crisis. Sweden goes under. France has terrorism. Germany has rape gangs.
> 
> Now imagine a similar situation in the US. Say you have Group Defectors who start a minor insurgency in the south. America decides to deal with this by any means necessary and the situation escalates to a military confrontation. Now let's say that China decides that it wants to support this insurgency in America. They start funding this group that opposes the US government for humanitarian reasons since America shouldn't be killing its own citizens, then they convince Mexico to allow them to build bases in Mexico. Mexico complies. Now there's a huge build up of Chinese forces in Mexico who are secretly arming and funding this American insurgency. The situation continues to escalate. America decides it wants to now bomb its own people. China now starts creating a coalition of Chinese allies against this Brutal American Dictator who's killing his own people.
> 
> And so the story goes. I don't give a fuck about how brutally Syrian dictators are killing Syrians. American interference for "humanitarian reasons" is morally wrong just as Chinese interference in an American insurgency would be. The morality of non-intervention and allowing people to resolve their own conflicts trumps the hero complex.


So how about if there is interference for monetary and economic reasons? I'm just going to assume that would also be morally wrong as well.

I do agree that we're at a point where doing any more direct military action isn't going to do anything but cause more direct harm. I don't know why, but I never did connect the ideas of how our original "War on Terror" was an influence into the Insurgents that drove so many migrants to Europe and beyond, leading to the failure of them acclimating into their environments, and instead giving them a platform to do more harm in more areas. Now yes, many still say about how there are a vast majority of migrants who don't support the actions of their extremist brethren, but it's enough of a majority to be extremely worrying now, and I don't understand how countries like Sweden and others are just sitting back and not doing anything about it. 

The idea of military interference for "humanitarian reasons" does scare me a bit because of Donald Trump's current attitude towards it all. If those rumors are true about Ivanka's crying actually influencing his decision to drop missiles on that airbase, then I'm almost certain he'd be the type to watch the overload of propaganda from the MSM when it came to any sort of inhumane killing like the alleged chemical weapons killings. And really, it's kinda ironic that he seems so easily influenced by the very form of information he continually labels as fake. Hopefully that strike is a one time thing as a reaction to what happened, and that in the future we'll actually come up with a plan should anything along those lines happen again.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes discussions can be negotiations depending on what was discussed.
> *If Flynn discussed with Russia the lifting of the Russia sanctions if Trump became president in exchange for something that would indeed violate the Logan act would it not?*
> 
> That being said, *Flynn having discussions with the Russian Embassador is proof he has ties to Russia does it not?*


No, it wouldn't violate the Logan act because discussing and negotiating aren't synonymous. That isn't to say that there were no negotiations, but in order to say that they did negotiate you would need proof and that proof is lacking. So, until we can prove unequivocally that negotiations did take place then nothing has been done that can constitute as being illegal. You do believe in innocence until proven guilty, right? Guilt has not bee proven.

It really depends on what you mean by "ties". Ties can mean a lot of things. It can mean two parties working together for a common purpose, both positive and negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that their working together is a negative. By that I go back to my original point. If something illegal was done then them working together towards a common purpose makes Flynn having "ties" with Russia a negative, but if all they've done is discuss issues that both Russia and the US share then "ties" can be a completely innocent adjective. Again, the burden of proof over whether those ties are negative is on you and those who are like minded.

Saying they discussed something means that they have negative "ties" can easily be refuted and argued against. Now, if you can show that they actually negotiated sanctions, before he was in an official capacity to do so, then I would be very interested in seeing that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Dude, no. You fucking know whats going to happen: If I respond to your post and answer those questions, you'll throw out your "You don't know the facts" strawman. Then I'll argue I do, then it'll escalate like it always does. I'm not GOING to answer you. Not because I can't, but because at this point I don't care about it enough to go to war with you over it. I'd rather debate ANY leftist than you at this point and im not getting caught in your shitposting just to counter the shitposting with MY shitposting. It's done. You already ignored me once and I know the mods gave you the same talk they gave me. We will solve NOTHING continuing our squabbling. It's over.


You are the one who starts the shit posting, as you can see right after I asked you those questions. You started your ship posting then you try to blame me when I do it back. Stop shit posting and there will be none.

Just stop the shit posting and answer the questions. Its also not a strawman when I show you something you claim is not true like those memes you love to show that are never true. 

But it's cool , you can't answer the questions. I wont ask anyone since you cant have an adult conversation about adult topics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> No, it wouldn't violate the Logan act because discussing and negotiating aren't synonymous. That isn't to say that there were no negotiations, but in order to say that they did negotiate you would need proof and that proof is lacking. So, until we can prove unequivocally that negotiations did take place then nothing has been done that can constitute as being illegal. You do believe in innocence until proven guilty, right? Guilt has not bee proven.
> 
> It really depends on what you mean by "ties". Ties can mean a lot of things. It can mean two parties working together for a common purpose, both positive and negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that their working together is a negative. By that I go back to my original point. If something illegal was done then them working together towards a common purpose makes Flynn having "ties" with Russia a negative, but if all they've done is discuss issues that both Russia and the US share then "ties" can be a completely innocent adjective. Again, the burden of proof over whether those ties are negative is on you and those who are like minded.
> 
> Saying they discussed something means that they have negative "ties" can easily be refuted and argued against. Now, if you can show that they actually negotiated sanctions, before he was in an official capacity to do so, then I would be very interested in seeing that.


Just because you have a negotiating and call it a discussion does not mean it's not a negotiating.

that is like saying well an agent and a sports team had a discussion about a player's contract and pretend it's not a negotiation.

Its just being cutesy with the words they use.

Also once you start talking like a lawyer like I dont recall , or not that I can remember type speak, it shows you are lying and hiding something. 

I will admit everything at this point is circumstantial but the more info that comes out the more red flags are being raised.

As for burden of proof, if Trump does lift the sanctions to Russia will you then admit something shady probably went on? 

Ties meaning some sort of connection. And yes some ties or connections can be good and some can be nefarious.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just because you have a negotiating and call it a discussion does not mean it's not a negotiating.
> 
> that is like saying well an agent and a sports team had a discussion about a player's contract and pretend it's not a negotiation.
> 
> Its just being cutesy with the words they use.
> 
> Also once you start talking like a lawyer like I dont recall , or not that I can remember type speak, it shows you are lying and hiding something.
> 
> I will admit everything at this point is circumstantial but the more info that comes out the more red flags are being raised.
> 
> As for burden of proof, if Trump does lift the sanctions to Russia will you then admit something shady probably went on?
> 
> Ties meaning some sort of connection. And yes some ties or connections can be good and some can be nefarious.


Just because you have a discussion and call it a negotiation does not mean it's not a discussion. See what I did there? If I can refute your point that easily then you need to supply more evidence that your point is correct.

You are well within your right to believe, because you don't like the Trump administration, that they negotiated; that's your prerogative. That being said, you can't say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Your opinion on the matter isn't a fact and if you want people to believe that you're correct in your opinion then you need to back it up. Right now your opinion means very little in absence of the facts. I would take your opinion a lot more seriously if you did have actual facts that they negotiated. In fact, I implore you to find them, because, I, just like everyone else, would like to make sure that guilty parties have to answer for their crimes, but let's not assume guilt without proof. What good does that really do?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who starts the shit posting, as you can see right after I asked you those questions. You started your ship posting then you try to blame me when I do it back. Stop shit posting and there will be none.
> 
> Just stop the shit posting and answer the questions. Its also not a strawman when I show you something you claim is not true like those memes you love to show that are never true.
> *But it's cool , you can't answer the questions. I wont ask anyone since you cant have an adult conversation about adult topics.*


Not shitposting my ass.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just because you have a discussion and call it a negotiation does not mean it's not a discussion. See what I did there? If I can refute your point that easily then you need to supply more evidence that your point is correct.
> 
> You are well within your right to believe, because you don't like the Trump administration, that they negotiated; that's your prerogative. That being said, you can't say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Your opinion on the matter isn't a fact and if you want people to believe that you're correct in your opinion then you need to back it up. Right now your opinion means very little in absence of the facts. I would take your opinion a lot more seriously if you did have actual facts that they negotiated. In fact, I implore you to find them, because, I, just like everyone else, would like to make sure that guilty parties have to answer for their crimes, but let's not assume guilt without proof. What good does that really do?


Here is the definition of negotiation - *discussion* aimed at reaching an agreement.

So its a given that a negotiation is a discussion. Like i said, its just Flynn trying to get cute with his wording.

If Flynn did the same thing under Hillary or Bernie I would be saying the same thing. I am always going against dems when they do things shady or that I don't like. it has nothing to do with Trump and me not liking him.

Why do I not go after dems when they do fucked up things? Look back at how badly I bashed Bill Clinton for having that shady meeting with Lynch. And I am a huge Bill Clinton fan.

I already gave you evidence of them having negotiations, US officials admitted it. but like I said Flynn of course denied it. Its not like I just made it up, you know like Trump makes things up.

I posted the evidence or source I got that info from. it was from US officials. So how is that not legit? Now if I did not have that source to back up my claims you would be right but I stated the source, the article and even that flynn denied it.

Here is the article again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.35287b3dc2d0

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

I gave all the info, its just who you choose to believe. And like I said the reason I dont believe Flynn is because he lied about having those negotiations/discussions with Russia.

but you are right we dont know 100% either way, its just what we believe based on the evidence we have.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You say oftentimes, but I'll argue I've never seen such a battle. Sure, it may be divided into 4 corners but at the end of the day we all want our HALF to have superiority. the only difference is to what extent.


If you've never seen it, then it's you who needs to look outside of your bubble and take in more of the world. Not everything fits into your left/right mold. Not everything divides into two halves. Certainly not everyone is looking for their half to have so called superiority. Some of us want liberty and prosperity for all and not just for those who "play for our team". There is a lot more going on than just your preconceived notions of left vs right. I'd side with the libertarian right in a heartbeat before I would side with the authoritarian left.

You are a prime example of why American politics are such shit right now. You act like this is sports and everyone is either for one team or the other and there can only be two teams. When it comes to opposing the military industrial complex, I don't particularly give a shit where someone falls on the political spectrum or what letter is next to their name. If they oppose it, they are my ally on this particular issue. That goes for most issues. I'll work with most anyone on a common goal. That doesn't mean I'll always agree with them. I might vehemently oppose them on some issues but disagreements in some areas won't stop me from allying with them when our views align.

This is the trap that so many Americans fall into and it's by design. The people who own the country want to keep us divided and arguing over petty bullshit because they know they are fucked if there is ever a mass uprising against them. Maybe it's time Americans stop arguing over left vs right and start fighting as the 99% vs the 1%. Just a thought.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here is the definition of negotiation - *discussion* aimed at reaching an agreement.
> 
> *So its a given that a negotiation is a discussion.* Like i said, its just Flynn trying to get cute with his wording.
> 
> If Flynn did the same thing under Hillary or Bernie I would be saying the same thing. I am always going against dems when they do things shady or that I don't like. it has nothing to do with Trump and me not liking him.
> 
> Why do I not go after dems when they do fucked up things? Look back at how badly I bashed Bill Clinton for having that shady meeting with Lynch. And I am a huge Bill Clinton fan.
> 
> I already gave you evidence of them having negotiations, US officials admitted it. but like I said Flynn of course denied it. Its not like I just made it up, you know like Trump makes things up.
> 
> I posted the evidence or source I got that info from. it was from US officials. So how is that not legit? Now if I did not have that source to back up my claims you would be right but I stated the source, the article and even that flynn denied it.
> 
> Here is the article again
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.35287b3dc2d0
> 
> National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say
> 
> I gave all the info, its just who you choose to believe. And like I said the reason I dont believe Flynn is because he lied about having those negotiations/discussions with Russia.
> 
> but you are right we dont know 100% either way, its just what we believe based on the evidence we have.


But not all discussions are negotiations. We are having a discussion now, are we negotiating anything?

Here is an excerpt from the WaPo article you linked...



> Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.


So, in other words, they discussed it, but no promises were made as to what would happen after they took office. Does that sound like a negotiation to you? If you came to me and said, "Hey, TNC, do you think we could maybe have some civil discussions, instead of trolling each other?" And I said, "Hhhmm, I can't make any promises either way." Did we just have a negotiation, or a discussion? 

It all comes down to this, did Flynn break the law? If he broke the law then evidence needs to be brought forward that shows unequivocally that he broke the law. Until then, Flynn should be considered innocent of the charge. If anyone has evidence that unequivocally proves that Flynn did break the 1799 Logan Act then that evidence needs to be brought forward. As of now, the FBI is investigating it. If nothing comes up and no charges are filed, where do we go from there? Do we say, "Okay, then I suppose he's innocent. Never mind then." Or do we say, "The FBI and the Trump administration colluded to get Flynn off. This all smells like a cover-up."???



> The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.


This is why Flynn was fired. He lied to Pence over how many times he had had discussions with Russia, or at the very least he mis-lead Pence. Either way, it is my understanding that Trump values trust above all and Flynn proved himself to be untrustworthy, so he had to go. Here is an exact quote from Trump on the issue of trust.



> Donald Trump on Business Principles
> 
> I never forgive people who deceive me
> 
> I think maybe my greatest weakness is that I trust people too much. I'm too trusting. And when they let me down, if they let me down, I never forgive. I find it very, very hard to forgive people that deceived me. So I don't know if you would call that a weakness, but my wife said let up.
> Source: GOP "Your Money/Your Vote" 2015 CNBC 1st-tier debate , Oct 28, 2015


So, I have provided evidence to my opinion that Trump fired Flynn because he deceived Pence, who is an extension of Trump, and therefore was fired for being deceiving. It's entirely plausible that's the reason Flynn was fired.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> But not all discussions are negotiations. We are having a discussion now, are we negotiating anything?
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the WaPo article you linked...
> 
> 
> *Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.*
> 
> So, in other words, they discussed it, but no promises were made as to what would happen after they took office. Does that sound like a negotiation to you? If you came to me and said, "Hey, TNC, do you think we could maybe have some civil discussions, instead of trolling each other?" And I said, "Hhhmm, I can't make any promises either way." Did we just have a negotiation, or a discussion?
> 
> It all comes down to this, did Flynn break the law? If he broke the law then evidence needs to be brought forward that shows unequivocally that he broke the law. Until then, Flynn should be considered innocent of the charge. If anyone has evidence that unequivocally proves that Flynn did break the 1799 Logan Act then that evidence needs to be brought forward. As of now, the FBI is investigating it. If nothing comes up and no charges are filed, where do we go from there? Do we say, "Okay, then I suppose he's innocent. Never mind then." Or do we say, "The FBI and the Trump administration colluded to get Flynn off. This all smells like a cover-up."???



You don't need to make a promise to negotiate. If the Russians said to Flynn If trump wins what would it take to get these sanctions lifted and Flynn gave an answer, in my mind that is a negotiation, even though nothing is promised. 

Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Its like a trade in sports, lets say that the Patriots ask another team what would it take for the pats to get Richard Sherman. They are negotiating on what it would take to make that trade happen. If the deal does not happen, nothing was promised but it was still a negotiation was it not?

Negotiation is all about trying to reach an agreement or promise. You dont have to agree to the terms for it to be considered a negotiation.




TheNightmanCometh said:


> This is why Flynn was fired. He lied to Pence over how many times he had had discussions with Russia, or at the very least he mis-lead Pence. Either way, it is my understanding that Trump values trust above all and Flynn proved himself to be untrustworthy, so he had to go. Here is an exact quote from Trump on the issue of trust.
> 
> *The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.*


Right he was fired because he lied about meeting with the Russians. If it was not a big deal he would not have lied about it. So now nothing Flynn said about that meeting is easily to believe since he has already lied abougt having the meetings in the fist place. If US officials are saying he was having negotiations about the sanctions but Flynn claimed he did not do you find it easy to believe him?



TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, I have provided evidence to my opinion that Trump fired Flynn because he deceived Pence, who is an extension of Trump, and therefore was fired for being deceiving. It's entirely plausible that's the reason Flynn was fired.


I agree Flynn was fired for lying but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what he was talking about to the russians.

Let me put in this way.

Do you think it's different when someone has discussions about what it would take to lift Russians sanctions and having negotiations about what it would take to lift Russian sanctions even if no promises are made in either case?

To me its the same thing so it you would rather use the word discussion instead of sanctions that is fine.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Agree with @tater. I was pleased that as many left-wing antiwar people were able to make common cause with me in high school in the run-up to the idiotic and disastrous Iraq War. A fair number of these people may have been opportunistic hucksters merely opposing George W. Bush because he was a Republican but extraordinary times call for extraordinary political alliances, and aside from a subset of principled right-wingers on the issue of Iraq, most of what the generic left had to say about the conflict made more sense than the sycophantic cheerleaders of the generic right had to say, to the latter's eternal shame.

As the years went by, and opposing the Obama-Hillary intervention in Libya, the bulk of allies may have been right-wingers who detested Obama first and foremost, while mainstream lefty antiwar voices seem to go missing in action, but one takes the allies one an get. Of course there were principled voices on the left, as there had been on the right in late 2002/early 2003 leading up to the Iraq quagmire: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/25/the-left-and-libya/

As @CamillePunk has remarked upon, a silver lining in the dark cloud of Trump's airstrike on Assad's airfield and hangars has been the notably vociferous rebellion from within the very base of Trump's supporters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

On a lighter note.






Typical GOP politician not answering the question and just deflecting when it comes to planned parenthood.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't need to make a promise to negotiate. If the Russians said to Flynn If trump wins what would it take to get these sanctions lifted and Flynn gave an answer, in my mind that is a negotiation, even though nothing is promised.
> 
> *Do you agree or disagree with that?*
> 
> Its like a trade in sports, lets say that the Patriots ask another team what would it take for the pats to get Richard Sherman. They are negotiating on what it would take to make that trade happen. If the deal does not happen, nothing was promised but it was still a negotiation was it not?
> 
> Negotiation is all about trying to reach an agreement or promise. You dont have to agree to the terms for it to be considered a negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right he was fired because he lied about meeting with the Russians. *If it was not a big deal he would not have lied about it. * So now nothing Flynn said about that meeting is easily to believe since he has already lied abougt having the meetings in the fist place. If US officials are saying he was having negotiations about the sanctions but Flynn claimed he did not do you find it easy to believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Flynn was fired for lying but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what he was talking about to the russians.
> 
> Let me put in this way.
> 
> *Do you think it's different when someone has discussions about what it would take to lift Russians sanctions and having negotiations about what it would take to lift Russian sanctions even if no promises are made in either case?*
> 
> To me its the same thing so it you would rather use the word discussion instead of sanctions that is fine.


I certainly agree with that, now prove to me that's what happened.

If it was not a big deal, he wouldn't have lied about it. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to get into Flynn's head over why he lied. I just want to know if he lied. It is true that he cannot be trusted, but that doesn't mean he was lying when he said he only discussed sanctions. Just because someone lies once doesn't mean they always lie. Shoot, just because someone lies a lot, doesn't mean they always lie. This is why evidence is so important. If you can't take someone at their word, then evidence needs to be supplied.

That being said, whether Flynn is guilty of negotiating with the Russians, or he's just guilty of lying, it speaks highly of the President that he would fire him on the spot when he found out. 

No, there is no difference. That discussion is a negotiation, but we don't know if that's exactly what happened. It's also just as plausible that the Russian ambassador tried to bring up the topic of Russian sanctions and Flynn told him he's not in a position to discuss that. Technically, that in and of itself is a discussion, lacking in any kind of negotiating.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/852973977333006342


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Agree with @tater. I was pleased that as many left-wing antiwar people were able to make common cause with me in high school in the run-up to the idiotic and disastrous Iraq War. A fair number of these people may have been opportunistic hucksters merely opposing George W. Bush because he was a Republican but extraordinary times call for extraordinary political alliances, and aside from a subset of principled right-wingers on the issue of Iraq, most of what the generic left had to say about the conflict made more sense than the sycophantic cheerleaders of the generic right had to say, to the latter's eternal shame.
> 
> As the years went by, and opposing the Obama-Hillary intervention in Libya, the bulk of allies may have been right-wingers who detested Obama first and foremost, while mainstream lefty antiwar voices seem to go missing in action, but one takes the allies one an get. Of course there were principled voices on the left, as there had been on the right in late 2002/early 2003 leading up to the Iraq quagmire: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/25/the-left-and-libya/
> 
> As @CamillePunk has remarked upon, a silver lining in the dark cloud of Trump's airstrike on Assad's airfield and hangars has been the notably vociferous rebellion from within the very base of Trump's supporters.


I don't mind Trump taking a strong stance on things that need a tough stance. The fact is we have no idea if Assad used chemical weapons and now we never will now.

Trump supporters should be calling out this action and many I know are. 

We don't want another war, we don't want to deal with the mid east, it's a trap that the warhawks want to get us into. 

There is also the dipshits who think we now need more refugees, no! That's not what most of us voted for. Assad is a lunatic but he keeps the crazies under control, we'll just have another Iraq and Afgan war on our hands.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Just two months ago, Fitch Ratings viewed President Donald Trump as a threat to economic stability — not only in the United States, but for the world.
> Now, things appear to have changed.
> One of the three major ratings services issued a mostly glowing report Tuesday about the state of domestic finances. Fitch, in a far cry from its dire warnings in February, both reaffirmed the sterling "AAA" credit rating for the U.S. and raised its outlook for gross domestic product growth.
> The firm now expects the U.S. to grow at a 2.3 percent rate in 2016 and 2.6 percent in 2018 — not exactly breakout just yet, but a good deal better than the 1.6 percent average GDP rate under President Barack Obama.
> Fitch attributed its outlook in part to the pro-growth Trump agenda.
> "The new administration's focus on deregulation and tax cuts has spurred higher business
> confidence and would be positive for growth if carried through," Fitch analyst Charles Seville and others said in a report for clients. "Tax cuts are unlikely to generate a lasting and substantial boost to growth, in Fitch's view."
> President Donald Trump speaks during a strategic and policy discussion with CEOs in the State Department Library in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) on April 11, 2017 in Washington, DC.
> Getty Images
> President Donald Trump speaks during a strategic and policy discussion with CEOs in the State Department Library in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) on April 11, 2017 in Washington, DC.
> Despite some lingering reservations, it was still quite a change in tone compared with a warning Fitch sent out in early February.
> Back then, the agency declared that the nascent Trump administration "presents a risk to international economic conditions and global sovereign credit fundamentals."
> The new president had hurt "policy predictability" while "established international communication channels and relationship norms" had been "set aside" creating the threat of "sudden unanticipated changes in U.S. policies with potential global implications."
> All of the disruptions could pose credit-downgrade threats to U.S. trading partners, though Fitch did conceded then that "a lot can change."
> The agency was worried primarily that Trump would establish a protectionist agenda with tariffs that would start an international trade war. However, the president has softened a lot of that rhetoric since, and even last week met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in what had the air of a mostly cordial gathering of world leaders.
> Fitch did on Tuesday issue some cautionary warnings about trade, and again pointed out that U.S. public debt was reaching dangerous levels.
> "Increased trade protectionism and curbs on immigration would be negative for growth over the
> medium-term," Seville added.
> Seville said he does not anticipate a future downgrade of U.S. debt.
> Fitch was not alone in its warnings about the Trump agenda. During the campaign, Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi warned that the new president's plans as outlined would lead to a substantial recession.


https://archive.fo/8WxXH#selection-2493.0-2595.214


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Modern leftist "anarchists" carry flags. The biggest joke of a political group in the history of political groups. 

Let that sink in. Take as much time as you need. 










I'd rather not have allies than have leftist anarchists/"libertarians" as allies because they're barely less authoritarian than socialists. When it comes to funding their little pet projects, they're still very authoritarian.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/852973977333006342





RipNTear said:


> Modern leftist "anarchists" carry flags. The biggest joke of a political group in the history of political groups.
> 
> Let that sink in. Take as much time as you need.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


>


That face when you and your bros are expecting a ho and get Bernie Bro instead :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> That face when you and your bros are expecting a ho and get Bernie Bro instead :lmao







Still get a good giggle at watching that chick getting her chin *and* privilege both getting simultaneously checked. 8*D

Dat Ben and Jerry's podium tho :done Jesus Christ, Bernard. :tripsscust


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/New-Shirts/REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRAT-PISSED-OFF.htm

:lol

Lots of hilarious shirts on this page: http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/Political-t-shirts/index.html



















Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi... just so fucking wrong on so many fucking levels. :argh:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

House rep. from Wisconsin.






"Well, you know, no one has got to use the internet, at all, you know."

Yeah, it's not like there are big parts of modern society that need it to run. It's not like there are people that need it to do their jobs or businesses that depend on it. 

fpalm

Well, you know, no one has got to use running water, phones, or electricity, at all, you know.

You can survive without them. It's just an incredible pain in the ass.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Fuck this Jeff Sessions idiot. One of Trump's really bad appointments.


I turned on him after he declared war on marijuana, including legal. Completely stupid move on his part.



> Still get a good giggle at watching that chick getting her chin and privilege both getting simultaneously checked.


I thought feminists wanted equality?









- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> If you've never seen it, then it's you who needs to look outside of your bubble and take in more of the world. Not everything fits into your left/right mold. Not everything divides into two halves. Certainly not everyone is looking for their half to have so called superiority. Some of us want liberty and prosperity for all and not just for those who "play for our team". There is a lot more going on than just your preconceived notions of left vs right. I'd side with the libertarian right in a heartbeat before I would side with the authoritarian left.
> 
> You are a prime example of why American politics are such shit right now. You act like this is sports and everyone is either for one team or the other and there can only be two teams. When it comes to opposing the military industrial complex, I don't particularly give a shit where someone falls on the political spectrum or what letter is next to their name. If they oppose it, they are my ally on this particular issue. That goes for most issues. I'll work with most anyone on a common goal. That doesn't mean I'll always agree with them. I might vehemently oppose them on some issues but disagreements in some areas won't stop me from allying with them when our views align.
> 
> This is the trap that so many Americans fall into and it's by design. The people who own the country want to keep us divided and arguing over petty bullshit because they know they are fucked if there is ever a mass uprising against them. Maybe it's time Americans stop arguing over left vs right and start fighting as the 99% vs the 1%. Just a thought.


I did say "To what extent." Sure, we can agree on things and be bipartisan, but its the things we won't let go that cause the most friction. I'll give you that you're more flexible than a lot of people and that's why I like you, but just like you're defending your position of me "Needing to get out in the world" right now, There's still enough of a barrier to where we both will never really be able to side with each other completely.

We all want the side that correlates with our beliefs the most to win. It's just a matter of how much it matters to people. At the end of it, you can like some of both but you still lean more to one side.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Still get a good giggle at watching that chick getting her chin *and* privilege both getting simultaneously checked. 8*D
> 
> Dat Ben and Jerry's podium tho :done Jesus Christ, Bernard. :tripsscust





Vic Capri said:


> I turned on him after he declared war on marijuana, including legal. Completely stupid move on his part.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought feminists wanted equality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Equal rights, equal lefts. :lol 

Seriously, I'm not surprised. Women want to be treated equally in all ways imaginable, yet the moment they provoke a man to actually punch them they forget all about it and play the "You can't hit me I'm a woman" card when it actually happens. Funny how that works.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Agree with @tater. I was pleased that as many left-wing antiwar people were able to make common cause with me in high school in the run-up to the idiotic and disastrous Iraq War. A fair number of these people may have been opportunistic hucksters merely opposing George W. Bush because he was a Republican but extraordinary times call for extraordinary political alliances, and aside from a subset of principled right-wingers on the issue of Iraq, most of what the generic left had to say about the conflict made more sense than the sycophantic cheerleaders of the generic right had to say, to the latter's eternal shame.
> 
> As the years went by, and opposing the Obama-Hillary intervention in Libya, the bulk of allies may have been right-wingers who detested Obama first and foremost, while mainstream lefty antiwar voices seem to go missing in action, but one takes the allies one an get. Of course there were principled voices on the left, as there had been on the right in late 2002/early 2003 leading up to the Iraq quagmire: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/25/the-left-and-libya/
> 
> 
> As @CamillePunk has remarked upon, a silver lining in the dark cloud of Trump's airstrike on Assad's airfield and hangars has been the notably vociferous rebellion from within the very base of Trump's supporters.


People who use our military as a political football and cheer/or boo only depending on whose side is running the show can go fuck themselves. I respect people who are anti-war under any circumstances (although I disagree with the stance as sometimes fighting is necessary) but the people who base whether they agree with military action dependent on their political position and whether their party is running it disgust me to no end. 

While I appreciate your passion, DesoRow, something I've had the chance to think about really has sunk in over the last few weeks as events have moved along. One reason many of you wouldn't vote for the Hildabeast was that her Presidency would bring about World War III. I now see why, but not for the reasons you might have believed. Humor me while I opine. 

Prior to 9/11, our approach to dealing with the threat of radical Islam was to pretty much put our heads in the sand and just say, "It's happening over there, not our problem." Even after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the many threats of "Death to America", we covered our ears and closed our eyes to what was happening. When Clinton left office and GW Bush took over, Bush planned initially to roll up our red carpet away from the world even more and he struck a massively isolationist tone. All that did was double down on ignoring the threats that were coming and hoping it would go away. We had plenty of options in dealing with the situation and the warning signs slowly became more and more obvious. Yet, we did nothing. 

Then, those planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon, while another one crashed in that Pennsylvania field. Suddenly, we could no longer ignore what was going on as it blew up right in our faces, literally and figuratively. The choices and options were now limited. It now required a response, and that is what led to Afghanistan. I believe Afghanistan was necessary and just, if we had allowed 9/11 to happen and nothing was done I'd have called for all our leadership to be tried and hung for treason. Iraq was a disaster because we botched the whole thing, I agree there. However, the fear of WMDs in Iraq, grouped along with the fact we knew our enemies could take the fight to us right here in the heart of America, changed the game. Prior to 9/11, there were multiple options, many non-violent/diplomatic ways to resolve the issues that faced us. The choices we had were pretty much narrowed down for us. We ended up lashing out because our prior stance let the situation grow out of our control. As a result, Iraq was rolled out poorly and was botched. We lashed out because we felt there was no other alternatives, and look how it ended up. 

Let's fast forward to the Obama administration. Obama wanted to change the tune, he wanted to become the anti-Bush and he openly mocked "cowboy diplomacy." The tone he took, however, was the failed mantra of "Everything that happens in the world is America's fault and we need to feel guilty about anything we do." He had no problem of taking that lecture around the world and tell everyone else about it. In Iraq, we went completely off the map...we pretty much pulled all our troops out and left a power vacuum. We went from one extreme to another with a snap of the finger, and this led to ISIS attempting to fill that role. Add to that Iran now trying to sow its influence across the region, and you have a recipe for disaster. 

The "Arab Spring" takes place, and Obama backs the wrong horses again and again. Assad saw what happened in Libya and Egypt, and he is hell bent on making sure he doesn't suffer the same fate. Civil war results, and the situation breaks down. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled their homes and try to make new lives for themselves in other nations with nothing more than the clothes on their back. Yes, there are probably some terrorists among the innocent families, but a good number of them are trying to escape what's going on. Obama draws a red line and says that we're going to try to stay out as best we can, but chemical weapons use is not going to be allowed. Chemical weapons are used, and Obama does nothing (although I lay the blame also at the feet of some politically motivated people in Congress who would vote for vanilla ice cream just because Obama wanted strawberry). Our allies now start thinking we're not going to help and our enemies become more emboldened. Russia takes advantage and decides to support Assad and they vow to take out ISIS. However, they have been more interested in crushing the rebels that want Assad gone and efforts have shown that. 

We have all the influence and juice on our side in making sure a nuclear deal with Iran comes out in our favor. Obama pisses it all away and Iran gets away with a steal. Iran captures American sailors, we do nothing but pay off Iran. North Korea shows the world that they now have a nuclear arsenal, Obama helps support the North Koreans with food and supplies. Of course most of that ends up in the hands of the military and the higher-ups in the government. China takes advantage of our trade imbalance by propping up North Korea, while North Korea and Iran start spooning together in the hopes of building nukes together. 

Many of us, myself included, scratched our heads and wondered, "What the hell is Obama doing?" We now see this at home as more and more ISIS/radical Islamic inspired attacks take place...but Obama refuses to address the issue. It's "workplace violence." Instead, he keeps lecturing us on how bad we are and how it's all our fault. 

A Hillary Clinton presidency would have just doubled down on the foreign policy of Obama over the last 8 years. Eventually, the situation around the world would have spiraled out of control to the point where when something finally happened, we would have no choice but to lash out. We were starting to see that in the final days of the Obama administration, when the realization finally came that Russia was taking us for a fool and they do not share our interests. Eventually, we would hit the point of over-reaction, and that would lead us down the road of war. When all other options are taken away, that would leave just that and the end result would be bad. 

Trump understands that, we have a world right now that's burning around us. The situation in Syria hasn't stabilized, it's growing worse. People talked about the WMD fiasco in Iraq...with Syria and North Korea that is no longer a hypothetical. There are chemical weapons in Syria, it's irrelevant who possesses them or is using them. North Korea has nukes, that's a fact. Many people still want to say that we need to sit this out and let the rest of the world figure it for themselves. Problem is, North Korea continues to prod and poke at South Korea and Japan. The Syrian civil war continues to deteriorate and refugees are stuck between nations that don't want them and a homeland of which everything they own is pretty much gone. Nothing is getting done, and we need to get something figured out. Yes, that eventually means we will have to get involved in the world in some capacity. Again, I would love to let the rest of the world figure out their shit and in a perfect world we could do just that. However, what's going on right now shows we can't make that mistake again. We keep bouncing from one extreme to the other, that's a recipe for disaster as we keep repeating history. We need to find the happy medium. 

Trump wanted to be the isolationist, but I think has come to the bitter reality that's not feasible with the way things are right now. I do give him props for figuring this out on his own rather than it be later when things got out of his control. Yes, there are some who want him to stay out of getting entangled in foreign affairs, but there are many who voted for him who are tired of the last 8 years. Right now, he has many more options available to him. The launch on the airfield in Syria was sent as a message. It said, "We want to find peaceful solutions, but we are willing to go this route if necessary. If you don't want to go down this road, what we are all doing needs to change." Yes, it's ironic an airstrike is a message of wanting peace, but it works. 

Another thing that irritates the shit out of me...I'm fucking sick and tired of the "Blame America" crowd. There are quite as many in the Trump cult then there were with the Obama fanatics over the last 8 years (and everywhere in between). Yes, we don't always get it right, and we do screw up. However, I believe that if we have the capacity to do the right thing we should do so. I am proud of my country and being an American even when my leadership pisses me off. I will never make anyone here apologize for being from Australia, UK, Germany, India, etc...don't ask me to apologize for being an American. We shouldn't let this guilt of screwing up shit (and yes, we have screwed things up) get in the way of trying to make it right. 

If you have another option to resolve things, I'm all for it. The problem is, the last 15 years of policy have failed, and to me just taking our ball and going home at this time is not the answer. If the world wasn't on fire the way it is now, it could be an option. For now, it's not.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I did say "To what extent." Sure, we can agree on things and be bipartisan, but its the things we won't let go that cause the most friction. I'll give you that you're more flexible than a lot of people and that's why I like you, but just like you're defending your position of me "Needing to get out in the world" right now, There's still enough of a barrier to where we both will never really be able to side with each other completely.
> 
> We all want the side that correlates with our beliefs the most to win. It's just a matter of how much it matters to people. At the end of it, you can like some of both but you still lean more to one side.


uttahere



BruiserKC said:


> I respect people who are anti-war under any circumstances (although I disagree with the stance as sometimes fighting is necessary)


There's a pretty big difference between being anti-war and being an outright pacifist. I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with having the biggest, baddest military on the planet and if war does happen, I say go balls out and fuck some shit up. My issue is with using our military for wars of aggression and the massively wasteful spending from the bloated military budget. The military should only ever be used for defensive reasons of our country and our allies. What we shouldn't be doing with it is going into places with a bunch of jihadist nut jobs and fighting for control of oil. The only reason we've ever been involved in the ME is because of oil and anyone who claims it's for humanitarian reasons is either full of shit or retarded. Had the USA been spending the past few decades investing in new energy technology instead of handing out trillions in subsidies to the Exxon Mobiles of the world and fighting fossil fuel wars, we wouldn't give a shit what happens in the ME anymore.

On a side note, you think the ME is fucked up now? Wait until we don't need their oil anymore and climate change makes their region uninhabitable. NO one is prepared to deal with the massive pile of crazy that's going to lead to.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> If you've never seen it, then it's you who needs to look outside of your bubble and take in more of the world. Not everything fits into your left/right mold. Not everything divides into two halves. Certainly not everyone is looking for their half to have so called superiority. Some of us want liberty and prosperity for all and not just for those who "play for our team". There is a lot more going on than just your preconceived notions of left vs right. I'd side with the libertarian right in a heartbeat before I would side with the authoritarian left.
> 
> You are a prime example of why American politics are such shit right now. You act like this is sports and everyone is either for one team or the other and there can only be two teams. When it comes to opposing the military industrial complex, I don't particularly give a shit where someone falls on the political spectrum or what letter is next to their name. If they oppose it, they are my ally on this particular issue. That goes for most issues. I'll work with most anyone on a common goal. That doesn't mean I'll always agree with them. I might vehemently oppose them on some issues but disagreements in some areas won't stop me from allying with them when our views align.
> 
> This is the trap that so many Americans fall into and it's by design. The people who own the country want to keep us divided and arguing over petty bullshit because they know they are fucked if there is ever a mass uprising against them. Maybe it's time Americans stop arguing over left vs right and start fighting as the 99% vs the 1%. Just a thought.


You bitch someone out for being factional and then claim that everyone should unite to fight the "1%"

that's factional as fuck and is even worse, your targets are not even in an ideological group but a fucking financial one

If I only make $999,999 a year am I in the clear or do I have to knock off a few bucks?

Is it like the communist revolutions in Vietnam or Cuba where if you own land or don't want to stab your boss you are instantly the "enemy"?

Your "fight the elite" is even blinder and more unfocused than the current political system 

You bitch at people doing us vs them because its not THE RIGHT us vs them


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :kobelol


Such an adorable little Asian dumpling. :'3



BruiserKC said:


> *Equal rights, equal lefts.* :lol
> 
> Seriously, I'm not surprised. Women want to be treated equally in all ways imaginable, yet the moment they provoke a man to actually punch them they forget all about it and play the "You can't hit me I'm a woman" card when it actually happens. Funny how that works.












I like how these Antifa fucks will cry foul about it, too. Because saying "He just hit a woman, officer!" definitely doesn't destroy your narrative of equality by inadvertently promoting the notion that women should be able to strike a man and be exempt from being popped right back.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> You bitch someone out for being factional and then claim that everyone should unite to fight the "1%"
> 
> that's factional as fuck and is even worse, your targets are not even in an ideological group but a fucking financial one
> 
> If I only make $999,999 a year am I in the clear or do I have to knock off a few bucks?
> 
> Is it like the communist revolutions in Vietnam or Cuba where if you own land or don't want to stab your boss you are instantly the "enemy"?
> 
> Your "fight the elite" is even blinder and more unfocused than the current political system
> 
> You bitch at people doing us vs them because its not THE RIGHT us vs them


Not to mention the fact that the 1% constantly fluctuates, so you're not really fighting anyone in particular, you're just fighting over the fact that someone has more than you do. The argument completely lacks any morality or virtue. It's just a bunch of crybabies wanting equal outcome without doing anything to earn it.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> uttahere
> 
> 
> 
> There's a pretty big difference between being anti-war and being an outright pacifist. I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with having the biggest, baddest military on the planet and if war does happen, I say go balls out and fuck some shit up. My issue is with using our military for wars of aggression and the massively wasteful spending from the bloated military budget. The military should only ever be used for defensive reasons of our country and our allies. What we shouldn't be doing with it is going into places with a bunch of jihadist nut jobs and fighting for control of oil. The only reason we've ever been involved in the ME is because of oil and anyone who claims it's for humanitarian reasons is either full of shit or retarded. Had the USA been spending the past few decades investing in new energy technology instead of handing out trillions in subsidies to the Exxon Mobiles of the world and fighting fossil fuel wars, we wouldn't give a shit what happens in the ME anymore.
> 
> On a side note, you think the ME is fucked up now? Wait until we don't need their oil anymore and climate change makes their region uninhabitable. NO one is prepared to deal with the massive pile of crazy that's going to lead to.


Interesting that this week they were airing on PBS (yes, right-wingers do watch public television) the American Experience on the Great War (aka WW1). It seems that for the last 100 years we keep fluctuating back and forth between wanting to be in this bubble and then coming out of it when the threats rear their head. In November, 1916, Wilson gets re-elected on the stance of "He Kept Us Out Of War". A few months later, the Zimmerman telegram plus the threat of American shipping being blown up by unrestricted submarine warfare drag us into that war. 

After the war, we decide we are going to go back into our bubble and do our thing. Even in the months leading up to our entry into World War II, there were many who said we should stay out of the fiasco in Europe as Europe burned bigly. Roosevelt worked behind the scenes to help out the British while knowing full well it was probably a matter of time before we got pulled in. It happened with Pearl Harbor. 

When the Japanese surrendered, we went back to the situation regarding whether or not to retreat once again into isolationism or try to help out in the world. To be fair, we have bounced back and forth on that position ever since. The world does the same thing. When we are meddling, we are the superpower that can't mind its own business. When we tell everyone to figure it out for themselves, we're the selfish superpower that only cares about us. We can't win for losing. 

That battle has been fought again over the last few years. There are those who want to just stay out, and that includes pacifists that no matter what feel we can NEVER get involved in the world period. Yes, they throw out the idea of just war and so on, but they put out so many restrictions that it is safe to say they are pacifists. The threat of radical Islam has reared its head to the point we can't ignore it. One can argue our getting involved and screwing up some shit hasn't helped, but to me radical Islamists would continue pushing even if we pulled out of the ME entirely and abandoned Israel. 

Maybe we need to rethink, for now, about what to do regarding our stance in the world. We have the chance to do this now on our own terms. We should be wiping ISIS and Al-Qaeda off the face of the earth with extreme prejudice. While I don't want bombs and people being killed, I have far less problem with the bad guys getting killed. Then, when that's all over and done with, we can sit down with the players in the ME (Russia, Syria, Israel, Iran, etc) and say, "We are not going to keep doing this. Either you want our help or you can deal with this on your own. If you want us gone, fine. However, if our security is threatened and we come back, it will be on our terms and it won't be pretty." 

The bouncing back and forth is annoying, something has to give.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sargon chimes in on Berkeley


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> uttahere


See, you laugh? But you know you'll always be more left than right. Everyone has their line. The old "can't we all just get along" fluff is nice, even true, to a point. However, people will ALWAYS put some belief of theirs over another.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> You bitch someone out for being factional and then claim that everyone should unite to fight the "1%"
> 
> that's factional as fuck and is even worse, your targets are not even in an ideological group but a fucking financial one
> 
> If I only make $999,999 a year am I in the clear or do I have to knock off a few bucks?
> 
> Is it like the communist revolutions in Vietnam or Cuba where if you own land or don't want to stab your boss you are instantly the "enemy"?
> 
> Your "fight the elite" is even blinder and more unfocused than the current political system
> 
> You bitch at people doing us vs them because its not THE RIGHT us vs them





TheNightmanCometh said:


> Not to mention the fact that the 1% constantly fluctuates, so you're not really fighting anyone in particular, you're just fighting over the fact that someone has more than you do. The argument completely lacks any morality or virtue. It's just a bunch of crybabies wanting equal outcome without doing anything to earn it.


Take a seat, children. Class is in session. Put on your learning caps and take in the wisdom of George Carlin.








BruiserKC said:


> Interesting that this week they were airing on PBS (yes, right-wingers do watch public television) the American Experience on the Great War (aka WW1). It seems that for the last 100 years we keep fluctuating back and forth between wanting to be in this bubble and then coming out of it when the threats rear their head. In November, 1916, Wilson gets re-elected on the stance of "He Kept Us Out Of War". A few months later, the Zimmerman telegram plus the threat of American shipping being blown up by unrestricted submarine warfare drag us into that war.
> 
> After the war, we decide we are going to go back into our bubble and do our thing. Even in the months leading up to our entry into World War II, there were many who said we should stay out of the fiasco in Europe as Europe burned bigly. Roosevelt worked behind the scenes to help out the British while knowing full well it was probably a matter of time before we got pulled in. It happened with Pearl Harbor.
> 
> When the Japanese surrendered, we went back to the situation regarding whether or not to retreat once again into isolationism or try to help out in the world. To be fair, we have bounced back and forth on that position ever since. The world does the same thing. When we are meddling, we are the superpower that can't mind its own business. When we tell everyone to figure it out for themselves, we're the selfish superpower that only cares about us. We can't win for losing.
> 
> That battle has been fought again over the last few years. There are those who want to just stay out, and that includes pacifists that no matter what feel we can NEVER get involved in the world period. Yes, they throw out the idea of just war and so on, but they put out so many restrictions that it is safe to say they are pacifists. The threat of radical Islam has reared its head to the point we can't ignore it. One can argue our getting involved and screwing up some shit hasn't helped, but to me radical Islamists would continue pushing even if we pulled out of the ME entirely and abandoned Israel.
> 
> Maybe we need to rethink, for now, about what to do regarding our stance in the world. We have the chance to do this now on our own terms. We should be wiping ISIS and Al-Qaeda off the face of the earth with extreme prejudice. While I don't want bombs and people being killed, I have far less problem with the bad guys getting killed. Then, when that's all over and done with, we can sit down with the players in the ME (Russia, Syria, Israel, Iran, etc) and say, "We are not going to keep doing this. Either you want our help or you can deal with this on your own. If you want us gone, fine. However, if our security is threatened and we come back, it will be on our terms and it won't be pretty."
> 
> The bouncing back and forth is annoying, something has to give.


Here's a novel idea. Maybe we should stop arming the ME. If these people want to bomb themselves back into the stone age, I say we let them but they can do it without our weapons. The first place I'd stop arming is Saudi Arabia.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Words cannot describe how tired I am of fucking George Carlin clips as "points"

In fact it shows even less "individuality" and says "I just decided to base my views around someone who I thought sounded smart"


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Here's a novel idea. Maybe we should stop arming the ME. If these people want to bomb themselves back into the stone age, I say we let them but they can do it without our weapons. The first place I'd stop arming is Saudi Arabia.


We should just turn the Middle East into a No Man's Land, no one in or out.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Words cannot describe how tired I am of fucking George Carlin clips as "points"
> 
> In fact it shows even less "individuality" and says "I just decided to base my views around someone who I thought sounded smart"


Well, I could have given you a long, point by point rebuttal explaining how retarded your post was but seeing as how I would have better luck explaining quantum theory to a tree stump, I posted a George Carlin clip instead.



virus21 said:


> We should just turn the Middle East into a No Man's Land, no one in or out.


I can't say I would shed any tears. As long as the threat doesn't spill outside of their borders, I say fuck 'em. Not our problem.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Well, I could have given you a long, point by point rebuttal explaining how retarded your post was but seeing as how I would have better luck explaining quantum theory to a tree stump, I posted a George Carlin clip instead.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I would shed any tears. As long as the threat doesn't spill outside of their borders, I say fuck 'em. Not our problem.


"dude your wrong, I don't have time but take my word for it also fuck the middle east"


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/852510810287075329

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853583417916755968
This is why I read Scott Adams. No one else's read on the president compares to the persuasion filter employed by Scott.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Take a seat, children. Class is in session. Put on your learning caps and take in the wisdom of George Carlin.


I don't make life choices based on a one minute clip of what George Carlin says. Sorry, he's not the arbiter on this topic. And LOL, to the idea that the 1% represent the ruling class.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html



> Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes


Bottom 80% pays 15%
Lowest earners pay less than 2%


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is going to be a very lengthy response, so grab a drink or something and get comfortable:



BruiserKC said:


> In a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue. We'd all get along or play in our own little corner of the sandbox. Hell, in a perfect world even Beatles and BM would be able to sit down together, drink a beer or four and exchange bro-hugs before going to the titty bar together with the intent of making it rain. Alas, we don't live in a perfect world.


I find that a very interested argument especially considering that we do live in small fragmants of perfected worlds where we indeed have strong diplomatic and friendly blocs. Why do those diplomatic blocs represent this perfect world within the world and where is that agreement in ideology coming from. 

While I know that there are major ideological differences all over the world, what I find completely irrational at this point is the belief that our rulers are fighting just wars just because they gave us a few reasons to make us believe that they're just. I don't buy it anymore. The reasoning is objectively flawed where say you go into Syria to "free its people", then why are you not going into Saudi Arabia which has an even more repressive regime and has actively funded ideological terrorists across the world and given them a safe haven to operate out of their country. 

Modern day disagreements amongst the biggest nations in the world are at a juncture that the top offices of each and every country in a conflict with another fumbles over passing on its reasoning for that particular conflict to their constituents leading the very legitimate criticism of questionable motives. Those in power control the flow of information and control the power to engage the military where they see fit - but they're not voted in with the trust of the constituents to do this. This is a massive flaw of the democratic process and while as reasonable adults we're aware of the risk 



> I don't care about the hero complex, to be honest. If we could guarantee that Syria would take care of its own shit and ISIS, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, Assad is more focused on the rebels who want him ousted more than he is on ISIS. That's why we see stories of civilians being beheaded, burned in cages, or tied to old pillars and then blown up. Putin is backing Assad, but only to crush the rebels and stir the pot enough so that the Syrians keep fighting each other. The problem is by not having the matter settled, the situation further deteriorates. More refugees, more possible terrorists, more recruits because ISIS points a finger at us if we don't get involved and points a finger at us if we do get involved. The region needs to be stabilized somehow to solve the problem. If the civil war gets resolved, the refugee problem can be solved.


ISIS poses a threat to the world definitely and to Syria also. As I already explained, Assad has literally no reason to go weak on ISIS. The problem is that the US and ISIS are in bed with one another (obviously not ideologically, but they have in part the same goal). So I find this illogical to say that "Well Syria isn't doing enough about ISIS" --- of course it's not doing enough about ISIS because America has it split between rebels and ISIS with limited resources. It's either intentional to keep Assad destabilized and I don't think at this point America cares if Assad gets overtaken by the rebels or by ISIS because either way they achieve their goal. America needs to reverse its policy position on Assad temporary and work with him to end ISIS and there is literally no other solution here. You can't tear a country apart and then blame them for not being able to control a problem you're helping exacerbate with your interventionist policy. 



> I'd be perfectly willing to step back and let them figure it out, but where we would reserve the right to step in if need be. Maybe offer to mediate a discussion among the different parties. We sent a message to Assad, another couple of days of planning we could have wiped out most of his air force if need be. We didn't because we want him to stick around really, he's a better option then a theocratic leader or ISIS taking control. But, let him think we will do it if necessary and maybe things change.


America's message to Assad was clear 6 years ago - and since Americans have invested so much in trying to get rid of Assad, they're not about to do the right thing now. I hate to sound anti-American, but at this point in time, I'm firm in my position that in the Syrian conflict America picked the wrong side and they're the ones that need to change their policy position. There have been several attempts made by Assad to work with America, there was a call by Putin to work with America but first it was Obama that decided to remain the aggressor and now Trump is singing the same tune. At this point I have no option but to assume that it's America that is the chief aggressor and the one refusing to be diplomatic in any way, shape or form in this entire conflict. They're not willing to go all in, nor are willing to step away. They're simply making things worse with their half-assery and aggression. 



> Again, involvement should be a final resort, but don't let them think that.


Americans are already involved. In a way that's making it worse for everyone. 



Dr. Middy said:


> So how about if there is interference for monetary and economic reasons? I'm just going to assume that would also be morally wrong as well.


Buying and selling or refusing to buy or sell to any entity imo is not aggression so not immoral. Blockading necessities and forcing other countries through violent means from trading with sanctioned partners is immoral. Voluntary sanctions by allies is not immoral. 



> I do agree that we're at a point where doing any more direct military action isn't going to do anything but cause more direct harm. I don't know why, but I never did connect the ideas of how our original "War on Terror" was an influence into the Insurgents that drove so many migrants to Europe and beyond, leading to the failure of them acclimating into their environments, and instead giving them a platform to do more harm in more areas. Now yes, many still say about how there are a vast majority of migrants who don't support the actions of their extremist brethren, but it's enough of a majority to be extremely worrying now, and I don't understand how countries like Sweden and others are just sitting back and not doing anything about it.


The connection goes all the way back to the development of the Islamic Bloc in the 60's and getting formalized in the 70's. The Iran/Iraq war. The Iraq revolution, the Pakistan/Bangladesh conflict, the series of Arab operations against Israel, the creation of the PLO and other organizations all over the muslim world. Operation Cyclone, combined with the advent of Wahabbi and Salafi Islam in Saudi Arabia was however, the greatest and worst operations to have happened in the middle east. The billions that America spent in arming the mujahideen in Pakistan allowed an incredible amount of wealth to be transferred to terrorist groups and then the russian withdrawal from Afghanistan left behind thousands of Klashinokovs in that region. The kalashinikov was then reverse engineered by the terrorists (who are not cave dwellers but a very highly trained army) and is involved in approximately 90% of all terror incidents in that region.

The terrorists in Pakistan aren't just weilders of weapons, they construct them. They are not just sold weapons by arms dealers, they make them. There was a very famous video of a disabled Taliban terrorist in north Pakistan in 2005 that showed a man with just one hand and one leg churning out hundreds of guns a day. 

The same is true of ISIS and other "splinter" groups. The idea that these are just rag-tag extremists is one of the ways they keep westerners from recognizing the full scale of the actual threat they represent. 

In Pakistan where we had regular wars with the Taliban, it was not uncommon for the Taliban to descend on a military complex and hold out for 12-14 hours against the full might of the military and still accomplish their goal of doing as much damage as possible. These Taliban are not barbarians. They are fully trained military soldiers with fully reverse engineered western equipment and guns. Syrian ISIS is even more heavily armed, better trained and organized than the Taliban. You are looking at a fully operational country with a fully organized and functional militia. 

The ISIS threat is indeed a big one which is why I do not oppose a full on head on clash of the titans and even a war of attrition. 

My problem is in the incompetence they've shown to deal with the threat and their inability to decide to just go in and do it. I'm not going to say no if America says that they're launching an all out war to end ISIS and shake hands with Russia as an ally. 



> The idea of military interference for "humanitarian reasons" does scare me a bit because of Donald Trump's current attitude towards it all. If those rumors are true about Ivanka's crying actually influencing his decision to drop missiles on that airbase, then I'm almost certain he'd be the type to watch the overload of propaganda from the MSM when it came to any sort of inhumane killing like the alleged chemical weapons killings. And really, it's kinda ironic that he seems so easily influenced by the very form of information he continually labels as fake. Hopefully that strike is a one time thing as a reaction to what happened, and that in the future we'll actually come up with a plan should anything along those lines happen again.


This strike isn't going to be a one-off. I just hope that Trump's legacy isn't a bunch of "one offs" and nothing accomplished. If you've crossed the line into interventionism, then go all in and get the job done, or stay the hell out. I don't think we're living in a world where precision strikes are going to solve anything anymore.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The connection goes all the way back to the development of the Islamic Bloc in the 60's and getting formalized in the 70's. The Iran/Iraq war. The Iraq revolution, the Pakistan/Bangladesh conflict, the series of Arab operations against Israel, the creation of the PLO and other organizations all over the muslim world. Operation Cyclone, combined with the advent of Wahabbi and Salafi Islam in Saudi Arabia was however, the greatest and worst operations to have happened in the middle east. The billions that America spent in arming the mujahideen in Pakistan allowed an incredible amount of wealth to be transferred to terrorist groups and then the russian withdrawal from Afghanistan left behind thousands of Klashinokovs in that region. The kalashinikov was then reverse engineered by the terrorists (who are not cave dwellers but a very highly trained army) and is involved in approximately 90% of all terror incidents in that region.
> 
> The terrorists in Pakistan aren't just weilders of weapons, they construct them. They are not just sold weapons by arms dealers, they make them. There was a very famous video of a disabled Taliban terrorist in north Pakistan in 2005 that showed a man with just one hand and one leg churning out hundreds of guns a day.
> 
> The same is true of ISIS and other "splinter" groups. The idea that these are just rag-tag extremists is one of the ways they keep westerners from recognizing the full scale of the actual threat they represent.
> 
> In Pakistan where we had regular wars with the Taliban, it was not uncommon for the Taliban to descend on a military complex and hold out for 12-14 hours against the full might of the military and still accomplish their goal of doing as much damage as possible. These Taliban are not barbarians. They are fully trained military soldiers with fully reverse engineered western equipment and guns. Syrian ISIS is even more heavily armed, better trained and organized than the Taliban. You are looking at a fully operational country with a fully organized and functional militia.
> 
> The ISIS threat is indeed a big one which is why I do not oppose a full on head on clash of the titans and even a war of attrition.
> 
> My problem is in the incompetence they've shown to deal with the threat and their inability to decide to just go in and do it. I'm not going to say no if America says that they're launching an all out war to end ISIS and shake hands with Russia as an ally.


Appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully explain the background behind why the Middle East really is what it currently is now. 

I really never understood the idea that these militants were just a bunch of rag-tag dudes with weapons. If that was the case, they wouldn't still be as huge of a issue to the world as we know it now. I wonder why the facts of how they are very capable trained soldiers aren't made more clear to even just normal everyday citizens. I feel like most people would take the threat of ISIS and it's various militias more seriously as a result. 

As for a full out war, I really REALLY don't want us to have to resort to putting thousands of men and women on the ground again. I think it'd be better to get some allies together and jointly try to work out a plan, whether or not Russia decides to be a part of it or not. 



> This strike isn't going to be a one-off. I just hope that Trump's legacy isn't a bunch of "one offs" and nothing accomplished. If you've crossed the line into interventionism, then go all in and get the job done, or stay the hell out. I don't think we're living in a world where precision strikes are going to solve anything anymore.


They're clearly not going to be stopped by some missile strikes. What I meant by my post initially is that I hope Trump doesn't just let his emotions get the best of him with these strikes, and instead actually work on a cohesive and comprehensive plan of action instead of an occasional strike here and there. 

Again, I'm hoping we stay out of a full fledged war, but if we do have a concrete plan with help from allies to completely eradicate ISIS, then I suppose I can accept that and support it. Until then though, I don't have that much support in his actions.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully explain the background behind why the Middle East really is what it currently is now.
> 
> I really never understood the idea that these militants were just a bunch of rag-tag dudes with weapons. If that was the case, they wouldn't still be as huge of a issue to the world as we know it now. I wonder why the facts of how they are very capable trained soldiers aren't made more clear to even just normal everyday citizens. I feel like most people would take the threat of ISIS and it's various militias more seriously as a result.


I think (and now I'm in the realm of conjecture) that there are possibly two or more reasons. The primary reason I think is that they themselves haven't quite fully understood the threat they're really facing. This is probably why went into Afghanistan at the drop of a hat in 2001. They didn't take the time to study their enemy and understand who they were dealing with. They thought that that they would be a disorganized group of ragheaded camel herders with weapons. I don't even know why they thought that was the case considering that these so-called ragheaded camel herders had just fought off Russia's attempts to take it over, then defeated dozens of warlords and had been running a country for 6-7 years before America invaded. They weren't a group of people they could eradicate. They were the rulers and administrators of the country and so skilled and able. 

The narrative and impression of what the Taliban, ISIS and other Islamist terrorists are like needs to be changed and this needs to happen at the top level as well which I believe remains kind of willfully ignorant of their true capability. The soldiers went in there prepared and the top brass did not have the intel to help them. I don't think they even publicized the news of the constant raiding and pillaging of the American supply chain along the Khyber Pass. The constant defeats. The inability of the US to even penetrate much of Afghanistan through most of the 16 years. 

ISIS is a global organization meaning that its recruits come from all over the world with their skills, qualification and knowledge into a cohesive whole. It really is a nation. It's not simply a terrorist organization. It's a burgeoning country where people truly believe in it. People need to treat it as such and stop pretending that it's anything less at this point. 



> As for a full out war, I really REALLY don't want us to have to resort to putting thousands of men and women on the ground again. I think it'd be better to get some allies together and jointly try to work out a plan, whether or not Russia decides to be a part of it or not.


It's going to happen sooner or later. 



> They're clearly not going to be stopped by some missile strikes. What I meant by my post initially is that I hope Trump doesn't just let his emotions get the best of him with these strikes, and instead actually work on a cohesive and comprehensive plan of action instead of an occasional strike here and there.


He's not even in control anymore. He's handed it off to the military from what I can see. It makes me nervous. 



> Again, I'm hoping we stay out of a full fledged war, but if we do have a concrete plan with help from allies to completely eradicate ISIS, then I suppose I can accept that and support it. Until then though, I don't have that much support in his actions.


America will have to accept allies in governments they consider legit or not in order to end ISIS. Or let those governments deal with them on their own and let everyone else take care of their homegrown terrorist problem.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I think (and now I'm in the realm of conjecture) that there are possibly two or more reasons. The primary reason I think is that they themselves haven't quite fully understood the threat they're really facing. This is probably why went into Afghanistan at the drop of a hat in 2001. They didn't take the time to study their enemy and understand who they were dealing with. They thought that that they would be a disorganized group of ragheaded camel herders with weapons. I don't even know why they thought that was the case considering that these so-called ragheaded camel herders had just fought off Russia's attempts to take it over, then defeated dozens of warlords and had been running a country for 6-7 years before America invaded. They weren't a group of people they could eradicate. They were the rulers and administrators of the country and so skilled and able.
> 
> The narrative and impression of what the Taliban, ISIS and other Islamist terrorists are like needs to be changed and this needs to happen at the top level as well which I believe remains kind of willfully ignorant of their true capability. The soldiers went in there prepared and the top brass did not have the intel to help them. I don't think they even publicized the news of the constant raiding and pillaging of the American supply chain along the Khyber Pass. The constant defeats. The inability of the US to even penetrate much of Afghanistan through most of the 16 years.
> 
> ISIS is a global organization meaning that its recruits come from all over the world with their skills, qualification and knowledge into a cohesive whole. It really is a nation. It's not simply a terrorist organization. It's a burgeoning country where people truly believe in it. People need to treat it as such and stop pretending that it's anything less at this point.


This reminds me of the whole "Mission Accomplished" Speech that Bush ended up making in 2003, which ended up probably to be one of the most infamous moments of his presidency. I was only 10 when that happened, but I still remember that picture of him on that aircraft carrier with that banner right behind him. I also never remember hearing about how we weren't really winning or succeeding in our missions on the news much. Granted, I didn't pay a lot of attention to politics and our military efforts as a whole when I was in high school and the like, but I feel like I would have noticed such a thing at the time.

In the most basic terms really, ISIS is a world coalition dedicated to terrorism, and it can only be stopped with a world coalition going against it. 



> He's not even in control anymore. He's handed it off to the military from what I can see. It makes me nervous.


You're not the only one who is. I'm very worried myself.



> America will have to accept allies in governments they consider legit or not in order to end ISIS. Or let those governments deal with them on their own and let everyone else take care of their homegrown terrorist problem.


I hope allies like Russia can kinda turn their cheek away for a scenario like this, and realize that the bigger picture of ending ISIS is more important than whatever disagreements they might have between themselves and the US. It'll have to happen one way or another, and hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> This reminds me of the whole "Mission Accomplished" Speech that Bush ended up making in 2003, which ended up probably to be one of the most infamous moments of his presidency. I was only 10 when that happened, but I still remember that picture of him on that aircraft carrier with that banner right behind him. I also never remember hearing about how we weren't really winning or succeeding in our missions on the news much. Granted, I didn't pay a lot of attention to politics and our military efforts as a whole when I was in high school and the like, but I feel like I would have noticed such a thing at the time.


I never once saw a war that anyone won that wasn't followed by a massive victory parade at home. 

Afghanistan was a massive failure (both militarily and financially) which is why they never withdrew and never stopped dropping bombs either. You don't continue to drop bombs into a territory that you've "won" or even established control over. 

They not only spent billions on the war, but also installed government after government which had no clue what to do and then gave that government billions of dollars that they obviously misused and which simply disappeared. 

I've posted the pictures of the carnage of the American supply change along Khyber Pass. 

Muslims have been raiding war parties for 1500 years. Americans and NATO apparently had no clue how to protect their supply chain. It got raided at least a few dozen times over the years - led to major conflicts between Pakistan and NATO and exposed America's lack of preparedness to fight the Afghan war. 

You'll never get an official acknowledgement for obvious reasons, but America and NATO lost Afghanistan.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Sargon chimes in on Berkeley


He also posted this interesting video, too:






Definitely worth a watch.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/13/jeff-sessions-surprised-americans-marijuana/



> *Jeff Sessions says he’s ‘surprised’ Americans aren’t embracing his anti-marijuana stance*
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday said he’s “surprised” Americans aren’t overwhelmingly embracing his widely reported stance against marijuana, all the while recent polling reveals a majority of voters do in fact support legal pot.
> Mr. Sessions briefly weighed in on marijuana legalization during a wide-ranging discussion held Tuesday at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix, AZCentral reported.
> 
> “When they nominated me for attorney general, you would have thought the biggest issue in America was when I said, ‘I don’t think America’s going to be a better place if they sell marijuana at every corner grocery store,’ ” Mr. Sessions told attendees.
> 
> “[People] didn’t like that; I’m surprised they didn’t like that,” he added.
> 
> Indeed, 57 percent Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to results of a government-sponsored opinion poll published last month, establishing a historic high point with respect to public support for pot.
> 
> Currently, marijuana is legal for medical or recreational purposes in 28 states and D.C., notwithstanding the federal government’s ongoing prohibition on pot.
> 
> And while Mr. Sessions infamously voiced anti-legalizing views prior to being confirmed as President Trump’s attorney general — at one point declaring “Good people don’t smoke marijuana” — his Justice Department has so far failed to take action against any of the more than two dozen states currently defying the federal law. Even so, Mr. Sessions spoke out explicitly last month against medical and recreational marijuana laws alike.
> 
> “I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use, but too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable: I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store,” Mr. Sessions said during an address in Richmond, Virginia, last month.
> 
> “I think medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much,” Mr. Sessions continued, at one point saying pot is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.
> 
> Federal law is “not eviscerated because the state ceases to enforce it in that state,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.
> Multiple bills have been filed in the House and Senate in the weeks since, aimed at reining in the federal government’s longstanding anti-marijuana stance.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Canadian government introduced legislation Thursday that would implement North America’s first federally approved system for legal marijuana.


I want to think he was joking about being surprised, but I don't think he was.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If Trump were pro weed and made it legal, pretty sure he'd have next election clinched.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/13/jeff-sessions-surprised-americans-marijuana/
> 
> I want to think he was joking about being surprised, but I don't think he was.


Sessions is an ideologue who doesn't live in the land of reality. I believe him when he says he was surprised.



Miss Sally said:


> If Trump were pro weed and made it legal, pretty sure he'd have next election clinched.


Trump, unlike Sessions, is not an ideologue. He is, however, a puppet of the establishment, and they don't want legal pot because it would cut into the profits of Big Pharma and the private prison industry, so there's pretty much zero chance he'd ever sign off on decriminalizing pot. _Even if_ Trump were in favor of it, his handlers would never allow it.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/13/jeff-sessions-surprised-americans-marijuana/
> 
> 
> 
> I want to think he was joking about being surprised, but I don't think he was.


He does know that pot has been proven to be safer than alcohol?


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Not to mention the fact that the 1% constantly fluctuates, so you're not really fighting anyone in particular, you're just fighting over the fact that someone has more than you do. The argument completely lacks any morality or virtue. It's just a bunch of crybabies wanting equal outcome without doing anything to earn it.


I don't really know you, so I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and explain my position further.

Just for starters, anyone arguing for equal outcome is a fucking retard. 100% agreement with you there. If that's what you think I advocate for, you know nothing about my philosophy.

This is not about fighting over some having more than others. Some people are always going to have more than others. And there is nothing wrong with that. Of course a doctor should earn more wealth than a janitor. Where the problem lies is with extreme concentrations of wealth and power. When the top 8 people worldwide own as much as the bottom half of humanity, yeah, there's a problem with that. It's a sign of a rigged economic system. Those people didn't work that much harder than the people in the sweatshops of third world countries. They benefited from a system designed to funnel wealth to the top.

What started the conversation was the back n forth with my friend @Beatles123 and myself about not letting left/right arguments divide us up to the point that we cannot work together on common goals, especially when it concerns the military industrial complex. I have many rightward leaning friends that I find common ground with when it comes to opposing American Imperialism and wars of aggression. Just because we don't always agree on economic and social issues doesn't mean we can't work together to fight against the neocons who run the United States government.

But back to economics... the main difference between my libertarian right friends and myself as a libertarian leftist is that although we both oppose big government, they seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling all the wealth and I oppose *all* forms of centralized power, be it in the hands of the government or in the hands of corporations. I advocate for decentralized power and local governance. I argue for direct democracy. I want a system that allows the people as a whole to decide what kind of society they want to live in and not have the majority ruled over by a minority opinion, which is what we have now.

With the kind of technology we have in modern times and the abundance of resources we have available to us, there is no good reason why we as a society should not all be prospering. When I say the 99% should unite against the 1%, it's admittedly an oversimplification of the issue. The problem is an economic system that is designed to produce the maximum amount of wealth for the fewest people possible while the rest of us are expected to live off table scraps. When the USA has millions of people on food stamps while we throw away over 40% of the food we produce, I call that a broken system. When the subprime mortgage crisis happened 8 years ago, we bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars, we jailed none of the bankers who committed fraud against the American people and we let millions lose their homes, all in the name of keeping wealth concentrated at the top. That's what I call a broken system.

The United States government answers to one master only and that's the god of money. It works great for those at the top but fucks over the rest of us. Call me crazy but it's my belief that humanity holds greater value than the almighty dollar. That's why I say we should be all be working together, regardless of where we land on the political spectrum, to take on the rigged system that hoards all the wealth while the majority of us suffer the consequences.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sessions publicly acknowledging that his position is unpopular is a step forward for the federal government imo. I don't remember anyone coming out and admitting that they hold an unpopular position before. I believe this kind of recognition may be a precursor towards change. I would be surprised if it isn't.

Canada legalization will also go a long way in bringing the change in America.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Legalizing weed has created more jobs and massive tax revenue for the state of Colorado.

Weed can be used as an alternative paper source and for pretty much a lot of stuff. 

It just makes sense to legalize it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:kobelol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I don't really know you, so I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and explain my position further.
> 
> Just for starters, anyone arguing for equal outcome is a fucking retard. 100% agreement with you there. If that's what you think I advocate for, you know nothing about my philosophy.
> 
> This is not about fighting over some having more than others. Some people are always going to have more than others. And there is nothing wrong with that. Of course a doctor should earn more wealth than a janitor. Where the problem lies is with extreme concentrations of wealth and power. When the top 8 people worldwide own as much as the bottom half of humanity, yeah, there's a problem with that. It's a sign of a rigged economic system. Those people didn't work that much harder than the people in the sweatshops of third world countries. They benefited from a system designed to funnel wealth to the top.
> 
> What started the conversation was the back n forth with my friend @Beatles123 and myself about not letting left/right arguments divide us up to the point that we cannot work together on common goals, especially when it concerns the military industrial complex. I have many rightward leaning friends that I find common ground with when it comes to opposing American Imperialism and wars of aggression. Just because we don't always agree on economic and social issues doesn't mean we can't work together to fight against the neocons who run the United States government.
> 
> But back to economics... the main difference between my libertarian right friends and myself as a libertarian leftist is that although we both oppose big government, they seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling all the wealth and I oppose *all* forms of centralized power, be it in the hands of the government or in the hands of corporations. I advocate for decentralized power and local governance. I argue for direct democracy. I want a system that allows the people as a whole to decide what kind of society they want to live in and not have the majority ruled over by a minority opinion, which is what we have now.
> 
> With the kind of technology we have in modern times and the abundance of resources we have available to us, there is no good reason why we as a society should not all be prospering. When I say the 99% should unite against the 1%, it's admittedly an oversimplification of the issue. The problem is an economic system that is designed to produce the maximum amount of wealth for the fewest people possible while the rest of us are expected to live off table scraps. When the USA has millions of people on food stamps while we throw away over 40% of the food we produce, I call that a broken system. When the subprime mortgage crisis happened 8 years ago, we bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars, we jailed none of the bankers who committed fraud against the American people and we let millions lose their homes, all in the name of keeping wealth concentrated at the top. That's what I call a broken system.
> 
> The United States government answers to one master only and that's the god of money. It works great for those at the top but fucks over the rest of us. Call me crazy but it's my belief that humanity holds greater value than the almighty dollar. That's why I say we should be all be working together, regardless of where we land on the political spectrum, to take on the rigged system that hoards all the wealth while the majority of us suffer the consequences.


My argument remains though that where we'd disagree is how to go about fixing the government, and thats where our opposing ideologies make it hard. As illustrated in your post :shrug

Understand me, damn you :mj2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

2017 and we're still banning this plant...Hopefully if the US leads the way the UK will follow. I don't really have much interest in smoking it anymore but I'd probably dabble once in a while if it was going spare.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> My argument remains though that where we'd disagree is how to go about fixing the government, and thats where our opposing ideologies make it hard. As illustrated in your post :shrug


We might disagree on how to fix the government but first we have to work together to end big government in the first place so we can have the conversation about how to fix the government. 



Beatles123 said:


> Understand me, damn you :mj2


I understand, damn you. (Y)


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> April 17, 2017
> *How Trump and Obama are Exactly Alike*
> by Sam Husseini
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo by Pete Souza | CC BY 3.0 US
> 
> Not until faithfulness turns to betrayal
> And betrayal into trust
> Can any human being become part of the truth.
> 
> — Rumi
> 
> Trump won the 2016 nomination and election largely because he was able to pose as a populist and anti-interventionist “America Firster”.
> 
> Similarly, Obama won the 2008 election in good part because he promised “hope and change” and because he had given a speech years earlier against the then-impending invasion of Iraq.
> 
> Short of disclosure of diaries or other documents from these politicians, we can’t know for certain if they planned on reversing much of what they promised or if the political establishment compelled them to change, but they both eventually perpetrated a massive fraud.
> 
> What is perhaps most striking is actually how quickly each of them backtracked on their alleged purpose. Particular since they were both proclaimed as representing “movements”.
> 
> Even before he took office, Obama stacked his administration with pro-war people: He incredibly kept Bush’s head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates; nominated Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, who he beat largely because she voted for giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Other prominent Iraq War backers atop the administration included VP Joe Biden, Susan Rice and Richard Holbrooke. Before he was sworn in, Obama backed the 2008 Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. See from 2008: “Anti-War Candidate, Pro-War Cabinet?”
> 
> Predictably, the Obama years saw a dramatic escalation of the U.S. global assassination program using drones. Obama intentionally bombed more countries than any other president since World War II: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. Obama talked about a nuclear weapons free world, but geared up to spent $1 trillion in upgrading the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. At the end of his administration, attempts at the UN to work toward banning nuclear weapons were sabotaged, efforts that the Trump administration continues. At his first news conference as president, Helen Thomas asked Obama if he know of any country in the Mideast that had nuclear weapons. Obama passed on the opportunity to start unraveling the mountain of deceits that constitutes U.S. foreign policy by simply saying “Israel” and instead said that he didn’t want to “speculate” about the matter.
> 
> As many have noted recently, Trump seemingly reversed himself on Syria and launched a barrage of cruise missiles targeting the Assad regime. It’s part of a whole host of what’s called “flip-flops” — Ex-Im Bank, NATO, China, Russia, Federal Reserve — but which are in fact the unraveling of campaign deceits.
> 
> Fundamentally, Obama and Trump ran against the establishment and then helped rebrand it — further entrenching it.
> 
> And of course it’s not just foreign policy. Obama brought in pro-Wall Street apparatchiks Tim Geithner and others around Robert Rubin, like Larry Summers. Some were connected to Goldman Sachs, including Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Elena Kagan and Obama would back the Wall Street bailout. Trump campaigned as a populist and brought in a litany of Goldman Sachs tools, most prominently Steven Mnuchin at Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn as chief economic advisor.
> 
> The nature of their deception is different. Obama is lawyerly and, like jello, hard to pin to the wall. Many of his broken promises are actually violations of the spirit of what he said, not the letter. He can promise to withdraw “all combat troops” from Iraq — but doesn’t inform voters that “combat troops” in his parlance is not the same as “troops”. And most certainly many of his backers were utterly infatuated with him and seemed incapable of parsing out his deceitful misimpressions. Obama did however outright violate some promises, most obviously to close the the gulag at Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days.
> 
> Trump triangulates by being an electron. He can say X and not-X in the span of a minute. Like an electron, he can be in two places at the same time. Trump is just an extreme example of what should be evident: It’s largely meaningless if a politician declares a position, especially during a campaign. The question is: What have they done? How have they demonstrated their commitment to, say, ending perpetual wars or taking on Wall Street?
> 
> These people are largely salesmen.
> 
> Nor are these patterns totally new. George W. Bush campaigned against “nation building” (sic: nation destroying); Bill Clinton campaigned as the “man from Hope” for the little guy; George H. W. Bush claimed he was a compassionate conservative. All backed corporate power and finance. All waged aggressive war.
> 
> In both the cases of Obama and Trump, the “opposition” party put forward a ridiculous critique that pushed them to be more militaristic. Obama as a “secret Muslim” — which gave him more licence to bomb more Muslim countries while still having a ridiculous image of being some sort of pacifist. Much of the “liberal” and “progressive” critique of Trump has been focusing on Russia, in effect pushing Trump to be more militaristic against the other major nuclear state on the planet.
> 
> One thing that’s needed is citizens aided by media that adroitly and accessibly pierce through the substantial deceptions in real time.
> 
> Another thing that’s needed is that people from what we call the “left” and “right” need to join together and pursue polices that undermine the grip of Wall Street and the war makers. They should not be draw into loving or hating personalities or take satisfaction from principleless partisan barbs.
> 
> Only when there’s adherence to real values and when solidarity is acted upon will the cycles of betrayal be broken.
> 
> SOURCE


*Another thing that’s needed is that people from what we call the “left” and “right” need to join together and pursue polices that undermine the grip of Wall Street and the war makers.*

Looking at you, @Beatles123. :cudi


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> This is going to be a very lengthy response, so grab a drink or something and get comfortable:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that a very interested argument especially considering that we do live in small fragmants of perfected worlds where we indeed have strong diplomatic and friendly blocs. Why do those diplomatic blocs represent this perfect world within the world and where is that agreement in ideology coming from.
> 
> While I know that there are major ideological differences all over the world, what I find completely irrational at this point is the belief that our rulers are fighting just wars just because they gave us a few reasons to make us believe that they're just. I don't buy it anymore. The reasoning is objectively flawed where say you go into Syria to "free its people", then why are you not going into Saudi Arabia which has an even more repressive regime and has actively funded ideological terrorists across the world and given them a safe haven to operate out of their country.
> 
> Modern day disagreements amongst the biggest nations in the world are at a juncture that the top offices of each and every country in a conflict with another fumbles over passing on its reasoning for that particular conflict to their constituents leading the very legitimate criticism of questionable motives. Those in power control the flow of information and control the power to engage the military where they see fit - but they're not voted in with the trust of the constituents to do this. This is a massive flaw of the democratic process and while as reasonable adults we're aware of the risk
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS poses a threat to the world definitely and to Syria also. As I already explained, Assad has literally no reason to go weak on ISIS. The problem is that the US and ISIS are in bed with one another (obviously not ideologically, but they have in part the same goal). So I find this illogical to say that "Well Syria isn't doing enough about ISIS" --- of course it's not doing enough about ISIS because America has it split between rebels and ISIS with limited resources. It's either intentional to keep Assad destabilized and I don't think at this point America cares if Assad gets overtaken by the rebels or by ISIS because either way they achieve their goal. America needs to reverse its policy position on Assad temporary and work with him to end ISIS and there is literally no other solution here. You can't tear a country apart and then blame them for not being able to control a problem you're helping exacerbate with your interventionist policy.
> 
> 
> 
> America's message to Assad was clear 6 years ago - and since Americans have invested so much in trying to get rid of Assad, they're not about to do the right thing now. I hate to sound anti-American, but at this point in time, I'm firm in my position that in the Syrian conflict America picked the wrong side and they're the ones that need to change their policy position. There have been several attempts made by Assad to work with America, there was a call by Putin to work with America but first it was Obama that decided to remain the aggressor and now Trump is singing the same tune. At this point I have no option but to assume that it's America that is the chief aggressor and the one refusing to be diplomatic in any way, shape or form in this entire conflict. They're not willing to go all in, nor are willing to step away. They're simply making things worse with their half-assery and aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are already involved. In a way that's making it worse for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Buying and selling or refusing to buy or sell to any entity imo is not aggression so not immoral. Blockading necessities and forcing other countries through violent means from trading with sanctioned partners is immoral. Voluntary sanctions by allies is not immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> The connection goes all the way back to the development of the Islamic Bloc in the 60's and getting formalized in the 70's. The Iran/Iraq war. The Iraq revolution, the Pakistan/Bangladesh conflict, the series of Arab operations against Israel, the creation of the PLO and other organizations all over the muslim world. Operation Cyclone, combined with the advent of Wahabbi and Salafi Islam in Saudi Arabia was however, the greatest and worst operations to have happened in the middle east. The billions that America spent in arming the mujahideen in Pakistan allowed an incredible amount of wealth to be transferred to terrorist groups and then the russian withdrawal from Afghanistan left behind thousands of Klashinokovs in that region. The kalashinikov was then reverse engineered by the terrorists (who are not cave dwellers but a very highly trained army) and is involved in approximately 90% of all terror incidents in that region.
> 
> The terrorists in Pakistan aren't just weilders of weapons, they construct them. They are not just sold weapons by arms dealers, they make them. There was a very famous video of a disabled Taliban terrorist in north Pakistan in 2005 that showed a man with just one hand and one leg churning out hundreds of guns a day.
> 
> The same is true of ISIS and other "splinter" groups. The idea that these are just rag-tag extremists is one of the ways they keep westerners from recognizing the full scale of the actual threat they represent.
> 
> In Pakistan where we had regular wars with the Taliban, it was not uncommon for the Taliban to descend on a military complex and hold out for 12-14 hours against the full might of the military and still accomplish their goal of doing as much damage as possible. These Taliban are not barbarians. They are fully trained military soldiers with fully reverse engineered western equipment and guns. Syrian ISIS is even more heavily armed, better trained and organized than the Taliban. You are looking at a fully operational country with a fully organized and functional militia.
> 
> The ISIS threat is indeed a big one which is why I do not oppose a full on head on clash of the titans and even a war of attrition.
> 
> My problem is in the incompetence they've shown to deal with the threat and their inability to decide to just go in and do it. I'm not going to say no if America says that they're launching an all out war to end ISIS and shake hands with Russia as an ally.
> 
> 
> 
> *This strike isn't going to be a one-off. I just hope that Trump's legacy isn't a bunch of "one offs" and nothing accomplished. If you've crossed the line into interventionism, then go all in and get the job done, or stay the hell out. I don't think we're living in a world where precision strikes are going to solve anything anymore.*





RipNTear said:


> I think (and now I'm in the realm of conjecture) that there are possibly two or more reasons. The primary reason I think is that they themselves haven't quite fully understood the threat they're really facing. This is probably why went into Afghanistan at the drop of a hat in 2001. They didn't take the time to study their enemy and understand who they were dealing with. They thought that that they would be a disorganized group of ragheaded camel herders with weapons. I don't even know why they thought that was the case considering that these so-called ragheaded camel herders had just fought off Russia's attempts to take it over, then defeated dozens of warlords and had been running a country for 6-7 years before America invaded. They weren't a group of people they could eradicate. They were the rulers and administrators of the country and so skilled and able.
> 
> The narrative and impression of what the Taliban, ISIS and other Islamist terrorists are like needs to be changed and this needs to happen at the top level as well which I believe remains kind of willfully ignorant of their true capability. The soldiers went in there prepared and the top brass did not have the intel to help them. I don't think they even publicized the news of the constant raiding and pillaging of the American supply chain along the Khyber Pass. The constant defeats. The inability of the US to even penetrate much of Afghanistan through most of the 16 years.
> 
> ISIS is a global organization meaning that its recruits come from all over the world with their skills, qualification and knowledge into a cohesive whole. It really is a nation. It's not simply a terrorist organization. It's a burgeoning country where people truly believe in it. People need to treat it as such and stop pretending that it's anything less at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> It's going to happen sooner or later.
> 
> 
> 
> *He's not even in control anymore. He's handed it off to the military from what I can see. It makes me nervous. *
> 
> 
> 
> America will have to accept allies in governments they consider legit or not in order to end ISIS. Or let those governments deal with them on their own and let everyone else take care of their homegrown terrorist problem.


The bolded parts are there because these are where I'm going to respond, and the second bolded one on Trump letting the military take care of biz is not a bad thing. 

First...a story for emphasis. When I first got to Kosovo, I went with the leader of our platoon, which happened to be a British colonel who had served in SAS. We met the UN liaison, a French woman whose husband was a colonel in the French Air Force. She talked to me about what was expected, and she then asked if I had any questions. 

I said..."Yes, madame, I do. I appreciate what you're doing and this noble mission we are asked to undergo. That being said, I hope that we will be given a certain amount of autonomy and allow us to do our job. We understand there are some boundaries and restrictions, but overall I firmly believe that things will go much smoother if we are permitted to do what is needed. As your husband is a high-ranking officer in France's military, I imagine you and he would appreciate what I'm asking." 

She looked at me and the British colonel, and said, "I think that is not a problem at all, provided you do what is required." 

We left, and when we were out of earshot, the colonel said, "That's almost too polite, Yank. Why didn't you just tell her to fuck off and let us do our fucking job?" I looked at him and said, "I filtered it a little, but that was where I was going." We laughed, he knew what I meant. 

Afghanistan and Iraq have partly been clusterfucks because we put handcuffs and a billion restrictions on our military. We keep hearing, "Do what you have to do, but don't do this or this or this or that." The political BS then gets exasperated when people start complaining when things don't go right all the time. Add to that public opinion where people are throwing a fit about us using our military or making sure we play nice to an extent, and top it off with micromanaging leaders at the top. GW Bush and Rumsfeld got involved in so much it was annoying, while Obama made it worse with his contempt for the military. We've all had that type of boss...a micromanager who meddles in everything we do from the bar is not clean enough to the energy drinks are not even in the cooler with the bottled water. Our last two presidents and leaders of the DoD have done just that. 

When Trump was running, he had to use the "I'm pro-military" card because many soldiers and their families felt that previous administrations were not. I think he also realized he needed to provide more autonomy to the military to do its job because otherwise he had no credibility. He underwent multiple deferments in Vietnam. His picking of Mattis as SoD showed the military he was willing to allow them to their job. Yes, the military is still at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief but he realizes that if we're going to be asked to go into harm's way to let them call the shots. If necessary, he will become involved, but for now he is allowing them to do what is needed. 

I would love nothing more than to squash ISIS like a bug, kill all of them motherfuckers and send them on to meet up with the 72 virgins. However, that will only work if the military is allowed to do their job and do what it takes to get the job done. If the world will TRULY let them to do that and not give lip service, then I say go for it. Otherwise, the world can take care of it themselves and don't come crying to us.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> The bolded parts are there because these are where I'm going to respond, and the second bolded one on Trump letting the military take care of biz is not a bad thing.
> 
> First...a story for emphasis. When I first got to Kosovo, I went with the leader of our platoon, which happened to be a British colonel who had served in SAS. We met the UN liaison, a French woman whose husband was a colonel in the French Air Force. She talked to me about what was expected, and she then asked if I had any questions.
> 
> I said..."Yes, madame, I do. I appreciate what you're doing and this noble mission we are asked to undergo. That being said, I hope that we will be given a certain amount of autonomy and allow us to do our job. We understand there are some boundaries and restrictions, but overall I firmly believe that things will go much smoother if we are permitted to do what is needed. As your husband is a high-ranking officer in France's military, I imagine you and he would appreciate what I'm asking."
> 
> She looked at me and the British colonel, and said, "I think that is not a problem at all, provided you do what is required."
> 
> We left, and when we were out of earshot, the colonel said, "That's almost too polite, Yank. Why didn't you just tell her to fuck off and let us do our fucking job?" I looked at him and said, "I filtered it a little, but that was where I was going." We laughed, he knew what I meant.
> 
> Afghanistan and Iraq have partly been clusterfucks because we put handcuffs and a billion restrictions on our military. We keep hearing, "Do what you have to do, but don't do this or this or this or that." The political BS then gets exasperated when people start complaining when things don't go right all the time. Add to that public opinion where people are throwing a fit about us using our military or making sure we play nice to an extent, and top it off with micromanaging leaders at the top. GW Bush and Rumsfeld got involved in so much it was annoying, while Obama made it worse with his contempt for the military. We've all had that type of boss...a micromanager who meddles in everything we do from the bar is not clean enough to the energy drinks are not even in the cooler with the bottled water. Our last two presidents and leaders of the DoD have done just that.
> 
> When Trump was running, he had to use the "I'm pro-military" card because many soldiers and their families felt that previous administrations were not. I think he also realized he needed to provide more autonomy to the military to do its job because otherwise he had no credibility. He underwent multiple deferments in Vietnam. His picking of Mattis as SoD showed the military he was willing to allow them to their job. Yes, the military is still at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief but he realizes that if we're going to be asked to go into harm's way to let them call the shots. If necessary, he will become involved, but for now he is allowing them to do what is needed.
> 
> I would love nothing more than to squash ISIS like a bug, kill all of them motherfuckers and send them on to meet up with the 72 virgins. However, that will only work if the military is allowed to do their job and do what it takes to get the job done. If the world will TRULY let them to do that and not give lip service, then I say go for it. Otherwise, the world can take care of it themselves and don't come crying to us.


Having been in Kosovo how do you feel about indigenous allied forces?

The Iraq military trained by the US can beat ISIS in open combat and are pretty good about smoking out local insurgents because due to their knowledge of the area 

on the flip side you have the Afghan army who, outside of a few motivated elites, do more drugs than combat 

I have always had a lot of respect for the South Korean and South Vietnamese military as they were fighting a war for their very existence with the most powerful military in the world as their ally but have have a "daddy knows best" view on the war

The South Korean army was very pissed that the UN troops always put their men in front when it came to liberating cities and the South Vietnamese was handcuffing their men peacekeeping when they were in the middle of massive civil war


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Sessions is an ideologue who doesn't live in the land of reality. I believe him when he says he was surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump, unlike Sessions, is not an ideologue. He is, however, a puppet of the establishment, and they don't want legal pot because it would cut into the profits of Big Pharma and the private prison industry, so there's pretty much zero chance he'd ever sign off on decriminalizing pot. _Even if_ Trump were in favor of it, his handlers would never allow it.


Would it cut into big pharma though? Couldn't they just grow their own? Over in Canada, pharmacies would potentially sell weed. I'd figure most people would rather goto a pharmacist or straight from a doctor to purchase weed over anything you'd find in street weed. But then again, I'm very ignorant on this topic so I'm interested in how this would work or not work


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Having been in Kosovo how do you feel about indigenous allied forces?
> 
> The Iraq military trained by the US can beat ISIS in open combat and are pretty good about smoking out local insurgents because due to their knowledge of the area
> 
> on the flip side you have the Afghan army who, outside of a few motivated elites, do more drugs than combat
> 
> I have always had a lot of respect for the South Korean and South Vietnamese military as they were fighting a war for their very existence with the most powerful military in the world as their ally but have have a "daddy knows best" view on the war
> 
> The South Korean army was very pissed that the UN troops always put their men in front when it came to liberating cities and the South Vietnamese was handcuffing their men peacekeeping when they were in the middle of massive civil war


The Peshmerga (Kurdish army) is very underrated when it comes to a fighting force. They almost single-handedly held off ISIS on quite a few occasions. 

Having a melting pot of forces works when they are all on the same page. At its largest, KFOR was made up of about 50,000 troops from nearly 40 nations. There was some differences and the occasional clash when it came to cultural issues, but for the most part we worked well together. NATO and the UN pretty much stepped back and let us do what was needed. Today, the number of troops is down to about 4500. 

I have nothing against folks who are against war. The people I have a problem with are those who are supporting or not supporting depending on whether their party is in power or not. To me, those are the people that irritate me the most. You can't play political football with our military, you really shouldn't with any military. I'm of the belief that if we had been able to do what was needed in Afghanistan and Iraq without armchair quarterbacking from our leadership and second-guessing everything, the troops could have already been home by now. 

The world gives lip service to confronting ISIS and North Korea, but I question are they really ready to do this and are ready to make the commitment. If not, then say so. If so, then let them do their job and the sooner that is done the sooner we can bring them home.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@BruiserKC and Stevfox - I sometimes feel like you guys are stuck in the past and are romantacizing other cultures and aren't quite ready to accept that Islam and the Middle East is a completely different beast from that of the past countries America has saved. The geopolitical and ideological landscape of Muslim countries is extremely different and was held together by extremely weak threads already. 

Basically like an infected wound that was stitched up and therefore not bleeding out. With American interference that wound instead of being healed has simply burst open and is now bleeding everywhere. The amount of American force and interference by a nanny state is irrelevant imo because the sutures while not perfect were what was holding some terrible and cancerous ideologies blocked up. The wound looked bad and was spreading, but what was locked up inside was far worse and prying it open gave it an opportunity to spread wider and deeper. 

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...an-evil-dictator-is-now-openly-trading-slaves



> *The Last Country We “Liberated” from an “Evil” Dictator Is Now Openly Trading Slaves*
> 
> It is widely known that the U.S.-led NATO intervention to topple Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 resulted in a power vacuum that has allowed terror groups like ISIS to gain a foothold in the country.
> 
> Despite the destructive consequences of the 2011 invasion, the West is currently taking a similar trajectory with regard to Syria. Just as the Obama administration excoriated Gaddafi in 2011, highlighting his human rights abuses and insisting he must be removed from power to protect the Libyan people, the Trump administration is now pointing to the repressive policies of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and warning his regime will soon come to an end — all in the name of protecting Syrian civilians.
> 
> But as the U.S. and its allies fail to produce legal grounds for their recent air strike — let alone provide concrete evidence to back up their claims Assad was responsible for a deadly chemical attack last week — more hazards of invading foreign countries and removing their heads of state are emerging.
> 
> This week, new findings revealed another unintended consequence of “humanitarian intervention”: the growth of the human slave trade.
> 
> The Guardian reports that while “violence, extortion and slave labor” have been a reality for people trafficked through Libya in the past, the slave trade has recently expanded. Today, people are selling other human beings out in the open.
> 
> “The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, head of operation and emergencies for the International Office of Migration, an intergovernmental organization that promotes “humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all,” according to its website. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”
> 
> ​The North African country is commonly used as a point of exit for refugees fleeing other parts of the continent. But since Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011, “the vast, sparsely populated country has slid into violent chaos and migrants with little cash and usually no papers are particularly vulnerable,” the Guardian explains.
> 
> One survivor from Senegal said he was passing through Libya from Niger with a group of other migrants attempting to flee their home countries. They had paid a smuggler to transport them via bus to the coast, where they would risk taking a boat to Europe. But rather than take them to the coast, the smuggler took them to a dusty lot in Sabha, Libya. According to Livia Manente, an IOM officer who interviews survivors, “their driver suddenly said middlemen had not passed on his fees and put his passengers up for sale.”
> 
> “Several other migrants confirmed his story, independently describing kinds of slave markets as well as kinds of private prisons all over in Libya,” she said, adding IOM Italy had confirmed similar stories from migrants landing in southern Italy.
> 
> The Senegalese survivor said he was taken to a makeshift prison, which the Guardian notes are common in Libya.
> 
> “Those held inside are forced to work without pay, or on meager rations, and their captors regularly call family at home demanding a ransom. His captors asked for 300,000 west African francs (about £380), then sold him on to a larger jail where the demand doubled without explanation.”
> 
> When migrants were held too long without having a ransom paid for them, they were taken away and killed. “Some wasted away on meager rations in unsanitary conditions, dying of hunger and disease, but overall numbers never fell,” the Guardian reported.
> 
> “If the number of migrants goes down, because of death or someone is ransomed, the kidnappers just go to the market and buy one,” Manente said.
> 
> Giuseppe Loprete, IOM Niger’s chief of mission, confirmed these disturbing reports. “It’s very clear they see themselves as being treated as slaves,” he said. He arranged for the repatriation of 1,500 migrants just in the first three months of this year and is concerned more stories and incidents will emerge as more migrants return from Libya.
> 
> “And conditions are worsening in Libya so I think we can also expect more in the coming months,” he added.
> 
> As the United States government continues to entertain regime change in Syria as a viable solution to the many crises in that country, it is becoming ever-more evident that ousting dictators — however detestable they may be — is not effective. Toppling Saddam Hussein led not only to the deaths of civilians and radicalization within the population, but also the rise of ISIS.
> 
> As Libya, once a beacon of stability in the region, continues to devolve in the fallout from the Western “humanitarian” intervention – and as human beings are dragged into emerging slave trades while rapes and kidnappings plague the population — it is increasingly obvious that further war will only create even further suffering in unforeseen ways.
> This article was originally published at The Anti-Media.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Looking at you, @Beatles123. :cudi


No u :trump3


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> The bolded parts are there because these are where I'm going to respond, and the second bolded one on Trump letting the military take care of biz is not a bad thing.
> 
> First...a story for emphasis. When I first got to Kosovo, I went with the leader of our platoon, which happened to be a British colonel who had served in SAS. We met the UN liaison, a French woman whose husband was a colonel in the French Air Force. She talked to me about what was expected, and she then asked if I had any questions.
> 
> I said..."Yes, madame, I do. I appreciate what you're doing and this noble mission we are asked to undergo. That being said, I hope that we will be given a certain amount of autonomy and allow us to do our job. We understand there are some boundaries and restrictions, but overall I firmly believe that things will go much smoother if we are permitted to do what is needed. As your husband is a high-ranking officer in France's military, I imagine you and he would appreciate what I'm asking."
> 
> She looked at me and the British colonel, and said, "I think that is not a problem at all, provided you do what is required."
> 
> We left, and when we were out of earshot, the colonel said, "That's almost too polite, Yank. Why didn't you just tell her to fuck off and let us do our fucking job?" I looked at him and said, "I filtered it a little, but that was where I was going." We laughed, he knew what I meant.
> 
> Afghanistan and Iraq have partly been clusterfucks because we put handcuffs and a billion restrictions on our military. We keep hearing, "Do what you have to do, but don't do this or this or this or that." The political BS then gets exasperated when people start complaining when things don't go right all the time. Add to that public opinion where people are throwing a fit about us using our military or making sure we play nice to an extent, and top it off with micromanaging leaders at the top. GW Bush and Rumsfeld got involved in so much it was annoying, while Obama made it worse with his contempt for the military. We've all had that type of boss...a micromanager who meddles in everything we do from the bar is not clean enough to the energy drinks are not even in the cooler with the bottled water. Our last two presidents and leaders of the DoD have done just that.
> 
> When Trump was running, he had to use the "I'm pro-military" card because many soldiers and their families felt that previous administrations were not. I think he also realized he needed to provide more autonomy to the military to do its job because otherwise he had no credibility. He underwent multiple deferments in Vietnam. His picking of Mattis as SoD showed the military he was willing to allow them to their job. Yes, the military is still at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief but he realizes that if we're going to be asked to go into harm's way to let them call the shots. If necessary, he will become involved, but for now he is allowing them to do what is needed.
> 
> I would love nothing more than to squash ISIS like a bug, kill all of them motherfuckers and send them on to meet up with the 72 virgins. However, that will only work if the military is allowed to do their job and do what it takes to get the job done. If the world will TRULY let them to do that and not give lip service, then I say go for it. Otherwise, the world can take care of it themselves and don't come crying to us.


What are some specific examples of ways the military is being hamstrung that you take issue with? What is it you were wanting to do in Kosovo that you felt you might be prevented from doing?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Goku @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @Tater

Honestly, @BruiserKC, I believe I understand what you are attempting to get at, with regard to the mess in the Middle East today. I do not have much time with which to respond and am unsure of when I may in the near future, so I will provide a short reply. (EDIT before posting: well... never mind...)

Ultimately, what occurred in the past impacts the present, which determines the future. The reason to keep investigating the sorrowful post-9/11 history of the U.S.'s prolonged stays in Afghanistan, where, not since March 2002, has so much of the country been dominated by the Taliban and forces aligned to same including ISIS following their truce last year, and Iraq, where instability and turmoil still engulf major cornerstones of the country beginning most obviously with Mosul which is predictably turning into a hellish internecine struggle in an urban sprawl which could last at least a calendar year if not longer, is that it is by looking to the past that we begin to grasp our mistakes. As Patrick Henry noted, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no other way of judging the future but by the past." 

For over thirty years, whether willfully or accidentally, the U.S. has tremendously aided Islam's present rise and Islamism in general, and the securing of Kosovo against the Serbs was unfortunately just one case, aiding some of the most twisted figures in the history of the Balkans who today rule over that Muslim Mafia state of human, organ and weapons trafficking, a major hub of Islamic terrorism. In Iraq and Libya the U.S. deposed two regimes which, for all of their many faults, at least held certain Islamist characters in almost perpetual check, and today whether Bashir al-Assad has it done himself or is framed for it by a group of rebels, the U.S. has already established a _casus belli_ to destroy a largely secular (comparatively) regime, as though ramming one's head into a brick wall a few times was insufficient. 

The only way by which the U.S.'s obliteration of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi's governments makes sense is that for financial interests, they had to go. Since the early 1970s following the collapse of the Bretton-Woods arrangement and Richard Nixon's realization that the demand for U.S. dollars would dissipate greatly due to the exponentially growing U.S. debt thanks in large part to Lyndon Johnson's reign of terror both at home and abroad. With the international gold standard dying, Nixon's administration ensured that the U.S. would make a deal with the Saudi Arabian government. The Saudis would receive U.S. protection on behalf of their theocratic state, and in exchange the Saudis would price the sale of their oil solely in dollars. This would allow the Saudis to remain open to investing surplus oil proceeds in U.S. debt, bonds and securities, a major benefit to the U.S. in sustaining American debt and enabling the U.S. regime in financing its mass debt to myriad nations. With the demand for U.S. dollars expanding afterward, the deal was all the sweeter for the U.S. financial arrangement. Keeping oil priced in dollars, with most major international oil transactions still done in U.S. dollars, with the need for those dollars, enables a host of countries means that the countries involved, almost universally, have export-led trading and financial tactics with regard to their own currencies as they fundamentally buy shares of U.S. debt, providing American consumers with cheap goods to buy at their local Wal-Mart. It is the single most paramount touchstone of the geopolitical and financial stratagem employed by the U.S. since the early 1970s to sustain the entire global financial system as it stands today with the U.S. sitting on the throne of said global financial system. With an influx of cheap consumer goods, the U.S. is also guaranteeing, at least in the short term, a continuation of the average American's standard of living, even as Americans--including those not yet born--remain in real terms indentured servants to that U.S. debt, one of the single most feared realities by many of the original American republic's founding generation. 

Was the Iraq War of 2003 in actuality performed to keep the Americans in the catbird seat? The petrodollar scheme enables the U.S. to sustain itself, keep oil prices favorable, deliver protection for the Saudi kingdom, and remained hooked on debt while endeavoring to maintain the attractiveness of U.S. debt abroad. Saddam Hussein dumped the U.S. dollar in October 2000. As one Iraqi government official noted, "the currency of the enemy," the U.S. dollar, was distinctly disadvantageous to the Iraqis. Taking on the vastly more multilateral euro enabled Iraq's economy to at least marginally improve, but it was a ripple effect on the U.S.'s global system of illimitable borrowing to sustain its gargantuan debt. While the neoconservative ideology of those in power in 2001 played an indisputable role in the folly of the Iraq War, so too may have American insistence that such moves in the Arab/Middle Eastern world be suffocated. 

As myriad emails between Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal reveal as she was U.S. Secretary of State during the Libyan folly, that it was not a humanitarian crisis by Gaddafi that attracted U.S. intervention in early 2011, but rather fear of Gaddafi's gold-backed Dinar as he sought to establish a template by which other leaders in the Muslim world could defy the Americans by abandoning the U.S. dollar, freeing his country from what his economic advisers assured him were hardships spawned by Libya having to negotiate with the U.S. holding most of the cards. The petrodollar is the U.S.'s most indispensable global economic asset, providing the U.S. with the financial durability necessary to keep the dollar where it is with its exclusivity, which is of course as the world's reserve currency. Unfortunately for the U.S., in spite of these actions, following the astonishing spending on both military and domestic concerns under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, in the past year-to-fifteen months has seen no fewer than twenty-six nations, representing almost 66% of the world's GDP, have established major swap lines. This is to enable them to bypass the U.S. dollar and S.W.I.F.T., or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. So while the U.S. has perhaps been highly active in punishing countries that defy the global economic _status quo_, fissures have already developed, with China, Russia and India essentially all leading the charge toward increasing distrust of U.S. handling of the same _status quo_, and Chinese, Russian, Indian government officials and officials to other governments all solemnly noting in the past year or so that they are beginning to look ahead to the time at which point the U.S. dollar no longer enjoys its title as world reserve currency. The Chinese in particular are cagily cornering the market on gold, as Matt Schifrin at _Forbes_ notes, all while commissioning and spearheading the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which many economic and financial analysts rightly see as a burgeoning rival to the World Bank. The United Kingdom and France among other nations, close allies to the U.S., have cozied up to the AIIB.

The process will probably take another couple of decades, maybe even longer should the Chinese economy implode, for instance, but most signs point to the inevitability of a large, wide-ranging pool of currencies supplanting the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. The Indians are preparing for it, and the Chinese are agitating, and succeeding in attaining, Special Drawing Rights with the International Monetary Fund. 

So what I am saying is that barring all other explanations or justifications, Hussein and Gaddafi being deposed may very well have assured the Americans, as well as other international actors, a more orderly decline of the U.S. dollar. If these thoughts have any relevancy I wish the U.S. government were more open with its genuine considerations. Empires engaging in _realpolitik_ only makes sense at some level (and again one could then debate whether these interventions were worth it even with those points weighed), but we are an unserious people, driven by footage of wailing babies half of a world away when convenient for war drums, while averting the gaze when rebels most likely backed by American intelligence agencies engage in their own atrocities.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"short post"

:kobelol 

Your posts are the highlight of my internet reading on a regular basis, so feel free to keep them as "short" as possible Deso


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Goku @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @Tater
> 
> Honestly, @BruiserKC, I believe I understand what you are attempting to get at, with regard to the mess in the Middle East today. I do not have much time with which to respond and am unsure of when I may in the near future, so I will provide a short reply. (EDIT before posting: well... never mind...)
> 
> Ultimately, what occurred in the past impacts the present, which determines the future. The reason to keep investigating the sorrowful post-9/11 history of the U.S.'s prolonged stays in Afghanistan, where, not since March 2002, has so much of the country been dominated by the Taliban and forces aligned to same including ISIS following their truce last year, and Iraq, where instability and turmoil still engulf major cornerstones of the country beginning most obviously with Mosul which is predictably turning into a hellish internecine struggle in an urban sprawl which could last at least a calendar year if not longer, is that it is by looking to the past that we begin to grasp our mistakes. As Patrick Henry noted, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no other way of judging the future but by the past."
> 
> For over thirty years, whether willfully or accidentally, the U.S. has tremendously aided Islam's present rise and Islamism in general, and the securing of Kosovo against the Serbs was unfortunately just one case, aiding some of the most twisted figures in the history of the Balkans who today rule over that Muslim Mafia state of human, organ and weapons trafficking, a major hub of Islamic terrorism. In Iraq and Libya the U.S. deposed two regimes which, for all of their many faults, at least held certain Islamist characters in almost perpetual check, and today whether Bashir al-Assad has it done himself or is framed for it by a group of rebels, the U.S. has already established a _casus belli_ to destroy a largely secular (comparatively) regime, as though ramming one's head into a brick wall a few times was insufficient.
> 
> The only way by which the U.S.'s obliteration of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi's governments makes sense is that for financial interests, they had to go. Since the early 1970s following the collapse of the Bretton-Woods arrangement and Richard Nixon's realization that the demand for U.S. dollars would dissipate greatly due to the exponentially growing U.S. debt thanks in large part to Lyndon Johnson's reign of terror both at home and abroad. With the international gold standard dying, Nixon's administration ensured that the U.S. would make a deal with the Saudi Arabian government. The Saudis would receive U.S. protection on behalf of their theocratic state, and in exchange the Saudis would price the sale of their oil solely in dollars. This would allow the Saudis to remain open to investing surplus oil proceeds in U.S. debt, bonds and securities, a major benefit to the U.S. in sustaining American debt and enabling the U.S. regime in financing its mass debt to myriad nations. With the demand for U.S. dollars expanding afterward, the deal was all the sweeter for the U.S. financial arrangement. Keeping oil priced in dollars, with most major international oil transactions still done in U.S. dollars, with the need for those dollars, enables a host of countries means that the countries involved, almost universally, have export-led trading and financial tactics with regard to their own currencies as they fundamentally buy shares of U.S. debt, providing American consumers with cheap goods to buy at their local Wal-Mart. It is the single most paramount touchstone of the geopolitical and financial stratagem employed by the U.S. since the early 1970s to sustain the entire global financial system as it stands today with the U.S. sitting on the throne of said global financial system. With an influx of cheap consumer goods, the U.S. is also guaranteeing, at least in the short term, a continuation of the average American's standard of living, even as Americans--including those not yet born--remain in real terms indentured servants to that U.S. debt, one of the single most feared realities by many of the original American republic's founding generation.
> 
> Was the Iraq War of 2003 in actuality performed to keep the Americans in the catbird seat? The petrodollar scheme enables the U.S. to sustain itself, keep oil prices favorable, deliver protection for the Saudi kingdom, and remained hooked on debt while endeavoring to maintain the attractiveness of U.S. debt abroad. Saddam Hussein dumped the U.S. dollar in October 2000. As one Iraqi government official noted, "the currency of the enemy," the U.S. dollar, was distinctly disadvantageous to the Iraqis. Taking on the vastly more multilateral euro enabled Iraq's economy to at least marginally improve, but it was a ripple effect on the U.S.'s global system of illimitable borrowing to sustain its gargantuan debt. While the neoconservative ideology of those in power in 2001 played an indisputable role in the folly of the Iraq War, so too may have American insistence that such moves in the Arab/Middle Eastern world be suffocated.
> 
> As myriad emails between Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal reveal as she was U.S. Secretary of State during the Libyan folly, that it was not a humanitarian crisis by Gaddafi that attracted U.S. intervention in early 2011, but rather fear of Gaddafi's gold-backed Dinar as he sought to establish a template by which other leaders in the Muslim world could defy the Americans by abandoning the U.S. dollar, freeing his country from what his economic advisers assured him were hardships spawned by Libya having to negotiate with the U.S. holding most of the cards. The petrodollar is the U.S.'s most indispensable global economic asset, providing the U.S. with the financial durability necessary to keep the dollar where it is with its exclusivity, which is of course as the world's reserve currency. Unfortunately for the U.S., in spite of these actions, following the astonishing spending on both military and domestic concerns under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, in the past year-to-fifteen months has seen no fewer than twenty-six nations, representing almost 66% of the world's GDP, have established major swap lines. This is to enable them to bypass the U.S. dollar and S.W.I.F.T., or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. So while the U.S. has perhaps been highly active in punishing countries that defy the global economic _status quo_, fissures have already developed, with China, Russia and India essentially all leading the charge toward increasing distrust of U.S. handling of the same _status quo_, and Chinese, Russian, Indian government officials and officials to other governments all solemnly noting in the past year or so that they are beginning to look ahead to the time at which point the U.S. dollar no longer enjoys its title as world reserve currency. The Chinese in particular are cagily cornering the market on gold, as Matt Schifrin at _Forbes_ notes, all while commissioning and spearheading the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which many economic and financial analysts rightly see as a burgeoning rival to the World Bank. The United Kingdom and France among other nations, close allies to the U.S., have cozied up to the AIIB.
> 
> The process will probably take another couple of decades, maybe even longer should the Chinese economy implode, for instance, but most signs point to the inevitability of a large, wide-ranging pool of currencies supplanting the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. The Indians are preparing for it, and the Chinese are agitating, and succeeding in attaining, Special Drawing Rights with the International Monetary Fund.
> 
> So what I am saying is that barring all other explanations or justifications, Hussein and Gaddafi being deposed may very well have assured the Americans, as well as other international actors, a more orderly decline of the U.S. dollar. If these thoughts have any relevancy I wish the U.S. government were more open with its genuine considerations. Empires engaging in _realpolitik_ only makes sense at some level (and again one could then debate whether these interventions were worth it even with those points weighed), but we are an unserious people, driven by footage of wailing babies half of a world away when convenient for war drums, while averting the gaze when rebels most likely backed by American intelligence agencies engage in their own atrocities.



Looking back on the Balkan conflicts I never understood why the US intervened on the side of Islamic groups who were doing awful things to the Serbs and non-Muslims. It was always confusing as these Islamists offered nothing of real value and certainly not US intervention in the region, the Balkans have always been a hot spot and now the people who were oppressed by Muslim ran Governments and Groups were set to be pushed out by peoples who had to deal with them for centuries. The US still justifies this in media even though they fail to have seen the big picture.

China's situation is unique, they're funding their future with a myriad of sources. One being the rape and pillaging of African resources, there are parts of Africa completely under Chinese control yet nobody seems to be saying much about it, unlike how vocal people were with the Apartheid. When it comes to the Chinese and their unsavory dealings people seem to lose their voice and avoid talking about it as if exploiting Africa on a large scale is a European thing when the Arabs and Moors had been doing for hundreds of years. It will be interesting to see if Chinese machinations are successful, they're going to end the one child rule which would make sense given they have cities built with few people in them. If the Chinese are successful we could see the smaller Governments gravitating to them over the US for doing things.

Saddam and Gaddafi were global hits for not playing with the US. The US has pretty caused far more chaos and unstability in the region than any of these "enemies" of the US. That said the US isn't the only one to blame, the Aussies, Canadians and other European nations were eager to get in on the feeding frenzy and money made from these hits. The Saudis are well protected but as growing public animosity grows against them it would not surprise me if the Saudis eventually move from it's mutual dependence on the US which would be a disaster for the US and it's unwillingness to stop sucking on the tit of crude oil. The fact Saudi royals are buying stakes in online chatter companies like twitter, trying to get the net restricted and blatantly interfering with US politics by lobbying and buying off Politicians and those Politicians not answering for this shows that the Saudis are indeed weary of how things are looking. The US isn't dealing with just a backwards Kingdom that employs slave labor and multiple human rights violations but one with a giant ego of the center of all Islam. The Kingdom that will not house a single refugee but will pay millions and millions for Mosques in Europe which teach a wonderful kind of hate in wahhabism. How the Politicians ever thought this alliance wouldn't end up this way is beyond me.

It's only a matter of time before this wobbly construct built on the stilts of something that was never going to last comes crashing down. When that happens the current College whining of "privilege" will change to who can actually feed their family and who cannot.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/one-broadband-choice-counts-as-competition-in-new-fcc-proposal/



> *One broadband choice counts as “competition” in new FCC proposal*
> 
> A Federal Communications Commission plan to eliminate price caps in much of the business broadband market uses a new test for determining whether customers benefit from competition. Even if a business that needs broadband has only one choice today, the FCC would consider the local market competitive if there's a second broadband provider within a half mile.
> 
> The proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will hurt small business customers of ISPs, according to a federal office that advocates on behalf of small businesses. But at least for now, the FCC plans to move ahead with a final vote at its meeting on April 20.
> 
> You may be thinking, "There are no price caps for broadband in the US!" That's true for the home Internet service market, but the FCC imposes price regulation on certain types of business broadband. So-called Business Data Services (BDS) provided by traditional phone companies like AT&T and Verizon use dedicated links to deliver "secure, reliable, and low-delay transmission service for moving voice, data, and video traffic" at speeds of up to 45Mbps upstream and downstream, the FCC's deregulation proposal says.
> 
> Last year, then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed lowering price caps on these services by 11 percent over three years in order to "account for over a decade of efficiency gains."
> 
> "Price caps are designed to replicate the effects of a competitive market by setting a maximum price for services, which is continually adjusted downward to account for efficiency gains, offset by inflation," the Wheeler proposal said.
> 
> Pai threw out this proposal after being appointed chair by President Donald Trump. Instead, Pai put forth a proposal to "end... tariffing and other legacy pricing regulations" in "areas with sufficient competition." Pai argues that price regulation inhibits network investment, but his plan would maintain price caps in areas without sufficient competition.
> 
> *No list of which counties are competitive
> 
> Pai's definition of "sufficient competition" has drawn fire. The plan would treat an entire county as competitive "if 50 percent of the locations with BDS demand in that county are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." A county would also be considered competitive if 75 percent of Census blocks in the county have a cable provider.*
> 
> Pai has not released a list of which counties have been deemed competitive, FCC Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. The FCC has this information but will only make it public after the order is voted on, she said.
> 
> Clyburn said:
> 
> Chairman Pai has been a champion of transparency. It is puzzling, then, why he will release the text of the item, but omit a key appendix listing which counties are deemed competitive, until the order is released... The FCC should release this list immediately. This is the only way the public can truly evaluate the practical effects of the FCC's proposed actions.
> 
> In the home Internet market, ISPs often demand tens of thousands of dollars up front in exchange for extending their networks to customers' homes. The business Internet market is different, though Pai and his critics disagree on the practical impact of having a provider within a half mile.
> 
> "The record demonstrates that most business data services providers are willing and able to profitably invest and deploy facilities within a half mile of existing competitive facilities, and often have the ability to build out after winning a customer’s bid for business, depending upon the scale of investment required to reach the customer," Pai's proposal said. Therefore, "the presence of two current competitors or providers with their own fiber nodes within a half mile... are sufficient to provide competitive pressure to adequately discipline prices."
> *
> Businesses could pay “monopoly rents”*
> 
> Pai's argument was disputed by the US Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy in a filing with the FCC yesterday. The Office of Advocacy is an independent office within the US government, so its views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Small Business Administration or the White House.
> 
> Public comments on the FCC proposal include affidavits from smaller telecoms stating that building last-mile facilities to compete against the larger players "is not economically feasible," the advocacy office's filing said.
> 
> "Small businesses are the primary purchasers of these lower capacity services, and Advocacy is concerned that they may not have the same affordable choices for service that they currently have if competitors are unable to lease access from ILECs [incumbent local exchange carriers] when the business case for building new facilities doesn't exist," the filing said. Competitors in this context are known as CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers).
> 
> The advocacy office also said the presence of cable providers in 75 percent of Census blocks is not suitable proof of competition. Having a nearby cable provider doesn't necessarily guarantee access to dedicated links, the office said.
> 
> "As the FCC has noted, cable 'best efforts' service is not the same product as BDS, and cable companies do not represent a significant segment of the BDS market at this time," the small business advocacy office said. "It is conceivable that if prices for BDS increase significantly, a small business would choose to downgrade their service to best-efforts service to reduce costs. It is also conceivable that a business relying on BDS will pay monopoly rents in the absence of a real substitute or price regulation. Either result is problematic for small businesses. Small businesses want better broadband service at lower prices—they shouldn't have to accept a lower level of service to reduce costs, or pay more for the same services."
> 
> The Wheeler FCC initially proposed price controls for cable-based business data services but later concluded that this segment of the market is competitive enough that rate regulation wasn't needed.
> *
> Competition could suffer*
> 
> Small ISPs that buy wholesale access from incumbents in order to provide competition without building their own facilities may also lose out in Pai's plan.
> 
> Today, ILECs often charge higher rates for wholesale service than they do for retail service. That's according to Phillip Berenbroick, senior policy counsel of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, who spoke to Ars. "That pricing is a pretty clear indication of market power, and the Wheeler FCC was poised to say that wholesale rates can't exceed retail rates," he said.
> 
> Under interim rules imposed in 2015, incumbent phone companies that discontinue legacy TDM (time-division multiplex) services in order to upgrade to Ethernet must continue providing wholesale access to competitors at similar rates. The new FCC plan "removes that requirement, meaning that once ILECs upgrade, CLECs (and their customers) may be out of luck if the CLEC hasn't built its own facilities," Berenbroick said.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/one-broadband-choice-counts-as-competition-in-new-fcc-proposal/


Price caps are always a bad idea. 



> A Federal Communications Commission plan to eliminate price caps in much of the business broadband market uses a new test for determining whether customers benefit from competition. Even if a business that needs broadband has only one choice today, the FCC would consider the local market competitive if there's a second broadband provider within a half mile.


If there is a price-cap in place, this discourages the closest competitor (no matter how small) from developing an expansion strategy because a price-cap may be keeping the price artificially lower at a point where the closest competitor has no incentive at all to enter the market. I can say with a great deal of surety that without a price-cap the industry would have already been running at an optimal price-point right now. 

The impact of this will be that if the monopoly raises prices after the price-cap is removed, it will give its next competitor an incentive to either expand operations or start penetrating the market on a lower price point potentially stimulating the industry in that area. 

On the flip, a price cap also creates an artificial shortage of supply and fucks up the equilibrium that can be achieved through competition (even if it takes time to settle) and therefore a price cap could actually be higher than what would result from a price-war between competitors - even if the big competitor is huge and the small competitor is tiny. 

If the localized monopoly raises prices, it could also act as an incentive for another company from a different region to start setting up shop and therefore breaking the monopoly. 

The outcome of this is that either everything remains the same (monopoly keeps operating at the same price-point and so no harm is done) or monopoly raises prices in the long-run potentially encouraging competitors to move in. 

Removal of price-caps is actually always best for business especially in an environment like America.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> @BruiserKC and Stevfox - I sometimes feel like you guys are stuck in the past and are romantacizing other cultures and aren't quite ready to accept that Islam and the Middle East is a completely different beast from that of the past countries America has saved. The geopolitical and ideological landscape of Muslim countries is extremely different and was held together by extremely weak threads already.
> 
> Basically like an infected wound that was stitched up and therefore not bleeding out. With American interference that wound instead of being healed has simply burst open and is now bleeding everywhere. The amount of American force and interference by a nanny state is irrelevant imo because the sutures while not perfect were what was holding some terrible and cancerous ideologies blocked up. The wound looked bad and was spreading, but what was locked up inside was far worse and prying it open gave it an opportunity to spread wider and deeper.
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...an-evil-dictator-is-now-openly-trading-slaves


I can agree that I don't "get" Islam 

More or less ever culture is willing to give up its bullshit for a much higher quality of life but the Muslim nations in general are very stubborn and rather be "godly" than have a decent life expediency

Its like how Christianity used to be like 1000 years ago when it banned science 

It seems like the only "modern" thing that is acceptable in the middle east is weapons 

You have to live in a hut, pray everyday, beat your wife but are allowed to carry the most modern military equipment 

Fundamentalists are weird and I don't know how to deal with them 

my only idea is to throw Starbucks at them till they learn to love it


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Price caps are always a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a price-cap in place, this discourages the closest competitor (no matter how small) from developing an expansion strategy because a price-cap may be keeping the price artificially lower at a point where the closest competitor has no incentive at all to enter the market. I can say with a great deal of surety that without a price-cap the industry would have already been running at an optimal price-point right now.
> 
> The impact of this will be that if the monopoly raises prices after the price-cap is removed, it will give its next competitor an incentive to either expand operations or start penetrating the market on a lower price point potentially stimulating the industry in that area.
> 
> On the flip, a price cap also creates an artificial shortage of supply and fucks up the equilibrium that can be achieved through competition (even if it takes time to settle) and therefore a price cap could actually be higher than what would result from a price-war between competitors - even if the big competitor is huge and the small competitor is tiny.
> 
> If the localized monopoly raises prices, it could also act as an incentive for another company from a different region to start setting up shop and therefore breaking the monopoly.
> 
> The outcome of this is that either everything remains the same (monopoly keeps operating at the same price-point and so no harm is done) or monopoly raises prices in the long-run potentially encouraging competitors to move in.
> 
> Removal of price-caps is actually always best for business especially in an environment like America.


My annoyance is less about the price cap issue and more them designating areas with only one provider as a competitive market because there is another ISP near, even though it doesn't offer service in the area.

I'm not denying what you are saying about price caps in theory, but it depends on if a competitor does come in.

Where I live, for example, there is no competitor and there won't be one in the foreseeable future. There was one a couple of years ago that came in because of a government grant for fiber-optic cable. As soon as the grant money ran out. They stopped all expansion. So, in the whole county, except for one street, there is one ISP.

It comes down to some areas not being worth the large investment in infrastructure for a new competitor. It's hard for a new company to break into an area where a monopoly exists so they may not take the risk. That's also not including collusion or simple agreements to not compete.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> "short post"
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> Your posts are the highlight of my internet reading on a regular basis, so feel free to keep them as "short" as possible Deso


Thanks. 



Miss Sally said:


> Looking back on the Balkan conflicts I never understood why the US intervened on the side of Islamic groups who were doing awful things to the Serbs and non-Muslims. It was always confusing as these Islamists offered nothing of real value and certainly not US intervention in the region, the Balkans have always been a hot spot and now the people who were oppressed by Muslim ran Governments and Groups were set to be pushed out by peoples who had to deal with them for centuries. The US still justifies this in media even though they fail to have seen the big picture.
> 
> China's situation is unique, they're funding their future with a myriad of sources. One being the rape and pillaging of African resources, there are parts of Africa completely under Chinese control yet nobody seems to be saying much about it, unlike how vocal people were with the Apartheid. When it comes to the Chinese and their unsavory dealings people seem to lose their voice and avoid talking about it as if exploiting Africa on a large scale is a European thing when the Arabs and Moors had been doing for hundreds of years. It will be interesting to see if Chinese machinations are successful, they're going to end the one child rule which would make sense given they have cities built with few people in them. If the Chinese are successful we could see the smaller Governments gravitating to them over the US for doing things.
> 
> Saddam and Gaddafi were global hits for not playing with the US. The US has pretty caused far more chaos and unstability in the region than any of these "enemies" of the US. That said the US isn't the only one to blame, the Aussies, Canadians and other European nations were eager to get in on the feeding frenzy and money made from these hits. The Saudis are well protected but as growing public animosity grows against them it would not surprise me if the Saudis eventually move from it's mutual dependence on the US which would be disasters for the US and it's unwillingness to stop sucking on the tit of crude oil. The fact Saudi royals are buying stakes in online chatter companies like twitter, trying to get the net restricted and blatantly interfering with US politics by lobbying and buying off Politicians and those Politicians not answering for this shows that the Saudis are indeed weary of how things are looking. The US isn't dealing with just a backwards Kingdom that employs slave labor and multiple human rights violations but one with a giant ego of the center of all Islam. The Kingdom that will not house a single refugee but will pay millions and millions for Mosques in Europe which teach a wonderful kind of hate in wahhabism. How the Politicians ever thought this alliance wouldn't end up this way is beyond me.
> 
> It's only a matter of time before this wobbly construct built on the stilts of something that was never going to last comes crashing down. When that happens the current College whining of "privilege" will change to who can actually feed their family and who cannot.


The Chinese certainly do remind one of the old colonial powers with how they are presently operating in Africa but for one example. Thank you for the terrific thoughts! 



stevefox1200 said:


> I can agree that I don't "get" Islam
> 
> More or less ever culture is willing to give up its bullshit for a much higher quality of life but the Muslim nations in general are very stubborn and rather be "godly" than have a decent life expediency
> 
> Its like how Christianity used to be like 1000 years ago when it banned science


While Christianity and as an institution the Catholic Church's handling of scientific matters, especially in the realm of how political certain battles between respective orders and congregations ensued, is naturally quite imperfect (one of the most famous examples is Galileo, whose _Discourse on Comets_, technically penned by his acolyte Mario Guiducci, but with Galileo writing it in something of an open secret, which was largely a devastating piece that fundamentally discredited many of the theories and concepts espoused and propagated by Jesuit author Christopher Steiner as well as instructors at the _Collegio Romano_, leading to Father Orazio Grassi's rebuttal as the _Collegio Romano_'s mathematics professor, which only angered Galileo and led to him responding with _The Assayer_, a legendary scientific article that persuasively dissembled just about every argument delivered by Grassi, all of which was just fine by the new Pope Urban VIII, who had followed Pope Gregory XV only weeks before _The Assayer_ was published and dedicated to the new pope who was greatly fond of Galileo... Unfortunately for Galileo he had made too many enemies among the Jesuits. In 1632 Galileo authored _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_; he and Pope Urban VIII were always friendly with one another, as the pope was one of Galileo's most ardent fans, and he was of a similar mind with regard to heliocentrism, which Galileo's work, written in a Socratic--and at times almost Platonic--dialogue form, and Galileo defended heliocentrism.) But for the most part, even with political problems arising from time to time, the Christian church dating back to the early centuries following the collapse of the old Roman Empire was instrumental in the spreading of scientific reason.

John Philoponus or John the Grammarian, the learned Christian Byzantine philosopher who wrote a great deal about physics, proposing and establishing critical concepts like the invariant acceleration that comes with falling or the first fully formed notion of inertia while thoughtfully critiquing the works of Aristotle. The Christian surgeon Paul of Aegina who wrote the most definitive medical treatise for generations with _Medical Compendium in Seven Books_; the monk The Venerable Bede who penned _On the Nature of Things_ and _On the Reckoning of Time_, expanding upon the Greeks' conceptions of astronomy and mathematics; Rabanus Maurus who wrote many pieces on Computus as well as the encyclopedic work _De universo_; Pope Sylvester II who became pope in 999 and died in 1003, who had been a scholar and mathematician and he played a considerable part in the dissemination of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system; Constantine the African who in the eleventh century translated the works of Hippocrates and Galen, translating myriad Greek and Roman texts at the _Schola Medica Salernitana_ in Salerno. In the twelfth century there was Albert the Great, _Doctor Universalis_, whose prominence as leading representative of the fledgling Dominican Order, known as "Doctor of the Church" along with thirty-two other Roman Catholic Saints. His lasting legacy was his compelling argument on behalf of the complementary relationship between science and religion. Introducing Grecian as well as Spanish Muslim science into a large number of universities with some highlighting of the Aristotelian tradition of studying phenomena. Thomas Aquinas was a pupil of his.

Really, most Christians of Europe a millennia ago took it for granted that learning about the natural world ("God's world" as many would deem it) was a major positive, and the church enabled some of the brighter minds of Christendom to follow paths which were potentially lost without that financial assistance provided by the church for the need of practical, day-to-day work in most humble fiefdoms, villages and shires. Throughout the medieval period the church paid rather handsomely for priests, monks and friars to study at almost all universities throughout Europe. Science was a mandated and compulsory part of these universities' syllabuses. By the time of the Dominican Order's establishment it had become widely popular to incorporate Greek and Arabic natural philosophy and concepts of physics, astronomy, mathematics and semblances of biology, and these in turn were generally brandished in scholarly works that simultaneously defended the Christian faith. Aquinas, who simply referred to Aristotle as "The Philosopher" out of immense respect, also accepted that Greek and Arabic contributions to the sciences were crucial in at least beginning to approach a modest understanding of the divine. Modern genetics and specifically the understanding of heredity, but for one, was critically unveiled through the maintaining of a monastic garden by a future abbot Gregor Johann Mendel, Augustinian friar and scientist who would write of his peas as abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margaviate of Moravia. 

In any event, *Reaper*'s studying of how Islam as it stands today is further radicalizing rather than moderating is most fascinating. This week has seen the once at least nominally secular Turkish regime following the actions of Ataturk nearly a century ago take an unambiguous step toward dictatorship under further and further radical Islamization (which is worsening in part due to the population of refugees and migrants living there now).


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

According to my dad who lived the history of the times, he claims that Egypt today is only secular because Mubarak was mostly a secularist. It should come as no surprise to anyone that immediately after Mubarak's dismissal, several muslim extremist groups rose and nearly took over.
@DesolationRow 

I don't always read Huffpo, but this article is spot on:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mahmood-delkhasteh/egypt-secular-parites_b_3798852.html



> *Egypt: Secular Dictatorship vs. Religious Dictatorship*
> 
> Military interventions into the political domain, the arrest of the elected president, the army’s installment of a proxy government filled with pro-Mubarak elites, the killing and injuring of thousands of unarmed protestors in the streets of Cairo and other cities around Egypt; for some weeks, there has been vigorous debate about whether these recent events in Egypt constitute a coup. But the judiciary’s most recent decision to release Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s dictator for 30 years, and the decision of the authorities to put Elbaradei on trial, the Nobel Laureate who initially collaborated with the army but later resigned, leave little doubt that we are witnessing a counter-revolutionary coup — one which has most astonishingly been supported by many revolutionaries. They argue that the army’s intervention was preceded by demonstrations of 18 million people. But they fail to explain how it was possible for a revolution of one million demonstrators to dislodge 60 years of dictatorship in 18 days in 2011, particularly when the regime enjoyed the support of the army, police and intelligence forces, while it is impossible for 18 million people to dislodge an elected president who lacked the support of any such institutions. They also ignore the fact that the military intervention was a coup not only against the Muslim Brotherhood, but against the revolutionaries and their democratic goals as well.
> 
> Now, the burning question is: How and why did such a bizarre u-turn in the revolutionary process lead former revolutionaries to defend the reversal of their own victory?
> 
> Around six months ago, I attended a lecture given by an Egyptian scholar about the revolution. A question was raised about why Egyptian revolutionaries had succeeded in removing the country’s dictator but failed to replace him, and why the Muslim Brotherhood, which had played a marginal role in the revolution, managed to bring its candidate (Morsi) out of the ballot box in a democratic election. She responded by saying that the majority of the Egyptian people are politically ignorant, and that intellectual elites should therefore take control in order to lead them. In the course of the conversation, it became clear that her elitist approach to politics was in fact a dominant discourse among many educated Egyptians. As this discourse seems, in principle, identifiable with ideology of the ruling clergy elite in Iran, I was alarmed.
> 
> The June 3 military coup against Morsi was, of course, preceded with large demonstrations (although their numbers appear to have been grossly exaggerated). This provided a cover of legitimacy for the coup, which had been planned prior to the demonstrations. In justifying their support for the military overthrow of the first elected president just a year after his election, supporters of the coup — among them secular liberals and leftists — mainly resort to the same argument and appeal to notions of the ‘ignorant masses’ or a struggle between ‘enlightened Egypt’ and ‘ignorant Egypt’. When we decipher this, we see that they are really referring, in their minds, to a struggle between ‘secular’ and ‘Islamist’ Egypt.
> 
> Judging these two camps through their deeds, there is a common denominator between them: the lack of belief in democratic principles. We can see this in the way that, during his short presidency, Morsi acted as a winner taking it all, failing to realize that in democracy, divisive though it may be, the winner should recognize the rights of those who have lost. We can also see this in the imposition of traditional Sharia law, which, among other things, is deeply patriarchal, into the hurriedly-written constitution — an act that provided constitutional legality for discrimination against women of all faiths and non-Muslims of all genders. Morsi’s monopolizing and exclusionary policies and his tribal approach to politics made him a divisive character. His actions created the massive discontent which ultimately expressed itself in protests by millions of people.
> 
> The secular opponents of Morsi, on the other hand, never accepted his legal democratic legitimacy as president and shunned him at every step. Without exhausting the existing democratic avenues of opposition and civil disobedience, they formed alliances with both Mubarak supporters and the army to challenge him. Finally, riding on top of a tank and calling it the “second stage of the revolution,” they removed and imprisoned the first democratically elected president in Egypt’s history, putting the army in the driving seat to form a proxy government.
> 
> This confrontation between secular and Islamist dictatorial forces has historical roots. In the early twentieth century, “modernist” secular dictators emerged across the Middle East in order to forcefully eradicate Islam from political and eventually social life. Their intention was to “modernize” their countries; in response, Islamists struggled to replace these secular “infidels.” In this context, we can better understand the confrontation of these two dictatorial forces that now are now playing themselves out in Egypt. Those who consider themselves to be members of “enlightened” Egypt have given themselves the right to crush those whom they consider to be “ignorant” Egyptians in order to rescue Egypt from the wrath of “terrorist” Muslims. As a result, Egypt has entered into a new bloody era with unpredictable consequences.
> 
> In the initial stages of the revolution, we also saw the emergence of what appeared to be a third force that was democratic in principle and oriented towards the struggle for Egyptians’ dignity and human rights. However, their later collaboration with the army and the elites of the Mubarak regime corrected this misperception and revealed that their expressed goal was, for the most part, skin deep and easily violated for political expediency. It became clearer that, as they lacked democratic values and principles, many revolutionaries had no democratic compass in their political struggle and failed to realize that the army, defending its own interests, would absorb or discard them after taking power. In addition, if we use the results of the six elections (among them presidential, parliamentary and council Shura) that took place after the 2011 revolution as indicators of social tendencies in Egyptian society, we can see that much political space will be dominated by the conservative Muslim Brotherhood, the ultra-conservative Salafists and secular pro-Mubarak supporters, while revolutionary parties and coalitions like the April 6 Youth Movements will remain on the margins of the political scene. The forces of secular dictatorship understand this and realize that it would be impossible for Islamists to participate in a democratic political process without dominating. This is why they have moved to ban religious political parties — all the winners seem to want it all. Again, what unites all of the dominant opposing political forces is the lack of commitment to democratic principles and methods, while the groups which act democratically are still only a small minority.
> 
> As we say in Persian, it is unwise to steal a minaret without first having dug a well in which to hide it. The Egyptian revolutionaries, given the degree to which they had control, should not have thrown the country into a revolution while knowing that the country lacks democratic elites and parties. After Mubarak’s removal, they should not have let the structure of the state, which had supported the dictatorship for decades, to remain intact as a hierarchy of a power structure which had only lost its leader. We know that such structures can regenerate themselves, even leading to the development of more brutal forms of dictatorship. We saw this in Iran in the form of Khomeini, who proved to be more brutal that the deposed Shah; we see it now in Egypt as General Alsisi has already proved to be more brutal than Mubarak, his former boss.
> 
> The recent formation of an anti-coup coalition of liberals and leftists shines the main ray of hope for Egypt’s revolution. In order to resist the emerging Al-Sisi dictatorship, it now also needs to attract young Islamic forces who see themselves as part of a democratic resistance against the coup and all forms of dictatorship. Even if they succeed in preventing the solidification of the emerging dictatorship, however, they should realize that as long as Islam is understood only as a discourse of power, it always will threaten any regime — dictatorial and democratic alike — that does not create space for its existence. What Egypt needs more than anything else is an Islamic renaissance and a revolutionary re-interpretation of Islam as a discourse of freedom and liberty.


 @stevefox1200 - I'm not sure how I can help you "get" Islam without getting into the earliest history of the religion and a lengthy lecture on how Mohammad and his original Companions followed by his 4 major successors sought to create a "complete" ideology. 

According to divine revelation, Islam is _the _complete religion. The holy trinity (if I can call it that) of Islam is that its involvement in theological beliefs, every day life and political ideology are all deeply intertwined. To believe in Allah means to follow the Prophet which means to follow his Sunnah. Sunnah basically means doing things as Mohammad did. Doing things as Mohammad did represents the second part of the trinity where how he did things from governing the Islamic State to bathing his private parts are fully outlined are the Sunnah. The third part of the trinity is the governance philosophy which is outlined both in part in the Quran and by how Mohammad and his successors ran the State. *Islam is a collectivist religion and an ancient form of unchangeable and irreversible socialism that is completely devoid of any acceptance of individual liberty allowing both the State and the collectivist divine authority over the individual. This is the single-most important aspect of Islam that I've seen completely ignored in any political discourse about the religion. *

Now, we have another issue of what is "fard" - compulsory (everything in the Quran), and what is only Sunnah (everything Mohammad did). This allows clerics an inordinate amount of political power because every single Muslim leader has to have a religious body telling him which legislation is complaint with the Quran and which is not. This group has more power than any Christian group had in the past where while the Christian clergy used to usurp power through sympathetic leadership (which is why over time they lost power), the Muslim clergy simply has unquestionable divine authority given to it by the Quran and Sunnah themselves. This results in Muslim leaders who are kept under control as secular governance is seen as a form of deviance from how Muslim states should be run through divine order. 

Then you have the complex relationship between the Quran and the Sunnah where the Quran says in several places to follow Mohammad in areas of life that are not specifically mentioned in the Quran. This created a situation where fard and sunnah eventually came together to form the overall Shariah Law where all of the Quran's laws and the "strongest" (as determined by scholars and religious clerics) of Mohammad's laws were developed into what became the Islamic State. 

For hundreds of years Muslims did as Mohammad did, but at the same time they also assimilated and adapted the civilizations they conquered and interpreted the conquered cultures through the lens of Islamic Shariah Law (the trifecta). If it was determined to be compliant with the Quran and the Sunnah, they accepted it and if it didn't they rejected and eradicated it. This created the strong push and pull between the conquered and the conquerers which really depended on the benevolence or malevolence of the ruling king or Caliphs across the Muslim world. But at the same time, there was always that hardcore/hardline Sunni/Shia Muslim that believed that any sort of deviance from the Shariah Law was in direct defiance of Allah's word in the Quran. 

Shariah Law is supposed to be the ruling system of every Muslim majority. So in more liberal cultures, the secularists and progressives found ways to translate the quran in more favorable light in much the same way that happened with Christianity. But that liberal interpretation of the Quran exists only within the most liberal populations which represent a minority within Muslim countries. For decades Muslim countries were actually run by minority ideology and not the majority which is why these countries had dictatorships. 

The majority of Muslims consider themselves to be living in states that they believe are deviations from the way Islamic countries are supposed to be run. The Quran is all-encompassing and the supreme authority, it's completely resistant to the idea that a Muslim state can be anything but a theocracy - therefore despite the demographic shifts in ideology there has been an undercurrent of extremism in all muslim countries - extremism that was once suppressed by the secular minority. Sometimes it's more and sometimes it's less, but it can never be eradicated because Islam itself is an ultra conservative ideology. 

In the early 20th century, Islam went through its last liberal reformation and since then the gains of those leaders and the ones that followed were absolutely necessary to maintain because of the hardline ultra conservatives that have always maintained a foothold on huge chunks of Muslim populations. America has actually set the middle east back by interfering and overthrowing the last wave of semi-tolerant secularist leaders and allowed the huge chunks of extreme/ultra-conservative muslims to rise to power. The Islamic State (the modern terrorist group) has pretty much always been around and will always be around. The only thing that was mitigating their power were secularists and now that they're all gone, the future of the muslim world is even more bleak, not less. 

As long as Shariah Law exists, Muslims will always be ultra conservative. The 20th century wave of liberalism in Islam is nearly dead in many parts of the middle east and it seems like it will creep into both the west and continue to expand in the east. The Islamic renaissance as some like to call it is actually already dead after it had happened. The reformers today are fighting a battle they've already lost. Islam cannot be reformed because it was never truly reformed, but only suppressed by a powerful minority supported by more powerful western allies. Allies which turned their backs on that minority and therefore left the minority of liberal Muslims at risk of being completely eradicated.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is an embarrassment

He does not even know the name of the N. Korean leader, he just kept calling Kim Jong Un that gentleman. He is such a joke. He probably does not even know how long he has been in power for. You would think the US President would know these things .



http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/18/15343040/trump-north-korea-kim

Trump just confused North Korea’s current leader with his dad (and grandfather)
The president needs to brush up on his history.


ast week, President Trump said that he hadn’t realized how difficult it would be to disarm North Korea until he received a short history lesson from Chinese President Xi Jinping. “After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump confessed to the Wall Street Journal.

But it appears Xi’s impromptu North Korea 101 class didn’t go quite far enough. Trump doesn’t seem to know exactly who the leader of North Korea is — or have any grasp of how long he’s been in power.

Speaking to Fox News about rising tensions with Pyongyang, Trump repeatedly referred to “the gentleman” leading North Korea as an individual who had persistently outwitted US administration after administration, at least as far back as the Clinton era of the 1990s.

“I hope things work out well. I hope there’s going to be peace, but they’ve been talking with this gentleman for a long time. You read Clinton’s book and he said, ‘Oh, we made such a great peace deal,’ and it was a joke,” Trump said in an interview on Fox & Friends that aired Tuesday. “You look at different things over the years with President Obama. Everybody has been outplayed. They’ve all been outplayed by this gentleman.”


As NBC News’s Bradd Jaffy pointed out, Trump seems to be implying that all these administrations have dealt with the same leader. But Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s current leader, only took power in 2011, during the Obama years. He took the reins after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il, earlier that same year.

The Clinton administration’s dealings with North Korea over nuclear weapons were with Kim Jong Il, and in fact the crucial precursor to the deal they struck over nuclear weapons was negotiated with his predecessor, Kim Il Sung, the current North Korean leader’s grandfather.

In other words, the wily “gentleman” that Trump is so concerned about is arguably three wily gentlemen.

It’s easy to laugh at the gaffe, but Trump’s ignorance about the leadership of one of the most dangerous nations on earth is deeply worrying given that tensions between the US and North Korea are increasing by the day. It’s hard to persuade a rogue leader to back down, after all, when you don’t exactly know who that rogue leader is.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is an embarrassment
> 
> He does not even know the name of the N. Korean leader, he just kept calling Kim Jong Un that gentleman. He is such a joke. He probably does not even know how long he has been in power for. You would think the US President would know these things .
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/18/15343040/trump-north-korea-kim
> 
> Trump just confused North Korea’s current leader with his dad (and grandfather)
> The president needs to brush up on his history.
> 
> 
> ast week, President Trump said that he hadn’t realized how difficult it would be to disarm North Korea until he received a short history lesson from Chinese President Xi Jinping. “After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump confessed to the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> But it appears Xi’s impromptu North Korea 101 class didn’t go quite far enough. Trump doesn’t seem to know exactly who the leader of North Korea is — or have any grasp of how long he’s been in power.
> 
> Speaking to Fox News about rising tensions with Pyongyang, Trump repeatedly referred to “the gentleman” leading North Korea as an individual who had persistently outwitted US administration after administration, at least as far back as the Clinton era of the 1990s.
> 
> “I hope things work out well. I hope there’s going to be peace, but they’ve been talking with this gentleman for a long time. You read Clinton’s book and he said, ‘Oh, we made such a great peace deal,’ and it was a joke,” Trump said in an interview on Fox & Friends that aired Tuesday. “You look at different things over the years with President Obama. Everybody has been outplayed. They’ve all been outplayed by this gentleman.”
> 
> 
> As NBC News’s Bradd Jaffy pointed out, Trump seems to be implying that all these administrations have dealt with the same leader. But Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s current leader, only took power in 2011, during the Obama years. He took the reins after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il, earlier that same year.
> 
> The Clinton administration’s dealings with North Korea over nuclear weapons were with Kim Jong Il, and in fact the crucial precursor to the deal they struck over nuclear weapons was negotiated with his predecessor, Kim Il Sung, the current North Korean leader’s grandfather.
> 
> In other words, the wily “gentleman” that Trump is so concerned about is arguably three wily gentlemen.
> 
> It’s easy to laugh at the gaffe, but Trump’s ignorance about the leadership of one of the most dangerous nations on earth is deeply worrying given that tensions between the US and North Korea are increasing by the day. It’s hard to persuade a rogue leader to back down, after all, when you don’t exactly know who that rogue leader is.


Not a good look is it. He clearly doesn't bother to do any research on any foreign policy it seems.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










STOP DOING WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD TRUMP.

Also, Dems lose in GA after spending millions.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> STOP DOING WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD TRUMP.
> 
> Also, Dems lose in GA after spending millions.


Um 

First off the election hasn't been called yet.

Second, the democrat Jon Osoff has a 32 point lead. If he finishes at 50% or under it goes to a run off in June between him and whoever is in 2nd place. He is currently sitting at 50%.

From the AJC live election results page



> Jon Ossoff
> D
> 71,970
> 50%
> 
> 
> Karen Handel
> R
> 25,934
> 18%
> 
> 
> Judson Hill
> R
> 14,390
> 10%
> 
> 
> Bob Gray
> R
> 13,765
> 10%
> 
> 
> Dan Moody
> R
> 12,040
> 8%


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> STOP DOING WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD TRUMP.
> 
> Also, Dems lose in GA after spending millions.


You and your fake news. The democrat is winning lol

You keep proving how uninformed you are.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm certain Ossoff will win, I don't think it matters what he stands for or what he will do, as long as he has (D) next to his name that's all that matters.

I don't expect any easy elections in the near future, the Democrats and the Elite are pulling out all the stops and dumping money into everything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm certain Ossoff will win, I don't think it matters what he stands for or what he will do, as long as he has (D) next to his name that's all that matters.
> 
> I don't expect any easy elections in the near future, the Democrats and the Elite are pulling out all the stops and dumping money into everything.


Its the Trump backlash its only going to get worse for the GOP in the mid terms.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So many thoughts...I'll try to opine as simply as possible. I'm not as flowery as Deso but I try to break it down easily.  



CamillePunk said:


> What are some specific examples of ways the military is being hamstrung that you take issue with? What is it you were wanting to do in Kosovo that you felt you might be prevented from doing?


It really started after the first Persian Gulf War. With the end of that conflict, we started to see a paredown of our military. With the Cold War over, the feeling was that there was no serious enough threat to keep as large a military as we had nor the need to have such a huge footprint regarding it around the world. This also continued during the Clinton years and was about to undergo a radical transformation when Rumsfeld became Dubya's SOD. 

Rumsfeld's idea was to continue closing bases and scaling back on troop presence, we especially saw a huge cut in troops in Germany as well as in South Korea (and almost considered pulling troops from there altogether). He also had the idea of faster, more mobile troops. They weren't weighed down with armor, and he felt that with the changing of our enemy's fighting style it would be better to match them for speed. He also went about trying to develop new high tech weaponry and wanted to scale down the number of personnel at the Pentagon. Ironically, that was a proposal he had made on September 10, 2001. 

Rumsfeld screwed up the occupation of Iraq because what happened was the last thing anyone expected. They prepared for the possibility of chemical warfare, or a brutal slaughter for Baghdad as we would have to take the city block-by-block. What they didn't expect was Iraqi soldiers fleeing the battlefield and returning as insurgents in small groups. That led to us staying a hell of a lot longer than expected, and the mobile troop movements that were sped up also thinned out our supply lines. Also, with numbers down in regards to volunteers (Rumsfeld had created the all-volunteer military when he was SecDef during the Ford administration) people were being worn down by extra tours of duty. Had I not received a medical discharge about six months prior to 9/11, it would have been possible I would have seen multiple tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. In addition, Rumsfeld was way behind the curve in trying to get military personnel that would be able to speak the native tongues of Arabic, Urdu, etc. He was not an easy person to deal with, and many a high-ranking officer butted heads with him as he was a stubborn man. Basically, it was a "daddy knows best" situation even though it had been over 50 years since he had actually seen military action. 

Under Obama, we saw massive cuts in the military, in some places bare-bones. In addition, there was a real contempt by his administration for the top brass. Anyone who dared disagree with Obama was fired, including our current SecDef. Mattis was fired by Obama without even so much as a phone call to the man. The further budget cuts of the defense budget as a result of the sequestration fights exasperated the situation even more, in some cases you had soldiers being relieved of duty suddenly during the middle of their tours. It was well known that Obama was reluctant to keep going the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that showed in how he handled those operations. Quite a few soldiers I knew had the same thought...that Obama really didn't have his heart in helping the military take care of business. No wonder a poll by the Military Times publication at the end of Obama's presidency said only 36 percent of those asked approved of the job he did in his 8 years. 

Public opinion and using our military as a political football doesn't help either. The truth is, we want wars to be quick and painless. If every single military action was that way, we'd be happy as can be. Problem is, war is not always quick and is far from painless. When things don't go well, everyone is quick to scream, "BRING THEM HOME!" That's what our enemies, including radical Islamists, count on. They know the moment things don't go well that we will want to bring them home. Also, everytime something happens where we accidentally blow up a hospital, etc...certain people seem to scream the loudest and longest saying it was deliberate. For every Abu Ghraib (which was disgusting, BTW), you have 10 other incidents that were not intentional yet people shit on all military for it. 





Miss Sally said:


> Looking back on the Balkan conflicts I never understood why the US intervened on the side of Islamic groups who were doing awful things to the Serbs and non-Muslims. It was always confusing as these Islamists offered nothing of real value and certainly not US intervention in the region, the Balkans have always been a hot spot and now the people who were oppressed by Muslim ran Governments and Groups were set to be pushed out by peoples who had to deal with them for centuries. The US still justifies this in media even though they fail to have seen the big picture.
> 
> 
> Saddam and Gaddafi were global hits for not playing with the US. The US has pretty caused far more chaos and unstability in the region than any of these "enemies" of the US. That said the US isn't the only one to blame, the Aussies, Canadians and other European nations were eager to get in on the feeding frenzy and money made from these hits. The Saudis are well protected but as growing public animosity grows against them it would not surprise me if the Saudis eventually move from it's mutual dependence on the US which would be a disaster for the US and it's unwillingness to stop sucking on the tit of crude oil. The fact Saudi royals are buying stakes in online chatter companies like twitter, trying to get the net restricted and blatantly interfering with US politics by lobbying and buying off Politicians and those Politicians not answering for this shows that the Saudis are indeed weary of how things are looking. The US isn't dealing with just a backwards Kingdom that employs slave labor and multiple human rights violations but one with a giant ego of the center of all Islam. The Kingdom that will not house a single refugee but will pay millions and millions for Mosques in Europe which teach a wonderful kind of hate in wahhabism. How the Politicians ever thought this alliance wouldn't end up this way is beyond me.


The Balkan conflicts actually was kicked into overdrive as a result of the Bosnian genocide as the Serbs tried to push the Bosnian Muslims out of their homeland and slaughtered thousands of them. The civil war eventually spilled over into Kosovo and threatened to draw Greece and Turkey into the conflict on opposite sides. As a result, this would have led to a war that would have dragged in all of Europe and the Middle East. Remember, it was a spark in the Balkans in 1914 that led to World War I. The United Nations, BTW, wasn't originally on board either. Clinton said initially to the UN that if you don't act, we will take NATO and do it on our own. 



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Goku @Miss Sally @RipNTear @samizayn @Tater
> 
> Honestly, @BruiserKC, I believe I understand what you are attempting to get at, with regard to the mess in the Middle East today. I do not have much time with which to respond and am unsure of when I may in the near future, so I will provide a short reply. (EDIT before posting: well... never mind...)
> 
> Ultimately, what occurred in the past impacts the present, which determines the future. The reason to keep investigating the sorrowful post-9/11 history of the U.S.'s prolonged stays in Afghanistan, where, not since March 2002, has so much of the country been dominated by the Taliban and forces aligned to same including ISIS following their truce last year, and Iraq, where instability and turmoil still engulf major cornerstones of the country beginning most obviously with Mosul which is predictably turning into a hellish internecine struggle in an urban sprawl which could last at least a calendar year if not longer, is that it is by looking to the past that we begin to grasp our mistakes. As Patrick Henry noted, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no other way of judging the future but by the past."
> 
> For over thirty years, whether willfully or accidentally, the U.S. has tremendously aided Islam's present rise and Islamism in general, and the securing of Kosovo against the Serbs was unfortunately just one case, aiding some of the most twisted figures in the history of the Balkans who today rule over that Muslim Mafia state of human, organ and weapons trafficking, a major hub of Islamic terrorism. In Iraq and Libya the U.S. deposed two regimes which, for all of their many faults, at least held certain Islamist characters in almost perpetual check, and today whether Bashir al-Assad has it done himself or is framed for it by a group of rebels, the U.S. has already established a _casus belli_ to destroy a largely secular (comparatively) regime, as though ramming one's head into a brick wall a few times was insufficient.
> 
> The only way by which the U.S.'s obliteration of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi's governments makes sense is that for financial interests, they had to go. Since the early 1970s following the collapse of the Bretton-Woods arrangement and Richard Nixon's realization that the demand for U.S. dollars would dissipate greatly due to the exponentially growing U.S. debt thanks in large part to Lyndon Johnson's reign of terror both at home and abroad. With the international gold standard dying, Nixon's administration ensured that the U.S. would make a deal with the Saudi Arabian government. The Saudis would receive U.S. protection on behalf of their theocratic state, and in exchange the Saudis would price the sale of their oil solely in dollars. This would allow the Saudis to remain open to investing surplus oil proceeds in U.S. debt, bonds and securities, a major benefit to the U.S. in sustaining American debt and enabling the U.S. regime in financing its mass debt to myriad nations. With the demand for U.S. dollars expanding afterward, the deal was all the sweeter for the U.S. financial arrangement. Keeping oil priced in dollars, with most major international oil transactions still done in U.S. dollars, with the need for those dollars, enables a host of countries means that the countries involved, almost universally, have export-led trading and financial tactics with regard to their own currencies as they fundamentally buy shares of U.S. debt, providing American consumers with cheap goods to buy at their local Wal-Mart. It is the single most paramount touchstone of the geopolitical and financial stratagem employed by the U.S. since the early 1970s to sustain the entire global financial system as it stands today with the U.S. sitting on the throne of said global financial system. With an influx of cheap consumer goods, the U.S. is also guaranteeing, at least in the short term, a continuation of the average American's standard of living, even as Americans--including those not yet born--remain in real terms indentured servants to that U.S. debt, one of the single most feared realities by many of the original American republic's founding generation.
> 
> Was the Iraq War of 2003 in actuality performed to keep the Americans in the catbird seat? The petrodollar scheme enables the U.S. to sustain itself, keep oil prices favorable, deliver protection for the Saudi kingdom, and remained hooked on debt while endeavoring to maintain the attractiveness of U.S. debt abroad. Saddam Hussein dumped the U.S. dollar in October 2000. As one Iraqi government official noted, "the currency of the enemy," the U.S. dollar, was distinctly disadvantageous to the Iraqis. Taking on the vastly more multilateral euro enabled Iraq's economy to at least marginally improve, but it was a ripple effect on the U.S.'s global system of illimitable borrowing to sustain its gargantuan debt. While the neoconservative ideology of those in power in 2001 played an indisputable role in the folly of the Iraq War, so too may have American insistence that such moves in the Arab/Middle Eastern world be suffocated.
> 
> As myriad emails between Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal reveal as she was U.S. Secretary of State during the Libyan folly, that it was not a humanitarian crisis by Gaddafi that attracted U.S. intervention in early 2011, but rather fear of Gaddafi's gold-backed Dinar as he sought to establish a template by which other leaders in the Muslim world could defy the Americans by abandoning the U.S. dollar, freeing his country from what his economic advisers assured him were hardships spawned by Libya having to negotiate with the U.S. holding most of the cards. The petrodollar is the U.S.'s most indispensable global economic asset, providing the U.S. with the financial durability necessary to keep the dollar where it is with its exclusivity, which is of course as the world's reserve currency. Unfortunately for the U.S., in spite of these actions, following the astonishing spending on both military and domestic concerns under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, in the past year-to-fifteen months has seen no fewer than twenty-six nations, representing almost 66% of the world's GDP, have established major swap lines. This is to enable them to bypass the U.S. dollar and S.W.I.F.T., or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. So while the U.S. has perhaps been highly active in punishing countries that defy the global economic _status quo_, fissures have already developed, with China, Russia and India essentially all leading the charge toward increasing distrust of U.S. handling of the same _status quo_, and Chinese, Russian, Indian government officials and officials to other governments all solemnly noting in the past year or so that they are beginning to look ahead to the time at which point the U.S. dollar no longer enjoys its title as world reserve currency. The Chinese in particular are cagily cornering the market on gold, as Matt Schifrin at _Forbes_ notes, all while commissioning and spearheading the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which many economic and financial analysts rightly see as a burgeoning rival to the World Bank. The United Kingdom and France among other nations, close allies to the U.S., have cozied up to the AIIB.
> 
> The process will probably take another couple of decades, maybe even longer should the Chinese economy implode, for instance, but most signs point to the inevitability of a large, wide-ranging pool of currencies supplanting the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. The Indians are preparing for it, and the Chinese are agitating, and succeeding in attaining, Special Drawing Rights with the International Monetary Fund.
> 
> So what I am saying is that barring all other explanations or justifications, Hussein and Gaddafi being deposed may very well have assured the Americans, as well as other international actors, a more orderly decline of the U.S. dollar. If these thoughts have any relevancy I wish the U.S. government were more open with its genuine considerations. Empires engaging in _realpolitik_ only makes sense at some level (and again one could then debate whether these interventions were worth it even with those points weighed), but we are an unserious people, driven by footage of wailing babies half of a world away when convenient for war drums, while averting the gaze when rebels most likely backed by American intelligence agencies engage in their own atrocities.





RipNTear said:


> @BruiserKC and Stevfox - I sometimes feel like you guys are stuck in the past and are romantacizing other cultures and aren't quite ready to accept that Islam and the Middle East is a completely different beast from that of the past countries America has saved. The geopolitical and ideological landscape of Muslim countries is extremely different and was held together by extremely weak threads already.
> 
> Basically like an infected wound that was stitched up and therefore not bleeding out. With American interference that wound instead of being healed has simply burst open and is now bleeding everywhere. The amount of American force and interference by a nanny state is irrelevant imo because the sutures while not perfect were what was holding some terrible and cancerous ideologies blocked up. The wound looked bad and was spreading, but what was locked up inside was far worse and prying it open gave it an opportunity to spread wider and deeper.
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...an-evil-dictator-is-now-openly-trading-slaves


I don't romanticize radical Islam...I am fully aware of the danger and the threat it poses to our world. In fact, it was just a couple of years ago that I was considered an extreme nutjob because I called for the killing of all radical Islamist groups and all their supporters. Now, considering how many of you speak out on Islam I have become almost moderate in that regard. You believe that all Muslims are evil and we can't reason with them, etc. 

Going back to the Carter administration, we have both ignored and appeased the movement at the same time. Every single president since then, from Reagan to Obama, has pandered to radical Islam and almost apologized for it. In turn, the Islamists have used our freedoms against us. They aren't stupid, backward people living in caves. They are very intelligent, media-savvy, brilliant tacticians who know exactly what they are doing. Meanwhile, many Muslims continue to remain silent, either because they are afraid to speak out or they agree with the methods of the more radical fringes of their faith. 

However, the difference between me and many here is that all you want to do is talk about it...we are way past the point of talking. Action might be required, as the only thing they respect is the use of force. Keeping them in their corner of the world is not enough, not when they are pushing for a one-world caliphate. Radical Islam is the 21st century version of Naziism. The world refused to stand up to Hitler until it took 50 million lives to finally put an end to the Third Reich. 

I am not a violent person...to me fighting has always been a last resort. However, when I had to, I fought to win. We talk about the threat of radical Islam...but do we have the strength to stand up and actually take it on?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Very happy America isn't a country that gets pushed around anymore in the background like a bunch of pussies. The economy is in great shape and jobs for Americans are up big time. I'm happy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its the Trump backlash its only going to get worse for the GOP in the mid terms.


It is the incumbent backlash. Americans tend to vote against whoever is in power. Don't need to romantisize what is happening into a Trump or GOP backlash. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Very happy America isn't a country that gets pushed around anymore in the background like a bunch of pussies. The economy is in great shape and jobs for Americans are up big time. I'm happy.


The economy was in great shape under Obama and jobs were also up lol Obama had the record for consecutive weeks of jobs being added

Under Obama over 11 million jobs were created.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> It is the incumbent backlash. Americans tend to vote against whoever is in power. Don't need to romantisize what is happening into a Trump or GOP backlash. :lmao


No its def. Trump. NO president has had as long as an approval rating as Trump this early into this first 100 days. Trump smashed the previous record.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The economy was in great shape under Obama and jobs were also up lol Obama had the record for consecutive weeks of jobs being added
> 
> Under Obama over 11 million jobs were created.


What does that have to be with economy and jobs being in even better shape now, though? Absolutely nothing. He also left the country with the biggest deficit in the history of this country and there were a shit-ton of people unemployed during his presidency. Let's not turn this into another long-winded discussion because someone dared to say something positive about Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I don't romanticize radical Islam...I am fully aware of the danger and the threat it poses to our world. In fact, it was just a couple of years ago that I was considered an extreme nutjob because I called for the killing of all radical Islamist groups and all their supporters. Now, considering how many of you speak out on Islam I have become almost moderate in that regard. You believe that all Muslims are evil and we can't reason with them, etc.


Never said you did. I said that you romanticize the role of America in past conflicts and believe that similar tactics and actions will result in the same positive outcome when the understanding of the beast that Islam is isn't there. 

Read my entire post to Stevefox in order to fully comprehend what's going on. 

The complexity of the situation in the middle east is something that baffles even people there but I have recently developed a clarity of thought that would perhaps make me into an iconoclast on the subject because this is insight that you won't get from other ex-muslims, or muslims or even critics of Islam. 



> I am not a violent person...to me fighting has always been a last resort. However, when I had to, I fought to win. We talk about the threat of radical Islam...but do we have the strength to stand up and actually take it on?


I know you're not. Read my post to Steve and let me know if that changes your perspective on Islam a little more. 

What if I told you there is no "radical" Islam either and there is only Islam and it's _all _"radical"? 

Don't go into a knee jerk reaction that I'm saying the same thing as the people who say "all muslims are terrorists". Not at all. Mull it over. 

I don't want you to change your mind about killing terrorists. I want to kill them as well. What I want you to realize is that the supply of terrorists will not end by killing the terrorists that exist today.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> What does that have to be with economy and jobs being in even better shape now, though? Absolutely nothing. He also left the country with the biggest deficit in the history of this country and there were a shit-ton of people unemployed during his presidency. Let's not turn this into another long-winded discussion because someone dared to say something positive about Trump.


Its still due to Obama not Trump. At least for the first quarter of 2017. The decisions Trump is making now wont be seen at least for a few more months.

Here is an article about Trumps jobs claims

http://fortune.com/2017/03/29/president-trump-job-claims-fact-check/

Dont act like the economy and jobs sucked under Obama. And there are still a shit ton of people now unemployed under Trump as well.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> It really started after the first Persian Gulf War. With the end of that conflict, we started to see a paredown of our military. With the Cold War over, the feeling was that there was no serious enough threat to keep as large a military as we had nor the need to have such a huge footprint regarding it around the world. This also continued during the Clinton years and was about to undergo a radical transformation when Rumsfeld became Dubya's SOD.
> 
> Rumsfeld's idea was to continue closing bases and scaling back on troop presence, we especially saw a huge cut in troops in Germany as well as in South Korea (and almost considered pulling troops from there altogether). He also had the idea of faster, more mobile troops. They weren't weighed down with armor, and he felt that with the changing of our enemy's fighting style it would be better to match them for speed. He also went about trying to develop new high tech weaponry and wanted to scale down the number of personnel at the Pentagon. Ironically, that was a proposal he had made on September 10, 2001.
> 
> Rumsfeld screwed up the occupation of Iraq because what happened was the last thing anyone expected. They prepared for the possibility of chemical warfare, or a brutal slaughter for Baghdad as we would have to take the city block-by-block. What they didn't expect was Iraqi soldiers fleeing the battlefield and returning as insurgents in small groups. That led to us staying a hell of a lot longer than expected, and the mobile troop movements that were sped up also thinned out our supply lines. Also, with numbers down in regards to volunteers (Rumsfeld had created the all-volunteer military when he was SecDef during the Ford administration) people were being worn down by extra tours of duty. Had I not received a medical discharge about six months prior to 9/11, it would have been possible I would have seen multiple tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. In addition, Rumsfeld was way behind the curve in trying to get military personnel that would be able to speak the native tongues of Arabic, Urdu, etc. He was not an easy person to deal with, and many a high-ranking officer butted heads with him as he was a stubborn man. Basically, it was a "daddy knows best" situation even though it had been over 50 years since he had actually seen military action.
> 
> Under Obama, we saw massive cuts in the military, in some places bare-bones. In addition, there was a real contempt by his administration for the top brass. Anyone who dared disagree with Obama was fired, including our current SecDef. Mattis was fired by Obama without even so much as a phone call to the man. The further budget cuts of the defense budget as a result of the sequestration fights exasperated the situation even more, in some cases you had soldiers being relieved of duty suddenly during the middle of their tours. It was well known that Obama was reluctant to keep going the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that showed in how he handled those operations. Quite a few soldiers I knew had the same thought...that Obama really didn't have his heart in helping the military take care of business. No wonder a poll by the Military Times publication at the end of Obama's presidency said only 36 percent of those asked approved of the job he did in his 8 years.
> 
> Public opinion and using our military as a political football doesn't help either. The truth is, we want wars to be quick and painless. If every single military action was that way, we'd be happy as can be. Problem is, war is not always quick and is far from painless. When things don't go well, everyone is quick to scream, "BRING THEM HOME!" That's what our enemies, including radical Islamists, count on. They know the moment things don't go well that we will want to bring them home. Also, everytime something happens where we accidentally blow up a hospital, etc...certain people seem to scream the loudest and longest saying it was deliberate. For every Abu Ghraib (which was disgusting, BTW), you have 10 other incidents that were not intentional yet people shit on all military for it.


This didn't answer my question at all. You were talking about boundaries and restrictions and worrying about not being able to do "what is needed". I asked for specific examples of this and you talked about...spending cuts and troop reductions. I'm quite sure that isn't what you were talking about before.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its still due to Obama not Trump. At least for the first quarter of 2017. The decisions Trump is making now wont be seen at least for a few more months.
> 
> Here is an article about Trumps jobs claims
> 
> http://fortune.com/2017/03/29/president-trump-job-claims-fact-check/


Not true, but okay.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No its def. Trump. NO president has had as long as an approval rating as Trump this early into this first 100 days. Trump smashed the previous record.


Erm...no. Obama had better approval rating and the Republicans still trounced the democrats during his 8 years.



ShowStopper said:


> What does that have to be with economy and jobs being in even better shape now, though? Absolutely nothing. He also left the country with the biggest deficit in the history of this country and there were a shit-ton of people unemployed during his presidency. Let's not turn this into another long-winded discussion because someone dared to say something positive about Trump.


Has the economy or jobs really become better now though? The only thing Trump can claim credit for is big banks and corporations speculating/ having confidence in GOP cutting regulations and taxes that has resulted in higher stock market. Every other thing that Trump has tried to claim credit for is highly misleading. But with his healthcare proposal a failure for now, and his regulation and tax reforms in doubt to arrive by the desired deadline, these companies are stuck in uncertainty when planning for the next year.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Not true, but okay.


As for the US not being pushed around anyone you think it's good Trump is getting into a pissing match and could start WWIII with N Korea or even Syria?

Trump doesnt even know the name fo the leader for N Korea FFS. How is that a good thing? The whole bombing Syria thing without having all the facts was also a bad move, you think that was the right move?

How did it even make sense that Assad would gas his own people when he was winning?


Trump is a bully and he is going to start a war because he is a child.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Erm...no. Obama had better approval rating and the Republicans still trounced the democrats during his 8 years.


You can thank Gerrymandering for a lot of that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can thank Gerrymandering for a lot of that.


Nope. Gerrymandering existed before, during and after and cannot be used as an excuse.

Also interesting way how partisanship affects everyone's view.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...n-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump doing the oldest trick in the book pretending not to know someone's name and people in here believing he really hasn't been briefed on North Korea's leadership. :banderas


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump doing the oldest trick in the book pretending not to know someone's name and people in here believing he really hasn't been briefed on North Korea's leadership. :banderas


I guess this is another example of him using the same trick.






But the chocolate cake was great though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump doing the oldest trick in the book pretending not to know someone's name and people in here believing he really hasn't been briefed on North Korea's leadership. :banderas


He is not pretending lol. Trump is a buffoon. He does not even like to be briefed, he has admitted that. And he wants it all to be on one page and bullet points.

Its so sad when Trump supports can't admit when Trump is stupid and should know these things. He is the president. You think GW Bush was just acting all those times too>


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I guess this is another example of him using the same trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the chocolate cake was great though.


Considering he's already talked about the Syria strike numerous times and thus obviously meant to say Syria, this is not even close to the same thing, which is obvious to any rational person, but apparently not to you. Sad! :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Considering he's already talked about the Syria strike numerous times and thus obviously meant to say Syria, this is not even close to the same thing, which is obvious to any rational person, but apparently not to you. Sad! :banderas


How can Trump even screw that up and name the wrong country, there was no reason to. Why would he even say Iraq?

Its because Trump is stupid and has no clue what he is talking about.

Is it that hard for you to admit Trump needs to better prepared for these kinds of interviews? All you have to do is say, yeah that makes Trump look bad and he needs to know the names of foreign leaders and countries he is bombing.

It was Trump who claimed he would learn foreign policy so well it would make our heads spin. Well he is not doing that.

He is just showing he does not know shit about foreign policy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Considering he's already talked about the Syria strike numerous times and thus obviously meant to say Syria, this is not even close to the same thing, which is obvious to any rational person, but apparently not to you. Sad! :banderas


Sounds the same as a guy still living in the past. Mistaking the current situation with past events or persons of a similar nature. If Hillary made the same mistake it would have been evidence that she will cause WW3 for you. 

But hey whatever keeps your mind at peace over choosing this guy as president.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Never said you did. I said that you romanticize the role of America in past conflicts and believe that similar tactics and actions will result in the same positive outcome when the understanding of the beast that Islam is isn't there.
> 
> Read my entire post to Stevefox in order to fully comprehend what's going on.
> 
> The complexity of the situation in the middle east is something that baffles even people there but I have recently developed a clarity of thought that would perhaps make me into an iconoclast on the subject because this is insight that you won't get from other ex-muslims, or muslims or even critics of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're not. Read my post to Steve and let me know if that changes your perspective on Islam a little more.
> 
> What if I told you there is no "radical" Islam either and there is only Islam and it's _all _"radical"?
> 
> Don't go into a knee jerk reaction that I'm saying the same thing as the people who say "all muslims are terrorists". Not at all. Mull it over.
> 
> I don't want you to change your mind about killing terrorists. I want to kill them as well. What I want you to realize is that the supply of terrorists will not end by killing the terrorists that exist today.


Trust me, I know quite a few people that have told me that all Muslims are terrorists and they believe they should all be dead. Everyday, more and more people are adopting this stance. I want to hold out and believe that not all Muslims are bad. 

I have read the article, and I see where you are coming from. How do we combat this threat? It is a threat to the whole world, and the goal of radical Islamists is the conquest of the world and the creation of the one-world caliphate. Words alone will not be enough, talking to them about a Reformation of Islam isn't going to cut it. It may ultimately require force to deal with the problem. It might not cut the supply off altogether, but my line of thinking is if we show the will to kill as many of them as possible that it might get some to think that their way ain't working. 




CamillePunk said:


> This didn't answer my question at all. You were talking about boundaries and restrictions and worrying about not being able to do "what is needed". I asked for specific examples of this and you talked about...spending cuts and troop reductions. I'm quite sure that isn't what you were talking about before.


That's part of it...but this article will point at the part you're referring to. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428756/rules-engagement-need-reform

I understand that there are rules of war to follow (rather oxymoronic IMO), but we put so many restrictions on what we can and can't do. We saw this in Kosovo a little bit, as some of the people that sometimes confronted the KFOR troops were not easily identified as opposing forces. They roamed around sometimes in civilian gear, and we were told to do everything in our power to minimize the loss of civilian life if at all possible. In some cases, if a platoon needed to take care of a matter, they had to ask their civilian liaison. In turn, they would ask someone else, and it would go up the chain. Instead of just letting the soldiers do what they needed to do, they had to ask permission of a lawyer to get shit done. 

This was seen a lot in Iraq...insurgent leaders holding meetings in playgrounds where children played. They are out in the open, should be free to grab them and neutralize them, right? No, they had to actually ask permission to their C.O. In turn, the C.O. had to basically write up a plan with a legal argument. In turn, JAG would tell them yes or no. Kid you not, this shit happened. In some cases, this led to people being killed because they couldn't get the bad guys. 

Case in point...Mutqada al-Sadr and many of his men holed up in the Imam Ali Mosque in Baghdad in 2004. The mosque was being used to stage attacks on American soldiers. Per the Geneva Rules of War, the mosque should no longer be offered the protection of a privileged place and therefore could be destroyed. Instead, they had to ask permission and was told no to being able to destroy it. Instead, the fight leads to surrounding areas being destroyed and lives on both sides being lost. 

You can't fight a war with restrictions like this...the troops need to be allowed to do their job. Our soldiers are best at doing their job when not hampered by unnecessary red tape. Again, I get the concept of trying to put a positive face on what we're doing, but not at the expense of not being allowed to do our job. We see the enemy, we recognize the enemy, but we aren't allowed to actually get the enemy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Believing Trump pretended to get the leader of North Korea's name wrong as opposed to him just being incompetent and uninformed is wishful thinking in the extreme. 

Kinda like when you all convinced yourselves Trumpcare was set up to fail in a convoluted plot against Paul Ryan.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oh hey look, the guy had under 50 just like I said.

Both of you can apologize now.

Edit: As for Ryan, he was always scum. Hated him even before Trump ran.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh hey look, the guy had under 50 just like I said.
> 
> Both of you can apologize now.
> 
> Edit: As for Ryan, he was always scum. Hated him even before Trump ran.


He did not lose LOL

You were WRONG. Him losing would have been him getting 3rd place and not making it to the next round.

You dont even know what you are talking about


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He did not lose LOL
> 
> You were WRONG. Him losing would have been him getting 3rd place and not making it to the next round.
> 
> You dont even know what you are talking about


He had to get over 50

He didn't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> He had to get over 50
> 
> He didn't.


No he didnt. He had to go over 50 to not force a run-off in June

Now he and the person who got the 2nd most votes will have a special election where everyone votes again.

How did he lose?

Seriously do a little research to see how this works before claiming he lost.

If he wins the run off, he gets the seat. How exactly did he lose?

Just admit you were mistaken how things worked in this race and move on.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he didnt. He had to go over 50 to not force a run-off in June
> 
> Now he and the person who got the 2nd most votes will have a special election where everyone votes again.
> 
> How did he lose?
> 
> Seriously do a little research to see how this works before claiming he lost.
> 
> If he wins the run off, he gets the seat. How exactly did he lose?


Thats not what your people wanted. They wanted him to win because now he's going to get massacred. THEREFORE: I said he lost, which is what happened. Apologize now.

You may as well put me back on ignore. I already said im done with you. If you insist on continuing this kind of hollier than thou grandstanding it'll only hurt you going forward, not me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Thats not what your people wanted. Thwy wanted him to win because now he's going to get massacred. THEIRFORE: I said he lost, which is what happened. Apologize now.
> 
> You may as well put me back on ignore. I already said im done with you. If you insist on doing this kind of hollier than thou grandstanding it'll only hurt you going forward, not me.


How did he lose when he ADVANCED?

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-special-election-district-6

Election Results: *Ossoff, Handel Advance in Race for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District*
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES LIVE 4:46:37 AM ET

Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, and Karen Handel, a Republican, advanced to a June 20 runoff in the special election for the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom Price, the new health and human services secretary. Read more »

Only in your world is someone who get the most votes and advanced to the run off lost lol

You keep proving me right about you everytime you post.

You make it too easy.

You cant even admit when you are wrong or mistaken.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> How did he lose when he ADVANCED?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-special-election-district-6
> 
> Election Results: *Ossoff, Handel Advance in Race for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District*
> BY THE NEW YORK TIMES LIVE 4:46:37 AM ET
> 
> Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, and Karen Handel, a Republican, advanced to a June 20 runoff in the special election for the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom Price, the new health and human services secretary. Read more »
> 
> Only in your world is someone who get the most votes and advanced to the run off lost lol
> 
> You keep proving me right about you everytime you post.
> 
> You make it too easy.
> 
> You cant even admit when you are wrong or mistaken.


BECAUSE I'm not wrong. Your party spent millions with the objective of getting him OVER FIFTY PERCENT, because they didn't WANT a run off election. Because they know he can't WIN a run off election! That didn't happen. He failed, and he will fail in june. 










I said he'd get under 50, losing the Dem's objective. I was right. Now apologize.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

O.K. when I wrote that, the election hadn't been called yet and he was at 50%. You had said he already lost.

Yes, by your criteria I guess he lost. He got the most votes and finished ahead by a large margin (
92,390 votes and 48% of the vote, second place had 
37,993 votes and 20%), but by your criteria, winning it all yesterday, he lost.

I don't know why you think he's getting massacred in the run off though. Karen Handel is not what I would call popular here in Georgia, especially in that district. Not saying she can't win, but it's going to be an uphill battle.

The truth is that if there weren't 16 candidates running yesterday or if one had to win by a simple majority, this would already be over.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> O.K. when I wrote that, the election hadn't been called yet and he was at 50%. You had said he already lost.
> 
> Yes, by your criteria I guess he lost. He got the most votes and finished ahead by a large margin (
> 92,390 votes and 48% of the vote, second place had
> 37,993 votes and 20%), but by your criteria, winning it all yesterday, he lost.
> 
> I don't know why you think he's getting massacred in the run off though. Karen Handel is not what I would call popular here in Georgia, especially in that district. Not saying she can't win, but it's going to be an uphill battle.
> 
> The truth is that if there weren't 16 candidates running yesterday or if one had to win by a simple majority, this would already be over.


He was dropping near below 50 when I said it. It was a foregone conclusion. Didn't have to wait to see that.

At least you admitted it. Thank you. The rest we can differ on.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Weren't GOP votes split amongst something like 17 candidates? What happens when it's one on one? This is why he needed over 50%


----------



## Art Vandaley

Aye, the Repiblican candidates won the first round about 51 - 49% so look like they will win the run off esp now they can concentrate their advertising on the one person. 

That said, this is Newt Gingrich's former seat, its been solidly republican since 1974 with republicans winning between 60% and 70% of the vote. 

That the Dems even came close will terrify many Republicans in Congress, you're looking at a 10-20% swing, and that'd wipe a heap of them out.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Aye, the Repiblican candidates won the first round about 51 - 49% so look like they will win the run off esp now they can concentrate their advertising on the one person.
> 
> That said, this is Newt Gingrich's former seat, its been solidly republican since 1974 with republicans winning between 60% and 70% of the vote.
> 
> That the Dems even came close will terrify many Republicans in Congress, you're looking at a 10-20% swing, and that'd wipe a heap of them out.


Republican electorate rallies in situations like these. The number will go back up and the run off won't be as close. 

Remember last year they were trying to convince us that Texas is now a swing state? Yeah .. what happened there :kobelol


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Republican electorate rallies in situations like these.
> 
> Remember last year they were trying to convince us that Texas is now a swing state? Yeah .. what happened there http://i.imgur.com/qy
> ombxRn.gif


Aye lets wait and see what happens in 2018, its set to be 2010 in reverse atm though. 

This is the Democrats best performance in literally 45 years, that is not a good sign for the Republicans. 

Also the Texas thing, irrelevant to the point at hand, but fwiw that is a long term demographics thing and could still happen, but no one expected it to happen yet. 

The theory re Texas basically is that people in cities vote Democratic and people in the country vote Republican and in Texas the stats show that an increasing percentage of the population are living in cities and as the theory goes that should mean more people in Texas vote Democrat.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Aye lets wait and see what happens in 2018, its set to be 2010 in reverse atm though.


The way the country seems to be set up in terms of how the elections work is heavily favoring the GOP, but anything is possible. 



> This is the Democrats best performance in literally 45 years, that is not a good sign for the Republicans.


It's also a result of money that has never been spent before. 97% of the funding for his campaign came from outside the district. The GOP came in _extremely _late with their campaign (without all the money behind one candidate) and _still_ won. And now this guy has a target painted on his back. There's no way he's coming close. His current "win" is basically the result of GOP electorate complacency. 

The guy has already been labeled a full on cuck amongst right-wing circles and when it comes to the GOP something like that actually does matter. Here are a few examples. The GOP electorate is ALREADY in full rally mode. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854547069192765440

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854545757592059904

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854660678220750848

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854660470078406656

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854531307514232833
:lol The last one is my favorite. Apparently, dude is living off of his girlfriend's wealth and that's a huge no-no. 

On the other side, you've already got morons celebrating this as a win and therefore in the June run-off, in typical democrat millennial fashion they'll get complacent again. 



> Also the Texas thing, irrelevant to the point at hand, but fwiw that is a long term demographics thing and could still happen, but no one expected it to happen yet.


It's not irrelevant at all. It was based on similar poor speculation around how the polls made it appear closer than ever. 



> The theory re Texas basically is that people in cities vote Democratic and people in the country vote Republican and in Texas the stats show that an increasing percentage of the population are living in cities and as the theory goes that should mean more people in Texas vote Democrat.


That's fine. But they were actually predicting Texas was going to be a swing state late into the election in 2016 ... not somewhere far in the future.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

the dems have lost seats at every level since 2010. they've never been weaker.

We'll see if their rage boner for Trump brings the betamales out in force. Thinking about it, if the GOP wanted to ensure a low DEM turn out, they should just require each voter to fill out a job application at the polls :nerd:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> the dems have lost seats at every level since 2010. they've never been weaker.
> 
> We'll see if their rage boner for Trump brings the betamales out in force. Thinking about it, if the GOP wanted to ensure a low DEM turn out, they should just require each voter to fill out a job application at the polls :nerd:


:lol

Speaking of beta males










This is just sad. I do the cooking and cleaning around the house because I work from home (so this guy should have been relateable to me), but I would have to be dead to wear an apron and I definitely don't look like I got a sex change at birth :kobelol

If the GOP electorate can't rally to beat this guy, then yah I'll openly admit that Georgia is lost pretty much forever.

Semi-formal with an apron and that's his official twitter pic :ha


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :lol
> 
> Speaking of beta males
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just sad. I do the cooking and cleaning around the house because I work from home (so this guy should have been relateable to me), but I would have to be dead to wear an apron and I definitely don't look like I got a sex change at birth :kobelol
> 
> If the GOP electorate can't rally to beat this guy, then yah I'll openly admit that Georgia is lost pretty much forever.
> 
> Semi-formal with an apron and that's his official twitter pic :ha


This guy reminds me of Trudeau.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> This guy reminds me of Trudeau.


Trudeau is hotter tho ... and he's much less of a cuck which is saying something. This guy openly claimed that he can't move to the district - the place where he's running for - because his girlfriend needs to be able to walk to class. Are the democrats serious? 

:kobelol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Are the democrats serious?
> 
> :kobelol


If they are, then the democrat voters better start asking some questions.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> If they are, then the democrat voters better start asking some questions.


They really do. I mean, if they're supporting a guy who doesn't have the balls to tell his woman that he needs to move a mile and a half to be able to vote for himself, what kind of political power will he wield? He'll just be a literal puppy for lobbyists and nothing more.

Fucking cuck.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> :lol
> 
> Speaking of beta males
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just sad. I do the cooking and cleaning around the house because I work from home (so this guy should have been relateable to me), but I would have to be dead to wear an apron and I definitely don't look like I got a sex change at birth :kobelol
> 
> If the GOP electorate can't rally to beat this guy, then yah I'll openly admit that Georgia is lost pretty much forever.
> 
> Semi-formal with an apron and that's his official twitter pic :ha


There's only one man who can pull off wearing an apron


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> BECAUSE I'm not wrong. Your party spent millions with the objective of getting him OVER FIFTY PERCENT, because they didn't WANT a run off election. Because they know he can't WIN a run off election! That didn't happen. He failed, and he will fail in june.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said he'd get under 50, losing the Dem's objective. I was right. Now apologize.


that is not what you said and you are so wrong. He did not lose any way you look at it. He advanced.

You are just trying to move the goal posts because you were wrong .


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is not what you said and you are so wrong. He did not lose any way you look at it. He advanced.
> 
> You are just trying to move the goal posts because you were wrong .


Try again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It was neither a win nor a loss. It went into overtime. Geez. Republicans can't claim a win because this dude was a nobody that got them spooked enough to make memes to try to discredit him. Democrats can't claim a win because this dude had way more spending power than the other candidates this time round and still didn't cross the 50% line.

Though, thing's aren't looking good for the dude in a run off because voters will probably vote along party lines and he won't have enough votes.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Memes only exist to discredit someone that has no credibility. The Cuck said "This is about the women in our community". So a privileged white man is running against a woman thereby re-enforcing the patriarchy. 

If he's true on his word and actually cares about women, then he'll let the Republican FEMALE candidate (who has more balls than him anyways) win. 

Defeat the patriarchy by stepping aside you silly cuck.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> It was neither a win nor a loss. It went into overtime. Geez. Republicans can't claim a win because this dude was a nobody that got them spooked enough to make memes to try to discredit him. Democrats can't claim a win because this dude had way more spending power than the other candidates this time round and still didn't cross the 50% line.
> 
> Though, thing's aren't looking good for the dude in a run off because voters will probably vote along party lines and he won't have enough votes.


 Nah. I just love seeing Dems squirm the same way they do us.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I wouldn't really attack him with the cuck memes. Rather focus on his privileged background and how he was obviously raised to run for office and point out the hypocrisy of attacking outside money.

The cuck thing just seem like the lowest of low hanging fruit to overcompensate for the attackers' insecurity.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I wouldn't really attack him with the cuck memes. Rather focus on his privileged background and how he was obviously raised to run for office and point out the hypocrisy of attacking outside money.
> 
> The cuck thing just seem like the lowest of low hanging fruit to overcompensate for the attackers' insecurity.


but he IS one.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> I wouldn't really attack him with the cuck memes. *Rather focus on his privileged background and how he was obviously raised to run for office and point out the hypocrisy of attacking outside money.
> *
> The cuck thing just seem like the lowest of low hanging fruit to overcompensate for the attackers' insecurity.


So a political cuck then.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So a political cuck then.


If it satisfies your fetish. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I have read the article, and I see where you are coming from. How do we combat this threat? It is a threat to the whole world, and the goal of radical Islamists is the conquest of the world and the creation of the one-world caliphate.


I've already given you the best option which is to align with Assad who is by all means a semi-secularist who for 10 years before America's interference ran a country full of extremists in such a way that prior to 2011 the christians in his country had no reason to flee. He wasn't oppressing the minorities. If anything, he was suppressing the majority which is the radicalized group that are now part of the rebels - which is why you have had constant betrayals by the rebels of their own American allies - and a continual flow of American funding and artillery to ISIS. The rebels and ISIS are largely on the same side and by proxy funneling American funding to ISIS. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds



> 60 Percent Of Syrian Rebels Are Islamist Extremists, Think Tank Finds
> 
> About 60 percent of rebel fighters in Syria hold an Islamist extremist ideology, a British think-tank has found. About a third of them hold the same ideology as the Islamic State.
> 
> The Centre on Religion and Geopolitics, an initiative of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, warns that's why wiping out the Islamic State would not end the threat to the West from jihadi groups.


The syrian "rebels" are the same kind of "rebels" that took over Iran and installed an islamist extremist in power. They are the same kind of rebels that overthrew the government in Iraq after America installed a weak successor. All muslim countries are the same. They all had minority governments that were suppressing the extremist majority and they are now all under threat and over-throwing Assad in Syria will be no different. 

This is the same situation across the Muslim world. The extremists far outnumber the secularists and liberals and therefore any attempt to overthrown any stable regime will basically cause these extremists to come into power. 


> Words alone will not be enough, talking to them about a Reformation of Islam isn't going to cut it. It may ultimately require force to deal with the problem. It might not cut the supply off altogether, but my line of thinking is if we show the will to kill as many of them as possible that it might get some to think that their way ain't working.


I don't know if you glossed over my main commentary on the failure of "reformists" and the fact that it is currently the reformists that are under the greatest threat after having stabilized the region for decades through unpopular but secular dictatorships. Islam reformists were already in power in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria before Americans went in guns blazing and destabilized those governments and left the minority of liberal muslims powerless to govern their countries and keep the extremists from taking over. The extremist take over is a combination of democratic power (power of the voting majority) as well as militant. 

Over the years, the new/incoming American (and other european governments) somehow forgot the history of their predecessors and the took away their support of the American-friendly and therefore secular governments. I believe it to be more of a mistake of partly not remembering their own history and also ignoring the fact that Islam overall is a very dangerous religion and isn't the "religion of peace" that they've been hoodwinked to believe. For peace, that entire region needed its dictators to keep the extremists at bay. The solution is to put them or other secular dictators back in power and support them through their own militia. 

America needs to reverse its position on Assad. There is no other solution.



FriedTofu said:


> If it satisfies your fetish. :draper2


:mj4


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I do the cooking and cleaning around the house because I work from home (so this guy should have been relateable to me), but I would have to be dead to wear an apron *and I definitely don't look like I got a sex change at birth* :kobelol












Please respect xyr's right to wear an apron, you cis scum. Or else we'll waste even more money trying to make sure his flabby and sick campaign limps into office!

:trump3


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is not pretending lol. Trump is a buffoon. He does not even like to be briefed, he has admitted that. And he wants it all to be on one page and bullet points.
> 
> Its so sad when Trump supports can't admit when Trump is stupid and should know these things. He is the president. You think GW Bush was just acting all those times too>


Funny story was about George W Bush was that he read briefing in his spare time

He enjoyed reading them and felt it would speed things up


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ossoff was pretty terrible and didn't do what Democrats were hoping for even with loads of outside money and Celebs showing up and trying to convince people to vote for him.

I think it's good, the Democrats are desperate and will try to use Cali Celeb wealth to influence elections and use paid protesters etc. People don't like this sort of shit, especially not from a bunch of people from California. I expect higher voter turnouts in future elections thanks to this political fiddling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Ossoff was pretty terrible and didn't do what Democrats were hoping for even with loads of outside money and Celebs showing up and trying to convince people to vote for him.
> 
> *I think it's good, the Democrats are desperate and will try to use Cali Celeb wealth to influence elections and use paid protesters etc. People don't like this sort of shit, especially not from a bunch of people from California. I expect higher voter turnouts in future elections thanks to this political fiddling.[ */QUOTE] ]
> 
> That is ironic because that is exactly what the GOP does all the time. But I guess its ok when they do it right?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I really do think that this belongs in here: 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...xt-citizenship-crackdown-20170419-gvnq0y.html



> 'Speak English, respect our values': Malcolm Turnbull's next citizenship crackdown
> 
> Would-be Australians will face tough new hurdles – including a new English language and "Australian values" test – and have to wait several more years before being eligible for citizenship, under a major shake-up of the migration program.
> 
> Migrants could be asked whether they support female genital mutilation and forced marriages, or whether it's acceptable to strike a spouse at home, under proposed values-based citizenship test questions to be put to the public for feedback.


Congratulations Aussies for doing the absolute right thing. Here's hoping America follows suit. That said, this obviously won't matter because it's really easy to lie - but at least it's better than sitting around and doing absolutely nothing :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Gronk crashes Sean Spicers press briefing LMAO


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Democrats should really not be spending 8 million dollars in a Republican district special election whether they win or lose.

Such a waste of resources.

Shows how bad the party apparatus has become since Howard Dean stepped down as DNC chair. He knew how to run a two-year national campaign.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Democrats should really not be spending 8 million dollars in a Republican district special election whether they win or lose.
> 
> Such a waste of resources.
> 
> Shows how bad the party apparatus has become since Howard Dean stepped down as DNC chair. He knew how to run a two-year national campaign.


The only way they should be doing that is if that extra seat would get them back the filibuster power but it wont so you are right its a waste of money.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lolwut. 

https://heatst.com/politics/calexit-is-officially-over-after-organizers-ties-to-russia-exposed/


> *The leaders of the “Calexit” movement announced on Monday they were pulling the plug on their effort to drag California out of the union.*
> 
> The decision follows months of speculation and negative publicity about one of the campaign organizer’s ties to Russia. Louis J. Marinelli, the 30-year old president of the Yes California movement and a long term proponent of the Golden State’s independence has been living in Russia with his wife and coordinating the campaign from there since September.
> 
> Back in December, he even inaugurated the fictional embassy of the Independent Republic of California in Moscow — a hub to boost tourism and foster cultural and economic exchanges between California and Russia.
> 
> But, according to vice president Marcus Ruiz Evans who stepped down from his post this week, Marinelli’s private life had become subject to wild speculations about possible links to Russian leader Vladimir Putin and hindered their fundraising efforts.
> 
> Several donors backed out amid the still unfolding Trump/Russia scandal, citing fears of being connected to the Kremlin and signatures were slower to come in, Ruiz Evans told the Sacramento Bee.
> 
> “People got scared,”he said.“They got spooked by what they saw on the news and pulled out” before adding that he wasn’t aware of dodgy deals between his
> 
> In an email to supporters, Marinelli said he was flattered by public support for the campaign but that it wasn’t enough as this time to make it a reality.
> 
> “For me, today, my ballot initiative petition drive came to an end,” wrote Marinelli, who repeated a quote from the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy during his speech at the 1980 Democratic national convention: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and our dream shall never die.”
> 
> The #Calexit movement, which Marinelli often compared to Brexit and to the movement for Scottish independence, gained steam in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory after hundreds of disheartened liberal joined in.
> 
> It went from Twitter joke to an organized campaign backed by Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley venture capitalists almost overnight, although few in power actually took the campaign seriously.
> 
> Other states briefly contemplated their own secession shortly after President Barack Obama’s election in 2008 and his reelection in 2012. Texas, for example, has often threatened to push for a “Texit” during the Obama administration.


This Russia witch-hunt has to stop on all sides. But that's what happens when you drum up so much hysteria when everyone's in bed with everyone else. Everyone's dirty laundry gets tossed everywhere regardless of whether there's even any hanky panky there or not :kobelol


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Lolwut.
> 
> https://heatst.com/politics/calexit-is-officially-over-after-organizers-ties-to-russia-exposed/
> 
> 
> This Russia witch-hunt has to stop on all sides. But that's what happens when you drum up so much hysteria when everyone's in bed with everyone else. Everyone's dirty laundry gets tossed everywhere regardless of whether there's even any hanky panky there or not :kobelol


the one group has disbanded cus MUH RUSSIA

there's another group still going trying to get the 650K signatures, one of the co-leaders of the first group is joining the other one


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only way they should be doing that is if that extra seat would get them back the filibuster power but it wont so you are right its a waste of money.


I don't think it's a total waste. Ossof is the poster boy for cuckold liberalism that they started towards the end of Hillary's campaign and is likely being viewed as a litmus test for getting those kinds of politicians into prominence. They spent the money on a real life test to gauge the acceptability of cucks to their electorate.

It's not a total waste. For them it's a win win. There's no point in them fielding candidates and not backing them to the utmost. It means that they're serious. 

Dems are trying to move the country and their electorate as far left as possible and by fielding such candidates are moving away from classical liberalism that they used to represent.

If I was them I'd be satisfied with the result no matter what it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I don't think it's a total waste. Ossof is the poster boy for cuckold liberalism that they started towards the end of Hillary's campaign and is likely being viewed as a litmus test for getting those kinds of politicians into prominence. They spent the money on a real life test to gauge the acceptability of cucks to their electorate.
> 
> It's not a total waste. For them it's a win win. There's no point in them fielding candidates and not backing them to the utmost. It means that they're serious.
> 
> Dems are trying to move the country and their electorate as far left as possible and by fielding such candidates are moving away from classical liberalism that they used to represent.
> 
> If I was them I'd be satisfied with the result no matter what it is.


If the dems want to really stand a chance then need to get behind people like Ellison, and Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie should be leading them.

Ellison should be the head of the DNC chair not that hack Tom Perez.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If the dems want to really stand a chance then need to get behind people like Ellison, and Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie should be leading them.
> 
> Ellison should be the head of the DNC chair not that hack Tom Perez.


From what I can tell those are all on the far left. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> From what I can tell those are all on the far left. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Perez is not far left aka Progressive.

Perez is more left than someone like Hillary Clinton but not progressive (or left) as Sanders, Ellison or Gabbard.

Perez IMOis center left where as Hillary is republican lite.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

On a lighter note, behold: Dogald Trump :sk










@RipNTear @Vic Capri @glenwo2 @L-DOPA @Beatles123


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lol Ellison gabbard and bernie are just the right people to ensure republican control of the country throughout the entirety of the 2020s

Go for it


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854793140125020160


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854793140125020160


don't care.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854793140125020160


Hahahaha oh god don't start that again, you know the right don't have a sense of humor and won't be able to take the joke. (Edit - case in point Beatles)


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm convinced that at this point that President Trump could blow his nose in public, it would make the paper cover with the news outlet getting outraged about it.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm convinced that at this point that President Trump could blow his nose in public, forget to sign more EOs, forget the names of more world leaders, regurgitate some more Fox n Friends talking points, and it would make the paper cover with the news outlet getting outraged about it.
> 
> - Vic


QUOTED FOR TRUTH VIC!


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I guess Trump is still using the same oldest trick by not mentioning Tom Brady during the Patriot's visit. :lmao

At least Mojo Rawley's pal still's there for him



Spoiler


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm convinced that at this point that President Trump could blow his nose in public, it would make the paper cover with the news outlet getting outraged about it.
> 
> - Vic












Real headline

---

On another note: 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/general-motors-says-venezuela-illegally-070823494.html



> *CARACAS (Reuters) - General Motors said on Wednesday that Venezuelan authorities had illegally seized its plant in the industrial hub of Valencia and vowed to "take all legal actions" to defend its rights.*
> 
> The seizure comes amid a deepening economic crisis in leftist-led Venezuela that has already roiled many U.S. companies.
> 
> "Yesterday, GMV's (General Motors Venezolana) plant was unexpectedly taken by the public authorities, preventing normal operations. In addition, other assets of the company, such as vehicles, have been illegally taken from its facilities," the company said in a statement.
> 
> It said the seizure would cause irreparable damage to the company, its 2,678 workers, its 79 dealers and to its suppliers.
> 
> Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for information.
> 
> Venezuela's car industry has been in freefall, hit by a lack of raw materials stemming from complex currency controls and stagnant local production, and many plants are barely producing at all.
> 
> In early 2015, Ford Motor Co wrote off its investment in Venezuela when it took an $800 million pre-tax writedown.
> 
> The country's economic crisis has hurt many other U.S. companies, including food makers and pharmaceutical firms. A growing number are taking their Venezuelan operations out off their consolidated accounts.
> 
> Venezuela's government has taken over factories in the past. In 2014 the government announced the "temporary" takeover of two plants belonging to U.S. cleaning products maker Clorox Co which had left the country.
> 
> Venezuela faces around 20 arbitration cases over nationalizations under late leader Hugo Chavez.


I have no sympathy for GM or any other American company based in these shitholes. 

This is what you get for operating in a region which has always had corrupt governments and socialistic tendencies trying to exploit cheap labor. It's part of the risk you take as a capitalist and not a very smart one.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk








virus21 said:


>


I'd actually just finished watching these before stopping by. If there ever was an accurate use of the term "libtard", it's for Rachel Maddow. Here's part 2:


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Lol Ellison gabbard and bernie are just the right people to ensure republican control of the country throughout the entirety of the 2020s
> 
> Go for it


I actually think if Gabbard didn't secretly have people in her party that hated her she would be a great Presidential candidate. She is the rare bird on either side who put's her constitutes above Party and isn't rigid ideologically.

Bernie is just too old and I agree with you about Ellison. If someone as squeaky clean,family oriented and All American as Obama get's certain white people woke the minute he is in office and thinking he is a secret Muslim who hates America I doubt they would be able to deal with an Actual Muslim.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Real headline
> 
> ---


Oy. See I agree, this is just dumb. I hate it when you see news outlets post shit like that.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> Oy. See I agree, this is just dumb. I hate it when you see news outlets post shit like that.


I'm glad they do because it raises legit questions about their integrity in everything else. 

The only thing you're supposed to do is read aggregated news from a wide variety of sources.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So two cops in Paris were just shot at, one of whom has unfortunately died (http://dailyddt.com/2016/12/14/wwe-news-vader-health-status-update/). One suspect has been killed though, so at least there's that.

The timing honestly made me think of this:






I'm not 100% on board with Le Pen, but if there's one thing she's right on the money with, it's that the EU and their lust for wanton immigration are both cancerous. You've got three days to get her in there so she can fix shit up, France. Make it happen, unless of course you don't mind your country meeting a terrible fate. :armfold



RipNTear said:


> Real headline


The Cancer News Network never fails to to disappoint. :tripsscust


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm convinced that at this point that President Trump could blow his nose in public, it would make the paper cover with the news outlet getting outraged about it.
> 
> - Vic


He sneezes without covering his nose and mouth:

*"Trump slams Assad for chemical weapons usage, yet hypocritically does the same"*

He sneezes while using his hands to cover his nose and mouth:

*"Trump shows lack of basic courteousness toward others by defiling his own hands"*

He sneezes while using the inside of his elbow to cover his nose and mouth:

*"Trump appropriates black culture by performing a dab"*










:'(


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> I actually think if Gabbard didn't secretly have people in her party that hated her she would be a great Presidential candidate. She is the rare bird on either side who put's her constitutes above Party and isn't rigid ideologically.
> 
> Bernie is just too old and I agree with you about Ellison. If someone as squeaky clean,family oriented and All American as Obama get's certain white people woke the minute he is in office and thinking he is a secret Muslim who hates America I doubt they would be able to deal with an Actual Muslim.


but would tulsi have the time to wage a presidential campaign in between visiting and carrying water for bashar al assad? she'd get obliterated and rightly so for her stupidity and moral turpitude. 

obama squeaky clean :heston

he is all-american tho in a salmon p. chase kind of way


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


Too bad he did not debunk anything.

In 2015 when the Pats won, 50 players went to the White House under Obama, this year under Trump only 35 players went.

Comparing apples to apples and leaving out the staff way less players went this year and it was because of Trump. I live in Boston and a number of players even said they rae not going because of Trump.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I read 36 in 2015 and 34 in 2017.. from the pats organization themselves.

Edit.. apparently 36 in 2004 instead of 2015. But still proves that 34 isnt an outlier.

Edit2: 2005 was only 27. Attendence goes down if team went recently, it seems.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> I read 36 in 2015 and 34 in 2017.. from the pats organization themselves.
> 
> Edit.. apparently 36 in 2004 instead of 2015. But still proves that 34 isnt an outlier.


it was 50 in 2015.

its still funny how embarrassed Trump is he has to put out tweets about the number of people that went. He is such a child.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> I actually think if Gabbard didn't secretly have people in her party that hated her she would be a great Presidential candidate. She is the rare bird on either side who put's her constitutes above Party and isn't rigid ideologically.
> 
> Bernie is just too old and I agree with you about Ellison. If someone as squeaky clean,family oriented and All American as Obama get's certain white people woke the minute he is in office and thinking he is a secret Muslim who hates America I doubt they would be able to deal with an Actual Muslim.


Yeah, him being schooled in a muslim school (where im sure they let him read the bible) and him slipping up to george stephanapolis and saying 'my muslim faith'

Thats no reason to be suspicious


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I come here now to send a word of warning. Right now, I know people here are giddy about the Ossoff facing Handel in a run-off election in June for HHS Secretary Price's Congressional seat. It's not time to panic, after all 11 Republicans ran in the special election for a traditionally conservative district that in the past has produced Congresspeople such as Gingrich. 

However, it is time to pay very close attention to what is going on, and look at the special election in Kansas where Ron Estes kept that seat with the GOP. Estes won that race by 7 points. CIA Director Pompeo had a 31 point victory in that seat back on Election Day. Price won his re-election bid by 23 points. 

All over, we hear people talk more and more about the coming demise of the Democratic Party. I agree that resistance just for the sake of resistance is no strategy, but it might be a matter of time before they do come up with a strategy that is not just throwing a tantrum. Plus, extreme overconfidence can prove to be fatal in the long run. 

In 2009, the 111th Congress met with the Democrats holding both Houses quite solidly as well as the White House. The GOP was in disarray at that time, just a few years prior the GOP held both houses and the White House but botched a lot of shit and lost the advantage. Many people saw the Republican Party in the minority for a long time to come. 

Then, Ted Kennedy died in August 2009. A few months later, Scott Brown defeated Elizabeth Warren to take the seat and bring it to the Republican side. As dissatisfaction grew with the Democrats and the coming of Obamacare, the House would flip to the GOP in the 2010 elections. Four years later, the GOP took the Senate. Now, the GOP has all three. Funny how a handful of wins can start a snowball effect. 

I put the blame squarely on leadership in Congress that would rather sit on their ass and not do a damn thing. CINO/RINOs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are just fapping with joy that they have the House, the Senate, and the White House so now they can finally get shit done. Problem is, what are they doing? Nothing. The AHCA was garbage, but rather then do something better Ryan and company decided to blame the Freedom Caucus. Funny that the Freedom Caucus actually wants to repeal Obamacare and actually do what their constituents sent them to do. The Executive Orders are all good...but now it's time for Congress to start passing some bills. 

One seat in Congress might not seem like a huge deal, but it could start an avalanche unless the Democrat-Lites running the GOP actually pull their heads out of their asses and start doing their damn job. This nonsense about sending primary opponents against the Freedom Caucus is stupid. If they don't start getting shit done, it might not be a shock to see one or both of the houses of Congress tip back to the Dems in '18.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

parties dont win midterm elections anymore, they lose them. the republicans did not so much win 2010 and 2014 as the democrats lost. the democrats are not going to win in 2018. if they do well it will be because the republicans fucked up too much and lose because of that.

18 months until the midterms, that's a long time.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Another factor is the exponentially altered populations via mass immigration, primarily from non-European nations. A full 21 percent of Georgia's sixth district is foreign-born, and reading the results, it was partially due to this grouping of voters that Jon Ossoff performed as well as he did. Much like Arizona--which in presidential elections has gone Republican every time since the 1960s but for Bill Clinton's 1996 romp against Bob Dole--and Texas over the next four-to-eight years, Georgia is destined to start turning purple, and, by the end of the 2020s, blue, just as 1980s and 1990s immigration levels into northern Virginia irrevocably turned that state purple in the 2000s and now narrowly blue.

Much to the Democratic Party's frustration, many of their most consistent voters fail, time and time again, to show up for midterm elections, giving Republicans a significant advantage due to rather low turnout. Also, the Democrats are presently saddled with a weak bench of figures by which they could theoretically nationalize the 2018 midterms. Barack Obama effectively remains the party's chief figurehead and spokesman.

It is ultimately true, however, that parties generally lose midterm elections rather than win them. If the Republicans fail to deliver on healthcare reform and tax reform or just one of those, and Trump's "big, beautiful Wall" is not being built a year and a half from now, the Republican Party will be providing the Democrats with the blueprint with which to defeat them. Republicans in general and Trump supporters in particular will be so unmotivated, the Democrats, if they can drop their paranoid ramblings about Russia, would at the very least be better-positioned than if the Trumpian agenda became realized in smooth fashion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I come here now to send a word of warning. Right now, I know people here are giddy about the Ossoff facing Handel in a run-off election in June for HHS Secretary Price's Congressional seat. It's not time to panic, after all 11 Republicans ran in the special election for a traditionally conservative district that in the past has produced Congresspeople such as Gingrich.
> 
> However, it is time to pay very close attention to what is going on, and look at the special election in Kansas where Ron Estes kept that seat with the GOP. Estes won that race by 7 points. CIA Director Pompeo had a 31 point victory in that seat back on Election Day. Price won his re-election bid by 23 points.
> 
> All over, we hear people talk more and more about the coming demise of the Democratic Party. I agree that resistance just for the sake of resistance is no strategy, but it might be a matter of time before they do come up with a strategy that is not just throwing a tantrum. Plus, extreme overconfidence can prove to be fatal in the long run.
> 
> In 2009, the 111th Congress met with the Democrats holding both Houses quite solidly as well as the White House. The GOP was in disarray at that time, just a few years prior the GOP held both houses and the White House but botched a lot of shit and lost the advantage. Many people saw the Republican Party in the minority for a long time to come.
> 
> Then, Ted Kennedy died in August 2009. *A few months later, Scott Brown defeated Elizabeth Warren to take the seat and bring it to the Republican side.* As dissatisfaction grew with the Democrats and the coming of Obamacare, the House would flip to the GOP in the 2010 elections. Four years later, the GOP took the Senate. Now, the GOP has all three. Funny how a handful of wins can start a snowball effect.
> 
> I put the blame squarely on leadership in Congress that would rather sit on their ass and not do a damn thing. CINO/RINOs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are just fapping with joy that they have the House, the Senate, and the White House so now they can finally get shit done. Problem is, what are they doing? Nothing. The AHCA was garbage, but rather then do something better Ryan and company decided to blame the Freedom Caucus. Funny that the Freedom Caucus actually wants to repeal Obamacare and actually do what their constituents sent them to do. The Executive Orders are all good...but now it's time for Congress to start passing some bills.
> 
> One seat in Congress might not seem like a huge deal, but it could start an avalanche unless the Democrat-Lites running the GOP actually pull their heads out of their asses and start doing their damn job. This nonsense about sending primary opponents against the Freedom Caucus is stupid. If they don't start getting shit done, it might not be a shock to see one or both of the houses of Congress tip back to the Dems in '18.



I think you meant Martha Coakley, not Liz Warren, at least that is what i remember but your point is still correct about the GOP taking the seat from the dems and started the snowball effect.

The coming demise of the Democratic Party is happening but its going to be to the establishment Democratic Party, their days are numbered and the progressives are going to take over. Justice Democracts is ramping up and in two years they will be the ones to beat the republicans and even primary a lot of the establishment democrats .


The Corp. dems days are numbered.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The fight for control of the DNC summed up in one picture.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855280392529600512


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I think you meant Martha Coakley, not Liz Warren, at least that is what i remember but your point is still correct about the GOP taking the seat from the dems and started the snowball effect.
> 
> The coming demise of the Democratic Party is happening but its going to be to the establishment Democratic Party, their days are numbered and the progressives are going to take over. Justice Democracts is ramping up and in two years they will be the ones to beat the republicans and even primary a lot of the establishment democrats .
> 
> 
> The Corp. dems days are numbered.


Thing about the "establishment" is that the establishment wins everytime. Obama was Trump in 2008 (agent of change). By 2009, he was also a puppet.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

zzzzzzzz get back to denying pol pot's genocide noam


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Noam is the kind of man who denies the official explanation because its the official one 

You could show him a corpse, a video of the death and a confession but if the stance the police or the government said they were guilty he would say its faked

It was in vogue for a while in the late 70s to back Pol Pot in the west to "prove" that the Vietnam war was wrong and east asian communism was a good thing and some people never grew out of it


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Lauren ripping the Neo-Con's :banderas. Little late to post this but it's still great.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Thing about the "establishment" is that the establishment wins everytime. Obama was Trump in 2008 (agent of change). By 2009, he was also a puppet.


that is why money needs to get out of politics.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=26.3&d=72.4&g=82.5&s=58.2

Probably the best political test I've seen thus far. This is what I got:


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> The fight for control of the DNC summed up in one picture.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855280392529600512


This lol worthy


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=26.3&d=72.4&g=82.5&s=58.2
> 
> Probably the best political test I've seen thus far. This is what I got:












A lot of the questions were pretty clunky and assumed too much binary thought. I've seen better political tests with much more nuance.

4/10. Would still bang.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah I couldn't even finish that one. No nuance whatsoever.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"Governments should be accountable" ... 

Where's "Governments shouldn't even exist"? 

No authority should be left unquestioned. ... Where's "There should be no authority"? 

"It is important that the government follows the majority opinion, even if it is wrong." ... What answer are you supposed to pick here if you're a libertarian? 

"Irrational traditions should be abolished." - Why are they assuming that there are any irrational traditions in the west? What traditions are they referring to? 

"Reason is more important than maintaining our culture." -- Lolwut? It's reasonable to maintain our culture. 

Sounds to me like a democrat made this test as that's where a significant bias lies. :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> Lauren ripping the Neo-Con's :banderas. Little late to post this but it's still great.







<3

Speaking of tasty treats, who's the chick in your avy and sig, brah?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

TAX PLAN SOON


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Madcow was actually serious. 

BTW take it from someone that comes from a country with state run media which had a free media revolution in the late 2000's, CNN, NBC, NYT, Huffpo and WashPo are EXACTLY the kind of partisan / pro-government propaganda (if their favored government came into power) you will get if Communists ever came into power in America.

One of the biggest reasons why Communist/Socialist (and I'm including social welfare states in here) shitholes are shitholes and the people continue to flush their lives down the toilet is because the media toes the government line instead of criticizing it. We have people here who have less than average/happy lives still touting communism/socialism as their savior when it has personally failed them without even realizing how it has failed them ... That kind of brainwashed allegiance to socialism/social welfare statism and communism can only happen when you have the government, the academia and the media all continuing to fail to realize the real cause of people's poverty and suffering. 

PS. For those who aren't able to glean the context of what I'm saying is that you don't need to be pro-government to be a propaganda mill for the other party and if you're a propaganda mill for the other party, then getting that party into power is one of the most dangerous combinations that can exist in any free society.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> TAX PLAN SOON


More happy talk about a repeal obamacare deal within the GOP too. If it's not more smoke being blown up our asses and they really are and do keep earnestly trying until they get something, :trump will have done a great service in making the GOP less of a bunch of bitch boys who can't get shit done when they get the chance.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> One of the biggest reasons why Communist/Socialist (and I'm including social welfare states in here) shitholes are shitholes and the people continue to flush their lives down the toilet is because the media toes the government line instead of criticizing it. We have people here who have less than average/happy lives still touting communism/socialism as their savior when it has personally failed them without even realizing how it has failed them ... That kind of brainwashed allegiance to socialism/social welfare statism and communism can only happen when you have the government, the academia and the media all continuing to fail to realize the real cause of people's poverty and suffering.


No, the reason I have a below average income isn't because I live in a social welfare state, it's because I lack useful skills and abilities. I'd be worse off in the US, for example, because I wouldn't even have access to basic healthcare. 

FWIW, I have never received any form of social assistance aside from the same national healthcare and services provided by paying taxes, such as snow removal, available to all working Canadians. I believe all people should live in dignity and safety, freely able to peruse goals in keeping with their abilities and desires, because there is enough for all to share if we simply are not greedy. I favour cooperation over competition, always have. This was as true when I lucked into having an above average income doing what I loved as it is now.

No one has brainwashed me; I'm quite an intelligent woman and very capable of researching topics of interest, knowing that information is best understood coming from a variety of sources. That said, I'm not going to take 'news' reported by some random person as more reliable than that shared by multiple mainstream media sources simply because that person says what I want to hear. Of course the media message is influenced by those providing it and the political climate where it originates, which is true no matter if the source is CNN or YouTube. It's up to the individual to use critical thinking in separating fact from opinion. I want to think most people can do this but that many don't because they want to believe opinion is fact so long as it fits their worldview. The alternative, that a majority are stupid or gullible, disappoints me.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> No, the reason I have a below average income isn't because I live in a social welfare state, it's because I lack useful skills and abilities. I'd be worse off in the US, for example, because I wouldn't even have access to basic healthcare.
> 
> FWIW, I have never received any form of social assistance aside from the same national healthcare and services provided by paying taxes, such as snow removal, available to all working Canadians. I believe all people should live in dignity and safety, freely able to peruse goals in keeping with their abilities and desires, because there is enough for all to share if we simply are not greedy. I favour cooperation over competition, always have. This was as true when I lucked into having an above average income doing what I loved as it is now.
> 
> No one has brainwashed me; I'm quite an intelligent woman and very capable of researching topics of interest, knowing that information is best understood coming from a variety of sources. That said, I'm not going to take 'news' reported by some random person as more reliable than that shared by multiple mainstream media sources simply because that person says what I want to hear. Of course the media message is influenced by those providing it and the political climate where it originates, which is true no matter if the source is CNN or YouTube. It's up to the individual to use critical thinking in separating fact from opinion. I want to think most people can do this but that many don't because they want to believe opinion is fact so long as it fits their worldview. The alternative, that a majority are stupid or gullible, disappoints me.


Yet communists always claim it is the capitalists who are blind. :shrug:

It's going to be this same back and forth till the end of time.

We're all going to die.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> I believe all people should live in dignity and safety, freely able to peruse goals in keeping with their abilities and desires, because there is enough for all to share if we simply are not greedy.


And you think the government is capable of creating such a scenario... it isn't. 



> I favour cooperation over competition, always have.


If that perspective ruled the day you wouldn't live in a society capable of having the vast majority of its residents live in dignity and safety with the freedom to pursue the lives they please.

The real world isn't kindergarten, the least sharing societies in history are the ones that have thought there will be enough to share if only people weren't greedy.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Yet communists always claim it is the capitalists who are blind. :shrug:
> 
> It's going to be this same back and forth till the end of time.
> 
> We're all going to die.



Aloha, Beatles! 

BOTH Capitalists and Communists are wrong.

:trump3


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Aloha, Beatles!
> 
> BOTH Capitalists and Communists are wrong.
> 
> :trump3


Capitalists are right tho and some people just can't handle it :fact :trump2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Aloha, Beatles!
> 
> BOTH Capitalists and Communists are wrong.
> 
> :trump3


And we're still all gonna die. :vince5


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> No, the reason I have a below average income isn't because I live in a social welfare state, it's because I lack useful skills and abilities. I'd be worse off in the US, for example, because I wouldn't even have access to basic healthcare.


One of the primary reasons why you don't have useful skills and abilities is directly attributable to social welfare mindsets. Social welfare creates a society based on participation trophies, "follow your dreams" and impractical, hopeful mindsets that go through life without having a concrete end game in mind. You think you're the only one that made a bad decision or decisions in your life that led you to be unemployable? Think again. This may not be you personally, but it's a lot of people in a similar situation where you end up being able to afford to make decisions that people may never have made if you didn't have a parental government ready to bail people out for their bad choices. 

It's like having this grandparent or uncle that continues to pay your bills and puts food on your table or takes care of you when you're sick and so the real fear of the consequences of decisions never sinks in and therefore the real desire for self-improvement and making tough choices in life doesn't have the same drive as it does for people in America. 

And no, with low skills you would not be worse off in America. I have no clue where you get that kind of impression and who feeds it to you. America is a similar kind of social welfare state as Canada and the poor are taken care of by medicaid and dozens of other welfare programs. It's just that the rich here are also richer because there's no government trying to make sure that the rich don't get too rich therefore the poor here are actually better taken care of than in other socialist countries (and even social welfare states). The burden on the rich is lower. America also has some of the highest levels of charity in the world. Surely at some point you have to wonder if what you know about America is even real or has been fed to you in order to sell the social welfare dream? 



> FWIW, I have never received any form of social assistance aside from the same national healthcare and services provided by paying taxes, such as snow removal, available to all working Canadians. I believe all people should live in dignity and safety, freely able to peruse goals in keeping with their abilities and desires, because there is enough for all to share if we simply are not greedy. I favour cooperation over competition, always have. This was as true when I lucked into having an above average income doing what I loved as it is now.


No one is greedy. The myth of the greedy capitalist is one of the most pervasive lies spread amongst communists and socialists. There is no such thing as wealth hoarding outside of drug cartels and they barely own anything in the world. Banking is a system of cooperation unlike any other because it pools money and uses it for investments and doesn't believe that spending is the only solution. Without competition you would never have cheaper products. Socialist economies rely on monopolies far, far more than capitalist economies. Competition in a capitalist society is what leads to innovation, jobs and lower prices for all. Monopolies in a socialist system leads to shortages in supply, higher prices etc. 

Wealth hoarding and redistribution happens in a capitalist system at a greater amount than it does in a communist system because a capitalist system believes in making money off of money. Every single person that has a bank account is generating wealth which is creating jobs. If I have 10,000 sitting in a bank account, my money is being invested by a bank in some form and a capitalist somewhere is using that money in a huge pool of investment to create a factory, trade or project somewhere that's feeding someone else. Wealth continues to create wealth which is why the goal of any country is to keep its GPD growing because eventually if money is not used to create money, it runs out. 

Almost every single country that dabbled into socialism has failed time and time again and will continue to do so. You can't always come back and say "but they didn't try real socialism". Yes. Yes they did and they failed.

Greed in capitalism is no longer taking money and hoarding it in such a way that it doesn't get back into society. Bankers are our insurance against that. If you put a million bucks in a bank, do you think it's just sitting around doing nothing? If you do, then you might be brainwashed. Obviously not. Every single penny in the banking system is used to create more wealth, infrastructure, plants, factories, stores, restauraunts etc etc. 

Banking is a far better system of communism than communism can ever hope to be. Bankers pool in billions of dollars of capitalists money and then those billions are used to fund mega projects which create thousands of jobs at a time. Where do you think the money for a movie comes from? It comes from money pooled by banks. Trillions of dollars in the banking system have generation more wealth and a higher standard of living for people than communists and socialists can even hope of accomplishing. 

While the capitalists creates wealth from his investments, socialists simply see that wealth as a way of saying "but muh share" for doing absolutely nothing. 



> No one has brainwashed me; I'm quite an intelligent woman and very capable of researching topics of interest, knowing that information is best understood coming from a variety of sources. That said, I'm not going to take 'news' reported by some random person as more reliable than that shared by multiple mainstream media sources simply because that person says what I want to hear. Of course the media message is influenced by those providing it and the political climate where it originates, which is true no matter if the source is CNN or YouTube. It's up to the individual to use critical thinking in separating fact from opinion. I want to think most people can do this but that many don't because they want to believe opinion is fact so long as it fits their worldview. The alternative, that a majority are stupid or gullible, disappoints me.


I'm not saying that crony capitalism doesn't exist. Crony capitalism however is still a better system than communism/socialism has proven to be. I want to get rid of lobbying by some groups as well as anyone else, but I'm not going to sit back and say that socialism is the solution to crony capitalism. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Almost all countries that are socialist tend to have bigger monopolies and higher costs of the same products as capitalist countries. And over time, the capitalist's money runs out because socialism is also greedy. It's just that it's a worse combination because greed+lack of inability to create wealth = money eventually runs out.

The examples of failures of socialism keep pouring in and at this point the only way people are refusing to acknowledge it is if they've stopped reading. 



> Leftists generally speculate that capitalism is leaving citizens impoverished and unable to consume goods.
> 
> THE REALITY: Consumption continues to increase in the U.S., meanwhile, modern socialist countries inch closer and closer to collapse due to REAL shortages, REAL poverty, and hyperinflation.
> 
> • In the U.S., consumption has trended upwards since at least the 1950's. [a]
> 
> • Even when adjusting for inflation, this trend remains the case, with the exceptional stall during recessions. *
> 
> • Per the World Bank, household private consumption per capita (the market value of all goods and services purchased by each household) is roughly $31,000 ('05 USD) for U.S. households, only about $3,500 ('05 USD) for Venezuelan households, and only around $2,750 ('05 USD) for Cuban households. In other words, U.S. households purchase roughly 8-11 times more goods and services. The World Bank data goes back to 1996, and it, too, shows an upward trend in consumption per household.
> 
> Can we buy into the implication that U.S. citizens are too impoverished to consume goods when the data shows consumption steadily increasing and outperforming our socialist counterparts? The data speak for itself.
> 
> What about food? It's generally agreed that meat is a luxury. Therefore, let's compare U.S. meat consumption - per capita - to socialist Cuba and Venezuela, for some perspective:
> • The U.S. consumes about 125 kg of meat per person, per year. (About 275 pounds) [c]
> 
> • Venezuela, however, consumes only 56 kg per person per year. (About 123 pounds) [c]
> 
> • Cuba, even worse, consumes only around 39 kg per person per year. (About 86 pounds) [c]
> 
> If you believe capitalism is impoverishing people to the point where citizens can barely afford to eat, take a look at the alternative approach. In fact, the U.S. consumes more meat per capita than every nation in the world except one. (Luxembourg, a tiny European nation the size of Rhode Island). [c]
> 
> What about power? Surely, if we're impoverishing our citizenry, they wouldn't be able to consume much electricity, right? Again, let's observe our socialist counterparts for perspective. Per the World Bank:
> 
> • Venezuela consumes about 3,245 kWh per capita. [d]
> 
> • Cuba consumes only about 1,425 kWh per capita. [d]
> 
> • The U.S., on the other hand, consumes about 12,985 kWh per capita. [d]
> 
> Whether it be at work or home, for recreation or entertainment, for emergency medical care or anything else, U.S. citizens enjoy the luxury of having more than 8 times as much electricity per person as Cuban citizens. If our system is "failing," imagine how bad the alternative systems are.
> 
> The fact is, WE aren't the system that's impoverishing its citizens. The socialist experiment in Venezuela should tell us all we need to know. The IMF (international monetary fund) predicted that Venezuela's inflation rate - already the highest in the world - would surge from 275% to 720% sometime in 2016. [e] Instead, it surpassed that. As of February 2017, Venezuelan's inflation rate is a scary 741%! [x] For comparison, the United States' inflation rate is presently 2.40%. [x]
> 
> Can you imagine life if the U.S. dollar was losing its value this rapidly?! Furthermore, "Venezuela’s economy will shrink 8 percent this year following a 10 percent contraction last year, according to the IMF." [e] Again, can you imagine how difficult life would be in the U.S. if we were contracting this terribly? Even in the Great Recession of 2008, we never had such dire results.
> 
> Per The Economist, the socialist regime in Venezuela has "greatly compounded the damage with policies that, though designed to favour the poor, end up impoverishing them and the state. Price controls—along with the shortage of foreign exchange—have led to acute shortages of basic goods, forcing people to queue for hours to buy necessities." [f] Since 2014, both "overall poverty" and "EXTREME poverty have deteriorated to "the worst levels seen in at least a decade and a half." [f] The poverty rate is now around 76 percent. [g]
> In a desperate attempt to save electricity, Venezuela's government has decided to grant itself and all public employees — who account for a third of the labor force — 5 day weekends. They now only have to work 2 days a week! [h] The silliness of this concept is that, by producing LESS, somehow, poverty will decline. What's even sillier is the hope that less electricity would be used, as though people would return to their homes and just sit in the dark all day not using electricity. Either way, everyone is still learning to live with rolling blackouts and mandatory 4 hour periods of no electricity. [h] In their latest act of desperation, the Venezuelan government recently seized the assets of General Motors. [y] "The Venezuelan government has previously seized assets belonging to U.S. companies, including those of cleaning products maker Clorox in 2014, glass-maker Owens-Illinois in 2010 and nationalized a rice mill operated by Cargill in 2009." [y]
> 
> THIS is the picture of a country collapsing. THIS is the picture of a country where its low-wage workers can't afford to buy anything. THIS is not a picture of capitalism. It's the alternative to capitalism, and it fails miserably nearly every single time it's tried.
> 
> Sources:*


*

But I guess those examples aren't examples of "real" socialism :draper2*


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Capitalists are right tho and some people just can't handle it :fact :trump2


The best kinds of slaves don't know they're slaves.



Beatles123 said:


> And we're still all gonna die. :vince5


Can't argue that one with ya buddy. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Quoting Noam Chomsky's wage slavery bullshit 

So is this doing socialism right?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> The best kinds of slaves don't know they're slaves.


:heston

Whatever you say morpheus

You didn't even suspect cypher was a traitor, Come. On.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Climate "Scientists" are fast becoming the socially accepted doomsday cult that keeps making bullshit claims and this is why the EPA needs to be disbanded because it's essentially the governments' acceptance of a new normalized religious cult whose end times predictions are no better than those of creationists. 



> *EARTH DAY OFFERS A LESSON IN WHY SKEPTICISM SHOULD REMAIN AN IMPORTANT PART OF SCIENCE*, by Kevin Ryan
> 
> As people "march for science" today, it's worth remembering the theories and dire predictions that scientists made on the first Earth Day, 47 years ago, that have turned out to be nothing but hot air.
> 1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
> 
> Nobel prize winning biologist Dr. George Wald said we would cease to exist as a species in less than 30 years if we didn't solve our environmental problems. Now, I'm no scientist, but I think he got this one wrong.
> 
> 2: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make and 100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
> Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich predicted that mass starvation would occur by 1980. In reality, globalization has significantly decreased poverty, and starvation for demographic causes has all but been eradicated.
> 
> 3: “Demographers agree almost unanimously … thirty years from now, the entire world with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine”
> A global famine due to population growth was the consensus prediction of environmentalists back in 1970. Remember that next time someone tells you about a consensus prediction among scientists.
> 
> 4: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution”
> Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.
> 
> 5: “Childbearing [will be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license”
> 
> David Brower, the first director of The Sierra Club made the above claim, and said that all people of childbearing age should be given contraceptive chemicals, with government issuing antidotes only a select few who were given permission to procreate. It seems the solutions being advocated were even worse than the problem being solved. Sound familiar?
> 
> 6: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
> Ecologist Kenneth Watt predicted peak oil in 1970 and a subsequent gradual decline. In reality, production is at an all-time high, and there is currently too much oil on the market, causing economic havoc in oil-producing economies.
> 
> None of these false predictions mean that current predictions are also false, but they underscore that science has a much longer history of being wrong than being right. For every theory that's eventually been proven correct, there are thousands that were proven incorrect. But it's precisely because modern science embraced skepticism that failed theories haven't hampered civilization for long before they were exposed and replaced.* An end to skepticism, not a failure to fall in line with consensus, would be the death of modern science as we know it.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Climate "Scientists" are fast becoming the socially accepted doomsday cult that keeps making bullshit claims and this is why the EPA needs to be disbanded because it's essentially the governments' acceptance of a new normalized religious cult whose end times predictions are no better than those of creationists.


March for science is really code for marching for what science I believe in.

Sadly everything political, educational and science is slowly becoming lie a Religion. Anything contradictory to what these people believe is heresy to them. 

That doesn't bode well for real science or any discussion. People will just go with feelings over facts and we're going to be regressive.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

President Trump holding a rally at the same time as The White House Correspondents Dinner. Brilliant! :lol










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> March for science is really code for marching for what science I believe in.
> 
> Sadly everything political, educational and science is slowly becoming lie a Religion. Anything contradictory to what these people believe is heresy to them.
> 
> That doesn't bode well for real science or any discussion. People will just go with feelings over facts and we're going to be regressive.


I believe in the vast majority of conventional science but it's not because someone told me that science itself is what I should believe in. It's because I studied the science itself and found its conclusions satisfactory. 

If you need March for something, then it means your conclusions are weak on their own so they need politicization. 

No one is "denying" Newton or Einstein because they didn't mix woodoo with their theories. Climate science on the other hand is woodoo that isn't strong enough to stand up to scrutiny and hence needs mega dollars for its politicization.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> One of the primary reasons why you don't have useful skills and abilities is directly attributable to social welfare mindsets. Social welfare creates a society based on participation trophies, "follow your dreams" and impractical, hopeful mindsets that go through life without having a concrete end game in mind. You think you're the only one that made a bad decision or decisions in your life that led you to be unemployable? Think again. This may not be you personally, but it's a lot of people in a similar situation where you end up being able to afford to make decisions that people may never have made if you didn't have a parental government ready to bail people out for their bad choices.
> 
> It's like having this grandparent or uncle that continues to pay your bills and puts food on your table or takes care of you when you're sick and so the real fear of the consequences of decisions never sinks in and therefore the real desire for self-improvement and making tough choices in life doesn't have the same drive as it does for people in America.


You seem to be inferring, regardless of you couching it in "This may not be you personally", that I never expected or wanted to achieve anything on my own, as if I were spoiled or aimed for nothing more from life than a welfare check and subsidized housing. 

Don't imply that I'm lazy or coddled or stupid, please. 



Spoiler:  unimportant info about me



I've earned all my own money since I was 16. I wrote the SAT for fun with no preparation and scored in the 90+ percentile, which led to me being offered the opportunity to attend a highly ranked American school. I didn't have the kind of money that required so I opted for a Canadian school that offered me a scholarship for my first degree.

I attended university year round while working 25 hours per week, lab assisting and participating in varsity athletics. During regular sessions I always had a course overload. I double majored for both my undergrad degrees, each split between an arts discipline and a science one. I had excellent marks, led most of my classes in fact, but none of that translates to being good at anything other than academics. Being a great student doesn't pay bills.

My lack of anything beyond undergrad - I entered with intentions to finish a grad program - is because I had to leave school for family reasons. I suppose if I'd opted for a four or five year degree career, such as some of the health care fields or teaching, I would be better off now. Thing is, I've never shown any aptitude for those. I would be a terrible nurse or physiotherapist (I had a student job assisting in a rehabilitation unit so I speak with some knowledge of my unfitness for this) and there's nothing worse than a health care worker or educator who hates their job.



Of course I had dreams and expectations. I just wasn't good enough to fulfill them. That has nothing to do with politics and if you think the majority of Canadians have no drive to succeed because of a handful of government assistance programs than I don't know what to tell you. 



RipNTear said:


> And no, with low skills you would not be worse off in America. I have no clue where you get that kind of impression and who feeds it to you. America is a similar kind of social welfare state as Canada and the poor are taken care of by medicaid and dozens of other welfare programs. It's just that the rich here are also richer because there's no government trying to make sure that the rich don't get too rich therefore the poor here are actually better taken care of than in other socialist countries (and even social welfare states). The burden on the rich is lower. America also has some of the highest levels of charity in the world. Surely at some point you have to wonder if what you know about America is even real or has been fed to you in order to sell the social welfare dream?


Er, no. I have family all over the states who I used to visit frequently. I've also lived, albeit short term, in the US. I didn't stay forever, obviously, since I had nothing to recommend me as deserving a renewed visa and I quite like the country I'm a citizen of, but I haven't spent my entire life in Canada with no knowledge of anything else. 

AFAIK, I wouldn't be receiving benefits, were I hypothetically American, since I would be employed. For example, I can't get a white card (free prescriptions) in Canada without having been on social assistance at some point and, likewise, the US government doesn't just hand similar out to folks who are paying their own bills as best they can. But that's not even the real problem; I need access to expensive medical services because I have a physical condition that requires periodic monitoring. I have health insurance through my (American) employer and these tests would not be covered in any affordable way. The basics, like medication, are less important to me than MRI scans. Under ideal circumstances I could have both but if only one, then I know which I prioritize. 

And if you think begging for charity would be something I'd do, think again. I believe in equal sharing, not making sure the poor people have a bed and some cheap food.



RipNTear said:


> No one is greedy. The myth of the greedy capitalist is one of the most pervasive lies spread amongst communists and socialists. There is no such thing as wealth hoarding outside of drug cartels and they barely own anything in the world. Banking is a system of cooperation unlike any other because it pools money and uses it for investments and doesn't believe that spending is the only solution. Without competition you would never have cheaper products. Socialist economies rely on monopolies far, far more than capitalist economies. Competition in a capitalist society is what leads to innovation, jobs and lower prices for all. Monopolies in a socialist system leads to shortages in supply, higher prices etc.


You and I define greed differently. I go by the motto _Live simply so others can simply live_. I don't waste. I never take more than necessary. When I say "greedy", I'm not talking about wealth hoarding, I'm talking about everyday life and what people really need to be happy and productive on an individual level. Economics bore me, and that's likely because I'd prefer a society not based on banking and such. 



RipNTear said:


> The examples of failures of socialism keep pouring in and at this point the only way people are refusing to acknowledge it is if they've stopped reading.


As much as the topic bores me, I have read more than I'd like about the relationship between economics and politics. It's not because I've stopped reading that we disagree, it's because what we value as achievement differs. Our ideal societies and lesser of evils between existing options are not alike and the steps we'd take to foster them are equally divergent. That's fine and doesn't bother me at all. Something else that bores me is lack of diverse opinions; I wouldn't want everyone to see the world exactly the same as me. And anyway, I'm not much interested in trying to change minds in a situation where nothing's at stake, like on an internet forum.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Le Penn goes to round two. Had a lead in round one till the ass-end of the votes were tally'd. It's gonna be a dogfight on may 7th, and no matter what, people will rage.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Capitalists are right tho and some people just can't handle it :fact :trump2


Capitalism is great the Fuck everyone else all men/women are an Island Libertarianism though that many young Consveratives likely born with a silver spoon believe in not so much. The same way they say go to Venzeula,Cuba if you believe socialism/comunism is so good well how come you rarely see any Libertarian's touring the greatness of Eastern African economies.

Part why we are even on a message board on a computer right now is because of the collective effort of those who recieved money from GOVERNMENT as what we know today as the internet was thanks to ARPANET which was funded by the defense department. The free market/an investment shark he or she will want return on their ivestment within a short period of time. Investment in science and technology sometimes takes decades,the early work of the government research labs; the universities, and the government funded R&D industrial organizations that provided both the ideas and the cohesive structure that made it work. If Libertarians were more numerous in the past they would have been complaining much of the investmant in Nasa and other research was a Government Money Pit and the free market would have handled it better.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Capitalism is great the Fuck everyone else all men/women are an Island Libertarianism though that many young Consveratives likely born with a silver spoon believe in not so much. The same way they say go to Venzeula,Cuba if you believe socialism/comunism is so good well how come you rarely see any Libertarian's touring the greatness of Eastern African economies.
> 
> Part why we are even on a message board on a computer right now is because of the collective effort of those who recieved money from GOVERNMENT as what we know today as the internet was thanks to ARPANET which was funded by the defense department. The free market/an investment shark he or she will want return on their ivestment within a short period of time. Investment in science and technology sometimes takes decades,the early work of the government research labs; the universities, and the government funded R&D industrial organizations that provided both the ideas and the cohesive structure that made it work. If Libertarians were more numerous in the past they would have been complaining much of the investmant in Nasa and other research was a Government Money Pit and the free market would have handled it better.


There have been few id any significant scientific or technological achievements by the government since the Manhattan project. Everything that made the internet possible technologically didn't come from government funded research. Theres nasa which invented some great materials that private companies found a shit ton of cheap applications for. Oh and arpanet even though it wasnt the only internet precursor and the internet was very different from arpanet and it wasn't because the government made it that way, it's because private companies developed the concept and technology. Internet 2.0 and future innovations owe almost nothing to government funded research. Even the inventions and discoveries the government has made were developed into practicality for mass use by private industry.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> You seem to be inferring, regardless of you couching it in "This may not be you personally", that I never expected or wanted to achieve anything on my own, as if I were spoiled or aimed for nothing more from life than a welfare check and subsidized housing.


So even when I say that this isn't about you, you think that this is about you ... Seriously? 



> Don't imply that I'm lazy or coddled or stupid, please.


Even when I've specifically said that this isn't about you, you're still making this about you. Ok .. If I was to make a comment about you, I would say that you were at some point falsely convinced that your problems and the problems of your society with regards to its depressed economy has nothing to do with its social welfare and that's about it. I don't think that social welfare statists are lazy. I think they're misguided and not realizing that their systems create a society that underperforms in every single sector/industry - and that they're creating a system where people have fewer rights to their own wealth and that this idea of redistribution keeps everyone poorer than they could be. 



> Of course I had dreams and expectations. I just wasn't good enough to fulfill them. That has nothing to do with politics and if you think the majority of Canadians have no drive to succeed because of a handful of government assistance programs than I don't know what to tell you.


The direction our lives take is intrinsically linked with the politics of the country we're in. The schooling we receive is politically approved. The messages we receive are straight from legislation floors into the classrooms. I also have a serious Canadian background and education so I know what I'm talking about as well. Almost every non-science class I took was an exercise in them trying to sell me the greatness of their social welfare. The science classes I took had lengthy lectures on global warming. You cannot separate the individuals beliefs from the beliefs fed to them by the majority because they run the show. 

Our decisions are a direct result of our gained experience and our knowledge. If they tell you that you can do whatever degree you want in life but leave out the part about "oh such and such degrees don't actually have a future so you might want to reconsider this idea" then what is your defense against something like that? You have none. So you make choices based on incomplete information. 

If they tell you that you can get easy student loans for any degree you want to do, then you have less of an incentive to think about what degree you should do. It's all interlinked. 



> Er, no. I have family all over the states who I used to visit frequently. I've also lived, albeit short term, in the US. I didn't stay forever, obviously, since I had nothing to recommend me as deserving a renewed visa and I quite like the country I'm a citizen of, but I haven't spent my entire life in Canada with no knowledge of anything else.
> 
> AFAIK, I wouldn't be receiving benefits, were I hypothetically American, since I would be employed. For example, I can't get a white card (free prescriptions) in Canada without having been on social assistance at some point and, likewise, the US government doesn't just hand similar out to folks who are paying their own bills as best they can. But that's not even the real problem; I need access to expensive medical services because I have a physical condition that requires periodic monitoring. I have health insurance through my (American) employer and these tests would not be covered in any affordable way. The basics, like medication, are less important to me than MRI scans. Under ideal circumstances I could have both but if only one, then I know which I prioritize.


And I have a terrible condition where I nearly committed suicide and I got no help from the Canadian healthcare. I have a terrible knee as a result of an accident, and I got no help so I decided that this "help" they're offering is as good as being part of a soup kitchen line-up so I went elsewhere and got help elsewhere where it was much better. 



> And if you think begging for charity would be something I'd do, think again. I believe in equal sharing, not making sure the poor people have a bed and some cheap food.


I know. Social welfare is involuntary charity which welfare statists have arbitrarily defined as a "right" or something like that. Single-payer healthcare is literally just that. I'd rather find a system that is less regulated and therefore less likely to be expensive than force someone else to pay for me and then convince myself that it's not charity. 

"Equal sharing"? Why? Why should someone _involuntarily _share what they have earned with someone else? 



> You and I define greed differently. I go by the motto *Live simply so others can simply live.* I don't waste. I never take more than necessary. When I say "greedy", I'm not talking about wealth hoarding, I'm talking about everyday life and what people really need to be happy and productive on an individual level. Economics bore me, and that's likely because I'd prefer a society not based on banking and such.


Isn't this almost like forcing a religious belief onto someone else? Why do you or people that think like you get to define this line where everyone has to live this "simple" life as defined by your ilk? I don't know if you want to link this to the failure of communism or not, but this belief of "simple living" is literally one of the core reasons behind the poverty and regress of places like Cuba and North Korea. The Kim family in NK has been one of the biggest proponents of convincing N. Koreans that a simple life is all they need and so they have specific tiers of standards of living for people in their country. Why should anyone have a right to decide this? Who made them god? 



> As much as the topic bores me, I have read more than I'd like about the relationship between economics and politics. It's not because I've stopped reading that we disagree, it's because what we value as achievement differs. Our ideal societies and lesser of evils between existing options are not alike and the steps we'd take to foster them are equally divergent. That's fine and doesn't bother me at all. Something else that bores me is lack of diverse opinions; I wouldn't want everyone to see the world exactly the same as me. And anyway, I'm not much interested in trying to change minds in a situation where nothing's at stake, like on an internet forum.


I just find it weird that socialism, communism have economics deeply intertwined in their system and almost everyone that is a proponent of those systems finds it "boring" or "difficult" or an "unnecessary" conversation ... I have no asked literally every communist/socialist on here to talk about the economics with me. I have made dozens of posts on how specific systems are depressed or underperforming as a result of government and social welfare programs and none of that is interesting? That almost seems pseudo-religious where presented facts aren't even worth debating, debunking, or spending the time to read. I find that somewhat disappointing tbh. 

Help me understand how you can be a proponent of a system without appreciating its economics? 

You think it's useless to talk about it on a forum and yet you were the one that responded to one of my posts which was clearly something you didn't agree with. I would think that if you responded to it, you would be motivated to at least try to convince me.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Climate "Scientists" are fast becoming the socially accepted doomsday cult that keeps making bullshit claims and this is why the EPA needs to be disbanded because it's essentially the governments' acceptance of a new normalized religious cult whose end times predictions are no better than those of creationists.


Even removing climate change from the equation, protecting the environment is still very important, and something people aren't willing to do of their own volition. I do not see how eliminating the EPA helps to achieve that end.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Even removing climate change from the equation, protecting the environment is still very important, and something people aren't willing to do of their own volition. I do not see how eliminating the EPA helps to achieve that end.


And you have evidence that suggests that the environment is better off today with all of the EPA bullshit because all I hear from climate alarmists is always "it's not enough, it's not enough. More money. More regulations. More funding"?

All I hear that the EPA has failed to protect anyone or anything or save the environment from Climate Alarmists themselves. It seems pretty fruitless to keep such an organization around that's always failing, right?


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> And you have evidence that suggests that the environment is better off today with all of the EPA bullshit because all I hear from climate alarmists is always "it's not enough, it's not enough. More money. More regulations. More funding"?
> 
> All I hear that the EPA has failed to protect anyone or anything or save the environment from Climate Alarmists themselves. It seems pretty fruitless to keep such an organization around that's always failing, right?


I have never heard that but to be fair I do not run in those circles at all. Modern society has always existed with some form of environmental agency so it's impossible to get a true comparison, but in my perspective the baseline is always taken for granted. They are always at work. Recent example, I want to say it was Ford (?) that had to take a million odd cars off the road because of fabricated diesel emissions?

Quick google, it was actually VW. Companies will try to cut costs by any means necessary, especially if those means "only" involve tarnishing a communal good like air. It is environmental agencies that put a stop to things like these, which is just as well because our natural environment is the most vulnerable to this sort of abuse.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> I have never heard that but to be fair I do not run in those circles at all. Modern society has always existed with some form of environmental agency so it's impossible to get a true comparison, but in my perspective the baseline is always taken for granted. They are always at work. Recent example, I want to say it was Ford (?) that had to take a million odd cars off the road because of fabricated diesel emissions?


What will happen to these cars now? Where are they going to be dumped? What's going to happen to the waste? Are the going to be re-engineered? What about the pollution created if they're going to be re-engineered? I wonder if a recall will result in job losses ... meaning fewer people with less money and we all know that when people are poor they don't care about the environment as much (human pollution). What happened to those million cars? They didn't create any waste or any pollution? They just magically disappeared off the grid because a magic wand was waved by the EPA? 

Gee, but I guess fewer polluting cars, amirite! 



> Quick google, it was actually VW. Companies will try to cut costs by any means necessary, especially if those means "only" involve tarnishing a communal good like air. It is environmental agencies that put a stop to things like these, which is just as well because our natural environment is the most vulnerable to this sort of abuse.


Yah. Companies will also pay off the officials if they really wanted to do something. But I guess "making something illegal" works. Because someone said so and put a fine on it. Now it doesn't happen. :woo 

I went through the list of EPA's supposed "accomplishments". A lot of them are ok, but a lot of them are also within the realms of decisions based on pseudo-science and favoring certain industries over others which I can only assume was a result of industry lobbying - or just bad science. And a lot of current climate "science" is just bad science. 

I'm not convinced that the EPA is necessary. I don't think that the capitalist would inherently choose the corrupt, environment destroying route if left to their own devices. It sounds similar to the kinds of fears like "well if we prohibit alcohol therefore the world would be a better place". I like to believe that we are not China, India or Russia and that our capitalist will choose the middle route if not the most green or most red route. 

I'll just give you one example. In the 80's it was widely believed (and pushed by the EPA) that second hand smoke causes cancer. Well, in the 2010's it was determined that it didn't. Then there was the hysteria around DDT and it was also determined to not cause cancer. 

I don't want to go through the entire list at the moment, but trust me, I will - and I bet that a lot of their regulations are based on pseudo-science.

Government "science" is bad science. Just look at all the bullshit peddling around weed. 

I have no fucking clue anymore why you people don't trust the capitalist, but trust the guy that is supposed to control the capitalist when time and time and time and time and time and time and time again it's proved over and over and over and over again that they're pretty much always in a giant fucking orgy of corruption and lies ... but then still go back to believing only the capitalist as the evil one. Nope. Your government is just as bad if not worse. The government is the one that grants the capitalist the power to be corrupt. The free market can control it somewhat better. It's not a perfect system. But it's better than the government.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> What will happen to these cars now?


Probably sold for parts, yeah. The "extra pollution" generated now from rectifying VW's fraud will never compare to the over 10m cars on the road emitting pollutants three times over the legal limit.

I'm not sure where the surprise at mistrust of the capitalist comes from when the fact of money being the prime and central motivational factor for all decisions made within that system is something lauded by its advocates. The middle route or the red route, whatever - it's irrelevant. The money way is the only way. Fortunately we have a society now that's very socially/politically aware so those things are factored in when considering the bottom line (often, negative PR makes a would-be cheaper move just as expensive) and of course long term considerations of the sustainable practice of their own businesses are given import. And you mentioned fines, which are often the difference maker between a certain action being profitable or not, but often the benefit is so great that it's still the best choice despite the fine. That is actually one significant flaw of regulatory agencies you have reminded me of. 

The goal of the capitalist is to make money. I don't think the most profitable means are inherently the most corrupt means, but they very often are.

What do you consider to be bad science? 

edit: I don't think that anyone is saying that the capitalist is the "only" evil one at all - inasmuch as you can consider them evil. I think that it's necessary that they have this predictable and unwaverable end goal, as it makes planning around them a lot easier.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*This entire post has nothing to do with Trump*
Just putting that out there so folks know what's coming.



RipNTear said:


> So even when I say that this isn't about you, you think that this is about you ... Seriously?





RipNTear said:


> Even when I've specifically said that this isn't about you, you're still making this about you.


If you don't want me to think I'm included among the misguided, don't write multiple paragraphs in response to me about how people raised in the culture I identify with, and like, are underachieving due to conditioning.



RipNTear said:


> Ok .. If I was to make a comment about you, I would say that you were at some point falsely convinced that your problems and the problems of your society with regards to its depressed economy has nothing to do with its social welfare and that's about it. I don't think that social welfare statists are lazy. I think they're misguided and not realizing that their systems create a society that underperforms in every single sector/industry - and that they're creating a system where people have fewer rights to their own wealth and that this idea of redistribution keeps everyone poorer than they could be.


Well, nice to know you don't think we're lazy. Although ... I don't really live in a depressed economy. My province overall is a bit slower than most of Canada but that's a long standing local issue based in our history, traditional industries and tiny, aging population.

And about redistribution keeping everyone poorer; I don't mind being poorer. I have no desire to amass more money than I need. I'm fine with being taxed to provide services for my community. 




RipNTear said:


> The direction our lives take is intrinsically linked with the politics of the country we're in. The schooling we receive is politically approved. The messages we receive are straight from legislation floors into the classrooms. I also have a serious Canadian background and education so I know what I'm talking about as well. Almost every non-science class I took was an exercise in them trying to sell me the greatness of their social welfare. The science classes I took had lengthy lectures on global warming. You cannot separate the individuals beliefs from the beliefs fed to them by the majority because they run the show.


I never had this problem. The non science courses I took were mainly languages, physical education and fine arts like theatre and art. No one said anything to me about Canadian politics because I avoided what I considered dull classes. 

So global warming is not a real thing to you? Ok, that's how you see it but I'm going to have to disagree. 



RipNTear said:


> Our decisions are a direct result of our gained experience and our knowledge. If they tell you that you can do whatever degree you want in life but leave out the part about "oh such and such degrees don't actually have a future so you might want to reconsider this idea" then what is your defense against something like that? You have none. So you make choices based on incomplete information.
> 
> If they tell you that you can get easy student loans for any degree you want to do, then you have less of an incentive to think about what degree you should do. It's all interlinked.


:lol 
You think no one ever told me this? I had advisers. I was encouraged to consider becoming a doctor or a computer programmer. Well, I'm not keen on making life and death decisions or sitting in front of a screen all day (been there, done that and it was as deadly as I expected). I like entertaining people. I like being outdoors. I like working with my hands. And these are things that I've done well with, unlike sitting still or diagnosing people. So I went into biology and theatre and design. I learned to build sets and operate cameras and perform on stage ... and simultaneously picked up the science basics for both the advised med school and programming if I chose to go that route. Things just didn't go as planned. Life is unpredictable.



RipNTear said:


> And I have a terrible condition where I nearly committed suicide and I got no help from the Canadian healthcare. I have a terrible knee as a result of an accident, and I got no help so I decided that this "help" they're offering is as good as being part of a soup kitchen line-up so I went elsewhere and got help elsewhere where it was much better.


I'm prone to developing aneurysms. Because of that, I'm frequently x-rayed as well. I'm not being examined for this all the time, or even every year, but it's not something I can let slide indefinitely and not think about unless I want to gamble with sudden death. 

It's great that you have the financial option to go elsewhere for treatment. I don't, and neither did my parents. Unlike your experience, I've had very good, timely care right where I am. That's not the case for everyone but, for me, it has been. If it hadn't, I'd be paralyzed - my spinal surgery was free of charge aside from extras, like semi-private room (covered by my insurance), whereas I'd never have been able to afford any of it without the single payer system. I wouldn't be eligible for affordable private insurance because of my preexisting condition. Insurance through an employer is not secure and can be quite restricted. I'd prefer to pay into a system I know won't exclude me and won't disappear if I change jobs or become unemployed.



RipNTear said:


> I know. Social welfare is involuntary charity which welfare statists have arbitrarily defined as a "right" or something like that. Single-payer healthcare is literally just that. I'd rather find a system that is less regulated and therefore less likely to be expensive than force someone else to pay for me and then convince myself that it's not charity.


It isn't charity if your tax dollars are paying into it.



RipNTear said:


> "Equal sharing"? Why? Why should someone _involuntarily _share what they have earned with someone else?


I can't imagine not wanting to help others or having to be convinced of why I should. I realize there are people who don't feel the same and, while I don't understand that way of thinking, I know it's common. I guess I'd be happier in a more socialist system and they can do their own thing somewhere I'm not. 



RipNTear said:


> Isn't this almost like forcing a religious belief onto someone else? Why do you or people that think like you get to define this line where everyone has to live this "simple" life as defined by your ilk? I don't know if you want to link this to the failure of communism or not, but this belief of "simple living" is literally one of the core reasons behind the poverty and regress of places like Cuba and North Korea. The Kim family in NK has been one of the biggest proponents of convincing N. Koreans that a simple life is all they need and so they have specific tiers of standards of living for people in their country. Why should anyone have a right to decide this? Who made them god?


And what gives those who think like you the right to decide people like myself need to live to your rules? Not everyone values independence over cooperation. In a democracy, people with many differing needs and desires have a say. There's no one perfect system for every community in every circumstance. Usually, what evolves is a compromise. Social democracies fall into that category. 



RipNTear said:


> I just find it weird that socialism, communism have economics deeply intertwined in their system and almost everyone that is a proponent of those systems finds it "boring" or "difficult" or an "unnecessary" conversation ... I have no asked literally every communist/socialist on here to talk about the economics with me. I have made dozens of posts on how specific systems are depressed or underperforming as a result of government and social welfare programs and none of that is interesting? That almost seems pseudo-religious where presented facts aren't even worth debating, debunking, or spending the time to read. I find that somewhat disappointing tbh.
> 
> Help me understand how you can be a proponent of a system without appreciating its economics?


Maybe because many (not all!) people who fall into the communist/socialist camp really don't care about money? A lot of us would prefer a barter system with little regard for ownership and wealth. Just think of us as hippies looking for a commune if that makes it easier to understand us. 

If that comes across as quasi-religious to you, remember that the obsession with deregulation and privatization seems likewise to me. I don't care if my country is powerful or filled with richer people. That's not where my happiness comes from and it's not how I measure worth. 

I do understand what you're saying and I agree that unregulated competition creates wealth and sometimes lowers prices while delivering quality. However, I have other priorities. Clean air and water matters more to me. So does protected habitat for endangered species. Free and secular education. Available municipal services, like waste management and sewage treatment. Unregulated competition means those who don't care about, for example, the environment get to decide for everyone if the air and water should be clean.



RipNTear said:


> You think it's useless to talk about it on a forum and yet you were the one that responded to one of my posts which was clearly something you didn't agree with. I would think that if you responded to it, you would be motivated to at least try to convince me.


Don't assume that. All I want to do is share an opposing opinion. Besides, I have no more chance of convincing you than you have of convincing me.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> I'll just give you one example. In the 80's it was widely believed (and pushed by the EPA) that second hand smoke causes cancer. Well, in the 2010's it was determined that it didn't.


Which reputable studies determined this?


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Establishment Democrats want you to remain poor and rely on government handouts to survive. Establishment Republicans want you to remain poor and go fuck yourself. Neither wants to deal with the root problem of a system that creates so many poor people to begin with because that would mean breaking up the concentration of wealth and power at the very top. They've successfully framed the argument as one that's over how much redistribution of wealth there should be when the problem is how wealth is distributed right from the very start. When you've got massive corporations that rake in billions annually but the people who actually do the work and create the wealth don't earn enough to survive, that's a rigged system. There's no valid excuse for the richest country in the history of the world to have rampant poverty amongst the working class, nor is there a valid excuse for people who work full time to need government assistance to make ends meet. No one who puts in an honest day's work should ever be in a position of relying on others just to get by. 

The people who argue over how much the minimum wage should be are missing the point. We shouldn't be deciding how much a person earns by time spent on the job. What we should be deciding it on is how much wealth is being generated by that business. If a business is successful, then everyone who put in the work to make that business a success should reap the benefits of that success. It shouldn't all be funneled to a handful of people at the top who sit around doing nothing but collecting dividends and living on yachts. When conservatives argue that raising the minimum wage would hurt small business who cannot afford to pay it, they have a valid point. A mom n pop convenience store in small town Nebraska probably can't afford to pay it's employees fifteen bucks an hour. On the flip side, you probably don't need fifteen an hour to survive in small town Nebraska. That's why a national minimum wage isn't the most efficient way of deciding wealth distribution. What works in one place might not work in another. That's why wages should be decided by a percentage of how much actual wealth is generated. The problem with the conservative argument is that it shields massively successful corporations who can afford to pay better wages from paying what's really earned to the people who generated the wealth. If you change it from hourly wages to a percentage of wealth generated, then the working class people who do work for the giant corporations will have more spending money. And what happens when the working class has more spending money? They go out and spend it on the economy, which in turn helps the small businesses, so then they too can afford to pay their workers more money and hire more employees.

A high demand for goods and services and a high velocity of money is what creates more jobs and a booming economy. Business owners have no incentive to invest in business and hire more people when they have no customers lining up at the door. You have to be extra special retarded to believe they'll do it out of the kindness of their own hearts. When they have more business than they have employees to keep up with the business is when they'll hire more employees. This really isn't rocket surgery but alas, there's a whole lot of rubes in the world who advocate for their own servitude.

Carneys and fucking rubes. @AryaDark knows.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GothicBohemian said:


> If you don't want me to think I'm included among the misguided, don't write multiple paragraphs in response to me about how people raised in the culture I identify with, and like, are underachieving due to conditioning.


Considering that my reasoning was that there's a combination of factors all of which I included, I found it curious why you ignored it. The fact of the matter is if you're not exposed to multiple points of view, then you don't know what you don't know and that shapes your decisions in life. 



> Well, nice to know you don't think we're lazy. Although ... I don't really live in a depressed economy. My province overall is a bit slower than most of Canada but that's a long standing local issue based in our history, *traditional industries and tiny, aging population.*


Those are symptoms of a system of governance that doesn't encourage innovation and progress. I wonder if the aging population is a symptom of brain drain which was a big issue in the 90's that created these communities that simply age and the elders aren't replaced by the generation that comes after them because there's less prosperity overall creating a spiral of diminishing returns. 



> And about redistribution keeping everyone poorer; I don't mind being poorer. I have no desire to amass more money than I need. I'm fine with being taxed to provide services for my community.


Speaking for yourself then. What makes you happy might be a simple life. What makes your neighbor happy is a Penthouse on the 50th floor of a high rise with a couple of yachts in the harbor. He should have the right and ability to accumulate that kind of wealth and live that kind of lifestyle. Social welfare and especially communism make it such that a system of restrictions keep that person from being able to do that. That's where the immorality of both systems comes in. 



> So global warming is not a real thing to you? Ok, that's how you see it but I'm going to have to disagree.


:lmao Global climate change is a reality. The fact that it's man made or that humans can do anything to prevent it is a load of bullcrap based on pseudoscience, fudged data and big money funded results. 



> You think no one ever told me this? I had advisers. I was encouraged to consider becoming a doctor or a computer programmer. Well, I'm not keen on making life and death decisions or sitting in front of a screen all day (been there, done that and it was as deadly as I expected). I like entertaining people. I like being outdoors. I like working with my hands. And these are things that I've done well with, unlike sitting still or diagnosing people. So I went into biology and theatre and design. I learned to build sets and operate cameras and perform on stage ... and simultaneously picked up the science basics for both the advised med school and programming if I chose to go that route. Things just didn't go as planned. Life is unpredictable.


If you didn't have easy access to loans you perhaps might not have made any changes to your life, but that doesn't mean others would have made similar choices as well. You take away easy money and people generally tend to make better choices. Since we're in the realm of anecdotes, when my wife went to college and her goal was to make more money than she is right now, she specifically picked a major that almost guarantees her a better life even though she really, really wanted to do something else. She doesn't have the kind of ability to make choices and get bailed out as people do in social welfare states. 



> I'm prone to developing aneurysms. Because of that, I'm frequently x-rayed as well. I'm not being examined for this all the time, or even every year, but it's not something I can let slide indefinitely and not think about unless I want to gamble with sudden death.


That sucks. However, at the same time, if you're paying taxes, you're likely paying more than you would have in a non-single-payer system. You should go back and read some of L-Dopa's posts on the subject of how single-payer drives up costs for everybody - even people in the lower tax brackets. 

Personally, I paid about 4000 in my healthcare 3 years in America (and that includes hospitalization once). That's a little over 1300 a year. In Canada, people pay approx $4,000 / year. By now an average canadian has already spent 12,000 in healthcare they never even used. Point is that it's very, very likely that you're already paying more for what you need without realizing it. If not, then someone else is and that's not fair because that's potentially money they could be using to start a business, start a kid's college fund etc etc. It creates an overall poorly performing society. It keeps the healthcare costs higher for everyone and everyone has less money just because they want to delude themselves that their healthcare is free when it really isn't. You're all paying for it - and paying more than an average American. 



> It's great that you have the financial option to go elsewhere for treatment. I don't, and neither did my parents. Unlike your experience, I've had very good, timely care right where I am. That's not the case for everyone but, for me, it has been. If it hadn't, I'd be paralyzed - my spinal surgery was free of charge aside from extras, like semi-private room (covered by my insurance), whereas I'd never have been able to afford any of it without the single payer system. I wouldn't be eligible for affordable private insurance because of my preexisting condition. Insurance through an employer is not secure and can be quite restricted. I'd prefer to pay into a system I know won't exclude me and won't disappear if I change jobs or become unemployed.


I have the financial option because my dad lived in a society with lower taxes and was able to save a tremendous amount of money from every cheque. If he had been in a society where more than half of his paycheck (since he would be considered to be in the highest tax bracket and therefore have less wealth) things would have been different. He also worked 18 hours a day for 45 years of his life. Everything he had is owed to that and some really smart property investment. He didn't "luck" into anything and every penny he earned he deserved. 



> It isn't charity if your tax dollars are paying into it.


True. It's involuntary and therefore theft. Even worse. 



> I can't imagine not wanting to help others or having to be convinced of why I should. I realize there are people who don't feel the same and, while I don't understand that way of thinking, I know it's common. I guess I'd be happier in a more socialist system and they can do their own thing somewhere I'm not.


Help others voluntarily then. Not through coercion. Socialism and Communism (especially) are systems of oppression and coercion and immoral as a result. 



> And what gives those who think like you the right to decide people like myself need to live to your rules? Not everyone values independence over cooperation. In a democracy, people with many differing needs and desires have a say. There's no one perfect system for every community in every circumstance. Usually, what evolves is a compromise. Social democracies fall into that category.


Because it's a free society based on voluntarism. No one in my system is forcing anyone to do anything. Therefore in my system if you want to pay for someone else, you are free to do so. This is completely different from your system which is based on the immorality of coercion and theft. In my system no one is taking anyone's right to help others away. We're just advocates of people doing everything they want the same way if they want without coercion. 



> Maybe because many (not all!) people who fall into the communist/socialist camp really don't care about money? A lot of us would prefer a barter system with little regard for ownership and wealth. Just think of us as hippies looking for a commune if that makes it easier to understand us.


Everyone cares about money. I'm perfectly satisfied living below my means because that's my choice. The fact of the matter is that if you and others really wanted to live in communes you would. But you don't. You create a system of coercion on forcing the rich to prop up this commune of yours and if given the choice every capitalist in Canada would willingly move to a country with higher gains and more prosperity. 



> If that comes across as quasi-religious to you, remember that the obsession with deregulation and privatization seems likewise to me. I don't care if my country is powerful or filled with richer people. That's not where my happiness comes from and it's not how I measure worth.


A system based on coercion and theft is worse than a system based on freedom. 



> I do understand what you're saying and I agree that unregulated competition creates wealth and sometimes lowers prices while delivering quality. However, I have other priorities. Clean air and water matters more to me. So does protected habitat for endangered species. Free and secular education. Available municipal services, like waste management and sewage treatment. Unregulated competition means those who don't care about, for example, the environment get to decide for everyone if the air and water should be clean.


The government does none of that. All it does is pay people to manage money and contracts - without having any incentive to keep the costs down and quality high. People will do that on their own - as they once did. Do you think that it was the government that built roads and infrastructure and schools and the services we enjoy today? No. They simply came in and said that "hey we're going to do it now" and everybody said "Ok". And they did a poor job of it. The vast majority of infrastructure and the systems behind all that infrastructure was all developed by private enterprise. 

And as someone pointed out, we're all at a point where environmental friendliness is one of our needs and therefore the government is no longer needed to create the illusion of creating "clean air". The capitalists will do it themselves because it's the smart business decision. 



> Don't assume that. All I want to do is share an opposing opinion. Besides, I have no more chance of convincing you than you have of convincing me.


I'm not hear to convince you. You started this conversation, remember?



FriedTofu said:


> Which reputable studies determined this?


https://academic.oup.com/jnci/artic...o-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung



> No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
> 
> A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.
> 
> “The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
> 
> Investigators from Stanford and other research centers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS). Among 93,676 women aged 50–79 years at enrollment, the study had complete smoking and covariate data (including passive smoking exposure in childhood, adult home, and work) for 76,304 participants. Of those, 901 developed lung cancer over 10.5 mean years of follow-up.
> 
> The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance.
> 
> “To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine both active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in a complete prospective cohort of US women,” Wang reported. “The findings support continued need for investment in smoking prevention and cessation, research on passive smoking, and understanding of lung cancer risk factors other than smoking.”
> 
> Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new.
> 
> The study “mimics the numbers we’ve known,” she said. “In the existing literature, an active smoker who smokes two packs a day for 30 years has a 60-fold-higher risk of lung cancer than a never-smoker, and a never-smoking woman living with a smoking husband for 30 years has a twofold-higher risk.
> 
> “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm.
> 
> “It’s very reassuring that passive smoke in the childhood home doesn’t increase the risk of lung cancer [in this study],” said Patel. “But it doesn’t decrease the need for us to have strong antismoking measures. There are very few never-smokers in smoking families.”
> 
> A large body of research has linked passive smoking to lung cancer, as well as to coronary heart disease, asthma, emphysema, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight, and childhood ear infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 lung cancer deaths among US nonsmoking adults each year. But many studies that showed the strongest links between secondhand smoke and lung cancer were case–control studies, which can suffer from recall bias: People who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking.
> 
> So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? “We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,” said Wang.
> 
> Heather Wakelee, MD, associate professor of medicine and oncology at Stanford and one of the study’s senior investigators, explained why. WHI-OS had only 901 cases of lung cancer, and only 152 of those occurred in never-smokers. “It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers,” said Wakelee.
> 
> Another problem is that measuring exposure to passive smoke is hard. “Living with a husband who smokes a lot with the windows closed is reported the same as living with one who smokes a little, mostly on the porch,” said Wakelee. (The study measured passive smoking in years, not pack-years.)
> 
> Moreover, of the nearly 40,000 nonsmokers in the WHI-OS, only about 4,000 reported no exposure to cigarette smoke. “That means almost everybody had passive-smoking exposure,” said Wakelee, “so it’s very hard to say that that exposure is causing the problem—it’s hard to tease out a difference.
> 
> “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer,” she said. “We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”
> 
> Debbie Winn, PhD, deputy director of the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute, said it might be useful to “join up with other cohorts and ask the same question. You need cohorts that together can yield many thousands of cases and controls.”
> 
> Meanwhile, said Winn, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (as well as NCI) has said unequivocally that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer. “You shouldn’t conclude from this study that it isn’t,” she said.
> 
> Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, a member of NCI’s PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board, welcomed the WHI-OS study for its focus on women and for emphasizing that smoking greatly increases their risk of lung cancer.
> 
> “More women will die of lung cancer this year than of all other female cancers—breast, ovarian, cervix, and uterine—combined,” he said. “A lot of women have missed that message. And it’s an incredibly important message for young female smokers. They are the most at-risk group now because they have made the connection between smoking and weight control.”
> 
> However, Silvestri finds some reassurance in the passive-smoking findings. “We can never predict who is going to develop lung cancer,” he said. “There are other modifiers. But you can say, with regard to passive smoke, it’s only the heaviest exposure that produces the risk. We kind of knew that before, but it’s a little stronger here.”
> 
> “We’ve gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you and I and other nonsmokers don’t want to die,” said Silvestri. “The reality is, we probably won’t.”
> 
> According to data compiled by Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, 24U.S. states and 575 municipalities and counties have laws banning smoking in all nonhospitality workplaces, restaurants, and bars; 36 states prohibit public smoking to some degree. Nearly 200 local governments also ban smoking in private units of multiunit housing.
> 
> Internationally, 91 nations have enacted some sort of antismoking laws.
> 
> Asked whether a waitress who spent 15 years working in a smoky bar should feel reassured, Wakelee said, “Certainly, if you look just at this study and ignore other data. But you can’t really ignore all the other data or ignore all the health risks linked to that exposure.”





samizayn said:


> Probably sold for parts, yeah. The "extra pollution" generated now from rectifying VW's fraud will never compare to the over 10m cars on the road emitting pollutants three times over the legal limit.


What are you basing this on? 



> I'm not sure where the surprise at mistrust of the capitalist comes from when the fact of money being the prime and central motivational factor for all decisions made within that system is something lauded by its advocates.


A prime motive of capitalism is to make money, but the secondary driver (and the real driver) is "to see a need and fill that need". Do you see anyone trying to maximize their profits on flooding the market with VHS tapes? If filling needs wasn't so deeply intertwined with the primary profit motive, there would be no such thing as obsolescence in this world. It simply would not exist. The advocay of capitalism is based on understand the core mechanics behind the motivations. While there is no morality to be attached to a capitalist's profit motive, there is an innate quality of morality attached to the secondary service capitalism provides to society based on filling core needs. 

The government interferes with that with its regulations. There is a direct relationship where the more regulated an environment is, the less efficient it becomes in providing people what they need at effective prices. Everything from high taxes to wage hikes, to unionization, to price caps have resulted in systems that were weaker than before those regulations. 

It is this understanding of macroeconomics and decades of research and real data that leads to the advocacy of capitalism as the best system in the world. Not perfect. But best relative to any other system in existence. 



> The middle route or the red route, whatever - it's irrelevant. The money way is the only way. Fortunately we have a society now that's very socially/politically aware so those things are factored in when considering the bottom line (often, negative PR makes a would-be cheaper move just as expensive) and of course long term considerations of the sustainable practice of their own businesses are given import. And you mentioned fines, which are often the difference maker between a certain action being profitable or not, but often the benefit is so great that it's still the best choice despite the fine. That is actually one significant flaw of regulatory agencies you have reminded me of.


No. The money way is the primary objective which is not to be confused with moral imperatives. Right and wrong is innately addressed in the provision of goods and services. Fines, barriers to entry also hinder potential innovation in a very bad way. The capitalist's secondary imperative to provide a need is stronger than the governments' and it's also controlled by natural forces. A capitalist for example raised the price of epi-pen in America. Pretty soon the market was flooded with competitors and the market share of epi-pen is showing a decline. Obamacare made healtchare unaffordable for a lot of people so there are local hospitals and doctors providing their own "monthy membership" packages in many parts of the country. The capitalist makes money by providing a service to people that is needed. The government hinders that process because it's subject to lobbying by special interest groups. 

Uber and e-cigarettes are the ultimate example of the current fight between the taxi lobby and startups that threaten two major industries. The best service provider (Uber) is being targeted unfairly by the governments around the world because it's "outside" of their control. The government does that because it relies on the money it receives from the regulated/taxed industries and the bigger industry wants to stifle competition. Same thing is being faced by e-cigarettes which have been the subject of unbelievably bad press where despite having no link to anything bad at all, there are constant articles propping up making ridiculous claims about how they're bad. This is because of the government and tobacco industry collusion. 

You remove the government and you have capitalists that will give people what they need in a much better and more efficient way. No one is claiming perfection. The claim is that it's a better system of checks and balances than the government itself can ever hope to create. 



> The goal of the capitalist is to make money. I don't think the most profitable means are inherently the most corrupt means, but they very often are.


And market forces keeps them less corrupt than government. 



> What do you consider to be bad science?


Making policy decisions based on weak to no causation and correlations based on government funded research where the results determine policy and simply ignoring the counter-evidence and studies. Especially in climate science. 



> edit: I don't think that anyone is saying that the capitalist is the "only" evil one at all - inasmuch as you can consider them evil. I think that it's necessary that they have this predictable and unwaverable end goal, as it makes planning around them a lot easier.


Government is worse. Government itself is a pseudo-capitalist entity and a much worse one because there they can charge for services they don't even need to provide because there's no tangible process of accountability at all. And if you refuse, they can put you in jail. 

At least with the capitalist you can hold them accountable with your wallets since it's a voluntary system. Every single capitalist I've ever bought anything from gave me the best service - and when they stopped doing that I didn't have to give them my money. 

On the flip when that happens, the capitalist colludes with the government in order to force the flow of tax payer money back to them. Government simply exists to enable the greedy capitalist. You remove the government or take away its powers and how will Walmart for example institute a Walmart tax (a subsidy) on consumers in order to survive and stifle a better capitalist (e.g. Elon Musk) from putting it out of business?


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm so far off topic here that I'm just going to go ahead and spoiler tag the whole post. 



Spoiler:  Me and Reaper having a circular, never-ending chat






RipNTear said:


> Considering that my reasoning was that there's a combination of factors all of which I included, I found it curious why you ignored it. The fact of the matter is if you're not exposed to multiple points of view, then you don't know what you don't know and that shapes your decisions in life.


I don't know many people even in my little tiny corner of Canada who aren't exposed to multiple viewpoints. In fact, we're possibly more accustomed to working out solutions based on differences than many places. 



RipNTear said:


> Those are symptoms of a system of governance that doesn't encourage innovation and progress. I wonder if the aging population is a symptom of brain drain which was a big issue in the 90's that created these communities that simply age and the elders aren't replaced by the generation that comes after them because there's less prosperity overall creating a spiral of diminishing returns.


No, it's a symptom of New Brunswick being a small province with two official languages and a heavy reliance over generations on dying industries. Rail, fishing, logging - those are traditional jobs here that many rural families built their identities on. Years were wasted between French and English bickering. Many elderly francophones never learned to read in part because school books were hard come by in French during their childhoods. It used to be that English was required to find work in the cities, now bilingualism is required for all government and most jobs in the health care, sales, service and tourism industries. More French NBers are bilingual simply because of English dominating North American culture but there are more English NBers overall, creating a job inequity in certain regions. 

NB is a pain to work with from outside and presents an extra challenge for English NBers who haven't or don't want to master French. End result is less investment and more people of working age moving out of province.



RipNTear said:


> Speaking for yourself then. What makes you happy might be a simple life. What makes your neighbor happy is a Penthouse on the 50th floor of a high rise with a couple of yachts in the harbor. He should have the right and ability to accumulate that kind of wealth and live that kind of lifestyle. Social welfare and especially communism make it such that a system of restrictions keep that person from being able to do that. That's where the immorality of both systems comes in.


Well, obviously I don't see why anyone needs to have so much stuff when so many have so little - I won't pretend to respect that sort of thinking, I might even see it as a wee bit immoral - and I still have every right to wish there was a better alternative than everyone for themselves. 



RipNTear said:


> :lmao Global climate change is a reality. The fact that it's man made or that humans can do anything to prevent it is a load of bullcrap based on pseudoscience, fudged data and big money funded results.


That's you're opinion. Mine is different. I arrived at my position based on literature, observation and discussion with my instructors and peers in the natural sciences department during university. There are people both less and more informed than me who are anti climate change theory, just as there are those in both camps who support the evidence for human activity playing a role in ecological change. Some people believe in evolution and some don't too; that's the beauty of diverse opinion. 



RipNTear said:


> If you didn't have easy access to loans you perhaps might not have made any changes to your life, but that doesn't mean others would have made similar choices as well. You take away easy money and people generally tend to make better choices. Since we're in the realm of anecdotes, when my wife went to college and her goal was to make more money than she is right now, she specifically picked a major that almost guarantees her a better life even though she really, really wanted to do something else. She doesn't have the kind of ability to make choices and get bailed out as people do in social welfare states.


I used student loan for my second degree. I'm still paying it. What bailout are you talking about?

So your wife chose not to enroll in her preferred major. Ok, so she may make more money (choosing an in-demand career doesn't always work out as expected) but will be she be doing what she does best? Will she love her job or be counting down the years to retirement? If money is more important to her that's her choice but I'd prefer fulfillment and a chance to see if I couldn't do even better by following my unique skills rather than immediately settling into something I'm just average, or worse, at and not at all passionate about. It's that difference in priorities again. You (and you wife) and I do not want the same things from life. Why is that not ok?



RipNTear said:


> That sucks. However, at the same time, if you're paying taxes, you're likely paying more than you would have in a non-single-payer system. You should go back and read some of L-Dopa's posts on the subject of how single-payer drives up costs for everybody - even people in the lower tax brackets.
> 
> Personally, I paid about 4000 in my healthcare 3 years in America (and that includes hospitalization once). That's a little over 1300 a year. In Canada, people pay approx $4,000 / year. By now an average canadian has already spent 12,000 in healthcare they never even used. Point is that it's very, very likely that you're already paying more for what you need without realizing it. If not, then someone else is and that's not fair because that's potentially money they could be using to start a business, start a kid's college fund etc etc. It creates an overall poorly performing society. It keeps the healthcare costs higher for everyone and everyone has less money just because they want to delude themselves that their healthcare is free when it really isn't. You're all paying for it - and paying more than an average American.


But I have seen what the difference is for me between single payer and non single payer. Like most people, I've always had private health insurance. The choice option is not better for me because the premiums and deductibles are huge. Anything I need or am likely to need is excluded or only available at ridiculous cost. Insurance companies exist to make money. They don't take on clients who are apt to receive more than they pay in. What you're proposing only works for more or less healthy people who buy insurance young and never let it slip or try to switch companies once they have a medical history.



RipNTear said:


> I have the financial option because my dad lived in a society with lower taxes and was able to save a tremendous amount of money from every cheque. If he had been in a society where more than half of his paycheck (since he would be considered to be in the highest tax bracket and therefore have less wealth) things would have been different. He also worked 18 hours a day for 45 years of his life. Everything he had is owed to that and some really smart property investment. He didn't "luck" into anything and every penny he earned he deserved.


I never said your father "lucked" into money. Clearly, money is a valued reward in your family and something worth sacrificing many hours for. You and your parents are obviously intelligent, healthy and skilled enough to make your lifestyle an option. Not everyone has that opportunity. That's why I feel we have a collective responsibility to each other in life and that the weakest need the support of the strongest for our shared world to prosper. 



RipNTear said:


> True. It's involuntary and therefore theft. Even worse.


You think of taxes as theft, I think of taxes as shared responsibility. We're going in circles here. 



RipNTear said:


> Help others voluntarily then. Not through coercion. Socialism and Communism (especially) are systems of oppression and coercion and immoral as a result.


I'm one person. I can help in small ways on an individual basis but I can't ensure quality free education or safe shelter to everyone. Large scale support for each other requires an entire society to work together. 



RipNTear said:


> Because it's a free society based on voluntarism. No one in my system is forcing anyone to do anything. Therefore in my system if you want to pay for someone else, you are free to do so. This is completely different from your system which is based on the immorality of coercion and theft. In my system no one is taking anyone's right to help others away. We're just advocates of people doing everything they want the same way if they want without coercion.


You see my position as immoral because it requires those who would rather not share to do so. I see your position as immoral because it doesn't provide the basics for all in favour of allowing a few to have everything they might desire. 



RipNTear said:


> Everyone cares about money. I'm perfectly satisfied living below my means because that's my choice. The fact of the matter is that if you and others really wanted to live in communes you would. But you don't. You create a system of coercion on forcing the rich to prop up this commune of yours and if given the choice every capitalist in Canada would willingly move to a country with higher gains and more prosperity.


You read minds? How do you know that "everyone" cares about something just because you do? There are a great many things in this world that I don't know, the thoughts of everyone among them. 

Also, you don't know where I live or where I've lived in the past. I actually rent in a collectively owned building with a shared garden. 



RipNTear said:


> A system based on coercion and theft is worse than a system based on freedom.


I'm not going to keep responding to this same point. I got it the first time; you think of taxes as theft, I don't. Moving on ... 



RipNTear said:


> The government does none of that. All it does is pay people to manage money and contracts - without having any incentive to keep the costs down and quality high. People will do that on their own - as they once did. Do you think that it was the government that built roads and infrastructure and schools and the services we enjoy today? No. They simply came in and said that "hey we're going to do it now" and everybody said "Ok". And they did a poor job of it. *The vast majority of infrastructure and the systems behind all that infrastructure was all developed by private enterprise.*


No it wasn't and it isn't. A combination of the two is where most infrastructure funding comes from, or at least that's how it works here. 



RipNTear said:


> And as someone pointed out, we're all at a point where environmental friendliness is one of our needs and therefore the government is no longer needed to create the illusion of creating "clean air". The capitalists will do it themselves because it's the smart business decision.


Been to China lately? Capitalists there aren't keeping the air clean. Elsewhere, the rain forests and old growth woods essential to maintaining ecological balance aren't faring well under unrestricted capitalism. Capitalists do nothing unless it helps make money. I would prefer not to wait until public opinion and some marketing studies make anything more than the illusion of environmental protections cost effective. There's too much at stake, not only for us but for all the varieties of life on Earth. 



RipNTear said:


> I'm not hear to convince you. You started this conversation, remember?


You wrote a post that included reference to people here who fall into lower employment tiers yet support social welfare countries without realizing they've been brainwashed and failed by the politics they support. There's only a handful of us who fit the poor-and-socialist description around these parts and I'm one of them. I though I should provide the other point of view. I've done that now and we've moved into dead horse beating territory. There's nothing more for me to say until a new topic comes up.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So.....does Trump cause Lung Cancer? :shrug

(there. something to combine the off-topic stuff with the in-topic one. :lol )


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The old capitalist communist debate is a never ending one

All bad examples on both sides can be covered by "well they weren't doing it right"

It doesn't help that both hardcore libertarian and socialist types are coming from very different places

For instance many rightests believe that if you die due to poverty that sad fact of society where many leftest feel if you die of poverty you are a victim of the system, the same as if you had been executed by the state 

I find the most "informed" people in political study tend to be the most immature. They have stapled their entire morality and mindset around a system where they could create some kind of utopia if only everyone would just listen to them and to disagree means not only are you calling them stupid but you are calling them bad people

the academic world can be just as dumb as the wrestling fanbase if you dig too deep


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The study “mimics the numbers we’ve known,” she said. “In the existing literature, an active smoker who smokes two packs a day for 30 years has a 60-fold-higher risk of lung cancer than a never-smoker, and a never-smoking woman living with a smoking husband for 30 years has a twofold-higher risk.





> “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer,” she said. “We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”


:draper2


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> A prime motive of capitalism is to make money, but the secondary driver (and the real driver) is "to see a need and fill that need".


Okay, filling a need in a way that can be commodified, right? How do you commodify environmental preservation?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Okay, filling a need in a way that can be commodified, right? How do you commodify environmental preservation?


I just heard of a 7 year old kid who made 10 grand recycling used cans and bottles around his neighborhood in CA. 

Almost all recycling in the US is a private enterprise. The green industry is competitive and private enterprise which moves in to fill the gap left by the government. The government is bad at everything it does. 

You commodify environmental protection the same way you commodify everything else. 

Probably end up doing a better job than the government at it too.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> :draper2


Yup. This is a conclusion that is different from the EPA bullshit that it causes cancer which led to regulating bars based on pseudo-scientific non conclusions or alarmism. Take your pick.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I just heard of a 7 year old kid who made 10 grand recycling used cans and bottles around his neighborhood in CA.
> 
> Almost all recycling in the US is a private enterprise. The green industry is competitive and private enterprise which moves in to fill the gap left by the government. The government is bad at everything it does.
> 
> You commodify environmental protection the same way you commodify everything else.
> 
> Probably end up doing a better job than the government at it too.


Yes, there's always been an industry around the waste we produce that is recyclable, but what of the rest? I'm asking because applying the 'standard' doesn't account for waste that is inherently worthless. How do you commodify it?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> The old capitalist communist debate is a never ending one
> 
> All bad examples on both sides can be covered by "well they weren't doing it right"
> 
> It doesn't help that both hardcore libertarian and socialist types are coming from very different places
> 
> For instance many rightests believe that if you die due to poverty that sad fact of society where many leftest feel if you die of poverty you are a victim of the system, the same as if you had been executed by the state
> 
> I find the most "informed" people in political study tend to be the most immature. They have stapled their entire morality and mindset around a system where they could create some kind of utopia if only everyone would just listen to them and to disagree means not only are you calling them stupid but you are calling them bad people
> 
> the academic world can be just as dumb as the wrestling fanbase if you dig too deep


Both sides have pros and cons but communism and socialism are the worse options as both stifle innovation and promote theft in the name of the "Greater Good", both also have overly cultist or Religious thinking to them which justifies the wrong doing that gets done by people at the top promoting these ideologies.

A barter system sounds good but is completely flawed, exactly what can people barter now? Our society has moved away from this sort of thing in the favor of services or goods in exchange for money which can be used to purchase goods or services in return. There is no place for direct bartering.

Besides even if you made everything "equal" and used the barter system, someone will end up with more. Someone with cows is going to have more value than someone with chickens. Someone with many children able to work a field is going to have more to trade over someone working alone. Someone smart and good at haggling will get the best deals so people will end with more and some less, we're not all created equal. The only solution would to be then steal from people who are simply better at what they do or have something more valuable. It's wrong.

It's also wrong to say "You have more stuff so we're going to take it because you don't need to live this way. It's immoral and unfair." That's some Religious talk if I ever heard it. Hard to believe that people who champion gay rights, freedom of speech and human rights in general would be for discrimination and theft by force simply because they don't like someone's lifestyle. Irony at it's finest. Someone having more stuff doesn't have any effect on you in any given way. It's just jealousy and judgemental thinking masked as some Righteous cause. 

I think it's bullshit that Celebs have so much money, JLaw gets paid 20 million a movie, makes more than most males but bitches she doesn't get enough. It's sad yet people go see her movies, people enable people like her to fleece so much money and speak their nonsense. 

Sports stars make way too much money, but hey maybe if fans stopped buying their shit, going to games and giving so much money, these players wouldn't be having such huge salaries.

Cam girls, strippers, high priced escorts make tons of money, far more than any average woman working 9-5, more than me and my job actually helps people. Yet people go and give their money to these women. 

It's not fair but it exists because people make it exist. Even in a pure barter system, these same people would still have the most carrots, eggs, milk, cows or whatever because people want what these people provide. No amount of misguided ideals of equality will change that. No amount of theft and shame brought on by cultist like thinking will stop smart people from being smart or people gifted of speech to get more.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Both sides have pros and cons but communism and socialism are the worse options as both stifle innovation and promote theft in the name of the "Greater Good", both also have overly cultist or Religious thinking to them which justifies the wrong doing that gets done by people at the top promoting these ideologies.
> 
> A barter system sounds good but is completely flawed, exactly what can people barter now? Our society has moved away from this sort of thing in the favor of services or goods in exchange for money which can be used to purchase goods or services in return. There is no place for direct bartering.
> 
> Besides even if you made everything "equal" and used the barter system, someone will end up with more. Someone with cows is going to have more value than someone with chickens. Someone with many children able to work a field is going to have more to trade over someone working alone. Someone smart and good at haggling will get the best deals so people will end with more and some less, we're not all created equal. The only solution would to be then steal from people who are simply better at what they do or have something more valuable. It's wrong.
> 
> It's also wrong to say "You have more stuff so we're going to take it because you don't need to live this way. It's immoral and unfair." That's some Religious talk if I ever heard it. Hard to believe that people who champion gay rights, freedom of speech and human rights in general would be for discrimination and theft by force simply because they don't like someone's lifestyle. Irony at it's finest. Someone having more stuff doesn't have any effect on you in any given way. It's just jealousy and judgemental thinking masked as some Righteous cause.
> 
> I think it's bullshit that Celebs have so much money, JLaw gets paid 20 million a movie, makes more than most males but bitches she doesn't get enough. It's sad yet people go see her movies, people enable people like her to fleece so much money and speak their nonsense.
> 
> Sports stars make way too much money, but hey maybe if fans stopped buying their shit, going to games and giving so much money, these players wouldn't be having such huge salaries.
> 
> Cam girls, strippers, high priced escorts make tons of money, far more than any average woman working 9-5, more than me and my job actually helps people. Yet people go and give their money to these women.
> 
> It's not fair but it exists because people make it exist. Even in a pure barter system, these same people would still have the most carrots, eggs, milk, cows or whatever because people want what these people provide. No amount of misguided ideals of equality will change that. No amount of theft and shame brought on by cultist like thinking will stop smart people from being smart or people gifted of speech to get more.


Every religion, ideology, political system searches for the original sin

A non-disputable historical "crime" that proves that people who disagree with you are completely factually and morally wrong

Every one of those groups also teaches that the world is wrong and unfair and under the current system only the immoral and corrupt will succeed 

Look at the backlash against moderates who "are not for real change" or "tools of the status que" from both sides(as if be happy where you are is some great crime and proof of your evil)

I wish televangelism had not dried up, I can spin some bullshit and I would have been the best

now and days its "alternative news"


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I didn't need a study to tell me this as I've already been making pretty much the same claims as this: http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-rel...lamic-states-primary-opponent-syria-governmen

America is 100% on the wrong side in Syria. Make no mistake about it. 

@DesolationRow; @CamillePunk; @BruiserKC; @Miss Sally; @Beatles123



> *Study Shows Islamic State’s Primary Opponent in Syria Is Government Forces, IHS Markit Says*
> 
> LONDON (19 April, 2017) –The Islamic State fought Syrian government forces more than any other opponent over the past 12 months, according to new analysis from Conflict Monitor by IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO), a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions.
> 
> *Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, 43 percent of all Islamic State fighting in Syria was directed against President Assad’s forces, 17 against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the remaining 40 percent involved fighting rival Sunni opposition groups -- in particular, those who formed part of the Turkey-backed Euphrates Shield coalition.
> *
> “It is an inconvenient reality that any US action taken to weaken the Syrian government will inadvertently benefit the Islamic State and other jihadist groups,” said Columb Strack, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Markit. “The Syrian government is essentially the anvil to the US-led Coalition’s hammer. While US-backed forces surround Raqqa, the Islamic State is engaged in intense fighting with the Syrian government around Palmyra and in other parts of Homs and Deir al-Zour provinces.”
> 
> Any further reduction in the capability of Syria’s already overstretched forces would reduce their ability to prevent the Islamic State from pushing out of the desert into the more heavily populated western Syria, threatening cities like Homs and Damascus, the analysis said.
> 
> “If the Islamic State succeeds in capturing the Syrian government’s isolated and heavily contested garrison in Deir al-Zour, the group would have a new major population centre from which to run the Caliphate,” Strack said. “The capture of Deir al-Zour, the largest city in eastern Syria, could be a life-line for the group’s governance project beyond the loss of Mosul and Raqqa.”
> 
> Almost half of original territory lost
> 
> Between 1 January 2015 and 3 April 2017, the Islamic State lost almost 50 percent of its territory. On 1 January 2015, Conflict Monitor estimated the Islamic State controlled 90,800 km2 in Iraq and Syria. Now, the Islamic State controls 48,500 km2.
> 
> “We have seen Islamic State territorial losses accelerate significantly in 2017,” Strack said. “Their losses were largely driven by a greater commitment from the US to back the Syrian Democratic Forces, but also by major Syrian government advances east of Aleppo and around Palmyra.”
> 
> Between 1 January 2017 and 3 April 2017, the caliphate’s territory shrank by a further 20 percent to 48,500 km2. The area they control now is roughly the same size as the Dominican Republic.
> 
> Intelligence cut-off date: 10 April 2017.
> 
> Meet Jane’s at the AFCEA 2017 Conference
> 
> Jane’s will be exhibiting jointly with Luciad at AFCEA 2017 in Bonn, Germany from 26 to 27 April. The team will be showing wider analysis on Iraq through the Luciad platform and how Luciad's geospatial visualization combined with defense and security data from Jane's can deliver superior critical information and insight.
> 
> Appointments to view the wider analysis can be made at [email protected] or http://connect.luciad.com/AFCEAGermany2017
> 
> About Conflict Monitor
> 
> Conflict Monitor by IHS Markit is an open-source intelligence collection and analysis service, which includes unrivalled data coverage of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, weekly control maps, as well as in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis by Jane’s security experts.
> 
> Visit our site to learn more about the service and a free trial: https://www.ihs.com/products/conflictmonitor.html or get in touch here.
> 
> ####
> 
> About IHS Markit (www.ihsmarkit.com)
> 
> IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO) is a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions for the major industries and markets that drive economies worldwide. The company delivers next-generation information, analytics and solutions to customers in business, finance and government, improving their operational efficiency and providing deep insights that lead to well-informed, confident decisions. IHS Markit has more than 50,000 key business and government customers, including 85 percent of the Fortune Global 500 and the world’s leading financial institutions. Headquartered in London, IHS Markit is committed to sustainable, profitable growth.
> 
> IHS Markit is a registered trademark of IHS Markit Ltd. All other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners © 2017 IHS Markit Ltd. All rights reserved.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Meh. Wall-chan is coming by Summer's end. :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/


A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities 



Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.

In a ruling delivered Thursday, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara, the city of San San Francisco and other cities, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.
In granting a nationwide injunction, Orrick blocked the government from enforcing a key portion of Trump's January executive order on immigration, which ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department to block cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement from receiving federal funds.


Sessions: No fed grants for sanctuary cities 01:26
While Orrick's ruling does not find the policy unconstitutional, he did find that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face "immediate irreparable harm" if the policy were allowed to be put into place, and that their constitutional challenge could succeed once the case is fully heard.
He did leave the government some wiggle room, saying that his order does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions -- but the government will not be able to block federal funds from going to those cities as Trump ordered.
"The Counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the Executive Order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor," Orrick wrote.
Threats to defund sanctuary cities have been a key piece of Trump's immigration agenda in the beginning of his administration, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent letters last week to nine cities requiring them to verify they are compliant with a piece of US law mentioned in the executive order as a pre-condition of their receiving law enforcement grants they applied for.
That pre-condition was actually put in place by the Obama administration, and mayors have said that piece of law is something they actually comply with that law, which requires communication of citizenship status of individuals, even if they don't cooperate with other requests from federal immigration law enforcement.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Every religion, ideology, political system searches for the original sin
> 
> A non-disputable historical "crime" that proves that people who disagree with you are completely factually and morally wrong
> 
> Every one of those groups also teaches that the world is wrong and unfair and under the current system only the immoral and corrupt will succeed
> 
> Look at the backlash against moderates who "are not for real change" or "tools of the status que" from both sides(as if be happy where you are is some great crime and proof of your evil)
> 
> I wish televangelism had not dried up, I can spin some bullshit and I would have been the best
> 
> now and days its "alternative news"


capitalism has none of that

outside of fraud and theft being bad (because they hinder mutually beneficial trade) capitalism doesn't preach a morality

another reason it is superior, it doesnt pretend to have a universal answer for all questions. it isnt in that business.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think this judge might be a filthy partisan hack. He raised 200k for Obama.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/tru...ost-calls-for-death-of-cnn-personalities/amp/

Trump rally broadcast network forced to apologize after host calls for death of CNN personalities

Right Side Broadcasting, which bills itself as the “Unofficial Version Of Trump TV,” has been forced to issue an apology after one of their on-air personalities went on a racist tirade before calling for the death of CNN personalities.

According to Media Matters, RSBN host Nick Fuentes went off on a racist rant against Muslims before calling for the killing of “globalists,” including CNN personalities he considers part of a threat to the U.S.

“The First Amendment was not written for Muslims, by the way. It wasn’t written for a barbaric ideology that wanted to come over and kill us. It was written for Calvinists. It was written for Lutherans and Catholics, not for Salafists, not for Wahabists, not for the Saudi royal family,” Fuentes exclaimed. “Why do none of our elected officials talk about this or like this? They know it’s true. Why don’t we hear about in the mainstream media? We don’t hear about it on Fox News, by the way, either.”

“Who runs the media? Globalists. Time to kill the globalists. I don’t want to not watch CNN. I don’t want CNN to go out of business. I don’t want CNN to be more honest. I want people that run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged because this is deliberate.” he continued. “This is not an accident. It’s not, ‘Oh, you know journalists have a liberal bias because they’re educated, and educated people tend to be’ — none of that. It is malicious intent. There is a design, there is an agenda here.

Responding to complaints, RSBN CEO Joe Seales, apologized by issuing a statement saying Fuentes comments about CNN were “inappropriate,” and that the network is “reviewing the matter and will handle it internally.”

You can watch the video below via Media Matters:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/
> 
> 
> A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities
> 
> 
> 
> Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.
> 
> In a ruling delivered Thursday, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara, the city of San San Francisco and other cities, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.
> In granting a nationwide injunction, Orrick blocked the government from enforcing a key portion of Trump's January executive order on immigration, which ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department to block cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement from receiving federal funds.
> 
> 
> Sessions: No fed grants for sanctuary cities 01:26
> While Orrick's ruling does not find the policy unconstitutional, he did find that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face "immediate irreparable harm" if the policy were allowed to be put into place, and that their constitutional challenge could succeed once the case is fully heard.
> He did leave the government some wiggle room, saying that his order does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions -- but the government will not be able to block federal funds from going to those cities as Trump ordered.
> "The Counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the Executive Order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor," Orrick wrote.
> Threats to defund sanctuary cities have been a key piece of Trump's immigration agenda in the beginning of his administration, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent letters last week to nine cities requiring them to verify they are compliant with a piece of US law mentioned in the executive order as a pre-condition of their receiving law enforcement grants they applied for.
> That pre-condition was actually put in place by the Obama administration, and mayors have said that piece of law is something they actually comply with that law, which requires communication of citizenship status of individuals, even if they don't cooperate with other requests from federal immigration law enforcement.


Another embarassing smackdown for Trump from another judge. How many is that now I've lost count?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Another embarassing smackdown for Trump from another judge. How many is that now I've lost count?


You know, if these liberals want immigrants so bad, let them have them. Flood these Sanctuary Cities with them. Or rather, the wealthier sections of those cities. They want them, let them take care of them


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> You know, if these liberals want immigrants so bad, let them have them. Flood these Sanctuary Cities with them. Or rather, the wealthier sections of those cities. They want them, let them take care of them


That would probably turn out to be another unconstitutional smackdown for Trump sadly. He may set a record for that sort of thing pretty soon.

Besides, America is an immigrant country, it was built by immigrants.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> That would probably turn out to be another unconstitutional smackdown for Trump sadly. He may set a record for that sort of thing pretty soon.
> 
> Besides, America is an immigrant country, it was built by immigrants.


Not if he turns it around and says "Wait, now you don't want immigrants". It would be quite easy to put the rich liberals in a position were Trump sends the immigrants to their neighborhoods and them saying no to it and him coming back and throwing their anti-immigration rhetoric back at them.

And if they come out and say "Well we want them to come, just not in these areas", then you have a whole bunch of people even more against immigration then you did already.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Jon turley, no trumpist, says the judges order is indefensible. Which it is. 

Just another case of a judges politics determining the ruling handed down rather than the law. Now that Gorsuch is on the supreme court it won't last. 

In other news the house freedom caucus chairman says intra GOP negotiations on obamacare repeal have made great progress and that most of obamacare will be repealed by the end of next month.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And Australia was built by convicts so let's send all criminals there once again. Since it had a large population of convicts once, therefore it cannot decide to not want convicts anymore. So let's lobby to send all our convicts there once again. It would be immoral for them to refuse.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Jon turley, no trumpist, says the judges order is indefensible. Which it is.
> 
> Just another case of a judges politics determining the ruling handed down rather than the law. Now that Gorsuch is on the supreme court it won't last.
> 
> In other news the house freedom caucus chairman says intra GOP negotiations on obamacare repeal have made great progress and that most of obamacare will be repealed by the end of next month.


maybe if Trump followed the law judges would not have to keep blocking him


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> maybe if Trump followed the law judges would not have to keep blocking him


The judge in this case ignored the law as did the judges on the travel ban in order to deliver purely political rulings. There is nothing legally defensible in any of them.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> maybe if Trump followed the law judges would not have to keep blocking him


I question the reliability of judges that donate directly to a presidential campaign as you should. You can't be all about "ties that influence politicians" and ignore the fact that the first federal judge was Obama's room-mate and the second judge raised money for Obama. 

If you think that this judge is "following the law", then you're mistaken.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The judge in this case ignored the law as did the judges on the travel ban in order to deliver purely political rulings. There is nothing legally defensible in any of them.


No they did not. Trumps travel ban was unconstitutional. And the judge followed the law in this case as well. Trump needs to get a clue and follow the law.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I question the reliability of judges that donate directly to a presidential campaign as you should. You can't be all about "ties that influence politicians" and ignore the fact that the first federal judge was Obama's room-mate and the second judge raised money for Obama.
> 
> If you think that this judge is "following the law", then you're mistaken.


He is following the law, you can disagree all you want but it wont change the facts, just like the other judges that so called did not follow the law. Trump overstepped his bounds and that is why the judge blocked it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Large swaths of the U.S. judiciary branch went rogue a long time ago.

What Americans want done with regard to stopping illegal immigration is irrelevant. Judge Mariana Pfaelzar ruling that California's Proposition 187 was unconstitutional because immigration is a federal matter is now being philosophically rebuked by judges who argue that cities, counties and states can, effectively, hold their own immigration policies without regard to federal efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens.

Heads, the left wins, tails, the left wins. The more American voters reject illegal alien squatters, the more they convince the plutocrats and judges who rule over them that more supplanting of the present electorate for a new one is necessary. Californians attempted to "Save Our State" as that Prop. 187 was known as in 1994 when it won almost six-to-four in California. Today California's demographics are irrevocably altered in part because of Prop. 187 being shot down, partly down to Ronald Reagan's 1987 amnesty, and the state is on the long road to third world status with overwhelming masses of proles, a fast-shrinking middle class and deeply entrenched elites.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is following the law, you can disagree all you want but it wont change the facts, just like the other judges that so called did not follow the law. Trump overstepped his bounds and that is why the judge blocked it.


The federal government doesn't have the right to withhold federal funding under the constitution? Are you sure.

Please post with non-MSM news agency articles. With actual quotes and highlights from the constitution itself.


----------



## Neuron

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> That would probably turn out to be another unconstitutional smackdown for Trump sadly. He may set a record for that sort of thing pretty soon.
> 
> Besides, America is an immigrant country, it was built by immigrants.


How does being a "country of immigrants" equate to not being allowed to have a form of control of who comes into the country?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> The federal government doesn't have the right to withhold federal funding under the constitution? Are you sure.


It's my understanding the federal govt can withhold SOME funding, but its congress not the president who can do that

The govt also cannot use defunding to force local governments into becoming federal immigration enforcers.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's my understanding the federal govt can withhold SOME funding, but its congress not the president who can do that
> 
> The govt also cannot use defunding to force local governments into becoming federal immigration enforcers.


Where does it say all that in the constitution. I don't care about understanding. I care about relevant facts here. You seem very sure so I'm sure you know more than I do. I'm just asking you to reference it.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities





yeahbaby! said:


> Another embarassing smackdown for Trump from another judge. How many is that now I've lost count?


Trump's presidential career:












deepelemblues said:


> capitalism has none of that
> 
> outside of fraud and theft being bad (because they hinder mutually beneficial trade) capitalism doesn't preach a morality
> 
> another reason it is superior, it doesnt pretend to have a universal answer for all questions. it isnt in that business.


But why is that better? You can't reject something and not have an alternate solution.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Where does it say all that in the constitution. I don't care about understanding. I care about relevant facts here. You seem very sure so I'm sure you know more than I do. I'm just asking you to reference it.


why dont you show me in the constitution where it says Trump can do it. And we can discuss it.

You have shown no facts either, just that you claim he can.

So post the part in the constitution where it speaks about this.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> why dont you show me in the constitution where it says Trump can do it. And we can discuss it.
> 
> You have shown no facts either, just that you claim he can.
> 
> So post the part in the constitution where it speaks about this.


Where did I claim that he can? Burden of proof is on you on this one. It's your claim. Defend it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> Where did I claim that he can? Burden of proof is on you on this one.


So if you are not saying he can why are you arguing with me? Why are you saying the judge was wrong? Stop playing your little games. Show the proof in the constitution that Trump can do this.

You are acting like a creationist.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if you are not saying he can why are you arguing with me? Why are you saying the judge was wrong? Stop playing your little games. Show the proof in the constitution that Trump can do this.
> 
> You are acting like a creationist.


I'm not playing any games. You are absolutely sure based on your posts that it's unconstitutional. That's a claim. I'm unsure that it's constitutional or not and I'm willing to give the head honcho the benefit of the doubt and I've provided reasons why I think that the judge is a partisan hack therefore I question his judgement. 

Why not clear up my doubts by defending your position instead of hiding and running away from having to do so?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> I'm not playing any games. You are absolutely sure based on your posts that it's unconstitutional. That's a claim. I'm unsure that it's constitutional or not and I'm willing to give the head honcho the benefit of the doubt and I've provided reasons why I think that the judge is a partisan hack therefore I question his judgement.
> 
> Why not clear up my doubts by defending your position instead of hiding and running away from having to do so?


So you have no evidence that Trump can does this and will take Trumps word for it, who is incompetent and does things wrong all the time over a federal judge.

yeah ok.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you have no evidence that Trump can does this and will take Trumps word for it, who is incompetent and does things wrong all the time over a federal judge.
> 
> yeah ok.


What's so difficult about posting references defending the judge's decision?

You've seen me defend my positions when I have a strong enough stance on them. It'll take you about 15-20 minutes max. Go for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> What's so difficult about posting references defending the judge's decision?
> 
> You've seen me defend my positions when I have a strong enough stance on them. It'll take you about 15-20 minutes max. Go for it.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rk-city-mayor-says-president-cant-defund-san/


New York City mayor says president can't defund sanctuary cities 'across the board


New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio isn’t backing away from policies that protect immigrants living illegally in the country, even if that means cuts to his city’s budget.

President-elect Donald Trump has said he will block federal funds to cities with policies or laws that limit their assistance to immigration authorities. New York is among jurisdictions considered a "sanctuary city."

The Democratic mayor was asked on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show how funding would be affected if Trump follows through on his promise.

"I think the first thing is to recognize that from what I know so far because of a decision by the Supreme Court, no president's in a position to cut off funding across the board. It has to be very specific to the matter at hand," de Blasio said. "If we disagree in one particular policy area, there may be opportunities for the federal government to say, ‘well we are not going to fund you in that policy area,’ but not across the board."

As other mayors across the country stand behind their immigrant-friendly policies, we wondered about de Blasio’s comment on how much is at stake.

Can funding be restrained in certain areas but not "across the board," as de Blasio said?

A key Supreme Court case

The mayor’s press office told us he was referring to the 1987 landmark case South Dakota vs. Dole, which the mayor’s press office concluded "that federal conditions have to be reasonable and related to the programs they are attached to."

South Dakota vs. Dole examined whether Congress exceeded its spending powers and violated the 21st Amendment (allowing states to regulate alcohol) by setting conditions for states to receive federal highway funds.

Congress in 1984 enacted legislation that allowed the secretary of the Transportation Department to withhold 5 percent of federal highway funds from states where the minimum drinking age was below 21. South Dakota allowed 19-year-olds to buy alcohol.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court determined that Congress within constitutional bounds "acted indirectly under its spending power to encourage uniformity in the states' drinking ages."

The court also said spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." Conditions set by Congress for the disbursement of funds must also be unambiguous, related to the national project or program, not lead to unconstitutional actions and not be coercive, the court affirmed.

Constitutional law experts told us de Blasio’s comment is generally sound, but noted that the Dole case is specifically about congressional spending power, not presidential authority.

"If Trump was referring to the possibility of congressional legislation that would make continued funding contingent on cooperation with federal immigration policy, then we have a possible Dole situation," said Christopher W. Schmidt, a law professor and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology.

Imposing across-the-board spending cuts for "sanctuary cities" would run afoul with at least one of the criteria set in the 1987 Supreme Court case — that conditions on spending be related to the national program that Congress is seeking to advance, said Franita Tolson, a professor at Florida State University College of Law.

For instance, if the federal government gives New York money for mass transit, and New York doesn't want to participate in a federal initiative for education, the federal government can't in turn threaten the mass transit funds, said Richard Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Trump’s administration "can’t cut off any federal grants to sanctuary cities unless it can show that those grants were clearly conditioned on cooperation with federal deportation policies," Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote in an opinion piece published by the Washington Post.

Conditions for funds also cannot be so great that the threat of losing federal money amounts to coercion, Primus said.

Scholars pointed to the 2012 Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, in which seven of the nine justices said it would be unconstitutionally coercive for Congress to withdraw Medicaid funds from states refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

"One might argue that the larger the amount of money at stake (or the ‘broader’ the threatened cut), the more coercive the condition, but there are other factors to be taken into account as well," said Lana Ulrich, associate in-house counsel at the National Constitution Center.

In the case of sanctuary cities, spending power might be interpreted differently, Ulrich said.

At issue might be the extent to which Congress may condition grants or whether Congress has the discretion to withhold funds for cities that are not in compliance with federal law," Ulrich said.

Trump has not outlined extended details on his sanctuary city proposal, but he said that cities that refuse to assist federal authorities "will not receive taxpayer dollars."

Our ruling

In a discussion about Trump’s plans to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities, de Blasio said, "because of a decision by the Supreme Court, no president's in a position to cut off funding across the board. It has to be very specific to the matter at hand."

It’s not as settled by law as de Blasio makes it sound, but experts say generally that the mayor is correct.

The Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Dole, concluded that Congress could not coerce local governments to act based on the threat of withholding federal funds. Also, any funds that are withheld must be germane to the reason they are being withheld.

The court ruling dealt with Congress, however, and not the executive, and there is ambiguity about both what tactic Trump might pursue and the legal precedence behind it.

De Blasio's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate de Blasio’s claim Mostly True.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So basically they're not following the actual law again. The federal funding being targeted is specifically supplied by the DOJ and Homeland Security and is specific in nature to enforcing immigration law. 



> Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. *The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.*


They're doing the same bullshit again about "this is what he meant" argument instead of looking at the actual legality. According to the Supreme Court decision that's referred to in the article above, this actual defunding (not the implied defunding as propagated by the Obama shill) falls within that supreme court ruling.

Delaying tactic with not enough legal ground to stand on. Once the Supreme Court is up and running, this will likely be upheld.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> So basically they're not following the actual law again. The federal funding being targeted is specifically supplied by the DOJ and Homeland Security and is specific in nature to enforcing immigration law.
> 
> They're doing the same bullshit again about "this is what he meant" argument instead of looking at the actual legality. According to the Supreme Court decision that's referred to in the article above, this actual defunding (not the implied defunding as propagated by the Obama shill) falls within that supreme court ruling.
> 
> Delaying tactic with not enough legal ground to stand on. Once the Supreme Court is up and running, this will likely be upheld.


You missed this part The Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Dole, concluded that Congress could not coerce local governments to act based on the threat of withholding federal funds. Also, any funds that are withheld must be germane to the reason they are being withheld..

And also the article says over and over CONGRESS can defund but it does not say the president can. It said Constitutional law experts told us de Blasio’s comment is generally sound, but noted that the Dole case is specifically about congressional spending power, not presidential authority..

So was I wrong in what I said? Or am I misinterpreting it


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You missed this part The Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Dole, concluded that Congress could not coerce local governments to act based on the threat of withholding federal funds. Also, any funds that are withheld must be germane to the reason they are being withheld..
> 
> And also the article says over and over CONGRESS can defund but it does not say the president can. It said Constitutional law experts told us de Blasio’s comment is generally sound, but noted that the Dole case is specifically about congressional spending power, not presidential authority..
> 
> So was I wrong in what I said? Or am I misinterpreting it


You're ignoring the fact that the actual case was defunding DoJ and Homeland Security grants related to immigration. You're not misinterpreting it. The article about what Blaise said is fine, it's just that what Blaise is saying is missing the key component of what's actually being defunded.
@FITZ can help us here.


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *It's my understanding the federal govt can withhold SOME funding*, but its congress not the president who can do that
> 
> The govt also cannot use defunding to force local governments into becoming federal immigration enforcers.


Bingo. 

I'm not sure about the president or congress doing it but generally the federal government can use funding or lack of funding to get local and state governments to do what they want them to do. But it can't be coercive (it's been a while since I learned this in law school but I think that's the term). 

The federal government has to give the local government the decision. Do they take less money or do what the federal government wants. But it's a decision where either option is reasonable. Do this or else we take all federal funding is probably not going to work. Do this or we cut your federal funds in this department by 5% is probably fine.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The problem here is the Congress is sitting on its ass doing absolutely nothing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

thanks guys.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just another bullying tactic from Trump - Do what I want or I'll take away your money.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Just another bullying tactic from Trump - Do what I want or I'll take away your money.


"your money" 

:banderas

You just described the entire function of government.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> "your money"
> 
> :banderas
> 
> You just described the entire function of government.


I'm confused, isn't that poster one of the few that are okay with Governments taxing you, taking your money etc? But taking this money is bad?

Perplexing! 

If you support Socialism and Communism and are upset by Trump's actions, why? Socialist and Communist Governments steal your money, land and everything to get you to do what they want all the time. I see nothing wrong with Trump threatening places that don't follow Federal law and suck taxes from everyone else to pay for their illegal alien fetish.


----------



## Art Vandaley

It's about upholding the division of powers doctrine.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> It's about upholding the division of powers doctrine.


Nah. It's about partisan hackery.

No one seems to be addressing the fact that the so-called judge who passed the order ignored the fact that the scope of the defunding was indeed limited and also that this guy was an Obama fund-raiser. 

It's kind of weird that you're claiming that it's about "divisions of power" defending a judge that is clearly part of pay for play corruption. 

How can this judge be objective and raise over $200,000 for a political candidate _before _being appointed? He's simply part of a web of partisan judges Obama and the democrats left behind to protect their plans, nothing else.


----------



## Art Vandaley

I find the fact your attacking the judge not judgement telling.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

For the commies and socialists in here: 










:sodone



Alkomesh2 said:


> I find the fact your attacking the judge not judgement telling.


*you're 

:lol 



> No one seems to be addressing the fact that the so-called *judge who passed the order ignored the fact that the scope of the defunding was indeed limited* and also that this guy was an Obama fund-raiser.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*You're


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






This man explains the "fallacy of tradition" for all those hypocrites who claim that since we were built by immigrants means that we can no longer change things. 

"We were a nation of white presidents, therefore all presidents should always be white". 

Yeah ... argument from tradition doesn't sound good now right?

PS. I'm aware he's a white nationalist, but that doesn't discredit his explanation of fallacy of tradition. I don't have an opinion on the rest of the video, but that one argument in the beginning is very strong.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> *You're


That would be incorrect. "*you're" is correct. 

Anyway Paul Ryan is such a bitch-ass bitch, can he get primaried and lose like Cantor already. Damn but he is one of the most incompetent Speakers in history.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> That would be incorrect. "*you're" is correct.
> 
> Paul Ryan is such a bitch-ass bitch


When yer right, yer right. (Y)


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's hard, hard work to be dumber than Nancy Pelosi, but Paul Ryan is a tireless worker. At being dumb.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's hard, hard work to be dumber than Nancy Pelosi, but Paul Ryan is a tireless worker. At being dumb.


And the sad thing is Trump is dumber than all of them combined.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Beatles123

what is your take on this

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/re...ngress-from-losing-key-obamacare-protections/
*
REVEALED: New GOP Trumpcare plan exempts Congress from losing key Obamacare protections*

TThe newest version of the Republican health care bill would exempt lawmakers and their families from some of its most unpopular — and life-threatening — provisions.

The bill would allow states to repeal some provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as protections covering people with pre-existing medical conditions and requiring insurance companies to pay for prescription drugs and mental health treatment.

But a GOP amendment would maintain those protections for members of Congress and their own families, reported Health Affairs Blog.

The amendment proposed by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) has helped gain the support of conservative lawmakers who believe that high-risk groups should pay more for coverage to drive down the cost of insurance premiums for others.

But moderate Republicans remain opposed to the current plan, and a Washington Post/ABC News found 70 percent of Americans want protections for pre-existing conditions to apply to all states.

“The best evidence yet that the new GOP repeal plan is a disaster for people’s health care is that the GOP exempted Members of Congress from living under it,” said Leslie Dach, director of the Protect Our Care Campaign.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> what is your take on this
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/re...ngress-from-losing-key-obamacare-protections/
> *
> REVEALED: New GOP Trumpcare plan exempts Congress from losing key Obamacare protections*
> 
> TThe newest version of the Republican health care bill would exempt lawmakers and their families from some of its most unpopular — and life-threatening — provisions.
> 
> The bill would allow states to repeal some provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as protections covering people with pre-existing medical conditions and requiring insurance companies to pay for prescription drugs and mental health treatment.
> 
> But a GOP amendment would maintain those protections for members of Congress and their own families, reported Health Affairs Blog.
> 
> The amendment proposed by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) has helped gain the support of conservative lawmakers who believe that high-risk groups should pay more for coverage to drive down the cost of insurance premiums for others.
> 
> But moderate Republicans remain opposed to the current plan, and a Washington Post/ABC News found 70 percent of Americans want protections for pre-existing conditions to apply to all states.
> 
> “The best evidence yet that the new GOP repeal plan is a disaster for people’s health care is that the GOP exempted Members of Congress from living under it,” said Leslie Dach, director of the Protect Our Care Campaign.


The same thing i've said last time. I'll see what the final product is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> The same thing i've said last time. I'll see what the final product is.


 I want you to comment on the GOP wanting to leave in the Obamacare parts for the congresses insurance.


What do you think of them wanting to do that if the GOP think Obamacare is so bad yet they want to keep some of it place for their insurance.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Congress is exempt from obamacare so why should I care. They both give themselves special treatment under the laws they pass. Whoop dee shit that's what parliaments have always done.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm confused, isn't that poster one of the few that are okay with Governments taxing you, taking your money etc? But taking this money is bad?
> 
> Perplexing!
> 
> If you support Socialism and Communism and are upset by Trump's actions, why? Socialist and Communist Governments steal your money, land and everything to get you to do what they want all the time. I see nothing wrong with Trump threatening places that don't follow Federal law and suck taxes from everyone else to pay for their illegal alien fetish.


Sally if you want come at me go for it directly.

Trump is threatening these places like a bully because they dare to go against one of his vote winning ideologies. The fact you even called it threatening just shows Trump is nothing more than a bully. He probably couldn't even explain the concept of one of these sanctuary states clearly - all he knows is they are opponents so he attacks.

(As for the Socialism/Communism connection and ridiculous 'Illegal Alien Fetish' terminology, hahaha).


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sally if you want come at me go for it directly.
> 
> Trump is threatening these places like a bully because they dare to go against one of his vote winning ideologies. The fact you even called it threatening just shows Trump is nothing more than a bully. He probably couldn't even explain the concept of one of these sanctuary states clearly - all he knows is they are opponents so he attacks.
> 
> (As for the Socialism/Communism connection and ridiculous 'Illegal Alien Fetish' terminology, hahaha).


Why should anyone take you seriously or address you directly when after being destroyed in debates you proudly announce like a typical triggered leftie that you've blocked said person :lmao 

Every government is a bully. That's is very definition of a government. Only partisan hacks keep bringing up the bully they dislike more than the bully they like because who doesn't like a bully in their personal corner?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sally if you want come at me go for it directly.
> 
> Trump is threatening these places like a bully because they dare to go against one of his vote winning ideologies. The fact you even called it threatening just shows Trump is nothing more than a bully. He probably couldn't even explain the concept of one of these sanctuary states clearly - all he knows is they are opponents so he attacks.
> 
> (As for the Socialism/Communism connection and ridiculous 'Illegal Alien Fetish' terminology, hahaha).


Not after you persay, others have stated the same statements and honestly couldn't remember your stances on a few things.

Governments do this all the time. When Arizona decided to crack down on illegals Cali and other states called for a boycott of Arizona, Obama and the Democrats sought out to punish Arizona with the power of the Federal Government. All sides do it, it's normal and besides the Federal Government controls matters of Immigration, States shouldn't be choosing to ignore Immigration laws simply just because bro. 

What places like California are doing trying to become a Sanctuary state/have many cities completely disrupts Immigration. Even more so when places like Cali demand resources from other States, Government funding because they cannot support their own infrastructure due to incompetence or negligence. We seen the terrible yet laughable situation with the California dam situation where the Dam was let go because they didn't want to spend money on it. Call for resistance to Trump and then cry for Trump to save them. They cannot even pay for their own things but want to bring in more people.

Sanctuary cities do nobody any good, we're getting floods of illegals into other parts of the US via California and having issues with them. Trump cracking down on States and Cities impeding Federal law isn't anything dastardly. It's confusing why anyone would think so. My point of mentioning Socialists and Communists is that these people are crying about the US Government strong arming States to fall in when these Governments do the exact same thing so seems hypocritical to complain when you support these types of Governments. (Don't mean you personally.) As for illegal alien fetish, I cannot think of what else it could be when you neglect your own citizens, drain working tax payers of money to prop up an unsustainable pipeline of illegals who get more help than a citizen.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Not after you persay, others have stated the same statements and honestly couldn't remember your stances on a few things.
> 
> Governments do this all the time. When Arizona decided to crack down on illegals Cali and other states called for a boycott of Arizona, Obama and the Democrats sought out to punish Arizona with the power of the Federal Government. All sides do it, it's normal and besides the Federal Government controls matters of Immigration, States shouldn't be choosing to ignore Immigration laws simply just because bro.
> 
> What places like California are doing trying to become a Sanctuary state/have many cities completely disrupts Immigration. Even more so when places like Cali demand resources from other States, Government funding because they cannot support their own infrastructure due to incompetence or negligence. We seen the terrible yet laughable situation with the California dam situation where the Dam was let go because they didn't want to spend money on it. Call for resistance to Trump and then cry for Trump to save them. They cannot even pay for their own things but want to bring in more people.
> 
> Sanctuary cities do nobody any good, we're getting floods of illegals into other parts of the US via California and having issues with them. Trump cracking down on States and Cities impeding Federal law isn't anything dastardly. It's confusing why anyone would think so. My point of mentioning Socialists and Communists is that these people are crying about the US Government strong arming States to fall in when these Governments do the exact same thing so seems hypocritical to complain when you support these types of Governments. (Don't mean you personally.) As for illegal alien fetish, I cannot think of what else it could be when you neglect your own citizens, drain working tax payers of money to prop up an unsustainable pipeline of illegals who get more help than a citizen.


That's fine to be against it, but won't denying funding hurt all the citizens within sanctuary cities who have nothing to do with the policy? How is that fair? If some funding for some hospital program gets shafted because of completely unrelated policy about being a sanctuary city then that ain't right.

Just saying 'well all governments do it' to me isn't an answer. We should be aiming for more and expecting more.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's fine to be against it, but won't denying funding hurt all the citizens within sanctuary cities who have nothing to do with the policy? How is that fair? If some funding for some hospital program gets shafted because of completely unrelated policy about being a sanctuary city then that ain't right.
> 
> Just saying 'well all governments do it' to me isn't an answer. We should be aiming for more and expecting more.


I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If there isn't a stop to these cities the only choice is to keep raising taxes until eventually which will happen is the places default, now you have tons of illegals with no money going to them and citizens who are fucked. Yet if you cut off funding you risk putting citizens at risk. Really the fault lies with the Politicians who don't care about anything but their own agendas.

I think it comes down to, do we risk long term disaster or find ways to cut off sanctuary cities but get funds to citizens who need it? No easy choice really given the climate but something needs to change. 

Governments should be better, sadly thanks to the era of "me me me me me me me!" the people we elected are only interested in looking good, lining their pockets and pushing their own agendas. The rest of us can go fuck ourselves according to them.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> States shouldn't be choosing to ignore Immigration laws


I've heard some small government conservatives make the argument that while states shouldn't be getting in the way of the enforcement of immigration laws, they also don't believe the responsibility for enforcing those laws should land on local law enforcement. Basically, they are arguing that it's the responsibility of the feds to enforce federal law and that local law enforcement should not be punished for only enforcing local law.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @Goku @AryaDark @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Miss Sally

*The most credible voice on all matters Trump, objectively speaking,* returns with a great article about President Trump's first 100 days and why the criticisms of his presidency thus far are largely based on the imaginary: 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159981284676/president-trumps-first-100-days


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Of course, liberals would mock The President for giving the Purple Heart to a military hero.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Goku @AryaDark @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Miss Sally
> 
> *The most credible voice on all matters Trump, objectively speaking,* returns with a great article about President Trump's first 100 days and why the criticisms of his presidency thus far are largely based on the imaginary:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159981284676/president-trumps-first-100-days


'most credible voice'

In actual fact he cherry picks some 'imaginary stuff' and builds his own strawmen. 

My favourite is this 


> President Trump said a bunch of things that did not pass the fact-checking, surprising literally no one. And as usual, none of it mattered in any way except that it made us focus on whatever topic he wanted us to focus on.


It didn't matter at all that he claimed Obama wiretapped him without evidence, it didn't matter that he accused Obama of releasing people he never released...sure. Even IF they didn't matter, the fact he's wrong time and time again gives an impression of a man who is untrustworthy or dishonest hardly two strong characteristics for a leader.

This guy is anything but objective judging by that post.



Vic Capri said:


> Of course, liberals would mock The President for giving the Purple Heart to a military hero.
> 
> - Vic


For congratulating a person on getting injured he should be mocked relentlessly


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Of course, liberals would mock The President for giving the Purple Heart to a military hero.
> 
> - Vic


It's because for them the real hero is a fat and lazy walmart shopper on one of those motorized strollers .... or a prolapsed gay anus. Take your pick.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> It didn't matter at all that he claimed Obama wiretapped him without evidence, it didn't matter that he accused Obama of releasing people he never released...sure. Even IF they didn't matter, the fact he's wrong time and time again gives an impression of a man who is untrustworthy or dishonest hardly two strong characteristics for a leader.


One day you guys are going to realise that brash, loud and incorrect people are better leaders than the ones who are secretive and trained in "how to talk to "the ordinary people"" aka "political speak".

You can't debunk the shit you don't hear about. That's why so many leaders are successful. Those "ordinary people" don't know the shit they've done or the wrong things they believe.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

TBH, I'm torn on Trump. I don't see his 100 days as either a success or a failure. I see them as par for the course but mostly the story of a man knowing how to play both sides seemingly at will and in a country so fractured at this point that's the best you can hope for. 

The only thing I didn't expect was the escalation in Syria and a lot of distracting and mostly meaningless talk on North Korea, but that's about it. That said, Trump's stance against North Korea can be seen as a bit of a success because it got China to start re-thinking their relationship with Kim Jong Un.

http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/...cle_0d9f48d8-dac3-5dfa-8c4a-db12b22e83dc.html



> *Of course Donald Trump over-promised for his first 100 days. What presidential candidate hasn't?*
> 
> During last year's campaign, Trump spoke frequently of all the things he would do almost immediately upon entering the Oval Office. He'd repeal Obamacare, reform the tax code, destroy ISIS, build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, fix the nation's roads and bridges, take care of veterans, deport criminal illegal immigrants, and much, much more.
> 
> By the last weeks of the campaign, Trump actually dialed back some of his promises. On October 22, he traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to announce his "Contract with the American Voter," which formalized his pledges for the first 100 days.
> 
> The "Contract" was a single piece of paper. The front listed 18 actions Trump would take under his executive authority as president, and the back listed 10 pieces of legislation he would introduce in Congress.
> 
> Now, three months into the Trump administration, the front and the back of the Contract are two very different stories.
> 
> On the executive action front, Trump has kept a significant number of his promises:
> 
> -- Candidate Trump promised to "begin the process" of selecting a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia. As president, Trump did just that, and Neil Gorsuch is now on the Court.
> 
> -- Candidate Trump promised to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As president, he did it.
> 
> -- Candidate Trump promised to require that "for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated." As president, he did it.
> 
> -- Candidate Trump promised to "lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks" on the Keystone Pipeline and other infrastructure projects. As president, he did it.
> 
> -- Candidate Trump promised to "begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants" in the U.S. As president, he did it.
> 
> On other issues, Trump has kept front-page promises, but with decidedly mixed results. The most significant of those is his pledge to "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions." Trump has done it -- twice -- only to see his executive orders tied up in the courts. His first try was botched, while the second try will likely survive judicial scrutiny.
> 
> Trump also promised to "cancel all federal funding" for so-called sanctuary cities. He has begun to do so -- the Justice Department is beginning to threaten to withdraw some grant money -- but the promise was overbroad and will likely never be fully kept.
> 
> In addition, Trump promised to impose a "five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service." He kept the pledge for White House officials but does not have the authority to tell Congress what to do -- so again, a partially kept, but originally overbroad promise.
> 
> Some promises Trump has openly chosen to break. He promised to "direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator." Now, he says he will not do so if China is helping the U.S. solve the so-far-intractable North Korea problem.
> 
> The net result of Trump's promises involving executive authority is that he has done well when it comes to keeping the Contract. Indeed, the two biggest successes of Trump's first 100 days are on the front page of the Contract: the Gorsuch nomination and Trump's immigration executive order tightening controls at the Mexico border. "We've seen a dramatic reduction in illegal migration across the southwest border," Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Friday. "In fact, March apprehensions were 30 percent lower than February apprehensions -- and 64 percent lower than the same time next year."
> 
> That is a solid success by any measure.
> 
> But the back page of the Contract is a different story. Unlike many of his speeches, Trump was careful not to promise legislative success. "I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage with the first 100 days of my administration," he said in the Contract.
> 
> But Trump has not even introduced promised legislation like the American Energy and Infrastructure Act, or the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act, or the Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act, or others on the 10-point list.
> 
> The president, mostly following the lead of House Republicans, has taken a shot -- and failed -- at repealing and replacing Obamacare. To the extent that that work continues -- a vote in the House could be just a few weeks away -- he can be said to be working on keeping that promise. And Trump has pledged to bring out some sort of tax proposal this week -- not an actual tax reform bill, but movement closer to the goal of reforming the tax code. So on the two biggest items on the back page of the Contract, by the time the actual 100-day mark arrives next Saturday, Trump will be able to say he's making progress.
> 
> But the fact is, on the whole, Trump failed to keep the back page promises of the Contract in his first 100 days.
> 
> On the other hand, the president has been a crucial part of a determined effort by Capitol Hill Republicans to use the Congressional Review Act to abolish rules put in place by the Obama administration. Trump has signed 12 such bills into law voiding Obama rules on energy, firearms, federal labor contracts, local control of education, and other topics.
> 
> The bottom line is that Trump has been a 100-day success when it comes to exercising the executive powers of the presidency. He has done a great deal of what he said he would do, and promises to do more.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> It didn't matter at all that he claimed Obama wiretapped him without evidence, it didn't matter that he accused Obama of releasing people he never released...sure. Even IF they didn't matter, the fact he's wrong time and time again gives an impression of a man who is untrustworthy or dishonest hardly two strong characteristics for a leader.


You failed to show how any of that mattered. 

People who don't like Trump already saw him as untrustworthy and dishonest. People who support him don't care about this stuff, at least not enough to change their minds.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857329476706770944
:lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> For congratulating a person on getting injured he should be mocked relentlessly


He congratulated him for getting the award. Use your head instead of listening to that liberal waste of space Now Politics.



The Contract said:


> FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. *He signed many executive orders coming through on most of this.*
> 
> SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. *He picked Neil Gorsuch to become the Supreme Court Justice.*
> 
> THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities. *Got stopped by a liberal judge,
> but came through on trying to fulfill this.*
> 
> FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back *He got stricter with immigration laws and deported countless illegals.*
> 
> FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting. *Got stopped by another liberal judge, but came through on trying to fulfill this.*
> 
> Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
> 
> Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate. *Tax reform in the works.*
> 
> End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free. *Not introduced.*
> 
> American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral. *Not introduced, but Ross Navarro plan in the works.*
> 
> School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable. *Not introduced, but he signed the Education Federalism Executive Order.*
> 
> Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications. *Introduced, but the blames goes to Paul Ryan for offering a shitty proposal.*
> 
> Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families. *Not introduced.*
> 
> End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first. *Not introduced, but he signed the Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Executive Order. The wall is getting built.*
> 
> Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars. *Not introduced.*
> 
> Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values. *Not introduced.*
> 
> Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics. *Ted Cruz & Ron DeSantis introduced the Constitutional Amendment To Impose Term Limits On Members of Congress.*
> 
> On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
> 
> This is my pledge to you.


He came through on a lot of the things he said he was going to do. This also includes creating new jobs in America, giving more power back to the states, veterans can now go out of VA to get medical care in civilian hospitals, and fucking up ISIS big league.

He did all this despite all his haters thinking he wasn't going to do anything from the get go and he probably would've gotten everything done if The Republicans in Washington had his back 100%.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RipNTear said:


> It's because for them the real hero is a fat and lazy walmart shopper on one of those motorized strollers .... or a prolapsed gay anus. Take your pick.


Or a man who gets a Peace Prize while doing the exact opposite of peace


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Any thoughts on millionaire Obama claiming that "at some point people have to realize that enough is enough (with regards to wealth)" and then charging $400,000 for a speech?

I guess the rules of wealth accumulation don't apply to democrats the same way it does to the constituents they steal from :draper2

PS. I'm ok with him charging that much. But like a false noble him demanding humility from others and then accumulating wealth himself makes him look like a 2-faced hypocrite.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Some folk probably know my thoughts on Trump, some right-wing stuff and all etc., but I do what him to prove me wrong and be successful. Credit where credit is due about the stuff Rip said on North Korea. I kinda like how he's got China to think differently and act differently towards North Korea. I just hope nothing extremely bad occurs like nuclear warfare, but thankfully I can't see that occurring.

When folk call Trump a 'mad man', I think of Kim Jong Un, personally.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> You failed to show how any of that mattered.
> 
> People who don't like Trump already saw him as untrustworthy and dishonest. People who support him don't care about this stuff, at least not enough to change their minds.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857329476706770944
> :lmao


Honestly, if you can't see why it matters that a President appears dishonest and untrustworthy (and factually incompetent) even to his detractors then there's not much else to debate. The fact it doesn't matter to certain people goes to show how bad things have become, if you're (metaphorical you're not you) so blinded by your desire to see nothing but good that a very obvious negative value is ignored then you're idol worshiping and nothing more. Might as well get a cardboard cutout in your house and pray every day to it.

Thats not to say you have to see the negative side of a person and see nothing but negative, but if his often blatant incompetence at presenting his point accurately, presidentially (loltwitter) andhis hypocrisy (hello golf trips) SHOULD matter to everyone. It doesn't mean you have to think he's a bad President.



GOAT Hogan said:


> Some folk probably know my thoughts on Trump, some right-wing stuff and all etc., but I do what him to prove me wrong and be successful. Credit where credit is due about the stuff Rip said on North Korea. I kinda like how he's got China to think differently and act differently towards North Korea. I just hope nothing extremely bad occurs like nuclear warfare, but thankfully I can't see that occurring.
> 
> When folk call Trump a 'mad man', I think of Kim Jong Un, personally.


Kudos to him IF it makes a difference, right now North Korea still don't care what America does, thats not to say Trump hasn't and shouldn't continue to try.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Goku @AryaDark @L-DOPA @RipNTear @Miss Sally
> 
> *The most credible voice on all matters Trump, objectively speaking,* returns with a great article about President Trump's first 100 days and why the criticisms of his presidency thus far are largely based on the imaginary:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159981284676/president-trumps-first-100-days


I have to hand it to Scott Adams, he's fast becoming a national treasure, or dare I say, People's Champion. 

I mean, here he is, the leading political analyst on the New Prez, operating at such a high level that only Camille and myself can truly appreciate, with such...... rare and profound insight, worthy obviously of certainly any media position in the land of the highest order, not to mention a high ranking seat at the White House itself - yet here he is, still educating the public masses from his modest suburban dwelling in the way the country needs to hear!

I mean that truly is the height of selflessness and true public service, to gift the public direct with his knowledge, first hand, no cost. Kudos.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> I have to hand it to Scott Adams, he's fast becoming a national treasure, or dare I say, People's Champion.
> 
> I mean, here he is, the leading political analyst on the New Prez, operating at such a high level that only Camille and myself can truly appreciate, with such...... rare and profound insight, worthy obviously of certainly any media position in the land of the highest order, not to mention a high ranking seat at the White House itself - yet here he is, still educating the public masses from his modest suburban dwelling in the way the country needs to hear!
> 
> I mean that truly is the height of selflessness and true public service, to gift the public direct with his knowledge, first hand, no cost. Kudos.


Are you off your meds? Some things sound better in one's head, but they really don't translate well when you put them out there. 

Scott Adams has a take on the President. There are people who agree with that take. It's not something to get triggered over, seriously. It's just an article being shared by someone for others to read on the internet. It's a perspective. A commentary. An opinion. Chill dude. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

He signed the Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy Executive Order. Another part of The Contract he lived up to!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> He signed the Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy Executive Order. Another part of The Contract he lived up to!
> 
> - Vic


Too bad Trump himself and his daughter can't live up to putting America first when his ties and her clothing line are both made in China.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sometimes I wonder just how many dumb mother fuckers actually believe deregulating everything and slashing taxes will somehow benefit the working class when it does nothing to address why the working class is so poor in the first place.

You know what happened the last time our government did that? Oh yeah, it was the crash 8 years ago.

Problem is, the sorry ass Democrats are a bunch of pathetic corporate sellouts, so all they did was put a band-aid on the gaping chainsaw wound known as our economy. Obama is such a little bitch that he didn't even jail a single banker who wrecked our economy. Not only did he not jail them, he gave them OUR FUCKING TAXPAYER MONEY as a bonus for fucking us all over.

And now the massive retard known as Trump is doing the same goddamned shit that wrecked our economy the last time.

And if you are still holding out hope on the notion that Trump somehow has your best interests at heart or the even more absurd notion that any of this will be beneficial to anyone but those at the very top, then you are a massive fucking retard too.

Basically, anyone who believes establishment Dems, establishment Reps or that sorry ass puppet bitch Trump will solve any of our problems, is a turd eating moron.
*
We're so fucked. Shit out of luck. Hardwired to self-destruct.*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> President Trump said Wednesday that he has "absolutely" considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have blocked two of his executive actions.
> "Absolutely, I have," Trump said of considering 9th Circuit breakup proposals during a far-ranging interview with the Washington Examiner at the White House. "There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."
> 
> To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 10.2.0 or greater is installed.
> Get Adobe Flash player
> 
> 1:10
> 10:56
> 2:01
> 3:40
> 1:10
> 10:56
> 2:01
> 3:40
> 
> "Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic," Trump said.
> His comments came one day after U.S. District Judge William Orrick temporarily blocked Trump's efforts to withhold funds from any municipality that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement officers. Orrick, based in San Francisco, argued that Trump had overstepped his authority in January when he directed the Justice Department to put immigration-related conditions on grants for so-called sanctuary cities that may not be directly related to law enforcement. The case, if appealed, would go before the 9th Circuit.
> Other judges on the court halted two different versions of an executive action aimed at tightening vetting requirements for immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, because both actions called for a temporary suspension of some immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.
> "The language could not be any clearer. I mean, the language on the ban, it reads so easy that a reasonably good student in the first grade will fully understand it. And they don't even mention the words in their rejection on the ban," Trump said. "And the same thing with this [sanctuary city decision]. I mean, when you have people that are being enabled to commit crime. And in San Francisco, when you look at Kate Steinle being shot and here is the court, you know, right in that same general area. And when you look at a Kate Steinle, when you look at so many other things."
> Trump was referring to a young woman in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant in 2015. He has frequently pointed to Steinle's murder as evidence that sanctuary city policies can be harmful to American citizens.
> "Sanctuary cities have been very, very dangerous, very, very bad. And, you know, we've done a great job on law enforcement, we've done a great job at the border," Trump said. "And all of our most talented people say sanctuary cities are a disaster."
> Republicans have long criticized the 9th Circuit for its perceived liberal leanings and its enormous geographical reach, which has led to bureaucratic backlogs.
> GOP lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation that would carve out several states under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction and create a new court designed to lighten the Ninth's caseload.
> The 9th Circuit hears appeals from courts in nine West Coast states and two U.S. territories. Of its 25 active judges, 18 were appointed by Democratic presidents.
> Trump said Wednesday that opponents of his policies have engaged in "judge shopping" in their efforts to find a sympathetic judicial platform for their partisan objections.
> "You see judge shopping, or what's gone on with these people, they immediately run to the 9th Circuit," Trump said. "It's got close to an 80 percent reversal period, and what's going on in the 9th Circuit is a shame."


https://archive.fo/uzYjy#selection-2763.0-4498.2



> I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is that the model of the Democratic Party is failing,” he told CBS’s John Dickerson on Face The Nation. The tour was more of a showcase of disunion, with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez being booed multiple times by attendees. This pro-Bernie Sanders wing of the party wants to go further to the left, and they’re tired of the more liberal establishment not jumping on the issues that Sanders has pushed on the stump, specifically the issue of health care. Another weird aspect: Sanders isn’t even a Democrat (via CNN):
> "Do you consider yourself a Democrat?" host Chris Hayes asked the Vermont senator.
> "No, I am an independent," Sanders replied, before launching into a lengthy explanation of what ailed the party -- whose nomination he sought in 2016 -- and what it needs to do in order to reclaim power.
> Hayes then turned to Perez with a question on single payer health care, or "Medicare-for-all." Did the new DNC chair, now twisting in his seat inches from one of the policy's most high-profile proponents, support it?
> "Well, you know, we want to make sure that health care is a right," Perez began, never quite offering a coherent answer.
> […]
> To the establishment liberal wing, Sanders' screeds come off as something between grating and condescending. Why, they ask, is someone who refuses to identify as a Democrat, being given so much say in the party's future? The nerve!
> On the flip side, many progressive Democrats regard Sanders, along with a few others, like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, as the left's answer to the corporate influence -- and political incompetence -- it believes poisoned Clinton's candidacy. They view Sanders as a uniquely powerful bulwark against the party's embrace of policies (free trade, austerity, privatization, etc.) they despise.
> Sanders has not been shy in making the argument.
> "Donald Trump did not win the election -- the Democrats lost the election!" he said (again) during an event in Miami on Wednesday night. "That means rebuilding the Democratic Party, making it a grassroots party, a party from the bottom on up!"
> First of all, I hate this crap. If you didn’t win, you lost. And winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. Sanders lost the primary, Clinton lost the general, and Democrats lost everywhere. When you suck, admitting that you suck is the first step in recovery. Sanders's people may have the right idea about rebuilding the party, with the 50-state strategy stemming from Howard Dean who placed the party in good position across the board by 2008. Those gains have been lost, but the Bernie wing of the Left is frothing at the mouth—and seemingly angrier with Clintonites for blowing the 2016 election. Oh, and those DNC emails showing the then-senior staff discussing ways to undercut the Sanders campaign also didn’t help build trust within the party.
> Meet The Press Criticizes DNC "Disunity" Tour
> 
> 
> Playback isn't supported on this device.
> 
> 0:00 / 1:24
> Sanders did buck his progressive roots (and caught some heat for it) by supporting Heath Mello, a Democrat running for the mayoralty of Omaha, Nebraska, who supported an ultrasound bill while serving in the state legislature. Alas, another issue that has brought Democrats to the crossroads: abortion. Perez says that the DNC wouldn’t support any pro-life Democrat, which undercuts an effective 50-state strategy. Sorry folks, not everything from Washington, or the party’s urban bastions, sells in rural America, where the party desperately needs to retake ground that was lost to Republicans over the past decade. It’s a fact that Democrats need pro-lifers, who make up between 25-30 percent of the party, to seal the deal, especially in state legislature elections. With Democrats, specifically the ones who are currently calling the shots, living in progressive bubbles of America’s cities, this will surely fall on deaf ears.
> Now, there are liberals, like The Nation’s Joan Walsh, who felt that the Unity Tour was a mess, but that the airing of the dirty laundry on both sides is healthy for the movement. We’ll see how things work out. Republicans should keep in mind that while the Democrats are frothing at the mouth, they will coalesce, they will unite, and they will be a force to be reckoned with in due time.


https://archive.fo/Vnz0A#selection-2149.1-3005.347


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Too bad Trump himself and his daughter can't live up to putting America first when his ties and her clothing line are both made in China.


Who cares? They operate businesses with the hope of making a profit. It would be stupid to make their clothing in the US.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FITZ said:


> Who cares? They operate businesses with the hope of making a profit. It would be stupid to make their clothing in the US.


Trump and his supporters cares since they are all about bring back jobs to America and being American made/buy American.

But thats right it who cares when its a Trump doing it right?

Trump and his supporters are huge hypocrites if they are ok with Trump and his family having their products made outside of America.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Sometimes I wonder just how many dumb mother fuckers actually believe deregulating everything and slashing taxes will somehow benefit the working class when it does nothing to address why the working class is so poor in the first place.
> 
> You know what happened the last time our government did that? Oh yeah, it was the crash 8 years ago.


Out of curiosity, what would you blame for the working class being poor?


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/858136282081505281


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/858136282081505281


Maybe they're going to weed out all the faulty data. That would be a good change.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Too bad Trump himself and his daughter can't live up to putting America first when his ties and her clothing line are both made in China.


Nothing will change until the trade deals are good again. Get that through your head. 

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fascinating pair of tweets from one of @L-DOPA's favorites online. Corresponds with some posts by @RipNTear and I about international fault lines, and especially a couple of posts by *Reaper* about World War III, after a sort, having already started, with few realizing or wishing to see it. @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Miss Sally @Neuron @virus21

For the most part it would seem to be a cold war, a financial war, chiefly, but with its own proxy battlefields, Syria topping the list thereof. Worth stroking one's beard over for a moment before shaving said beard this morning, in any event.

(Her point about the M.O.A.B. is a _non sequitur_ but one motive for using it was probably to get Pyongyang thinking more clearly.)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857791280071430144

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857798213075468288


----------



## Jericho-79

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did Trump just say that he misses his "old life"?

I was like "Wut?":surprise:


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There are currently 3 major wars + mexico's drug war that have all claimed over 10,000 lives in the past year alone.

The cumulative deaths in just the 15 most war torn countries stands at approximately 530,000 individuals in _just_ 3 years. 

*The total number of countries currently at war or in some sort of conflict:
*
Africa: 29
Asia: 16 
Europe: 10 
Middle East: 7
*Americas (south and north): 6
Total: 68* 

_*This doesn't include the international coalitions fighting in those countries
_
*Total number of countries (regions and provinces currently fighting for independence and sovereignty) : 
*
Africa: 8
Asia: 20
Europe: 12
Middle-East: 2
*Total: 42*

*Total number of guerrilla wars / skirmishes (both with local and global participants): 
*
Africa: 226
Asia: 170
Europe: 81
Middle East: 253
Americas: 26
*Total: 756*

*In the vast majority of these conflicts major international coalitions are fully and partially active. 

I have no reason at all to believe that we're not in WWIII right now.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






*Happy 100th HEE HAW to the jackass who thought running the #1 country in the world would be easier than running a business.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Happy 100th HEE HAW to the jackass who thought running the #1 country in the world would be easier than running a business.*


In all honesty it seems like it would be on paper since many parts of the Government run themselves fairly well.

I mean we had Obama as President and it couldn't be much harder than running the bake sales as community manager.

Bush ran the Government and he spent most of his early days drunk.

Clinton spent most of his time fucking women.

When you look at our long line of Presidents I'd think anyone could run the country.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> In all honesty it seems like it would be on paper since many parts of the Government run themselves fairly well.
> 
> I mean we had Obama as President and it couldn't be much harder than running the bake sales as community manager.
> 
> Bush ran the Government and he spent most of his early days drunk.
> 
> Clinton spent most of his time fucking women.
> 
> When you look at our long line of Presidents I'd think anyone could run the country.


*
It's obviously not going to be easy when your intent is to come in and fire qualified individuals who don't unconditionally worship the new regime, just to replace them with incompetent individuals who pledge blind loyalty.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *
> It's obviously not going to be easy when your intent is to come in and fire qualified individuals who don't unconditionally worship the new regime, just to replace them with incompetent individuals who pledge blind loyalty.*


True enough but almost all Presidents do this and it usually hinders them for a while. I don't disagree with your sentiment. 

Also with all the leaks and other nonsense, wasn't surprised he cleaned house. Though I'd have kept the ones who can do their jobs and then cracked down on the leakers.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> True enough but almost all Presidents do this and it usually hinders them for a while. I don't disagree with your sentiment.
> 
> Also with all the leaks and other nonsense, wasn't surprised he cleaned house. Though I'd have kept the ones who can do their jobs and then cracked down on the leakers.


*But his administration has had more leaks than any administration in history. They're also illegal and treasonous leaks. The most ironic one of them all is from Michael Flynn, who was once quoted saying only guilty people are given immunity when Hillary was going through her email scandal, then he turns around asking for immunity after he's caught talking to the Russians:*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA



> *Exclusive: Trump says he thought being president would be easier than his old life*
> 
> He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is.
> 
> President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.
> 
> "I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
> 
> A wealthy businessman from New York, Trump assumed public office for the first time when he entered the White House on Jan. 20 after he defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an upset.
> 
> More than five months after his victory and two days shy of the 100-day mark of his presidency, the election is still on Trump's mind. Midway through a discussion about Chinese President Xi Jinping, the president paused to hand out copies of what he said were the latest figures from the 2016 electoral map.
> 
> "Here, you can take that, that's the final map of the numbers," the Republican president said from his desk in the Oval Office, handing out maps of the United States with areas he won marked in red. "It’s pretty good, right? The red is obviously us."
> 
> He had copies for each of the three Reuters reporters in the room.
> 
> Trump, who said he was accustomed to not having privacy in his "old life," expressed surprise at how little he had now. And he made clear he was still getting used to having 24-hour Secret Service protection and its accompanying constraints.
> 
> "You're really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can't go anywhere," he said.
> 
> When the president leaves the White House, it is usually in a limousine or an SUV.
> 
> He said he missed being behind the wheel himself.
> 
> "I like to drive," he said. "I can't drive any more."
> 
> Many things about Trump have not changed from the wheeler-dealer executive and former celebrity reality show host who ran his empire from the 26th floor of Trump Tower in New York and worked the phones incessantly.
> 
> He frequently turns to outside friends and former business colleagues for advice and positive reinforcement. Senior aides say they are resigned to it.
> 
> The president has been at loggerheads with many news organizations since his election campaign and decided not to attend the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington on Saturday because he felt he had been treated unfairly by the media.
> 
> "I would come next year, absolutely," Trump said when asked whether he would attend in the future.
> 
> The dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents' Association. Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason is its president.


I feel like every president would say this to some degree. I've wondered for a long time about why anyone would want that much power and responsibility. I do think his adjustment has been more difficult considering the life he was living before. Hard to go from being a billionaire that could do things how he wanted to now being in this "box" at all times.

"I thought it would be easier."

I see a parallel between Trump and Jimmy Carter when he became president.

Carter, an outsider, went in thinking he was going to change Washington. Brought in his own people that he trusted instead of Washington elites. He wouldn't trade political favors with the Democratically controlled congress. He would strike pork barrel Democrat projects from budgets to cut spending. Fellow Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill didn't like any of this and sandbagged him as much as they could.

Trump on election night probably thought he had the presidency by the balls. Both houses of congress controlled by Republicans. How could he lose? He thought congress would follow his lead same as Carter did. He like Carter didn't understand that congress is not about getting things done. Congress is about horse trading, getting re-elected, and filling your pockets.

Also, he needs to knock off this electoral college stuff. Handing out copies of the latest electoral maps to reporters three months after the inauguration and five months after the election gives off an air of insecurity. He's president. Everyone knows that. Some may not like it, but they know it.


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump and his supporters cares since they are all about bring back jobs to America and being American made/buy American.
> 
> But thats right it who cares when its a Trump doing it right?
> 
> Trump and his supporters are huge hypocrites if they are ok with Trump and his family having their products made outside of America.


Given the current situation of the world how could it ever have been economically feasible to make clothing in the United States for Trump? 

Criticizing anyone for not making clothing in the United States is absurd. 

Certain products can be realistically made in the United States again. But it has to be products where the biggest cost in making it is the material and not the labor. The raw material for a tie is very low. Most of the cost is in the labor. On the other hand the raw materials for a car are very expensive so materials are a much higher cost than labor. The closer something is to a car the more feasible making it in the US is. The closer it is to a tie the harder it's going to be. 

For clothing I don't think we ever get that back when other countries can pay people like $2 an hour to make the clothing. Nothing we do can ever compete with that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FITZ said:


> Given the current situation of the world how could it ever have been economically feasible to make clothing in the United States for Trump?
> 
> Criticizing anyone for not making clothing in the United States is absurd.
> 
> Certain products can be realistically made in the United States again. But it has to be products where the biggest cost in making it is the material and not the labor. The raw material for a tie is very low. Most of the cost is in the labor. On the other hand the raw materials for a car are very expensive so materials are a much higher cost than labor. The closer something is to a car the more feasible making it in the US is. The closer it is to a tie the harder it's going to be.
> 
> For clothing I don't think we ever get that back when other countries can pay people like $2 an hour to make the clothing. Nothing we do can ever compete with that.


No its not absurd to criticize Trump and his family for making things outside the US when Tump himself criticize other companies for doing the same thing.





Vic Capri said:


> Nothing will change until the trade deals are good again. Get that through your head.
> 
> - Vic


Trump and his supporters are still hypocrites if they are ok with Trump and his family having products made outside of the US. Get that through your head.

Trump does not care about putting America first when it comes to his or his families bottom line.

Of course once again with Trump its do as he says not as he does.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





And more proof that the Democrats are going to lose again in the next election


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> And more proof that the Democrats are going to lose again in the next election


In 2018 the establishment democrats are going to get primaried by real progressives, and the real progressives will win. That is who is going to win in 2020. They will destroy Trump. 

If the DNC puts up Tulsi Gabbard against Trump in 2020 Trump will get destroyed.

Hell Trump may not even make it to 2020 he could just up and quit or get impeached.

The GOP is a disaster right now, i love how you act like just the establishment democrats are a mess right now. Look at all the fuckery the GOP is doing with healthcare for example. They can't even get a vote TWICE on their own bill.

And if they fuck over old people off their Medicaid you really think they have a chance in 2018 and 2020 not to mention how the GOP is trying to kill planned parenthood.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> In 2018 the establishment democrats are going to get primaried by real progressives, and the real progressives will win. That is who is going to win in 2020. They will destroy Trump.
> 
> If the DNC puts up Tulsi Gabbard against Trump in 2020 Trump will get destroyed.
> 
> Hell Trump may not even make it to 2020 he could just up and quit or get impeached.
> 
> The GOP is a disaster right now, i love how you act like just the establishment democrats are a mess right now. Look at all the fuckery the GOP is doing with healthcare for example. They can't even get a vote TWICE on their own bill.
> 
> And if they fuck over old people off their Medicaid you really think they have a chance in 2018 and 2020 not to mention how the GOP is trying to kill planned parenthood.


There are too many people in this country that will always believe in what the GOP is selling. I don't think you understand how tough the Democrats are going to have to work to win anything of merit in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. There are more people in this country that want the GOP in full complete power from local to federal government then you think.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> There are too many people in this country that will always believe in what the GOP is selling. I don't think you understand how tough the Democrats are going to have to work to win anything of merit in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. There are more people in this country that want the GOP in full complete power from local to federal government then you think.


It won't be tough at all with Trump was president and what a disaster he has been. He has one of the lowest approval ratings ever of any president in his first 100 days and he is dragging down the republicans with him.

The republicans are already making a mess and it's going to blow up in their faces.

The republicans always make a mess of the economy with their ways then its always the democrats job to fix their mess when they get voted back in.

The damage Trump and the GOP is already doing is going to kill the US and I mean that literally with what they are doing to the environment, healthcare and with countries like N Korea.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA



> *We Already Live in a Free Market - Here's Why It's No Utopia (Yet)*
> 
> *April 30, 2017* (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The fundamental problem with free market proponents is that many fail to realize we already have an absolutely, 100% free market. Within that free market, a clique of incredibly wealthy, well connected, and well organized individuals have decided to use their freedom to create "governments" they influence, media they control, police who impose by force their will upon populations, a military to either protect their racket or project it beyond their current areas of operation, and all else we associate with "statism."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, should we be able to push a button and suddenly render Earth a government-free planet, the first order of business wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals will do is band together to create gangs, then mafias, then governments, then supranational blocs, until they then move on to pursue global hegemony as they chaff against competing factions doing likewise - entrapping the rest of us within their self-serving struggle.
> 
> This of course does not render void the ideology of agorism or anarchy. Neither does it negate the positive, practical aspects of the modern nation-state. What it does is illustrate a matter of practicality versus principles and the necessity to balance them realistically.
> 
> *Might Makes Right *
> 
> The above scenario unfolds the way it demonstrably does on a daily basis and since the beginning of time because wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals are able to successfully hone and wield the tools of physical force better than any of their competitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagining again the scenario where the world is suddenly rendered government-free, these individuals would simply eliminate by force those attempting to impose upon them limitations preventing them from imposing their will involuntarily upon others.
> 
> Without a sufficient means of deterrence, gangs, mafias, governments, and supranational blocs will run roughshod over any and all who stand between them and greater wealth and influence.
> 
> *Balance of Power *
> 
> To prevent a gang, mafia, government, or supranational bloc from expanding further, it requires an equal but opposed center of organized power arrayed against it.
> 
> Imagining the scenario where the world is suddenly rendered government-free, in order to prevent wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals from imposing their will upon others, an equitable balance of power would need to be established.
> 
> This could entail various means of decentralization where individuals were able to possess equal but opposed means of self-defense, monetary exchange, manufacturing, communication, energy production, and all other essentials currently monopolized by the world's existing centers of power.
> 
> *Decentralization is Already Happening *
> 
> In many ways this is already happening. Decentralization is unfolding on various levels. On a global level, competing centers of power are multiplying.
> 
> The United States is no longer the sole global hegemon as it was after the end of the Cold War.
> 
> Russia has reemerged, China is rising, the other nations of BRICS are increasingly competing across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic, military, and geopolitical areas. Developing nations are individually and collectively asserting national and regional sovereignty not enjoyed since before the Age of Empires.
> 
> Technology has made it possible for these nations to create their own alternatives to monopolies only the largest global superpowers had the resources to possess. This includes aircraft manufacturing, aerospace engineering, energy production, monetary exchange, medicine, and all other aspects of modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Within any given nation, large economic monopolies are facing greater, more diverse, and distributed competition from individuals and small start-ups also leveraging technology to do today what it took armies of workers and mountains of capital to do decades ago.
> 
> The alternative media is one example of this. The organic food industry taking on established agricultural monopolies is another.
> 
> *Don't Let Ideology Obstruct Necessary Transitions*
> 
> Before you can have an agorist or anarchist utopia, global hegemony must transform into global competition. Competing supranational blocs must give way to competing independent nation-states, and independent nation-states must give way to decentralized states and eventually increasing levels of localization and individualism.
> 
> None of it can be done overnight, and none of it can be done without the necessary prerequisites being fulfilled beforehand.
> 
> This does not mean that one must support a government in principle. It means, however, that for practical purposes, we must support what blocs, governments, and various special interests represent in terms of creating an equitable balance of power and fulfilling the prerequisites needed to make this transition.
> 
> For example, a military-led government took power in the Southeast Asian state of Thailand. The government it replaced was a client regime organized and installed into power with US support. The United States had expanded its hegemony nearly to the other side of the planet. The military-led government - however unappealing it is in principle - in practice has pushed back a global hegemony at the cost of becoming a national hegemony.
> 
> In Thailand, however, the government lacks the ability to dominate society in the same scope and to the same degree as the US-backed client regime had. Within Thailand, the ability to decentralize is not only possible and being pursued, it is actually encouraged in many ways by many within the current government and the special interests within Thailand that the current government represents.
> 
> In other aspects, because of opposing special interests within Thailand itself, centralization is being encouraged. Preventing the return of a US client regime is essential, and so is contesting those favoring centralization. It is a delicate balance that must be struck - with principles as a guide, but practicality as a priority.
> 
> Unequivocally opposing the current Thai government simply undermines its ability to obstruct supranational interests from reasserting themselves. However, the current government does not require unequivocal support - it simply needs support for the few aspects it is actually providing a benefit to in terms of making the transition from globalization to localization and individualism.
> 
> *Ideological Purists are Still Needed *
> 
> During a transition, it is not impossible for those who believe in an agorist or anarchist future to find themselves overly invested in "practicality" at the cost of principles.
> 
> For agorism in particular, where free market solutions are seen as a vector toward a better tomorrow, it is easy for an individual who has accrued wealth, power, and influence to become part of the problem rather than the solution. Ideological purists help pull these individuals out of their ruts and back toward their original, ideological destination.
> 
> Take SpaceX and Tesla's Elon Musk who has often said that virtually every problem we face as a civilization has a free market solution. Musk's popularity and prominence is owed to his ability to put purpose before profits - but still make profits. However, in theory, it would not be difficult for him to forsake purpose for profits and find himself the head of companies blindly chasing quarterly earnings for shareholders rather than accomplishing his original, nobler goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological purists - and not simply those who are critics, bloggers, and commentators - but the very customers and investors involved in his companies encourage Musk to continue prioritizing purpose before profits. Should at any time Musk fail to do this, these ideological purists will open the door of opportunity for the "next Musk," the "next SpaceX," and the "next Tesla."
> 
> There already is a free market - and those who currently dominate human civilization used that freedom to accrue for themselves unwarranted power and influence at the cost of the majority.
> 
> We must understand that while the "state" is a human construct, it is backed up by very real physical force, economic monopolies, financial domination, and industrial might. The only way to secure our own place within the existing free market, is to diminish these advantages through establishing an incremental balance of power between blocs, states, within states, and eventually between individuals.
> 
> Do this by creating alternatives to the current monopolies of money and industry, redistributing the current concentration of power, wealth, and influence through localized entrepreneurship.
> 
> The cost in the free market for organized individuals to impose their will upon others is not only minimal, it is profitable. Remove the profit and increase the cost, and this involuntary imposition of will becomes nearly impossible.
> 
> SOURCE


This is a reminder to the both of you that free markets and capitalism are not mutually exclusive and also the fact that being anti-capitalist doesn't mean one is in favor of a big centralized government.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Out of curiosity, what would you blame for the working class being poor?


For those of us who have been paying attention, it's not that hard to identify capitalism's exploitation of workers to enrich those at the very top as the reason why there is so much rampant poverty amongst the working class. This is a fundamental fact of our current economic system. Concentrated wealth and power always leads to the impoverishment of the majority and our fascist government makes sure it stays that way.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That anarchist article is one of the funnest things I have seen in a while 

Praising a military dictatorship and nations split into factional warfare is a step in the right direction because it prevents "centralization"

"My house has a roach problem, I BETTER BURN IT DOWN AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET ROACHES EITHER"

I love how all the "alternative governments" butter you up before you get to the "People to kill" list 

Its likes you are doing a job interview and its just casually mentioned that you need to rape a goat, some will go "THE ENDZ JUSTIFY TEH MEANZ" but most will be go "Wait what"

If your current political ideology has a "Current members of society that need to killed or incarcerated for the greater good" than you might want to rethink it


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The idea that we're living in a free market is one of the most bullshit ideas peddled by the illiterate anarchist left. 

Free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Europe is failing because of the extremely highly regulated environment created by the EU and America has one of the most powerful centralized governments in the world that regulates everything from how to install a toilet to which cleaners to use in your home. This is not what a free market is or is even close to being. The housing crisis was created by a web of regulations that made it impossible for banks to vet the individuals that they were giving out loans through. It was not a failure of the free market, but literally the opposite. It made it harder for banks to deny loans to high-risk individuals and that led to the creation of the blind securities that sold such high-risk loans in bulk creating the housing crisis. It was ultimately government regulation that caused it - not the free market. 

Barter systems is what we evolved from. The last barter system I heard about existed in Siberia where in the 90's after the collapse of the Soviet Union russian women were trading unsold bras from a factory for bread (it's good to have actually lived through that because it helps me retain a lot of information that came my way back then) ... and exists in pretty much every socialist failure on earth ... or prisons. It's a lower form of exchange. South Africa now has a black market as well and guess which type of government they have. You guessed right. A socialist one where crime, murder, rape and government-led terrorism is at peak levels. I wonder why socialists never talk about the failure of socialism in South Africa :hmmm

A centralized bank may have a lot of cancerous policies, but it's better than anything else we've come up with so far.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> That anarchist article is one of the funnest things I have seen in a while
> 
> Praising a military dictatorship and nations split into factional warfare is a step in the right direction because it prevents "centralization"
> 
> "My house has a roach problem, I BETTER BURN IT DOWN AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET ROACHES EITHER"
> 
> I love how all the "alternative governments" butter you up before you get to the "People to kill" list
> 
> Its likes you are doing a job interview and its just casually mentioned that you need to rape a goat, some will go "THE ENDZ JUSTIFY TEH MEANZ" but most will be go "Wait what"
> 
> If your current political ideology has a "Current members of society that need to killed or incarcerated for the greater good" than you might want to rethink it


I think my favorite is people saying Religion is bad and needs to end because it tells people what to do and think. Sure, okay.

Then the same person wants to take your stuff/money because you have to much. No real reason, just you have something, they don't and they don't think you should have it either. 

Then it all boils down to some moral argument about wealth, poverty and material things and community and doing things for the "greater good"... what does that sound like? A God damn Religion.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56669
The "Resistance" everybody


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> In 2018 the establishment democrats are going to get primaried by real progressives, and the real progressives will win. That is who is going to win in 2020. They will destroy Trump.
> 
> If the DNC puts up Tulsi Gabbard against Trump in 2020 Trump will get destroyed.
> 
> Hell Trump may not even make it to 2020 he could just up and quit or get impeached.
> 
> The GOP is a disaster right now, i love how you act like just the establishment democrats are a mess right now. Look at all the fuckery the GOP is doing with healthcare for example. They can't even get a vote TWICE on their own bill.
> 
> And if they fuck over old people off their Medicaid you really think they have a chance in 2018 and 2020 not to mention how the GOP is trying to kill planned parenthood.


The last thing you want to celebrate is modern progressives coming into power in America. I'm hoping that even the lefties know that a progressive government will lead to everything in America getting progressively worse.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I think my favorite is people saying Religion is bad and needs to end because it tells people what to do and think. Sure, okay.
> 
> Then the same person wants to take your stuff/money because you have to much. No real reason, just you have something, they don't and they don't think you should have it either.


This is a valid criticism and a misunderstanding of what I promote at the same time.

What I advocate for is decentralized power and local governance. It's not, nor has it ever been about "taking your stuff/money because you have too much". It's about establishing a system that brings about a balance of power that creates a healthy society for all instead of just those at the very top.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't traditional conservatism always been about small government?

I want to work with my libertarian right friends to create a society that works for all of us. The first thing we should be able to agree upon is eliminating Big Government.



Miss Sally said:


> Then it all boils down to some moral argument about wealth, poverty and material things and community and doing things for the "greater good"... what does that sound like? A God damn Religion.


Just for the record, religion involves believing in retarded mythical bullshit. Being a social anarchist has nothing to do with believing in jiggly puff magic daddy in the sky.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA
> For those of us who have been paying attention, it's not that hard to identify capitalism's exploitation of workers to enrich those at the very top as the reason why there is so much rampant poverty amongst the working class. This is a fundamental fact of our current economic system. Concentrated wealth and power always leads to the impoverishment of the majority and our fascist government makes sure it stays that way.


What do you consider rampant poverty? Forget about the rich people for a moment, what are the signs you see that the working class are in rampant poverty?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56669
> The "Resistance" everybody


I wonder where they'll be when the fighting starts. LOL


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> This is a valid criticism and a misunderstanding of what I promote at the same time.
> Just for the record, religion involves believing in retarded mythical bullshit. Being a social anarchist has nothing to do with believing in jiggly puff magic daddy in the sky.


You're right, a social anarchist believes in a jiggly puff magic ideology.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You're right, a social anarchist believes in a jiggly puff magic ideology.


Dude if we just kill enough people or just let them die the only people left will be happy

or something 

uhh, George Carlin video on why its ok to want to murder people


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> What do you consider rampant poverty? Forget about the rich people for a moment, what are the signs you see that the working class are in rampant poverty?


Pro-capitalists will tell you everything is just fine and dandy. I am telling you that our entire economic system is about to collapse. Time will tell which one of us is right.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Pro-capitalists will tell you everything is just fine and dandy. I am telling you that our entire economic system is about to collapse. Time will tell which one of us is right.


That isn't an answer to the question I asked. If you want to spout off your ideological view points then have at it, but if you actually want to either debate or help someone better understand your viewpoint then try answering the questions people ask.

So, I'll be kind enough to re-ask the question so you don't have to scroll up...

What do you consider rampant poverty? Forget about the rich people for a moment, what are the signs you see that the working class are in rampant poverty?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857771418603450368
:lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/857771418603450368
> :lol


I see nothing wrong with this.

Being a nationalist when it comes to slogans, rhetoric and which flags to hang at rallies is sound strategy; while globalism for making as much money as you can for your businesses is sound strategy and WINNING.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Just for the record, religion involves believing in retarded mythical bullshit. Being a social anarchist has nothing to do with believing in jiggly puff magic daddy in the sky.


You don't need a magic daddy to be a Religion, 3rd wave Feminism is a Religion in it's own right. The justification of actions because of a persons morality or another's lack there of already makes it near a Religion. That's why Religion is so dangerous because it can literally turn any ideology into a Religion by fact denying and pushing a set of rules and morality without any basis onto people by people who act in the "best interests" of people.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> You don't need a magic daddy to be a Religion, 3rd wave Feminism is a Religion in it's own right. The justification of actions because of a persons morality or another's lack there of already makes it near a Religion. That's why Religion is so dangerous because it can literally turn any ideology into a Religion by fact denying and pushing a set of rules and morality without any basis onto people by people who act in the "best interests" of people.


I'd like to put my services out there for anyone who needs a 'Magic Daddy'.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> I see nothing wrong with this.
> 
> Being a nationalist when it comes to slogans, rhetoric and which flags to hang at rallies is sound strategy; while globalism for making as much money as you can for your businesses is sound strategy and WINNING.


Capitalism. Nothing matters besides making money.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> There are too many people in this country that will always believe in what the GOP is selling. I don't think you understand how tough the Democrats are going to have to work to win anything of merit in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. There are more people in this country that want the GOP in full complete power from local to federal government then you think.


You can literally say that about the Democrats as well, they are not unique in any way shape or form in that regard.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's troll moment of the day: Saying Andrew Jackson had a big heart.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

every moment of every day is a troll moment for the shitposter in chief :trump3

always refreshing to see tater is still stuck in 1919 

capitalism won and it's not going to collapse, get over it. the idea that the poor are being ground into the dust in modern capitalism is a very silly joke. the material comfort of the poor in capitalist countries is unsurpassed. that is a condition that must change for the very much worse if capitalism is to collapse. there is no way around that. systems that produce this much material comfort for the lowest economic tier do not collapse. jigglypuff fantasies notwithstanding. people do not cast aside their economic systems when they have cheap food, cheap shelter, cheap leisure items out the wazoo, and the ability to easily move to distant areas of their country where economic opportunities are in more abundance. food is cheap everywhere in capitalist countries. housing is cheap in a large number of areas in capitalist countries. leisure activities are cheap everywhere. moving is cheap and there are lots of economically inviting places to move to in capitalist countries. all that would have to do a 180 before capitalism would be in trouble. 

an examination of history would be most helpful when considering these various eschatological fantasies


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Trump's troll moment of the day: Saying Andrew Jackson had a big heart.
> 
> - Vic


"Muh slaves" "Muh trail o' tearz" :quite

People will do anything to tarnish him, but he also did good things as well. Not to mention he was a combat GENIUS.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You have to be kidding me. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/david-clarke-homeland-security-post-237760

White House eyeing Clarke for Homeland Security post

e White House is considering David Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, for a position at the Department of Homeland Security, three people familiar with the administration’s planning told POLITICO.

Clarke is in line to be appointed as assistant secretary at DHS’ Office of Partnership and Engagement, which coordinates outreach to state, local and tribal officials and law enforcement. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

A senior administration official cautioned it’s “not a done deal yet.”

Clarke, a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump, has long been rumored as a possible candidate for a job in the administration and met with Trump in November at Trump Tower. He also spoke at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last year.

He has come under fire in recent days amid revelations about the case of Terrill Thomas, who died of dehydration last year at the Milwaukee County Jail after guards turned off the water in his cell.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, has said he won’t remove Clarke from office over Thomas’ death.

Clarke also has faced criticism for participating in a National Rifle Association-backed trip to Russia in 2015, where he and other members of the group’s delegation reportedly met with Dmitry Rogozin, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deputies. Rogozin was sanctioned by the U.S. government in 2014.

Clarke did not respond to requests for comment. A DHS spokesman declined to comment, as did a White House spokeswoman.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @TheNightmareCometh; @Pratchett @Goku @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @GOAT Hogan @Rave Bunny @virus21 @MillionDollarProns 

I haven't posted here in a while but I felt compelled to respond to an article I was tagged to read. Here is the link to it if anyone wants a look:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/we-already-live-in-free-market-heres.html

I've read the article @Tater and whilst it makes some decent observations on the movement of market economies through technology there are a few really glaringly obvious problems with his arguments. One in particular which essentially proves that we are definitely not living in a free market as we currently stand. I have broken my response down into three subsections, two of which I believe are fundamental flaws in his argument and one where I believe he's on the right track but is lacking in understanding.


*The Free Market and Governments*

I'm going to start out by quoting the beginning of the article because this really sets the tone for what is about to come:



> The fundamental problem with free market proponents is that many fail to realize we already have an absolutely, 100% free market. Within that free market, a clique of incredibly wealthy, well connected, and well organized individuals have decided to use their freedom to create "governments" they influence, media they control, police who impose by force their will upon populations, a military to either protect their racket or project it beyond their current areas of operation, and all else we associate with "statism."


This opening couple of sentences really illustrates what this article is about. Whilst it is claiming to articulate why we are already in a free market the underlining tone is really one of anti-government/anti-state rhetoric. Which would be fine if there wasn't holes in the argument. The argument is essentially in today's world that it is the free market and "freedom" that has helped create governments in which powerful entities have used these concepts in order to impose their will on the rest of the populace. Whilst it is indeed true that elite powerful people through corporations among other things have used the state to their advantage, this is an incredibly simplistic argument which fails to deliver nuance. 

The first obvious thing to point out as most people will notice is that there have been many big government authoritarian regimes which have undeniably opposed free market principles. I'm of course talking about top down state-socialist/communist states since the turn of the 20th Century. The USSR, Mao's China, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba being some really big examples. But more importantly there has also been examples of countries with small governments with/without decentralized levels of power and even stateless societies (though they have not lasted long) both with market economies and without. Switzerland's economy for example is massively market orientated yet their political system is very decentralized to the point of having direct democracy which includes the right to submit a federal initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions. Hong Kong and Singapore are some of the most economically free countries in the world and yet have small governments. These are three countries which undermine the idea that you need a big government to enforce market economies.

The most important example however comes from the Spanish Anarchist Revolution known more specifically as Revolutionary Catalonia where Anarchist and Socialist trade unions, parties and militias were in direct control of the region. This is important because whilst Catalonia at this time was completely decentralized and had no government whatsoever it was the furthest thing from a free market. You had worker's control of business and factories which were essentially collectivized along with agriculture in rural areas. Small and Medium size businesses that were under collective could not actively produce goods for services as a business owners for their own living. For example, In Barcelona, the trade unions collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective. So although there was no government entity, there was still very little to no freedom in terms of economic activity. Everything was controlled and planned out by the trade unions during that period in Catalonia.

Finally, when you look at the history of government versus the conception of free market economics, you will find that both the concept of and the practical application of governments precede the ideas of the free market by a significant amount even looking into the formation of the modern state. The foundations laid for what would now be the modern state and nation were very much laid in the aftermath of the English Civil War where the victorious Parliamentarians installed a governing body which would be known as the English Parliament to keep a check on the incoming King's power after ousting Charles I. This would begin the development of what is now known as the modern state and laid the groundwork for example of the French, German and of course American governments in terms of the idea of separation of powers within government itself. Of course, there are very many specifics in terms of all those examples which I won't get into here but the important point to make is this development in history came a Century before both the Industrial Revolution and before the thinking of Classical economists were put down on paper. This happened at a time where feudalism was still at large and whereby both economic and political activity were still very much top down.

So keeping all of this in mind, the idea that it is currently the "free market" and the "freedom" of these individuals that create governments simply does not hold weight. Political and economic systems are not mutually exclusive to each other and never have been. You can have smaller and even no government at all and still be in a position where there is little freedom in terms of what you can and can't do especially in terms of economic activity and it certainly is not entirely based on political ends as this author continuously argues. 

It is not the free market or "freedom" that has created current governments that are under market economics, rather it is individuals that have certain identifiable traits such as power or lust for power, wealth, status and inheritance. Those conditions would and have existed regardless of what economic model individual countries have undertaken and whether or not those people were either elected or took power through force. It is a very dense and quite frankly historically ignorant argument to suggest.

Even if everything I said is wrong, in order for his overall argument to be true he would have to not only show how we are living in a free market today but also how the free market currently correlates with the governments you see today. And in terms of the former, he undermines his own argument pretty spectacularly. 


*Monopoly*

In simplistic terms there are two main principles behind free market economic thinking. The first is the idea of voluntary exchange in goods and services between people free from coercion and outside interference. The other one is the idea of the freedom to choose, both as being a producer i.e to sell whatever products you may see fit and as a consumer; to be able to choose who it is you wish to engage in voluntary exchange with. It is from these two principles that the concerns of economic monopoly were first raised from Classical economists and have continued ever since in various circles of economic thought, particularly those of the neo-classical thought in the Chicago School and from the Austrian School of Economics. Whilst many Classical and Neo-Classical economics have conceded that in rare instances such as minerals that there is indeed a chance of monopoly to occur through natural market forces, those who believe in the ideas of the free market have always feared and opposed the idea of monopoly, particularly those monopolies in which are created by government policy. This is because monopoly in any one economic field robs the consumer the freedom to choose between different providers of service and are thus stuck with one option in which he or she can engage in voluntary exchange with. This of course takes away one of the core principles of a free market economy, that being the freedom to choose. In other words, *monopoly is the very antithesis of a free market.
*

And yet the author of the article claims that we are already living within a free market and readily admits that we have monopolies in key areas such as manufacturing, communication and energy production....all his words not mine. Pretty much every example which the author lists has become a monopoly through the collusion and relationship between business/corporations and the state. What is even more bizarre is that whilst there is much anti-government and anti-state rhetoric within the article, he does not mention of monopolies in which are currently held by governments. Most of the modern world for example has education systems which are monopolized under the state, a significant amount of modern countries like the UK, Canada, Denmark and Norway also have a state monopoly over healthcare. Many other countries have monopolies over other individual economic sectors, the biggest example being railways. 

From my own perspective, it also strikes me as weird why you would link this article when the biggest example of monopoly currently right now is on money and banking, something we have talked about in regards to the Federal Reserve. Legal tender laws especially have given Central Banks a stranglehold over the medium of exchange i.e money, which is the biggest and most important element of a free market. You cannot for example use Euros to buy items in the UK or use pounds to buy items in the US. In a true free market economy, we would have free flow of exchange in currency and it would be the market which decides what is the best and strongest form of currency through the actions of individuals. Instead, the strength of currencies are regularly manipulated and devalued by the Central Bank, not even backed up by real commodities of worth such as gold or silver. Monetary exchange is something the author even readily admits is in a monopoly.

With a significant amount of monopoly still at play within the market due to government interference and with regular government action to manipulate the market through corporate welfare, subsidies, tax credits and over-regulation there is absolutely no fathomable way you can argue that we are living in a free market. The fact that the author does not seem to recognize that these current monopolies demonstrate the antithesis of a free market shows a lack of understanding of the concept. He could call me one of the ideological purists he's used as an argument to try and back up his claims if he understood what he is arguing.

*Decentralization*

Decentralization is an interesting concept in which he has illustrated. Indeed decentralization within individual private businesses and of course within national and international economies are both desirable and has to an extent been happening. However, there is a couple of points I'd like to make in response. The first is whilst the author has made mention of decentralization in terms of business and industry, his arguments and solutions are very much of political persuasion. In terms of political decentralization versus economic decentralization, again the two don't go and hand in hand and this is something I'm not entirely convinced the author understands. 

For example, here in the UK since the Conservative government has been in charge we have seen the beginnings of some real decentralization of power from Westminster to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies as well further power being brought down to a more local level in the counties. And yet at the same time, we have seen the government get more and more involved in areas such as energy whereby they have deliberately intervened in the sector to try and stop energy companies from rising prices. The problem being that here in the UK, we have a very corporate set up and the barriers to entry for smaller and medium energy companies to compete are very high thanks to several governments involvement in regulation of the energy sector in order to bring about "fair prices". The Labour party also have pledged if they were to get into government that they would extend decentralization of the political system even further and yet have also promised to nationalize both the railways and energy. Something which @GOAT Hogan will be familiar with. The author seems to put both political and economic decentralization together without going into detail how economic decentralization has either been happening specifically or how it can be further achieved beyond using the technology that has been constantly developing. 

The example of the Thailand government in particular illustrates this as it focuses directly on governmental decentralization both on the international and national scale and makes very little mention of economics. Governmental decentralization does not necessarily guarantee a free market and governmental centralization does not mean that a largely free market cannot exist as the two concepts together are not mutally exclusive. Pinochet's Chile is the perfect example of this.

*Conclusion*

The article makes some decent points in terms of the global movement towards a marketplace with more competition yet fails to put forward a comprehensive argument of why this means we are in a free market. Not only that but he consistently undermines himself by referring to the various monopolies within both the global and national markets whilst ignoring the many monopolies which are state driven. He seems to either not understand or ignore the fact that a) monopolies that are propped up and maintained through governments are the antithesis of a free market and that b) highlighting these said monopolies prove that a free market cannot be existing at this current moment.

He has the right idea with decentralization and yet focuses a lot on political decentralization when the issue is solely one of economic decentralization and that one can exist without the other. Overall I think he's more interested in getting rid of the state rather than delving into motions that can be done to open up the market on national and global scales and I think it's indicative of his very political rather than economic led write up.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I shall catch up with reading both @Tater and @L-DOPA's posts soon. Thank you to both for the mentions. 

In other news, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has assured the passage of yet another budget in which spending actually goes up, meaning that for Team Trump, any cuts to allow for the greater spending on the military (and I have mixed-at-best thoughts on that) will have to be even deeper come September, and the likelihood of that seems vanishing. The Republican Congress has leaders who according to sources are laughing at the proposal for spending money on Trump's wall on the Mexican border while longtime GOP sea serpents are not only being left off the table for budget decreases but are seeing their budgets increased. GOP leaders are also allowing companies to lobby the Department of Homeland Security for twenty thousand-plus blue-collar H-2B contract workers, which is about as direct an assault on Trump's populist, "America First" agenda as conceivable. 

In terms of fiscal responsibility, the Republicans have, as always, again failed, and Trump's agenda is being shoved to the farthest backburner possible by Ryan and his cadre. 

The September showdown will be interesting to see occur, and if it either does not happen, or Trump and his surrogates once again roll over, millions of Trump supporters and voters will rightly view his presidency through an increasingly jaded lens. This complete capitulation by Republicans to pass what is effectively Barack Obama's final budget and the slapping away of an even remotely Trumpian agenda should be remembered over the summer. Trump can hold his rallies and talk a decent game here and there but if there's effectively no action on the domestic front, an already-angry base of voters will be fuming once more by year's end.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Today's budget basically proves that Trump is full of shit. 

I'm out.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's only claim to success thus far is the promise of tax cuts and less regulations for Wall Street and giant global corporations that drove up stock prices. And even these people are starting to get cold feet with Trump suddenly saying he is looking to breaking up big banks today, going back to his populist campaigning. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775894243143483392
:hmm

Guy's a loose cannon. Or is simply distracting us while he puts forward his only agenda, tax cuts for himself and just saying whatever the person he is talking to wants to hear.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's almost like we have seen this episode of a tv show before,Tax cut's for Billionare's who hoard their money overseas in untraceable bank accounts instead of investing and "trinkle it down" to the rest of America+ Yuge Increase in military spending =Thanks George W Bush for economic collapse.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

See, and here I thought the tax reform also helped the middle class. Didn't realize that everyone was getting the shaft except for the 1%. Could anyone explain how that is so?


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859209801175269376

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859215387812122625









Cuz why not.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Today's budget basically proves that Trump is full of shit.
> 
> I'm out.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


>


Yes unlike cultists that never change their mind and continue to support bad ideas and bad politics, I hold myself to higher standard because the cult of personality was never what I was attached to.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859209801175269376
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859215387812122625
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz why not.


If you asked Muslims for a consensus on whether or not Allah exists, you'll get a 100% consensus. Consensus means nothing at this point in time because there's been revisionism on both sides. A "consensus" has been used far too often in history to suppress the truth. A "consensus" by authorities was the primary method of justifying a verdict that a woman was a witch before she was burnt at the stake. Consensus was what determined that the black man was worth less than the white man in the first place. So I have no clue why consensus is ever considered any form of method of deriving legitimacy of anything at all. 

In fact, everytime I see someone say "dozens of experts", "hundreds of historians" and "97% of all scientists", I immediately reject that claim as a fallacious argument from authority.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

After cringing at that globalist bit and chuckling at the possibly that the upcoming budget could very well occur, I'd say that I dodged another bullet of disappointment by not voting at all, even for the candidate I liked the most (happened with Obeezy and now with Teflon Don Juan). Looks like I'm never gonna pop my voting cherry at this rate, unless of course they manage to clone Teddy Roosevelt. :serious:

On a side note, God bless r/The_Donald for keeping the faith, however futile it may wind up being.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't blame people who voted for Trump. However, I have a new found respect for my wife who managed to weather the storm of my adulation, abandon her party and continue to remember that Republicans gonna republi-can't.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yes unlike cultists that never change their mind and continue to support bad ideas and bad politics, I hold myself to higher standard because the cult of personality was never what I was attached to.


Takes a smart and strong person to hold himself to a standard like that and not get swept up in the hive mindset. Kudos to you, good sir.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I hate when real life takes over and takes me away.  



DesolationRow said:


> I shall catch up with reading both @Tater and @L-DOPA's posts soon. Thank you to both for the mentions.
> 
> In other news, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has assured the passage of yet another budget in which spending actually goes up, meaning that for Team Trump, any cuts to allow for the greater spending on the military (and I have mixed-at-best thoughts on that) will have to be even deeper come September, and the likelihood of that seems vanishing. The Republican Congress has leaders who according to sources are laughing at the proposal for spending money on Trump's wall on the Mexican border while longtime GOP sea serpents are not only being left off the table for budget decreases but are seeing their budgets increased. GOP leaders are also allowing companies to lobby the Department of Homeland Security for twenty thousand-plus blue-collar H-2B contract workers, which is about as direct an assault on Trump's populist, "America First" agenda as conceivable.
> 
> In terms of fiscal responsibility, the Republicans have, as always, again failed, and Trump's agenda is being shoved to the farthest backburner possible by Ryan and his cadre.
> 
> The September showdown will be interesting to see occur, and if it either does not happen, or Trump and his surrogates once again roll over, millions of Trump supporters and voters will rightly view his presidency through an increasingly jaded lens. This complete capitulation by Republicans to pass what is effectively Barack Obama's final budget and the slapping away of an even remotely Trumpian agenda should be remembered over the summer. Trump can hold his rallies and talk a decent game here and there but if there's effectively no action on the domestic front, an already-angry base of voters will be fuming once more by year's end.


Forget September...here's where the rubber meets the road and it's coming up now in a few days. Trump can talk about accomplishments and while he has had some (Neil Gorsuch, regaining our status on the world stage), it might be all for naught if he signs this absolute garbage of a budget this week. 

I understand Trump probably doesn't want to look bad with a government shutdown happening on the first few months of his administration. But, make no mistake...in an alternate universe where Hillary Clinton won the election and she has the bully pulpit of the White House behind her, you can bet she's pushing her agenda and the agenda of the Democratic Party. She would be doing everything that she possibly could to make sure this was done and leave no doubt her fingerprints are on all of it. 

We keep going down this path, time and time again. Our leadership gives lip service to fiscal restraint, yet keeps spending money like a pathetic man looking for love blowing hundreds of dollars at the titty bar in the hopes that Trixie and Bubbles will hook up with him for OTC action. Every time we come to the brink over the last few years and the government is on the verge of a shutdown (although in reality a total shutdown is bullshit anyway because the essential government functions are still funded so it's more of a slimdown) the CINOs fold and give away the farm in the process. Compromise is one thing, but what has happened the last few years has not been compromise when we keep adding more money to the debt and an agenda that many Americans rejected. Democrats and progressives keep getting their way and screwing us all in the process. 

This atmosphere is what gave us President Trump. He was elected to be a giant "Fuck You" to the establishment, to send the message that We The People really run the show and if you don't play ball like we want you too, you're gone. People are pissed off, they want change and they want the system shaken to its core. We really want the swamp drained, the swamp water has clogged the system and it is definitely broken. This time, people are saying this is different. 

Meanwhile, there is a growing rumbling within the Trump base. Yes, there are those who worship the ground he walks on and will NEVER hold him accountable no matter what. He could promote that global warming is a threat and single-payer health care and they will adore him for his flexibility. However, right now people are starting to get a little nervous. In the business world, we are seeing a little concern as the original enthusiasm for a business-friendly Trump administration is waning as tax reform is not coming anytime soon (both for personal and corporate tax structures). For years, the GOP told us give us both houses of Congress and the White House and we will repeal Obamacare. It's still here, folks, and this new budget will fully fund it again. The executive orders are nice, but Congress needs to get off its ass and start doing its job and start passing legislation. And, no, this isn't fake news, these are very real concerns for those who voted for him. 

I still share some of these concerns, I have never really let go of them. Again, I was probably the most critical of him during the course of the campaign, and while I am willing to give him a chance I still am skeptical because I knew he would be all over the place when it comes to his policies and stances. I appreciate the fact that most people here have shown disappointment with him when he has gone off-script. There are other sites where the hero worship and the cult of personality still permeates and anyone who dares disagree with anything Trump does is branded a traitor/liberal/globalist, etc. 

I think Trump doesn't want to bear the blame of a government shutdown, especially one this early in his administration. At the same time, it's time for him to stand up for his agenda and send a message that the people voted him in to change things and get shit done. He showed a willingness to compromise by taking out money for the funding of his wall, but I don't think he expected everything to be taken out. Planned Parenthood, the EPA, Obamacare...all funded. Yes, he gets some of the extra funding for the military, but this is a complete failure of the advancement of what he wants if he signs this. It will once again be a complete capitulation and showing that they aren't serious about shaking up the status quo but all about self-preservation. 

If the budget shows up on his desk as is, I hope he will say, "Sorry, this isn't what the American people want. I was voted in to change things, this doesn't cut it. Take this off my desk and don't come back until you have something better." When pressed by the American people, I want him to say, "You didn't send me to just keep doing the same thing over and over again. If you want me to drain the swamp, I need you to support me even if this means the government is shut down for a while." Again, it's not a complete shutdown as essential government functions will still be fully funded and will run like they are supposed to. And for those that said that after the 2013 shutdown the GOP would be punished for it...a year later the mid-term elections left them in control of the Senate as well as the House. 

I want to be wrong about this, I really want Trump to succeed. However, if he signs this budget...to me all the talk about draining the swamp, shaking up the establishment, etc...was just bluster and big talk. He is officially part of the problem at that moment. To quote that rock god (small G) Roger Daltrey, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> We keep going down this path, time and time again. Our leadership gives


I appreciate the extensive post and branching out from my earlier post but please, *Bruiser*, :woah with the "we" and "our leadership" stuff. 

By which I mean that I signed up as a volunteer to provide some moral support for Donald Trump's campaign in large measure due to the very reasons you subsequently state in your above post--that the Republicans are a woefully corrupt and worse-than-useless organization. I have no loyalty whatsoever to the Republicans or Democrats, or American politics' North Side Mob and Johnny Torrio-Al Capone Gang, and if Trump's presidency continues moving on its present trajectory whatever efforts to defend or support him on my part will be replaced by unrelenting criticism. Trump's already acquiescing to globalist dictates. Trump and his cohorts are arguing that he will have more leverage for, say, "The Wall" in September but how that is so remains inexplicable. The H-2B program approval, more money for the NEH, NEA and public broadcasting, etcetera, all of it is a direct ostensible betrayal of what Trump ran on, and I only use "ostensible" because I'm willing to observe where things go over the summer and see if, finally, Trump and the Republicans finally engage in political warfare as they keep insisting today that they will, this will be a small bump in the road, but I'm frankly giving that about a 2% chance of happening. 

The truth is, Republicans campaign as being anti-big government when they are out of power, and Democrats campaign on being antiwar (or at least they have historically for the previous several decades) when they are out of power, and whenever they respectively attain power, the Republicans oversee vast increases in spending and growth in government and Democrats cheerfully deploy men and arms just about whenever and wherever possible. In other words, it's primarily a shell game, and the U.S. Deep State covertly runs the carnival. 

Seriously, though, I appreciate your in-depth post above.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Actually, according to a quick study done by Kevin Ryan, the idea that there is a conservative 5-4 majority is questionable. Here's why: 



> *IS THE SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL?*
> 
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> The conventional wisdom holds that conservative justices hold a 5 to 4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the reality is, it's the liberal justices who are in the majority.
> That's because Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy has now become more liberal than conservative in his rulings, according to a study that ranks the justices by their ideological leanings.
> Kennedy joins Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor as the liberal block, while Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas make up the conservative side of the court.
> 
> In fact, one could argue that liberals hold a five to THREE edge, with John Roberts as more of a centrist than a conservative. Roberts, a G.W.Bush appointee whose decision to side with the liberals saved Obamacare in 2012, is closer to the center ideologically than any other justice.
> 
> But all that could change this summer with rumors swirling that Anthony Kennedy is considering retiring. Assuming Trump appoints another solidly right wing judge like Neil Gorsuch to replace Kennedy, THAT appointment, not the Gorsuch appointment, would return the court to a 5 to 4 conservative edge.


Anyways, what we don't know is whether Gorsuch is really conservative or liberal yet. 

I won't believe that there is a conservative majority in the SC at the moment till the decisions start coming in. (Not that having a conservative majority is a good thing because I don't see the constitution as either liberal or conservative. Our originalists were most likely minarchists so that would mean any constutionalist should most likely be a libertarian).


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Actually, according to a quick study done by Kevin Ryan, the idea that there is a conservative 5-4 majority is questionable. Here's why:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, what we don't know is whether Gorsuch is really conservative or liberal yet but there are some reasons to believe that he's potentially going to side with the liberals eventually (even if he doesn't at the start).
> 
> I won't believe that there is a conservative majority in the SC at the moment till the decisions start coming in. (Not that having a conservative majority is a good thing because I don't see the constitution as either liberal or conservative. Our originalists were most likely minarchists so that would mean any constutionalist should most likely be a libertarian).


We were not meant to have a liberal or conservative SCOTUS. The idea was to hold a law up to the Constitution and determine if it met the standard. That was all it was supposed to do. The fact that we have people more worried about where the SCOTUS leans (plus another President who is in danger of becoming another progressive) shows that we might just be fucked after all.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> We were not meant to have a liberal or conservative SCOTUS. The idea was to hold a law up to the Constitution and determine if it met the standard. That was all it was supposed to do. The fact that we have people more worried about where the SCOTUS leans (plus another President who is in danger of becoming another progressive) shows that we might just be fucked after all.


With the left moving farther left than ever in the history of American politics and forcing the so-called "fiscal conservatives" to pass what essentially a looks like a democrat-led budget is extremely disturbing. 

Like where the fuck does a government _in power_ propose a billion dollar _cut_ and agree on an _increase_ on the same line-item. If I as a businessman ever negotiated something like that, I would probably commit suicide at the realization of how bad of a businessman I was. 

So much for the art of negotiation. 

It almost seems like Trump is running interference with the public more than he is within the government in order to keep them from realizing how much he lied on the campaign trail.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Today's budget basically proves that Trump is full of shit.
> 
> I'm out.


Agreed. I've defended Trump on iffy things because the people brandishing their paper swords were completely wrong and are so blinded by their Trump hate that they'd make Ray Charles seem like he had Pilot vision.

That being said I'll go down the biggest things I don't agree with.

Planned Parenthood.

1. Funding this is stupid, let the private sector pay for this, let the celebs and pro-abortion people pay for it. PP makes money off being a baby chop shop and butchery, they can fund their own culling agenda.

Obamacare.

1. Can we put forth a better plan already? If not can we at least allow out of state Insurance Companies to compete for better prices? Can they do something about this bloated monster which is causing so much chaos? Please?

Immigration.

1. What. The. Fuck. Who cares if Democrats don't want the wall? I'd not want it either if I was trying to change the demographics of places to garner votes to my cause or keep people enslaved to my welfare titty. The US is seizing assets from Cartels and have money to blow on PP and the fucking Military but not a wall? Give me a break!

2. Sanctuary cities and Politicians will now get bold and further their efforts to push their agenda.

This is just a failed attempt to get Democrats on board who won't go along with anything. They hate you, accept it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^There's also an addition in the amount of work visas that are going to be allowed meaning that local jobs are going to be culled/lost to cheaper foreign labor. That's literally what the democrat-led Silicon Valley has been platforming for over the past decade or so. Open borders in immigration, open borders with regards to labor. This is the exact opposite of Trump's campaign. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/...-belief-dem-priorities-funded-trumps-scuttled



> *Betrayal beyond belief: Dem priorities funded; Trump’s scuttled*
> 
> During the 2014 elections in my home state of Maryland, there were problems with some of the ballot machines, whereby many ballots cast for Republicans “coincidentally” were automatically rendered as Democrat ballots. With the omnibus deal forged at 2 a.m. last night in Congress, this is essentially what has happened on a national level. People voted for a revolution – to drain the swamp – and out popped a Democrat budget. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything different about this budget from the one we would have gotten if Hillary had been elected.
> 
> Amazingly, the FY 2017 budget was deliberately held over until this year instead of being completed in October or December 2016, precisely so that the victor of the election would reap the spoils of war. Well, Democrats lost the election but won this year’s budget. The reason why it took an extra few days to forge the “deal” is because once Republicans telegraphed the message that they’d jettison every conservative priority from the budget, Democrats then held out for their priorities. By and large, they got them.
> 
> Here is the end result:
> 
> *FUNDED
> *
> 
> The bill continues funding refugee resettlement and visas from the six countries from which Trump wanted to suspend immediate immigration, despite this budget being the last recourse against the judicial tyranny. The refugee program gets $3.1 billion, the same as it did under Obama.
> 
> Sanctuary cities were funded, despite the judicial tyranny and the need for Congress to weigh in.
> 
> Planned Parenthood was funded, despite the long-standing GOP promise to fight to defund it, even when they only controlled Congress. Yes, they couldn’t even defund a private organization getting taxpayer funds to traffic baby organs.
> 
> Increased spending for a number of liberal priorities rather than codifying Trump’s requested $17 billion in non-defense spending cuts.
> 
> EPA was saved from the cuts proposed for this year by Trump’s OMB.
> 
> A $295.9 billion bailout for Puerto Rico’s irresponsible Medicaid program. This is on top of the bailout from last year.
> 
> Sec. 543 of the omnibus contains a provision opening the door for more H2-B low-skilled workers this fiscal year.
> 
> $990 million increase of the “Food for Peace” program in Africa.
> 
> Government-run health care? HHS will see a $2.8 billion boost in spending, of which $2 billion will go to the NIH, which was supposed to be cut by the Trump budget.
> 
> Green energy programs within the Department of Energy, programs Trump would have eliminated, received a modest spending increase.
> 
> The federal judiciary saw its budget increased by three percent, to $7.4 billion, from fiscal 2016, despite engaging in civil disobedience against the rule of law.
> 
> The unconstitutional Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is fully funded despite GOP promises to dismantle it. Richard Cordray is still serving as its director despite the change in administration.
> 
> California’s high-speed rail will continue to be funded by the Federal Rail Administration.
> 
> *NOT FUNDED*
> 
> The border wall. Although $1.5 billion in additional “border security” funds were allocated, Democrats made certain to bar funding for the fence. As I’ve noted before, given the legal problems with those who step foot on our shores and the cumbersome nature of interior enforcement, anything short of the permanent deterrent of a border wall will not solve the problem.
> 
> Indeed, the 1,665-page, $1.16 trillion omnibus is everything we would have gotten had Democrats been in charge. After they successfully got Republicans to jettison all of Trump’s priorities, Democrats secured the Puerto Rico bailout. And while the bill does not contain an Obamacare bailout (cost-sharing subsidies), the White House agreed to continue illegally promulgating the insurer bailout without congressional appropriations as part of the condition for Democrats affording Republicans the honor of capitulating to them.
> 
> The only plus side of this bill is that the president did secure a $15 billion boost for the military, but Democrats always agree to spending more on the military, as it has become a consensus, albeit without offsetting the cost with cuts to non-defense spending. That is exactly the deal they secured. They increased spending in many of the areas where Trump proposed cuts.
> 
> Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is bragging about blocking 160 GOP priorities in the bill!
> 
> Some defenders of this deal will claim that we should wait for “the next time.” The president is coming out with the FY 2018 budget this week, and they will fight for it in September. But that budget is a complete joke. If they can’t fight for modest cuts and their basic campaign promises with control of all of government – with the momentum of the first 100 days – they certainly won’t fight later in the year for real spending cuts. Instead, the fear of a shutdown led them to increase spending. That will not change in September.
> 
> I would have more sympathy for the president had he not spent the past month attacking conservatives on health care. He should have, instead, been shaming McConnell and the appropriators into funding his priorities the same way he shamed the Freedom Caucus to accept 20 percent repeal of Obamacare. The way for him to distinguish himself from congressional Republicans is to immediately issue a veto threat.
> 
> And now we are to believe this administration that we will repeal Obamacare in any meaningful way and get massive tax cuts when it tossed an interception on the first budget! At some point, conservatives need to wake up and smell the political adultery unfolding. Merely shouting “Gorsuch” as if it’s a punchline in itself to distract from the broader betrayal is sophomoric. Of course, we were going to get a decent judge to replace our very best when we have a GOP president, a GOP Senate, and were rid of the SCOTUS filibuster. Then again, I guess if we are judging expectations for judicial picks based on what just happened with the budget, we could have gotten an Elena Kagan.
> 
> But fear not, the best is yet to come. Gary Cohn, the Democrat running domestic policy for the administration, is promising a vote on “Obamacare” this week.
> 
> Now we can understand why McConnell and the NRSC are threatening anyone who works for Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race: They don’t want anyone elected to the Republican Party who will actually support the Republican budget and GOP platform.
> 
> At some point, conservatives need to realize they are just not wanted in the Republican Party.
> 
> Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> ^There's also an addition in the amount of work visas that are going to be allowed meaning that local jobs are going to be culled/lost to cheaper foreign labor. That's literally what the democrat-led Silicon Valley has been platforming for over the past decade or so. Open borders in immigration, open borders with regards to labor. This is the exact opposite of Trump's campaign.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/...-belief-dem-priorities-funded-trumps-scuttled


What's funny is Silicon Valley has all these billionaires pumping money into the Democratic party and preaching about all this pie in the sky stuff. Been grooming young techies to join them but those techies are going to lose their jobs to outsourced people from India and China.. Who will in turn be working on projects for the US Government and other projects for their own companies.

Spying on the US and their companies has never been easier!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is now haplessly threatening a government shutdown (though I personally welcome a shutdown) ... Just another lame attempt to make himself seem like an outsider and hide the fact that he's fast failing as a leader and uniter. Or just plain lying. I can't even tell anymore. 

FFS dude, it's YOUR government. YOUR party. If you can't even get them on your page at the beginning of your term, what hope do you have over the next 3 years :lmao

That awkward moment when you _wish _your president _was _a dictator :side:


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






We're going to keep winning!

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

lmfao Donald Trump talking about Andrew Jackson and the Civil War


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Good to see some Trump supporters finally seeing what a clown Trump is and how incompetent he is.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The president calling for a government shutdown and everyone freaking out and once again showing how little they understand about the 2016 election by saying this is "unprecedented", as if that's a bad thing. :drose 

He said September though, which is 4 months too late in my view. Paul Ryan's budget is horrible, and compromising with the Democrats is a silly plan considering when their out of control spending results in total economic collapse, few will share the blame between the GOP and the Democrats, but rather point to the Republican president, the Republican House, and the Republican Senate. There is no appeasing the left, you only give them more rope to hang you with when you try.

Trump has done a lot of good things as president already, which is enough to confidently say that supporting him and seeing him elected over Hillary Clinton was a worthwhile endeavor. However, as long as Paul Ryan or someone of his ilk is Speaker, and as long as we continue to see globalist strands in Trump's policies, the potential of what Trump can accomplish remains severely inhibited.

For those looking for a little positive news regarding Trump, here's a great article by yeahbaby!'s favorite persuasion guru, Scott Adams, who explains how Trump has used persuasion to create incredible assets out of thin air re: North Korea, immigration control, and the stock market: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160228984401/using-persuasion-to-create-assets-out-of-nothing
@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Goku


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/05/01/whoa-data-shows-some-obama-voters-supported-trump-because-they-hated-hillary-just-that-much/


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

doesn't matter how many elections they win, 80% minimum of the republicans in congress are complete pussies. all the democrats have to do is look at them sideways and they piss their pants. democrats got everything they wanted in the budget and conservatives got literally nothing. the republican party is full of fucking losers stuck in high school and in their minds the democrats are the cool kids and they're the geeks. the current group of republicans in the house and senate will never advance conservative principles via legislation ever. forget it, never gonna happen. the geeks *know* they'll lose because they're the geeks and the geeks always lose, so they don't even try. fucking pussies.


----------



## AlternateDemise

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has done a lot of good things as president already, which is enough to confidently say that supporting him and seeing him elected over Hillary Clinton was a worthwhile endeavor.


One of the most lolworthy statements I've ever read on this site. This is why I stopped debating with Trump supporters a long time ago. 

The guy has been a horrible president so far. Trying to suggest at this point that Clinton would have been worse is a baseless statement with no evidence to support it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AlternateDemise said:


> One of the most lolworthy statements I've ever read on this site. This is why I stopped debating with Trump supporters a long time ago.
> 
> The guy has been a horrible president so far. Trying to suggest at this point that Clinton would have been worse is a baseless statement with no evidence to support it.


you are 100% responsible for :trump being president 

thank you for being so full of hubris and condescension and completely lacking in self-awareness

oh they aren't even worth talking with, okay then what incentive do they have not to vote against you in elections. maybe you should have thought of that before the 8 month orgy of shit talking about stupid unwashed :trump supporters that accomplished nothing but making more :trump supporters and making them even more motivated to beat you. which they did. really some 88D chess you played and are playing. keep it up, you're the reason 98% of :trump voters don't regret voting for him. you are contributing to his reelection with every statement like the above that you make. creating more :trump supporters every time you talk about them like they're not worth anything past being objects of derision. smart strategy. 

btw suggesting that clinton would have been better is a baseless statement with no evidence to support it but that lack of self-awareness causes problems all kinds of ways dont it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> doesn't matter how many elections they win, 80% minimum of the republicans in congress are complete pussies. all the democrats have to do is look at them sideways and they piss their pants. democrats got everything they wanted in the budget and conservatives got literally nothing. the republican party is full of fucking losers stuck in high school and in their minds the democrats are the cool kids and they're the geeks. the current group of republicans in the house and* senate will never advance conservative principles via legislation ever.* forget it, never gonna happen. the geeks *know* they'll lose because they're the geeks and the geeks always lose, so they don't even try. fucking pussies.


The country does not want to, not sure why you and Trump supporters don't understand this

When it comes to the issues the US is going more and more to the left as each year passes especially when it comes to social issues.

Just look at things like same sex marriage, gun control, healthcare, immigration, pot legalization, etc etc.



deepelemblues said:


> you are 100% responsible for :trump being president
> 
> thank you for being so full of hubris and condescension and completely lacking in self-awareness
> 
> oh they aren't even worth talking with, okay then what incentive do they have not to vote against you in elections. maybe you should have thought of that before the 8 month orgy of shit talking about stupid unwashed :trump supporters that accomplished nothing but making more :trump supporters and making them even more motivated to beat you. which they did. really some 88D chess you played and are playing. keep it up, you're the reason 98% of :trump voters don't regret voting for him. you are contributing to his reelection with every statement like the above that you make. creating more :trump supporters every time you talk about them like they're not worth anything past being objects of derision. smart strategy.
> 
> btw suggesting that clinton would have been better is a baseless statement with no evidence to support it but that lack of self-awareness causes problems all kinds of ways dont it


Can you ever not troll when posting? And you did not even speak to his points until the very last line. 

How could Hillary be any worse than what Trump is right now? she wouldnt be staying all the stupid uninformed things Trump does, that alone shows she would not be as bad as Trump. She also would have her cabinet filled by now unlike Trump, and she would still be filling the swamp ilke Trump but at least her picks would be competent and not idiots like Pruitt, Devos or Carson to name a few.

You and beatles are the typical Trump supporters, just trolls and uninformed, at least people like Reaper and Dopa post meaningful posts when posting about Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well tbh, I've been called a "typical" Trump supporter (whatever that is) far too much to care for what anyone thinks about what I think about Trump ... even now. 

I do think that "better than Hillary" at the moment is a bit of wishful thinking. Other than Gorsuch, I'd say Trump is closer to running the show in a very parallel direction to how Hillary would have run it as well. Gorsuch within the first 100 days is Trump's biggest win. Won't take that away from him. 

However, we know that Trump's foreign policy is almost completely in-line with Hillary's. The day Hillary called for bombing Syria and Trump actually did it on the same day should jump out at people when they make this comparison and should remain one of the strongest criticisms of Trump's presidency. His platform was an anti-war platform and we've seen escalations in war rhetoric on two fronts. I do however believe that the North Korean situation is being implanted in people's heads by the mainstream media whereas I think that Trump's administration may actually not care. However, it's tough to know because overall Trump is a D- on foreign policy. 

Trump's administration has been "forced to" or has "complied with" liberal judges across the nation without being able to push their executive orders. They have been incompetent in how they've issues the orders as well as lethargic and seemingly lost in their follow up actions after denial. 

The deportations while more publicly advertised have worked which is something we would not have seen under Hillary (or we might have given that she's actually more center right than center left on immigration herself). I think it may have continued a levels a few percentage points lower than Trumps. However, I like to believe that Trump's governments' publicity around the issue may have stemmed the tide at the Mexico border whereas the inflow would not have been impacted under Hillary. 

The thing is that Trump is more liberal than conservatives wanted him to be and Hillary is more conservative than liberals want her to be (and so the far left would be complaining as much right now). 

On several issues, the country would be in exactly the same direction as it is right now under either presidents. In my head it's pretty even right now. And with the Democrat budget, foreign policy struggles and war stance, it's actually more like Hillary is running the show than Trump at this point :shrug


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

deepelemblues wasn't trolling. he was sarcastic and baiting with all the :trumps but his points were actually pretty good and he was serious in what he said.

by my reading anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Well tbh, I've been called a "typical" Trump supporter (whatever that is) far too much to care for what anyone thinks about what I think about Trump ... even now.
> 
> I do think that "better than Hillary" at the moment is a bit of wishful thinking. Other than Gorsuch, I'd say Trump is closer to running the show in a very parallel direction to how Hillary would have run it as well. Gorsuch within the first 100 days is Trump's biggest win. Won't take that away from him.
> 
> However, we know that Trump's foreign policy is almost completely in-line with Hillary's. The day Hillary called for bombing Syria and Trump actually did it on the same day should jump out at people when they make this comparison and should remain one of the strongest criticisms of Trump's presidency. His platform was an anti-war platform and we've seen escalations in war rhetoric on two fronts. I do however believe that the North Korean situation is being implanted in people's heads by the mainstream media whereas I think that Trump's administration may actually not care. However, it's tough to know because overall Trump is a D- on foreign policy.
> 
> Trump's administration has been "forced to" or has "complied with" liberal judges across the nation without being able to push their executive orders. They have been incompetent in how they've issues the orders as well as lethargic and seemingly lost in their follow up actions after denial.
> 
> The deportations while more publicly advertised have worked which is something we would not have seen under Hillary (or we might have given that she's actually more center right than center left on immigration herself). I think it may have continued a levels a few percentage points lower than Trumps. However, I like to believe that Trump's governments' publicity around the issue may have stemmed the tide at the Mexico border whereas the inflow would not have been impacted under Hillary.
> 
> The thing is that Trump is more liberal than conservatives wanted him to be and Hillary is more conservative than liberals want her to be (and so the far left would be complaining as much right now).
> 
> On several issues, the country would be in exactly the same direction as it is right now under either presidents. In my head it's pretty even right now. And with the Democrat budget, foreign policy struggles and war stance, it's actually more like Hillary is running the show than Trump at this point :shrug


On a few issues they would be the same and I admitted that but on big issues like health care, and what Trump is doing with the EPA and HUD it would not even be close to the same as what Trump is doing or wants to do.




MrMister said:


> deepelemblues wasn't trolling. he was sarcastic and baiting with all the :trumps but his points were actually pretty good and he was serious in what he said.
> 
> by my reading anyway.


Oh yeah i forgot only Trump supporters are allowed to get away with baiting. And trolling and baiting are the same thing. Also like I said his points were not pretty good they did not even speak to the point that AlternateDemise was talking about.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

lol everyone gets away with a lot of shit in this thread. you've gotten away with a of shit in this thread. stop crying pls.


The president of the United States is a troll. We have to allow some shitposting and some trolling etc in a thread dedicated to him. We'd be less human if we didn't IMO TBH TBF TOBESTAX.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> On a few issues they would be the same and I admitted that but on big issues like health care, and what Trump is doing with the EPA and HUD it would not even be close to the same as what Trump is doing or wants to do.


I'm gonna go down the conspiracy gravy train for the first time in this thread (I am allowed a few flights of fancy once in a while lol). 

Given what has happened in the last 16 years I'm really starting to believe in whatever this "deep state" is. It almost seems to me like Clinton was the last powerful president we had (or so I'm mistakenly thinking at this point). 

Either there really is a deep state, or the executive office actually has a lot less power than we like to believe it does. 

Somethings not quite right when 2 men run and win on anti-war platforms (Obama and Trump) and neither are able to effectively pull out. It's almost like there's an engine more powerful than the executive office just chugging along.

Overall point: Clinton if anything is part of that deep state if it exists. Her word means nothing at all. She would not have been fulfilling her promises ... which btw, weren't many anyways. She spent the entire election trying to beat Trump's supporters --- not make any policy promises.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Trump's troll moment of the day: Saying Andrew Jackson had a big heart.
> 
> - Vic


He actually meant that LOL.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Iconoclast If you're talking about the military industrial complex then it's real and it's dictated Murican foreign policy since WWII at least.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> @Iconoclast If you're talking about the military industrial complex then it's real and it's dictated Murican foreign policy since WWII at least.


Honestly, I'm probably optimistic to the point of naivete at this point but I think that the MIC exists as a system of unfortunate and misguided processes as opposed to an actual group of individuals with a legitimized hierarchy. 

You see what I'm saying?


----------



## AlternateDemise

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> btw suggesting that clinton would have been better is a baseless statement with no evidence to support it but that lack of self-awareness causes problems all kinds of ways dont it


I never suggested Clinton would be better. But we have no logical reason to think she would have been worse. This is arguably the worst start any President has had in this countries history.

The rest of your post is too stupid to even respond to.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah I don't think they're some Illuminati group. It's similar to how corporations run Congress. It's not a concerted effort.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> deepelemblues wasn't trolling. he was sarcastic and baiting with all the :trumps but his points were actually pretty good and he was serious in what he said.
> 
> by my reading anyway.


WRONG

I have never used :trump's name in this thread and I never will, I always use :trump instead

It's my one gimmick


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Yeah I don't think they're some Illuminati group. It's similar to how corporations run Congress. It's not a concerted effort.


It's like how I see the war on drugs as well. 

1. Government creates the black market by outlawing drugs
2. Government knows black markets = increased crime
3. Increased crime = increased need for law enforcement
3. Increased need for law enforcement = easy money to fund so-called law enforcement
5. The war artificially reduces the supply therefore keeps the cost high netting the government a lot of money when they do a successful bust
6. Asset forfeiture comes into this as people who are charged with possession pretty much always lose all their assets
7. More people incarcerated means more healthy and able people for cheap/slave labor

Interesting how three of the worst imaginable crimes against humanity are all funneled through the government. Almost like this government is a giant crime syndicate.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Interesting how three of the worst imaginable crimes against humanity are all funneled through the government. Almost like this government is a giant crime syndicate.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You guys arent occams razoring enough here

The MIC is not a conspiracy

Drugs being illegal is not a conspiracy

Drugs being illegal is that certain road to you know where being paved with good intentions

The MIC is mission creep in a different context

There is not one person or some cabal of people pulling strings on this shit. They take on a life of their own very quickly. 

Conspiracies caused by them are post hoc conspiracies, to take advantage of a situation or to perpetuate it 

A conspiracy was not executed to create the situation


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> WRONG
> 
> I have never used :trump's name in this thread and I never will, I always use :trump instead
> 
> It's my one gimmick


You don't have to defend yourself here. I'm not going to warn or ban your for baiting with :trump constantly like you do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> You don't have to defend yourself here. I'm not going to warn or ban your for baiting with :trump constantly like you do.


WRONG AGAIN

I don't do it to bait I do it because for some weird reason it amuses me to do that instead of using his name, it's silly and I enjoy silliness

Peoples reaction to it has nothing to do with that amusement it's purely internal

I had not even considered reactions to it until now

I'm just weird like that :draper2


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:heston this guy defending himself until the bitter end

i was aware that you always use :trump instead of his name though to be serious. i was going to explain how i worded that first post like shit but decided fuck that no need. it doesn't really matter.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The shutdown threat is right out of his playbook of 'deal-making'. He renegotiated his incredible bad debts with banks by basically saying he isn't going to payback anything, escalating mutually assured destruction to get what he wants since his creditors have more to lose than him. The question Trump supporters have to ask is do they have more to lose than non-supporters? Sadly, most of his base really feel they have nothing to lose or at least have less to lose than others and is content to see him wreck havoc in others lives so that others can feel the same social or economic anxiety.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Well tbh, I've been called a "typical" Trump supporter (whatever that is) far too much to care for what anyone thinks about what I think about Trump ... even now.
> 
> I do think that "better than Hillary" at the moment is a bit of wishful thinking. Other than Gorsuch, I'd say Trump is closer to running the show in a very parallel direction to how Hillary would have run it as well. Gorsuch within the first 100 days is Trump's biggest win. Won't take that away from him.
> 
> However, we know that Trump's foreign policy is almost completely in-line with Hillary's. The day Hillary called for bombing Syria and Trump actually did it on the same day should jump out at people when they make this comparison and should remain one of the strongest criticisms of Trump's presidency. His platform was an anti-war platform and we've seen escalations in war rhetoric on two fronts. I do however believe that the North Korean situation is being implanted in people's heads by the mainstream media whereas I think that Trump's administration may actually not care. However, it's tough to know because overall Trump is a D- on foreign policy.
> 
> Trump's administration has been "forced to" or has "complied with" liberal judges across the nation without being able to push their executive orders. They have been incompetent in how they've issues the orders as well as lethargic and seemingly lost in their follow up actions after denial.
> 
> The deportations while more publicly advertised have worked which is something we would not have seen under Hillary (or we might have given that she's actually more center right than center left on immigration herself). I think it may have continued a levels a few percentage points lower than Trumps. However, I like to believe that Trump's governments' publicity around the issue may have stemmed the tide at the Mexico border whereas the inflow would not have been impacted under Hillary.
> 
> The thing is that Trump is more liberal than conservatives wanted him to be and Hillary is more conservative than liberals want her to be (and so the far left would be complaining as much right now).
> 
> On several issues, the country would be in exactly the same direction as it is right now under either presidents. In my head it's pretty even right now. And with the Democrat budget, foreign policy struggles and war stance, it's actually more like Hillary is running the show than Trump at this point :shrug


The killing of TPP was also good also trying to renegotiate NAFTA. 

Trump has a few wins but not enough to call it a good Presidency thus far.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Here's an interesting tidbit for you guys @Miss Sally @Iconoclast
In our country, the left wingers HATED the TPP. But I'm guessing they liked it in the USA? Very interesting as Obama, the supposed left wing President was the one who gave it the a-ok, and Turnbull, our supposed right wing Prime Minister is the one who gave it the a-ok.
:hmmm



MrMister said:


> :heston this guy defending himself until the bitter end
> 
> i was aware that you always use :trump instead of his name though to be serious. i was going to explain how i worded that first post like shit but decided fuck that no need. it doesn't really matter.


deepelemblues is a troubled fellow, he can't control himself but bait people who disagree with him slightly it seems. And now he's apparently a coward as well. :mj

Smash that banhammer MrMr. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> :heston this guy defending himself until the bitter end
> 
> i was aware that you always use :trump instead of his name though to be serious. i was going to explain how i worded that first post like shit but decided fuck that no need. it doesn't really matter.


i was having a pleasant conversation revealing things about myself like normal people do in pleasant conversations

you were having a *different* experience apparently :draper2



> deepelemblues is a troubled fellow, he can't control himself but bait people who disagree with him slightly it seems. And now he's apparently a coward as well.


havent you learned your lesson about your master plans yet oxi :millhouse


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The killing of TPP was also good also trying to renegotiate NAFTA.
> 
> Trump has a few wins but not enough to call it a good Presidency thus far.


I don't see the TPP as a win or loss because I never saw the TPP as as much of a threat as others. 

I'm worried about renegotiating NAFTA. Governments negotiations with government is never a net positive. I also have less faith in Trump to negotiate something well given his inability to negotiate anything with his own party. This is a completely different government here. Seasoned politicians will eat him up. 

I think in countries with ideological similarity free trade that's actually free can be a net positive. The main criticism of the Obamacare is inability of companies to sell across state lines. NAFTA will benefit both countries if there's actual freedom of trade built into it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The killing of TPP was also good also trying to renegotiate NAFTA.
> 
> Trump has a few wins but not enough to call it a good Presidency thus far.


Well, he has 1,281 days to change your mind :wink2:


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Here's an interesting tidbit for you guys @Miss Sally @Iconoclast
> In our country, the left wingers HATED the TPP. But I'm guessing they liked it in the USA? Very interesting as Obama, the supposed left wing President was the one who gave it the a-ok, and Turnbull, our supposed right wing Prime Minister is the one who gave it the a-ok.
> :hmmm


Left wingers in the USA also hated the TPP. Bernie Sanders rose from a nobody to almost getting the democratic nomination partly due to his bashing of the TPP. Trump won the presidency partly due to bashing it as well.

It is the corporatists and establishment in most countries involved that favoured it to spur economic growth.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> The shutdown threat is right out of his playbook of 'deal-making'. He renegotiated his incredible bad debts with banks by basically saying he isn't going to payback anything, escalating mutually assured destruction to get what he wants since his creditors have more to lose than him. The question Trump supporters have to ask is do they have more to lose than non-supporters? Sadly, most of his base really feel they have nothing to lose or at least have less to lose than others and is content to see him wreck havoc in others lives so that others can feel the same social or economic anxiety.


Someone understands :trump at least

This is what hes always done

Always

Don't give him what he wants and he goes all mutually assured destruction to get you to shit your pants and give him what he wants

And that's just when you have some kind of leverage over him 

If he thinks you don't have leverage he rains plain old one sided destruction on you


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Honestly, I'm probably optimistic to the point of naivete at this point but I think that the MIC exists as a system of unfortunate and misguided processes as opposed to an actual group of individuals with a legitimized hierarchy.
> 
> You see what I'm saying?





MrMister said:


> Yeah I don't think they're some Illuminati group. It's similar to how corporations run Congress. It's not a concerted effort.


Reading your exchanges and a line from Oscar winning short film 'The Accountant' popped in my head.

"If a man builds a machine and that machine conspires with another machine built by another man, are those men conspiring?"


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> "If a man builds a machine and that machine conspires with another machine built by another man, are those men conspiring?"


The short answer to that is obviously not lol. 

Malicious intent has to be there for it to be a conspiracy and people to be part of that conspiracy. That's why so many white collar criminals as defined by society aren't really criminals imo.

Sometimes I wonder if drug Lords are really criminals for simply supplying drugs. I mean they're only criminals because their product is arbitrarily defined as illegal right?

In Muslim countries people who sell beer are criminals.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Left wingers in the USA also hated the TPP. Bernie Sanders rose from a nobody to almost getting the democratic nomination partly due to his bashing of the TPP. Trump won the presidency partly due to bashing it as well.
> 
> It is the corporatists and establishment in most countries involved that favoured it to spur economic growth.


Weird, the righties here liked the TPP. Our conservatives are all about the money though, and most of them are well-off, which would explain it. Since I guess we don't really have tradition to hold on to like the US does.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Weird, the righties here liked the TPP. Our conservatives are all about the money though, and most of them are well-off, which would explain it. Since I guess we don't really have tradition to hold on to like the US does.


Were the righties in power when the TPP was being proposed? TPP was seen as the easier option to spur growth in a stagnant global economy. GOP establishment were largely in favour of the TPP as well. It was more status quo versus change with regards to the TPP rather than political beliefs to which position one takes on the TPP.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, he has 1,281 days to change your mind :wink2:


Of course, he's done some good and some bad but won't just say I think he's great because I support him.

I said before in the old thread if he does dumb shit will call him out on it.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I just felt like giving my thoughts...



Miss Sally said:


> Agreed. I've defended Trump on iffy things because the people brandishing their paper swords were completely wrong and are so blinded by their Trump hate that they'd make Ray Charles seem like he had Pilot vision.
> 
> That being said I'll go down the biggest things I don't agree with.
> 
> Planned Parenthood.
> 
> 1. Funding this is stupid, let the private sector pay for this, let the celebs and pro-abortion people pay for it. PP makes money off being a baby chop shop and butchery, they can fund their own culling agenda.


I don't really believe the PP stuff where they alleged sold and harvested organs of dead babies. Seems like a hoax that was blown completely out of proportion. Really though, abortions only count for a small percentage of what they actually do, like testing for STDs, general contraceptive services, pre-natal care, cancer screening, etc. . And a good portion of their funding (about half) comes from private and non-governmental services already. 

As with abortion, I would rather something be available than for there to be no abortion services. Otherwise, you force mothers who want them to either have to trek much farther and spend more time and money to get their abortions, which is more difficult for what they usually serve, which are the lower income classes. 

(http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money)




> Obamacare.
> 
> 1. Can we put forth a better plan already? If not can we at least allow out of state Insurance Companies to compete for better prices? Can they do something about this bloated monster which is causing so much chaos? Please?


Yeah I would be okay with state based insurance, because the competition would be good and probably end up driving down some costs overall. As long as the pre-existing conditions part of the deal remains for all, I'm on board (if not if fucks my Dad, who is a cancer survivor and lives with Chrons Disease)



> Immigration.
> 
> 1. What. The. Fuck. Who cares if Democrats don't want the wall? I'd not want it either if I was trying to change the demographics of places to garner votes to my cause or keep people enslaved to my welfare titty. The US is seizing assets from Cartels and have money to blow on PP and the fucking Military but not a wall? Give me a break!


Trump has most likely already succeeded with lowering general immigration thanks to his talk of building the wall and all of the talk of how he doesn't want illegals coming in. He's talked more about that than Obama did, and I think many of those illegals are much more afraid of Trump than they were Obama or Bush. In a way, his actions and what he's said has acted as a metaphorical, non-physical wall. 

Realistically, I'd rather we work on our overall border security, start using more drones, and hire more agents to patrol areas with a higher likelihood of illegals and other immigrants sneaking their way in. Speaking of which, it would be a good idea for some of that money given to Immigration in the budget to be dedicated to the research of the likelihood of time, places, and methods they are making their way into the country. 

I was never a fan of the wall because it seemed almost impractical to ever expect it done during his presidency, and I think it would be better off to use that money and the overall resources that would have been used to build it on our infrastructure instead.



> 2. Sanctuary cities and Politicians will now get bold and further their efforts to push their agenda.


I get the idea of keeping illegals in cities like that because of the moral obligation to not break up families, and that because some of those people really don't have another choice or some stuff like that.

But... it's not hard to come in legally. And if you'r illegal, well that's against federal law, and they should be deported. If it breaks up a family, that can be dealt with in a way where the law is abides to and the well being of children is also met. 

The idea that some of these illegals living in these cities are criminals and can use sanctuary cities to hide in is infuriating though.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The short answer to that is obviously not lol.
> 
> Malicious intent has to be there for it to be a conspiracy and people to be part of that conspiracy. That's why so many white collar criminals as defined by society aren't really criminals imo.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if drug Lords are really criminals for simply supplying drugs. I mean they're only criminals because their product is arbitrarily defined as illegal right?
> 
> In Muslim countries people who sell beer are criminals.


Like I said it just reminded me of the line. I should have given better context. The short has a part where a character goes into this detailed conspiracy about factory farming and the decline of family farms. Then later another character questions him on the conspiracy. He relents on his conspiracy and says that line. The idea, I think, is that the two men might as well have conspired since their actions, creating their conspiring machines, had the same affect as them conspiring. That intent matters, but so do results. I get without intent there isn't a conspiracy.

The drug thing is funny that way. Guy lives in Utah and makes pot brownies, he's a criminal eligible for prison. Does it right across the border in Colorado and he's just a professional baker.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I just felt like giving my thoughts...
> 
> I don't really believe the PP stuff where they alleged sold and harvested organs of dead babies. Seems like a hoax that was blown completely out of proportion. Really though, abortions only count for a small percentage of what they actually do, like testing for STDs, general contraceptive services, pre-natal care, cancer screening, etc. . And a good portion of their funding (about half) comes from private and non-governmental services already.
> 
> As with abortion, I would rather something be available than for there to be no abortion services. Otherwise, you force mothers who want them to either have to trek much farther and spend more time and money to get their abortions, which is more difficult for what they usually serve, which are the lower income classes.
> 
> (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money)


Great. Maybe that'll teach low income people not to have children they shouldn't be having in the first place. I have no sympathy for people who have made bad choices in life and I don't want to be forced to fund those choices because it doesn't teach them anything at all. 

I'll fund someone's abortion myself if I want to. I shouldn't be forced to do it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I just felt like giving my thoughts...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really believe the PP stuff where they alleged sold and harvested organs of dead babies. Seems like a hoax that was blown completely out of proportion. Really though, abortions only count for a small percentage of what they actually do, like testing for STDs, general contraceptive services, pre-natal care, cancer screening, etc. . And a good portion of their funding (about half) comes from private and non-governmental services already.
> 
> As with abortion, I would rather something be available than for there to be no abortion services. Otherwise, you force mothers who want them to either have to trek much farther and spend more time and money to get their abortions, which is more difficult for what they usually serve, which are the lower income classes.
> 
> (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I would be okay with state based insurance, because the competition would be good and probably end up driving down some costs overall. As long as the pre-existing conditions part of the deal remains for all, I'm on board (if not if fucks my Dad, who is a cancer survivor and lives with Chrons Disease)
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has most likely already succeeded with lowering general immigration thanks to his talk of building the wall and all of the talk of how he doesn't want illegals coming in. He's talked more about that than Obama did, and I think many of those illegals are much more afraid of Trump than they were Obama or Bush. In a way, his actions and what he's said has acted as a metaphorical, non-physical wall.
> 
> Realistically, I'd rather we work on our overall border security, start using more drones, and hire more agents to patrol areas with a higher likelihood of illegals and other immigrants sneaking their way in. Speaking of which, it would be a good idea for some of that money given to Immigration in the budget to be dedicated to the research of the likelihood of time, places, and methods they are making their way into the country.
> 
> I was never a fan of the wall because it seemed almost impractical to ever expect it done during his presidency, and I think it would be better off to use that money and the overall resources that would have been used to build it on our infrastructure instead.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the idea of keeping illegals in cities like that because of the moral obligation to not break up families, and that because some of those people really don't have another choice or some stuff like that.
> 
> But... it's not hard to come in legally. And if you'r illegal, well that's against federal law, and they should be deported. If it breaks up a family, that can be dealt with in a way where the law is abides to and the well being of children is also met.
> 
> The idea that some of these illegals living in these cities are criminals and can use sanctuary cities to hide in is infuriating though.



I'm not against abortion or offering abortion services to people but if PP is going to make profits while getting federal funding than fuck that. I'm unsure on the body harvesting but it was exposed and people were going nuts to defend it. Regardless PP is still something founded by a crazy white woman who believed in culling brown people and poor whites. 

I want insurance to compete US wide so people get the best options and so people don't have to worry about travel. I find it stupid that if I have a Texas drivers license that I can legally drive all over the US, my insurance still protects me but medical wise it doesn't offer the same protection, that's moronic and needs to be fixed.

Border security needs a fixing, I support the wall being built along cities and easily crossable areas with drones and sensors covering wide areas. That way it's easier to watch the walled areas and funnel illegal activity into more open areas away from citizens and for better busts. Given the cartel situation border security is needed.

I understand the reason behind sanctuary cities but still breaking the law. Plenty of people come here legally everyday from some of the poorest nations and far worse places than South America and yet they do it legally. It seems the expectations for Hispanics is so low that people think they do not possess the intelligence nor skills to come here legally, it's insulting to everyone who came here legally. These cities protect criminals and raise taxes and stress services for people who are actual citizens.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Great. Maybe that'll teach low income people not to have children they shouldn't be having in the first place. I have no sympathy for people who have made bad choices in life and I don't want to be forced to fund those choices because it doesn't teach them anything at all.
> 
> I'll fund someone's abortion myself if I want to. I shouldn't be forced to do it.


I mean, it puts others who maybe have an accidental pregnancy, or rape victims, or etc without proper help though too. I get what you're saying, but I kinda look at it like this. If I could prevent the birth of a child who probably has higher chance of growing up in a bad environment, and then either becoming a criminal, getting a shit life, or in general costing the government thousands of dollars to raise, I'd rather do that. 

But that's only a small fraction of what they're doing, and I focus more on that stuff being completely eliminated from certain low income areas.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I mean, it puts others who maybe have an accidental pregnancy, or rape victims, or etc without proper help though too. I get what you're saying, but I kinda look at it like this. If I could prevent the birth of a child who probably has higher chance of growing up in a bad environment, and then either becoming a criminal, getting a shit life, or in general costing the government thousands of dollars to raise, I'd rather do that.
> 
> But that's only a small fraction of what they're doing, and I focus more on that stuff being completely eliminated from certain low income areas.


Less than 1-3% of all abortions performed are due to incest, rape or life of mother threatened. Approximately 95% of all abortions are performed for economic or "other" reasons so there's something to this claim that people use abortion as a form of birth control :draper2 

PP is also privately funded. Just ask every pro-abortion celebrity a year to donate 1 of their royalty chqs voluntarily to PP and that should make up for the shortfall anyways. 

I don't get why tax and spend liberals think it's somehow a good idea to keep taxing people (hence keeping them poor) and then using their money to fund someone else who's also poor to fight poverty. 

Taxation all around keeps everyone poorer. Voluntary donations will make up the shortfall forced taxation will create. I promise. 

I mean, people are funding 150 million dollar games through crowdfunding now. C'mon. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that'll support gofundme's for people absolutely needing abortions and all this other "good stuff" PP does ---- minus the huge "administration costs" write-offs too.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm not against abortion or offering abortion services to people but if PP is going to make profits while getting federal funding than fuck that. I'm unsure on the body harvesting but it was exposed and people were going nuts to defend it. Regardless PP is still something founded by a crazy white woman who believed in culling brown people and poor whites.


Yeah I don't like that it makes a profit, I'll agree on that one. Something like that should be able to pay wages and offer the services it does, while being able to upgrade equipment and keep things in order without making a profit. Still think overall it's a good think that should be kept though.



> I want insurance to compete US wide so people get the best options and so people don't have to worry about travel. I find it stupid that if I have a Texas drivers license that I can legally drive all over the US, my insurance still protects me but medical wise it doesn't offer the same protection, that's moronic and needs to be fixed.


Agreed, and that's actually a really good analogy. I'm still riding off my parents insurance until I hit 26 (I think that's the limit to where I'd have to get my own), because I mean as long as they're fine with it I'd rather hold off that bullshit until I really have no choice. Right now though, they don't seem to have much better, and nobody seems to have a clue when a new proposal is coming, which sucks. With my luck they'll figure something out and start switching over when I actually have to purchase coverage for myself, and that'll be a huge clusterfuck :lol 



> Border security needs a fixing, I support the wall being built along cities and easily crossable areas with drones and sensors covering wide areas. That way it's easier to watch the walled areas and funnel illegal activity into more open areas away from citizens and for better busts. Given the cartel situation border security is needed.


Like the funneling idea, but it's hard for me to see massive walls cutting certain border cities in half, and I wonder the kind of reaction people living on both the cities on the US side and on the Mexican side you would get. Unless you just ramp up general security in border cities that could be hotspots. 



> I understand the reason behind sanctuary cities but still breaking the law. Plenty of people come here legally everyday from some of the poorest nations and far worse places than South America and yet they do it legally. It seems the expectations for Hispanics is so low that people think they do not possess the intelligence nor skills to come here legally, it's insulting to everyone who came here legally. *These cities protect criminals and raise taxes and stress services for people who are actual citizens.*


That's what confused me the most about people supporting them. I mean I do get why people like them, but at the same time the overall security and general livability of a city is lowered if you keep illegals, some of which could be criminals, in your city.

If anything, deport the illegals back, especially the criminals (and make it so that they can't come into the country for a long time if they are indeed criminals). But if you have to deport people who actually have worked hard for years but are illegal, perhaps give them a fine and maybe a length of time in which they cannot come back, say a year, but give them the resources to re-apply and re-enter the country with a green card, or as a proper citizen. 

I'm almost certain I worked with somebody illegal when I used to work for catering at a golf club near my hometown. The dude was probably the hardest working person in the place, always happy to help everybody. However, he never really lived in anything other than in houses that rented rooms, and didn't have a driver's license either, so he had a buddy that drove him to the train station to get to work. 

I never ratted him out because he was a friend of mine, but I was always conflicted. I think he got help from our boss actually and he's legal now. With him, and people like that, those are the people who I would be happy to help come back into the country with the proper paperwork and authorization, after they served some sort of criminal punishment. You can't just have people deported and let them apply and come right in without a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Less than 1-3% of all abortions performed are due to incest, rape or life of mother threatened. Approximately 95% of all abortions are performed for economic or "other" reasons so there's something to this claim that people use abortion as a form of birth control :draper2
> 
> PP is also privately funded. Just ask every pro-abortion celebrity a year to donate 1 of their royalty chqs voluntarily to PP and that should make up for the shortfall anyways.
> 
> I don't get why tax and spend liberals think it's somehow a good idea to keep taxing people (hence keeping them poor) and then using their money to fund someone else who's also poor to fight poverty.
> 
> Taxation all around keeps everyone poorer. Voluntary donations will make up the shortfall forced taxation will create. I promise.
> 
> I mean, people are funding 150 million dollar games through crowdfunding now. C'mon. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that'll support gofundme's for people absolutely needing abortions and all this other "good stuff" PP does ---- minus the huge "administration costs" write-offs too.


Well if anything, we can start by completely overhauling our sex education system, because right now it's a complete joke. I remember taking it in High School, and learning pretty much next to nothing in it. Thankfully I was in a high school where the majority of people were pretty logical (and also middle to upper middle class). But stuff like teaching abstinence as the only way to not get STDs and to not get pregnant is just crap.

Although, if they cut off all federal funding, there would probably be some movement that would end up making all the money lost back through donations and the like. As much as I do like all the other stuff they do, and as much as I get why so many women support it, many seem to forget that it's not completely government funded. Worth a try to do this I guess.

Speaking of that Gofundme stuff, there's so many shitty things on there now, as well as projects that turned out to be complete busts. I think that juicer that was in the news was crowdfunded there, and there's that cooler which got like $10+ million but only like a third of the people have actually gotten their product, and then the creator asked for an extra hundred bucks from those who didn't get it :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Well if anything, we can start by completely overhauling our sex education system, because right now it's a complete joke. I remember taking it in High School, and learning pretty much next to nothing in it. Thankfully I was in a high school where the majority of people were pretty logical (and also middle to upper middle class). But stuff like teaching abstinence as the only way to not get STDs and to not get pregnant is just crap.


Abstinence is obviously in theory the best birth control. So is taking away everyone's guns to end gun violence. Both theories are perfectly sound, but we know practically it doesn't work :lmao 

But who imparts the sex education? The nanny state or parents themselves? The nanny state that tells you that "oh you should have protected sex, but it's ok if you don't because if you get pregnant we'll pay for your abortion too". That's what the state is teaching kids these days and I'm sorry, it's a contradictory upbringing that teaches kids no personal responsibility. 

Poverty and high pregnancy rates are ALWAYS going to be correlated so I'm pretty sure the nanny state preaching about precautions is only half the battle. I personally don't see why barriers to getting easy and free abortions can't also be used as a precaution. I mean, if a condom prevents pregnancy, then so should the knowledge that you won't have someone else paying for your very expensive procedure :draper2

I know this is anecdotal, but all of my wife's friends are making less than her and all of them have multiple kids. (We're childless and are waiting to double what we currently make before having a child). Stupid people are always going to get pregnant when they shouldn't. Of course, they're already lacking in a sense of personal responsibility so I don't see why a group of stupid people deserve empathy or bail outs for their stupidity anyways. 

It's an extreme way of looking at it, but an abortion borne out of parental stupidity is literally a society-supported and normalized mercy killing ... 



> Although, if they cut off all federal funding, there would probably be some movement that would end up making all the money lost back through donations and the like. As much as I do like all the other stuff they do, and as much as I get why so many women support it, many seem to forget that it's not completely government funded. Worth a try to do this I guess.


Exactly my point. 



> Speaking of that Gofundme stuff, there's so many shitty things on there now, as well as projects that turned out to be complete busts. I think that juicer that was in the news was crowdfunded there, and there's that cooler which got like $10+ million but only like a third of the people have actually gotten their product, and then the creator asked for an extra hundred bucks from those who didn't get it :lol


But it's all voluntary so it's ok :cudi 

No gofundme is involuntary so it's literally buyer beware. I don't fund any gofundme's. When I part with my money, I do it directly to individuals I personally know who have exhibited high moral character and ambition. Everyone single one of the children I've ever funded have gone on to get jobs in offices, or start their own businesses. One kid I helped buy a barber chair for and he now owns his own shop. Another kid I bought a computer for and he's now a programmer. I bought one of my driver's a cell phone which he used to run a side taxi service. 

I learnt this from my parents. Fund the individual's dream, don't bail out the individual's mistake.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Conservatives not willing to foot the hundredth of a cent for an abortion because they don't agree with abortion but also wanting to not foot the hundredth of a cent per week to make sure that exact kid they want to force into the world doesn't grow up mistreated and troubled. :mj4

Not enough people challenge this new wave of conservatism, the obnoxious SJW-level conservatives run off anyone who criticises their ideas.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Conservatives not willing to foot the hundredth of a cent for an abortion because they don't agree with abortion but also wanting to not foot the hundredth of a cent per week to make sure that exact kid they want to force into the world doesn't grow up mistreated and troubled. :mj4
> 
> Not enough people challenge this new wave of conservatism, the obnoxious SJW-level conservatives run off anyone who criticises their ideas.


Interesting argument, preventing people from living is okay because their lives might be unpleasant. 

Care to apply it to yourself? With all your whining about your life you've done, do you think you should have been aborted? Tell us, where should the line be drawn when it comes to "that person's life is so unpleasant that they would have been better off never being born"? What causes you to believe you have the knowledge and character, the moral authority, to draw such a line for others? What's more, to draw such a line for others who have not yet experienced any of that mistreatment when the abortion is carried out? 

Why draw the line anywhere? If we're going into the mass mercy-killing business, why not kill a 5 year old who has physically and verbally abusive, alcoholic parents? Why not kill an 11 year old before they get sexually molested, if you have some kind of proof that they will be? Why not nuke some warlord-infested corner of Africa, because killing everybody living there would be better for them than the lives they'd have under those thieving, slaving, village-burning mass-raping warlords?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Interesting argument, preventing people from living is okay because their lives might be unpleasant.
> 
> Care to apply it to yourself? With all your whining about your life you've done, do you think you should have been aborted? Tell us, where should the line be drawn when it comes to "that person's life is so unpleasant that they would have been better off never being born"? What causes you to believe you have the knowledge and character, the moral authority, to draw such a line for others? What's more, to draw such a line for others who have not yet experienced any of that mistreatment when the abortion is carried out?
> 
> Why draw the line anywhere? If we're going into the mass mercy-killing business, why not kill a 5 year old who has physically and verbally abusive, alcoholic parents? Why not kill an 11 year old before they get sexually molested, if you have some kind of proof that they will be?


Don't be ridiculous. It's not mass killing of children, it's a medical procedure to scrape some cells out of some vaggs. It's also the decision of the mother and no one else. 

It's also government funded for the greater good because if it wasn't there the most likely outcome would be hideous backyard jobs and mothers sticking coathangers up there.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Interesting argument, preventing people from living is okay because their lives might be unpleasant.
> 
> Care to apply it to yourself? With all your whining about your life you've done, do you think you should have been aborted?


Christ what IS your problem? :mj4


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Christ what IS your problem? :mj4


His parents may have attempted to abort him recently perhaps?


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't be ridiculous. It's not mass killing of children, it's a medical procedure to scrape some cells out of some vaggs. It's also the decision of the mother and no one else.
> 
> It's also government funded for the greater good because if it wasn't there the most likely outcome would be hideous backyard jobs and mothers sticking coathangers up there.


You were once some cells in some womb (not some vagina, geez louise). Everyone was once some cells in some womb. The stork didn't fly into the delivery room and magically replace a larger bunch of some cells with you the very instant that larger bunch of some cells emerged from your mother's birth canal. Not sure why you'd be so cavalier with such logic when such logic could be applied to you along with everyone else. If the some cells in some womb that was you, or was me, was aborted (killed), there would be no you or me now. 

That some cells in some womb had the same genetic code as you. Unless you have some kind of super cancer that has extremely altered your DNA. There is an unbroken existential link between that some cells in some womb and you. 



> Christ what IS your problem?


The guy justifying abortion by saying those aborted might have shitty lives is asking what other people's problem is :heston

You're justifying abortion by saying that in some cases it is a kind of mercy killing. So where do you draw the line on mercy killing?

You're not God, to be making such decisions about lives not your own. No one is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Conservatives not willing to foot the hundredth of a cent for an abortion because they don't agree with abortion but also wanting to not foot the hundredth of a cent per week to make sure that exact kid they want to force into the world doesn't grow up mistreated and troubled. :mj4
> 
> Not enough people challenge this new wave of conservatism, the obnoxious SJW-level conservatives run off anyone who criticises their ideas.


This is what is known as a strawman. It's a popular Occupy Democrats meme with literally no basis in fact at all. None whatsoever. 

There are no "unwanted" children in America. Every single child that was ever given up by its mother is in a home in America. This idea that the west has these orphans that have no homes and has persisted from the early 1800's where society was generally not as well off as it is now. Children in poverty doesn't mean that those children are unwanted. In fact, it's the opposite. The children being raised in poverty are those children where parents had them when they weren't ready but aren't willing to give them up to potentially better parents. This isn't a justification for expecting other people to pay for your abortion. It is however a better option to have a child and put it up for adoption. 

There is a huge shortage of children in the western world as there are now more couples that can't have children. The waiting list for people waiting to adopt babies is in the millions. There are even waiting lists for unwanted disabled children. There are even people willing to pay couples to have children for them. These are prosperous times indeed. 

Every child in America is provided for and has a home. Foster children are not significantly worse off than kids who have terrible parents. In fact, in some areas foster kids outperform kids of idiot parents.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> You were once some cells in some womb (not some vagina, geez louise). Everyone was once some cells in some womb. The stork didn't fly into the delivery room and magically replace a larger bunch of some cells with you the very instant that larger bunch of some cells emerged from your mother's birth canal. Not sure why you'd be so cavalier with such logic when such logic could be applied to you along with everyone else. If the some cells in some womb that was you, or was me, was aborted (killed), there would be no you or me now.
> 
> That some cells in some womb had the same genetic code as you. Unless you have some kind of super cancer that has extremely altered your DNA. There is an unbroken existential link between that some cells in some womb and you.


No one of this disputes anything I said in my previous comment (Actually it strengthens it as you admit it is just a bunch of cells at the time of abortion). 

I don't want to turn Trump thread into abortion thread so I'll just leave your thoughts for you to preach at your next church meet.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> This is what is known as a strawman. It's a popular Occupy Democrats meme with literally no basis in fact at all. None whatsoever.
> 
> There are no "unwanted" children in America. Every single child that was ever given up by its mother is in a home in America. This idea that the west has these orphans that have no homes and has persisted from the early 1800's where society was generally not as well off as it is now. Children in poverty doesn't mean that those children are unwanted. In fact, it's the opposite. The children being raised in poverty are those children where parents had them when they weren't ready but aren't willing to give them up to potentially better parents. This isn't a justification for expecting other people to pay for your abortion. It is however a better option to have a child and put it up for adoption.
> 
> There is a huge shortage of children in the western world as there are now more couples that can't have children. The waiting list for people waiting to adopt babies is in the millions. There are even waiting lists for unwanted disabled children. There are even people willing to pay couples to have children for them. These are prosperous times indeed.
> 
> Every child in America is provided for and has a home. Foster children are not significantly worse off than kids who have terrible parents. In fact, in some areas foster kids outperform kids of idiot parents.


Speaking of strawmen, I never once said the word "unwanted", or even a word synonymous with it. But you wrote all of that to counter it. :hmm:
Is this your gimmick now, to do things and immediately claim others are doing it?



deepelemblues said:


> The guy justifying abortion by saying those aborted might have shitty lives is asking what other people's problem is :heston
> 
> You're justifying abortion by saying that in some cases it is a kind of mercy killing. So where do you draw the line on mercy killing?
> 
> You're not God, to be making such decisions about lives not your own. No one is.


I'm not justifying anything, sorry you (and others) jump to conclusions so quickly. I'm asking what your problem is since you can't help but post some bait in all of your posts in response to me. Even a mod called you out on your baiting.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> Speaking of strawmen, I never once said the word "unwanted", or even a word synonymous with it. But you wrote all of that to counter it. :hmm:
> Is this your gimmick now, to do things and immediately claim others are doing it?





> * but also wanting to not foot the hundredth of a cent per week to make sure that exact kid they want to force into the world doesn't grow up mistreated and troubled.
> *


That's the very definition of a strawman. It's based off a very common meme/cartoon passed around libtard circles and has been around for decades. I used to post it on my fb wall too when I thought I knew the entire plethora of conservative attitudes and I was actually ignorant of them. 

It is based on the delusion that while conservatives don't want to foot the bill of the abortion, they also don't want to fund the child. Completely baseless idea. Care to prove this statement that conservatives don't want to care for the children in poverty?

"Gimmick" :mj4

:kobelol


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> That's called a strawman. It's based off a very common meme/cartoon passed around libtard circles.


And there we have it, you've gone full circle. :jim



> It is based on the delusion that while conservatives don't want to foot the bill of the abortion, they also don't want to fund the child.
> 
> Completely baseless idea. Care to prove this statement that conservatives don't want to care for the children in poverty?


Do I need to provide proof or can we just look at the countless conservatives who simply don't like social security for the unemployed and poor? The vast majority of conservatives who are vehemently against anything "commie" or "socialist" thus do not agree with being taxed so their hard earnings go to people who "don't earn a thing"? Or the number of conservatives who just believe "tax is theft"? The amount of people that, despite friends and families being laid off from work because of a dying workforce under Democrat rule, believe there is somehow, still enough jobs for everyone (you seem included in this, still)? Or how about the number of people who, themselves, are deluded into beliefs such as "I would pay for the children, but I can't trust the parent(s) with my tax dollars!"?


... Or are we going to ignore this since it's 'simply anecdotal' and I don't have a study from _conservativefacts dot com_ stating that this is the case with their sample size of 10,000 people who may be biased?


I never did say or even imply that this is all conservatives, by the way. Maybe you read it as such, but I said "Conservatives not willing to..." not "Conservatives are not willing to..." meaning I'm talking about a group of conservatives, not all of them.

P.S. You could do without the talking down and patronising, it helped you stand out from the crowd.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> And there we have it, you've gone full circle. :jim


Pretty sure I've had to do that because you simply don't grasp that your original statement was a strawman. If you don't want to accept it as such, then that's fine. Doesn't change anything. 



> Do I need to provide proof or can we just look at the countless conservatives who simply don't like social security for the unemployed and poor?


Define "countless". Toss out some numbers. Do a little work. I'm tired of talking to people, doing the research and expecting the same kind of courtesy in return. If you can't back something up, then just stop talking about it because without facts anything pulled out of one's ass is just an assertion that can be tossed out like the garbage it is. 



> *The vast majority of conservatives who are vehemently against anything "commie" or "socialist" thus do not agree with being taxed so their hard earnings go to people who "don't earn a thing"?* Or the number of conservatives who just believe "tax is theft"? The amount of people that, despite friends and families being laid off from work because of a dying workforce under Democrat rule, believe there is somehow, still enough jobs for everyone (you seem included in this, still)? Or how about the number of people who, themselves, are deluded into beliefs such as "I would pay for the children, but I can't trust the parent(s) with my tax dollars!"?


Oh jeez. This is complete and utter mess. 

1. You seem to be confused about what conservative is. There are many definitions and many types of conservatives. The entire group of conservatives isn't a monolithic group with the same ideology. The tax and spend conservatives are different from the minarchists who want limited government are different from anarcho-capitalists who are the taxation is theft group. If you don't even know these major differences in conservatives, how can you even begin to argue what their positions are. And yes, I'm going to condescend because I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the differences. 

2. Tax and Spend conservatives don't mind being taxed for programs they want. This is a group of conservatives that I disagree with because I find them to be just as bad as the democrats because they just want everyone's tax dollars to go into their special programs. However, this is the group (deep belongs in this group I believe) that views abortion as murder and therefore does not want his tax dollars funding murder. This group has a different position. You want to learn from them and debate them. There are also prolife liberals and Democrats and yet the slander is always directed at conservatives. Even worse is the ides that being prolife is a bad thing in and of itself that the people who believe in it are somehow bad people. 

3. Taxation is theft group is neither conservative, nor liberal. This is the group that believes that The State is evil in all its forms and must be abolished. This is the group that believes that there is an acceptable level of unemployment in every society which would be "natural unemployment". This group is immune to the propaganda of the collectivist because the economic theories of capitalism simply say that without the government market forces will always have poverty and the wealthy but that continued vertical growth will result meaning that the poor will always have a better living standard than in any other system. The idea works on a macroeconomic level. In a free market society there will always be poverty, but also opportunity and it's up to the individual to take it and benefit from it. In a free market economy even a disabled person can work to earn his keep as there would be opportunity for him. The government interferes with the free market economy through a series of controls and regulations that mess up competition, stunts innovation and creates government-created monopolies that contribute significantly to creating unemployment and poverty in the society. Stagnates growth and then hopes to keep funding people through a shrinking pie. It's literally like having a pail of water where you take out more water than is pouring into it. 

4. It is the social welfare state that creates lack of opportunity and lack of jobs more than a free market economy. The processes have been explained time and time again in here but you guys on the left tend not to even bother reading those lengthy posts. I'm sure people like @L-DOPA and @CamillePunk are also tired of trying to explain to you guys over and over again how welfare creates unemployment needing more welfare till eventually the state enters a failed state status. It's really not that complex. 



> ... Or are we going to ignore this since it's 'simply anecdotal' and I don't have a study from _conservativefacts dot com_ stating that this is the case with their sample size of 10,000 people who may be biased?


How many "conservatives" do you think represent the people who don't give a shit about poverty? Put your money where your mouth is and put a number on it. 



> I never did say or even imply that this is all conservatives, by the way. Maybe you read it as such, but I said "Conservatives not willing to..." not "Conservatives are not willing to..." meaning I'm talking about a group of conservatives, not all of them.


But how did you even label them "conservatives" now that I can see you don't even have an understanding of who belongs in that group and how differently they think. How do you know what they're thinking when your inferences are simply based on assuming what they think or believe instead of actually finding out? 



> P.S. You could do without the talking down and patronising, it helped you stand out from the crowd.


For someone that's in here patronizing and strawmaning "conservatives" (whether just some or all) as cold, uncaring and unkind people -- you're one to talk.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Define "countless". Toss out some numbers. Do a little work. I'm tired of talking to people, doing the research and expecting the same kind of courtesy in return. If you can't back something up, then just stop talking about it because without facts anything pulled out of one's ass is just an assertion that can be tossed out like the garbage it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh jeez. This is complete and utter mess.


I'm lazy too. It's your prerogative to want to make everything statistical. I like facts. You like facts. I like stats. You like stats. But I can have a conversation on the basis of what's obvious without needing me or anyone else to back it up until it gets to a point where what people say is illogical or unreasonable. Is any of what I said illogical or unreasonable? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either, but you'd rather dedicate over 2/3 of your post to semantics about what is a conservative; which is a conservative type A, and which is a conservative type B.

I also realised you labelled me as a liberal fairly recently, seemingly just so you can throw me in with that group every time I say something you disagree with...


> passed around libtard circles.





> you guys on the left


For that, along with the fact you're so far gone you're unwilling to actually discuss things with someone who disagrees with you without pejoratives or borderline trolling (like almost everyone else on your side) I'm done engaging you like I used to. Don't take this as unwilling or unable to argue, you know I would. But you also (should) know that I don't like talking to provocateurs. Which you have unfortunately become.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> I'm lazy too. It's your prerogative to want to make everything statistical. I like facts. You like facts. I like stats. You like stats. But I can have a conversation on the basis of what's obvious without needing me or anyone else to back it up until it gets to a point where what people say is illogical or unreasonable. Is any of what I said illogical or unreasonable? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either, but you'd rather dedicate over 2/3 of your post to semantics about what is a conservative; which is a conservative type A, and which is a conservative type B.
> 
> I also realised you labelled me as a liberal fairly recently, seemingly just so you can throw me in with that group every time I say something you disagree with...
> 
> 
> 
> For that, along with the fact you're so far gone you're unwilling to actually discuss things with someone who disagrees with you without pejoratives or borderline trolling (like almost everyone else on your side) I'm done engaging you like I used to. Don't take this as unwilling or unable to argue, you know I would. But you also (should) know that I don't like talking to provocateurs. Which you have unfortunately become.




You are on the left. You're for big government, pro social welfare, pro taxation. That makes you squarely left wing. I'm not shoving you in any group that the majority of your views belong in. Do you want me to call you a pro social welfare conservative? Why are you so afraid of the label?

Also I said that it's something that's passed around in libtard circles. You can think that since you're presenting it as a non libtard is fine but it is a libtard argument. Not that that makes you one necessarily.

In the rest of your post you're simply too triggered to say anything of value worth responding to. I don't give a shit what yiu think about me and I'm done having people ignore the content of my posts and responding with outright PMS laden bitching about me.

Too lazy to do research but not lazy enough to not respond with made up assumptions


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Taxation all around keeps everyone poorer. Voluntary donations will make up the shortfall forced taxation will create. I promise.


Regarding this specific instance I actually believe it. There was heavy, heavy talk of 'self-funding' PP if govt went ahead with defunding.


deepelemblues said:


> Not sure why you'd be so cavalier with such logic when such logic could be applied to you along with everyone else.


But it wasn't lol, that's the entire point.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Regarding this specific instance I actually believe it. There was heavy, heavy talk of 'self-funding' PP if govt went ahead with defunding.


We all have to start believing in the charitable human spirit at some point :drose 

-----

This is very interesting. The other side of the Master Persuader coin: 



> Flagrant theft from @ScottAdamsSays – Trump is a Master of the Con
> 
> Today I am reminded of a quote attributed to Al Pacino: When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole a bike and asked God for forgiveness.
> 
> I’ve always found Dilbert comics to be rather amusing and I followed Scott Adams on social media as he unpacked the persuasive genius of Donald Trump, from a very early stage. For completely different reasons, Adams and I both understood Trump would take the White House and there was little the Democrats, especially with Hillary Clinton as the brand, could do about it.
> 
> My reason for calling Trump for the win was far more emotive and intuitive than Adams: I understood Trump to be posing a direct challenge to the nannying, censorious, hectoring left, without actually identifying any one group specifically. Trump never said ‘feminists suck’, although he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he thinks feminists suck, and that won him the crown.
> 
> Adams pointed to Trump’s mastery of the techniques of persuasion, and his post today is so utterly fantastic, I have stolen it, with the full intention of begging for forgiveness should the Creator become angry. Follow Scott on social media and buy his book!
> 
> USING PERSUASION TO CREATE ASSETS OUT OF NOTHING
> 
> Posted May 2nd, 2017 @ 9:18am in #Trump #negotiating
> 
> Yesterday President Trump unexpectedly said he would be “honored” to meet North Korea’s Kim Jung-un.
> 
> And that’s how a Master Persuader creates an asset out of nothing.
> 
> I’ll explain.
> 
> By holding out the possibility of meeting with Kim Jung-un, President Trump has conjured out of thin air a virtual “asset” that he can use for negotiating with North Korea. I’m sure the North Korean leader would like the international respect and recognition that such a meeting would confer. Best of all, Jung-un could use that future meeting as evidence for his citizens that he stared-down America and negotiated a great deal in which we remove some of our military assets while they end their nuclear weapons program. Or something like that.
> 
> The point is that President Trump created this “asset” out of nothing but persuasion. Now Kim Jung-un has something to gain, and something to lose. And that option simply didn’t exist a week ago.
> 
> Do you think this was a unique situation?
> 
> Consider that President Trump has already built a border wall with Mexico out of nothing but persuasion. Immigration from Mexico is down more than 50% just from Trump’s persuasion alone. I suppose we will get something like a physical wall someday too. But for now, Trump’s Wall of Persuasion is doing a lot of work.
> 
> Now take a look at the stock market. Optimism about a Trump presidency has increased the value of the stock market by a gazillion dollars (approximately) since election day. In other words, President Trump’s persuasion created a lot of something out of nothing. Again.
> 
> I hadn’t heard much about the alleged trillion dollars held offshore by American corporations until Trump started talking about repatriating it. If the tax code is tweaked just right, much of that money will come back. That’s like Trump’s persuasion creating something out of nothing too.
> 
> President Trump cancelled TPP, criticized NAFTA, and warned China that trade negotiations will be aggressive. That collection of persuasion will probably create money out of nothing for America.
> 
> Before President Trump came to office, some NATO countries were not paying their agreed share of the expenses. Now countries are starting to step up. That change came from nothing but persuasion.
> 
> If you think climate prediction models are unreliable, President Trump just conjured up a few trillion dollars in cost savings by favoring job creation and economics over CO2 reduction. Obviously that could be the wrong bet, but you see a consistent pattern: Trump traded something that might not be based on reality – the fear of global warming – for something he knows is real – the economic growth and cost savings.
> 
> President Trump’s tax plan will attempt to conjure up free money too, using a Trump variant of supply-side economics. The idea is that by cutting taxes you stimulate the economy and make the tax cuts pay for themselves by creating more income that can be taxed. In the past, corporations would have banked the extra cash from any tax savings and continued moving their operations to cheaper offshore workers. But in the Trump administration, moving operations outside the USA is harder. That means corporate tax savings will have a far greater chance of leading to higher employment here. And employment is THE biggest variable in economic prosperity. If the tax cuts create higher employment, Trump will have once again conjured something out of nothing.
> 
> A year ago, President Trump’s critics were calling him a “con man.” But they never said he was bad at it.


:clap

----

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...n-not-conflict-is-bankrupting-the-nation.html



> *Boyd Matheson: Collusion, not conflict, is bankrupting the nation*
> 
> The most common complaint voiced about members of Congress is that there is just too much conflict in our nation’s capital. It is an easy conclusion to come to if you are simply following the news through the lens of your social media feed. Partisan bickering and the toxic talk from pundits on both side of the political spectrum provide a steady stream of hyperbole.
> 
> Such chatter captures headlines and propels Twitter trends but fails to encapsulate the real problem in Washington. Collusion is the silent but lethal force that has crippled the economy and strapped the nation with debilitating debt, and it ensures that power stays within the Beltway elite instead of with the American people.
> 
> You simply cannot get $20 trillion in debt through conflict. It is absolutely impossible. The only way to get $20 trillion in debt is through collusion.
> 
> Married couples know it is impossible to sink deep in debt through conflict. If you are going back and forth with your spouse debating how money should be spent you will usually come to a prudent, responsible decision on whether to buy something. On the other hand, when both spouses collude and justify splurging for that new entertainment system or getaway trip to the Bahamas, the debt can begin to mount mighty fast. Collusion is the slipperiest of slopes and a fast pass to the pit of economic debt and despair, which can take more than a generation to dig out of.
> 
> Congress has become the epitome of spending collusion. For many years “earmarks” were the collusion-enabling ingredient in the recipe of economic disaster for America. Over the years many a bill in Congress passed only with a vote purchased with an earmark of money for a hometown highway or local pet project. They even started to name them: “Cornhusker kickback,” “Louisiana Purchase” or the famous “bridge to nowhere.” Even after the earmark era ended, spending bills have been laced with collusive expenditures and benefits for the well-connected.
> 
> Far too many in Congress have simply become comfortable with the ever-increasing size of the national debt. Just this week, when it was estimated that the president’s proposed tax reform plan could add several trillion dollars to the national debt, a stunning number of politicians said they were either “comfortable with it” or “could live with it.”
> 
> While politicians may be comfortable with more debt, their grandchildren will be crushed by it. Experts from across the political spectrum now agree that the biggest threat to America’s national security is our debt and perpetual deficit spending.
> 
> Sadly, states and local governments are also joining the collusion as they accept more and more money from the federal government, with all the strings that go with it. Individual citizens are also getting comfortable with an increasing number of services coming out of Washington. Amazingly few Americans acknowledge or even recognize the economic cost of such collusive spending today or the total societal price of that debt their grandchildren will pay tomorrow.
> 
> Over the past 40 years our national debt has skyrocketed from $1 trillion in the mid-1970s to $20 trillion and counting today. If the interest rate, which has been near historic lows, were to tick up just slightly toward historic norms, the annual interest payment on America’s debt would rapidly reach nearly $1 trillion. That is just the interest. No tax increase or spending cut would even come close to closing that gap. Such collusion-induced debt and rising interest payment would decimate the poor and the middle class in America.
> 
> J. Reuben Clark was right when he said, “Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies; it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; … it has no love, no sympathy; it is as hard and soulless as a granite cliff. Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you.”
> 
> As Washington debates funding the government and reforming the tax code, many will complain about political conflict in Congress. But as citizens we would be wise to watch out for the kind of collusion that is bankrupting the nation and threatening American freedom for future generations.
> 
> Boyd C. Matheson is president of Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for a free market economy, civil society and community-driven solutions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You are on the left. You're for big government, pro social welfare, pro taxation. That makes you squarely left wing. I'm not shoving you in any group that the majority of your views belong in. Do you want me to call you a pro social welfare conservative? Why are you so afraid of the label?
> 
> Also I said that it's something that's passed around in libtard circles. You can think that since you're presenting it as a non libtard is fine but it is a libtard argument. Not that that makes you one necessarily.
> 
> In the rest of your post you're simply too triggered to say anything of value worth responding to. I don't give a shit what yiu think about me and I'm done having people ignore the content of my posts and responding with outright PMS laden bitching about me.
> 
> Too lazy to do research but not lazy enough to not respond with made up assumptions


I always love how people on the right act like the right isnt for big govt as well. Its just they are just for different issues of big govt. The right is for spending billions of tax payer dollars on the military, that is big govt, and so is the right wanting the govt to not let gays get married or making abortion illegal. So lets stop acting like the right isnt for big govt as well.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love how people on the right act like the right isnt for big govt as well. Its just they are just for different issues of big govt. The right is for spending billions of tax payer dollars on the military, that is big govt, and so is the right wanting the govt to not let gays get married or making abortion illegal. So lets stop acting like the right isnt for big govt as well.


Holy shit read the post before this. I've already mentioned the big government right fpalm



> 2. *Tax and Spend conservatives don't mind being taxed for programs they want. This is a group of conservatives that I disagree with because I find them to be just as bad as the democrats because they just want everyone's tax dollars to go into their special programs. *However, this is the group (deep belongs in this group I believe) that views abortion as murder and therefore does not want his tax dollars funding murder. This group has a different position. You want to learn from them and debate them. There are also prolife liberals and Democrats and yet the slander is always directed at conservatives. Even worse is the ides that being prolife is a bad thing in and of itself that the people who believe in it are somehow bad people.


Like literally the post that Oxi _also_ completely ignored. And then some of guys whine when I get condescending. What do you expect when you guys come in without reading anything and hurl accusations around based on what you don't know that I've already posted. 

:kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Holy shit read the post before this. I've already mentioned the big government right fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> Like literally the post that Oxi _also_ completely ignored. And then some of guys whine when I get condescending. What do you expect when you guys come in without reading anything and hurl accusations around based on what you don't know that I've already posted.
> 
> :kobelol


You are bashing the left for being for big govt when the right is for big govt as well. If both sides for for it then you cant bash the left for what the right does as well.

And that post you just quoted was from a few pages back, I never read that post, since I was on the current page.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are bashing the left for being for big govt when the right is for big govt as well. If both sides for for it then you cant bash the left for what the right does as well.


What? So you're completely ignoring the fact that I literally just said that I don't agree with big government right as well? What are you smoking BM because I even posted what I said to you. If I don't agree with the big government right, do you really think that I don't think that they're idiots as well. I don't agree with the social conservatives, but I make an attempt to understand them and hear them out the same way I listen to you guys constantly drone on and on and on about stuff without ever showing a single modicum of intellectual growth. 

I even posted an article about left and right collusion right above this as well. 

Did you pass high school because your comprehension level is that of a 5 year old.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> What? So you're completely ignoring the fact that I literally just said that I don't agree with big government right as well? What are you smoking BM because I even posted what I said to you.
> 
> I even posted an article about left and right collusion right above this as well.
> 
> Did you pass high school because your comprehension level is that of a 5 year old.


Maybe you are the one who has the comprehension level is that of a 5 year old you can't bash one group for being for something when the group you are in is for it as well, even if you disagree with your group doing it.

Both the left and the right are for big govt, you bash people on the left because the left for is big govt when the right is for big govt too. So using your logic you should be bashing yourself too because you are on the right.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Maybe you are the one who has the comprehension level is that of a 5 year old you can't bash one group for being for something when the group you are in is for it as well, even if you disagree with your group doing it.
> 
> Both the left and the right are for big govt, you bash people on the left because the left for is big govt when the right is for big govt too. So using your logic you should be bashing yourself too because you are on the right.


It's obvious that if I bash one group for being for big government, I do the same to the other side as well. Have you seen my debates with Stevefox, Deep and Bruiser? The difference is that they don't get their panties in a twist over being disagreed with. 

I'm on the right, but I'm not for big government. I'm for abolishment of the state. Find a way to get that to stick in your head. I don't give a fuck about "protecting" big government people on either side. I do enjoy bashing lefties though because you guys are so insecure about your beliefs that a little ribbing goes a long way in converting you into hot messes :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's obvious that if I bash one group for being for big government, I do the same to the other side as well. Have you seen my debates with Stevefox, Deep and Bruiser? The difference is that they don't get their panties in a twist over being disagreed with.
> 
> I'm on the right, but I'm not for big government. I'm for abolishment of the state.


My point is, people need to stop acting like only the left is for big govt like all conservatives do. Its good you admit the right is also for big govt but most conservatives don't and act like it's only the left.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How's that wall coming along?

Has Trump brought American industry out of China and back to the rust belt? 

The clock's ticking.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> My point is, people need to stop acting like only the left is for big govt like all conservatives do. Its good you admit the right is also for big govt but most conservatives don't and act like it's only the left.


You quoted me that I didn't AFTER I had already made that point in an earlier post. 

So maybe you should read more and react less. If you're going to react to one of my posts in a lengthy exchange then do me a favor and read the whole exchange next time, or don't just ignore that conversation because then you're simply talking out of your ass.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The5star_Kid said:


> How's that wall coming along?
> 
> Has Trump brought American industry out of China and back to the rust belt?
> 
> The clock's ticking.


Dont forget about putting America first when Trump and his daughter don't even do that with their clothing.





Iconoclast said:


> You quoted me that I didn't AFTER I had already made that point in an earlier post.
> 
> So maybe you should read more and react less. If you're going to react to one of my posts in a lengthy exchange then do me a favor and read the whole exchange next time, or don't just ignore that conversation because then you're simply talking out of your ass.


You are right I should have right a few more posts in the exchange I will give you that. I will do that in the future instead of just read the latest reply in an exchange.


----------



## FITZ

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Making clothing in the US is insane. Almost nobody does and almost nobody could afford to do it. 

You're not a hypocrite when you making certain products in the US is for all intents and purposes impossible.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't be ridiculous. It's not mass killing of children, it's a medical procedure to scrape some cells out of some vaggs. It's also the decision of the mother and no one else.
> 
> It's also government funded for the greater good because if it wasn't there the most likely outcome would be hideous backyard jobs and mothers sticking coathangers up there.


What's ridiculous is trying to suggest that an abortion isn't killing children and that it's no different than getting a wart removed or a tooth pulled. People like you always clean up the language and use words like "womens health" and "pro choice" to avoid mentioning what's actually being done and you've flat out denied what it actually is. There's also dozens of clinics that provide late term abortions, there are even people who believe you should be able to abort babies at 9 months. This I suppose is perfectly acceptable because its just a "sack of cells", which mind you still makes us up to this day. People have this fantasy land vision of what Planned Parenthood is , the fact is they make most of their money off abortions. They are told to encourage women to get abortions and on top of that they sell the body parts for profit afterwards. But I suppose this is all perfectly okay considering they're just a "sack of cells", even though some how they hold monetary value . Makes sense. Most people who are pro abortion have never seen what a "sack of cells" looks like, especially one thats been dismembered and decapitated but hey, you're sexist and against womens health if you oppose 

"Stay out of my body, but let some other cunt pay for it", sounds about right.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FITZ said:


> Has he criticized clothing companies for doing that?
> 
> I know he's done it for car companies and other industrial manufacturers where they leave to lower the cost by a few percentage points.


He criticized companies for outsourcing. He is being a hypocrite. You really aren't going to defend him on this are you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> What's ridiculous is trying to suggest that an abortion isn't killing children and that it's no different than getting a wart removed or a tooth pulled. People like you always clean up the language and use words like "womens health" and "pro choice" to avoid mentioning what's actually being done and you've flat out denied what it actually is. There's also dozens of clinics that provide late term abortions, there are even people who believe you should be able to abort babies at 9 months. This I suppose is perfectly acceptable because its just a "sack of cells", which mind you still makes us up to this day. People have this fantasy land vision of what Planned Parenthood is , the fact is they make most of their money off abortions. They are told to encourage women to get abortions and on top of that they sell the body parts for profit afterwards. But I suppose this is all perfectly okay considering they're just a "sack of cells", even though some how they hold monetary value . Makes sense. Most people who are pro abortion have never seen what a "sack of cells" looks like, especially one thats been dismembered and decapitated but hey, you're sexist and against womens health if you oppose
> 
> "Stay out of my body, but let some other cunt pay for it", sounds about right.


You need to stop watching infowars and reading Breitbart.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to stop watching infowars and reading Breitbart.


Says the person who complains about whats "unconstitutional" but is pro abortion? Says the person who claims they're for science but denies what human life is?

I don't watch Infowars or Breitbart but nice try


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Says the person who complains about whats "unconstitutional" but is pro abortion? Says the person who claims they're for science but denies what human life is?
> 
> I don't watch Infowars or Breitbart but nice try




Most of what you posted is not even true and you would know that if you were informed. You are still believing that fake video that was debunked about PP selling baby parts for profit. 

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/46459...ood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

Also an embryo is not a human life

IF a woman is raped and gets pregnant do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Most of what you posted is not even true and you would know that if you were informed. You are still believing that fake video that was debunked about PP selling baby parts for profit.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/46459...ood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales
> 
> Also an embryo is not a human life
> 
> IF a woman is raped and gets pregnant do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy?


It's legal for Planned Parenthood to be compensated for obtaining and transferring organs and tissue for medical research. Science has proven that life begins at conception, don't care to debate this with a science denier 





^former Planned Parenthood director talking about her time at Planned Parenthood. 

IF a person claims to be a transgender woman and sexually assaults a woman in a bathroom or change room, should transgendered people be forced to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender at birth?


----------



## The5star_Kid

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Most of what you posted is not even true and you would know that if you were informed. You are still believing that fake video that was debunked about PP selling baby parts for profit.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/46459...ood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales
> 
> *Also an embryo is not a human life*
> 
> IF a woman is raped and gets pregnant do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy?


What makes you say that?

Also, why are those who are "pro choice" always bringing up an entirely miniscule aspect of life where a woman is raped and then pregnant? I'm not syaing it doesn ot happen but something like this, which would be barely 1 in a 1000 if that, the only standard by which you judge what is right or wrong when it comes to abortion?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> This is very interesting. The other side of the Master Persuader coin:
> 
> 
> 
> :clap


How is this "the other side of the Master Persuader coin"? It's just the same Scott Adams article I posted yesterday. 




The5star_Kid said:


> How's that wall coming along?


Pretty well. We haven't even started building the physical wall yet and immigration is already way down since Trump started talking about it. I'm happy.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Abortions from rape is a marginal case. I think you will find most willing to meet in the middle somewhere on those extreme cases. 

@birthday_massacre - Sorry if you've answered this before... but the much more common, mutually consensual conception where they want to abort... at what point would you like to see it illegal to perform said abortion?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's legal for Planned Parenthood to be compensated for obtaining and transferring organs and tissue for medical research. Science has proven that life begins at conception, don't care to debate this with a science denier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^former Planned Parenthood director talking about her time at Planned Parenthood.
> 
> IF a person claims to be a transgender woman and sexually assaults a woman in a bathroom or change room, should transgendered people be forced to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender at birth?


They dont sell the issue, like you claimed you are wrong and were proven wrong.

Now you are saying oh well they are paid to transport the tissue. They don't make a profit off that which is what you were saying.




The5star_Kid said:


> What makes you say that?
> 
> Also, why are those who are "pro choice" always bringing up an entirely miniscule aspect of life where a woman is raped and then pregnant? I'm not syaing it doesn ot happen but something like this, which would be barely 1 in a 1000 if that, the only standard by which you judge what is right or wrong when it comes to abortion?


Because its still an abortion.

As for abortion being right or wrong that is subjective thus why it should be a choice.



Sweenz said:


> Abortions from rape is a marginal case. I think you will find most willing to meet in the middle somewhere on those extreme cases.
> 
> @birthday_massacre - Sorry if you've answered this before... but the much more common, mutually consensual conception where they want to abort... at what point would you like to see it illegal to perform said abortion?


Once pain can be felt which is usually around 20 weeks. 

but make it earlier for all I care. Make it 10 weeks or even 8 weeks. A shorter time period isn't a huge deal but there should be an option to have it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> They dont sell the issue, like you claimed you are wrong and were proven wrong.
> 
> Now you are saying oh well they are paid to transport the tissue. They don't make a profit off that which is what you were saying.


No, you didn't prove me wrong. As I mentioned, its actually legal for Planned Parenthood to sell tissue and organs for Medical research. They also make their money off abortions and push women to get abortions. What I said wasn't incorrect. But keep thinking that everyone is wrong but you


----------



## The5star_Kid

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> They dont sell the issue, like you claimed you are wrong and were proven wrong.
> 
> Now you are saying oh well they are paid to transport the tissue. They don't make a profit off that which is what you were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because its still an abortion*.


I know you're a champ at avoiding questions but I asked you a simple one: why is an embryo not a human life?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The5star_Kid said:


> I know you're a champ at avoiding questions but I asked you a simple one: why is an embryo not a human life?


Because its not, it can't feel pain and it can't think.

What is your definition of a human life?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM comes out in favor of killing people with congenital analgesia. :woah He's gone too far this time, if you ask me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> No, you didn't prove me wrong. As I mentioned, its actually legal for Planned Parenthood to sell tissue and organs for Medical research. They also make their money off abortions and push women to get abortions. What I said wasn't incorrect. But keep thinking that everyone is wrong but you


They dont sell the issue you are lying.

They are just compensated for having it shipped. Its like if your xbox breaks and they sent you a box in the mail or cover the cost of shipping and give you the money it costs to ship it to them. that is not them paying you they are coving shipping costs.

And no they dont push women to get abortions.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> No, you didn't prove me wrong. As I mentioned, its actually legal for Planned Parenthood to sell tissue and organs for Medical research. They also make their money off abortions and push women to get abortions. What I said wasn't incorrect. But keep thinking that everyone is wrong but you


Trust me, this guy will drag you around in circles all day. Just stop replying to him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The5star_Kid said:


> Trust me, this guy will drag you around in circles all day. Just stop replying to him.


I answered your question, and asked one in reply, of course you ignored it and would rather just troll.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Once pain can be felt which is usually around 20 weeks.
> 
> but make it earlier for all I care. Make it 10 weeks or even 8 weeks. A shorter time period isn't a huge deal but there should be an option to have it.


That's fair. And thanks. I think showing that you don't think all abortions are ok, and knowing that others don't think all abortions are bad is a good way to start an actual conversation. 

Bringing up abortion cases(as you did earlier) and delivery day abortions(as others have done) is a way to keep the divide to far apart to have a beneficial discussion.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> How is this "the other side of the Master Persuader coin"? It's just the same Scott Adams article I posted yesterday.
> 
> 
> Pretty well. We haven't even started building the physical wall yet and immigration is already way down since Trump started talking about it. I'm happy.


Didn't realize it because I didn't read that article. My bad. 

I got lazy :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> That's fair. And thanks. I think showing that you don't think all abortions are ok, and knowing that others don't think all abortions are bad is a good way to start an actual conversation.
> 
> Bringing up abortion cases(as you did earlier) and delivery day abortions(as others have done) is a way to keep the divide to far apart to have a beneficial discussion.


I am against late term abortions unless the baby or mother's life is at risk or the baby has some birth defect where they would not live very long anyways.

Also isnt a delivery day abortion or even a few days before is just a birth , isnt it? Pretty sure those dont even happen.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am against late term abortions unless the baby or mother's life is at risk or the baby has some birth defect where they would not live very long anyways.


Mother's life at risk always seemed like an obvious one, preserving the mother's life takes precedent. Birth defects can be tricky. My sister in law was described as having a birth defect and would have a hard life. And she turned out fine, and actually very smart(top of her class) and living a pretty good life. It's anecdotal, but makes me want them to be sure about things before making such harsh determinations. 

I don't want it turning into a "find me a reason to abort this baby" and them looking for the most minuscule likely-not-to-matter thing to justify a mothers-life-at-risk or birth-defect abortion when there was really no reason for there to be one. I don't know what all would have to go into preventing such a thing, but that would be ideal to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Mother's life at risk always seemed like an obvious one, preserving the mother's life takes precedent. Birth defects can be tricky. My sister in law was described as having a birth defect and would have a hard life. And she turned out fine, and actually very smart(top of her class) and living a pretty good life. It's anecdotal, but makes me want them to be sure about things before making such harsh determinations.
> 
> I don't want it turning into a "find me a reason to abort this baby" and them looking for the most minuscule likely-not-to-matter thing to justify a mothers-life-at-risk or birth-defect abortion when there was really no reason for there to be one. I don't know what all would have to go into preventing such a thing, but that would be ideal to me.


I dont mean a birth defect of having a hard life, i mean like a hole in their heart or their brain was not fully developed or something like that.

But I think we can both agree that people that are pro life have a line where they will be ok with abortion and people that are pro choice have a line where thehy dont think abortion is ok.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also isnt a delivery day abortion or even a few days before is just a birth , isnt it? Pretty sure those dont even happen.


Its not if they do it, but if they could should they choose to. Its the stance the right takes on the threshold they portray the every left person wants. "Abortion allowed up til and including the day the baby would be born." Which, as you are showing, is absurd.. but drives the wedge between the two sides further and prevents them from finding some common ground. 

Its much like the when the left portray every right wing person as someone who wants no abortion no matter what the circumstances... which is equally absurd.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont mean a birth defect of having a hard life, i mean like a hole in their heart or their brain was not fully developed or something like that.
> 
> But I think we can both agree that people that are pro life have a line where they will be ok with abortion and people that are pro choice have a line where thehy dont think abortion is ok.


I mentioned her intelligence earlier. Her parents were told that her brain was not developing properly. This was a case where they got it wrong and could have potentially led to aborting a child that didn't need to be. Tho - If you are talking about a brain defect where the child could not live out of the mother's body at all, then I misunderstood. That's why it is always best to clarify rather than assume.

And yes, I think we can agree with that. I wish the people that mattered(ie - politicians) could admit that as well.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I interrupt this discussion about kids with a Wrestlingforum news update...

Per C-SPAN and conservativereview.com...The House of Representatives passed the budget bill by a vote of 309-118. If you are so inclined...you can find at this link how your Congressperson voted. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/did-your-congressman-vote-for-the-1-1-trillion-omnibust

More analysis on what this means to come later. We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Man I was having two nice conversations last night, and then the last few pages are a lot of arguing :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> What's ridiculous is trying to suggest that an abortion isn't killing children and that it's no different than getting a wart removed or a tooth pulled. People like you always clean up the language and use words like "womens health" and "pro choice" to avoid mentioning what's actually being done and you've flat out denied what it actually is. There's also dozens of clinics that provide late term abortions, there are even people who believe you should be able to abort babies at 9 months. This I suppose is perfectly acceptable because its just a "sack of cells", which mind you still makes us up to this day. People have this fantasy land vision of what Planned Parenthood is , the fact is they make most of their money off abortions. They are told to encourage women to get abortions and on top of that they sell the body parts for profit afterwards. But I suppose this is all perfectly okay considering they're just a "sack of cells", even though some how they hold monetary value . Makes sense. Most people who are pro abortion have never seen what a "sack of cells" looks like, especially one thats been dismembered and decapitated but hey, you're sexist and against womens health if you oppose
> 
> "Stay out of my body, but let some other cunt pay for it", sounds about right.













Nice strawman arguments Stinger.

Bottom line is it's none of your business what women choose to do with their bodies. Mine either.

If and when you get pregnant then deal with it. Until then your warped, biased opinion is based on ridiculous lies like 'they encourage people to get abortions' which I noticed you haven't backed anything up with. 

Difference between us is I'm dealing with the reality that women will have abortions regardless of the legality and who doesn't like it. I want to make that practice as safe as possible. 

You're still trying to tell people what they should be doing with their own bodies when it's none of your business and you don't know what they're going through anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice strawman arguments Stinger.
> 
> Bottom line is it's none of your business what women choose to do with their bodies. Mine either.
> 
> If and when you get pregnant then deal with it. Until then your warped, biased opinion is based on ridiculous lies like 'they encourage people to get abortions' which I noticed you haven't backed anything up with.
> 
> Difference between us is I'm dealing with the reality that women will have abortions regardless of the legality and who doesn't like it. I want to make that practice as safe as possible.
> 
> You're still trying to tell people what they should be doing with their own bodies when it's none of your business and you don't know what they're going through anyway.


The most ironic thing about people like Stinger is how they are so against abortion but at the same time are against planned parenthood who does a ton for sex ed and contraception to make sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> What's ridiculous is trying to suggest that an abortion isn't killing children and that it's no different than getting a wart removed or a tooth pulled. People like you always clean up the language and use words like "womens health" and "pro choice" to avoid mentioning what's actually being done and you've flat out denied what it actually is. There's also dozens of clinics that provide late term abortions, there are even people who believe you should be able to abort babies at 9 months. This I suppose is perfectly acceptable because its just a "sack of cells", which mind you still makes us up to this day. People have this fantasy land vision of what Planned Parenthood is , the fact is they make most of their money off abortions. *They are told to encourage women to get abortions and on top of that they sell the body parts for profit afterwards.* But I suppose this is all perfectly okay considering they're just a "sack of cells", even though some how they hold monetary value . Makes sense. Most people who are pro abortion have never seen what a "sack of cells" looks like, especially one thats been dismembered and decapitated but hey, you're sexist and against womens health if you oppose
> 
> "Stay out of my body, but let some other cunt pay for it", sounds about right.


Do you have sources of this? I remember hearing about that when it was uncovered, but the majority of articles I'm finding on both subjects come across as very bias towards the pro-life crowd.

EDIT: Found this article about the videos in question that came out which started all of that. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

At the same time, here's a Breitbart article also breaking down info about that. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tigation-finds-horrifying-criminal-practices/

See the difference?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The most ironic thing about people like Stinger is how they are so against abortion but at the same time are against planned parenthood who does a ton for sex ed and contraception to make sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies.


That's because they *should* be closing their legs and taking more responsibility and just saying no! See? I just solved the whole problem! 

Errrr - Baby Killing!!! Baby parts factory!!!! Encouraging abortions!!!


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Today in news: Stinger Fan is a non-sentient zygote. More at 11!


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Difference between us is I'm dealing with the reality that women will have abortions regardless of the legality and who doesn't like it. I want to make that practice as safe as possible.


I agree with this. You can't control the legality of everything and naturally there are going to be people desperate enough to go somewhere else. Whether that be another state, or to a shady doctor, or worse, something unimaginable. :shocked:

Might as well make it as safe and easy as possible.

Also fwiw I don't really give a shit about the morality argument. Is it life, is it not life? To me, if a woman can push it out and it can't live even with medical assistance, you should be able to abort it. How many weeks is that? Dunno, but that's what I think. :hmm:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's because they *should* be closing their legs and taking more responsibility and just saying no! See? I just solved the whole problem!
> 
> Errrr - Baby Killing!!! Baby parts factory!!!! Encouraging abortions!!!


The other funny thing about conservatives is they claim they are against big govt, yet when its for things they agree with they are all for it like preventing gays from getting married or preventing abortions etc.

I also like how they call pro choice people pro-abortion like we want people to have abortions.

They don't understand that someone can be pro-choice but also would not be in favor of getting an abortion if they got pregnant themselves or if their gf/wife got pregnant by mistake.

Pro-choice just means we think the person who gets pregnant should have the choice. They act like we are want to force anyone who gets an unwanted pregnancies to have an abortion


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just want to say. I love our president and I hope to see Chelsea Handler to get hit by a bus.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> I hope to see Chelsea Handler to get hit by a bus.


Something we all can get behind


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's because they *should* be closing their legs and taking more responsibility and just saying no! See? I just solved the whole problem!
> 
> Errrr - Baby Killing!!! Baby parts factory!!!! Encouraging abortions!!!


In truth people should be practicing safer sex. 

Abortion should be a measure used for getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, babies with defects and for health reasons, that doesn't mean people should use it as a McDonalds of contraception.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> In truth people should be practicing safer sex.
> 
> Abortion should be a measure used for getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, babies with defects and for health reasons, that doesn't mean people should use it as a McDonalds of contraception.


Now Sally, _what have we just been saying_ about shoulds? They're useless.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Do you have sources of this? I remember hearing about that when it was uncovered, but the majority of articles I'm finding on both subjects come across as very bias towards the pro-life crowd.
> 
> EDIT: Found this article about the videos in question that came out which started all of that.
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
> 
> At the same time, here's a Breitbart article also breaking down info about that.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tigation-finds-horrifying-criminal-practices/
> 
> See the difference?


Oh god, that Breitbart article is the literary equivalent of WW2 propaganda posters.


THE BABY EATING ABORTION DOCTORS ARE COMING TO GET YOU


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Do you have sources of this? I remember hearing about that when it was uncovered, but the majority of articles I'm finding on both subjects come across as very bias towards the pro-life crowd.
> 
> EDIT: Found this article about the videos in question that came out which started all of that.
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
> 
> At the same time, here's a Breitbart article also breaking down info about that.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tigation-finds-horrifying-criminal-practices/
> 
> See the difference?


That is why I said to him stop read Breitbart and watching info wars. Is where all that BS comes from.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My daily Kevin Ryan Update. 



> CONNECTICUT TAX HIKES LED TO COLLAPSING TAX REVENUE, by Kevin Ryan
> 
> Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has admitted that his major tax hikes failed to raise the revenue he thought they would, and instead tax revenues are plummeting and people are fleeing the state.
> 
> In 2011, in order to pay for a massive budget enacted by the Democratic super-majority-controlled legislature, Malloy increased the state's top income tax rate, and raised the gas tax, sales tax, corporate tax, cigarette tax, luxury tax, estate tax, speeding fines, and other taxes and fees. He also implemented a cabaret tax on bars that play music and removed tax exemptions on footwear, nonprescription drugs, and yarn.
> 
> Tax revenues increased for a couple years, and then "unexpectedly" began to plummet. By 2014 a $300 million deficit had developed, which grew to $1.1 billion by 2015. Governor Malloy once again raised taxes to cover the shortfall. But now, just two years later, revenues are again falling. The governor's solution? Raise taxes YET AGAIN.
> 
> IRS data indicates the reason tax revenues are falling is because people are fleeing the state, a fact that Malloy now admits. About 75,000 people have left during his term, most going to lower tax states like Florida and North Carolina, bringing nearly $7 billion in taxable income with them.
> 
> As a result of his mismanagement of the Connecticut economy, Malloy has become the 2nd most unpopular governor in the country, and has opted not to run for reelection next year. Meaning my home state may finally get a governor who understands the Laffer Curve, which shows that tax revenues will actually DECREASE when rates INCREASE beyond a certain level, owing to the exact problems Connecticut faced when it tried to solve its budget gap by hiking taxes again and again and again.


No shit. If you keep raising taxes, you destroy revenues thereby reducing the amount of tax you can collect. There's a line between being able to fund your socialist fantasies with taxes and then you reach a point where the over-burdened economy simply crashes. 

Hopefully Connecticut becomes a symbol of Bernieconomics and puts and end to this bullshit.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Looks like Trump still wants David Clarke.
There are about 3,200 county jails in the United States, but few have drawn as much recent scrutiny as the one supervised by Milwaukee County sheriff and conservative media darling David Clarke in Wisconsin. Four inmates died while in its custody last year. But local prosecutors have focused their attention on the fate of Terrill Thomas, one of the four, who died of dehydration in solitary confinement. He was 38 years old.

Investigators probing Thomas’s April 2016 death soon discovered it came after jail officials cut off water access to his cell for seven days. What followed was a flurry of legal activity against the jail’s leadership. His family filed a federal lawsuit against Clarke and the jail in March, alleging that Thomas had been “subjected to a form of torture” by being denied water. An inquest jury said Monday there was probable cause to charge seven jail officials, including two supervisors, with felony neglect of a prisoner. Clarke was not among them, but District Attorney John Chisholm told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he could charge more or fewer officials than what the jury recommends.

The Presence of Justice
Beyond the age of mass incarceration
Read more

At the same time, news outlets reported last week that the Trump administration is considering Clarke to lead the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Partnership and Engagement. In that role, he would be the department’s top liaison with the more than 18,000 local law-enforcement agencies throughout the country. Fortunately for Clarke, the post wouldn’t require Senate approval, sparing him from what would likely be a contentious confirmation battle about any role he may have had in the jail-neglect case.

Clarke built his brand not on policing, per se, but on politics. If appointed by Trump, he’d have the chance to operate in a more political realm, and at the same time extricate himself from a growing scandal at the jail he runs. Despite that turmoil, Clarke’s potential ascendancy into the Trump administration isn’t necessarily a surprise. With the defeat of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in last November’s election in Arizona, Clarke is now the most prominent conservative sheriff in the country—and the most controversial. His rigid conservative views, as well as his outspokenness in sharing them, made the Wisconsin sheriff a popular guest on conservative media outlets in recent years. Amid increased public scrutiny of law-enforcement agencies—scrutiny Trump administration officials actively oppose—a black conservative sheriff condemning the Black Lives Matter movement on Fox News was a potent image.


Clarke’s opining often went beyond policing issues: On his podcast, he referred to Planned Parenthood as “Planned Genocide” and American higher education as “a racketeering ring.” But his most frequent target is criminal-justice reform—an issue that’s increasingly popular on both the left and the right, but one that’s been dismissed by Clarke as “utterly destructive to the rule of law and public safety.” In one notable instance, his analysis repeated racist tropes about African Americans. “Let me tell you why blacks sell drugs and involve themselves in criminal behavior instead of a more socially acceptable lifestyle — because they’re uneducated, they’re lazy, and they’re morally bankrupt,” Clarke told Glenn Beck in a 2015 interview.

Clarke hasn’t backed down from his draconian approach toward those under his jurisdiction in the jail.
Left-leaning activist groups receive most of his ire, and his language toward them often veers into the eschatological. In a speech at the Republican National Convention last summer where he endorsed Trump, he compared the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements to “anarchy” and described protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore as “the collapse of the social order.” The previous year, he predicted that Black Lives Matter would “join forces with ISIS” to destroy the American government. Clarke’s antipathy toward protest movements apparently extends only to those on the left: In a tweet one month before the November election, Clarke described the federal government and media as “corrupt” and said it was “pitchforks and torches time.”


Ironically, despite his national profile as a tough-talking lawman, Clarke’s law-enforcement responsibilities as sheriff of Milwaukee County are fairly limited. The sheriff’s department is a law-enforcement agency, but virtually all of the day-to-day policing in his county is performed by the Milwaukee Police Department. Clarke served on that police force for almost three decades, including as a detective on the city’s homicide squad. His current portfolio is more administrative than investigative, but as Maurice Chammah noted in a 2016 profile for this magazine, the sheriff’s exercise of his office has still drawn criticism:

Traditionally, Clarke’s department has investigated a small number of crimes, patrolled the county’s highways and parks, managed security at the courthouse and airport, and run the county’s two jails, [the Milwaukee County Jail] downtown for pretrial detainees and one south of the city for those serving their sentences. Previously, a county-executive appointee ran the latter—the Milwaukee House of Correction—until 2008, when a federal report found it was plagued by security and safety problems. As a result, Clarke was granted control. He was initially lauded for revamping the jail and overcoming a deficit that ran into the millions—all in just a few months.

But over the next five years, the praise disappeared as Clarke eliminated nearly all programs for prisoners (except a boot camp) and woke prisoners up with bullhorns. He was a proponent of “nutraloaf,” a mix of chicken, biscuit mix, vegetables, and beans served to inmates being disciplined. After one inmate sued, saying that a rancid nutraloaf meal caused him to vomit so much he lost 14 pounds in 19 days, an insurance company settled on the food manufacturer’s behalf. In 2013, the county board moved to take back control of the facility. Clarke in turn sued them but lost. Since then, the county has increased job-training and GED programs in the jail, and those who finish their sentences are enrolled in health care through the Affordable Care Act; the jail is one of the first in the country to do so.
Clarke hasn’t backed down from his draconian approach toward those under his jurisdiction in the jail. In statements to reporters about the Thomas family lawsuit, the sheriff directed attention to Thomas’s alleged criminal activities. It’s worth noting that because he died in jail custody before a trial, Thomas wasn’t convicted of those offenses in a court of law.

“I have nearly 1,000 inmates. I don’t know all their names but is this the guy who was in custody for shooting up the Potawatomi Casino, causing one man to be hit by gunfire [and] while in possession of a firearm by a career convicted felon?" Clarke told the Associated Press in March. “The media never reports that in stories about him. If that is him, then at least I know who you are talking about.” He did not address the history of psychiatric issues described by Thomas’s family in their lawsuit.

One can see echoes of Trump’s combative approach to controversy in Clarke’s words: a hyperfocus on alleged criminal misconduct by others, thinly veiled insinuations of media bias, the sidestepping of personal accountability. The degree to which elements of that approach affected Milwaukee County Jail’s operations is unclear. But it would seem to make Clarke a natural fit for an administration that also views the world, and especially the justice system, in stark and uncompromising terms.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/sheriff-clarke-escape-hatch/525195/


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

To me.. sounds like the vote tomorrow is not going the GOPs way... and all the posturing right now is to scare the republicans that oppose the vote into thinking it will pass without them. I don't think they have the votes like they say.

Maybe they are hoping that those people don't want to be on the wrong side of the vote and will flip, when actually their flipped votes changes the outcome.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> To me.. sounds like the vote tomorrow is not going the GOPs way... and all the posturing right now is to scare the republicans that oppose the vote into thinking it will pass without them. I don't think they have the votes like they say.
> 
> Maybe they are hoping that those people don't want to be on the wrong side of the vote and will flip, when actually their flipped votes changes the outcome.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


While the bill is better than the first abomination, to me it's still not what was promised. For years, the GOP has been telling people give us full control and we will repeal this thing. They passed a bill several times repealing the ACA and all taxes and regulations that go with it. Now that they have the control they wanted and they can't agree on what they want is not a good sign. For seven years they pushed repeal, repeal, repeal. This is incompetence to the nth degree. 

Again, I don't want people to lose their insurance, but to me the government has no business being involved in my health care decisions. Basically, they screw everything up they seem to touch anyway, so why risk my health on what the government does? Here in Iowa, by year's end we are going to be down to one insurance company that will be in the exchange. 

Two options here... stop rushing this if you're dead serious about repeal and replace. Take your time and come up with a bill that works...there are so many avenues they can go with this. Opening up competition across state lines, levels of coverage (like car insurance people can pick and choose the coverage they want and not have to have options they don't need)...we have so much that can make this thing better and cut costs. Or, take the original bill that has kept coming up all these years. Just repeal Obamacare and all its regulations, etc...and call it a day. Let the free market take control.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

imma wait till i see what the final result is. yeah, this could fail tomorrow and then maybe a new one weeks later.

Been too busy with my songwriting to worry. we have 4 years to see how it all ends.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh god, that Breitbart article is the literary equivalent of WW2 propaganda posters.
> 
> 
> THE BABY EATING ABORTION DOCTORS ARE COMING TO GET YOU


I'm no Breitbart fan but what exactly was wrong with that article? The writer pretty much just relayed the facts surrounding this particular Planned Parenthood story. He didn't even go into what an atrocity abortion is in general.

Pretty unbiased by usual Breitbart standards.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Abortion science has scientists on both sides actually. It's just that the pro-life scientists' arguments are ignored just as the arguments by climate change alarmism skeptics because selective science enables political policy. 






It's worth the listen if only for entertaining the idea that science of _when_ humanity inside a womb begins is not settled, but essentially arbitrarily chosen. Defining when humanity began and when the child has autonomy over its own body and what that body is is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one.

It's ok if you use the philosophic pseudo-rational arguments for your stance on abortion, but please don't try to pretend that it's also scientific.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Do you have sources of this? I remember hearing about that when it was uncovered, but the majority of articles I'm finding on both subjects come across as very bias towards the pro-life crowd.
> 
> EDIT: Found this article about the videos in question that came out which started all of that.
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
> 
> At the same time, here's a Breitbart article also breaking down info about that.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tigation-finds-horrifying-criminal-practices/
> 
> See the difference?


I had already posted the video, former Planned Parenthood director discusses what they were told to do when she was working there. 






It has nothing to do with Breitbart or Infowars, I don't watch nor care for either news source. People use that argument purely to shut down any argument you have. Especially when it comes from someone who makes up conspiracy theories similar to Alex Jones about Donald Trump(no this isnt directed at you). 



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice strawman arguments Stinger.
> 
> Bottom line is it's none of your business what women choose to do with their bodies. Mine either.
> 
> If and when you get pregnant then deal with it. Until then your warped, biased opinion is based on ridiculous lies like 'they encourage people to get abortions' which I noticed you haven't backed anything up with.
> 
> Difference between us is I'm dealing with the reality that women will have abortions regardless of the legality and who doesn't like it. I want to make that practice as safe as possible.
> 
> You're still trying to tell people what they should be doing with their own bodies when it's none of your business and you don't know what they're going through anyway.


When I'm actually being forced to pay for abortions(and even contreception) , then yes it actually is my business. You can't use the argument of "stay out of my body but pay for it", it doesn't work that way. For someone who talks about "straw man arguments", you aren't afraid to make up what people say. I never once said what people should or should not do with their bodies. My entire argument was people denying what an abortion is and what Planned Parenthood mainly does. It had nothing to do with forcing people to do or not do anything. I'm tired of people trying to clean up the language and clean up what PP does, trying to claim that abortions are exactly like getting a cyst removed or that science doesn't dictate that its life thats being "terminated" etc etc its all BS and I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted over it. That was my argument, nothing more nothing less. You can try calling me a sexist behind your words, I simply do not care for lame petty insults. I once was "pro choice"(which is an untrue term mind you) until I actually had seen an aborted baby that yes had its head removed


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even a clump of bacteria and a virus tries to fight for survival in its on way. The fumes an onion gives off (that make you cry) are a self-defense mechanism. 

After humans are long dead, the organisms present inside our body fight to survive for as long as they can. 

In light of this idea of need to survive (even in some cases that's just a "reflex" ... humans can't suffocate by holding their own breath), I don't think any child can be aborted. 

If a child had the ability or strength to defend itself against being aborted (even as a so-called clump of cells), I think that it would like all life does. 

Now I admit that abortion should be allowed to happen in some cases as a necessary evil, but as a frivolous method of birth control and to protect people from their own stupid is not a valid reason for abortion.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






:eyeroll


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859437833945194500


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Obamacare Repeal-Lite just passed the House 217-213. 

Now it can die in the Senate and we can take another spin on the merry go round wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hahaha the new health care bill just passed in the house. 

Now onto the senate which the GOP controls.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Looks like ObamaCare is dead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even the GOP don't think this will pass in the senate.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859437833945194500


this is pretty funny. i did laugh out loud.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If the press isn't turning this into a Trumpocalypse, without reading it I can pretty safely assume that this bill favors the existing system and doesn't alter it enough. 

I'll get back on this after I've actually read what it is :lol 

The first thing that jumped at me is that the government is spending 8 billion to subsidize preexisting conditions and so I don't know how Repubs can see this as a win. I'll look more into it.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Hahaha the new health care bill just passed in the house.
> 
> Now onto the senate which the GOP controls.


What do you say to people who might get hurt because of this or is everyone who is on Obamacare or Medicaid a lazy piece of garbage?

Pretty much every major health organization has come out against this but I forgot America should be a some version of a Darwinist society.

You know what just let the GOP have complete control over everything in this country its no use breaking bread with them or fighting them. Let them make the rules that people have to live by in America.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I hear Shadilay faintly in the distance


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> What do you say to people who might get hurt because of this or is everyone who is on Obamacare or Medicaid a lazy piece of garbage?
> 
> Pretty much every major health organization has come out against this but I forgot America should be a some version of a Darwinist society.


Cant wait until all the old people that are for getting rid of obamacare find out how their premiums sky rocket because of Trumpcare and their medicare is taken away. 

Also can't wait until people for Trumpcare with pre-existing conditions see how they get fucked over too and have to pay more because they are sick or have a pre-existing condition.


They will be the first to cry but I didnt think this was going to affect me.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Cant wait until all the old people that are for getting rid of obamacare find out how their premiums sky rocket because of Trumpcare and their medicare is taken away.
> 
> Also can't wait until people for Trumpcare with pre-existing conditions see how they get fucked over too and have to pay more because they are sick or have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> 
> They will be the first to cry but I didnt think this was going to affect me.


For once I actually agree with you. Whatever I've seen of this, it still sounds like complete and utter trash :lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Cant wait until all the old people that are for getting rid of obamacare find out how their premiums sky rocket because of Trumpcare and their medicare is taken away.
> 
> Also can't wait until people for Trumpcare with pre-existing conditions see how they get fucked over too and have to pay more because they are sick or have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> 
> They will be the first to cry but I didnt think this was going to affect me.


Your fighting a losing battle the GOP pretty much runs this country no matter if they have control of government or not. 

Most people believe the only way to live in America is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps and never asking for help of any kind. You do whatever you have to good, bad or indifferent to survive and live no matter the cost. That is why the GOP will always win


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> For once I actually agree with you. Whatever I've seen of this, it still sounds like complete and utter trash :lol


I dont see how the bill is worse than it was the first time they wanted to vote and this time it passes but they could not get the vote the first time.

I dont know why Trump is in such a rush to put in a new healthcare bill when it sucks, its just going to blow up in his face. If he actually made healthcare better, then he would be a hero but all this bill is going to do if it passes the senate will piss off his base when it starts to affect them.

Trump does not care about making helathcare better, he just cares about killing things Obama did.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> What do you say to people who might get hurt because of this or is everyone who is on Obamacare or Medicaid a lazy piece of garbage?
> 
> Pretty much every major health organization has come out against this but I forgot America should be a some version of a Darwinist society.
> 
> You know what just let the GOP have complete control over everything in this country its no use breaking bread with them or fighting them. Let them make the rules that people have to live by in America.


What did you say to the people who got kicked off their health insurance plans and had to go on more expensive plans with less coverage thanks to Obamacare.

What did you say to the people who were forced to buy plans with huge deductibles that they can never actually use because of those deductibles but still have to pay the premiums for.

What did you say to all the people who keep being forced to change plans every year because every year more and more insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare exchanges all across the country. 

What would you say to all the people who would lose their coverage and all the people working in healthcare and health insurance who would lose their jobs when inevitably the entire program collapsed via too many people not signing up for health insurance. That's what would have happened with Obamacare, it's not financially sustainable. The death spiral is 5 years off at most unless the government continues secretly and illegally funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into maintaining it the way the Obama administration did. Well guess what Obama isn't president anymore, that chicanery isn't happening now. 

Before Obamacare 85-90% of the country's population was insured, hardly some Darwinist dystopia. The way some of you people talk you'd think that before Obamacare, the vast majority of the country was bereft of health insurance and bodies were piling up in the streets because they couldn't get medical care. Total nonsense. Obamacare, at great cost and inefficiency, managed to increase the amount of insured by 5-10%. I somehow think that a similar increase in the amount of insured could have been achieved without throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down a completely unsustainable rathole. 

Pretty much every major health organization got huge amounts of government cash thanks to Obamacare, Obamacare is crony capitalism corporate welfare. It's not about providing health care to people, it's about getting a guaranteed stream of revenue. Now that stream is threatened. 

You know what that's what happens when you win elections you get to make the rules. I don't remember the Democratic Party being interested in compromising from January 20 2009 to January 20 2011. They did whatever the fuck they wanted. Reap what you sow.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont see how the bill is worse than it was the first time they wanted to vote and this time it passes but they could not get the vote the first time.


I thought the previous one was trash too :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Your fighting a losing battle the GOP pretty much runs this country no matter if they have control of government or not.
> 
> Most people believe the only way to live in America is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps and never asking for help of any kind. You do whatever you have to good, bad or indifferent to survive and live no matter the cost. That is why the GOP will always win


That is because the current establishment democrats as just republican lite. Until we get real progressives in the DNC you are right. But with justice democrats starting to take off, there could be a chance. We will see how much damage they can do in 2018 with getting rid of the establishment democrats and putting in true progressives who will fight. 

The whole reason why the democrats have lost so many seats and to Trump is because most of the democrats are just as bad as the republicans. Its why they did not vote for HIllary.

The DNC needs more people like Tulsi Gabbard and Keith Ellison. They should be leading the party if the democrats ever want to get back on top.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My Aunt and Uncle with two kids lost their insurance under Obamacare. So, I'm excited to see something new and hope they can get some form of insurance back. :shrug

Anyway, anyone who enjoys schadenfreude, hit it up Twitter right NOW.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I thought the previous one was trash too :lol


It was trash that is my point, the new plan was even worse and it passed which baffles me.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> What did you say to the people who got kicked off their health insurance plans and had to go on more expensive plans with less coverage thanks to Obamacare.
> 
> What did you say to the people who were forced to buy plans with huge deductibles that they can never actually use because of those deductibles but still have to pay the premiums for.
> 
> What did you say to all the people who keep being forced to change plans every year because every year more and more insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare exchanges all across the country.
> 
> What would you say to all the people who would lose their coverage and all the people working in healthcare and health insurance who would lose their jobs when inevitably the entire program collapsed via too many people not signing up for health insurance. That's what would have happened with Obamacare, it's not financially sustainable. The death spiral is 5 years off at most unless the government continues secretly and illegally funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into maintaining it the way the Obama administration did. Well guess what Obama isn't president anymore, that chicanery isn't happening now.
> 
> Pretty much every major health organization got huge amounts of government cash thanks to Obamacare, Obamacare is crony capitalism corporate welfare. It's not about providing health care to people, it's about getting a guaranteed stream of revenue. Now that stream is threatened.
> 
> You know what that's what happens when you win elections you get to make the rules. I don't remember the Democratic Party being interested in compromising from January 20 2009 to January 20 2011. They did whatever the fuck they wanted. Reap what you sow.


You don't get it the GOP always makes the rules. They own this country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> My Aunt and Uncle with two kids lost their insurance under Obamacare. So, I'm excited to see something new and hope they can get some form of insurance back. :shrug
> 
> Anyway, anyone who enjoys schadenfreude, hit it up Twitter right NOW.


They won't they are going to be worse off. Hope them of them have pre-existing conditions. Hope your aunt did not have a C Section because that counts and under Trumpcare if their state wants they wont have to cover her or will make her pay more


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> They won't they are going to be worse off.


We shall see. Better than what they've already known for the past few years now with zero hope or change.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> You don't get it the GOP always makes the rules. They own this country.


How did Obamacare ever come into existence then

You know that what you're saying is a tacit admission that the GOP is more in tune with the American people right? Here in the West you can't always make the rules and you can't own the country without the people at least tacitly okaying it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> You don't get it the GOP always makes the rules. They own this country.


Lolwut :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> How did Obamacare ever come into existence then
> 
> You know that what you're saying is a tacit admission that the GOP is more in tune with the American people right? Here in the West you can't always make the rules and you can't own the country without the people at least tacitly okaying it.


The GOP is not more in tune with the US, the US is way more left especially on social issues. 

By republicans, and heritage Foundation, and it was also based on Romneycare and what he did in MA.

You are one of the least informed people on this forum.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Lolwut :ha


Why is that wrong? Most people in this country always vote for the GOP not matter what.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> By republicans, and heritage Foundation, and it was also based on Romneycare and what he did in MA.
> 
> You are one of the least informed people on this forum.


dear lord are we whipping this dead horse again

romneycare was copied by precisely 0 other republican governors 

the heritage foundation supported an individual mandate for a couple months and by heritage foundation i mean one guy at the heritage foundation

the individual mandate got support from like 3 GOP senators at the time (1994). it was introduced by a republican senator in a bill that everybody knew had 0 chance of getting more republican support past its initial co-sponsors. the conservative wing of the republican senate caucus made it very clear that it would never support an individual mandate for health insurance. other GOP healthcare ideas presented as alternatives to hillarycare got much more republican support.

*you are simply lying as you have done literally dozens of times before on this subject and of course you can't help but throw in an insult because you're feeling salty. you have never presented any evidence whatsoever that romneycare was supported by any important republicans save mitt romney. because there is no such evidence. you have never presented any evidence that the heritage foundation, other than heritage foundation fellow stuart butler, was behind the idea of an individual mandate. because there is no such evidence. the heritage foundation is not a monolithic organization where all members support the ideas of all members. you have never presented any evidence that the republican party supported butler's individual mandate idea. because there is no such evidence.* 

because, of course, the republican party did not support stuart butler's idea. the heritage foundation did not wage a concerted political campaign to advocate his idea. you are completely ignorant of what actually happened, all you know are assertions you got off facebook and twitter that have no connection whatsoever to reality. stuart butler does not support an individual mandate for health insurance anymore either. 

every time BM posts about "republican heritage romneycare" he is doing nothing but lying. the actual historical record of what happened has been shown to him many, many times, he simply ignores it. and he calls other people ignorant.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> We shall see. Better than what they've already known for the past few years now with zero hope or change.


What state do they live in?

If they are young and healthy they may be ok but once they get sick or old they will be screwed because their premiums will sky rocket much worse than it is now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> dear lord are we whipping this dead horse again
> 
> romneycare was copied by precisely 0 other republican governors
> 
> the heritage foundation supported an individual mandate for a couple months and by heritage foundation i mean one guy at the heritage foundation
> 
> the individual mandate got support from like 3 GOP senators at the time (1994). it was introduced by a republican senator in a bill that everybody knew had 0 chance of getting more republican support past its initial co-sponsors. the conservative wing of the republican senate caucus made it very clear that it would never support an individual mandate for health insurance. other GOP healthcare ideas presented as alternatives to hillarycare got much more republican support.
> 
> *you are simply lying as you have done literally dozens of times before on this subject and of course you can't help but throw in an insult because you're feeling salty.*
> 
> every time BM posts about "republican heritage romneycare" he is doing nothing but lying.


Obamacae is based on republican plans, you can pretend its not all you want but the only one lying here is you.

I know you dont like to deal in facts. Even Romey admits Obamacare was based on Romneycare.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Obamacae is based on republican plans, you can pretend its not all you want but the only one lying here is you.
> 
> I know you dont like to deal in facts.


here is a good example of trying to inject some truth into a lie to make it seem like less of a lie

the individual mandate of obamacare was based on the individual mandate of romneycare

that is literally the only true thing BM has ever said in his cavalcade of republican heritage romneycare lies

romneycare was never adopted by any other republicans

stuart butler's idea of the individual mandate never got widespread conservative support either inside or outside the heritage foundation 

no notable republican outside of mitt romney ever supported it

BM has lied repeatedly about this because he wants to create the impression that the individual mandate was a mainstream republican idea. it never was. 

what BM is doing is akin to saying that since it was the democratic administration of harry truman who came up with the cold war interventionist policy, any democratic criticism of republican presidents intervening in foreign countries would be hypocritical. which would be manifestly unfair nonsense. 

just as it is manifestly unfair nonsense to say that obamacare was a GOP idea like the republicans were all for it so their opposition 20 years later was somehow underhanded. outside of mitt romney as governor of a single state no member of the GOP ever attempted to implement it as policy. other than mitt romney no notable republican ever even supported it. some handful of GOP senators that no one remembers sponsored it in a bill that the rest of the republican caucus made plain it did not support.

not every idea that comes from a democrat is a democratic idea and not every idea that comes from a republican is a republican idea. especially if the rest of their party rejects it. there are still some democrats who support tax cuts and are opposed to gun control, are tax cuts and opposing gun control democratic ideas now? of course not. 

we can go around and around on this forever but the facts are the facts and fair is fair.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> here is a good example of trying to inject some truth into a lie to make it seem like less of a lie
> 
> the individual mandate of obamacare was based on the individual mandate of romneycare
> 
> that is literally the only true thing BM has ever said in his cavalcade of republican heritage romneycare lies
> 
> romneycare was never adopted by any other republicans
> 
> stuart butler's idea of the individual mandate never got widespread conservative support either inside or outside the heritage foundation
> 
> no notable republican outside of mitt romney ever supported it
> 
> BM has lied repeatedly about this because he wants to create the impression that the individual mandate was a mainstream republican idea. it never was.
> 
> what BM is doing is akin to saying that since it was the democratic administration of harry truman who came up with the cold war interventionist policy, any democratic criticism of republican presidents intervening in foreign countries would be hypocritical. which would be manifestly unfair nonsense.
> 
> just as it is manifestly unfair nonsense to say that obamacare was a GOP idea like the republicans were all for it so their opposition 20 years later was somehow underhanded. outside of mitt romney as governor of a single state no member of the GOP ever attempted to implement it as policy. other than mitt romney no notable republican ever even supported it. some handful of GOP senators that no one remembers sponsored it in a bill that the rest of the republican caucus made plain it did not support.
> 
> not every idea that comes from a democrat is a democratic idea and not every idea that comes from a republican is a republican idea. especially if the rest of their party rejects it. there are still some democrats who support tax cuts and are opposed to gun control, are tax cuts and opposing gun control democratic ideas now? of course not.
> 
> we can go around and around on this forever but the facts are the facts and fair is fair.


Why do you keep just talking about the mandate? There is more to Obamacare , Romneycare and the HF plan than just that. I love how you act like that is the only thing.

You can make up all the excuses that you want but Obamacare was based on those republican plans. Last time I am commenting on this.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Senator Feinstein (D-CA): No evidence of :trump collusion with Russia "at this time" 

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ce-collusion-between-trump-associates-russia/






"Not at this time" :heston

They'll never make movies about the shameful un-American McCarthyite campaign the Democratic Party has waged for the last 9, 10 months about MUH RUSSIA 

It will never be held up as an example of disgraceful American domestic political behavior the way McCarthy's campaign has been

At least McCarthy was actually correct in his accusations about who in the US government were agents for Moscow, as the VENONA files demonstrated


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Senator Feinstein (D-CA): No evidence of :trump collusion with Russia "at this time"
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ce-collusion-between-trump-associates-russia/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not at this time" :heston
> 
> They'll never make movies about the shameful un-American McCarthyite campaign the Democratic Party has waged for the last 9, 10 months about MUH RUSSIA
> 
> At least McCarthy was actually correct in his accusations about who in the US government were agents for Moscow, as the VENONA files demonstrated


And much like McCarthy, Democrats have no decency


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

the Senate will further amend it, and by the time it's law, Obunglecare will be basically gutted. :trump3


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump does not care about making helathcare better, he just cares about killing things Obama did.


:lmao the conspiracy theories from the left never ends


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> the Senate will further amend it, and by the time it's law, Obunglecare will be basically gutted. :trump3


Why are you happy about this, it will fuck you over more than most since you have a pre-existing condition. Insurance under Trumpcare can refuse to cover you or make you pay more because you have a pre-existing condition.

If this bill passes I cant wait until you find this out.

Trumpcare is awful, people will be paying more to get covered less. Under ACA there were minimum insurance companies had to cover, until Trumpare they dont.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont see how the bill is worse than it was the first time they wanted to vote and this time it passes but they could not get the vote the first time.


It's like you've never seen House of Cards!

This bill is so terrible it made me feel bad for old people! And congressmen are obviously exempt from the repeal, they still get their cushy old plans. What a joke



wwe9391 said:


> :lmao the conspiracy theories from the left never ends


It's not though? Passing this joke of a bill shows he clearly doesn't give a fuck about improving anything healthcare related. And his constant bleating about how terrible, awful and dead Obamacare is shows he - and tbh, that whole party - got so caught up in undoing the awfulness that Obama did that they shit the bed when it came time to actually replace the thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> It's like you've never seen House of Cards!
> 
> This bill is so terrible it made me feel bad for old people! And congressmen are obviously exempt from the repeal, they still get their cushy old plans. What a joke


I have not seen house of cards, i really need to watch that lol


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So apparently right now, the majority of effects of this will be up to the state, and if they decide to file a waiver to remove all of the Affordable Care Act regulations.



> State waivers
> 
> This section of the bill essentially amounts to an optional, state-level full repeal of Obamacare. It would give states the ability to apply for a waiver that lets them opt out of most of the regulations and consumer protections that were included in the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> States could apply for waivers that would allow insurance companies in their states to do three things: 1. Charge older people more than five times what they charge young people for the same policy; 2. Eliminate required coverage, called essential health benefits, including maternity care, mental health and prescription drugs, that were required under the Affordable Care Act; and 3. Charge more for or deny coverage to people who have pre-existing health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes or arthritis.
> 
> The waivers could also impact people with employer-based insurance, because insurers could offer policies that have annual and lifetime benefit limits, which are banned under the Affordable Care Act, and some companies may choose those policies for their workers to lower premiums.
> 
> States that get waivers would very likely see insurance companies offer many more policy options, some with fewer benefits and lower premiums.
> 
> Those states would be required under the law to create some other way to ensure that people with expensive illnesses are able to get health care, and the law provides up to $138 billion over 10 years for such programs, typically called high-risk pools.
> 
> However, an analysis released Thursday by consulting firm Avalere Health concludes that that amount would be inadequate for providing full health coverage for the number of people who now buy insurance in the individual market and have medical problems.


This whole pre-existing condition thing is fucking shit though. My father is in his later 50s, and has had two types of cancer in his life, and he's lived with Chron's disease since he was 16. Part of this is getting around 7-8 drug infusions annually (I forgot that medication it is), but the total if he were to pay out of pocket, would be around $30000, and I'm not even joking about that number. Even worse, is that late this Winter he got laid off his management job he's been in for years, and now basically has to look for work for the time being that offers him some sort of insurance. He has some time, around a year and a half I believe thanks to COBRA plan by the department of labor (this allows somebody laid off to retain their benefits for a certain period of time, considering him leaving his job was completely involuntary). 

And really he just has to last for a little while wherever he goes until he's able to use his social security and medicare at 65. He's always been strong as an ox though, and has learned to become pretty tolerant of pain (he's experienced pain don't think I'd wish on anybody), so we're hoping everything works out okay. And him finding work shouldn't be hard, he has a long, detailed resume as a food service director and manager. 

Still, this is scary as hell, because there's a lot of people who won't have the luck and the ability to have the insurance he's had, much less afford them. And for those people... what happens next? I hope they change that part of it at the very least, and I think that it'll have plenty of changes as it moves into the senate. 

Regardless, I'm extremely skeptical and I'll be watching this closely. If not much is changed and it gets passed anyway, then it'll seem like something that was rushed as fuck just so it seems like Trump has checked off one of his biggest goals: getting rid of Obamacare. And it seems like he's alright with doing that, even if the new bill his and his party affiliates isn't much better (or better at all) than the old.


----------



## Beatles123

Will gladly let y'all know how I fare.



birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you happy about this, it will fuck you over more than most since you have a pre-existing condition. Insurance under Trumpcare can refuse to cover you or make you pay more because you have a pre-existing condition.
> 
> If this bill passes I cant wait until you find this out.
> 
> Trumpcare is awful, people will be paying more to get covered less. Under ACA there were minimum insurance companies had to cover, until Trumpare they dont.


Im so sure you care about me. :ghost


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Will gladly let y'all know how I fare.
> 
> Im so sure you care about me. :ghost


I tried to warn you but I hope it happens to you because you were hoping Obamacare gets killed, even though I showed you over and over what a disaster Trumpcare is. You will only care when it effects you. I find it funny you still defend Trump on everything he does. I cant believe you even support this bill but Im not really surprised. 

As of right now it wont even pass in the senate because Sen. Collins and Murkowski said they will oppose it if it cuts planned parenthood which the bill does and Sen. Portman said if the bill cuts Medicaid expansion for Ohio he would oppose which it does. Losing those three puts them under 50. Those are only three who have came out so far, and once more and more republicans hear from their voters it will probably go ever lower unless they want to get voted out in 2018.

Not to mention rape is now considered a pre-existing condition. How can anyone with a conscience be ok with that being in the bill.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The funny thing is I read that most of the states wouldn't even enforce the pre-existing conditions waivers. The House was basically arguing over sending a message for ideological purposes. This bill is so bad they don't even allow the CBO to look over it. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/860223194120245249
:lmao

Lost in all of this is the executive order Trump signed to provide a pathway for religious groups to have a bigger voice in politics.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The problem is that we are so far removed from trusting the free market that many in America simply cannot even conceive of how private and voluntary charity in a government-free system works and works effectively. 

There are at least two hospitals in Pakistan that provide complete free healthcare to the poor without any government assistance or taxation. There are at least a thousand NGO's in operation that collect on behalf of the poor. All this happened because people realized that the government is too corrupt ... so instead of constantly relying on the government, people just found the will to build their own hospitals, schools and other services through country-wide charity drives. 

I'm not saying that it's a perfect system or solution, but it is a solution that simply does not exist in America because people have no incentive to donate more as they're already over burdened and believe that they're paying "charity" through taxes. 

The solution lies in the free market, not government subsidies as historically it's been repeatedly shown that massive government interference only exacerbates problems. 

Cost of healthcare is high because of the government
Then government spends money in a high cost system instead of allowing the free market to control the prices
Prices remain artificially high so people start thinking that if everybody just paid enough for everyone else people will be able to afford things. 

In a free market with competition prices are driven down and low-cost services exist which are easier to both pay for as well have incentive for charitable people to donate. 

Government involvement in healthcare is a completely backward-ass way of thinking. "If we just taxed enough." "If we just subsidized it." "If we all just pooled our money and gave it to the government."

Ok, why not just pool all that fucking money and build the schools, hospitals and services in your own communities instead of relying a supersized and inefficient government? 

The solution is in free competition driving costs down and government butting out instead of first helping create monopolies that create an over-priced system. 

This is not a pipe dream. I've seen it happen in reality. I was a part of that system.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The solution lies in the free market, not government subsidies as historically it's been repeatedly shown that massive government interference only exacerbates problems.


In everything


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> It's not though? Passing this joke of a bill shows he clearly doesn't give a fuck about improving anything healthcare related. And his constant bleating about how terrible, awful and dead Obamacare is shows he - and tbh, that whole party - got so caught up in undoing the awfulness that Obama did that they shit the bed when it came time to actually replace the thing.


Well others have said Obamacare has screwed my family big time. So I am willing to give this new one a chance before I judge. As should all of you.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Well others have said Obamacare has screwed my family big time. So I am willing to give this new one a chance before I judge. As should all of you.


Your OK with a bill that views getting raped or give birth by c-section a pre-existing condition?


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Your OK with a bill that views getting raped or give birth by c-section a pre-existing condition?


Theres some thing that should be tweaked about it I agree.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So Trump declared the Australian healthcare system superior the US system, which is true, we spend less per capita and get a better result, but curious considering we have single payer universal heathcare.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't understand how anyone can be celebrating this bill being passed. It's garbage.

They didn't have the CBO evaluate it. Most of them didn't read it. Sound familiar? No hearings. Bypassed committee. And the selling point was, "Just pass it. They'll fix it in the senate". No, how about you get it right before you do anything.

Like Rep. Mark Amodei (R) said earlier this week:



> "We didn't learn anything from their mistakes, "We learned nothing from their mistakes."
> 
> "Seriously, you want me to go back and tell the people in my fourth of Nevada 'the Senate will make it better? What the hell?"


It does nothing to to increase competition. If there's not increases in competition, then prices stay the same for worse coverage. Also, the expanded preexisting conditions list is ridiculous.

It seems like people are saying it's a win because it pisses off liberals, because I'm having trouble finding any other pro in this mess.

It looks like the senate won't go for this anyway though, so I guess it's a moot point.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


Oh holy fuck....


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> So Trump declared the Australian healthcare system superior the US system, which is true, we spend less per capita and get a better result, but curious considering we have single payer universal heathcare.


Awww yeah baby, Australia rocks. Poor old America, still clinging to the idea of making money out of healthcare.


----------



## Real Deal

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Spoke with a lady from Blue Cross Blue Shield about my plan today, being a diabetic with eye issues. She told me my individual plan, at approx. $500/mo. right now, could go up as high as $2,100/mo. ($25,000 a year) based on my pre-existing conditions. This is coming from meetings she has attended, and conversations between supervisors.

So, for people that do not live in rural Kansas, let me make things clear. Minimum wage here is $7.25 an hour. Average salary in our capital (Topeka) is $54,000. In my county, it's $31,000.

*Do the math, folks.*

Yep, we aren't all the same. There are diabetics who are struggling to get 40 hours a week at their job, making $10/hour, and can barely pay for their fucking insulin (that keeps them alive), let alone everything else they need. But let's open the book up a bit more...

_Lantus long-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $280 w/out insurance
Humalog fast-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $250
test strips (3 or 4 tests per day, 50 per box) - $150
syringes (3 or 4 injections a day, box of 100) - $20
3-month checkup, for prescriptions, includes Hemoglobin A1C - $100-200 depending on the clinic_

That's roughly $900/mo. in costs if you don't have insurance. If you do have it, go $70/$70/$75/$20/$60 on all of those numbers, THEN add $500/mo. for your insurance plan...for a grand total of $795/mo.

That's real life costs of living with a pre-existing condition, because that's exactly what I spend.

Now, go ahead and add onto that some blood pressure medication, and the fact that I'm completely blind in one eye after $92,000 in surgeries (saved my other eye) and have to go in for eye checkups. That $92k is from 2008, when I was denied by SIX different insurance companies when I tried to get any plan they had to offer...all because I didn't qualify due to my diabetes.

Whoever answers correctly gets a cookie: where do you think most of my money goes?

Now, I want some of you to get out your calculators and tally the amount of money someone less fortunate (I'm lucky to have a decent job) has left if they are making $10/hour (over minimum wage here), 40 hours a week, and have to pay...hell, I don't know...let's just say what I pay every month for JUST my diabetic supplies and insurance (roughly $9500 a year). Hint: it's basically *half of their gross income*.

Hell, give them low rent...$450/mo. around here. That's $5400 a year.

Car payment? Can't afford that. Food? *Wait*...I forgot, we're working with their gross income, not net. Oops! So it's about $18,000 take home. That leaves us with...hmm, $3000 to eat on for the entire year ($250/mo, so I hope you like potted meat). No phone, no car payment, no gas for car, no utilities.

Not all of us are the same, but it seems that some of us believe otherwise.

God forbid the person above has to pay anything over $500/mo, huh? But it will happen, and they will be uninsured because of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I don't understand how anyone can be celebrating this bill being passed. It's garbage.
> 
> They didn't have the CBO evaluate it. Most of them didn't read it. Sound familiar? No hearings. Bypassed committee. And the selling point was, "Just pass it. They'll fix it in the senate". No, how about you get it right before you do anything.
> 
> Like Rep. Mark Amodei (R) said earlier this week:
> 
> 
> 
> It does nothing to to increase competition. If there's not increases in competition, then prices stay the same for worse coverage. Also, the expanded preexisting conditions list is ridiculous.
> 
> It seems like people are saying it's a win because it pisses off liberals, because I'm having trouble finding any other pro in this mess.
> 
> It looks like the senate won't go for this anyway though, so I guess it's a moot point.


Trump supporters wont start to hate it until they actually see it affect them then they will cry about it. Trumpcare is 100x worse than anyone could have imagined.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Really great that Trump is now allowing religious institutions the ability to get involved in politics...Maybe now they can start being taxed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Real Deal said:


> Spoke with a lady from Blue Cross Blue Shield about my plan today, being a diabetic with eye issues. She told me my individual plan, at approx. $500/mo. right now, could go up as high as $2,100/mo. ($25,000 a year) based on my pre-existing conditions. This is coming from meetings she has attended, and conversations between supervisors.
> 
> So, for people that do not live in rural Kansas, let me make things clear. Minimum wage here is $7.25 an hour. Average salary in our capital (Topeka) is $54,000. In my county, it's $31,000.
> 
> *Do the math, folks.*
> 
> Yep, we aren't all the same. There are diabetics who are struggling to get 40 hours a week at their job, making $10/hour, and can barely pay for their fucking insulin (that keeps them alive), let alone everything else they need. But let's open the book up a bit more...
> 
> _Lantus long-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $280 w/out insurance
> Humalog fast-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $250
> test strips (3 or 4 tests per day, 50 per box) - $150
> syringes (3 or 4 injections a day, box of 100) - $20
> 3-month checkup, for prescriptions, includes Hemoglobin A1C - $100-200 depending on the clinic_
> 
> That's roughly $900/mo. in costs if you don't have insurance. If you do have it, go $70/$70/$75/$20/$60 on all of those numbers, THEN add $500/mo. for your insurance plan...for a grand total of $795/mo.
> 
> That's real life costs of living with a pre-existing condition, because that's exactly what I spend.
> 
> Now, go ahead and add onto that some blood pressure medication, and the fact that I'm completely blind in one eye after $92,000 in surgeries (saved my other eye) and have to go in for eye checkups. That $92k is from 2008, when I was denied by SIX different insurance companies when I tried to get any plan they had to offer...all because I didn't qualify due to my diabetes.
> 
> Whoever answers correctly gets a cookie: where do you think most of my money goes?
> 
> Now, I want some of you to get out your calculators and tally the amount of money someone less fortunate (I'm lucky to have a decent job) has left if they are making $10/hour (over minimum wage here), 40 hours a week, and have to pay...hell, I don't know...let's just say what I pay every month for JUST my diabetic supplies and insurance (roughly $9500 a year). Hint: it's basically *half of their gross income*.
> 
> Hell, give them low rent...$450/mo. around here. That's $5400 a year.
> 
> Car payment? Can't afford that. Food? *Wait*...I forgot, we're working with their gross income, not net. Oops! So it's about $18,000 take home. That leaves us with...hmm, $3000 to eat on for the entire year ($250/mo, so I hope you like potted meat). No phone, no car payment, no gas for car, no utilities.
> 
> Not all of us are the same, but it seems that some of us believe otherwise.
> 
> God forbid the person above has to pay anything over $500/mo, huh? But it will happen, and they will be uninsured because of it.


Look up in your state who is your senator that will vote on this bill and call and write to them about not approving it. Get petitions from friends and familiy too, even start a facebook page. Let them know if they vote yes on y this how you will all vote them out in 2018.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Real Deal said:


> Spoke with a lady from Blue Cross Blue Shield about my plan today, being a diabetic with eye issues. She told me my individual plan, at approx. $500/mo. right now, could go up as high as $2,100/mo. ($25,000 a year) based on my pre-existing conditions. This is coming from meetings she has attended, and conversations between supervisors.
> 
> So, for people that do not live in rural Kansas, let me make things clear. Minimum wage here is $7.25 an hour. Average salary in our capital (Topeka) is $54,000. In my county, it's $31,000.
> 
> *Do the math, folks.*
> 
> Yep, we aren't all the same. There are diabetics who are struggling to get 40 hours a week at their job, making $10/hour, and can barely pay for their fucking insulin (that keeps them alive), let alone everything else they need. But let's open the book up a bit more...
> 
> _Lantus long-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $280 w/out insurance
> Humalog fast-acting insulin, one bottle a month - $250
> test strips (3 or 4 tests per day, 50 per box) - $150
> syringes (3 or 4 injections a day, box of 100) - $20
> 3-month checkup, for prescriptions, includes Hemoglobin A1C - $100-200 depending on the clinic_
> 
> That's roughly $900/mo. in costs if you don't have insurance. If you do have it, go $70/$70/$75/$20/$60 on all of those numbers, THEN add $500/mo. for your insurance plan...for a grand total of $795/mo.
> 
> That's real life costs of living with a pre-existing condition, because that's exactly what I spend.
> 
> Now, go ahead and add onto that some blood pressure medication, and the fact that I'm completely blind in one eye after $92,000 in surgeries (saved my other eye) and have to go in for eye checkups. That $92k is from 2008, when I was denied by SIX different insurance companies when I tried to get any plan they had to offer...all because I didn't qualify due to my diabetes.
> 
> Whoever answers correctly gets a cookie: where do you think most of my money goes?
> 
> Now, I want some of you to get out your calculators and tally the amount of money someone less fortunate (I'm lucky to have a decent job) has left if they are making $10/hour (over minimum wage here), 40 hours a week, and have to pay...hell, I don't know...let's just say what I pay every month for JUST my diabetic supplies and insurance (roughly $9500 a year). Hint: it's basically *half of their gross income*.
> 
> Hell, give them low rent...$450/mo. around here. That's $5400 a year.
> 
> Car payment? Can't afford that. Food? *Wait*...I forgot, we're working with their gross income, not net. Oops! So it's about $18,000 take home. That leaves us with...hmm, $3000 to eat on for the entire year ($250/mo, so I hope you like potted meat). No phone, no car payment, no gas for car, no utilities.
> 
> Not all of us are the same, but it seems that some of us believe otherwise.
> 
> God forbid the person above has to pay anything over $500/mo, huh? But it will happen, and they will be uninsured because of it.


Don't worry haven't you heard? The free market's going to take care of everything and prices will go down thanks to competition.

In any case, why don't you just work harder and apply yourself more so you can get a better job and make more money for all of this? It's the land of opportunity.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't worry haven't you heard? The free market's going to take care of everything and prices will go down thanks to competition.
> 
> In any case, why don't you just work harder and apply yourself more so you can get a better job and make more money for all of this? It's the land of opportunity.


The only good that could come out of this disaster of a Trumpcare bill if it ever passes the senate and we get stuck with it, is it will be that much easier to get single payer once the dems take over again which will happen when all the republicans get voted out because of this awful healthcare bill.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I don't understand how anyone can be celebrating this bill being passed. It's garbage.
> 
> They didn't have the CBO evaluate it. Most of them didn't read it. Sound familiar? No hearings. Bypassed committee. And the selling point was, "Just pass it. They'll fix it in the senate". No, how about you get it right before you do anything.
> 
> Like Rep. Mark Amodei (R) said earlier this week:
> 
> 
> 
> It does nothing to to increase competition. If there's not increases in competition, then prices stay the same for worse coverage. Also, the expanded preexisting conditions list is ridiculous.
> 
> It seems like people are saying it's a win because it pisses off liberals, because I'm having trouble finding any other pro in this mess.
> 
> It looks like the senate won't go for this anyway though, so I guess it's a moot point.





Courtesy of One America News...Graham Ledger's Final Thought just a few days ago on the Obamacare repeal fiasco. 






I don't believe in conspiracy theories as a rule for the most part. I roll my eyes whenever people talk about the NWO/deep state/etc. That being said...this was the equivalent of the "Look...a squirrel!" moment. The GOP was thoroughly embarrassed in the negotiations over the budget, and when the White House announced Trump was going to sign it there was an uproar among his base. The other day, Rush Limbaugh had two callers say they felt conned by him and one of them went so far as to say Trump is a sell-out. Trump talked about a good shut-down in September...he could get things going now by saying this budget is garbage but he's apparently not. 

Notice that today is when they decided to put the revamped AHCA up for a vote in the House AND also sign the long-awaited "religious liberty" executive order (right on time as a growing number of social conservatives who voted for him have been grumbling that he hasn't kept his promises to them aside from a conservative SCOTUS justice). The narrative has now completely shifted as there is almost no mention of the budget situation, and now Trump can say, "I am keeping my promises." You can read my thoughts on the religious liberty E.O. over on the religious liberty thread. He is hoping to have his base rejoice and "huzzah" for him over this. He wants to distract us with shiny objects. 

Again, it's a little better than the first AHCA abomination, but it still doesn't solve the problem. If you are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something else, the first order of business is to REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT! The guts of the ACA are still there, and this doesn't have any of the free-market solutions that can substantially bring down health-care costs. No opening up of competition especially across state lines, does not address the idea of paying for portions of insurance you might not necessarily want or need (grandfathers typically don't need neo-natal care as they are no longer reproducing). My insurance premiums have tripled since the ACA took effect, others have seen their costs go up even more or they lose coverage altogether. I spoke in a previous post about here in Iowa one company was left providing insurance on the exchange regarding Obamacare...that company (Medica) might be on the verge of exiting the exchange which would leave no options for many in this state. 

Now, the Senate will vote on it, but they can also revamp the bill substantially, for the better or the worse. Then, if it passes, it goes to committee where both houses hash out the details. Who knows what happens then, as there is less margin for error as you only have 52 GOP Senate votes. Twenty GOP House members voted "no" on the replacement...three GOP defectors in the Senate kills it assuming (like the vote in the House) not a single Democrat votes for it. 

I can't state this enough...this is not a repeal of the ACA. It is moving more chairs around. If they want to go down this path...re-instate the bill that over the last few years was introduced to be a clean repeal of the ACA. Bring it back with a sunset date of two years from now. Send it through both houses and put it on Trump's desk and get him to sign it. Then, start working on the replacement with a clean sheet and you have the time needed to actually get it done right. Or, just repeal it and be done and move on. 

The idea of "this pisses the liberals off so it's a good thing" is BS. This bill will compound the problem and make things worse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Courtesy of One America News...Graham Ledger's Final Thought just a few days ago on the Obamacare repeal fiasco.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in conspiracy theories as a rule for the most part. I roll my eyes whenever people talk about the NWO/deep state/etc. That being said...this was the equivalent of the "Look...a squirrel!" moment. The GOP was thoroughly embarrassed in the negotiations over the budget, and when the White House announced Trump was going to sign it there was an uproar among his base. The other day, Rush Limbaugh had two callers say they felt conned by him and one of them went so far as to say Trump is a sell-out. Trump talked about a good shut-down in September...he could get things going now by saying this budget is garbage but he's apparently not.
> 
> Notice that today is when they decided to put the revamped AHCA up for a vote in the House AND also sign the long-awaited "religious liberty" executive order (right on time as a growing number of social conservatives who voted for him have been grumbling that he hasn't kept his promises to them aside from a conservative SCOTUS justice). The narrative has now completely shifted as there is almost no mention of the budget situation, and now Trump can say, "I am keeping my promises." You can read my thoughts on the religious liberty E.O. over on the religious liberty thread. He is hoping to have his base rejoice and "huzzah" for him over this. He wants to distract us with shiny objects.
> 
> Again, it's a little better than the first AHCA abomination, but it still doesn't solve the problem. If you are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something else, the first order of business is to REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT! The guts of the ACA are still there, and this doesn't have any of the free-market solutions that can substantially bring down health-care costs. No opening up of competition especially across state lines, does not address the idea of paying for portions of insurance you might not necessarily want or need (grandfathers typically don't need neo-natal care as they are no longer reproducing). My insurance premiums have tripled since the ACA took effect, others have seen their costs go up even more or they lose coverage altogether. I spoke in a previous post about here in Iowa one company was left providing insurance on the exchange regarding Obamacare...that company (Medica) might be on the verge of exiting the exchange which would leave no options for many in this state.
> 
> Now, the Senate will vote on it, but they can also revamp the bill substantially, for the better or the worse. Then, if it passes, it goes to committee where both houses hash out the details. Who knows what happens then, as there is less margin for error as you only have 52 GOP Senate votes. Twenty GOP House members voted "no" on the replacement...three GOP defectors in the Senate kills it assuming (like the vote in the House) not a single Democrat votes for it.
> 
> I can't state this enough...this is not a repeal of the ACA. It is moving more chairs around. If they want to go down this path...re-instate the bill that over the last few years was introduced to be a clean repeal of the ACA. Bring it back with a sunset date of two years from now. Send it through both houses and put it on Trump's desk and get him to sign it. Then, start working on the replacement with a clean sheet and you have the time needed to actually get it done right. Or, just repeal it and be done and move on.
> 
> The idea of "this pisses the liberals off so it's a good thing" is BS. This bill will compound the problem and make things worse.


Why do people keep thinking free market will bring down healthcare, it wont. You will be paying the same for less or it will give you cheaper healthcare that wont cover shit and you will pay way more out of pocket.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

With the complete failure of the fictitious "Russian puppet" narrative, Scott Adams warns and predicts that "The Resistance"s new line of attack will be to portray Trump as crazy, using skills of persuasion (or in this case, pre-suasion, which is a fantastic book by the way) that Trump has used himself numerous times in the past:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160304991456/the-resistance-changes-its-attack-from-russian

Excellent read, I recommend it to the people in this thread who are intelligent enough to appreciate Mr Adams' content and incredible insight (and foresight!). 
@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @AryaDark @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @Goku + others I'm forgetting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> With the complete failure of the fictitious "Russian puppet" narrative, Scott Adams warns and predicts that "The Resistance"s new line of attack will be to portray Trump as crazy, using skills of persuasion (or in this case, pre-suasion, which is a fantastic book by the way) that Trump has used himself numerous times in the past:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160304991456/the-resistance-changes-its-attack-from-russian
> 
> Excellent read, I recommend it to the people in this thread who are intelligent enough to appreciate Mr Adams' content and incredible insight (and foresight!).
> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @AryaDark @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @Goku + others I'm forgetting.


Trump looks like he has early signs of dementia or alzheimers , you cant tell me you dont see the signs.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why do people keep thinking free market will bring down healthcare, it wont. You will be paying the same for less or it will give you cheaper healthcare that wont cover shit and you will pay way more out of pocket.


Many of us (yourself included) have complained about how our government seems to find a way to mess things up. Right there, that's one reason why I will never want to put the health of my family in the hands of our government (which is what single-payer would do). A good number of the clowns in Congress right now and in government overall could get an erotic massage and find a way to screw up the happy ending. 

The system we have always had has not always been true free-market health care. Most of us are limited in our choices...we have either the insurance plan that our employer offers or whatever Medicaid options for our local state. Yes, there are some companies that offer insurance plans you can buy on your own, but they are becoming more and more expensive. They try to do their best to keep costs down, and as a result sometimes the customer service can be lacking. We're pretty much prisoners of the health-care system, we are stuck with paying what our doctors/big pharma/and the hospitals charge. 

However, if we had the option to get health insurance anywhere...that could be a game-changer. Let's say my wife's friend has a great health insurance policy where she works and it is better than the one we have. What if we had the option of saying, "I want that insurance company to service my health, this one is not meeting my needs." You see that right now in other lines of business. For example, restaurants are finding new ways to compete with each other. They want your business, especially at a time where the number of people who go out to eat has dropped dramatically. The "2 for $20" promotions at places like Applebee's is their way of trying to attract new customers. You can use the same concept with health care. If people are leaving an insurance company and going elsewhere, they are going to have to change the way things are done or go out of business. That also means lowered costs as they are going to have to find a way to keep your business. 

Competition has also helped in regards to procedures not necessarily covered by insurance. For example, LASIK eye surgery at the turn of the century probably cost someone out of pocket about $4500. Now, it's closer to $600, thanks to competition in the marketplace and that competition also being powered by the technology. The new technologies tend to be stifled where there is not competition. 

There are so many opportunities if the government would just get the hell out of the way altogether and let the free market handle things. I'm sure we can figure out some way to have something in the event of catastrophic health situations, such as a massive health crisis that sends us to the ER or the hospital. Otherwise, let the free market take care of things, a TRUE free market (which we have never really had), and you will find a substantial world of difference. 






CamillePunk said:


> With the complete failure of the fictitious "Russian puppet" narrative, Scott Adams warns and predicts that "The Resistance"s new line of attack will be to portray Trump as crazy, using skills of persuasion (or in this case, pre-suasion, which is a fantastic book by the way) that Trump has used himself numerous times in the past:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160304991456/the-resistance-changes-its-attack-from-russian
> 
> Excellent read, I recommend it to the people in this thread who are intelligent enough to appreciate Mr Adams' content and incredible insight (and foresight!).
> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @AryaDark @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @Goku + others I'm forgetting.



Trump knows exactly what he's doing, he's crazy like a fox. He has stated from day one he wants to be unpredictable. You see that in his policies...one minute you have Sec of State Tillerson say we're tired of messing around with North Korea. Next, Trump saying under the right circumstances he would sit down with Kim Jong-Un. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley talks about how Israel keeps getting screwed by the UN, then Trump says he had a good conversation with Palestinian leader Abbas. He doesn't want to give anything away, he wants people to guess on where he lands. 

Still...he needs to actually know his facts before stating something. Andrew Jackson really didn't have much of a chance to stop the Civil War from starting.  Otherwise, what Adams said makes sense. 

The Resistance will continue to flail away until they actually put together a message and a plan. Resistance for the sake of resistance is not a plan. The Tea Party learned that message, they didn't just resist but organized and they have some massive clout right now in government. On the other hand, Occupy Wall Street was just a protest but no one really knew what the end-game was.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That Scott Adams is a bit of a dingbat. The Trump is crazy thing is about as new as Obama being a kenyan Muslim.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

How would insurance company competition raise prices?

I can buy insurance for about everything from anywhere in the US now and save money. Health Insurance is pretty much the only insurance that's rinky dink.


Single payer is a pipe dream that would be in the hands of our incompetent Government. Even worse if the Democrats put it forward as California is Democrat central and one of the most poorly ran and inefficient states that leech off everyone else. No wonder it's full of wannabe socialists and freeloader celebs. 

I say let's try it this way and if it fails single payer can be visited another day.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Enjoyed the Scott Adams piece, @CamillePunk; thank you for the mention. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859347908268879874
Indeed.

Based on Donald Trump's comments, he seems to not exactly know what is in the bill he is championing, which is of course rather unfortunate. In order to secure the votes of the congressman belonging to the "Freedom Caucus" Trumpcare features considerably less coverage than it did a mere six or seven weeks ago; to sate GOP "moderates" the new bill maintains the entire skeletal frame of Obamacare. This is a terrible compromise, and it doubtless signposts the GOP's mishandling of this issue politically, somehow increasing Obamacare's popularity to heights undreamt of while Barack Obama was actually president and Democrats were losing congressional seats by the bushel due to the Affordable Care Act's marked unpopularity. 

The average swing state voter recognizes that the Republicans have been campaigning for what feels like forever on overhauling the Nancy Pelosi-, Charles Schumer-brewed Obamacare scheme, but few are able to articulate what the GOP is looking to secure aside from a greater emphasis on free markets. 

Where Republicans and Trump went irrevocably wrong was in attempting to salvage a system that is beyond saving. When Trump tirelessly campaigned on "repealing and replacing" Obamacare throughout the campaign cycle, one could be forgiven for making the assumption that he genuinely wanted to take a scorched earth sort of approach to the gargantuan monstrosity and either seek a mere return to the 2010-and-earlier _status quo_--which would have angered many Democrats but at least would have been entirely coherent--or approach the matter of healthcare costs in a truly, and fundamentally, fresh manner that would forever change the way Americans looked at it. For all of the state subsidies or incentives or mandates, none of the options, even when thrown together, will make much of a dent in the most devastating point of contention, which is why, at the very least, a new way of appreciating the healthcare subject in the U.S. needs to be undertaken. For without that all the Republicans are doing is grafting their own party name to an Obamacare-lite circus of weaker degrees of coverage and even more bureaucracy; less "goodies," but more red tape and an even more "unfree market."

The fundamental and critical issue with which anyone endeavoring to "fix" the situation must grapple is the recognition that Obamacare is philosophically flawed, which is why its conclusions reach maddeningly paradoxical results. The greatest barrier to healthcare is, as the schemes are formulated, insurance itself. Insurance, which Obamacare prioritized, and which was to be made "affordable," is not the panacea; it is the vexatious problem. 

Ultimately, for the percentage of GDP devoted to healthcare in the U.S. to not continue to balloon year after year to stunning lengths, less insurance is better, not more. For health insurance is a misnomer as it is relayed today; inherently, insurance is purchased by someone who is expecting to never need it, and who never wishes to need it or want it. Car accidents happen all the time but car insurance is a safeguard against the unforeseen, and millions upon millions of Americans go many years without ever having to think about putting it into action, so to speak. Dating back to Hammurabi, insurance as practiced by lenders working with merchants who took out loans against the odds of a vessel sinking to the bottom of the sea was something that was to be held on to in case of the insurance holder refusing to call in the liability of the venture. 

As a thought experiment, imagine waking up one morning, and within an hour breaking one of your legs by some freakish accident. In the U.S., what would the primarily heavy cost be on the eventual bill? The reason why setting a broken leg--something practiced for millennia--is today so exorbitantly expensive in the U.S. is because of the costliness of health insurance, not because of the fairly uncomplicated medical procedures attendant in the helping of someone who just broke their leg. 

Removing freakish occurrences such as the aforementioned, nevertheless, healthcare insurance is more akin to being an installed pre-payment on visits to the doctor or, if necessary, hospital. Even the fittest, healthiest person alive knows that, should they see a doctor, the matter of health insurance is paramount as a sort of currency in the healthcare industry. A quotidian checkup requires the usage of insurance after all. 

Where Obamacare conceptually failed was that it sought to bring cost relief to what are effectively installment schemes by way of "insurance" for healthcare. Tortured and fraught with easily understood contradictions, the Affordable Care Act's establishing of mandates by which healthy young and the ill old (by and large) could be meshed together as means of providing a base line average for costs with incentives for the former to stay in the system in order to keep it afloat, was rather obviously never going to work for a particularly long time. 

Even when removing research and development from the equation the U.S. is spending absurd amounts of money on healthcare every year, with the totals increasing year to year with no end in sight, and this is chiefly because the U.S. government has gone about socializing the insurance market as means of increasing access to healthcare. 

The primary reason most preexisting conditions are not, by way of a free market, "coverable" for insurance companies is that the preponderance of cases would negate the very reason for insurance companies to exist, and just as has happened under the yoke of Obamacare, they would skedaddle. Artificially inflating the quantity of "coverable" preexisting conditions involve particular incentives for insurance companies--which tend to manifest in corporatist welfare, so you have a never-ending loop of insurance companies having a valid complaint but which can be abused on their behalf when government delivers subsidies. It is no coincidence that hedge fund managers and insurance lobbyists have massive crossover. 

Ultimately, while some free market elements may help at the margins, in the realm of what is an undeniably hyper-inflated insurance market, the commodity of insurance does not react to market forces due to the substantially distinct among goods because the average consumer or customer is viewing the possible possession of insurance as a life-or-death decision/choice. Whether people like it or hate it, most Americans have taken to the idea that anything short of federal government assistance in the specific arena of health insurance is a bridge "backward" that they are unwilling to travel, based on a multitude of polls (Obamacare is today considerably more popular than Donald Trump). Democrats are tremendously adept at selling their material and the Republicans seem incapable of putting together a compelling message. 

This is a lousy bill and between the budget bill which has Pelosi and Schumer glowing and this disaster--though it now becomes the Senate's plaything--this has been quite the winning week for Democrats, probably the party's best week since Trump's election victory.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I tried to warn you but I hope it happens to you because you were hoping Obamacare gets killed, even though I showed you over and over what a disaster Trumpcare is. You will only care when it effects you. I find it funny you still defend Trump on everything he does. I cant believe you even support this bill but Im not really surprised.
> 
> As of right now it wont even pass in the senate because Sen. Collins and Murkowski said they will oppose it if it cuts planned parenthood which the bill does and Sen. Portman said if the bill cuts Medicaid expansion for Ohio he would oppose which it does. Losing those three puts them under 50. Those are only three who have came out so far, and once more and more republicans hear from their voters it will probably go ever lower unless they want to get voted out in 2018.
> 
> Not to mention rape is now considered a pre-existing condition. How can anyone with a conscience be ok with that being in the bill.


That's where you're wrong, friendo. I won't care AFTER it starts effecting me. :troll


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

High competitive industries in the US (But not free market still): Consumer Electronics, Food, Restaurants, Oil, Automobiles, Clothing. Prices consistently going down. (In automobiles prices of newer models remain relatively static but what you get back more value in upgraded features and designs - same with electronics and food). I bought a 48" TV for 250 bucks. And a single patented diabetes drug is that price. This isn't because of the free market, this is because the government allowed a company to create a monopoly. Yesterday I spent 130 bucks for 210 dollars worth of groceries thanks to a great Publix bogo. 

Mid-tier competitive industries: Generic Pharmaceuticals, Internet Service Providers, Cell phone service providers: Prices higher than other countries where there's more competition, but still affordable. 

Government subsidized, protected industries or highly regulated industries: Patented Pharmaceuticals (government created monopolies), Education, Healthcare (costs driven up because of compliance red tape), Infrastructure, Military contracts, housing - Costs extremely high and practically unaffordable leading to a situation of the government practically printing money in order to keep those services functioning. It's called a financial bubble and it can explode like a time bomb. 

As for people in countries like Australia, Canada and others bragging about their single payer healthcare ... well, they pay for it with almost everyone having to go on welfare at some point because there are no jobs (real unemployment in Australia is estimated to be as high as 9-11%, not 6%, with entire Aussie states having in reality no jobs at all) or work below their qualification in shit careers with little to no hope of financial growth over time. And then go through mental gymnastics to convince themselves that "well, I never really wanted to be rich anyways". "Yay, my life is great because I'm ok with shattered dreams"

Everyone else who has a dream moves to the States. I especially love the Canadian idiots in Hollywood who own multiple homes, makes millions of dollars in a rich industry where such an industry barely exists in their own country telling everyone to vote for tax and spend Democrats who champion the same policies that pretty much guaranteed that in Canada they would be nothing more than prettier-than-average waitresses and burger flippers.

And people still think that government interference doesn't drive up costs or practically make it impossible for vertical growth to happen in several industries fpalm


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> The Resistance will continue to flail away until they actually put together a message and a plan. Resistance for the sake of resistance is not a plan. The Tea Party learned that message, they didn't just resist but organized and they have some massive clout right now in government. On the other hand, Occupy Wall Street was just a protest but no one really knew what the end-game was.


Whats funny is how pathetic this "resistance" is, considering its mostly a bunch of celebs whining on Twitter or at award shows or ANTIFA, who wouldn't know their own ass from a hole in the ground. If Trump were the dictator they keep saying he is, they'd be pretty fucked.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> High competitive industries in the US (But not free market still): Consumer Electronics, Food, Restaurants, Oil, Automobiles, Clothing. Prices consistently going down. (In automobiles prices of newer models remain relatively static but what you get back more value in upgraded features and designs - same with electronics and food). I bought a 48" TV for 250 bucks. And a single patented diabetes drug is that price. This isn't because of the free market, this is because the government allowed a company to create a monopoly. Yesterday I spent 130 bucks for 210 dollars worth of groceries thanks to a great Publix bogo.
> 
> Mid-tier competitive industries: Generic Pharmaceuticals, Internet Service Providers, Cell phone service providers: Prices higher than other countries where there's more competition, but still affordable.
> 
> Government subsidized, protected industries or highly regulated industries: Patented Pharmaceuticals (government created monopolies), Education, Healthcare (costs driven up because of compliance red tape), Infrastructure, Military contracts, housing - Costs extremely high and practically unaffordable leading to a situation of the government practically printing money in order to keep those services functioning. It's called a financial bubble and it can explode like a time bomb.



The problem here is a chicken - egg one, most of those industries you name as being uncompetitive because of government involvement, ie education, simply wouldn't exist if not for government involvement. Before governments set up public education systems only a tiny minority of people could go to school. 

The government got involved in industries like education because they are uncompetitive and the market was failing to provide. 

Obviously this doesn't go for all, but many of the industries you've listed this is true of.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The problem here is a chicken - egg one, most of those industries you name as being uncompetitive because of government involvement, ie education, simply wouldn't exist. Before governments set up public education systems only a tiny minority of people could go to school.


Nah. Until segregation in America all schools were set up and constructed by a combination of capitalists, philanthropists and local state governments without any federal oversight and America still had relatively high levels of education. There was also homeschooling, private tuition and apprenticeships in trade. Even today, the school system actually gets peanuts from the federal government, but it's completely controlled by the feds which makes little sense to me. The federal oversight of schools and cirriculum may have sent kids to school, but hasn't made much of a dent in far too many communities to actually justify its oversight and administration of schools. All it has really accomplished is made it costlier and is providing sub par education in huge pockets of the country. 

The government doesn't build schools. It controls and funds them. You see the inherent problem with that?

The chicken or the egg argument is always a flawed analogy because obviously the chicken came first. Anyone who understands evolution knows that eggs evolved over time :draper2



> The government got involved in industries *like education because they are uncompetitive and the market was failing to provide. *
> 
> Obviously this doesn't go for all, but many of the industries you've listed this is true of.


The gaps would have been filled by apprenticeships, homeschooling and charity schools. The thing is that once the government got involved, it removed the incentive for capitalists to build private schools for anyone except the most wealthy. 

We see the exact same thing in rent controlled areas where the rich benefit from moving into low-cost housing but the capitalist continues to develop new and better homes only for the rich because there's no money to be made in low-rent housing. So you end up with a situation of rent-controlled slums right next to huge luxurious high rises. The government basically created the slumlord. Same concept applies to schools as well where we have all kinds of schools but only schools in rich areas are good as there is no incentive for anyone to try to make money in low-income neighborhoods perpetually creating a downward spiral instead of a system based on price discrimination (the economic concept, not the negative connotation of discrimination).

The other thing that people don't know about schools is that all the extra-cirriculars, dances, events ... almost everything is still funded through private fund-raisers and community leaders making small or large donations. Where is all that tax money going if the majority of stuff is still subsidized by parents and philanthropists themselves?

Finally, and this is my most radical idea that most people in here will not like. Everyone doesn't need to go to school in order to be educated or have a great life. There's way too many successful drop outs world over to have a valid justification for the idea that "everyone has a right to free school".


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Whats funny is how pathetic this "resistance" is, considering its mostly a bunch of celebs whining on Twitter or at award shows or ANTIFA, who wouldn't know their own ass from a hole in the ground. If Trump were the dictator they keep saying he is, they'd be pretty fucked.


If you were to ask some of these ANTIFA folks what their goals were or what they wanted to do to achieve them, they couldn't tell you. That's what is funny about this whole thing. They are trying to use the playbook of the GOP and the Tea Party over the last 8 years, but the difference is that they had specific goals they wanted to achieve and put forth a plan in place on how to do it. Not the case now with this movement, just saying "NO" to everything is not a plan of resistance. Even successful protests and movements throughout history (King, Gandhi, etc), had plans on what they wanted to accomplish and how to do it. 

Right now, it might seem as pathetic. But I'm not ready to write them off...people wrote off the Tea Party and look at where they are now. 



wwe9391 said:


> Theres some thing that should be tweaked about it I agree.


Tweaked, nothing...the whole thing needs to be torn up and we need to start over from square one. Trump wanted a win, but if this is a win then it's a Pyrrhic victory at best. 



deepelemblues said:


> here is a good example of trying to inject some truth into a lie to make it seem like less of a lie
> 
> the individual mandate of obamacare was based on the individual mandate of romneycare
> 
> that is literally the only true thing BM has ever said in his cavalcade of republican heritage romneycare lies
> 
> romneycare was never adopted by any other republicans
> 
> stuart butler's idea of the individual mandate never got widespread conservative support either inside or outside the heritage foundation
> 
> no notable republican outside of mitt romney ever supported it
> 
> BM has lied repeatedly about this because he wants to create the impression that the individual mandate was a mainstream republican idea. it never was.
> 
> what BM is doing is akin to saying that since it was the democratic administration of harry truman who came up with the cold war interventionist policy, any democratic criticism of republican presidents intervening in foreign countries would be hypocritical. which would be manifestly unfair nonsense.
> 
> just as it is manifestly unfair nonsense to say that obamacare was a GOP idea like the republicans were all for it so their opposition 20 years later was somehow underhanded. outside of mitt romney as governor of a single state no member of the GOP ever attempted to implement it as policy. other than mitt romney no notable republican ever even supported it. some handful of GOP senators that no one remembers sponsored it in a bill that the rest of the republican caucus made plain it did not support.
> 
> not every idea that comes from a democrat is a democratic idea and not every idea that comes from a republican is a republican idea. especially if the rest of their party rejects it. there are still some democrats who support tax cuts and are opposed to gun control, are tax cuts and opposing gun control democratic ideas now? of course not.
> 
> we can go around and around on this forever but the facts are the facts and fair is fair.


While Roosevelt and Truman tossed around such an idea during their administrations, the real root of the possibilities of UHC/single-payer took place during the Nixon administration. He was looking at such an option, but after Watergate and his resignation any ideas he would have pushed were too radioactive for anyone to touch.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Right now, it might seem as pathetic. But I'm not ready to write them off...people wrote off the Tea Party and look at where they are now.


I'm glad you pointed that out because while the surface ANTIFA seem like rioters and aimless, the real movement underneath is deeply rooted in anti-corporatism, socialism, or the only slightly better social welfare statism. It's also allied with communists. Three groups that have both political leaders and constituents deeply entrenched within the democrats. With Bernie's rise last year, we're going to see more and more socialists fielded by the democrats over the next few years.

In the early 2000's if I had enough passion, I probably would have sided with groups like ANTIFA.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Except the Tea Party had more of an idea of what they wanted. ANTIFA can't even decide whether they even want a leader, let alone a over arching goal


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Except the Tea Party had more of an idea of what they wanted. ANTIFA can't even decide whether they even want a leader, let alone a over arching goal


They have an overarching ideology which is an amalgamation of pretty much all far left political theories (and ironically they call themselves anarchists, but are largely big government statists at this point) - so these are the potential constituents of progressive democrats like Bernie and Warren.

The best way to beat your opponent is to understand your opponent so disregarding the ANTIFA as just a group of aimless rioters is a self-defeating strategy.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> They have an overarching ideology which is an amalgamation of pretty much all far left political theories (and ironically they call themselves anarchists, but are largely big government statists at this point) - so these are the potential constituents of progressive democrats like Bernie and Warren.
> 
> The best way to beat your opponent is to understand your opponent so disregarding the ANTIFA as just a group of aimless rioters is a self-defeating strategy.


People are assuming these assholes are anarchists, they're not. There was a vid on Youtube that was pretty much a documentary on BAMN. Antifa is pretty well organized and cult like. They preach nothing but Antifa rhetoric to these gullible people who are trapped in an echo chamber of nonsense. 

These people are morons and wimpy but en mass they can cause major problems as they skirt the law by wearing masks and are backed by rich people using them as pawns. It's ironic they hate Capitalism but are supported and funded by some of the biggest Capitalists around. They also think our society as it is can function with their ideology which it cannot. There would be no free wifi in their perfect utopia.

Ignoring them and underestimating them is dangerous, they will scale up the violence. Someone will be killed and it will only make them more bold as they're like Religious zealots.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> People are assuming these assholes are anarchists, they're not. There was a vid on Youtube that was pretty much a documentary on BAMN. Antifa is pretty well organized and cult like. They preach nothing but Antifa rhetoric to these gullible people who are trapped in an echo chamber of nonsense.


That's a group within the ANTIFA. I think the original ANTIFA that were anti-big government leftists aren't the same as the current group. I'll watch that docu at some point so a link would be appreciated. 



> These people are morons and wimpy but en mass they can cause major problems as they skirt the law by wearing masks and are backed by rich people using them as pawns. It's ironic they hate Capitalism but are supported and funded by some of the biggest Capitalists around. They also think our society as it is can function with their ideology which it cannot. There would be no free wifi in their perfect utopia.


Yeah. The way corporatists actually fund some of these groups (not everyone in ANTIFA actually sees the money) is through a money trail that goes from the original source through a series of carefully placed donations that eventually find its way to these groups. It's not a conspiracy at this point because even the recipients of the money don't really know the original source. 



> Ignoring them and underestimating them is dangerous, they will scale up the violence. Someone will be killed and it will only make them more bold as they're like Religious zealots.


Yeah, they may not be completely controllable (which is fine), but what we shouldn't do is demonize the group because imo that awards them sympathy support - which is more than they actually deserve. 

I was fine with the original left-wing anarchists that used to go after actual crony capitalism in the past (like protesting globalist collusion in the form of the G20, G8, IMF etc superstates) ... The current group however has its own agenda and saying it doesn't have one is diminishing its risk.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The problem here is a chicken - egg one, most of those industries you name as being uncompetitive because of government involvement, ie education, simply wouldn't exist if not for government involvement. Before governments set up public education systems only a tiny minority of people could go to school.
> 
> The government got involved in industries like education because they are uncompetitive and the market was failing to provide.
> 
> Obviously this doesn't go for all, but many of the industries you've listed this is true of.


This is correct, education would still be for the elite with the dreggs being given to the poor. The government builds, maintains and runs our schools in the UK, without them it would just be a ton of toffs at Eton.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> This is correct, education would still be for the elite with the dreggs being given to the poor. The government builds, maintains and runs our schools in the UK, without them it would just be a ton of toffs at Eton.


A quick google search reveals that it's doing a pretty shitty job:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...slip-down-international-rankings-8979588.html



> *Bottom of the class: UK literacy and numeracy standards slip down international rankings*
> Half a million 15-year-olds were tested in 65 countries - and we were 26th in maths and 23rd in reading
> 
> Literacy and numeracy standards in the UK have shown no improvement at all in the last three years with the result that our 15-year-olds are now three years behind those in the world’s best education system - Shanghai in China - in maths.
> 
> This is the conclusion of the 2012 PISA tests - of 15-year-olds in 65 different countries in maths, reading and science - which also appear to show that pumping far more resources into education, as the UK has done, has failed to pay off.
> 
> The figures show that the UK is 26th in maths out of 65 countries, 23rd in reading and 20th in science - remarkably similar positions to those in the last tests in 2009 when we were 27th, 26th and 20th respectively.
> 
> Reasons for the failure to improve cited in the report include not targeting spending effectively. It also points out that those countries which head the league tables target getting the best qualified teachers into deprived areas more strongly.
> 
> Also, the report echoes earlier OECD findings that the current generation of young people in the UK are not so skilled in maths and reading as their grandparents’ generation.
> 
> The results immediately triggered a kind of ping-pong war between Education Secretary Michael Gove and his Labour counterpart Tristram Hunt with Mr Gove claiming the stagnation was nothing to do with his policies and all Labour’s fault while his Labour counterpart Tristram Hunt accused the Coalition Government of “failing to confront the international challenge we face”.
> 
> On education spending, it indicates that the billions spent on education under Labour have not been as effective as less money shelled out in other countries has been.
> 
> The table shows the UK spending the equivalent of $98,023 per head on six to 15-year-olds compared with an OECD average of $83, 382. Similarly in terms of the Gross Domestic project per capita the UK’s $35, 299 compares with an average of $33,732.
> 
> South Korea, one of the highest performing OECD countries in maths, spent well below the international average while the biggest spender was the United States ($115,000) whose performance level was exactly the same as Slovenia which spent $53,000.


The government fails at everything. But keep worshiping the state. Everyone needs their idols.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

But the top education system in the world according to the rankings is Shanghai. Not exactly a shining example of minimum state interference.

Maybe just maybe, the issue isn't state vs private but acknowledging throwing money at a problem isn't always the best solution for every problem? :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> A quick google search reveals that it's doing a pretty shitty job:
> 
> The government fails at everything. But keep worshiping the state. Everyone needs their idols.


It may well be, and if my argument had been 'isn't our system great because of the government' I'd understand why you referenced this article! I didn't though, so I fail to see what relevance it has. China is state run and its top, so I don't know what you're trying to say about state run schooling and performance.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah, it's easy to educate the kids that remain after centuries of infanticide. They're also more cherished. You create a shortfall of 40-50 million girls in the society and say that well the rest are doing great! You have potentially 10's of millions of people in China that are non-citizens and do not have access to any services and grew up without even being able to call themselves citizens and you're bragging about those who were lucky? Funny thing is that for all the whinging we see about capitalism, people are loathe to examine the absolute decades of disaster communism will create and continue to create in countries like China. That's an incredibly dystopian mindset. 

Something about that creates a kind of moral ambiguity that does not give the Chinese any kind of bragging rights.



draykorinee said:


> It may well be, and if my argument had been 'isn't our system great because of the government' I'd understand why you referenced this article! I didn't though, so I fail to see what relevance it has. China is state run and its top, so I don't know what you're trying to say about state run schooling and performance.


And my point has never been that a capitalist system of schools is perfect and that it's better than what government schooling can create.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Anyways, enough talk about baby-killing chinese government having "da best schools" for the remaining citizen children, here's Kevin Ryan's update on the new Healthcare Bill


@L-DOPA; @CamillePunk; @BruiserKC; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @2 Ton 21; @Beatles123; @birthday_massacre 



> *HERE'S HOW THE HOUSE BILL WOULD CHANGE HEALTH CARE FROM THE CURRENT LAW, by Kevin Ryan*
> 
> REPEAL - The American Health Care Act, if passed by the Senate and signed into law, will dismantle most core aspects of ObamaCare, including:
> 
> • The employer mandate and penalties for not insuring employees who work more than 30 hours a week at companies with more than 50 employees are repealed.
> *• The individual mandate and penalties for not having insurance are repealed.*
> • Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid will effectively be reversed in 2020 when the federal government stops funding it. States that have not already expanded would not be allowed to do so, starting immediately.
> • Obamacare's income-based subsidies are ended.
> • The 3.8% tax on investment income is repealed.
> • The 0.9% tax on higher income Americans is repealed.
> • The tax on medical devices is eliminated.
> • The tax on prescription medications is repealed.
> • The tax on health insurance premiums is ended.
> • The tax on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) is repealed.
> • The tax on tanning salons is repealed.
> *• The tax on retiree prescription drug coverage is repealed.
> • The tax deduction on expenses exceeding 7.5% of a family's income is reinstated (Obamacare had increased the threshold to 10%).
> *• Obamacare's prohibition on using Flexible Spending Account and Health Savings Account (HSA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines is repealed.
> • The tax penalty on withdrawing money from Health Savings Account for non-qualified medical expenses is repealed.
> • State Medicaid plans will no longer have to cover some Obamacare-mandated essential health benefits.
> • Planned Parenthood funding is eliminated.
> 
> KEEP - The law will keep several features of Obamacare:
> *• People with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. The measure would provide states with federal funds to help set up high-risk pools to provide insurance to the sickest patients and to help those with pre-existing conditions pay for insurance.
> *• Dependents can still stay on their parent's health insurance plan until age 26.
> • Insurers are still prohibited from setting annual and lifetime limits on individual coverage.
> • The "Cadillac tax" on generous healthcare plans will remain, but be postponed from 2020 to 2025.
> • Current Medicaid enrollees will be grandfathered in when the federal government stops providing the extra federal funds that allow for expansion in 2020.
> 
> REPLACE - The replacement part of the bill includes several major changes to existing law:
> *• Obamacare's income-based subsidies are replaced by age-based tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per person per year, increasing with someone’s age. The credits would start to phase out for individuals earning $75,000 and households earning $150,000, and would be unavailable for individuals who earn more than $215,000.*
> *• Although the annual penalty for not having insurance is repealed, people who wait until they become sick or let their coverage lapse for more than 63 days can be charged a 30% surcharge on premiums for one year when they do finally sign up.*
> *• The amount people and employers can contribute to tax-free health savings accounts will double.
> *• Private plans are still required to offer ten essential health benefits, but states can now opt out of the requirement.
> *• States will now be able to opt out of Obamacare's mandate that insurers charge the same rates to sick and healthy people.*
> *• Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge seniors up to 3 times more than they charged young people. The new law changes that restriction to 5 times more.*
> 
> MEDICAID REFORM - The GOP bill would also significantly overhaul the Medicaid program.
> • The bill would end Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement and would put the program on a budget.
> *• States would receive an allotment of federal money for each beneficiary, or, as an alternative, they could take the money in a lump sum as a block grant, with fewer federal requirements.
> • States will also be able to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work, participate in job training programs, or do community service.*
> • The Congressional Budget Office projects that bill would cut the federal government's spending on Medicaid by 25% by 2026 as compared to current law.
> 
> Source


Some good things and some bad things. It's a mixed bag.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Whats funny is how pathetic this "resistance" is, considering its mostly a bunch of celebs whining on Twitter or at award shows or ANTIFA, who wouldn't know their own ass from a hole in the ground. If Trump were the dictator they keep saying he is, they'd be pretty fucked.


For such a fascist dictator , a lot of people have been getting away with crapping on him and being able to say whatever they want with no repercussions :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Also, 

• The tax on Flexible Spending Accounts is repealed.

• The tax deduction on expenses exceeding 7.5% of a family's income is reinstated (Obamacare had increased the threshold to 10%).

• Obamacare's prohibition on using Flexible Spending Account (FSA) and Health Savings Account (HSA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines is repealed.

• The tax penalty on withdrawing money from Health Savings Account for non-qualified medical expenses is repealed.

• The Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage is repealed.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Genuine question, did people really think thats what happened with Obamacare?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yes, Democrats were screaming bloody murder and spreading fake news that the pre-existing conditions part would be removed.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> But the top education system in the world according to the rankings is Shanghai. Not exactly a shining example of minimum state interference.
> 
> Maybe just maybe, the issue isn't state vs private but acknowledging throwing money at a problem isn't always the best solution for every problem? :draper2


You'd have a point if America and China were both trying to push education in the same way as each other but they're not. 

When it comes to public schooling America is one of the worst at handling education. 

The fact that China is one of the leading places pushing to have the most skilled and educated places is telling, simply not the case in America.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Yes, Democrats were screaming bloody murder and spreading fake news that the pre-existing conditions part would be removed.
> 
> - Vic


You will be paying MORE for pre-existing conditions which will make it unaffordable for a lot of people. Under the ACA you could not be charged for more pre-existing conditions.

Also it was in the bill before yesterday to allow states to opt out of covering people with pre-existing conditions but that part was taken out but those people like I said will be paying more for their insurance and they expanded what counts as pre-existing conditions which is fucked up because like we said earlier rape is now a pre-existing condition.

You are really ok with this?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Unemployment rate reaches 10 year low:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.html?_r=0


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Unemployment rate reaches 10 year low:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.html?_r=0


thanks Obama.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> thanks Obama.


Sure, 10 years later. Right. :lmao

This is why I rarely post in this thread and I know I'm not the only one. Goodbye.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Sure, 10 years later. Right. :lmao
> 
> This is why I rarely post in this thread and I know I'm not the only one. Goodbye.


Uemployment has been going down since 2010 , has it not?

Did you even look at the chart in your link? You act like it was on the rise then started to go down just under Trump

Its been the lowest in been in the past 10 years most months over months under Obama too since 2010


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> In case you haven’t heard, the effort to repeal and replace the giant hippo turd known as Obamacare has cleared the House. The replacement plan, however, has received mixed reviews from Republicans who don’t think the effort goes far enough. This post? Not about the law, but the reaction from entitled leftist celebrities which has been nothing short of unanimous. A unanimous deluge of butthurt and tears.
> 
> Behold, the Tweetness…
> 
> Follow
> John Legend ✔ @johnlegend
> Has someone put together a list of dem challengers I can donate to to oust republicans in swing districts?
> 2:05 PM - 4 May 2017 · Los Angeles, CA
> 1,741 1,741 Retweets 7,526 7,526 likes
> I hate to break this to you, but your side already tried that in South Carolina, and it worked out about as well as Bill Nye trying to explain gender science. You might want to go back to the drawing board on that one.
> 
> Follow
> Mark Ruffalo ✔ @MarkRuffalo
> Dear #Maga Americans. Making people die without insurance while the rest of the world enjoys coverage doesn't Make America Great Again. https://twitter.com/thenation/status/860200723644076036 …
> 2:19 PM - 4 May 2017
> 1,323 1,323 Retweets 2,320 2,320 likes
> Dear Mark Ruffalo, neither did Now You See Me. So, I guess you would know.
> 
> Follow
> Elizabeth Banks ✔ @ElizabethBanks
> Pregnant women giving birth is literally the definition of the existence and continuation of the human race. #AHCA is all harm, no help. https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/859997437787643904 …
> 3:59 PM - 4 May 2017
> 373 373 Retweets 997 997 likes
> Funny how she’s so concerned about pregnant women giving birth to prevent our extinction, yet she’s a vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood and baby-killing in general. Methinks you’ve backed yourself into a contradictory corner, Lizzie. I mean that figuratively, not literally. Those words actually mean different things. I get it, words are hard.
> 
> Follow
> Patricia Arquette ✔ @PattyArquette
> This administration is rolling back human rights in America it should come as no shock to anybody that they don't care about it globally. https://twitter.com/andyrichter/status/859879565606363136 …
> 2:18 PM - 4 May 2017
> 156 156 Retweets 348 348 likes
> So, the government putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay obnoxious amounts of money for crap insurance is a human right? Good to know. By the way, what was the last movie or show you were in? Having a hard time placing my desire to care for your unscripted words.
> 
> Follow
> Josh Gad ✔ @joshgad
> And never forget this moment. And the fact that they trucked in beer to celebrate. The American people are coming for all of you. https://twitter.com/polidorable/status/860198487929094146 …
> 1:34 PM - 4 May 2017
> 116 116 Retweets 364 364 likes
> You mean the same American people who put the “repeal Obamacare” guy in office? You need to just let it go.
> 
> Follow
> Andy Richter ✔ @AndyRichter
> FUCK ALL Y'ALL. https://twitter.com/latimes/status/860198299252527104 …
> 2:13 PM - 4 May 2017
> 735 735 Retweets 2,881 2,881 likes
> …
> 
> Ingluorious Basterds Duly Noted
> Here’s a newsflash for you celebrities. Most of us have about as much love for Obamacare as we’d have for a golfball-sized hemorrhoid. You might know that if you’d ever set foot outside your gated Hollywood mansions. Here in the real world, premiums are skyrocketing like Amy Schumer’s weight and job growth is getting stifled. The insurance may seem affordable when you’re pulling in eight figures a year, but for us average folks it’s a whole different shebang.
> 
> If ever there was the perfect example of the divide between elitist progressives and the rest of America, this is it. Mayhaps you folks should spare us the condescending sewage that’s leaking from your mouths and stick to playing pretend. We’re plenty fit to make our own decisions, without your unscripted verbal sewage.


https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/leftist-celebrities-obamacare-repeal/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Yes, Democrats were screaming bloody murder and spreading fake news that the pre-existing conditions part would be removed.
> 
> - Vic


Don't forget. Anything good that happens in 2017, is all due to past Presidents. Of course. Just a coincidence, I guess. Laughable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Don't forget. Anything good that happens in 2017, is all due to past Presidents. Of course. Just a coincidence, I guess. Laughable.


If the trend that was happening under Obama is still happening under Trump, you can give Obama credit since it was already happening under him. If unemployment was in the rise under Obama and started to drop under Trump then you would give Trump all the credit but the trend is just continuing from what it was under Obama.

Its still going down at the same rate, now if we see a steep drop in UE then Trump would get all the credit.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If the trend that was happening under Obama is still happening under Trump, you can give Obama credit since it was already happening under him. If unemployment was in the rise under Obama and started to drop under Trump then you would give Trump all the credit but the trend is just continuing from what it was under Obama.
> 
> Its still going down at the same rate, now if we see a steep drop in UE then Trump would get all the credit.


Nah, it was pretty terrible under most of Obama's presidency. And the decrease over the past few months is no coincidence.

I'm done, though. Every little thing there is some reason or excuse not to give certain people credit, literally every single time. I'll be posting on an actual political board from now. Good bye.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Nah, it was pretty terrible under most of Obama's presidency. And the decrease over the past few months is no coincidence.
> 
> I'm done, though. Every little thing there is some reason or excuse not to give certain people credit, literally every single time. I'll be posting on an actual political board from now. Good bye.


You are done because you can't even be honest. Look at the chart it was going down since 2010. Obama had 75 consecutive months of job growth. Not to mention in Nov. the UE rated dropped to a 9 year low at 4.6%. But sure it was pretty terrible under Obama. Conservatives and there ALT FACTS lol

The EU rate dropped from 4.6 in Nov to 4.4 now.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Genuine question, did people really think thats what happened with Obamacare?


Of course. You see it on some sites and you see it from a few on this thread. It's hilarious. Not even worth responding to anymore. Just take in the good news over the past few months and enjoy the anger from those sites, especially on Twitter.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Of course. You see it on some sites and you see it from a few on this thread. It's hilarious. Not even worth responding to anymore. Just take in the good news over the past few months and enjoy the anger from those sites, especially on Twitter.


And what good news is that? Trumpcare? its a bigger disaster than Obamacare but you think its a win?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.
> As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."
> 
> To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 10.2.0 or greater is installed.
> Get Adobe Flash player
> 
> 0:40
> 0:39
> 0:42
> 1:27
> 0:40
> 0:39
> 0:42
> 1:27
> 
> This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.
> It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.
> Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.
> This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:
> "_f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."
> This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.
> This isn't the only fun lawsuit going on right now against the DNC. Another, which might actually have some legs, has been brought by several campaign staff from the election that just ended. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC refuses the pay them overtime. That case is still quietly moving through the system, with new filings due this week._


_
https://archive.is/qlN6i_


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Of course. You see it on some sites and you see it from a few on this thread. It's hilarious. Not even worth responding to anymore. Just take in the good news over the past few months and enjoy the anger from those sites, especially on Twitter.


Yeah thats weird. Because from the sounds of it, it doesn't sound significantly different but I can't say for certain


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ordered the U.S. Department of State to turn over to Judicial Watch “eight identical paragraphs” of previously redact material in two September 13, 2012, Hillary Clinton emails regarding phone calls made by President Barack Obama to Egyptian and Libyan leaders immediately following the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Both emails had the subject line “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt” and were among the emails stored on Clinton’s unofficial email server. Judge Jackson reviewed the documents directly and rejected the government’s contention that the records had been properly withheld under the FOIA B(5) “deliberative process” exemption.
> 
> Judge Jackson ruled: “the two records, even if just barely predecisional, are not deliberative. [The State Department] has pointed to very little to support its characterization of these two records as deliberative, and the Court’s in camera review of the documents reveals that they do not fall within that category.”
> 
> The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the September 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
> 
> Following Judge Jackson’s March 20 ruling, the State Department asked the court to reconsider. The State Department argued that, due to an internal “mistake,” it failed to claim that the emails were classified and, therefore, exempt from production under FOIA Exemption B(1).
> 
> In response, Judicial Watch argues that the failure was not a mistake, but instead was part of a deliberate effort by the State Department to protect Clinton and the agency by avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.
> 
> Judicial Watch’s filing cites an interview of an FBI employee who told federal investigators that top State Department official Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to keep Clinton’s emails unclassified. The employee told the FBI he “believes STATE ha[d] an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON.”
> 
> Judicial Watch’s filing also cites an interview of a State Department employee who told the FBI that the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel interfered with the FOIA processing of email from Secretary Clinton’s server, instructing reviewers to use Exemption B(5) (deliberative process exemption) instead of Exemption B(1) (classified information exemption). According to the FBI interview:
> 
> STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau upgraded several of CLINTON’s emails to a classified level with a B(1) release exemption . [Redacted], along with [Redacted] attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, called STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau and told them they could use a B(5) exemption on a upgraded email to protect it instead of the B(1) exemption. However, the use of the B(5) exemption, which is usually used for executive privilege-related information, was incorrect as the information actually was classified and related to national security, which would be a B(1) exemption.
> 
> Judicial Watch argues:
> 
> An agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head, is “a motive undoubtedly inconsistent with FOIA’s broad remedial purpose …” It “counsels denying the Government’s request.”
> 
> The emails in question were sent to then-top administration officials, including Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, Special Assistant Robert Russo, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.
> 
> “Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “An extraordinary court ruling that could result in key answers about the Benghazi outrage is being opposed by the Trump administration. This may well be an example of the ‘deep state’ trying to get away with a cover up – if so then the Trump administration must put a stop to it.”
> 
> Judicial Watch obtained the original documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)). The lawsuit was filed on September 4, 2014, after the State Department failed to respond to a June 13, 2014, FOIA request seeking:
> 
> All records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
> The timeframe for this request is September 11-15,
> Judicial Watch’s numerous FOIA lawsuits have forced the State Department to release hundreds of Benghazi-related documents.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-rules-state-department-must-release-clinton-emails-detailing-obama-response-benghazi/

Also



> A $10 billion suit against George Soros accuses the self-styled humanitarian of meddling in the politics of a poor African country in order to settle his own scores, a charge the billionaire’s critics say reflects his longtime modus operandi.
> 
> The 86-year-old investor, who controls a web of international nonprofits in addition to his vast financial empire, used his sway with the government of Guinea to freeze Israeli company BSG Resources out of the West African nation’s lucrative iron ore mining contracts, according to the suit filed last month in New York Federal Court by BSG Resources.
> 
> "Soros was motivated solely by malice, as there was no economic interest he had in Guinea," BSGR alleges in court papers.
> 
> “Americans do not understand the extent to which Soros fuels this anti-constitutional, anti-American agenda.”
> 
> - J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney
> A spokesman for Soros, who regularly supports nascent democratic governments in Eastern Europe and Africa, said the philanthropist has a lifelong interest in helping impoverished nations, and only backed a probe of BSG out of corruption concerns.
> 
> Whatever the ultimate outcome in the current case, it is not the first time Soros has been accused of sowing political upheaval to advance a personal agenda. Critics around the world, including in the U.S. and in Soros’ homeland of Hungary, say the liberal financier often masquerades as a humanitarian while manipulating the political landscape.
> 
> “We are committed to use all legal means at our disposal to stop pseudo-civil society spy groups such as the ones funded by George Soros,” Hungary’s top education official, Minister of Human Capacities Zoltan Balog said recently.
> 
> In the U.S., Soros has spent heavily on politics from local district attorney races to presidential campaigns. While his stated goals have included reshaping the justice system, achieving income equality, battling climate change and fighting racism, critics say he has used his money to buy massive influence within the Democratic Party.
> 
> Soros has also been accused of using his Open Society Foundation and U.S. diplomatic connections to interfere with the government of Macedonia, according to Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
> 
> In 2002, Soros was convicted in France of insider trading for buying stakes in companies previously owned by the government, including the bank Société Générale, based on confidential information.
> 
> In the current case, BSG is controlled by Soros’ nemesis and fellow billionaire Beny Steinmetz, who accuses Soros and his nonprofits of orchestrating a bribery probe to manipulate the administration of President Alpha Conde to strip BSGR of mining contracts.
> 
> Steinmetz claims Soros was motivated by hostility toward Israel and a 20-year-old grudge against Steinmetz regarding a business in Russia and his alleged hostility towards Israel.
> 
> “To Soros, Steinmetz’s success, as well as his active, passionate promotion of Israeli life, business and culture are anathema,” BSGR said in the complaint. “Soros is also well known for his long-standing animus toward the state of Israel.”
> 
> BSG was stripped of its mining rights when it refused to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to keep its mining license, according to the suit, which further alleges Soros enlisted Obama’s Department of Justice to investigate BSG.
> 
> Soros has denied all the allegations. A Soros spokesperson told Fox News BSG is trying to divert attention from its own legal issues.
> 
> “The allegations in BSGR’s lawsuit are frivolous and entirely false,” the spokesperson said. “The lawsuit is a PR stunt meant to deflect attention from BSGR’s mounting legal problems across multiple jurisdictions.”
> 
> BSG hopes to make Soros’ influence on the U.S. government, and in particular the Obama administration, a key part of its case. After the Soros-backed probe claimed evidence of bribery against BSG, the U.S. Department of Justice convened a grand jury to look into the case. Critics say it is an example of Soros using his political clout to further his goals.
> 
> “We are appalled that a person can manipulate the Department of Justice, which is funded by U.S. taxpayers,” Dag Cramer, director of BSG Resources, told Fox News. “I know there are political overtones, but it doesn’t seem right that Soros would be directing the policy of the DOJ—I’d like to think that such things would not happen under the Trump administration.”
> 
> J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney under the Obama administration who is now president of Public Interest Legal Foundation, told Fox News Soros had the Obama DOJ at his beck and call.
> 
> “Soros’ organizations in the U.S. were instrumental in shaping DOJ policy under the Obama administration,” Adams said, noting allegations that Soros was involved in police procedures and voter ID rules across the nation. “Americans do not understand the extent to which Soros fuels this anti-constitutional, anti-American agenda.”
> 
> A DOJ spokesperson declined to confirm or deny whether it is investigating BSG as part of a criminal case, but confirmed it has found jurisdiction in the past to investigate bribery in Guinea’s lucrative mining industry in cases involving neither BSG nor Soros.
> 
> Attorney for BSG Resources Louis Solomon told Fox News they hope to begin court proceedings in July in New York City.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/05/george-soros-battles-10b-lawsuit-familiar-charges-wielding-political-influence.html#
10 Billion!!!! Bleed this old fucker dry.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, it's easy to educate the kids that remain after centuries of infanticide. They're also more cherished. You create a shortfall of 40-50 million girls in the society and say that well the rest are doing great! You have potentially 10's of millions of people in China that are non-citizens and do not have access to any services and grew up without even being able to call themselves citizens and you're bragging about those who were lucky? Funny thing is that for all the whinging we see about capitalism, people are loathe to examine the absolute decades of disaster communism will create and continue to create in countries like China. That's an incredibly dystopian mindset.
> 
> Something about that creates a kind of moral ambiguity that does not give the Chinese any kind of bragging rights.
> 
> 
> 
> And my point has never been that a capitalist system of schools is perfect and that it's better than what government schooling can create.


Red herring by bringing up the one child policy. Again another red herring by bringing up capitalism versus communism. You brought up rankings to try to bash UK's system but many at the top of the rankings also had heavy government influence and don't fit your narrative so I guess you have to resort to this sort of 'argument' yet again.



Miss Sally said:


> You'd have a point if America and China were both trying to push education in the same way as each other but they're not.
> 
> When it comes to public schooling America is one of the worst at handling education.
> 
> The fact that China is one of the leading places pushing to have the most skilled and educated places is telling, simply not the case in America.


How is China trying to push education? How is America trying to push education? Please tell me so we can compare since you are so sure about the difference.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are done because you can't even be honest. Look at the chart it was going down since 2010. Obama had 75 consecutive months of job growth. Not to mention in Nov. the UE rated dropped to a 9 year low at 4.6%. But sure it was pretty terrible under Obama. Conservatives and there ALT FACTS lol
> 
> The EU rate dropped from 4.6 in Nov to 4.4 now.


This April jobs report and unemployment rate are really Obama's numbers. For at least the first 6 months of a new Presidency (could be longer i.e Bush to Obama), the economic numbers are really the previous President's numbers because it takes a while for the new President's policy, including Executive Orders to take effect. It can also take longer if no Congress legislation has been signed by the new President. Plus they are still operating on the budget signed by Obama even though Trump just signed the new one.

I know Trump marks look for any reason to praise him while discrediting Obama, but truth is truth. If these numbers hold up at the end of the year or next year, I'll have no problem giving Trump credit.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Red herring by bringing up the one child policy. Again another red herring by bringing up capitalism versus communism. You brought up rankings to try to bash UK's system but many at the top of the rankings also had heavy government influence and don't fit your narrative so I guess you have to resort to this sort of 'argument' yet again.
> 
> How is China trying to push education? How is America trying to push education? Please tell me so we can compare since you are so sure about the difference.


Lol. Every school system would show great results if you just kill millions of children because it reduces the population burden. It's not a red herring.

If you have 100 bucks, it's easier to feed 10 people than 30. In order to feed those 10 people you just kill 10 and pretend the other 10 doesn't exist and claim that no one is hungry? That's literally how filthy communism works.

So your argument about China is basically the government works because it killed millions of children. Yay. 

Unbelievable.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Lol. Every school system would show great results if you just kill millions of children because it reduces the population burden. It's not a red herring.
> 
> If you have 100 bucks, it's easier to feed 10 people than 30. In order to feed those 10 people you just kill 10 and pretend the other 10 doesn't exist and claim that no one is hungry? That's literally how filthy communism works.
> 
> So your argument about China is basically the government works because it killed millions of children. Yay.
> 
> Unbelievable.


By your logic American education system will improve in the next decade due to declining birth rates. kay

How is that my argument? By that logic, your argument that privatisation works because it enslaved millions of poorer workers. Yay.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are done because you can't even be honest. Look at the chart it was going down since 2010. Obama had 75 consecutive months of job growth. Not to mention in Nov. the UE rated dropped to a 9 year low at 4.6%. But sure it was pretty terrible under Obama. Conservatives and there ALT FACTS lol
> 
> The EU rate dropped from 4.6 in Nov to 4.4 now.


I'm curious how much of this is due to people actually finding jobs and overall job creation, versus people who have been out of work long enough where they aren't considered as part of the unemployed anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I'm curious how much of this is due to people actually finding jobs and overall job creation, *versus people who have been out of work long enough where they aren't considered as part of the unemployed anymore*.


that is part of it for sure but you have to also factor in jobs added. If the jobs added keep going down and UE keeps going down then you will know that is a huge part of it.

The UE rate is always much higher than the numbers show anyways for that very reason. Its dumb they dont count people who fall off because they are still unemployed. But dont forget even when its super high, its really even higher for the same reason.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is part of it for sure but you have to also factor in jobs added. If the jobs added keep going down and UE keeps going down then you will know that is a huge part of it.
> 
> The UE rate is always much higher than the numbers show anyways for that very reason.


Oh I get that, I'm just mentioning that just because the overall number is lower, that doesn't exactly mean it's all sunshine and roses, that's all. However, most reports are calling the majority of the news optimistic, including an uptick in hourly wages by 0.3%, and the fact that unemployment including part time workers and those like I mentioned who have dropped out also was down to 8.6% from 8.9%. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.html

So overall, it is promising.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Oh I get that, I'm just mentioning that just because the overall number is lower, that doesn't exactly mean it's all sunshine and roses, that's all. However, most reports are calling the majority of the news optimistic, including an uptick in hourly wages by 0.3%, and the fact that unemployment including part time workers and those like I mentioned who have dropped out also was down to 8.6% from 8.9%.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.html
> 
> So overall, it is promising.


Oh I know what you are saying but the months before also had the same issue you talk about.

What they really need is the number of people falling off UE so we can see what the real number is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The market is responding to the _promise_ of tax cuts anticipating higher profits next year. 

If the tax reform doesn't happen there will be layoffs again and "correct" itself. 

That's really all there is to it.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Important graph. Let's see who picks up what the correlation is  .


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> Important graph. Let's see who picks up what the correlation is  .


correlation does not mean causation


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> How is China trying to push education? How is America trying to push education? Please tell me so we can compare since you are so sure about the difference.


China's college aren't pushing out SJW, Gender Studies people. The people going to school in China are going to school for meaningful careers.

There's even been NatGeo articles about China's rising young people making money by doing tech jobs and modernizing China.

America's school system is simply an expensive daycare. 

There's a reason why Silicon Valley is snatching up Chinese College grads for various tech fields, cheaper, smart and have the education.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> China's college aren't pushing out SJW, Gender Studies people. The people going to school in China are going to school for meaningful careers.
> 
> There's even been NatGeo articles about China's rising young people making money by doing tech jobs and modernizing China.
> 
> America's school system is simply an expensive daycare.
> 
> There's a reason why Silicon Valley is snatching up Chinese College grads for various tech fields, cheaper, smart and have the education.


And I one welcome are new Chinese overlords


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> And I one welcome are new Chinese overlords


Not if you value female babies. 

I'm ok with most asian people (especially from SK and Japan), but with regards to political ideologies, Chinese are like the south americans of asia.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not if you value female babies.
> 
> I'm ok with most asian people (especially from SK and Japan), but with regards to political ideologies, Chinese are like the south americans of asia.


I thought China had changed that policy


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> I thought China had changed that policy


 I believe It's not a complete change. 

Since men are still seen as bread earners, guess what that means for female fetuses.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I believe It's not a complete change.
> 
> Since men are still seen as bread earners, guess what that means for female fetuses.


Planned Parenthood wishes they had a foothold in China!

Dead baby fetuses as far as the eye can see!


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @Mr Mister; @Rave Bunny @birthday_massacre @deepelemblues @Beatles123 @GOAT Hogan @BruiserKC @Tater @Oda Nobunaga @Dr. Middy @Oxi X.O. @MillionDollarProns (apologize to anyone I missed out  ).


I know I am late commenting on this but considering the fact I've been taking some time away mostly from posting about politics I figured now my mind is on it that this is a good time for me to write directly about the two key issues currently in the last week being the new healthcare bill passed by the House and the new Trillion Dollar spending bill. At some point I will probably also address the future of mandatory spending, those being medicaid, medicare and social security.

*Trumpcare*

The first big concern that I noticed as someone who believes in not only free market competition but also believes that insurance companies shouldn't have too much power or should rely upon the government to sweeten them up or bail them out is the fact that federal money (or essentially taxpayer money) is being paid to insurance companies. Essentially what this means is, the federal government is subsidizing the profits of insurance companies. Under Obamacare, the bill that liberals and democrats think is for the people, *insurance company profits increased from $6 Billion to $15 Billion. That's more than double the amount of money being made.* Now they want to essentially cut off the individual market where they aren't making money and promise to insure everybody so long as the taxpayer pays for it and premiums will come down so long as federal money subsidizes the people who get sick. Insurance companies are supposed to cover that themselves, that is what insurance is supposed to cover and the fact now insurance companies are going to get taxpayer money to essentially supplement and pay for it smells like crony capitalism all over again when it comes to the insurance market in the US healthcare system. Instead of paying like they are supposed to, they are just going to reap the profits whilst the government takes care of the bill. Not good! $300 Billion worth of profit in the new bill for big insurance companies + $140 Billion to cover insurance companies losses when people get sick. Ridiculous.

One of the really big problems with this bill are the flat tax credits for healthcare instead of it being means tested and the way it correlates with medicaid reform. Avik Roy, goes into this in excellent detail in his article for Forbes: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...-the-gop-will-pay-a-steep-price/#573097be4a58



> *What Ryancare gets wrong: Health insurance tax credits*
> 
> Unfortunately, the A-plus on the regulatory side is balanced out by a C-minus on the tax credit side. House Speaker Paul Ryan adamantly opposed a means-tested approach to providing financial assistance for premiums, instead insisting on a flat tax credit that remains the same if you’re at the poverty line or nearing six figures.
> 
> *That approach means that million of low-income Americans in their fifties and sixties will be priced out of the insurance market, while millions of upper-income Americans who don’t need the help will get a big tax credit. Many of the people adversely affected by the AHCA are Trump voters whose favored candidate campaigned on “insurance for everybody.”*
> 
> Furthermore, the Ryancare tax credit will *trap millions in poverty, by slapping them with thousands of dollars in health insurance premiums should they make enough to no longer be eligible for Medicaid. That will discourage the poor from working and rejoining the economy.*
> 
> On top of all that, Ryancare *does nothing to reform the unlimited tax break for employer-based coverage that does so much to make insurance unaffordable for everyone.* Indeed, the bill takes Obamacare’s “Cadillac Tax,” an imperfect reform in the right direction, and pushes it back to 2023.
> 
> *What Ryancare screws up: Medicaid reform*
> 
> There are 72 million U.S. residents on Medicaid: four times the number that are on Obamacare-sponsored coverage. The Medicaid reforms in the AHCA are, in theory, the most attractive and historic feature of the bill. But *Paul Ryan’s insistence on a flat tax credit for the individual insurance market, described above, puts these Medicaid reforms in serious jeopardy in the Senate.*
> 
> *The AHCA repeals Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, and puts the legacy Medicaid program on a more sustainable trajectory, with growth in funding pegged to economic and demographic growth. The bill gives states the option to take federal Medicaid funds in the form of a block grant, so as to maximize their flexibility to address the needs of their populations.*
> 
> These reforms have been decades in the making, and would inject real innovation into the way we cover the poorest Americans. They don’t go as far as Transcending Obamacare would in offering Medicaid enrollees access to the reformed individual insurance market, but states would have the option, through the waiver process, of deploying their Medicaid funds for that purpose.
> 
> Because the bill makes historic progress on Medicaid, but doesn’t go far enough, I’ll give Ryancare a solid B on this front. But there’s a problem.
> 
> *By repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and replacing it with a flat tax credit that doesn’t provide enough assistance to the working poor, millions with incomes above the poverty line are going to lose their insurance under Ryancare. This problem, in turn, has led a number of GOP senators from states that have expanded Medicaid to oppose the bill.*
> 
> In March, four senators in particular—Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.V.), Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), and Rob Portman (R., Ohio)—fired a letter off to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell complaining about the way Ryancare repeals Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
> 
> Their stated concerns are fair ones. The AHCA doesn’t do enough to transition people out of Medicaid and into a better private insurance system.
> 
> There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to use a means- and age-adjusted tax credit schedule, like the one contemplated in Section 202 of the AHCA, to increase assistance for the poor and decrease it for the upper middle class. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R., Ark.) has published an amendment that would do just that.
> 
> The other way is to keep Paul Ryan’s flat tax credit and water down the bill’s Medicaid reforms. Given how disastrous the Medicaid program functions today, this would be a problematic outcome.


The main problem as you can see detailed in the article is whilst necessary reforms have been made to make medicaid more affordable and sustainable, the flat tax credit essentially nullifies it by applying it universally rather than by a means tested system based on money earned. This is what Singapore for example gets right with it's insurance model, as the amount of assistance given by governmental funds in that system is based on monthly earnings so that the poorest get the help they need whilst keeping it sustainable by not supplementing the more well off citizens. The flat tax credits does the opposite and gives everyone the same amount between $2,000 to $4,000 tax credit, which isn't going to be enough to cover the reversal in Medicaid expansion.

This essentially gives the Democrats and Liberals a bone to chew on and will ultimately be a victory for them in terms of pushing for a single payer system (which as you know I've ranted on because of how bad it is here in the UK) unless they address this. The flat tax credit system is without a doubt one of the worst elements of this bill. *That whole Forbes article is great and really worth reading.*

The other real big issue once again is that it does not deal with the issue of pre-existing conditions properly. The mandate with pre-existing conditions is the biggest factor behind the soaring costs of health insurance in the US right now. The increased cost of sick people getting insurance under Obamacare was attempted to be subsidized by having healthy working people essentially subsidize the cost in their insurance plans in order to redistribute the costs for people with pre-existing conditions to buy. That along with the individual mandates that were forced upon insurance plans that were mandatory for people to buy has helped drive up costs and discouraged working people from buying insurance, particularly those who are young and working. With the individual mandates also forcing people off of cheaper insurance and on to the package of Obamacare which was more expensive it has mean't less people on insurance to cover the costs of putting those with pre-existing conditions on insurance; which has led to the infamous death spiral of insurance companies which has been talked about with many smaller and medium sized insurance companies going out of business.

The Trump solution is to essentially kick the issue to the states as explained here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-obamacare-repeal-bill-actually-do/101278668/



> The Republican bill now allows states to waive the limit on costs for people with pre-existing conditions, but they first have to provide evidence of some alternative process for providing assistance to people who are already sick. One of the solutions for states would be *creating of "high risk pools" that basically allow states to subsidize coverage for people who are priced out of the private market. A last-minute amendment to the bill added $8 billion to help states provide this assistance.*


The creation of these high risk pools to subsidize coverage is essentially the method that has been put into this House bill. However this is unlikely to work as previous states have tried to create high risk pools to subsidize patients with pre-existing conditions and their markets collapsed: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-pre-existing-conditions/



> This plan banks on healthier people also signing up because they wouldn't want to let their coverage lapse and face being excluded if they needed care. And if they did try to get back in, it would be reasonable for them to bear the responsibility of paying higher premiums since insurers will be allowed to assess their health at that time and charge accordingly, said James Capretta, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
> However, whether enough healthy people would enroll under this system remains to be seen. Requiring the sick to have continuous coverage is only part of the solution, but it depends on having a functioning market overall, said Ezekiel Emanuel, a health care management professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was one of the architects of Obamacare.
> 
> *The handful of states that previously required insurers to provide coverage to everyone and banned them from charging the sick more prior to Obamacare saw their individual insurance markets collapse as premiums skyrocketed.*
> 
> Even Obamacare's carrots and sticks approach of using subsidies and penalties to attract the healthy was faltering. *Premiums are shooting up an average of 22% for the benchmark plan on the exchanges next year in large part because not enough healthy Americans have signed up.*
> 
> For those with a pre-existing condition who haven't maintained continuous coverage, the Trump administration would bring back state-based high risk pools, which were largely shut down after the Obamacare exchanges became operational in 2014. The president-elect's transition website says he will work with Congress and states to re-establish these pools.
> Ryan's plan calls for providing at least $25 billion in federal funding for these programs, as well as placing caps on their premiums and banning wait lists.
> 
> Prior to Obamacare, 35 states maintained high risk pools for their sick residents. The programs varied, but generally the state created a non-profit association to contract with an insurer to administer the pool. The plans were similar to individual insurance policies, but often had waiting lists. *They also charged premiums of up to 250% of those for healthy individuals, had annual deductibles of as high as $25,000 and limited annual benefits to as low as $75,000, according to Jean Hall, director of the Institute for Health and Disability Policy Studies at the University of Kansas.
> 
> They also lost a lot of money: Roughly 50% of their operating costs had to be subsidized by the state, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.*
> 
> "It was very expensive and not very comprehensive coverage," Hall said.
> 
> Several CNNMoney readers who had been in high risk pools before obtaining Obamacare policies said they are concerned about losing their coverage and being forced back into the pools.


The idea of high risk pools could be a potential walking disaster if they have the same results as the states that tried to subsidize insurance for sick residents. Again, it is relying on government assistance and crony capitalism, it is not bringing about the market reforms needed to create a real market place and to bring prices down and so whilst those who get sick will be able to buy insurance, the rest of the working population's premiums are likely to skyrocket much like what is happening with Obamacare and therefore the insurance model will start to falter. It does not address and fix the issue here.

But the most asinine proposal of this new bill is that Trumpcare will *actually pay healthy people to not buy health insurance. Yes you read that right.* Ben Shapiro details this: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16038/new-trumpcare-amendment-would-pay-people-not-buy-aaron-bandler



> More moderate-to-liberal Republicans such as Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) were reluctant to support an amendment by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) that allowed states to opt-out of Obamacare's requirements to provide "essential health benefits and ban on charging sick people higher premiums," per Axios. Upton and Long only came on board with Trumpcare when a new amendment was introduced that provided an extra $8 billion to subsidize high-risk pools and cover the cost of those who had a lapse in coverage and would otherwise face "higher premiums in the high-risk pool and a 30 percent surcharge/penalty under" Trumpcare, according to Hot Air's Allahpundit.
> 
> In other words, the amendment subsidizes people not to buy insurance.
> 
> As Allahpundit points out, that would only exacerbate the soaring costs of health care, as the amendment would encourage people to wait until they're sick to buy health insurance, creating a pool of unhealthier enrollees without enough healthy enrollees to pay for them, thereby resulting in higher costs.
> 
> That's what has been causing the Obamacare death spiral to begin with; yet the Republicans found a way to make the system worse. Again.
> 
> The reason why Allahpundit thinks Upton supported the amendment is pure politics: (emphasis bolded)
> 
> For years, Upton crusaded on behalf of exactly the sort of measures the new AHCA would permit to the states — getting rid of ObamaCare’s regulations on Essential Health Benefits and community rating. If you want to cut costs for the general population, Upton insisted, you need to stop forcing expensive one-size-fits-all plans on consumers. As of yesterday he had a chance to support a plan that does exactly that but was voting no, presumably because he knows that the public dislikes the idea of letting states waive ObamaCare’s regs is unpopular with the public. That is, he was happy to call for repeal when he knew Obama would be there to veto the GOP’s bill; now that it has a chance of becoming law, he has cold feet. Viewed through that prism, the $8 billion Upton amendment looks like little more than a fig leaf he can point to back in his district when voters inevitably start complaining about the bill. “I made the bill better,” Upton can say in defending his new yes vote. “I got an extra eight billion for sick people!” In reality, his amendment may end up doing more to destabilize the market for people with preexisting conditions than to shore it up. But it looks good politically, and that’s what matters.
> 
> The Trump administration and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan are reportedly supportive of the amendment, since apparently they just want to claim victory on repealing Obamacare rather than actually repealing it. It's still unclear if the bill would pass the House with a scheduled vote for Thursday.
> 
> What is truly disheartening about Trump and the Republicans' reluctance to simply go full repeal on Obamacare is that they have given the disastrous health law newfound popularity by embracing large portions of it. This new amendment encapsulates that, as they're accepting the Left's premise that repealing Obamacare would harm those with pre-existing conditions even though the facts state otherwise.
> 
> Meanwhile, Obamacare continues to crumble.


So in order to persuade moderate Republicans to allow states to opt out Obamacare requirements they added even more extra subsidies to high risk pools and to cover the costs of people whose insurance lapsed. In other words, it will encourage more people to buy insurance whilst sick without enough healthy people buying to supplement costs. Which is what the main problem with Obamacare was to begin with.

So yeah, there are still some major problems with this Obamacare replacement. Whilst it does do some positives, it's not enough. No wonder the Senate Republicans are going to reject this.


*Trillion Dollar Spending Bill*

What can I say about this? *It's a win for the Democrats.* Plain and simple. The cuts that Trump proposed to make in terms of funding has not only been canned till at least September but in some cases there has been an increase in funding for certain provisions. Even in elements that Trump wanted more funding for such as Defence and Border Security saw funding get cut from the original proposal. Zerohedge breaks this down well: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-01/why-democrats-are-delighted-republican-spending-bill



> Why were Democrats unable to hide their enthusiasm for the latest Omnibus spending bill proposed by House Republicans? Simple: because, as the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein writes, "Dems basically got everything. It's like they control House, Senate, & WH rather than the other way around."
> 
> Some big picture details:
> 
> * Deal totals just over $1 trillion
> * Deal allows for an increase of $12.5bn in defense spending, which is 18bn less than Trump requested. However, if Trump makes strides with Isis, an addition 2.5bn will be made available.
> * Includes permanent fix to fund coal miners' health care instead of a temporary extension.
> * Democrats win: There will be no wall funding; instead Trump will get $1.5bn in border security funds, which is half the original request; it will be used to support existing infrastructure.
> * Democrats win again: Puerto Rico will receive an emergency injection for Medicaid health insurance supports
> * Democrats win again2: Planned Parenthood, a key issue for Democrats, will be saved from cuts, while the National Institute of Health will see a $2bn hike in funding.
> * Democrats win again3: Cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency appear avoided for the remainder of the year.
> * Democrats win again4: The omnibus funds California high speed rail
> 
> Additionally as Bloomberg adds, "Republicans failed to get a number of conservative provisions in the bill, including one that would have blocked the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule limiting financial advice to retirees."
> 
> Also snuck inbetween the cracks there’s also a new $100 million fund to counter Russian influence in Europe.
> 
> The deal also includes a 2% increase for national parks, including nearly $40 million in new funding to address deferred maintenance and construction needs. More than 70 anti-environmental policy riders in the bill were defeated.
> 
> Amusingly, the package would provide $68 million extra in local law enforcement funds to reimburse New York City and other localities for protecting Trump.
> 
> Democrats, predictably, loved the spending bill which is sure to add hundreds of billions to the US deficit: “This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday night in a statement. “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.”
> 
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also praised the deal, saying that Democrats won the removal of about 160 partisan riders. “The bill also increases funding for wildfire and federal highway emergency relief, and for Puerto Rico’s underfunded Medicaid program," she said in a statement. Under the tentative deal, the island would get some relief with $295 million in unspent money for territories for a limited time, said a congressional aide.
> 
> As expected, Republicans were just as eager to cover up the fact that they rolled over: "We couldn't be more pleased," Vice President Mike Pence said in an interview on CBS "This Morning." He called the deal "a bipartisan win for the American people" that included funding for a significant increase in military spending and a down payment on border security.
> 
> "We have boosted resources for our defense needs without corresponding increases in non-defense spending," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. He said the measure will make the U.S. "stronger and safer."
> 
> But not all: Republican Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, was quoted by Reuters saying he and other conservatives likely would not back the measure because it does not fulfill their promises to voters. "I'm disappointed," Jordan told CNN. "We'll see how it plays out this week but I think you're going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation."
> 
> Bloomberg's summary:
> 
> *Overall, the compromise resembles more of an Obama administration-era budget than a Trump one. The National Institutes of Health, for example, would see a $2 billion boost, reflecting the popularity of medical research among lawmakers. The deal includes $990 million for famine aid, along with a $1.1 billion boost for disaster recovery funds.*
> The House Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing for 3 p.m. Tuesday to consider advancing the bill, including setting procedures for a floor vote. That said, there does remain a chance for a government shutdown in October. Trump has sought $54 billion in defense increases paired with $54 billion in domestic cuts. Republican leaders may be less willing to bow to Democrats without the excuse of being more than halfway through the fiscal year.
> 
> Finally, as Bloomberg adds, Congress and the president will also need to agree on a debt ceiling increase in the fall, and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney has said he wants to use the debt ceiling to impose new spending restraints.


So in short: no funding for the wall whilst receiving only half of the requested border security funding, Planned Parenthood gets no cuts whilst Institute of Health gets an increase, no cuts to the EPA, $18 Billion less proposed for Defence spending and a multitude of other Democrat interests either saved from cuts or got extra funding. *This is a massive loss for Trump. *

I'm of course not in favour of all of Trump's proposed increases in spending either particularly in the military or in homeland security but for Trump supporters this would have been a kick in the teeth. Most importantly, this bill will still add up to around a *$500 Billion Deficit* which is around the mark of the 2nd Obama term.....and that's not even including tax reform.

As the article says, this compromise is more like an Obama type deal and that is the problem: it continues the status quo and it does nothing to address the issue of the debt nor the increasing size and scope of government. This is a loss for Libertarians and Small Government Conservatives. But are we even surprised at this point? Both Democrats and Republicans will continue to kick the can along the curb hoping someone else will deal with the problem.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is part of it for sure but you have to also factor in jobs added. If the jobs added keep going down and UE keeps going down then you will know that is a huge part of it.
> 
> *The UE rate is always much higher than the numbers show anyways for that very reason*. Its dumb they dont count people who fall off because they are still unemployed. But dont forget even when its super high, its really even higher for the same reason.





Dr. Middy said:


> I'm curious how much of this is due to people actually finding jobs and overall job creation, versus people who have been out of work long enough where they aren't considered as part of the unemployed anymore.


Dave is right here. Having a high unemployment rate is an extremely bad look for your country in _every_ way. Governments will generally do everything they can to tell half truths. For example when Australia judges its unemployment rate through a census, working one hour in that week the census happens, but zero in all the other weeks, is considered "employed".

I don't know how people are considered unemployed in the US but it could be somewhat similar to here. Our unemployment figures are also based on the number of people who receive welfare for unemployment and don't report any income. So if (it's about this number) 1 million people receive welfare and don't report other income, that's the number of people we have that are unemployed. Students who don't work, but receive student payments, aren't put in to that group. People who don't receive welfare for being unemployed (usually young people just out of school or in between studies) aren't put in to that group. Thus you have what people call "hidden unemployed".

Probably rambling a bit, but when you want to judge anything about employment or unemployment you need to factor in all the other things. Underemployment, casualisation of workforce (it's horribly bad here), "hidden" unemployed, etc. When you look at some of these (especially the "hidden" unemployed) it gets iffy as a sizable number of people would work cash-in-hand and still receive benefits. There should be an organisation in the US that does ALL of this. We have one here called Australian Council of Social Services.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



ShowStopper said:


> Don't forget. Anything good that happens in 2017, is all due to past Presidents. Of course. Just a coincidence, I guess. Laughable.


Seems a bit weird crediting Trump when Obama got it down from 9.8 to 4.8 and Trump came in, made barely any major changes and it continued to drop another 0.4% a few months later. Laughable indeed.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Seems a bit weird crediting Trump when Obama got it down from 9.8 to 4.8 and Trump came in, made barely any major changes and it continued to drop another 0.4% a few months later. Laughable indeed.


Seems even more odd with amount of jobs saved and created in the last few months..


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I believe It's not a complete change.
> 
> Since men are still seen as bread earners, guess what that means for female fetuses.


And the girls that are born, too.



Miss Sally said:


> China's college aren't pushing out SJW, Gender Studies people. The people going to school in China are going to school for meaningful careers.
> 
> There's even been NatGeo articles about China's rising young people making money by doing tech jobs and modernizing China.
> 
> *America's school system is simply an expensive daycare. *
> 
> There's a reason why Silicon Valley is snatching up Chinese College grads for various tech fields, cheaper, smart and have the education.


Which is why the same Chinese are clogging US higher education with its intl students? Gotcha.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It seems some people on here are Trump supporters and some Trump haters , I voted for Trump I really never really quite understood why some people seem to hate him? What's exactly did he do or say that was so bad? I think a lot of it is media hype and brainwashing by the colleges and the media as to why people hate Trump but I'm curious on why some people seem to hate Trump I can't think of any good reason why?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



joesmith said:


> It seems some people on here are Trump supporters and some Trump haters , I voted for Trump I really never really quite understood why some people seem to hate him? What's exactly did he do or say that was so bad? I think a lot of it is media hype and brainwashing by the colleges and the media as to why people hate Trump but I'm curious on why some people seem to hate Trump I can't think of any good reason why?


I don't have to be "brainwashed" to not be a fan of the guy. :shrug

I don't like him because I find him to be rather childish at times, getting into arguments often and lacking the kind of mental filter I'd expect from somebody in his position, especially when you just take a look at his twitter account. He comes across right now as somebody who just wants to get things done and take action, whether or not there be any thoughts behind them, (like the Syrian missile strikes after the biochemical weapon usage), or all of his comments to push his healthcare plan (when it seems like plenty of house members lack knowledge on what is in the bill itself, let alone how it's not really unchanged from Obamacare). And his intentions on the campaign trail and what he actually is doing seems different, like the healthcare bill proposed, and his budget (which I like better overall for my own reasons, but is completely different than what he originally proposed and what Republicans actually wanted).

One of the things I really dislike about him is his general lack of apathy towards anything related to the environment, whether it be attempting to drastically cut EPA's funding, his tweets mentioning how he doesn't believe in climate change (I know there's users on here who are up in the air with the science, but I don't feel like really going into it right now), his love of bringing back Coal for no reason, and his signing of regulation to repeal Obama's bill protecting streams from coal mining among other things.

That being said, I do support some of his views. Like Trump, I'm also against sanctuary cities, and while I understand what they want to do, the reality is that illegal immigrants are technically in violation of the law and should be deported, not kept hidden. I liked that he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I actually do like his call to action with the missile strikes and I like that unlike Obama, he does seem to have more of a no-nonsense attitude with his foreign policy (however, he still should think more about doing things and NOT let his emotions get the better of him, which is my main problems with it, because I found it premature). And generally speaking, I am also against letting a lot of the current refugees and migrants in after all of the problems in Europe (I think it could be handled differently perhaps, but we share similar ideas about it).

So yeah, I don't like him. BUT, that doesn't mean I want him to fail or not succeed. What's best for everybody on every side if he considered overall a success, despite how I or others may think of him.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I don't have to be "brainwashed" to not be a fan of the guy. :shrug
> 
> I don't like him because I find him to be rather childish at times, getting into arguments often and lacking the kind of mental filter I'd expect from somebody in his position, especially when you just take a look at his twitter account. He comes across right now as somebody who just wants to get things done and take action, whether or not there be any thoughts behind them, (like the Syrian missile strikes after the biochemical weapon usage), or all of his comments to push his healthcare plan (when it seems like plenty of house members lack knowledge on what is in the bill itself, let alone how it's not really unchanged from Obamacare). And his intentions on the campaign trail and what he actually is doing seems different, like the healthcare bill proposed, and his budget (which I like better overall for my own reasons, but is completely different than what he originally proposed and what Republicans actually wanted).
> 
> One of the things I really dislike about him is his general lack of apathy towards anything related to the environment, whether it be attempting to drastically cut EPA's funding, his tweets mentioning how he doesn't believe in climate change (I know there's users on here who are up in the air with the science, but I don't feel like really going into it right now), his love of bringing back Coal for no reason, and his signing of regulation to repeal Obama's bill protecting streams from coal mining among other things.
> 
> That being said, I do support some of his views. Like Trump, I'm also against sanctuary cities, and while I understand what they want to do, the reality is that illegal immigrants are technically in violation of the law and should be deported, not kept hidden. I liked that he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I actually do like his call to action with the missile strikes and I like that unlike Obama, he does seem to have more of a no-nonsense attitude with his foreign policy (however, he still should think more about doing things and NOT let his emotions get the better of him, which is my main problems with it, because I found it premature). And generally speaking, I am also against letting a lot of the current refugees and migrants in after all of the problems in Europe (I think it could be handled differently perhaps, but we share similar ideas about it).
> 
> So yeah, I don't like him. BUT, that doesn't mean I want him to fail or not succeed. What's best for everybody on every side if he considered overall a success, despite how I or others may think of him.


well said you seem like a smart person who isn't completely brain washed , well said though


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



joesmith said:


> It seems some people on here are Trump supporters and some Trump haters , I voted for Trump I really never really quite understood why some people seem to hate him? What's exactly did he do or say that was so bad? I think a lot of it is media hype and brainwashing by the colleges and the media as to why people hate Trump but I'm curious on why some people seem to hate Trump I can't think of any good reason why?


He's not a likeable person and that's fine. I don't think he has to be to be a president. 

The hate comes from the fact that millennials especially grew up in an incredibly protected environment where they'd rather be told comfortable lies. I mean, that doesn't mean Trump doesn't lie. He just doesn't sugarcoat his lies in a nice way.

He drops bombs and you can tell he's angry. 

Obama dropped bombs and made it sound like he was distributing candy. 

That's the difference.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He's not a likeable person and that's fine. I don't think he has to be to be a president.
> 
> The hate comes from the fact that millennials especially grew up in an incredibly protected environment where they'd rather be told comfortable lies. I mean, that doesn't mean Trump doesn't lie. He just doesn't sugarcoat his lies in a nice way.
> 
> He drops bombs and you can tell he's angry.
> 
> Obama dropped bombs and made it sound like he was distributing candy.
> 
> That's the difference.


yeah it seems as the media and the democrats are always going after Trump first like he said and I believe it he's a counter puncher sure some of this stuff he could ignore though that media and those democrats are absolutely vicious holy shit no moral boundaries with them making fun of Baron and Melania terrible just terrible especially Baron he's just a child

you can say want you want though Republicans and Fox News never really went after Obama's wife or kids 

Now I am no die hard Republican or anything but it definitely seems as if the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils in my mind

I'm all about peace love unity respect for the USA and mankind and it seems as if Republicans are more about this then Democrats that's for sure


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

An outstandingly thorough post, @L-DOPA. :clap

Your analysis of why the reforms which are necessary for the sake of making Medicaid a more affordable program going forward but coupled with the flat tax credit, the reformed system crumples up against itself due to the flat tax credit's application being universal. No means testing means that the affordability rendered by the reform intended to aid Medicaid expansion will indeed be nullified, precisely the word you used. 

And you are exactly right about the states almost surely being unable to foster the pools for people with preexisting conditions. The mandates had the predictable impact of inexorably and dramatically rising insurance premiums across the board for without those increases, as stated in my earlier post on this subject, insurance companies could ill-afford to stay in the game... And of course eventually, even with all of those early incentives, they tend to peel off before too long as the practice becomes unsustainable in the long run. 

As stated in my earlier post on Trumpcare-- http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2135145-t-r-u-m-p-92.html#post67544921 --this only provides a temporary salve for insurance companies, and the real heart of the matter is that the U.S. needs to opt for something far better, and look to cease with the socialization of the insurance market which is a boon to the largest insurance companies, stifles whatever actual competition might actually be sparked within said industry, and it sidesteps the matter of healthcare itself, for which Americans are paying more than any other country with ever-diminishing returns, nationally. 

In any event, an excellent post, my friend, thank you for the terrific contribution! :woo


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I find Trump to be an extremely likable person. :lol Highly competent in the private sector, self-sacrificial in leaving that behind to try and help the country despite knowing it'd make him public enemy number one, great family, hilarious as fuck, incredibly thick skin, a lot of terrible people are setting themselves on fire because of him, there's a lot to like. He's not perfect, of course, being seemingly impulsive at times (though not to the degree that those unfamiliar with persuasion think) and seemingly trusting the wrong people, which has led to some problems in the infancy of his first presidential term, but I'm not convinced all is dark and gloomy just yet. Perhaps if he had actually sent Steve Bannon packing, I'd be more concerned on that front.

Honestly, imagine if Hillary were president right now, and no this isn't a "BETTER THAN HILLARY" defense of Trump's actions thus far. I'm not talking about policy here. Just imagine how less entertaining life would be. :lol Would anyone be watching White House press briefing or would there be daily social media conflagrations over trivial things the president did or said? I much prefer this timeline on entertainment value alone, compared to the alternate timeline I'm hallucinating to make this point.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I still find it crazy that Bill Clinton had an affair and Hillary acts like its nothing great role models here people , great values for the children I've heard rumors about Hillary being a lesbian and I totally believe it , heck her Monica and Bill probably all had a 3 sum, 

I could definitely imagine her eating some nasty Rosie O Donnell or Whoppi Goldberg pussy


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



joesmith said:


> It seems some people on here are Trump supporters and some Trump haters , I voted for Trump I really never really quite understood why some people seem to hate him? What's exactly did he do or say that was so bad? *I think a lot of it is media hype and brainwashing by the colleges and the media as to why people hate Trump* but I'm curious on why some people seem to hate Trump I can't think of any good reason why?


That's precisely what it is. :lol I didn't vote for Trump, but his IRL trolling and awesomely blunt way of getting his message across made me a fan. However, he *has* pissed me off as of late by immediately punishing the Syria gas attack due to Ivanka getting mopey about it instead of actually being pragmatic, saying that he's a globalist and towing the party line by being on board with Ryancare.

With that said, I'd really like for him to get back on track after his latest instances of fuckery.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> China's college aren't pushing out SJW, Gender Studies people. The people going to school in China are going to school for meaningful careers.
> 
> There's even been NatGeo articles about China's rising young people making money by doing tech jobs and modernizing China.
> 
> America's school system is simply an expensive daycare.
> 
> There's a reason why Silicon Valley is snatching up Chinese College grads for various tech fields, cheaper, smart and have the education.


But SJW gender studies people appears to be a meaningful career for some people. Not saying I agree with their nonsense but there are companies and think tanks out there that hire these people due to their knowledge in those fields.

You could do a study about young people in any country making money by doing tech jobs instead of what their parents did. Isn't that what the democrats were pushing for for coal county?

Are you implying you prefer the education culture of Chinese diaspora of cram schools that make America's school system look like expensive daycare?

The reason is Wall Street is a more lucrative career option for most STEM grads than slumming it in Silicon Valley.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

education sucks because they want it to suck the fact of the matter is though if you're good with computers, cars, etc you will most likely have a solid career and colleges first and foremost are a business and that's what people don't understand

education is only as good as society says it says really I don't think its are secret that ethic and gender studies courses are generally useless IMO hell even a history degree is pretty much useless


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Confession time. 

As a person Trump is the kind of person I am ambivalent to but innately trust in the professional world.

He reminds me of the worst and best of my own father to an extent (a successful self made alpha male with a type A personality of his own) so I've seen and experienced Trumpishness growing up. 

It's also why I support him. Knowing that men like that can get things done. The results may not always be perfect (my dad made huge mistakes too in his life) but generally end up with more positive than negative - since you can realistically never achieve perfection. You can set your mind and body to achieve it. That matters a lot when it comes to outcomes.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yes, Trump reminds me a good deal of the CEO for whom I have worked, @Iconoclast. Most major capitalists possess quantitatively strong instincts with consistently sound intuition. They also tend to not enjoy reading too much and are often best off delegating on a host of matters. At least that is what personal experience plus voluminous reading on modern historic examples would indicate. 

There are positives to that, and negatives. Perhaps more negatives than positives in a government that with its institutions and labyrinthine bureaucracies largely oppose the Trumpian agenda as defined throughout the campaign. Interestingly that mindset tends to mitigate overcommitting toward any one solitary objective. Trump seems to feed off of a certain controlled chaos and conflict that is apart from his more immediate predecessors.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Trump seems to feed off of a certain controlled chaos and conflict that is apart from his more immediate predecessors.


That's why he was called...THE CHAOS CANDIDATE. :cool2


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> That's precisely what it is. :lol I didn't vote for Trump, but his IRL trolling and awesomely blunt way of getting his message across made me a fan. However, he *has* pissed me off as of late by immediately punishing the Syria gas attack due to Ivanka getting mopey about it instead of actually being pragmatic, saying that he's a globalist and towing the party line by being on board with Ryancare.
> 
> With that said, I'd really like for him to get back on track after his latest instances of fuckery.


The Syrian gas story pissed me off because after the strike there is no way to investigate. Also it came at a time where Russia/US were getting closer to working together on Syria. Considering the rebels in Syria have pulled off false flags before and done shady shit everything should be investigated, it just made zero sense for the Syrian Government to do a gas attack.

Ivanka seems like a kind person, thing is cannot just do knee jerk reactions especially with what's going on in the world. Though I think a lot of what she's saying is because of her Husband Jared who is a beady-eyed douche. He's constantly trying to get things done his way and he probably would use Ivanka for his agendas. He just seems like he was put into place by a shady group after they did a full investigation of Ivanka to ease the way for him to marry her.

Though that being said Jared got exposed for having if correct near a billion in debt to Soros and several other institutions which means there is a massive conflict of interest. This was no doubt probably Bannon having Jared investigated as there has been reports of them butting heads and Jared pushing his own agenda. If that's the case we shouldn't see too much Ivanka meddling if Jared has been neutralized in his position.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> That's why he was called...THE CHAOS CANDIDATE. :cool2


'In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't think it's controlled chaos as much as its just chaos ... And I'm oddly still ok with it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> That's why he was called...THE CHAOS CANDIDATE. :cool2


:sodone

Sometimes... I actually think to myself... Where is Jeb! Bush? Why is he depriving us of so many laughs by making mere sporadic appearances? :mj2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I find Trump to be an extremely likable person. :lol Highly competent in the private sector, self-sacrificial in leaving that behind to try and help the country despite knowing it'd make him public enemy number one, great family, hilarious as fuck, incredibly thick skin, a lot of terrible people are setting themselves on fire because of him, there's a lot to like. He's not perfect, of course, being seemingly impulsive at times (though not to the degree that those unfamiliar with persuasion think) and seemingly trusting the wrong people, which has led to some problems in the infancy of his first presidential term, but I'm not convinced all is dark and gloomy just yet. Perhaps if he had actually sent Steve Bannon packing, I'd be more concerned on that front.
> 
> Honestly, imagine if Hillary were president right now, and no this isn't a "BETTER THAN HILLARY" defense of Trump's actions thus far. I'm not talking about policy here. Just imagine how less entertaining life would be. :lol Would anyone be watching White House press briefing or would there be daily social media conflagrations over trivial things the president did or said? I much prefer this timeline on entertainment value alone, compared to the alternate timeline I'm hallucinating to make this point.


Did you just call Trump thick skinned. Trump? :hmmm He's easily the thinnest skinned person in politics with his constant need to create safe spaces from the media so he doesn't get asked the wrong questions, some of this is satire right?

I will 100% agree he's hilarious and is offering a huge amount of entertainment with his constant buffoonery, ineptitude, and hypocrisy. I know Americans care little for the view from the outside world but he is definitely the biggest laughingstock on the world stage. Unfortunately the laughs that he brings from his Boris Johnsonesque escapades come with some long term implications for the environment, religious influence on politics, attacks on womens reproductive health and a god awful attempt to improve obamacare.

He's clearly a narccassist and what some see as him sacrificing himself for his country I see as a vain man looking for power for himself and his cronies, his drain the swamp spiel was a great bit of spin, but he's actually made the swamp even worse.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Did you just call Trump thick skinned. Trump? :hmmm He's easily the thinnest skinned person in politics with his constant need to create safe spaces from the media so he doesn't get asked the wrong questions, some of this is satire right?
> 
> I will 100% agree he's hilarious and is offering a huge amount of entertainment with his constant buffoonery, ineptitude, and hypocrisy. I know Americans care little for the view from the outside world but he is definitely the biggest laughingstock on the world stage. Unfortunately the laughs that he brings from his Boris Johnsonesque escapades come with some long term implications for the environment, religious influence on politics, attacks on womens reproductive health and a god awful attempt to improve obamacare.
> 
> He's clearly a narccassist and what some see as him sacrificing himself for his country I see as a vain man looking for power for himself and his cronies, his drain the swamp spiel was a great bit of spin, but he's actually made the swamp even worse.


I actually called him _incredibly_ thick-skinned, based on the reality I am observing. You're seeing a different reality than I am - in mine thin-skinned inept people don't become multi-billionaires and then president without prior political experience, and despite intense daily criticism continue to conduct themselves in the same way as if they are completely unconcerned by what other people think of them - so it's unsurprising you see things differently. What's important is we can both continue to buy groceries and post on a wrestling forum without our opposing realities creating problems for the other.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The Syrian gas story pissed me off because after the strike there is no way to investigate. Also it came at a time where Russia/US were getting closer to working together on Syria. Considering the rebels in Syria have pulled off false flags before and done shady shit everything should be investigated, it just made zero sense for the Syrian Government to do a gas attack.
> 
> Ivanka seems like a kind person, thing is cannot just do knee jerk reactions especially with what's going on in the world. Though I think a lot of what she's saying is because of her Husband Jared who is a beady-eyed douche. He's constantly trying to get things done his way and he probably would use Ivanka for his agendas. He just seems like he was put into place by a shady group after they did a full investigation of Ivanka to ease the way for him to marry her.
> 
> Though that being said Jared got exposed for having if correct near a billion in debt to Soros and several other institutions which means there is a massive conflict of interest. This was no doubt probably Bannon having Jared investigated as there has been reports of them butting heads and Jared pushing his own agenda. If that's the case we shouldn't see too much Ivanka meddling if Jared has been neutralized in his position.


When it came to Kushner, I was mildly welcoming toward him at best and utterly indifferent toward him at worst. While I'm not big on Bannon, I do like his nationalistic tendencies. So once I started seeing him and Kushner butt heads once Mr. Ivanka craftily weaved himself within Trump's advisors, I started pondering over the possibility that Trump could be compromised (albeit at a minimal level) not just by Kushner, but potentially others as well.

Now my pondering is shifting to worry in light of my aforementioned reasons of being pissed at Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I actually called him _incredibly_ thick-skinned, based on the reality I am observing. You're seeing a different reality than I am - in mine thin-skinned inept people don't become multi-billionaires and then president without prior political experience, and despite intense daily criticism continue to conduct themselves in the same way as if they are completely unconcerned by what other people think of them - so it's unsurprising you see things differently. What's important is we can both continue to buy groceries and post on a wrestling forum without our opposing realities creating problems for the other.


He became a multi-billionaire on the back of daddies money, I mean, he isn't inept at business, which wasn't my point, he's moderately competent with some really good decisions and some awful decisions, which is probably how his presidency will unfold.
However I think theres a big distinction between thick skinned, pigheadedness and narcissism. I mean this guy is obsessed with 'trumping' everything, his ability to carry on in face of criticism is nothing to do with being thick skinned but everything to do with furthering the Trump brand he has so expertly created. Theres a good read on his thin-skinned narcissim here.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> When it came to Kushner, I was mildly welcoming toward him at best and utterly indifferent toward him at worst. While I'm not big on Bannon, I do like his nationalistic tendencies. So once I started seeing him and Kushner butt heads once Mr. Ivanka craftily weaved himself within Trump's advisors, I started pondering over the possibility that Trump could be compromised (albeit at a minimal level) not just by Kushner, but potentially others as well.
> 
> Now my pondering is shifting to worry in light of my aforementioned reasons of being pissed at Trump.


I didn't like him because there was something off about him, now I know what. If he owes a billion dollars to a bunch of left leaning groups you can bet he's compromised and will do anything for Soros and the rest. It's good all this came out. I don't want toxic "Leftist" ideology seeping into the WH via Kushner and being pushed by Ivanka.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> He became a multi-billionaire on the back of daddies money, I mean, he isn't inept at business, which wasn't my point, he's moderately competent with some really good decisions and some awful decisions, which is probably how his presidency will unfold.
> However I think theres a big distinction between thick skinned, pigheadedness and narcissism. I mean this guy is obsessed with 'trumping' everything, his ability to carry on in face of criticism is nothing to do with being thick skinned but everything to do with furthering the Trump brand he has so expertly created. Theres a good read on his thin-skinned narcissim here.


Fascinating description of your reality, where someone like _that_ could become president of the United States without going through the normal political channels. That must be highly destabilizing and distressing for you personally. Glad I don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating description of your reality, where someone like _that_ could become president of the United States without going through the normal political channels. That must be highly destabilizing and distressing for you personally. Glad I don't have to worry about it.


I'm not sure what you mean, history is littered with people like Trump running countries and massive corporations, it doesn't bother me at all. I'm not overly knowledgeable about Freud but his description of narcissism lends itself to people gaining power perfectly, being thin skinned and narcissistic are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, history is littered with people like Trump running countries and massive corporations, it doesn't bother me at all. I'm not overly knowledgeable about Freud but his description of narcissism lends itself to people gaining power perfectly, being thin skinned and narcissistic are not mutually exclusive.


Historical powers and corporations seem less immediately concerning than the supreme military power on planet Earth today with enough weaponry to destroy the planet many times over, but hey, cheers if you're not letting it affect you.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Historical powers and corporations seem less immediately concerning than the supreme military power on planet Earth today with enough weaponry to destroy the planet many times over, but hey, cheers if you're not letting it affect you.


Well, thats not new either, Trump isn't the first person to have that kind of power that I wouldn't trust with a swiss army knife let alone nuclear codes. If I let that affect me every day I'd be back in the 1970s paranoia again. I may not like Trump but I have no concerns over his control of nuclear weapons.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> At last September’s G-20 summit in Hangzhou, China, Barack Obama put the fear of God into Vladimir Putin. Or at least he tried. Two months earlier, American intelligence officials informed the President they had “high confidence” it was Russian hackers who had broken into computer servers belonging to the Democratic National Committee and transmitted some 20,000 stolen emails to WikiLeaks, which posted the messages on its website. The internal correspondence, revealing institutional favoritism for the party’s eventual presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her insurgent challenger Bernie Sanders, and released on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, threw the Democrats into disarray, swiftly leading to the resignation of party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz amid accusations that the nominating process was “rigged.” And they were seized upon by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who days later said he hoped Russia was “able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing” from Clinton’s private server.
> 
> Frustrated that Russian meddling might throw the presidential election to Trump and thus put his legacy in jeopardy, Obama confronted Putin at the sidelines of the conclave. “Cut it out,” the American President told his counterpart, or face “serious consequences.” It was not reported what, if anything, Putin said in response. But we can gauge the seriousness with which he regarded the titular leader of the free world’s threats by the actions his government took just weeks later, when WikiLeaks dumped a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, also pilfered by Russian hackers.
> 
> What had been hidden in plain sight throughout the campaign was later established with “high confidence” in a report issued by the Director of National Intelligence on January 6: that “Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election,” an “unprecedented” effort that utilized hacking and strategically-timed leaks, disinformation outlets like RT (formerly “Russia Today”), and internet troll farms devoted to amplifying false stories about the Democratic nominee. “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the Intelligence Community concluded. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
> 
> Obama did not wait for the public release of the report to punish Russia. A week prior he had expelled 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and shut down two waterfront properties owned by the Russian government in Maryland and New York. “All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions,” Obama said in a statement, adding that Washington’s actions followed “repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.” But by then, obviously, it was too late.
> 
> As his critics never tire of pointing out, Donald Trump indeed won the American presidency with the open connivance of a hostile foreign power. This is a ghastly thing to contemplate, particularly as the Russians are now employing similar means of subterfuge to influence critical elections across the West, most importantly in France and Germany. Many of the president’s conservative defenders, when not outright denying Russia’s role, insist it had minimal effect. But the degree to which Russian meddling aided Trump’s victory is beside the point: the mere fact that Moscow even attempted anything so audacious, and got away with it, should alarm all Americans, regardless of party.
> 
> Equally worth considering, however, is a question the new President’s detractors, stricken with a case of highly selective amnesia regarding Obama’s eight years in office, are too blinded by partisanship to ask: What was it about the last President’s foreign policies and general approach to the world that led Vladimir Putin to believe he could get away with his shenanigans, even after a direct threat from Obama himself?
> 
> This obliviousness towards the role that Obama’s peculiar approach to leadership and power politics—the essence of which is captured in such well-known phrases as “leading from behind” and “the long game”—might have played in last year’s events manifests itself most blatantly in the anguished handwringing over the state of the “liberal world order”—the global architecture of alliances, treaties, norms, and institutions that America and its allies established after World War II to ensure free trade, the nonviolent settlement of interstate conflict, and the prevention of great power war.
> 
> Lamenting the fate of this international system—which has indeed ensured unprecedented global peace and prosperity under American hegemony—has become a key element in the talking points of Obama staffers as they make their way outside the corridors of power. “The new phase we’re in is that the Russians have moved into an offensive posture that threatens the very international order,” former Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told the New Yorker. “Putin regime seeks disintegration of the EU, NATO and 70 years of [international] order,” he later tweeted. “GOP cannot look away from hard truth.” In her first public address as a private citizen, former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power warned of how Putin is “taking steps that are weakening the rules-based order that we have benefitted from for seven decades.”
> 
> Obama and his sympathizers are right to worry about the state of the liberal world order, and not only because of the boldness displayed by Putin and other authoritarians. On the campaign trail, Trump’s active disdain for the international system and America’s role upholding it—for NATO, for our allies, and for the shared values that link our nation with like-minded democracies around the world—was breathtaking. Even with the President modulating his stance in the past few weeks, the system has been profoundly shaken.
> 
> But what many defenders of the liberal world order would rather ignore is that this order was unraveling long before Donald Trump descended the escalator in his gaudy Manhattan tower. When exactly its collapse began will be something for future historians to decide, but the Obama presidency weakened it substantially—perhaps even fatally. Members of the last administration, far from the faithful custodians they imagine themselves to have been, set in motion some of the crises they now decry as threatening long-established agreements and norms. Indeed, Trump’s posture of global retrenchment and coolness towards alliances is in some ways just an outgrowth—a more pungent, nationalistic outgrowth—of Obama’s own doctrine, passive-aggressively described by him as “don’t do stupid shit.”
> 
> Today’s liberal sleuths, who prior to this summer could not have told you the difference between Putin and Pushkin, are beside themselves speculating about Trump’s relationship with Russia and how it threatens to undo several generations’ work in structuring the postwar world. And yet paradoxically it’s the Obama Administration’s irresolute relations with Russia that have more than anything else shaken the foundations of the global order.
> 
> The Obama Administration’s first major diplomatic initiative upon assuming power in early 2009 was the Russian “reset,” a rapprochement aimed at repairing relations with Moscow in the wake of the August 2008 Georgia War. Predicated on the assumption that its “unilateralist” predecessor, and not the territorially expansionist and increasingly authoritarian Russian regime, was chiefly responsible for a deterioration in relations, the reset’s main plank was a nuclear arms reduction treaty, negotiated with Putin’s handpicked successor, Dmitri Medvedev. Many Obamans saw Medvedev as a “modernizer”, and they sought to bolster him, hoping that if he succeeded, Russia could perhaps turn some sort of corner. They failed to see the extent to which Putin was still pulling all the strings from his position as Prime Minister during the much-discussed “tandem” period.
> 
> To be sure, every new American Administration comes into office thinking it can “fix” relations with Russia. In this respect, Obama’s efforts were of a piece with his predecessors since the end of the Cold War. But it wasn’t long into the reset when it became painfully apparent that its high aspirations would not be met. Just months after the policy was announced in Geneva with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressing a gimmicky red button (with the wrong Russian word printed on it), the FBI rolled up one of the largest Russian espionage networks in the United States. The Kremlin continued to harden its position in the occupied parts of Georgia as the Obama Administration looked the other way, and it secretly began testing cruise missiles in contravention of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
> 
> Putin’s return to the Russian Presidency in 2012, following massive demonstrations against his rule, was reportedly greeted with dismay inside the White House. But Obama seemed intent on not revealing these feelings too broadly in the hope that he could still make things work, especially on the question of nuclear disarmament, Obama’s own pet cause. Caught on a hot mic with the lame duck Medvedev in Seoul that March, he asked that he be given some “space” by Putin through the end of the year. “This is my last election,” Obama pleaded. “After my election I have more flexibility.” “I understand,” Medvedev responded. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
> 
> Putin got a good read of Obama, and decided that he would withhold his cooperation. He forbade USAID from operating in Russia by September, and in a deliberate kick at Obama’s priorities, he backed his country out of a bilateral accord on nonproliferation assistance by October of the same year. In early 2013, Putin instructed his government to start strictly enforcing a draconian law about foreign funding of NGOs in Russia. By June, he offered asylum to Edward Snowden, the greatest pilferer of American national security secrets in history, and his government initiated a crackdown on the LGBT community.
> 
> Throughout all this, Obama’s responses were half-hearted at best. Case in point: in late 2012, Congress finally passed the Magnitsky Act, slapping travel and financial sanctions of various Russian officials thought to be connected with the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was imprisoned as part of a larger plot to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from a Western investment fund. Though Obama signed the bill in December, it wasn’t with any enthusiasm; his staff had fought its passage every step of the way because the White House judged it would interfere with bilateral relations. By the second half of 2013, the best Team Obama could muster was a “postponement” of a U.S.-Russia Presidential summit, citing the Snowden asylum as an important precipitating factor.
> 
> The next year, things kicked up a notch, but the pattern remained. Russia stealthily invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and proceeded to launch a war in Eastern Ukraine that continues to this day. In response, the Obama Administration did manage to slap a suite of sanctions on Russian officials, but it pointedly refused to do much more—namely, provide defensive weapons to the Ukrainians. For a President who had staked so much of his legacy on denuclearization, he did nothing to live up to U.S. commitments under the Budapest Memorandum—a set of security guarantees made to Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine on the occasion of their giving up their nuclear stockpiles in 1994.
> 
> Then, in 2015, Russia intervened military in Syria, ostentatiously claiming it was launching a campaign against the Islamic State in what was the first battle in a global war on terrorism, but instead devoting most of its efforts to bombing the Assad regime’s moderate opponents (some of whom were CIA-equipped and trained). It was a transparent bid to preserve Russian basing in the country, as well as a signal to the region that Moscow was ready to fill the power vacuum left by the Obama Administration’s slow recessional from the region. All the Obama Administration could bring itself to do was have Secretary John Kerry issue toothless demarches against Moscow’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets and humanitarian aid convoys and gravely intone that Russia’s intervention would eventually drag it into a Vietnam-style “quagmire” in Syria.
> 
> With Donald Trump holding out the possibility of a strategic alliance with Russia and possibly even the Assad regime to fight ISIS, Obama partisans have engaged in some serious historical revisionism, acting as if it was not until 2014, when Putin annexed Crimea, (and thus well into Obama’s second term), that the Russian leader had revealed his true face. “When the history books are written, it will be said that a couple of weeks on the Maidan is where this went from being a Cold War-style competition to a much bigger deal,” Rhodes told the New Yorker. “Putin’s unwillingness to abide by any norms began at that point. It went from provocative to disrespectful of any international boundary.”
> 
> This, like the “echo chamber” Rhodes admittedly created among compliant journalists and supposedly non-partisan “experts” to sell the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal, is self-serving spin. Putin’s viciously anti-American speech delivered at the 2007 Munich Security Conference—before Barack Obama even announced his presidential candidacy—clearly signaled a sea change in Russian foreign policy. And while Western leaders could perhaps be excused for thinking it all bluster coming after more than half a decade of relative quiescence, the next year’s attack on Georgia should have dispelled any illusions.
> 
> And while any Administration can perhaps be forgiven for thinking it could pull off a reset that has steadfastly eluded all of its predecessors, there were no shortage of warnings from friends and allies who clearly knew better. Consider the 2009 open letter penned by 22 Central and East European worthies (including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa), published shortly after Obama’s reset kicked off, warning that “Russia is back as a revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and methods.” A prescient paper published the following year by the late Clinton official Ronald Asmus and several of his European colleagues reported on the security concerns of NATO’s new member states in Eastern Europe. “Many of them feel that NATO has been neglecting the possibility of ‘old fashioned’ conflicts like ethnic strife or a clash between states, possibly involving Russia,” they wrote.
> 
> The Obama Administration, undeterred by these warnings, pressed on with its reset, cancelling plans to build missile defense capabilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, drastically reducing the American military footprint in Europe, and proclaiming, in the words of Obama, that, “The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world, nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War”—an unsubtle dig on the Atlantic Alliance. And yet now, in their analysis of Trump and Russia, Democrats and liberals who for years ridiculed their critics as provincial “Russophobes” are beginning to sound like Joe McCarthy. Similarly, it is a bit rich to read of former German Foreign Minister (now President) Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s “astonishment and agitation” at Trump’s repeated dismissal of NATO, this being the man who just a few months earlier had derided NATO training exercises in Eastern Europe as “loud sabre rattling and warmongering.” When pop international affairs guru Ian Bremmer tweets that “Trump’s Russia policy is his single greatest departure from Obama foreign policy,” it is an attempt to whitewash eight years of being soft on Russia.
> 
> Former Obama officials like Rhodes like to paint Ukraine as a game-changer—the moment when the Administration stiffened its spine against Moscow. But it wasn’t. Illustrative was its response to Russia’s hacking and leaking of a phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then the State Department’s top Europe official, and the American Ambassador to Ukraine, in which Nuland said, in passing, “fuck the EU.” Moscow didn’t even bother to wipe its fingerprints; an aide to a Russian Deputy Prime Minister was the first person to link to the clip on Twitter. While wiretapping conversations between diplomats is hardly a new (or rare) element of intelligence collection, publicizing them is. And in retrospect, Moscow’s leak of the Nuland phone call was a foretaste of the tactics it would deploy two years later in the U.S. presidential campaign. Asked if the Administration penalized the Russians for this unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol, reset architect and former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told the New Yorker “To the best of my knowledge, there was none. I think that was a mistake.”
> 
> Of more consequence was the decision not to supply Ukraine with defensive weaponry against its much more powerful neighbor. “We just ignore everything the Russians do in Ukraine because, well, that’s Ukraine and the stakes are so high for Russia there,” is how Evelyn Farkas, the Pentagon’s senior policy official for Russia, characterized the White House reaction to her arguments in favor of arming the Ukrainians in an interview with the New Yorker. Nor was it just in the realm of conventional weaponry where Washington allowed Russia to have the upper hand. “Cyber was an area where we were trying to work with Russia,” Farkas said. “That’s the irony. We were meeting with their big spies, trying to develop some kind of arms control for cyber,” all the while Russia was honing its cyber weapons to be used against the West. This is the context in which Putin would just shrug his shoulders at Obama’s imploration to “cut it out.” Farkas quit the administration in October 2015.
> 
> As was the case with Russia, when the United States overlooked a raft of nefarious behavior in order to protect its “reset,” the Obama Administration sacrificed several constitutive components of the liberal world order on the altar of the Iranian nuclear deal. Liberals who criticize Trump’s reluctance to endorse the NATO mutual defense clause, rightly noting how this weakens the alliance’s deterrent credibility against Russia, do not like to be reminded of Obama’s “red line” fiasco, when he explicitly swore to take action against Iran’s client, the Assad regime in Syria should it use chemical weapons and then failed to do so. Nor do they like comparisons of Trump’s castigation of NATO allies for not “paying their bills” with Obama’s calling them “freeloaders. In the failure to back up words with action, Obama’s red line moment did more harm to American credibility than anything Trump has said with regard to NATO. When Iranian hackers launched a series of distributed denial of service attacks on American banks and financial institutions from 2011 to 2013, the United States did not respond because it didn’t want to risk its deal with Iran. “If we had unleashed the fury in response to that DDoS attack, I don’t know if we would have gotten an Iran deal,” the director of cybersecurity at the National Security Council at the time told the New Yorker.
> 
> Trump is reaping the whirlwind Obama sowed. The two men may have come to their worldviews from utterly different ideological perspectives—for Trump a belligerent nationalism, for Obama a utopian universalism—but both in their own ways reject America’s traditional role as upholder of the international liberal order. Obama was hesitant to act in Syria or in defense of Ukraine because his ultimate concern was extricating the United States from the Middle East and finding a modus vivendi with Moscow. That it took a direct intervention on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s opponent to wake so many liberals up to the threat Russia poses suggests that their newfound hostility to the Kremlin is a form of partisan special pleading—that they only see Moscow as a problem insofar as it affected their ability to retain the White House. This does not discount the gravity of Russian subversion of American democracy. But it’s become frankly tiresome listening to people who joined in Obama’s mockery of Mitt Romney (the 1980s “want their foreign policy back”) now attempting to outdo each other with Scoop Jackson impersonations without any acknowledgement of how naive and wrong they were.
> 
> This inability to draw the proper lessons from the past eight years—to recognize that it was the Obama Administration’s mistaken assumptions and failed policies and not a sudden, 11th-hour transformation on the part of Putin that is to blame for the deterioration in relations between Moscow and Washington—goes a long way toward explaining the penchant for Russia-related conspiracy theorizing among so many liberal Trump critics. To paraphrase a certain someone, “lots of people are saying” that “there’s something going on” between President Trump, his acquaintances, and the Russian regime. The term “Manchurian candidate” is being bandied about quite a bit, as are accusations that the Russians began cultivating the Manhattan real estate developer as far back as his first visit to the Soviet Union in 1987. An ongoing FBI investigation into alleged contacts between Russian intelligence services and several Trump associates, as well as a dossier compiled on Trump by a former MI6 officer, has provided fodder for no end of lurid hypotheses.
> 
> There are indeed many unanswered questions about Trump and Russia. (As to the possibility that the Russians have kompromat on Trump related to his 2013 escapades in a Moscow hotel room, how do you sexually blackmail a person incapable of shame?) But all this speculation as to how many times then-Senator Jeff Sessions or Jared Kushner met with the Russian Ambassador obscures the fact that what we already know—what is not disputed—about Trump and Russia, indeed, what we have known since he started running for President in the summer in 2015, is bad enough. Every public statement Trump made about Russia on the campaign trail, from calling Putin a “great” leader to speculating that the annexation of Crimea could be legal, was horrifying. His erstwhile campaign manager Paul Manafort spent years on the payroll of the corrupt, mobbed-up, pro-Russian President of Ukraine. Trump more or less begged the Russians to leak Clinton’s emails, and he repeatedly praised WikiLeaks, a Russian intelligence front, for publishing pilfered DNC communications. What the Intelligence Community revealed to the public in its unclassified report earlier this year should be enough to make anyone who supported Trump pause and reflect upon their unwitting collaboration with a Russian “influence campaign” directly ordered by Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The real scandal, the real cause for concern, is what has been staring us all in the face. Donald Trump, regardless of whether or not he is “the Siberian candidate” (as the Times’ Nicholas Kristof labeled him), represents an authentic strain of American politics going back centuries. It is a neo-Jacksonian populist nationalist isolationism, one that harbors a ruthlessly unsentimental view of the world and America’s role in it. It is also, incidentally, a worldview broadly consonant with Russia’s chief foreign policy objective of carving out a regional sphere of interest in its near abroad, something to which neither Ronald Reagan nor Harry Truman nor John F. Kennedy nor Richard Nixon would have acceded. Trump’s attacks on American alliances, indifference toward NATO, contempt for the European Union and disregard for the promotion of human rights and democracy—sincerely held views dating back decades—align closely with Kremlin objectives. One does not need to entertain claims that Putin had Andrew Breitbart killed (one of the more fantastic tales to emerge from the Trump-as-secret-Russian-agent genre) to divine Moscow’s intentions in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> But this reading of Trump also implicates Obama. Because if the former’s Jacksonian isolationism can accommodate Russian revanchism, so too can the latter’s “interconnected world” without American power to back it up. For Obama also sought a reset with Russia, tried to improve relations with adversaries at the expense of allies, oversaw a reduction of American influence in the world, and generally weakened the vaunted “liberal world order.” Democrats have difficulty making the grand strategic arguments about Russia that need to be made because they spent so many years refuting them when Obama was in office.
> 
> And it should not go unremarked that in just over three months as president, Trump has managed to launch a missile strike at Putin’s client regime in Syria, approved Montenegro’s accession to NATO, rejected a request from Exxon-Mobil (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s former haunt) to grant a waiver on energy exploration in Russia, and have a senior U.S. military officer call out Moscow for arming the Taliban. In just 100 days, President Trump has arguably done more to frustrate Russia’s global ambitions than Barack Obama did in eight years.
> 
> The West won the Cold War because leaders of both parties convinced Americans that we were engaged in a twilight struggle with a strong ideological component. During his two terms in office, Barack Obama repeatedly told the American people that the very notion of inter-state conflict was a thing of the past, and that only small cabals of “hardliners” – foreign and domestic – stood in the way of enduring global harmony. Many Americans, conditioned to believe Obama’s lofty rhetoric that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” were, to use a word favored by his successor, “obsolete,” thus had little understanding of how or why Russia would favor Trump and why that was even a bad thing. And so only by spinning yarns about a Manchurian Candidate can the last administration’s partisans exempt themselves from blame for the shambolic world order they bequeathed.


https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/03/who-killed-the-liberal-world-order/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating description of your reality, where someone like _that_ could become president of the United States without going through the normal political channels. That must be highly destabilizing and distressing for you personally. Glad I don't have to worry about it.


The only people who don't believe in reality are ones who think Trump is thick skinned. 

Trump is the guy who gets triggered over SNL skits.
Trump is the guy who couldn't take a joke from Colbert so he sicks the FCC on him.
Trump is the guy who sends pictures of his hands and circles his hands saying they dont look small to a vanity fair writer who claimed he had small hands and has been doing it for 25 years.
Trump is the guy who had to comment on is cock size because Rubio made a joke about his small hands.
Trump is the guy who lashes out on twitter at the smallest comments about him.
Trump is the guy who has a meltdown anytime anyone criticizes him.

Do I even need to go on?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> I don’t usually start with a .gif, but this bit where Nancy Pelosi claims Democrats lost because… they love abortion too much?
> 
> I mean, she’s right. Or at least she’s partially right. The faaaar-left pro-abortion stance of the current DNC is certainly one of the reasons Hillary Lost. Also a contributing factor was being a terrible candidate with terrible people running a terrible campaign. Plus she killed a guy. Still, it’s just… to hear this coming from Nancy Pelosi?
> 
> 
> 
> “You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States—the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president,”
> “Most of those people—my family, extended family—are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”
> 
> Actually, yes. Yes, I do. Especially since if Democrats are too radically far-left/pro-Abortion, it’s because of their radically far-left/pro-abortion leaders like Nancy Pelosi (see Nancy Pelosi Informed that Planned Parenthood Videos Weren’t Doctored and Pelosi Tells Adopted Girl Moms ‘Should Have the Choice’ to Abort). That same Pelosi who once claimed abortion was “sacred” for leftists. Again, I can’t say it enough: THE CURRENT DNC ARE THE RADICALS!! Their views on firearms, taxes, free speech and abortion are far more radical than those of their conservative counterparts. Yet they attempt to paint us as extremists.
> 
> Obviously the intellectual leader of the Democrat Party is either short circuiting, or has been upgraded with new talking points that are being Beta tested.
> 
> Either way, no one will believe her when leftists also have dingbats like this…


https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/nancy-pelosi-blames-clinton-loss-democrats-pro-abortion/
:booklel


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/nancy-pelosi-blames-clinton-loss-democrats-pro-abortion/
> :booklel


 Pelosi needs to get primaried in 2018. She is insane. Dems like her need to stop making excuses why Hillary lost. 

Also anyone who says pro-abortion instead of pro-choice sounds stupid. Just because you are pro-choice does not mean you are pro-abortion.

Finally, the US is more pro-choice than pro-life.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> What the Intelligence Community revealed to the public in its unclassified report earlier this year *should be enough to make anyone who supported Trump pause and reflect upon their unwitting collaboration with a Russian “influence campaign” directly ordered by Vladimir Putin.*


http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...www.the-american-interest.co...l-world-order/

I dislike it when people talk down to me for supporting someone I voted for. Fuck you, James Kirchick. fpalm

And this constant and incessant belief that Trump was aided by Putin/Russia in helping him win the Presidential election is an absolute embarrassment to common sense(something that's really lacking today) everywhere.

Trump won FAIR AND SQUARE. Why this witch-hunt is still going on is ridiculous....


----------



## Rugrat

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm not a fan of Trump, but I feel he definitely is VERY thick-skinned. All the media had been ridiculing him as a candidate wherever possible, so if he was thin-skinned he'd have just not run. Even beyond him, there have been shots at his wife and children which isn't cricket.

Every president will have more major detractors and criticisms than anyone else in the world, you simply have to be thick skinned.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rugrat said:


> I'm not a fan of Trump, but I feel he definitely is VERY thick-skinned. All the media had been ridiculing him as a candidate wherever possible, so if he was thin-skinned he'd have just not run. Even beyond him, there have been shots at his wife and children which isn't cricket.
> 
> Every president will have more major detractors and criticisms than anyone else in the world, you simply have to be thick skinned.


That's such an utterly low bar for being considered thick-skinned? Like let's be fair, it takes the most incredibly delicate sensibility to back off of something because of what the public thinks. He obviously has a relative amount of strength, especially considering as you said the shots that have been taken at his family. Is that anything the average A lister hasn't been through though? Because besides that, his twitter is full of moaning about the unfair media this, the corrupt clothing lines that - he makes no attempt to disguise how much these relatively petty things bother him. Not the marker of the most unshakeable temperament in the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rugrat said:


> I'm not a fan of Trump, but I feel he definitely is VERY thick-skinned. All the media had been ridiculing him as a candidate wherever possible, so if he was thin-skinned he'd have just not run. Even beyond him, there have been shots at his wife and children which isn't cricket.
> 
> Every president will have more major detractors and criticisms than anyone else in the world, you simply have to be thick skinned.


How are these things being thick skinned?


Gets triggered over SNL skits.
Couldn't take a joke from Colbert so he sicks the FCC on him.
Sends pictures of his hands and circles his hands saying they dont look small to a vanity fair writer who claimed he had small hands and has been doing it for 25 years.
Commented on is cock size because Rubio made a joke about his small hands.
Lashes out on twitter at the smallest comments about him.
Has a meltdown anytime anyone criticizes him.

Everyone that runs fro president gets the treatment Trump has gotten but pretty much none of them never acts like Trump does.

Put please tell me how the above examples are traits of someone that is thick skinned.

Trump is over sensitive to criticism that is not being thick skinned.







Look at how thin-skinned he is, he can't even give his opinion on what he said, he had to run away.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...www.the-american-interest.co...l-world-order/
> 
> I dislike it when people talk down to me for supporting someone I voted for. Fuck you, James Kirchick. fpalm
> 
> And this constant and incessant belief that Trump was aided by Putin/Russia in helping him win the Presidential election is an absolute embarrassment to common sense(something that's really lacking today) everywhere.
> 
> Trump won FAIR AND SQUARE. Why this witch-hunt is still going on is ridiculous....


To be honest some of the people that worked with Trump like Flynn and others could be in a world of trouble because they had some dealings with Russia not Trump himself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...www.the-american-interest.co...l-world-order/
> 
> I dislike it when people talk down to me for supporting someone I voted for. Fuck you, James Kirchick. fpalm
> 
> And this constant and incessant belief that Trump was aided by Putin/Russia in helping him win the Presidential election is an absolute embarrassment to common sense(something that's really lacking today) everywhere.
> 
> Trump won FAIR AND SQUARE. Why this witch-hunt is still going on is ridiculous....


OH you mean like the witch hunt with Obama when Trump keep insistiting he was not born in the US for how many years?

Or how many times the GOP tried to ding HIllary for Bengazon and wasted miliions when inveistiantion after investigation showed she was not at fault but they kept trying to prove she was?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> That's such an utterly low bar for being considered thick-skinned? Like let's be fair, it takes the most incredibly delicate sensibility to back off of something because of what the public thinks. He obviously has a relative amount of strength, especially considering as you said the shots that have been taken at his family. Is that anything the average A lister hasn't been through though? Because besides that, his twitter is full of moaning about the unfair media this, the corrupt clothing lines that - he makes no attempt to disguise how much these relatively petty things bother him. Not the marker of the most unshakeable temperament in the world.


What A-lister has been through anywhere near the same level of coordinated public attacks that Trump has? People were calling him Hitler, a fascist, a puppet of Vladimir Putin, a rapist (funny how all those sexual assault allegations vanished, eh?), racist, and many people have called for his assassination. A couple people have even tried to make it happen. I suspect more will follow. 

The leftist media's continuing campaign to distort everything Trump-related is not a petty matter at all either. Twitter is really his only weapon - a direct line to the American people - when so much of our media is completely fake and designed to discredit and slander the president. He's engaged in an information war. Nothing petty or small about it in any way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> What A-lister has been through anywhere near the same level of coordinated public attacks that Trump has? People were calling him Hitler, a fascist, a puppet of Vladimir Putin, a rapist (funny how all those sexual assault allegations vanished, eh?), racist, and many people have called for his assassination. A couple people have even tried to make it happen. I suspect more will follow.
> 
> The leftist media's continuing campaign to distort everything Trump-related is not a petty matter at all either. Twitter is really his only weapon - a direct line to the American people - when so much of our media is completely fake and designed to discredit and slander the president. He's engaged in an information war. Nothing petty or small about it in any way.


Because Trump is most of those things lol

No one posts more BS fake news than Trump does. I love how you act like he doesn't.

Only 18% of the things Trump says are true or mostly true.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I didn't like him because there was something off about him, now I know what. *If he owes a billion dollars to a bunch of left leaning groups* you can bet he's compromised and will do anything for Soros and the rest. It's good all this came out. I don't want toxic "Leftist" ideology seeping into the WH via Kushner and being pushed by Ivanka.


I just looked this up, saw an article about it on Business Insider and after seeing that Kushner is indeed in bed with Soros of all people, I'm on board with the notion that he's a slimy little cunt that needs to fuck off.

:tripsscust


----------



## Rugrat

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> How are these things being thick skinned?
> 
> 
> Gets triggered over SNL skits.
> Couldn't take a joke from Colbert so he sicks the FCC on him.
> Sends pictures of his hands and circles his hands saying they dont look small to a vanity fair writer who claimed he had small hands and has been doing it for 25 years.
> Commented on is cock size because Rubio made a joke about his small hands.
> Lashes out on twitter at the smallest comments about him.
> Has a meltdown anytime anyone criticizes him.
> 
> Everyone that runs fro president gets the treatment Trump has gotten but pretty much none of them never acts like Trump does.
> 
> Put please tell me how the above examples are traits of someone that is thick skinned.
> 
> Trump is over sensitive to criticism that is not being thick skinned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at how thin-skinned he is, he can't even give his opinion on what he said, he had to run away.


I don't disagree that those things don't put him in the best light, but if he was SO thin-skinned or thin-skinned at all he would have left his race for Republican candidate at the beginning. He had widespread and unanimous criticism and derision from the media and large parts of it were misquotes. It seemed that they were trying to create issue wherever possible.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> To be honest some of the people that worked with Trump like Flynn and others could be in a world of trouble because they had some dealings with Russia not Trump himself.


That still doesn't prove that Russia influenced the elections. :shrug

They would've had to have had secret agents "sabotage" the Electoral College(or whatever it's called) for that to occur.


But there is no evidence of that(just baseless Tin-Foil Hat'ism) so there really is no reason to continue this witch-hunt. 

But the liberals aren't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, I guess. :shrug

(probably feel that if they repeat it enough times, everyone will agree. )


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> What A-lister has been through anywhere near the same level of coordinated public attacks that Trump has? People were calling him Hitler, a fascist, a puppet of Vladimir Putin, a rapist (funny how all those sexual assault allegations vanished, eh?), racist, and many people have called for his assassination. A couple people have even tried to make it happen. I suspect more will follow.
> 
> The leftist media's continuing campaign to distort everything Trump-related is not a petty matter at all either. Twitter is really his only weapon - a direct line to the American people - when so much of our media is completely fake and designed to discredit and slander the president. He's engaged in an information war. Nothing petty or small about it in any way.


IMO, Hitler/Putin puppet is to 45 what Muslim Kenyan was to 44. People celebrated Kim Kardashian being robbed at gunpoint, and her and her husband have doubtless been the recipient of several death threats over the years. Someone made an attempt on the pope's life and was nearly successful! And likewise Trump himself has had his fair share since long before he formally tossed his hat into the presidential ring. It's a part of being in the public eye, especially if you portray yourself in a certain way.

The one thing that was truly unprecedented that he went through was his own party's attempted sabotage of him towards the tail end of his campaign. Paul Ryan's extremely reluctant support and Romney's explicit condemnation was like a recording label coming out and saying "stop buying this fool's music, he's trash." They didn't even do that to Chris Brown, and he literally beat the shit out of Rihanna. I think he said a few words on twitter but yeah I expected him to have gone way more ballistic than he did, as I would have.

I'm not counting the several valid complaints he has discussed on his twitter, like the recent NFL thing that NYT did recently. I'm saying the legit stuff is mixed in with fuck Alec Baldwin, fuck Arnie, fuck Nordstrom, fuck the media for making it look like no one came to my birthday party-err, inauguration. Why is a businessman of his calibre begrudging a clothing brand for making a decision in the interests of their company? Why is he calling out a comedian for doing his job? And why was he so in his feelings about the number of people that were at his inauguration, to the extent he had his press secretary go out and lie about it?

That he spends as much energy over the menial issues as he does over the issues that are of actual importance suggests he cares about them all equally as much. Not the showing of a thick skinned man at all, but that's just my perspective


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Maybe he dislikes being slandered just because. :shrug

And he's using the social platform(as dumb an invention as it is) to show his outrage.

Doesn't mean he's thin-skinned. It means he's not going to allow himself to be smeared without a response. 

That's called "defending yourself".


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> IMO, Hitler/Putin puppet is to 45 what Muslim Kenyan was to 44. People celebrated Kim Kardashian being robbed at gunpoint, and her and her husband have doubtless been the recipient of several death threats over the years. Someone made an attempt on the pope's life and was nearly successful! And likewise Trump himself has had his fair share since long before he formally tossed his hat into the presidential ring. It's a part of being in the public eye, especially if you portray yourself in a certain way.


What? :lol None of this is comparable at all. HITLER. Widely regarded as the worst person in world history. The #1 guy people would go back and kill if time travel were a thing. You're showing yourself to be a very non-serious person with this post, sadly. 



> I'm not counting the several valid complaints he has discussed on his twitter, like the recent NFL thing that NYT did recently. I'm saying the legit stuff is mixed in with fuck Alec Baldwin, fuck Arnie, fuck Nordstrom, fuck the media for making it look like no one came to my birthday party-err, inauguration. Why is a businessman of his calibre begrudging a clothing brand for making a decision in the interests of their company? Why is he calling out a comedian for doing his job? And why was he so in his feelings about the number of people that were at his inauguration, to the extent he had his press secretary go out and lie about it?
> 
> That he spends as much energy over the menial issues as he does over the issues that are of actual importance suggests he cares about them all equally as much. Not the showing of a thick skinned man at all, but that's just my perspective


You don't understand the motivation of his counter-attacks against people and the way he protects his brand (and now his administration), so you've decided it must be about feelings, which says more about you than it does the president. You fundamentally don't understand Donald J Trump or persuasion, and given the wealth of material I've posted on here to explain it all, you have chosen to remain ignorant on the subject, and thus aren't worth conversing with further. Enjoy relying on partisan hacks and late night comedians (but I repeat myself) to explain the world to you. It should be a road filled with many surprises indeed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rugrat said:


> I don't disagree that those things don't put him in the best light, but if he was SO thin-skinned or thin-skinned at all he would have left his race for Republican candidate at the beginning. He had widespread and unanimous criticism and derision from the media and large parts of it were misquotes. It seemed that they were trying to create issue wherever possible.


Everyone in politics gets what, don't act like its only Trump. Most everyone else acts like an adult and does not do the childish things Trump does in reaction to them.

Obama went through way worse than Trump and Obama was classy and did not let it get to him. And most of the shit Trump gets is because of stupid or ignorant things he said. It's people calling him out on his BS. And Trump acts like a child when it happens. GW got a ton of shit too when he was president because he was a moron and he never got triggered like Trump does.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






I'll wrap up my point about Trump's *incredibly thick skin* with this clip from the last election, where he stood in a room full of his worst enemies and gave the following 18 minute monologue while largely being jeered, and knowing how he'd be attacked afterward in the press for daring to break convention at what was supposed to be a "civil" charity event filled with people actively working towards his destruction. 

If Donald J Trump is thin-skinned, then everyone else on Earth is translucent.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Technically speaking, the vast majority of people who are high ranking politicians and high level businessmen and businesswoman are usually thick-skinned, simply because the job requires you to be so. However, within the realm of these sorts of people, I would call Trump thin-skinned based upon what I've seen, whether it be his tweets (I don't believe that he says all the stuff he says on twitter as a way to break through towards the American people through all the "fake news." Some of it maybe, but there's a lot that seems like him just saying whatever is on his mind without filter), or how he seems to make quips here and there (like that one Q/A he did where he outright bashed the BBC in front of everybody). 

So yeah, in the grand scheme of things, he's thick skinned. In the realm of significant politicians and high ranking business people, I'd call him more thin-skinned.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Amazing how much people will read into tweets (where they have no sense of the author's tone or composure) to fit their preconceptions and ignore concrete video evidence that utterly destroys their erroneous viewpoint. :lol We are not a rational species.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I'll wrap up my point about Trump's *incredibly thick skin* with this clip from the last election, where he stood in a room full of his worst enemies and gave the following 18 minute monologue while largely being jeered, and knowing how he'd be attacked afterward in the press for daring to break convention at what was supposed to be a "civil" charity event filled with people actively working towards his destruction.
> 
> If Donald J Trump is thin-skinned, then everyone else on Earth is translucent.


You can ignore all the facts and evidence showing that Trump is thin skinned, you are only fooling yourselves. But again people like you think smart is a smart person LMAO when he speaks like a 4th grader and does not know shit.

But ignorance is bliss.

Oh also about the roast of Trump, yeah he has such think skin he would not allow anyone to roast him on how much money he really has and that he is not really as rich as he claims.


----------



## Rugrat

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone in politics gets what, don't act like its only Trump. Most everyone else acts like an adult and does not do the childish things Trump does in reaction to them.
> 
> Obama went through way worse than Trump and Obama was classy and did not let it get to him. And most of the shit Trump gets is because of stupid or ignorant things he said. It's people calling him out on his BS. And Trump acts like a child when it happens. GW got a ton of shit too when he was president because he was a moron and he never got triggered like Trump does.


In terms of review from the media, Obama got massively more favourable coverage then Trump. With regards to Bush, he was largely portrayed as someone of low intelligence that only got the job because of his dad. It wasn't the vitriol that Trump gets. Let's not pretend that Trump isn't hugely abused and misquoted.

Some of it is his fault. I don't wish to defend him too much, he can come off as very heavy-handed sometimes and has been shown to tweet without considering things too much. This can add fuel to the fire. But he does definitely get attacked more than any other politician in recent history.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rugrat said:


> In terms of review from the media, Obama got massively more favourable coverage then Trump. With regards to Bush, he was largely portrayed as someone of low intelligence that only got the job because of his dad. It wasn't the vitriol that Trump gets. Let's not pretend that Trump isn't hugely abused and misquoted.
> 
> Some of it is his fault. I don't wish to defend him too much, he can come off as very heavy-handed sometimes and has been shown to tweet without considering things too much. This can add fuel to the fire. But he does definitely get attacked more than any other politician in recent history.


Trump is not misquoted LOL I love how people claim this when they post the video or audio of him saying it in his own words and people like he was misquoted. 

The reason why Trump gets attacked is because of all the outlandish and ignorant shit he says. Like I said before only 16% of things Trump says is true or mostly true where as 69% is false or mostly false.

There is a reason why Trump gets called out so much because almost 70% of the things he says is bullshit/

Anyone who lies 70% of the time is going to get called out for it.


----------



## joesmith

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Barrack Hussein Obama

Obama Osama, Barrack Hussein Saddam Hussin 

911, Afgan War, and Iraq war I'm just saying apparently we lost the war on terror or something a lot more Muslims in this country now then before 911 as well hmmm?

Obama beats a former war hero in John Mccain hmmm?


----------



## Rugrat

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not misquoted LOL I love how people claim this when they post the video or audio of him saying it in his own words and people like he was misquoted.
> 
> The reason why Trump gets attacked is because of all the outlandish and ignorant shit he says. Like I said before only 16% of things Trump says is true or mostly true where as 69% is false or mostly false.
> 
> There is a reason why Trump gets called out so much because almost 70% of the things he says is bullshit/
> 
> Anyone who lies 70% of the time is going to get called out for it.


The media definitely took the "murderers and rapists" line out of context. 

Do you have a link to prove your numbers? As for the stats you provide, is the remaining 15% of what he says opinions?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Rugrat said:


> The media definitely took the "murderers and rapists" line out of context.
> 
> Do you have a link to prove your numbers? As for the stats you provide, is the remaining 15% of what he says opinions?





http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

the other 15% is half truth which are also half lies


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing how much people will read into tweets (where they have no sense of the author's tone or composure) to fit their preconceptions and ignore concrete video evidence that utterly destroys their erroneous viewpoint. :lol We are not a rational species.


He also signed up for the comedy central roasts too but I do think he needs to stop with the tweets criticizing people who criticize him though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



joesmith said:


> Barrack Hussein Obama
> 
> Obama Osama, Barrack Hussein Saddam Hussin
> 
> 911, Afgan War, and Iraq war I'm just saying apparently we lost the war on terror or something a lot more Muslims in this country now then before 911 as well hmmm?
> 
> Obama beats a former war hero in John Mccain hmmm?


What is wrong with Muslims being in this country?

Also if you want to claim we lost the war on terror, that is fine but those things you mentioned, 9/11, Iraq War and the Afgan War started under republican presidents


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone in politics gets what, don't act like its only Trump. Most everyone else acts like an adult and does not do the childish things Trump does in reaction to them.
> 
> Obama went through way worse than Trump and Obama was classy and did not let it get to him. And most of the shit Trump gets is because of stupid or ignorant things he said. It's people calling him out on his BS. And Trump acts like a child when it happens. GW got a ton of shit too when he was president because he was a moron and he never got triggered like Trump does.


What? Come on BM, besides some of the Birther nonsense and some lighting up by some right wing people Obama was treated as a man who could do no wrong. There was almost no flak against him at all especially in the comedy ring. Anyone who said much got slammed with being racist. You couldn't touch Obama. I wouldn't call Obama classy as he did get upset and make snide remarks to his detractors but he speaks very well so it's a little easier to forgive.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing how much people will read into tweets (where they have no sense of the author's tone or composure) to fit their preconceptions and ignore concrete video evidence that utterly destroys their erroneous viewpoint. :lol We are not a rational species.


Or we have differing opinions and are allowed to have said differing opinions? :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The point is:

A) He's an adult and he should be above getting triggered by comedy lampooning him and publicly lashing out (something I'm sure most of us here would have the sense to avoid). That's just one example.

B) He's the fucking president and he shouldn't have the time to do any of the above.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> What? :lol None of this is comparable at all. HITLER. Widely regarded as the worst person in world history. The #1 guy people would go back and kill if time travel were a thing. You're showing yourself to be a very non-serious person with this post, sadly.
> 
> You don't understand the motivation of his counter-attacks against people and the way he protects his brand (and now his administration), so you've decided it must be about feelings, which says more about you than it does the president. You fundamentally don't understand Donald J Trump or persuasion, and given the wealth of material I've posted on here to explain it all, you have chosen to remain ignorant on the subject, and thus aren't worth conversing with further. Enjoy relying on partisan hacks and late night comedians (but I repeat myself) to explain the world to you. It should be a road filled with many surprises indeed.


I did not mean to upset you.

Hitler, as vile as he was, has become the kind of insult that has become as serious as you want it to be. Where every purple haired teenager on tumblr is referred to as a feminazi, are we really at a point where comparisons like this are outrageous in any way? I believe that those that called Obama a non-American muslim had just as low an opinion of him as the people who made/make the Hitler comparisons, but I will grant you there is more severity in this case as Hitler is 'objectively' worse.

I'm uncertain what makes you an authority on Trump's motivations when you yourself have said that all that matters is concrete evidence. I'm aware that you extol him and his four dimensional chess or whatever but your guesses as to his motivations are insubstantial, and as tinted as those of the partisan hacks and late night comedians you hold in such disregard.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Or we have differing opinions and are allowed to have said differing opinions? :shrug


Not altering anyone's opinions, but sometimes I wonder where we're headed when intelligent people intentionally ignore their own ability to analyse something deeply (not talking about you). 

For example, the narrative focus is on specifically chosen Trump tweets. The people in here who do it have to be aware of their hyper-selectiveness because I simply do not want to believe that they're absolutely incapable of seeing the positive tweets and thereby forming an opinion that it all neatly fits into their narrative. 

Trump's tweets are what I call part of the new growing culture of social media infotainment. 

Sometimes they're egregious
Sometimes they celebrate proud American moments
Sometimes they congratulate some group for an achievement
Sometimes they chastise other groups
Sometimes they're stupid
Sometimes they're an over-reaction
Sometimes there's an outright lie but people can believe in things without knowing things and so what appears to be a lie may be someone's truth
Sometimes they're smart 
Sometimes they build anticipation for what's coming next
Sometimes they make people examine an issue they've never even thought about before 
Sometimes they push the government's agenda
Sometimes they chastise the media (rightfully so) for narrative pushing as well (like does anyone seriously believe now that the media doesn't have a leftist bias?)

The thing is that those who hate Trump simply focus on the negative --- those people are not to be taken seriously at all. If you cannot say anything positive at all about Trump and spend every waking moment of your life thinking up ways to convert the positives into negatives then at that point you've betrayed yourself to be one with a sub-par intelligence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not altering anyone's opinions, but sometimes I wonder where we're headed when intelligent people intentionally ignore their own ability to analyse something deeply (not talking about you).
> 
> For example, the narrative focus is on specifically chosen Trump tweets. The people in here who do it have to be aware of their hyper-selectiveness because I simply do not want to believe that they're absolutely incapable of seeing the positive tweets and thereby forming an opinion that it all neatly fits into their narrative.
> 
> Trump's tweets are what I call part of the new growing culture of social media infotainment.
> 
> Sometimes they're egregious
> Sometimes they celebrate proud American moments
> Sometimes they congratulate some group for an achievement
> Sometimes they chastise other groups
> Sometimes they're stupid
> Sometimes they're an over-reaction
> Sometimes there's an outright lie but people can believe in things without knowing things and so what appears to be a lie may be someone's truth
> Sometimes they're smart
> Sometimes they build anticipation for what's coming next
> Sometimes they make people examine an issue they've never even thought about before
> Sometimes they push the government's agenda
> Sometimes they chastise the media (rightfully so) for narrative pushing as well (like does anyone seriously believe now that the media doesn't have a leftist bias?)
> 
> The thing is that those who hate Trump simply focus on the negative --- those people are not to be taken seriously at all. If you cannot say anything positive at all about Trump and spend every waking moment of your life thinking up ways to convert the positives into negatives then at that point you've betrayed yourself to be one with a sub-par intelligence.


People with thin skin can have positive tweets.

Nothing you said shows how Trump is thick skinned which is what we are debating here.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not altering anyone's opinions, but sometimes I wonder where we're headed when intelligent people intentionally ignore their own ability to analyse something deeply (not talking about you).
> 
> For example, the narrative focus is on specifically chosen Trump tweets. The people in here who do it have to be aware of their hyper-selectiveness because I simply do not want to believe that they're absolutely incapable of seeing the positive tweets and thereby forming an opinion that it all neatly fits into their narrative.
> 
> Trump's tweets are what I call part of the new growing culture of social media infotainment.
> 
> Sometimes they're egregious
> Sometimes they celebrate proud American moments
> Sometimes they congratulate some group for an achievement
> Sometimes they chastise other groups
> Sometimes they're stupid
> Sometimes they're an over-reaction
> Sometimes there's an outright lie but people can believe in things without knowing things and so what appears to be a lie may be someone's truth
> Sometimes they're smart
> Sometimes they build anticipation for what's coming next
> Sometimes they make people examine an issue they've never even thought about before
> Sometimes they push the government's agenda
> Sometimes they chastise the media (rightfully so) for narrative pushing as well (like does anyone seriously believe now that the media doesn't have a leftist bias?)
> 
> The thing is that those who hate Trump simply focus on the negative --- those people are not to be taken seriously at all. If you cannot say anything positive at all about Trump and spend every waking moment of your life thinking up ways to convert the positives into negatives then at that point you've betrayed yourself to be one with a sub-par intelligence.


I'll admit at first I was on the negative side for Trump, and I let that bias get the best of me at times. Now, I don't hate the man or anything, I respect him as my president and will sometimes agree with him on certain issues, but overall I still generally don't care for him.

As it goes with his tweets, there's a mixture of good, bad, and just outright dumb. With the link Camille put about him being generally in good spirits in that Al Smith charity dinner, he also blasted SNL and called it unwatchable when they did sketches on him that generally mocked him (and they continue to). A decent amount of his tweets from the last week or so seem to be slamming the news (rightly so) or slamming how terrible Obamacare is. In my own opinion, it seems like its a mixture of him generally being negative towards something he dislikes, some kind of nationalistic post, him pushing something he and his team is doing, or him actually being respectful (like congratulating Macron on his win tonight). So it's a mixed bag, but I don't see it as being thick skinned, rather, it to me seems like he would lead towards thin skinned if we go simply by tweets. 

But yeah, I don't really like to focus 100% on the negatives, you never will progress anywhere doing that. It annoys me that people remain so incredibly negative on Trump where they vehemently dislike anything and everything he proposes doing. Realistically with that sort of mindset, what can one accomplish?


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not altering anyone's opinions, but sometimes I wonder where we're headed when intelligent people intentionally ignore their own ability to analyse something deeply (not talking about you).
> 
> For example, the narrative focus is on specifically chosen Trump tweets. The people in here who do it have to be aware of their hyper-selectiveness because I simply do not want to believe that they're absolutely incapable of seeing the positive tweets and thereby forming an opinion that it all neatly fits into their narrative.
> 
> Trump's tweets are what I call part of the new growing culture of social media infotainment.
> 
> Sometimes they're egregious
> Sometimes they celebrate proud American moments
> Sometimes they congratulate some group for an achievement
> Sometimes they chastise other groups
> Sometimes they're stupid
> Sometimes they're an over-reaction
> Sometimes there's an outright lie but people can believe in things without knowing things and so what appears to be a lie may be someone's truth
> Sometimes they're smart
> Sometimes they build anticipation for what's coming next
> Sometimes they make people examine an issue they've never even thought about before
> Sometimes they push the government's agenda
> Sometimes they chastise the media (rightfully so) for narrative pushing as well (like does anyone seriously believe now that the media doesn't have a leftist bias?)
> 
> The thing is that those who hate Trump simply focus on the negative --- those people are not to be taken seriously at all. If you cannot say anything positive at all about Trump and spend every waking moment of your life thinking up ways to convert the positives into negatives then at that point you've betrayed yourself to be one with a sub-par intelligence.


Well to be fair, the topic was whether or not Trump was thin skinned or not. Not whether Trump was a negative person or any of the rest. I'd say it's completely fair to discriminate when you've already specified the topic at hand. I'd have plenty of ammunition were I to argue Trump is a motivated candidate that's driven by the hope of doing good by the American people; that's not being discussed because that's not the topic that was raised.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> People with thin skin can have positive tweets.
> 
> Nothing you said shows how Trump is thick skinned which is what we are debating here.





samizayn said:


> Well to be fair, the topic was whether or not Trump was thin skinned or not. Not whether Trump was a negative person or any of the rest. I'd say it's completely fair to discriminate when you've already specified the topic at hand. I'd have plenty of ammunition were I to argue Trump is a motivated candidate that's driven by the hope of doing good by the American people; that's not being discussed because that's not the topic that was raised.


Aah. My bad. So "thin-skinned" is the media narrative of the week? 

What do you guys think it will be next week? 

Maybe "He has a small pee pee" ... or wait. I think we've already done that one.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Iconoclast @Pratchett @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MillionDollarProns

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repeal-obamacare-now-or-not-at-all/article/2622227

A warning from one of the best minds in British politics today Daniel Hannan about Obamacare and the chance for it to be fully repealed.



> Human beings are change averse. We get a job, it's not the best job in the world, but it's interesting enough, so we settle down and stop looking. We find a decent hairdresser (well, OK, I don't, but other people do) and we know that there's probably a better one out there somewhere, but ours is friendly and reasonably competent, so we stick with him.
> 
> Exactly the same tendency applies to our political preferences, which is why Obamacare is proving tougher than expected to dismantle. The case against the current healthcare model is so familiar that it hardly needs to be rehearsed anymore. Obamacare pushes up both taxes and premiums; it deters small businesses from taking on full-time staff; it adds layers of complexity to an already byzantine healthcare system. These drawbacks have gone from being theoretical to being immediate to most Americans, and were a large part of why Republican candidates did so well at all levels six months ago.
> 
> So why isn't scrapping Obamacare straightforward? The GOP made repeal a big part of its program, and was elected on that basis. The party has majorities in both chambers. The president is committed to abolition. What's the problem?
> 
> The problem, frankly, is that inertia bias applies as much to politics as to everything else. Although Americans don't much like the current system, they fret that the alternatives may be worse. Regular polls for NBC/WSJ have probed public opinion on Obamacare since 2009. Those who thought Obamacare "a bad idea" consistently outnumbered those who thought it "a good idea" — until January of this year. Fox News' tracker poll showed the same thing — a sudden flip after Donald Trump's election. Not even the strongest advocates of Obamacare will claim that this reversal was because the system has miraculously started performing better. *What we're seeing, rather, is what Milton Friedman called "the tyranny of the status quo." People dislike an existing policy until the moment that something else is proposed; then, grumblingly, they start hankering after the devil they know.*
> 
> Human beings tend to prefer the current policy even when they have no idea what it is. A team of Israeli psychologists, for example, asked a sample of people whether it should be legal to feed stray cats. Half the respondents were told that feeding alley-cats was currently permitted, the other half that it was banned. Sure enough, both groups supported whatever they had been told the existing practice was, and volunteered all sorts of plausible arguments in favor of the supposed status quo, believing that they had reached their view wholly independently.
> 
> Congressmen know all about incumbency advantage. They, of all people, understand that it can be literally stronger than life: In 2006, the recently deceased Bob Kasun, whose name was still on the ballot paper in Arizona, won by a margin of three-to-one. And they are sensitive to the way public opinion is shifting, which is why, as W. James Antle III argued last week, it is difficult to secure a Senate majority for a properly free-market alternative.
> 
> But here's the thing: Obamacare's incumbency advantage will only strengthen with time. I argued when it was brought in that it would have to be repealed at once or not at all. *Consider the British healthcare system, designed during World War II at a time of rationing, conscription and full state control. It is hard to imagine that anyone, these days, would come up with a system where the state has a 100 percent monopoly on provision. And yet, every attempt to make the system more responsive is howled down as an attack on the doctors and nurses who work in it. That's how the tyranny of the status quo works.*
> 
> I have no doubt that our healthcare system, like yours, could be reformed in a way that would create many more winners than losers — among the clinicians as well as among the users. But few will see that until it happens. Indeed, even after it happens, a political problem remains: The losers will blame the government that made the change, and vote accordingly, whereas the winners will attribute their good fortune to themselves.
> 
> And so, *70 years on, we Brits retain a healthcare system that is showing its age in every sense. We grumble about it, but we oppose any fundamental change.*
> 
> America is just starting down that road. It has one chance to turn back. That chance is now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Iconoclast @Pratchett @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MillionDollarProns
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repeal-obamacare-now-or-not-at-all/article/2622227
> 
> A warning from one of the best minds in British politics today Daniel Hannan about Obamacare and the chance for it to be fully repealed.


Everyone knows that Obamacare needs to be improved there is a lot wrong with it but the problem is Trumpcare and what the GOP wants to do is going in the wrong direction and making healthcare 100x worse


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing how much people will read into tweets (where they have no sense of the author's tone or composure) to fit their preconceptions and ignore concrete video evidence that utterly destroys their erroneous viewpoint. :lol We are not a rational species.



I could say the same, except it would be how all the evidence utterly destroys the viewpoint he's thick skinned. Its been debated back and forth and both sides have put their own view on it. Its a shame you're not able to see that people have differing opinions on something that clearly is more subjective than objective. Trump is PROBABLY a bit of both, he's PROBABLY got the ability to weather a whole tone of ridicule while also still being completely unable to take the simplest joke or media report that triggers him in to a twitter meltdown. I will concede after reading this thread he's probably a lot less think skinned than I would have said but I certainly wouldn't give him this incredibly thick skin you're attributing to him. Its a real shame you only have one blinkered view.

Oh and can we not label people as 'the best' at something Daniel Hanan is not one of our best at all, he's not even close, he has a hatred of the NHS and is not impartial at all on health systems, he's the worst person you would want to have a discussion on improving health care. The NHS is still routienly regarded as one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world, has changed DRAMATICALLY since WW2, in fact its changed dramatically in the last 10 years, and this guy just wants to get rid, he's a dick. 



L-DOPA said:


> A warning from one of the best minds in British politics today Daniel Hannan about Obamacare and the chance for it to be fully repealed.



Fucking Daniel Hannan one of our best...:booklel

I'm from the UK and I can guarantee you he isn't even considered in our top 100. His own party kicked him out >< (He is considered no.38 most influential in the centre right category...so yeah he has that at least)


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Fucking Daniel Hannan one of our best...:booklel
> 
> I'm from the UK and I can guarantee you he isn't even considered in our top 100. His own party kicked him out >< (He is considered no.38 most influential in the centre right category...so yeah he has that at least)


What are you talking about? He's still part of the Conservatives currently as an MEP and that won't change until we officially leave. He was also one of the most senior members of Vote Leave and arguably other than Farage did more in the long term in terms of making Brexit happen in the first place than anyone else.

Also influential doesn't always =/= best (though that argument is redundant considering Brexit is literally the most important event in our political lifetime British wise :lmao. ). If that's your line of argument you'd have to put the likes of Thatcher and Blair near the top and I doubt you'd want to do that. Especially the former :lmao.

:trumpout.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> What are you talking about? He's still part of the Conservatives currently as an MEP and that won't change until we officially leave. He was also one of the most senior members of Vote Leave and arguably other than Farage did more in the long term in terms of making Brexit happen in the first place than anyone else.
> 
> Also influential doesn't always =/= best (though that argument is redundant considering Brexit is literally the most important event in our political lifetime British wise :lmao. ). If that's your line of argument you'd have to put the likes of Thatcher and Blair near the top and I doubt you'd want to do that. Especially the former :lmao.
> 
> :trumpout.


:austin3 I clearly meant the European peoples party not the conservative party considering he is still conservative MEP...

I'd love to know what arbitrary metric you're using to claim he's one of the best political minds, I realise you're trying to give him WAY more credit than he deserves because you're trying to validate his opinion which is fine, but he's a nobody politically.
I guess it shouldn't matter if you're just using your own subjective standards but at least say that instead of trying to make a statement that some people, who aren't aware of the UK political scene, might actually think this guy is somebody, when in reality he's a nobody and his political mind is no better or worse than anybody in the houses of parliament. No need to appeal to authority fallacy us here.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Oh and can we not label people as 'the best' at something Daniel Hanan is not one of our best at all, he's not even close, he has a hatred of the NHS and is not impartial at all on health systems, he's the worst person you would want to have a discussion on improving health care. The NHS is still routienly regarded as one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world, has changed DRAMATICALLY since WW2, in fact its changed dramatically in the last 10 years, and this guy just wants to get rid, he's a dick.


Sorry for the double post but I have to respond to this. Let me ask you an honest question, have you looked outside beyond the inward looking bubble of the healthcare debate in the UK known as the state institution the NHS? By all means, defend the NHS and argue for it to remain under state hands but to claim that the NHS is routinely regarded as one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world and then knock a guy for having different ideas to improve our healthcare service (key word being healthcare, not NHS the state insitution) again shows how much research you have done. It's not even among the top in Europe let alone the world. Even the extremely outdated WHO 2000 study which is 17 years ago doesn't have us in the top 10 and a lot has happened since then.

The most extensive study of European healthcare studies which is done every year is the Euro Consumer Health Index, it takes 37 different European countries and ranks them looking at health outcomes, cost efficiency and cost effectiveness. Recently, the 2016 results came out and we didn't even crack the top 10. We came 15th in EUROPE. Not the world, Europe. The best were the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Finland. Two were fully privatized systems, the other two are state monopolies in countries that have low population density. Last year we came 14th on the study, even the Guardian reported on it:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems



> The NHS is only the 14th best health system in Europe and is delivering mediocre results in too many areas of care, including patient survival, a new continent-wide survey has claimed.
> 
> The findings conflict with those of the influential Commonwealth Fund thinktank, which two years ago said the UK offered the best overall health provision out of 11 western nations it studied.
> 
> The experts behind the new study praise the NHS for some successes, such as cutting the number of people dying from a heart attack, stroke or traffic accident.
> 
> But the *2015 Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) concludes that its performance is inadequate in so many important areas that it ranks just above healthcare in Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia.*
> 
> Too many patients wait too long to see a GP, for treatment in A&E and to have a CT scan within a week for something serious like suspected cancer, the report says.
> 
> It also accuses the UK of denying cancer patients access to drugs that might extend their lives and of failing to deliver improvements in quality of care made by many other European nations.
> 
> But the fact that the UK comes 28th out of the 35 European countries studied for the number of doctors for every 100,000 of population may help explain some of the negative findings.
> 
> The index, produced by a Sweden-based private company of health analysts called Health Consumer Powerhouse, ranked the Netherlands as the best-performing health system of the 35. After assessing each one by 48 different criteria, it gave the Netherlands 916 points. Switzerland was a close second on 894 points and Norway third on 854. The UK was ranked 14th, with 736 points.
> 
> The report points out that in the 11 years in which it has been assessing European countries, *“the UK healthcare system has never made it into the top 10 of the ECHI, mainly due to poor accessibility – together with Poland and Sweden the worst among European healthcare systems – and an autocratic top-down management culture.”*
> 
> The ECHI also claims that so-called Bismarck health systems, based on citizens taking out insurance from a range of providers that do not provide healthcare, delivers much better results than “Beveridge systems” like the NHS has been since its inception in 1948, were one body funds and provides all the care.
> 
> “The largest Beveridge countries – the UK, Spain and Italy – keep clinging together in the middle of the index”, the report states.
> 
> Prof Arne Björnberg, chair of HCP, said: “The NHS has been doing pretty much as well since the start [of the surveys] in 2005, which is mediocre. Problems are: autocratic management of a very skilled profession, resulting in [overly long] waiting times [for treatment] [and] mediocre treatment results.”
> 
> He added that in cancer care there are “too few radiation treatment facilities (expensive) and meanness on cancer drugs (expensive), resulting in mediocre survival rates”.
> 
> Björnberg and co-collaborator Prof Johan Hjertqvist gave the UK a lot of yellow scores, denoting merely average performance in many areas.
> 
> H C P has traditionally received much of its funding from the drugs industry, though they paid for this latest report themselves from reserves and received a small grant from the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe in Brussels, Björnberg said.
> 
> The Department of Health defended the NHS and said it was providing more care than ever before, including tests, operations and other treatments.
> 
> “In 2014 the NHS was ranked the best and most efficient in the world by the independent Commonwealth Fund, and waiting times for patients continue to be stable despite the NHS doing a million more operations a year than in 2010,” a spokeswoman said.
> 
> “We’re making sure it continues to be the best in the world by investing £10bn more every year by 2020, raising the NHS budget to the highest level in its history – as the NHS itself asked.”


And don't even think about quoting the Commonwealth Fund :lol. That bogus study in which the Guardian took to try and claim the UK has the best healthcare system in the world studied only *11 countries.* Not exactly the amount of countries you'd need to study to come up with a comprehensive idea of what healthcare systems are working and which ones are not. And the study itself has a multitude of problems. First of all the study is mainly based on inputs and procedures, not on outcomes which is the most important when studying healthcare....you know, how good the treatment it is you are getting? 

Secondly, the questions themselves are directly designed to favour single payer systems, it does not measure the relationship between costs and outcomes i.e how good is the service you are getting for the money it is costing. One question asks whether a patient has ever had out-of-pocket expenses exceeding $1,000 per year, another whether they had experienced disputes with insurers over the payment of medical bills, and another whether they had been discouraged to seek treatment because of its cost. Of course, British patients are bound to answer such questions in the negative, but that is not comparing like with like. The absence of insurance companies or co-payments does not mean that British patients get any treatment they want for free. It means rationing decisions will be made for them by others (doctors, PCTs, or public bodies like NICE), usually without their knowledge. So of course, with questions like these the NHS is going to be at the top of that study.

Lastly but most importantly, the CF study only asks one question in the entire study in relation to health outcomes and it came 10th out of 11th. The best way to describe is to quote the Guardian again who wrote an article on this paper: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health



> The only serious black mark against the NHS was *its poor record on keeping people alive.* On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th.


I mean think about this: What would you make of a customer review for a coffee machine on Amazon, which awarded five stars, praised the machine to the skies, and then ended by saying ‘The machine has just one minor downside: it has a poor record on making coffee. But otherwise, it’s fantastic, and highly recommended.’

That is what the article is essentially admitting as a footnote on this study.

If we in the UK, continue to have this inward looking view of the NHS and not learn from other countries around the world who apply different systems: Mixed healthcare, two-tier systems, three-tier systems, universal private healthcare coverage instead of making it all about the US vs UK healthcare, two arguably equally shitty healthcare systems which pale in comparison to other countries who get it right with how much they put in versus the results they get then it's little wonder we are going to continue to have problems.

And yes, I understand that the PFI contracts and recent Conservative policy has contributed to how bad the NHS is. The former especially. @DesolationRow has read me rant about it for a long time :lol. That's the problem with fully state controlled healthcare, you can't trust government to make the right decisions or even have the best interests at heart and then you are fucked because you have no other realistic options left.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> :austin3 I clearly meant the European peoples party not the conservative party considering he is still conservative MEP...
> 
> I'd love to know what arbitrary metric you're using to claim he's one of the best political minds, I realise you're trying to give him WAY more credit than he deserves because you're trying to validate his opinion which is fine, but he's a nobody politically.
> I guess it shouldn't matter if you're just using your own subjective standards but at least say that instead of trying to make a statement that some people, who aren't aware of the UK political scene, might actually think this guy is somebody, when in reality he's a nobody and his political mind is no better or worse than anybody in the houses of parliament. No need to appeal to authority fallacy us here.


Why would you clearly mean that? Which party is Daniel Hannan most known for, the one he is part of in the EU or the UK? Who really knows what party Daniel Hannan is in in the EU? Because if you look at for example interviews of him on the BBC or Sky or even with Owen Jones he's referred to as a Eurosceptic as part of the *UK Conservative Party.* So you are trying to discredit him by pointing out he got kicked out of the European People's Party *9 years ago* which nobody has ever heard of really in an institution we voted to leave from and aren't going to be a part of in two years? Seriously, that is your best argument? :lol.

I think you are confusing influential with best. Best generally is subjective and yes we can use things the person has achieved as a way of arguing why or why not the person you are arguing for has a great mind or a great talent for a particular avenue. My argument wasn't initially about him being influential and clearly if we look in the realm of just solely British politics away from the EU he isn't really a blip. I'm not that stupid but that is what you have made the argument about. It's like you arguing about how brilliant a certain metal or rock band is and how they are one of the best ever in your opinion and then me saying "what are you talking about, they haven't had the same level of influence as Maiden or Pink Floyd". Yeah, but how does that prove that the band you are talking about isn't great?

Even if we were to go that route I'd have to say really? Would the Guardian really cover him in such detail with a title like this? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit



> *The man who brought you Brexit*
> 
> *Britain’s vote to leave the EU was the grand finale of a 25-year campaign by a lonely sect of true believers. Daniel Hannan wrote the script
> by Sam Knight*
> 
> Until about nine months ago, leaving the European Union was not something that sensible British politicians talked about. They hadn’t, really, since the country entered the bloc in 1973, the year that Theresa May sat her O-levels. In the intervening 43 years, as the EEC became the EU; and Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair came and went; and the Channel Tunnel was dug; and the borders spread to the east; and the euro was launched, and then foundered; our relationship with Brussels seemed, more or less, to embody a settled ambivalence towards the European continent that most British people instinctively recognised as their own. Close, but separate. In, but not integrated. Related, but not the same. We did not learn French.
> 
> And then 17 million people voted to leave. Everyone has their own explanation for why. Not all of them make sense. I found out the other day that my wife’s uncle voted for Brexit because his son is training to be a doctor, and doesn’t like Jeremy Hunt, who campaigned for remain. Victory, as they say, has many fathers. Since 23 June, a great many things have been blamed – or thanked, depending on your view – for convincing the population that staying within the European Union was hurting us. Their names are more than familiar now. Nigel Farage. Globalisation. The rightwing press. The left behind. Professional politicians. Absent politicians. The financial crisis. Boris. Migrants. Project Fear. Sunderland. In their own way, and over time, these things helped create the feeling that we were trapped in something so defective, so inimical to our interests, that our best hope was to climb through a high window, and out.
> 
> But you don’t get to Brexit without someone dreaming up the window – the remedy of leaving – in the first place. And during those long years inside the European project, that was the work of the right wing of the Conservative party. To be specific, a small, somewhat esoteric part of that wing: a flash of feathers, almost, a sect of true Eurosceptic believers who dreamed and schemed for this moment for the last 25 years. Most worked for little else, with no reward, and with no sign that they would ever prevail. “Like the monks on Iona,” as one of their former parliamentary researchers told me, “illuminating their manuscripts and waiting for the Dark Ages to come to an end.”
> 
> And no one in that group worked with more devotion than Daniel Hannan, a Conservative member of the European parliament for south-east England. Hannan, who is 45, is by no ordinary measure a front-rank British politician. He has never been an MP, or a minister, or a mayor. Instead, since the age of 19, he has fought for what he calls British independence – fomenting, protesting, strategising, undermining, writing books, writing speeches and then delivering them without notes. For the last 17 years, Hannan, a spry, fastidious figure, who likes to read Shakespeare once a week, has done this mainly from the other side of the English Channel. He knows what it is to toil for a lost cause. “Here I am, Ishmael,” he told me recently, in his office at the European parliament in Strasbourg, invoking the Old Testament as he gestured around him. “Every man’s hand is against me.”
> 
> Hannan may have contributed more to the ideas, arguments and tactics of Euroscepticism than any other individual. It was Hannan, in 2012, who asked Matthew Elliott, the founder of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, to set up the embryonic campaign group that later became Vote Leave. Elliott, who is 38, describes Hannan as the pamphleteer who made Brexit seem like a reasonable proposition for millions of people. “I can’t think of anybody who has done more on this,” he told me. Others laboured too, of course, and Elliott cited veteran Tory MPs Bill Cash and John Redwood, who spent decades attacking the constitutional and economic aspects of the EU – “but Dan is the only person who has successfully created a whole worldview,” he said. “And also then done better than anyone else to be the propagandist for it.”
> 
> Hannan’s signature case against EU membership is an upbeat argument of direct democracy and free-market capitalism. He sidesteps questions about the inevitable trade-offs of leaving by insisting there will be none. Elliott was an intern when he first heard Hannan speak in Westminster almost 20 years ago. Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP, was convinced by Hannan that Britain should pull out, in the autumn of 1993. “When I heard Boris Johnson and all those others making those brilliant points they made,” Carswell told me recently, “I thought, ‘Compare it to making a film: these guys on the silver screen are brilliant. But the script is written by Hannan, and this is largely a Hannan production.’” Theresa Villiers, the former Northern Ireland secretary, who helped persuade David Cameron to allow his cabinet to campaign freely during the vote, was “radicalised”, in her phrase, by Hannan during her time as an MEP. “On the morning of 24 June, I texted Dan congratulating him on changing the course of European history.”
> 
> And yet, Hannan is not a household name. He didn’t break out during the campaign. Fellow Brexiteers told me there were prosaic reasons for this. “The broadcasters had their own hierarchy for their own reasons,” said Michael Gove. “They took the view that some people were box-office and some people weren’t.” Besides, to allies and enemies alike, Hannan’s role has never been on centre stage. Trying to characterise his contribution to Brexit, many people I spoke to likened him to dogmatic intellectuals from the past who came first and prepared the way. Admirers mentioned Patrick Henry and Tom Paine, whose writings catalysed the American Revolution. Opponents compared Hannan to Trotsky. “You have got to have hard arses,” the Marquess of Salisbury, a long-term Eurosceptic and Hannan supporter, told me, “who are morally courageous, who consistently make the arguments, who don’t mind being unfashionable.”
> 
> The other explanation, however, is that in the climactic moment – when Brexit was put to the people – it wasn’t Hannan and his debating points that carried Britain out of the European Union, but a smaller, darker, set of instincts altogether. The final weeks of the Vote Leave campaign, with its focus on immigration and posters about Turkey joining the EU, were like nothing out of a sonorous Hannan speech. (His own 217-page book, Why Vote Leave, contains a single sentence on immigration, and Hannan supports Turkish membership of the bloc, in principle.) In the eyes of Ukip, the narrow, Hannanite case for Brexit – mostly about deregulation and sovereignty – was a sideshow next to the real event: a chorus of economic and cultural discontent. “In his own way, he is an idiot savant,” said Gawain Towler, Nigel Farage’s spokesman. “So locked up in his world that he can’t see what is on the end of his well-formed aquiline nose.”
> 
> Hannan himself is almost impossible to pin down on these questions. He is agile and skilful when he talks – like a star witness with absolutely nothing to hide – and during several conversations this summer, he showed no anxiety at all about the manner of Britain’s decision to leave the EU, or the scale of the diplomatic and economic challenges facing the country. Whenever he could, Hannan would muse on the fair-mindedness and natural intelligence of the British people, and spar with the ideas of his many opponents. “If you’re told that ‘Brexit was all about immigration,’ you can be almost certain that you’re talking to a Remain voter,” ran a sample, recent tweet.
> 
> For the rest of us, the patience and ruthlessness of the long-term leavers – a tiny band, fiddling at the political margins for a quarter of a century – will always be a breathtaking thing. “It’s revenge of the nerd,” one current cabinet minister, who voted remain, told me. “I was in awe of it.” But he observed that in all the years of plotting, there had been scant planning for the part that comes next, and no guarantee the agitation will now stop. “None of these people are builders, they are destroyers,” the minister said. “They are frightening people. They are like arsonists.” If Hannan has ever felt a moment of fear, or doubt, about his life’s work, you suspect that he will never admit it, even to himself. His term as an MEP runs out in 2019, and he plans to leave politics after that – the work of a singular, premeditated career complete. “Mission accomplie,” Hannan quipped to me, on two separate occasions. “As we like to say in Brussels.”


And the article goes on further...

If Hannan is really truly irrelevant as you say, would the Guardian, arguably the biggest left leaning paper in the UK aside from maybe the Independent do this whole long article dedicated him, especially as a paper that was heavily for remain and cast him as they said the man who brought us Brexit? Would they even give him the time of day?

No sir, I believe it is you that is undervaluing how much impact he had towards the biggest political decision the UK has ever made arguably since WW2. After all, it was you who used the metric of influence in this argument. Not me .


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm not familiar with the UK healthcare system. Is it better or worse than Canada's?

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> Why would you clearly mean that?


Because that was the one he was kicked out from...Why would I mean another one when he is still in it?



> I think you are confusing influential with best. Best generally is subjective and yes we can use things the person has achieved as a way of arguing why or why not the person you are arguing for has a great mind or a great talent for a particular avenue. My argument wasn't initially about him being influential and clearly if we look in the realm of just solely British politics away from the EU he isn't really a blip. I'm not that stupid but that is what you have made the argument about. It's like you arguing about how brilliant a certain metal or rock band is and how they are one of the best ever in your opinion and then me saying "what are you talking about, they haven't had the same level of influence as Maiden or Pink Floyd". Yeah, but how does that prove that the band you are talking about isn't great?


No, I put the influential bit in parenthesis as a way to show people in here that he barely registers on the political spectrum except for a few flash in the pan spells like in 2009. The guy wanted a soft Brexit and now we have a hard Brexit, he's not got what he wanted. 

I would absolutely argue that calling someone the best political mind, then giving is his opinion on politics is an appeal to authority and completely different tojust saying someone is the best band of today. I could easily say Dianne Abbott is the best political mind and prattle of one of her absurd articles and 90% of people in here wouldn't have a clue that she is an incompetent moron. I do not conflate influential with the best, but I sure do know that Daniel is not of our best, he is as competent a politician as everyone else I have no idea why you put more stock in him.



L-DOPA said:


> Sorry for the double post but I have to respond to this. Let me ask you an honest question, have you looked outside beyond the inward looking bubble of the healthcare debate in the UK known as the state institution the NHS? By all means, defend the NHS and argue for it to remain under state hands but to claim that the NHS is routinely regarded as one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world and then knock a guy for having different ideas to improve our healthcare service (key word being healthcare, not NHS the state insitution) again shows how much research you have done. It's not even among the top in Europe let alone the world. Even the extremely outdated WHO 2000 study which is 17 years ago doesn't have us in the top 10 and a lot has happened since then.


I work in the NHS, I am part of Vanguard which is a new major initiative to change how the NHS works and how patients use our services, another major change because unlike people who just read papers I am actually involved in these changes and understand that the NHS we had in WW2 is not the NHS we have now. We learn constantly from over seas, we even have a private American company now coming to take over our day cases in our hospital, yay for privatisation I guess...So you're long well worded double post is lost on me because not only do I do my research I am a part of the changes based on it, sure I use hyperbole to describe us as one of the greatest, but we sure are thought of well in the vast majority of studies. The NHS is anything but inward looking, its ignorance that has people like Daniel say that. Comparing health systems with other health systems is a notoriously diffiuclt thing to do, the WHO stopped doing it because it was pretty much impossible to do it fairly. You discount the one study that puts us top because it doesn't fit your narrative, you even omit the defining quote of the piece 


> The authors say that the healthcare system cannot be solely blamed for this issue, which is strongly influenced by social and economic factors.


Because why the fuck would you want to include that?

Its like having a 1 star amazon review for a coffee maker but it only made coffee one out of 5 times because the other 4 times the person using the maker didn't use it properly...

Its very clear why you called him the best, its not because he is, but because he has the same political leanings as you, its a dishonest use of the term and your analysis of the NHS is also proven dishonest by omitting the most relevant part.

The EHCI is heavily biased towards single payer systems, but you know what happened when Holland came out top? We sent people over there to review and we now have a dutch system in place in our trusts for training new staff nurses...Its almost like the NHS learns from other countries right? I mean you even alluded to why the NHS wasn't top, a low density population with entirely different health and social groups compared to the UK. If you look at our closest neoghbours and most easily compared health and social group Ireland, we were better.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm not familiar with the UK healthcare system. Is it better or worse than Canada's?
> 
> - Vic


They're both there or there abouts, I don't think you'll see any major differences, and of course it all depends on different areas. Both are struggling funding wise, I have no idea if they are stealth privatising parts of it in Canda like the Tories are in the UK.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The irony of this being on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/trump-liberals/



> *Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists*
> 
> (CNN)Much has been written about how President Trump's election has had a profound impact on the Republican party. What's drawn less attention -- but deserves more! -- is how Trump is affecting Democrats.
> 
> Sure, we've seen coverage of how Trump's election has emboldened the liberal left whose call for confrontation at all times has become the rallying cry of the party. (This New Yorker profile of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer describes the rapid evolution from compromise to confrontation well.)
> What's drawn less attention is how Trump's presidency has convinced liberals that every bad thing whispered about any Republican is, by default, true. Consider that in the last week alone, liberal outrage has been sparked on (at least) four occasions by alleged incidents that simply aren't accurate.
> *
> 1. There was no health care vote beer celebration*
> 
> As the House was voting on the American Health Care Act, Vice News's Alexandra Jaffe spotted cases of beer being brought into the Capitol. She tweeted about it:
> 
> That tweet became the basis of an outrage campaign among liberals. This headline, from Mic, is indicative of the early coverage: "Republicans celebrated taking away Americans' health insurance with cases of beer." (Mic has since changed the headline to: "Reports of beer delivery to GOP health care celebration called into question.")
> Less than a half hour later, Jaffe tweeted again, noting that the beer wasn't, in fact, for a celebration party for House Republicans. (She had never implied it was.)
> 
> Didn't matter! By then, the idea of Republicans cracking beers while voting to take away health care from millions of people was already surging across the Internet. (Look at how many retweets Jaffe's original tweet received versus how many the second tweet got.)
> *
> 2. Rape and sexual assault would not be pre-existing conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spicer pressed on pre-existing conditions 02:00
> 
> Immediately following the passage of the AHCA last Thursday, a talking point emerged: If this bill became a law, being raped or sexually assaulted would qualify as pre-existing conditions and, therefore, would make it much harder for the victim to get health insurance.
> 
> Not so, according to Washington Post Fact-Checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who gave the claim "Four Pinocchios" -- meaning it was "totally false." Wrote Lee:
> _"The notion that AHCA classifies rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition, or that survivors would be denied coverage, is false...this claim relies on so many factors — including unknown decisions by a handful of states and insurance companies — that this talking point becomes almost meaningless."_
> *
> 3. The FCC is not really targeting Stephen Colbert*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan politics, late night TV in Trump era 10:05
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission announced that it was investigating complaints following late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert's controversial comments about President Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
> 
> Liberals cried foul, insisting that the Trump administration was trying to stifle criticism -- an abrogation of the 1st amendment. More like standard operating procedure, according to CNN media reporter Frank Palliotta. As an FCC spokesman told him: "We review all consumer complaints as a matter of standard practice and rely on the law to determine whether action is warranted. The fact that a complaint is reviewed doesn't speak one way or another as to whether it has any merit."
> *
> 4. The chief usher was not fired over a disagreement with the Trumps*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch CNN's video report on the first female White House usher leaving 01:02
> 
> The firing of White House chief usher Angella Reid, the first woman to hold that job, was seized on as the latest piece of evidence that Trump and his administration was nothing more than an old boys club -- openly hostile to women and minorities.
> 
> Turns out, according to Axios reporting, that Reid got along well with the President and First Lady but was far less popular with the staff of the White House she oversaw. "When her departure was announced to the residence staff yesterday morning, workers burst into applause," Axios reported.
> 
> In each of these four instances -- and all of these have been in the last week! -- liberals, fueled by Twitter outrage, jumped to conclusions that portrayed Trump and other Republicans in the poorest possible light. And, on each occasion, the fuller story either totally or mostly rebutted the version of the story the left had seized on.
> Trump's presidency presents Democrats with lots and lots of legitimate issues on which to push back -- from the travel ban to the ongoing questions about Trump officials' ties to Russia to the president's refusal to release his tax returns.
> 
> By embracing every single tweet or whisper as yet another piece of full-proof evidence of just how terrible Republicans are, Democrats run the risk of appearing like the boy who cried wolf to the public -- and in the process taking some steam out of the very legitimate questions they are asking about the Trump administration.





















CNN reported that Nancy Sinatra was unhappy at Trump's inauguration











> *January 31: The White House-SCOTUS Twitter Mistake*
> 
> Leading up to Trump announcing his first Supreme Court nomination, CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny announced that the White House was “setting up [the] Supreme Court announcement as a prime-time contest.” He pointed to a pair of recently created “identical Twitter pages” for a theoretical justices Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, the two likeliest nominees for the court vacancy.
> Zeleny’s sneering tweet—clearly meant to cast the Trump administration in an unflattering, circus-like light—was shared more than 1,100 times on Twitter. About 30 minutes later, however, he tweeted: “The Twitter accounts…were not set up by the White House, I’ve been told.” As always, the admission of mistake was shared far less than the original fake news: Zeleny’s correction was retweeted a paltry 159 times.


I guess the Counterfeit News Network is losing ratings. 

:kobelol

I guess all the fake news has something to do with this:


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> You discount the one study that puts us top because it doesn't fit your narrative.


No I discounted it because of the points I made in my response to you which you chose to ignore.

I'll admit your other points are well made, I'll have to look into the initiatives happening within the NHS if that is possible that you talk about.

Also the inward looking part was mostly aimed at the public which a lot refuse to look at alternative options away from how the NHS has always been run and away from the state monopoly currently we have over healthcare, hence why I said about the healthcare debate. Not really in terms of what is happening within the NHS now in terms of the people working in it. I don't blame doctors, nurses or even the administration side rather I blame politicians and the general level of worship the NHS has in the public sphere. But that is neither here or there.

I mean you even admit that the ECHI is heavily biased towards single payer systems and that Holland still came out on top...so I guess there is some hope after all. So I'll give you that.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"But more taxes will alleviate poverty!"

From Kevin Ryan:



> (K.R.) The United States spends nearly a trillion dollars every single year on anti-poverty programs (and no, this does not include social security).
> $668 billion spent by 126 federal anti-poverty programs.
> $284 billion spent by state welfare programs.
> $952 BILLION TOTAL SPENT PER YEAR
> That's about $40,000 for every household whose market income is below the poverty level. And yet 43 million people remain in poverty.


Eesh. None of that money is making its way to the people. Redistributing of wealth really means "taking from the rich and giving it to the bureaucrats". This is why we need to oppose governments.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lol at Trump removing the pledge to ban muslim immigration from his website apparently minutes before the hearing into his travel ban.

I read it was up the day before and checked and hilariously it still was then.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Lol at Trump removing the pledge to ban muslim immigration from his website apparently minutes before the hearing into his travel ban.
> 
> I read it was up the day before and checked and hilariously it still was then.


Man, if we lived in a world where campaign rhetoric was a basis for judging action, we'd have a lot of war criminals in jail right now. Especially those people who promised during their campaigns to pull out of all wars and then continued to drop bombs on civilians.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> No I discounted it because of the points I made in my response to you which you chose to ignore.
> 
> I'll admit your other points are well made, I'll have to look into the initiatives happening within the NHS if that is possible that you talk about.
> 
> Also the inward looking part was mostly aimed at the public which a lot refuse to look at alternative options away from how the NHS has always been run and away from the state monopoly currently we have over healthcare, hence why I said about the healthcare debate. Not really in terms of what is happening within the NHS now in terms of the people working in it. I don't blame doctors, nurses or even the administration side rather I blame politicians and the general level of worship the NHS has in the public sphere. But that is neither here or there.
> 
> I mean you even admit that the ECHI is heavily biased towards single payer systems and that Holland still came out on top...so I guess there is some hope after all. So I'll give you that.


I actually crammed in a bit of reading on Holland after our discussion, it seems like a legitimately decent system and a good compromise but they still have major problems and have recently had to rush in special measures as funding for long term social care was drying up. The new changes they rushed in have not had the desired effect and in reality whilst they do have a health system to be proud of the expenditure hasn't had a dramatic change on mortality, France for example pays less per person but has lower mortality, Italy pays less but has a a higher life expectancy. 

I am so used to talking to people as if everyone (including me) is an asshole on this site that I probably came across as a bit of an arse, I do not think the NHS is a sinking ship, I disagree completely with Daniel Hannans view on the NHS but that doesn't mean he isn't a good politician or doesn't offer any value to the discussion and absolutely does not mean the NHS is beyond reproach. In the 15 years I have worked in the NHS I am most pessimistic right now even with all the fantastic attempts at innovation going on throughout the NHS but if you look at things like patient satisfaction, that continues to increase, in the UK it was 60% recently and 66% in the netherlands (in the last journal I read), or survival rates are improving (still below lots of EU) so maybe its not all bad?


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Lol at Trump removing the pledge to ban muslim immigration from his website apparently minutes before the hearing into his travel ban.
> 
> I read it was up the day before and checked and hilariously it still was then.


I remember when he announced this opinion polls surged in his favour...


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The solution imo is a system for those countries that still want socialist policies but are seeing their quality of healthcare declining and costs rising (if I am allowed to stray away from my usual pro-laissez faire commentary for a bit) where there's subsidized emergency healthcare for individuals below a certain income threshold only and every one else pays out of pocket. 

Healthcare doesn't have to be universally free and rich people really don't mind paying for better healthcare which can then be used to subsidize the care for poor people in private hospitals through government tax incentives. Tax break for x number of patients treated annually where hospitals bear the cost for example.

There is a certain tax burden that makes rich people go "I ain't paying for anyone else" and a lot of social welfare states have crossed that threshold. They need to roll back some of the tax burden on the rich. 

Of course, this assumes that there is no government corruption in a perfect system of redistribution. The main reason why universal healthcare eventually fails or creates incredibly cost inefficient systems is because it assumes that X amount of money that exists today will always continue to exist and therefore plans are based on assuming that the tax money won't start drying up. The demand / supply economics are completely bastardized and costs are driven up because governments keep the funding consistent without making any effort to drive costs down. 

In order to make sure that there's always money in the system the rich need to keep their money so that they can continue to expand production and thereby keeping more money in the system while at the same time government needs to make sure that there's price discrimination and healthy competition between healthcare providers. That's something I believe Aussies are doing reasonably well, but could do better.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I actually crammed in a bit of reading on Holland after our discussion, it seems like a legitimately decent system and a good compromise but they still have major problems and have recently had to rush in special measures as funding for long term social care was drying up. The new changes they rushed in have not had the desired effect and in reality whilst they do have a health system to be proud of the expenditure hasn't had a dramatic change on mortality, France for example pays less per person but has lower mortality, Italy pays less but has a a higher life expectancy.
> 
> I am so used to talking to people as if everyone (including me) is an asshole on this site that I probably came across as a bit of an arse, I do not think the NHS is a sinking ship, I disagree completely with Daniel Hannans view on the NHS but that doesn't mean he isn't a good politician or doesn't offer any value to the discussion and absolutely does not mean the NHS is beyond reproach. In the 15 years I have worked in the NHS I am most pessimistic right now even with all the fantastic attempts at innovation going on throughout the NHS but if you look at things like patient satisfaction, that continues to increase, in the UK it was 60% recently and 66% in the netherlands (in the last journal I read), or survival rates are improving (still below lots of EU) so maybe its not all bad?


Social care seems to be a big problem with a lot of countries now due to ageing populations and less people in the workforce to cover the costs (especially if it is somewhat state driven), certainly the 11% cuts to social care here has not helped matters and has put even more pressure on the NHS. No healthcare service is going to be perfect and will of course have problems. I've often cited mixed healthcare systems like France and Germany as good alternatives to the UK so I'm certainly not closed to those options either.

No need to apologize by the way, politics can get real heated and it's something I'm trying to work on in terms of not being a dick about these things. Sometimes I still come up short .

Perhaps you can link me with the reading you did on the Dutch system if possible?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I remember when he announced this opinion polls surged in his favour...


Similarly when democrats announce sanctuary plans for illegal migrants, they surge in polls ...


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Funny how liberals will blame Trump and pull the morality card every chance they get, but refuse to own that Obama lied when he promised millions of Americans would be able to keep their health care plans and that it would be affordable for those that didn't have one.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Since President Trump’s election victory, we’ve heard experts proclaiming that it was Trump’s blue collar appeal that led him to the win. Free trade left Americans in rust belt states behind; Trump promised to quash that free trade. Government subsidies went only to areas beyond the horizon; Trump promised to bring them back. A solid mix of Democratic redistributionism and protectionism brought these voters home.
> 
> But now a new study says that the real reason so many white blue collar workers went for Trump had nothing to do with their Hillbilly Elegy economic status. Instead, the data show that these voters were simply alienated by the cultural myopia of Democrats, who have focused on an intersectionality-laden definition of American politics, labeling straight white men the bad guy in their bizarre morality play. According to PRRI/The Atlantic, a new model has been developed to measure the five most significant factors leading to support for Trump among white working-class voters. The first was obvious: identification with the Republican Party.
> 
> The second was fear of cultural displacement – the data showed that “white working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and believe the US needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.” This is where the Democratic Party has truly gone off the rails. By trotting out Hollywood celebrities who deride flyover America as a bunch of Bible-thumping simpletons, more and more Americans feel alienated inside their own country – and no Lena Dunham speeches and Laverne Cox diatribes will reverse that. In fact, the more Dunham and Cox are thrust to the fore by the Democrats, the more people will vote Republican in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
> 
> The third factor: support for deporting immigrants living in the country illegally. Voters who supported deportation were “3.3 times more likely to express a preference for Trump than those who did not.” This was Ann Coulter’s thesis, and it was correct: people feel that the culture is changing in the United States not only due to the acidic effect of leftism, but due to the left’s overt desire to change American culture through unfettered immigration without concern for assimilation. Workers in Ohio aren’t all that concerned about losing their jobs to illegal immigrants, but they are concerned about losing their country to people coming from lands that do not share the same basic values.
> 
> The fourth factor: disdain for higher education. Again, this is a cultural hallmark, not an economic one. According to PRRI, “White working-class voters who said that college education is a gamble were almost twice as likely to express a preference for Trump as those who said it was an important investment in the future.” That has less to do with people disdaining an engineering degree than people seeing that liberal colleges have become breeding grounds for anti-American “globalism” and anti-traditionalism.
> 
> The notion that these blue collar workers were deeply concerned with trade and subsidies is belied by the fact that the fifth factor evaluated, economic hardship, actually correlated in reverse fashion with Trump voting: “being in fair or poor financial shape actually predicted support among white working-class Americans, rather than support for Donald Trump.” These people – the people the media have suggested were completely taken in by Trump’s man of the people shtick – were actually 1.7 times more likely to support Clinton.
> 
> All of which suggests that the call from “moderate” Republicans to embrace Democratic economics is a fools’ errand, and that dumping the Reagan combination of social conservatism and free markets won’t actually guarantee a winning combination in the rust belt. Trumpism is less about Trump than about rejection of Obamaism and Clintonism. And that’s a good thing for conservatism and America.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/16216/study-trump-didnt-win-because-unemployed-white-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro#


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Funny how liberals will blame Trump and pull the morality card every chance they get, but refuse to own that Obama lied when he promised millions of Americans would be able to keep their health care plans and that it would be affordable for those that didn't have one.
> 
> - Vic


You're not allowed to say that because its the Republicans fault for not "working with" Obama. Just had this conversation this morning on facebook. Its always the Republicans faults, not the Democrats . They can't grasp that Obamacare wasn't 100% foolproof and seeing as its been even 1% of a failure that blame rests entirely on Republicans . It's insane


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> You're not allowed to say that because its the Republicans fault for not "working with" Obama. Just had this conversation this morning on facebook. Its always the Republicans faults, not the Democrats . They can't grasp that Obamacare wasn't 100% foolproof and seeing as its been even 1% of a failure that blame rests entirely on Republicans . It's insane


Republicans broke the record for obstruction, but sure lets not put blame on them

They obstructed the SCOTUS pick for almost a year.

Both of those things were unprecedented.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Republicans broke the record for obstruction, but sure lets not put blame on them
> 
> They obstructed the SCOTUS pick for almost a year.
> 
> Both of those things were unprecedented.


And none of those things had to do with my comment about Obamacare. Then again, this isn't new territory for you


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> And none of those things had to do with my comment about Obamacare. Then again, this isn't new territory for you


Actually, they do but once again you missing simple parallels isn't new territory for you but I am not surprised because you have trouble in the deep end with the adults, you should stay in the kiddie pool.

The republicans were always obstructing Obamacare from the beginning, not to mention how every state did not even fully implement it. More than half the states did not even fully implement Obamacare. Not to mention all the times the GOP tried to repeal it during Obamas time in office.

Please try and keep up next time.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump just fired Comey. :trumpout. I didn't see this one coming.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-09-17-47-00


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



IDONTSHIV FOREVER said:


> Trump just fired Comey. :trumpout. I didn't see this one coming.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-09-17-47-00


comey must have found something on Trump or was getting close to trump fired him.


----------



## Vox Machina

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Remember when Richard Nixon fired the attorney general that was out to get him?

Yeah. :trump


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> comey must have found something on Trump or was getting close to trump fired him.


Thing is, the Democrats haven't been happy with Comey so he'll probably not have a lot of support.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is a dumpster fire.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah... even those who like Trump can't help but feel this is a bit fishy... right?


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"MAY 9, 2017



Dear Director Comey: 



I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately. 

While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

It is essential that we find new leadership that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission. 

I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. 



DONALD J. TRUMP"


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/09/text-trump-letter-to-comey.html

SAVAGE trump


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I looked at the letter and documents which explains why Comey was fired and it doesn't make sense. Comey was fired primarily for what he did to Clinton but Trump loved what Comey did to Clinton on the campaign trail and campaigned on it.

Anyone with common sense wouldn't buy those reasons and it feels like the real reason for termination is that they want this Russia investigation to go away. They may be feeling the heat. The FBI investigation might die too. I definitely see him putting a puppet in the FBI director role.

Some Democrats are still mad about what Comey did to Clinton so they are gullible enough to praise this move. Trump wins in that regard for making them look stupid.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

did he really just "future endeavor" Comey?

:lmao :garrett :lmao :garrett


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:lmao :lmao :lmao.

That is an absolutely SAVAGE letter that he gave Comey :trump.

I'll reserve judgement on the move when I look at it more closely.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey getting future endeavored. :lmao Maybe he'll go to IMPACT . :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> comey must have found something on Trump or was getting close to trump fired him.


Ya, because the best way to silence someone who has dirt on you is to fire them and allow them to hit the news circuit, unabashedly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The real reason is Comey appeared to laugh at a 'small hands' Trump joke once on camera and Fox n Friends led with it recently, that's literally the only reason.


----------



## CesaroSwing

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> The real reason is Comey appeared to laugh at a 'small hands' Trump joke once on camera and Fox n Friends led with it recently, that's literally the only reason.


Good reason to fire him since anyone who actually finds them funny shouldn't be involved in anything important :shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Best thing :trump has done in like a month 

Comey proved himself an incompetent boob

MUH EMAILS was a total clusterfuck

MUH RUSSIA is another total clusterfuck 

Several successful terrorist attacks in the last few years

If the FBI director can't navigate the politics of his position then he better be doing a super awesome job otherwise

Comey's exactly the kind of feckless ham-handed bureaucrat that needs to gtfo


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

About time Trump fires that doofus Comey.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



IDONTSHIV FOREVER said:


> Comey getting future endeavored. :lmao Maybe he'll go to IMPACT . :lol


What is James Phoney doing in the iMPACT zone?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is awesome. :lol

Watching people come up with their own theories which fit their various biases (and thus are almost certainly wrong) about why he was fired is a lot of fun too.

Scott Adams with a new article about immigration, particularly Muslim immigration: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160447583616/wheres-my-immigration-prediction-model


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CesaroSwing said:


> Good reason to fire him since anyone who actually finds them funny shouldn't be involved in anything important :shrug


Sound logic, people who laugh at jokes shouldn't be in charge of anything.

By the same token people with Trump's track record of buffoonery shouldn't be President, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump3 just wanted to pop in and say


----------



## CesaroSwing

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sound logic, people who laugh at jokes shouldn't be in charge of anything.
> 
> By the same token people with Trump's track record of buffoonery shouldn't be President, wouldn't you agree?


Sure :shrug
Just keep people who laugh at terrible jokes out of there


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sound logic, people who laugh at jokes shouldn't be in charge of anything.
> 
> By the same token people with Trump's track record of buffoonery shouldn't be President, wouldn't you agree?


No.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

James Comey being fired is mostly fantastic news. Comey is a weasel, a self-interested bureaucrat whose conduct as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was consistently unbecoming. He abused his power as even last week's hearings make transparently clear. His own testimony fundamentally reinforced the point delineated by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who quoted Judge Laurence Silberman in his memorandum who served as Deputy Attorney General under Gerald Ford who wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." As Rosenstein noted with his writing, Judge Silberman believed Comey's awful "performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover." Field agents who argued on behalf of prosecution of Hillary Clinton were constantly befuddled by Comey's sanctimonious appropriation of the investigation while he played the role of federal district attorney. Comey's hilarious remarks that he could not justify releasing more information to Freedom of Information Act requests than to the Senate Judiciary Committee were met by an "Ee gads" from Senator Chuck Grassley. 

However, making a long statement related to the matter of prosecution, per Comey's remarks vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, etcetera, was calamitous on his part as the director of what is supposed to be an investigative body. The overwhelming majority of veteran FBI agents have insisted that a grand jury should have been impaneled, and Comey's actions consequently lost the confidence of the majority of the people serving under him. 

This is one of the best and most justified moves on Trump's part as president thus far. 

It should be noted that not everything about this is a bed of roses. Firstly, some of the optics are a little, let us say, brusque. Trump using his own head of private security, longtime aide Keith Schiller, to simply deliver his boss's letter of termination for Comey, is rather dismissive and disrespectful toward Comey; granted, it is entirely consistent with the way private corporations tend to terminate people, but it will doubtless compel the raising of eyebrows around Washington, D.C. 

Another majorly legitimate point of concern is the ostensible news that Andy McCabe will evidently be "acting director" is greatly problematic. McCabe was the chief overseer of the entire investigation of Hillary Clinton's sprawling private server/email matter. Unfortunately, a potential conflict of interest plainly exists as McCabe's wife received up to $675,000 in political contributions after she began seeking political office by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe-run and -organized Democratic political PAC. This troubling reality was so glaring that multiple members of the Congressional Oversight Committee asked McCabe to supply a bevy of documents detailing the entirety of his wife's political financial dealings. 

Eventually a new FBI Director will have to be named, someone from outside the bureau in order to restore full confidence in the FBI. One would hope this would occur with great alacrity.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is Jared Kushner getting another job title?


----------



## Slickback

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Introducing your NEW FBI DIRECTOR

Music Starts: "No Chance! That's what ya got!"


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sound logic, people who laugh at jokes shouldn't be in charge of anything.
> 
> By the same token people with Trump's track record of buffoonery shouldn't be President, wouldn't you agree?


So you're saying bill clinton shouldn't have been president :hmmm

Well he wasn't really a buffoon more of a violent serial rapist


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> So you're saying *bill clinton* shouldn't have been president :hmmm
> 
> Well he wasn't really a buffoon more of a violent serial rapist


Absolutely agree with that, what did you expect me to defend Slick Willy?

With his violent serial rapist tendencies he was more suited to a powerful position in the Catholic Church I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> 10 MAJOR FBI SCANDALS ON COMEY'S WATCH
> The FBI interviewed almost every terrorist who successfully struck America
> May 9, 2017
> News just broke that President Trump is dismissing the director of the FBI, James Comey.
> Comey will inevitably be remembered for the controversial role he played in the 2016 presidential election, where his agency conducted surveillance of the Trump campaign as well as investigated the Clinton camp for mishandling classified materials, giving both sides arguments for how the FBI ultimately swayed the vote.
> But even before the 2016 campaign, the FBI endured a number of humiliations under Comey's tenure. Most damning were revelations that the FBI was generally aware of almost every terrorist who successfully struck America over the last eight years.
> Here are 10 of Comey's biggest embarrassments at the FBI:
> 1. Before he bombed the Boston Marathon, the FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev but let him go. Russia sent the Obama Administration a second warning, but the FBI opted against investigating him again.
> 2. Shortly after the NSA scandal exploded in 2013, the FBI was exposed conducting its own data mining on innocent Americans; the agency, Bloomberg reported, retains that material for decades (even if no wrongdoing is found).
> 3. The FBI had possession of emails sent by Nidal Hasan saying he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers to protect the Taliban -- but didn't intervene, leading many critics to argue the tragedy that resulted in the death of 31 Americans at Fort Hood could have been prevented.
> 4. During the Obama Administration, the FBI claimed that two private jets were being used primarily for counterterrorism, when in fact they were mostly being used for Eric Holder and Robert Mueller's business and personal travel.
> 5. When the FBI demanded Apple create a "backdoor" that would allow law enforcement agencies to unlock the cell phones of various suspects, the company refused, sparking a battle between the feds and America's biggest tech company. What makes this incident indicative of Comey's questionable management of the agency is that a) The FBI jumped the gun, as they were indeed ultimately able to crack the San Bernardino terrorist's phone, and b) Almost every other major national security figure sided with Apple (from former CIA Director General Petraeus to former CIA Director James Woolsey to former director of the NSA, General Michael Hayden), warning that such a "crack" would inevitably wind up in the wrong hands.
> 6. In 2015, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on a Texas political meeting, finger printing, photographing, and seizing phones from attendees (some in the group believe in restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic).
> 7. During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops.
> 8. The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI, however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview.
> 9. The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and closed its case.
> 10. CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did not intervene during the attack.


https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I have to wonder what it is that Trump wants this bombshell to overtake in the news. He knew this would be talked about BIG LEAGUE/BIGLY.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Washington (CNN)Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records, as part of the ongoing probe of Russian meddling in last year's election, according to people familiar with the matter. CNN learned of the subpoenas hours before President Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey.
> 
> The subpoenas represent the first sign of a significant escalation of activity in the FBI's broader investigation begun last July into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia.
> The subpoenas issued in recent weeks by the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia, were received by associates who worked with Flynn on contracts after he was forced out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, according to the people familiar with the investigation.
> Robert Kelner, an attorney for Flynn, declined to comment. The US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, the Justice Department and the FBI also declined to comment.
> Obama warned Trump about hiring Flynn
> Investigators have been looking into possible wrongdoing in how Flynn handled disclosures about payments from clients tied to foreign governments including Russia and Turkey, US officials briefed on the matter have told CNN.
> The Flynn inquiry is one piece of the broader investigation, which FBI Director James Comey testified in a Senate hearing last week is led jointly by the Alexandria US Attorney's Office and the Justice Department's National Security Division.
> Flynn was forced to resign as Trump's national security advisor in February after failing to disclose the nature of phone discussions with Russia's ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak.
> Congressional investigators have also accused Flynn of possibly breaking the law by not properly disclosing a $45,000 payment for an appearance he made at an event in Moscow to celebrate Russia Today. The Russian government-funded news outlet that US intelligence agencies say played a key role in disseminating stolen emails intended to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
> Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, has said that Flynn was not hiding anything, noting that he briefed the DIA on his trip to Russia.
> "As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of DoD, extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings," Kelner said in a statement
> In March, Flynn's lobbying firm registered as a foreign agent for the Turkish government, under a $500,000 contract.
> Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, emerged in 2015 as a strident critic of the Obama administration, which fired him. He built a close relationship last year with then-candidate Trump and became a frequent Trump campaign surrogate before assuming a brief tenure as national security advisor.
> US Attorney Dana Boente, whose office issued the subpoenas, is also leading the investigation into WikiLeaks and the effort to bring possible charges against the group's founder, Julian Assange. Boente is also acting as head of the Justice Department's national security section.
> The FBI interviewed Flynn about the December calls with Kislyak and determined that he wasn't intentionally trying to be deceptive about the nature of what was discussed, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. But investigators have been investigating Flynn's business ties after he left the government and before he joined the Trump administration.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862105409053708288Ummmmm


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Absolutely agree with that, what did you expect me to defend Slick Willy?
> 
> With his violent serial rapist tendencies he was more suited to a powerful position in the Catholic Church I'm sure you'll agree.


The only problem with that plan is slick willy likes women not tween boys


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Trump using his own head of private security, longtime aide Keith Schiller, to simply deliver his boss's letter of termination for Comey, is rather dismissive and disrespectful toward Comey; granted, it is entirely consistent with the way private corporations tend to terminate people, but it will doubtless compel the raising of eyebrows around Washington, D.C.


I fail to see how this is a negative, my friend. :lol

I was hoping he'd have done more disrespectful shit to these clowns and mobsters by now than he has.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I fail to see how this is a negative, my friend. :lol
> 
> I was hoping he'd have done more disrespectful shit to these clowns and mobsters by now than he has.


Seeing the Democrats and their media allies drone on and on about Russia and Donald Trump may have changed my perspective since that posting. Was fully expecting the way in which Comey was fired to become a hot talking point but instead it's almost entirely forced associations with Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre," which is just sort of sad.

The way a number of U.S. courts misbehave, though, it would not exactly shock to see the Ninth Circuit or some other court declare that this president's firing of the FBI Director, who serves as the president's pleasure, is somehow unconstitutional or something. I am only mostly joking.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey was a dick, but the way he was fired? Pathetic.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16254/there-are-only-two-theories-why-trump-fired-comey-ben-shapiro



> With President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, the political world has exploded into wild accusations and counter-accusations of corruption and bias. Amidst all the hubbub, the “why” behind Comey’s firing boils down to two theories. Only one can be correct. If it’s the first theory, Trump did the right thing and Democrats are using the firing to make political hay in scurrilous fashion. If it’s the second, Trump may be on his way to impeachment.
> 
> Theory #1: Trump Fired Comey For Incompetence. This is the most obvious answer as to why Comey was fired. Multiple letters from administration members suggest that Trump was told over and over again that Comey needed to go. That’s for a variety of reasons (less than a week ago, I called for Comey’s firing myself).
> 
> 1. Comey never should have issued his July 2016 exoneration of Hillary Clinton. If he thought she shouldn’t be prosecuted, he should have made that recommendation and shut up. Instead, he felt the necessity to protect Attorney General Loretta Lynch and supposedly the FBI, and so he spilled the beans on the myriad reasons she should have been prosecuted, demonstrated that he had rewritten the law to protect Hillary, and then let her off the hook. This necessitated Comey appearing before Congress to explain himself, and pledging to keep them updated.
> 
> 2. Comey issued the infamous October 28 letter informing Congress that the FBI had uncovered new emails in the Anthony Weiner investigation. The letter itself was a bombshell that rocked the Hillary campaign just days out from a presidential election. Comey then rushed the turnaround so that he could exonerate her again a couple of days before the election, but according to the Democrats, Comey was now responsible for electing Trump.
> 
> 3. Comey appeared before Congress to explain himself, and instead made an ass of himself. He even misstated the evidence regarding Huma Abedin, necessitating that the FBI inform Congress.
> 
> In short, Comey had lost both the trust of the Trump administration and the trust of the public. There was no reason not to fire him. That’s what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated in his letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for Comey’s firing: “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken…The FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.”
> 
> Theory #2: Trump Fired Comey To Stop The Russia Investigation. Then there’s the alternative theory: Trump knows that he’s connected to the Russian election manipulation, and he’s afraid that Comey would have gotten to the bottom of it. To kill the investigation, he offed Comey. This is the case the Democrats are making today, calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. Idiots like Bill De Blasio of New York are saying that this is Nixonian, a sort of soft Saturday Night Massacre. Democrats are universally condemning Comey’s firing, even though just days ago they were calling for it. That’s hypocrisy and dirty politics, of course. And Trump hasn’t named an interim director (the current guy below Comey is apparently a Democrat) or said that the investigation will be shut down — at the very least, it will be difficult for him to ram through a patsy who will kill the investigation at this point.
> 
> With that said, here’s the Democrats’ strongest case that something fishy is going on.
> 
> 1. The timing of the firing is weird. They’re stating that Trump could have fired Comey for his election conduct right after he took office. This is obviously correct. The counterargument, that Attorney General Sessions recused himself from the Trump-Russia investigation and that Rosenstein was only confirmed in his position 13 days ago, is belied by the fact that Sessions himself weighed in on Comey’s firing, stating, “Based on my evaluation, and for the reasons expressed by the Deputy Attorney General in the attached memorandum, I have concluded that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI.”
> 
> 2. Trump won’t shut up about Russia. The firing comes the day after Trump tweeted incessantly about the Trump-Russia investigation and openly called for it to be shut down. He also changed the header on his Twitter account to deny any collusion with Russia, an odd move to say the least. And then he dropped this line in his letter firing Comey, which smacks of "the lady doth protest too much":
> 
> While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
> 
> 3. Trump fired Comey the day after the left latched onto former acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ testimony pinning all the Democrats’ Trump-Russia conspiracy theories on the FBI investigation. Trump had tweeted out the testimony of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said he had no information linking the Trump campaign to collusion with Russia; Yates immediately stated that Clapper wasn’t in the loop on the FBI investigation. It all comes down to the FBI investigation for the Left, and Trump just fired the director in charge of the investigation.
> 
> Trump isn’t going to appoint a special prosecutor. Not the day after he tweeted this:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861713823505494016
> That means this situation will continue to boil, Congress will continue to probe, and Trump will continue to fulminate. At the very least, this is the most amazing season of The Apprentice yet.


Great analysis of the Comey firing from Shapiro looking at the two most likely reasons why he was dismissed.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The incompetence of Comey would have been the best reason for Trump to keep him on the job so the firing makes little sense if Trump feared the outcome of the Russia conspiracy theory.

The same person who's lambasting him for incompetence is claiming that that suddenly won't happen in a Trump investigation is making a contradictory claim.

Shapiro is essentially a never Trumper so of course he's looking for an anti Trump angle in this without any substance whatsoever.

Shapiro while generally smarter than the average person has been consistently wrong since he went never Trump so I have very little confidence in his musings about anything related to Trump.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Let's wait and see who he appoints/if he appoints someone as special investigator before jumping to conclusions, but as others have noted, firing someone who is investigating you is a poor look, especially when your stated reason is something you've known about for literally months and seemingly not cared about until now.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The incompetence of Comey would have been the best reason for Trump to keep him on the job so the firing makes little sense if Trump feared the outcome of the Russia conspiracy theory.
> 
> The same person who's lambasting him for incompetence is claiming that that suddenly won't happen in a Trump investigation is making a contradictory claim.
> 
> Shapiro is essentially a never Trumper so of course he's looking for an anti Trump angle in this without any substance whatsoever.
> 
> Shapiro while generally smarter than the average person has been consistently wrong since he went never Trump so I have very little confidence in his musings about anything related to Trump.


Shapiro has been far more open minded about Trump than the average though. He's praised him and criticized him when its warranted. He's making the claim that there's no collusion between Russia and Trump because there's no actual proof behind it, especially seeing as even Democrats slowly have begun to admit that so he's essentially "on board" with it. Remember, he's a lawyer so he's not about convicting someone without proof.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Shapiro vocally dislikes Trump both as a politician and a person, and thinks there were hundreds of better candidates to represent the conservative party, considering trump doesn't stand for many of the fundamental conservative principals. 

But he was never a never-trumper. He despised Hillary and Bernie much, much worse. That in itself prevents him from being a never-trumper. He may not have voted the guy, but he's not seeking out his impeachment either. He's a political commentator, he comments about politics, and this would fall squarely into that. He's not predicting one theory over the other, but (unlike many other partisan commentators who would only bring up their one and only view) he wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't comment about both possibilities. 

But there are actually things he likes about Trump as well. He actually runs a segment of "Good Trump Bad Trump" to highlight those things.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

They wanted Comey fired back in October and are now faking outrage when he finally gets canned. Liberals, get fu**ed!

- Vic


----------



## DELETE

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> They wanted Comey fired back in October and are now faking outrage when he finally gets canned. Liberals, get fu**ed!
> 
> - Vic


Yea lets just accept that ladys word without any proof.



Im not a politic junkie like yall are but even I can see that was utter and complete bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL at Trump fans who loved Comey are now talking shit about him and cheering him being fired because they know he was getting close to nailing Trump

Like that will even matter, this is watergate 2.0


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ya'll Trump shills continue to look funny in the light. If Comey was not investigating Trump-Russia connections, then Democrats wouldn't care if Trump fired Comey. 

Trump and the DOJ thought they could use Clinton as reasons for termination thinking it would fly with Democrats and have no political blowback, but everyone with common sense and no delusions knows those are BS reasons since Trump approved of what Comey did to Clinton the campaign.

So since Democrats and anyone with a brain knows its BS and won't fall for it, the spin from Trump and his blind ass supporters becomes "lol liberals/democrats for being butthurt now but calling for his head during the campaign." 

No, the problem is the timing of all of this is suspect as hell. In a regular situation you could argue that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You just fired the person that's in charge of investigating your people and possibly you.

Enough. This delusional shit is getting out of hand. You can be a Conservative. You can be a Republican. But you don't have to be blind. It's foolish.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at Trump fans who loved Comey are now talking shit about him and cheering him being fired because they know he was getting close to nailing Trump
> 
> Like that will even matter, this is watergate 2.0


*Well it's not like Comey would be the only person who knew what was going on in the investigation. If Comey was close to anything then more people know what he knew. It's not like Comey was silenced by just having him fired. *


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It is shady. Simply put tbh, if it was about his inability to lead the FBI in Trump's eyes, or Sessions' eyes, then they should've just waited until the investigation was finished and they were found to have not colluded with Russia. The fact they didn't wait does not look good at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *Well it's not like Comey would be the only person who knew what was going on in the investigation. If Comey was close to anything then more people know what he knew. It's not like Comey was silenced by just having him fired. *


I know that and you know that and most people know that but Trump is desperate. Nixon did the same thing thinking it would silence watergate but it made it worse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oxi X.O. said:


> It is shady. Simply put tbh, if it was about his inability to lead the FBI in Trump's eyes, or Sessions' eyes, then they should've just waited until the investigation was finished and they were found to have not colluded with Russia. The fact they didn't wait does not look good at all.


If this is over Russia then Sessions should not even have had a say in this since he was supposed to recuse himself from anything related to Russia. So if to does come out this firing had to do with Russia, Sessions is done too and not just Trump.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I know that and you know that and most people know that but Trump is desperate. Nixon did the same thing thinking it would silence watergate but it made it worse.


*Or maybe that's not the reason he was fired. :draper2

When you're the head of the FBI you are not going out to do the investigations yourself. Firing Comey does absolutely NOTHING to hinder any current investigation the FBI is doing. *


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *Or maybe that's not the reason he was fired. :draper2
> 
> When you're the head of the FBI you are not going out to do the investigations yourself. Firing Comey does absolutely NOTHING to hinder any current investigation the FBI is doing. *


But Trump is stupid and does not know what.

And the reason that me that streams its the reason why he was fired is because Trump put in that letter to Comey, oh thank you for telling me 3 times I was not being investigated.

Why would Trump put that in a letter firing someone?

Trump must think they are getting close and that is why he fired Comey.

And Like I said we know that but Trump is dumb and doesn't. He did not even know he could just ask the FBI if Obama bugged him during the primaries. He had to go cry about it in an interview.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *Well it's not like Comey would be the only person who knew what was going on in the investigation. If Comey was close to anything then more people know what he knew. It's not like Comey was silenced by just having him fired. *


That's what I'm thinking. I saw something about how he was or will be required to speak in court soon? That will still be the case, job or no. Firing won't make him forget what he's seen, nor will it disincentivise him to speak the truth.

That's why I'm sceptical of the conspiracy theories. It is SO obvious, and has only drawn attention to the FBI/Russia proceedings. Trump would have fucked him with a lot more finesse if that was what he was truly after.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> That's what I'm thinking. I saw something about how he was or will be required to speak in court soon? That will still be the case, job or no. Firing won't make him forget what he's seen, nor will it disincentivise him to speak the truth.
> 
> That's why I'm sceptical of the conspiracy theories. It is SO obvious, and has only drawn attention to the FBI/Russia proceedings. Trump would have fucked him with a lot more finesse if that was what he was truly after.


So why did NIxon do basically the same thing during watergate?

You dont find it odd the three of the people who were heading up the Trump invitations on Russia were all fired? Yates, Bharara, and now Comey?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



















My how times have changed


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> My how times have changed


LOL but you dont point out how Trump was praising Comey for what he did to Hillary now changes his tune and fires him.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So why did NIxon do basically the same thing during watergate?
> 
> You dont find it odd the three of the people who were heading up the Trump invitations on Russia were all fired? Yates, Bharara, and now Comey?


*And what exactly do you think this accomplishes for Trump and the Russia investigation? The agents that are doing the actual investigations are still doing that right? 

I get the conspiracy theory here and there could be something to it. But I thought conspiracy theories and those that shout them from the top of the mountain are supposed to be laughed at and pointed at these days. Or are conspiracy theories OK as long as it's your side of the party doing them? 

Do I find it shady? Yeah it seems that way but I'm patient and not going to put on my tinfoil hat just yet.*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL but you dont point out how Trump was praising Comey for what he did to Hillary now changes his tune and fires him.


:lol You see, I don't actually care though. Back then, I didn't really talk about Comey and his investigations into Hillary, didn't care about him being fired or him being the greatest FBI director of all time. Bernie Sanders wanted him to resign and Chuck Schumer said he had no confidence in him, now both are outraged he's gone and act like they've backed him since day 1. 

The massive difference you seem to be missing is that Trump is president and what he did was perfectly legal. Trump has poor timing on things in the past and he should have waited until the investigation was over. Seeing as if the investigation turns out that there's no evidence, people like you will whine about a cover up, even though nothing has come up and even democrats have started to admit defeat.

You got what you wanted, fuel for the next 4 years to complain about Donald Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *And what exactly do you think this accomplishes for Trump and the Russia investigation? The agents that are doing the actual investigations are still doing that right?
> 
> I get the conspiracy theory here and there could be something to it. But I thought conspiracy theories and those that shout them from the top of the mountain are supposed to be laughed at and pointed at these days. Or are conspiracy theories OK as long as it's your side of the party doing them?
> 
> Do I find it shady? Yeah it seems that way but I'm patient and not going to put on my tinfoil hat just yet.*


Was it a conspiracy when Nixon fired the AG because he knew he was getting close to busting him?





Stinger Fan said:


> :lol You see, I don't actually care though. Back then, I didn't really talk about Comey and his investigations into Hillary, didn't care about him being fired or him being the greatest FBI director of all time. Bernie Sanders wanted him to resign and Chuck Schumer said he had no confidence in him, now both are outraged he's gone and act like they've backed him since day 1.
> 
> The massive difference you seem to be missing is that Trump is president and what he did was perfectly legal. Trump has poor timing on things in the past and he should have waited until the investigation was over. Seeing as if the investigation turns out that there's no evidence, people like you will whine about a cover up, even though nothing has come up and even democrats have started to admit defeat.
> 
> You got what you wanted, fuel for the next 4 years to complain about Donald Trump


And it was perfectly legal for NIxon to fire the AG but we all know how that turned out.

And please there are plenty of things to complain about Trump for until he gets impeached than just this.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Was it a conspiracy when Nixon fired the AG because he knew he was getting close to busting him?



*Is everything Alex Jones says valid because every now and then he hits on a conspiracy theory that's true? One never validates or invalidates another. Time will tell here. Like I said, I'm patient. You all know how much I hate Trump but I like to be fair and not shout shit because I'm not on his team. I hope this bites him in the ass. But I can wait for that and be fair in the meantime.

Patience young grasshoppa :maisie*


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL but you dont point out how Trump was praising Comey for what he did to Hillary now changes his tune and fires him.


That's true tbh

In general, both sides have flipped and flopped and flopped and flipped in regards to Comey. Even in public opinion, look no further than Colbert's intro monologue last night announcing Trump fired Comey; he announces it and got a Road Warrior pop from a crowd full of libs. Colbert was gobsmacked, but what did he expect? The last time Comey was relevant to these people was him (in their mind) costing Hillary the election. 

IMO it's more reasonable to believe he was fired because it was a long time coming and not because "MUH RUSSIA." Fact of the matter is if something comes of this Russia investigation it would happen with or without James Comey. The intelligence they have gathered didn't just vanish with Comey and going forward they will continue to find whatever there is to find.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *Is everything Alex Jones says valid because every now and then he hits on a conspiracy theory that's true? One never validates or invalidates another. Time will tell here. Like I said, I'm patient. You all know how much I hate Trump but I like to be fair and not shout shit because I'm not on his team. I hope this bites him in the ass. But I can wait for that and be fair in the meantime.
> 
> Patience young grasshoppa :maisie*


ITs apples and oranges to compare this to Alex Jones

There are so many parallels with what went on with Nixon and what is going on with Trump. that is apples to apples.

Timing is everything and the timing of the firing of people like Yates, Bharara and now Comey are all red flags


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And it was perfectly legal for NIxon to fire the AG but we all know how that turned out.
> 
> And please there are plenty of things to complain about Trump for until he gets impeached than just this.


They're not the same by any means. Nixon and L.Patrick Gray were actually destroying documents and evidence to cover up water gate, it took Mark Felt who had actual evidence to put a stop to it. You're going onto next level Alex Jones conspiracy theories suggesting they're even remotely the same. 

You can stomp your feet and "resist" all you like but its very doubtful Trump gets impeached anytime soon


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*There are alot of red flags in all conspiracy theories, BM. That's what fuels conspiracy theories. Doesn't make them true or untrue. But what you are claiming here is a conspiracy. There's no two ways around that.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> They're not the same by any means. Nixon and L.Patrick Gray were actually destroying documents and evidence to cover up water gate, it took Mark Felt who had actual evidence to put a stop to it. You're going onto next level Alex Jones conspiracy theories suggesting they're even remotely the same.
> 
> You can stomp your feet and "resist" all you like but its very doubtful Trump gets impeached anytime soon


Keep ignoring all the Trump and Trump admin ties to Russia. We have been over this before. You can deny it all you want, doesn't mean its not there.




AryaDark said:


> *There are alot of red flags in all conspiracy theories, BM. That's what fuels conspiracy theories. Doesn't make them true or untrue. But what you are claiming here is a conspiracy. There's no two ways around that.*


And that's why you investigate them. Oh but Trump keeps firing the people that are doing that.

We will see how it plays out but I think we can both agree that what this really needs is a truly independent investigation so the truth will come out. To either clear Trump or do find a real connection to Russia aka a smoking gun. Because we all know if Trump puts in some lacky like Chris Christie or someone that is buddies with Trump, that if that person claims there is no smoking gun, even if that is true, a lot of people are not going to believe it.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

#LITERALLYNIXON


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring all the Trump and Trump admin ties to Russia. We have been over this before. You can deny it all you want, doesn't mean its not there.












And yet, no proof of anything .


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Shapiro released a never Trumper statement before the elections. He's since simply been trying to appear rational in order to maintain his conservative audience. I haven't taken him seriously on Trump since.

He also had some massive gleeful moments during the Rachel Madcow release which reminded me that as a never Trumper he is essentially waiting for Trump to fail and fail bigly. I have no confidence in his SO called impartiality on anything Trump related.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Anti-Trump celebrities and several media outlets have foolishly used their platform to spew hate for President Donald Trump. The decision to put politics ahead of the best interest of their business has been ethically misguided and flat out stupid. This move has isolated and offended millions of Americans and certain outlets are now paying a hefty price for this misstep. We’re currently witnessing the slow death of leftist Trump-hating media outlets ranging from Us Weekly, ESPN and CNN to the Hollywood careers of previously beloved stars such as Amy Schumer and Shia LaBeouf. As their burial plots are getting deeper, entertainers and members of the Trump friendly alternative media are flourishing, and this phenomenon will only grow.
> 
> Well over a month ago, a Hollywood insider told me there’s a big shift going on in the entertainment and media industry. The source said that the industry is looking to produce more patriotic and conservative projects to appeal to Trump supporters and more conservative news outlets will pop up. At the same time, the industry is going to distance themselves from divisive celebrities who have publicly trashed Trump in a vulgar manner such as Meryl Streep, Shia LaBeouf and Amy Schumer. As my source predicted, the backlash has begun. Schumer recently announced that she dropped out as the lead star in the “Barbie” movie due to alleged “scheduling conflicts”. LaBeouf ‘s – who started a hate-filled anti-Trump campaign with a livestream video titled He Will Not Divide Us – new thriller “Man Down” literally only sold one ticket at a U.K. box office earlier this month.
> 
> “At the end of the day, the movie executives and producers in Hollywood who supported Hillary Clinton still need to make money,” the insider explained. “The dollar is still important so they are not going to take a risk alienating a large audience simply because a star like Meryl Streep wants to mouth off and disrespect President Trump. The celebrities who chose to attack Trump over the past year – it’s starting to bite them in the ass now and they are receiving less movie offers.”
> 
> For years conservatives in Hollywood have refrained from expressing their political viewpoints since so many have been blacklisted from projects because of their beliefs. Conservatives can now breathe a sigh of relief because the stigma is changing. While so many actors in Hollywood spent awards season this year trashing Trump, singer Joy Villa boldly spoke out in support of Trump on the Grammy’s red carpet wearing a make America great again-themed dress. Her risky decision instantly paid off. She gained over 150K followers on her collective social media accounts, her album I Make The Static went to no. 1 on iTunes and Amazon and she’s been approached with several offers including film roles.
> 
> 
> Sponsored Links by
> “So many doors have opened for me since I’ve come out as a Trump supporter,” Villa told the Observer. “I’ve got acting things lined up, a feature film and several TV show appearances. I’m getting sent scripts to read every day which is a dream come true.” Villa adds that there are a lot more Trump supporters in Hollywood than people realize. “I found out there are a lot more pro-Trump people than anyone thought, even in the entertainment industry. They are just private about it.”
> 
> As Villa flourishes, anti-Trump publications such as Us Weekly have crumbled. I worked for the entertainment magazine as a reporter for years during both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations. The magazine during that time was apolitical. If Obama or Bush were featured, it was always a fluff piece or pictorial with no political agenda. However, Us Weekly’s longtime policy to stay away from pushing a political agenda drastically changed in 2016. I was shocked and utterly disgusted to see how many of their stories were hit jobs and low blow attacks on Trump and his associates.
> 
> For example, last summer Us Weekly posted an article suggesting that talk show host Laura Ingraham made a Nazi salute after she spoke at the Republican National Convention. Ingraham is a Christian woman, an advocate for the troops, a cancer survivor and the single mother to three adopted children. Yet, Us Weekly casted her as a Nazi. People expressed their outrage for Us Weekly’s vitriol toward Trump and his surrogates in the comments section on their social media pages. I knew then that if they continued on this destructive path of irresponsible and agenda driven journalism, the magazine would crash and burn. Their venom toward Trump did ease up after the election. They featured Trump and his family on multiple covers in a more fair and positive light – which were some of their bestselling covers of the year — but by then it was too late because the damage was done.
> 
> Us Weekly suffered a roughly 30 percent decline in newsstand sales in the second half of 2016 from the same period a year earlier, according to The New York Times. As a result, it was announced earlier this month that Us Weekly’s parent company, Wenner Media, sold the failing publication to American Media. This is a microcosm of what’s happening with many mainstream media outlets that have relentlessly spread lies and trashed Trump over the past year and pushed a far left PC agenda instead of fulfilling their duty of reporting the news objectively.
> 
> This trend is affecting the entire anti-Trump leftist media such as CNN, The New York Times and even ESPN. The CNN can’t send a crew anywhere without crowds gathering around them chanting “CNN sucks” as they did at Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania the other night. The New York Times issued an apology after the election for their sloppy reporting. As Trump has pointed out, CNN and MSNBC have seen a ratings drop since the election while Fox News Channel broke a ratings record the first quarter of 2017. ESPN is suffering the effect of pushing a far left radical political agenda during the election as well. The network announced last week they’re laying off 100 employees.
> 
> The mainstream media only seems to do well these days when they feature pro-Trump members — usually in an attempt to make them look bad — of the alternative media such as Mike Cernovich and Milo Yiannopoulos. For instance, 60 Minutes featured Cernovich recently and for the first time possibly ever, the show trended on Twitter and won the ratings battle in that timeslot. It was the show’s first ratings win in almost ten years. Yiannopoulos, the wildly popular former Breitbart tech editor, just announced that he’s launching a new $12 million media company. The star power of conservative media personalities and even right-leaning Hollywood stars will continue to rise as the leftist media continues to dig their own graves deeper if they stay the course.
> 
> “Conservatism is the new counterculture. It’s becoming in vogue again to be a good girl and boy, to love God and country, and be polite and smile,” Villa said.
> 
> She might be on to something!


http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/how-the-trump-movement-is-killing-hollywood-the-media/


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What's this shit about all these Trump supporters supposedly loving James Comey all of a sudden? :lol Pretty sure he's disliked by both sides pretty heavily. Trump supporters hate him because he had a great case on Hillary Clinton and clearly explained how she was guilty in his press statement only to then not recommend indictment. He let her get away with it. Fuck him.

Democrats hate him because they have hallucinated that he cost her the election, because that fits their worldview better than Hillary being a terrible candidate and Donald Trump being a master persuader. :aryep 

He was way too political and kept making foolish public statements. He had to go.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862350279618027520


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> And yet, no proof of anything .


Comey was asking for more money to get more proof and he was even set to testify about Russia tomorrow, then Trump just happens to fire him .


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You have to be special to believe a 9 month investigation against a widely disliked president has anything, ANYTHING on him. 

Those fuckers would spill the beans on what trump ate for breakfast if it would damage him.

Trumps clean, or they would have leaked it by now.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862350279618027520


And he has no reason to defend Trump. When actual liberals are saying enough is enough, its time the stop. Those who keep pushing this narrative are shooting their credibility in the foot.

And at this point the Democrats are like Smegal in regards to Comey

"We hates Comey." "No we loves Comey"


----------



## Stinger Fan

amhlilhaus said:


> You have to be special to believe a 9 month investigation against a widely disliked president has anything, ANYTHING on him.
> 
> Those fuckers would spill the beans on what trump ate for breakfast if it would damage him.
> 
> Trumps clean, or they would have leaked it by now.


 I've felt similar, they would rather have Mike Pence over Trump if they truly could. The thing that I don't understand is if Trump is clean why isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't a president who isn't compromised be a positive? Guess not.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

one consideration is a new director of the FBI is maybe the only way for people to accept the investigation into MUH RUSSIA ending whether that end includes charges or not

if comey were still there whichever side didnt get the way it wanted would instantly start shouting well this is bullshit we dont accept because THAT ASSHOLE COMEY


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I've felt similar, they would rather have Mike Pence over Trump if they truly could. The thing that I don't understand is if Trump is clean why isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't a president who isn't compromised be a positive? Guess not.


They don't like Trump. They want him to fail so they would be in a position to either put someone in who is easier to control or gearing up to put on of their own in power


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

i see the usual suspect :trump fanbois on twitter are all like omg comey didnt know he was going to be fired, his sources have been compromised and the leaks will end! 4d chess yall

silliness


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Comey was asking for more money to get more proof and he was even set to testify about Russia tomorrow, then Trump just happens to fire him .


He can still testify after being fired.


I had to ragequit after watching Maddow for like a minute. She's all Comey was going to testify...now he's fired. :lmao Rachel he can still testify he's not dead.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Ya'll Trump shills continue to look funny in the light. If Comey was not investigating Trump-Russia connections, then Democrats wouldn't care if Trump fired Comey.
> 
> Trump and the DOJ thought they could use Clinton as reasons for termination thinking it would fly with Democrats and have no political blowback, but everyone with common sense and no delusions knows those are BS reasons since Trump approved of what Comey did to Clinton the campaign.
> 
> So since Democrats and anyone with a brain knows its BS and won't fall for it, the spin from Trump and his blind ass supporters becomes "lol liberals/democrats for being butthurt now but calling for his head during the campaign."
> 
> No, the problem is the timing of all of this is suspect as hell. In a regular situation you could argue that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You just fired the person that's in charge of investigating your people and possibly you.
> 
> Enough. This delusional shit is getting out of hand. You can be a Conservative. You can be a Republican. But you don't have to be blind. It's foolish.


Sounds good but then you realize the FBI would have to be hiding evidence from congress for it to be true

So when it comes to blind delusion the belief that MUH RUSSIA is anything but a witch hunt wins the prize

9 months and they haven't found shit or they're hiding shit theyve found from the senate and house intelligence committees

It's valerie plame all over again. Some mid level nobody will be charged for some bullshit unconnected to the original allegations and it will be treated as a validation of every dumb smear made


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's greatest feat is turning liberals into mini-Alex Jones'


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Sounds good but then you realize the FBI would have to be hiding evidence from congress for it to be true
> 
> So when it comes to blind delusion the belief that MUH RUSSIA is anything but a witch hunt wins the prize
> 
> 9 months and they haven't found shit or they're hiding shit theyve found from the senate and house intelligence committees
> 
> It's valerie plame all over again. Some mid level nobody will be charged for some bullshit unconnected to the original allegations and it will be treated as a validation of every dumb smear made


The investigation is ongoing. If nothing comes up, great. But nobody knows right now.

The news that Congress asked Comey to speed up the investigation, and Comey asked DOJ for more resources for the investigation (DOJ denies this but I don't believe them) then he's suddenly fired sounds suspect. 

Then whoever is appointed as the new FBI director is going to have the label of being Trump's puppet that's just there to diminish, close or change the investigation in Trump's favor. For example, changing the direction from Russia and possible Trump connects, to leaks that Trump has been complaining about. 

While the lower level FBI guys are still going to do their day to day work, the FBI director ultimately decides what's done with the findings.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The liberals calling President Trump an idiot are the same ones convinced he masterminded an elaborate conspiracy with Russia. :lol

They can't have it both ways. 



> You have to be special to believe a 9 month investigation against a widely disliked president has anything, ANYTHING on him.
> 
> Those fuckers would spill the beans on what trump ate for breakfast if it would damage him.
> 
> Trumps clean, or they would have leaked it by now.


The same with his tax returns.

- Vic


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Shapiro has been far more open minded about Trump than the average though. He's praised him and criticized him when its warranted. He's making the claim that there's no collusion between Russia and Trump because there's no actual proof behind it, especially seeing as even Democrats slowly have begun to admit that so he's essentially "on board" with it. Remember, he's a lawyer so he's not about convicting someone without proof.


Shapiro has gone out of his way to give Trump credit for things he's done right, but most of the time he digs at Trump saying that his actions are a result of being fortunate, rather than giving Trump credit for making a smart move. I listen to Shapiro every day, and I like Shapiro a lot, but his first reaction is always to claim Trump isn't smart and only settles on him being smart if there isn't an explanation otherwise.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I've felt similar, they would rather have Mike Pence over Trump if they truly could. The thing that I don't understand is if Trump is clean why isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't a president who isn't compromised be a positive? Guess not.


He'd be dead by now if he had recommended Clinton be indicted.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Shapiro has gone out of his way to give Trump credit for things he's done right, but most of the time he digs at Trump saying that his actions are a result of being fortunate, rather than giving Trump credit for making a smart move. I listen to Shapiro every day, and I like Shapiro a lot, but his first reaction is always to claim Trump isn't smart and only settles on him being smart if there isn't an explanation otherwise.


Yup. Not that I mind someone having the "Trump is a jackass" stance, but it's not something I'd expect from someone who claims emotion-less impartiality as Shapiro. He's been wrong on so many counts since he went never Trump that I lost track and that means he's biased/prejudiced/emotional when it comes to Trump.

Here are a list of things I remember him being wrong about: 

1. He predicted that Trump will lose the general election
2. He stood by the false and unreliable polling data till the very end
3. Trump is an establishment creation (the keyword here is creation). What has happened since is that Trump has supported establishment neocons, but nowhere is there any reasonable reason to believe that Trump was an establishment creation at all. 
4. He predicted that Trump will highly likely not pick a conservative judge for the SC. 
5. Once Gorsuch was confirmed, he weaseled out of that by claiming the conservatives (which obviously remained un-named) into _pressuring _Trump into giving us Gorsuch as though magically he had knowledge that Trump wanted to put in someone else. 
6. He said that Trump would go back on his ban muslims agenda (in fact it was one of the first things he tried to do and was blocked)
7. Here's a quote from one of his articles

"And no, Trump won’t shut the border, fight the war on terror properly, or deport massive number of illegal immigrants. It just isn’t happening. If you believe Trump will do all those things, you’re being played."

Trump within the first few months of his presidency has managed to bring down illegal immigration as well as upped deportation. Shapiro looks like an ass on this one. 
Trump has given his military a little more freedom in trying to fight terror - (I oppose some of the ways he's doing it), but I will give him credit for trying. Shapiro was going with the easiest possible prediction here (low hanging fruit) because we all know that a war on terror is a complex beast

Shapiro has been spending all of his time trying to justify how Trump is that horrible president and taking credit away from things he's actually done and putting them up as "he HAD to do it" or "he got lucky" or some other asinine cooked up bullshit. 

Yeah. Shapiro's been a complete and utter hack on Trump and there's not much credibility there at this point imo.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yup. Not that I mind someone having the "Trump is a jackass" stance, but it's not something I'd expect from someone who claims emotion-less impartiality as Shapiro. He's been wrong on so many counts that I lost track and that means he's biased/prejudiced/emotional when it comes to Trump.


I'm fine with his stance on Trump because he's so GD smart when it comes to everything else political, but Trump is a different animal altogether and it really take someone like a Trump to make even the smartest of people look foolish. That being said, I listen to Shapiro and I also force myself to watch Maddow, I watch Carlson, and I force myself to watch Hannity. It's best to get opinions from all spectrums if ideology.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm fine with his stance on Trump because he's so GD smart when it comes to everything else political, but Trump is a different animal altogether and it really take someone like a Trump to make even the smartest of people look foolish. That being said, I listen to Shapiro and I also force myself to watch Maddow, I watch Carlson, and I force myself to watch Hannity. It's best to get opinions from all spectrums if ideology.


Hannity has always been irrelevant to me in a sea of big government conservatives that I really don't gain anything of value from the one or two times I have bothered to waste time on him. 

Madcow is essentially done. Haven't bothered checking on her bullshit since the Tax fiasco. 

I don't listen to Carlson, but he shows up in my youtube recommended so I'll give him a sporadic listen once in a while. 

Here are my regular sources of infotainment at the moment: 

- Unbiased America (Kevin Ryan)
- We are Capitalists (Facebook page)
- Stefan Molyneaux 
- Ann Coulter
- Dinesh D' Souza (he basically directs me towards the most negative news about democrats so I use him as a starting point)
- Rita Panahi (She's an Irani-aussie journalist)
- Steven Crowder
- Kimberly Korban (pro-gun activist)
- The Rebel
- CNN International (not local because that's shit)
- Scott Adams

From the left, I've found DeFranco to be an interesting new entrant into rational commentary. Other than that it's usually just stuff that shows up after it's already been debunked by one of my sources.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> He'd be dead by now if he had recommended Clinton be indicted.


Check your cognitive dissonance at the door? :troll


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oh and sorry for the double-post, but damn this Bernie Sanders is a complete and utter moronic tool ... or he has alzhiemers. Take your pick:



> (ML) Bernie Sanders forgets that he is part of the reason the 60 vote threshold no longer exists, having voted to do away with it in 2013...


What a moron :kobelol

Also, democrats on Comey: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862466855700541440
I guess now everyone should be happy, right? 

I feel for Comey. The single most hated man on the planet right. Probably even surpasses Trump since BOTH dems and repubs hate him :lmao


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862460991451344896
:trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yup. Not that I mind someone having the "Trump is a jackass" stance, but it's not something I'd expect from someone who claims emotion-less impartiality as Shapiro. He's been wrong on so many counts since he went never Trump that I lost track and that means he's biased/prejudiced/emotional when it comes to Trump.
> 
> Here are a list of things I remember him being wrong about:
> 
> 1. He predicted that Trump will lose the general election
> 2. He stood by the false and unreliable polling data till the very end
> 3. Trump is an establishment creation (the keyword here is creation). What has happened since is that Trump has supported establishment neocons, but nowhere is there any reasonable reason to believe that Trump was an establishment creation at all.
> 4. He predicted that Trump will highly likely not pick a conservative judge for the SC.
> 5. Once Gorsuch was confirmed, he weaseled out of that by claiming the conservatives (which obviously remained un-named) into _pressuring _Trump into giving us Gorsuch as though magically he had knowledge that Trump wanted to put in someone else.
> 6. He said that Trump would go back on his ban muslims agenda (in fact it was one of the first things he tried to do and was blocked)
> 7. Here's a quote from one of his articles
> 
> "And no, Trump won’t shut the border, fight the war on terror properly, or deport massive number of illegal immigrants. It just isn’t happening. If you believe Trump will do all those things, you’re being played."
> 
> Trump within the first few months of his presidency has managed to bring down illegal immigration as well as upped deportation. Shapiro looks like an ass on this one.
> Trump has given his military a little more freedom in trying to fight terror - (I oppose some of the ways he's doing it), but I will give him credit for trying. Shapiro was going with the easiest possible prediction here (low hanging fruit) because we all know that a war on terror is a complex beast
> 
> Shapiro has been spending all of his time trying to justify how Trump is that horrible president and taking credit away from things he's actually done and putting them up as "he HAD to do it" or "he got lucky" or some other asinine cooked up bullshit.
> 
> Yeah. Shapiro's been a complete and utter hack on Trump and there's not much credibility there at this point imo.


To be fair, a lot of people were wrong about Trump :lol 

Shapiro doesn't like Trump, thats for sure but he considers himself a conservative , while he doesn't really consider Trump one . Which isn't exactly far from the truth even though, I do think Trump is doing some positive things and taking steps in the right direction with the Republicans (Like holding the gay pride flag), but you can see why Shapiro would be more harsh on his criticisms of Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This thread should be titled "Bogus Bernie" now. 

What a tool.



Stinger Fan said:


> To be fair, a lot of people were wrong about Trump :lol
> 
> Shapiro doesn't like Trump, thats for sure but he considers himself a conservative , while he doesn't really consider Trump one . Which isn't exactly far from the truth even though, I do think Trump is doing some positive things and taking steps in the right direction with the Republicans (Like holding the gay pride flag), but you can see why Shapiro would be more harsh on his criticisms of Trump.


Ah. The "not a real conservative" argument. Very ironic considering that the majority of people including Shapiro who call themselves conservatives and rally behind protecting the west from Islam lose their minds when Muslims say that "Terrorists aren't real Muslims". 

See the connection?

This "not a real whatever" argument is emotional, not rational.

I'll listen to Shapiro on just about everything, but with regards to Trump he's a hysterical mess.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862401350453297153
Too bad people can't vote on this because my obvious pick would be Trey Gowdy.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862460991451344896
> :trump


Perfect Trump tweet. Uses his opponents own words against them to devastating effect with no room for rational objection. There is no reasonable way to interpret the left's about-face on Comey other than them being useless partisan hacks. Have to believe Trump has been planning this move for some time. I hope the left continues to underestimate him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL at the Trump supporters in this thread, they have no credibility what so ever pretending they did not know there is media biases and now turning on their hero Ben because he is not giving Trump a tongue bath.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Check your cognitive dissonance at the door? :troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Oh and sorry for the double-post, but damn this Bernie Sanders is a complete and utter moronic tool ... or he has alzhiemers. Take your pick:
> 
> 
> What a moron :kobelol
> 
> Also, democrats on Comey:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862466855700541440
> I guess now everyone should be happy, right?
> 
> I feel for Comey. The single most hated man on the planet right. Probably even surpasses Trump since BOTH dems and repubs hate him :lmao





El Dandy said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862460991451344896
> :trump





CamillePunk said:


> Perfect Trump tweet. Uses his opponents own words against them to devastating effect with no room for rational objection. There is no reasonable way to interpret the left's about-face on Comey other than them being useless partisan hacks. Have to believe Trump has been planning this move for some time. I hope the left continues to underestimate him.





And when did Sanders say this? Back in January. So if he should have stepped down back then or been fired then why did Trump wait so long? Why did Trump wait unti Comey was investigating him and asking for more money to do so?

And lets not forget Trump was saying what a good job Comey did with the whole HIllary thing at one point.

But of course, the hypocritical Trump supporters ignore that.

Even some republicans are saying the timing of Comey getting fired is a little weird and wrong.

Trump supporters and Trump continue to embarrass themselves.

You can think someone should have been fired months ago then questing the timing of when said person is fired 4 months later when it's going to affect the person who fires them. But that type of thinking is too beyond most Trump supporters.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Hannity has always been irrelevant to me in a sea of big government conservatives that I really don't gain anything of value from the one or two times I have bothered to waste time on him.
> 
> Madcow is essentially done. Haven't bothered checking on her bullshit since the Tax fiasco.
> 
> I don't listen to Carlson, but he shows up in my youtube recommended so I'll give him a sporadic listen once in a while.
> 
> Here are my regular sources of infotainment at the moment:
> 
> - Unbiased America (Kevin Ryan)
> - We are Capitalists (Facebook page)
> - Stefan Molyneaux
> - Ann Coulter
> - Dinesh D' Souza (he basically directs me towards the most negative news about democrats so I use him as a starting point)
> - Rita Panahi (She's an Irani-aussie journalist)
> - Steven Crowder
> - Kimberly Korban (pro-gun activist)
> - The Rebel
> - CNN International (not local because that's shit)
> - Scott Adams
> 
> From the left, I've found DeFranco to be an interesting new entrant into rational commentary. Other than that it's usually just stuff that shows up after it's already been debunked by one of my sources.


That's a really good list. I listen to Crowder, Molyneaux, Sargon, Dice, Shapiro, Styxhexenhammer, Sargon, I read Adams, and then I watch CNN and MSNBC as much as I can. I also, cringe, look at HuffPo.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Ya'll Trump shills continue to look funny in the light. If Comey was not investigating Trump-Russia connections, then Democrats wouldn't care if Trump fired Comey.
> 
> Trump and the DOJ thought they could use Clinton as reasons for termination thinking it would fly with Democrats and have no political blowback, but everyone with common sense and no delusions knows those are BS reasons since Trump approved of what Comey did to Clinton the campaign.
> 
> *So since Democrats and anyone with a brain* knows its BS and won't fall for it, the spin from Trump and his blind ass supporters becomes "lol liberals/democrats for being butthurt now but calling for his head during the campaign."
> 
> No, the problem is the timing of all of this is suspect as hell. In a regular situation you could argue that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You just fired the person that's in charge of investigating your people and possibly you.
> 
> Enough. This delusional shit is getting out of hand. *You can be a Conservative. You can be a Republican. But you don't have to be blind.* It's foolish.



"Democrats" and "brains" in the same sentence? Okay then. :lol



And we can have our own points-of-view whether they're "blind" or not, Headliner. :shrug 




(at least I think we can. Can we? :hmmm )


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> "Democrats" and "brains" in the same sentence? Okay then. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> And we can have our own points-of-view whether they're "blind" or not, Headliner. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (at least I think we can. Can we? :hmmm )


What is your point of view on this? 
You really don't think there is something wrong or weird about the timing of Comey's firing? You don't even question Trumps real motives?

If it really was over the way he handled the Hillary thing he would have been fired months ago. Not right when Comey asks for more money to investigate Trumps ties to Russia.


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And when did Sanders say this? Back in January. *So if he should have stepped down back then or been fired then why did Trump wait so long? Why did Trump wait unti Comey was investigating him and asking for more money to do so?
> 
> Even some republicans are saying the timing of Comey getting fired is a little weird and wrong.*


*
Trump couldn't do anything since he didn't have his attorney general/staff in place and in charge yet(thanks to Congress for holding that up)

You mean the McCains and Grahams of the world who have been shit-talking Trump since prior to the election? Newsflash: there are both Repubs and Dems(including the loobyists and special interests they work under) who hate him. The DC system wasn't prepared for a Donald Trump presidency. His "America First" message won't resonate with these people. But he can use his maverick-style bully pulpit to fix the problem. He's already started by helping the House pass the healthcare bill.*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> What is your point of view on this?
> You really don't think there is something wrong or weird about the timing of Comey's firing? *You don't even question Trumps real motives?*
> 
> If it really was over the way he handled the Hillary thing he would have been fired months ago. Not right when Comey asks for more money to investigate Trumps ties to Russia.


Nobody even knows his real motives, that's why everyone has spent the last 24 hours speculating. Please don't act like you know what his motives were.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Nobody even knows his real motives, that's why everyone has spent the last 24 hours speculating. Please don't act like you know what his motives were.


I know for it a fact it had nothing to do with the way Comey HIllary Clinton and yes I can say I know it has to do with Comey's investigation on Trump. Just look at Trump's letter to Comey when he fired him. Why else would Trump bring up oh thank you for saying you are not investigating me on the Russia thing.

Why else would Trump bring that up if that is not why Trump fired him. Not to mention like I said it was right after Comey asked for more money to investigate. Come on now, use common sense. Trump thinks he is close to finding something and that is why Trump fired him.

Its easy to connect the dots why it was done. If it was just because of the Hillary thing, Trump never would have brought up the Russian investigation in the letter and he would have fired him months ago.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> My how times have changed


I wonder if someone retweeted that on his twitter page? Bet if someone did, they'd get blocked immediately. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I wonder if someone retweeted that on his twitter page? Bet if someone did, they'd get blocked immediately. :lol



LOL at you being yet another person who does not get you can want someone fired back in January or in KB case NOVEMBER OF 2016, then question why that person got fired now by the person he is being investigated by.

How is that such a difficult concept to understand?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM having a mental breakdown because people are happy, and @Headliner sounding like a grumpy old man :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I know for it a fact it had nothing to do with the way Comey HIllary Clinton and yes I can say I know it has to do with Comey's investigation on Trump. Just look at Trump's letter to Comey when he fired him. *Why else* would Trump bring up oh thank you for saying you are not investigating me on the Russia thing.
> 
> *Why else* would Trump bring that up if that is not why Trump fired him. Not to mention like I said it was right after Comey asked for more money to investigate. Come on now, use common sense. Trump thinks he is close to finding something and that is why Trump fired him.
> 
> Its easy to connect the dots why it was done. If it was just because of the Hillary thing, Trump never would have brought up the Russian investigation in the letter and he would have fired him months ago.


It's funny what you call facts. You say 'Why else", well whatever the 'else' is are also plausible explanations. You also give another explanation yourself, but you brush it aside in favor of "your" facts.

At least I can say I don't know what the real reason is, and I am 100% correct on that because I don't have the 100% irrefutable facts sitting right in front of me. Do you? If so, would you mind posting them? I'm still waiting on the proof of Russian collusion that you say is also 100% a fact.


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> BM having a mental breakdown because people are happy, and @Headliner sounding like a grumpy old man :lol


These people continue to make dumb excuses as to why their side lost instead of admitting their side ran a terrible campaign that failed to resonate with the Rust Belt and Southeast against a flawed but charasmatic outsider with a PHD in psych ops who represents change in the status quo.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> BM having a mental breakdown because people are happy, and @Headliner sounding like a grumpy old man :lol


You still as irrelevant as ever.

JUST KIDDING!!!! :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> You still as irrelevant as ever.
> 
> JUST KIDDING!!!!


Im sorry, I don't speak Wallaby. :tommy


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The democrats aren't the only one about facing...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750353319084843008
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-praises-james-comey-230542 (From October 2016)



> Donald Trump offered high praise for FBI Director James Comey on Monday, saying "it took a lot of guts" for him to decide the agency should review new evidence regarding Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server at the State Department.
> 
> “In all fairness, I think right now she has bigger problems than Obamacare,” Trump told supporters in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “They may finally have gotten wise to the Clintons. Perhaps they’ve finally gotten wise.”
> 
> Trump transitioned from Obamacare, a key talking point since the administration announced last week that premiums will go up by 25 percent next year, to the political gift the FBI essentially put in the Trump campaign’s lap when Comey announced to lawmakers Friday that the bureau would be reviewing new emails that “appear to be pertinent” to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server.
> 
> *“And I have to give the FBI credit.* That was so bad what happened originally,” Trump said, referring to Comey’s announcement in July to not recommend charges against Clinton to the Justice Department.* “And it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts.”*
> 
> Trump, who was highly critical of Comey, the FBI and DOJ after his summer announcement, said Monday he “really disagreed with him” at the time.
> 
> “I was not his fan,” he added, *“but I’ll tell you what: What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back.”*
> 
> The GOP nominee also advised the FBI chief to “hang tough.” *“A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing,” Trump suggested. “What he did was the right thing.”*
> 
> Clinton and her allies have turned on Comey, a man they lavished praise on for his initial handling of the investigation, since his three-paragraph pronouncement reignited questions over Clinton’s handling of classified information, her trustworthiness and judgment, providing fresh fodder for Republicans to rally voters to the polls through Nov. 8.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...fbi-know-clinton-is-1478484190-htmlstory.html (From November 2016)



> Hours after the FBI affirmed that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for her private email server, Donald Trump said rank-and-file agents "won't let her get away with her terrible crimes."
> 
> At a rally Sunday night in this Detroit suburb, Trump cast doubt on the thoroughness of the FBI's review of emails that Clinton advisor Huma Abedin kept on a computer belonging to her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former New York congressman.
> 
> *"You can't review 650,000 new emails in eight days," Trump told a rowdy crowd of thousands at an outdoor amphitheater. "You can't do it, folks. Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it. The FBI knows it. The people know it. And now, it's up to the American people to deliver justice at the ballot box on Nov. 8."*
> 
> The crowd repeatedly broke into loud chants of "Lock her up!" as Trump pounded Clinton for using a private email system when she was secretary of State.
> 
> Michigan was the third of five states where the Republican presidential nominee was campaigning Sunday. Clinton leads in Michigan polls, but is concerned enough about her standing here that she plans to campaign outside Grand Rapids on Monday.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKBN156146 (from January 2017)



> FBI Director James Comey upset Democrats over the email drama that engulfed Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. On Sunday, he got a hug from President Donald Trump.
> 
> It occurred at a reception for law enforcement and security officials in the White House Blue Room on Trump's second full day as president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump saw Comey in the audience and called out to him. Comey then strode up to Trump, who shook his hand and gave him a hug.
> 
> "He's become more famous than me," Trump said with a chuckle.
> 
> Comey sent a letter to the U.S. Congress only days before the Nov. 8 election announcing that he was reinstating an investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified information when she used a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2012.
> 
> The FBI director announced a week later that he had reviewed a new batch of emails and decided there was no new indication that a prosecution was needed, but the political damage was already done.
> 
> Days after the election, Clinton privately blamed Comey for her shock defeat, telling donors that Trump was able to seize on both of Comey's announcements and use them to attack her.


http://www.newsweek.com/trump-twitter-attack-fbi-560353 (From February 2017)



> President Donald Trump criticized the FBI on Friday for failing to stop leaks of national security information to the media and directed the agency to find those who pass on classified information.
> 
> Trump's comments, in a pair of Twitter posts, come amid media reports that the FBI has refused a White House request that it refute recent stories saying members of Trump's team had been in frequent contact with Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign.
> 
> Reuters has not verified the reports. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the nation's top law enforcement agency, did not answer a request for comment on Trump's tweets.
> 
> *"The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security 'leakers' that have permeated our government for a long time. They can't even find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S. FIND NOW," Trump wrote.*
> 
> The news reports by CNN and The Associated Press said White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus asked Andrew McCabe, the FBI deputy director, to deny media reports that said Trump campaign advisers had been in frequent contact with the Russians.
> 
> A senior administration official told reporters on Friday that an FBI official had told Priebus a recent New York Times story about Russian contacts was not accurate. Priebus asked if the FBI could set the record straight.
> 
> The New York Times reported on February 14 that members of Trump's presidential campaign and other associates had repeated contact with senior Russian intelligence officials, citing intercepted communications and other evidence.
> 
> Priebus's contact with the FBI came as the bureau conducts ongoing investigations relating to Russian interference in the November 8 U.S. election.
> 
> FBI counterintelligence agents are also examining financial transactions by Russian individuals and companies who are believed to have links to Trump associates.
> 
> "There are investigations that are going on and those investigations must find out exactly what Russia was doing in the United States," Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN on Friday.
> 
> "We need a complete investigation and we certainly don't want the White House at all trying to influence that investigation."
> 
> U.S. Representative John Conyers said any White House attempt to influence the FBI was "deeply troubling."
> 
> "The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the President and his advisors," Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement late on Thursday.


And those tweets in question:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835104946034991106

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835106143462703104
So, seems like he's flip flopped himself a couple of times on Comey, but generally speaking has remained pretty negative as a whole on him as of this point, up until he was fired obviously. 

If you want to call all those democrats hypocritical for switching their viewpoints and doing an about-face, sure I got no problem with that, because they should be called out for doing it. But it's not like Trump wasn't also seemingly unsure on whether to support or dislike Comey's actions in general. He's no angel in this scenario, and I really don't think he's some brilliant mastermind who has been planning this out for so long and being on the fence about Comey on purpose just to lead to this scenario.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Look, you come to a new job you give everyone a fair shake. He wanted to let bygones be bygones are start fresh after a viscous campaign, then decided "Yeah, better to fire em, He's not working the way i wanted after all."

I mean, I wouldn't have even waited. Shoulda been fired on the spot IMO. :shrug


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Look, you come to a new job you give everyone a fair shake. He wanted to let bygones be bygones are start fresh after a viscous campaign, then decided "Yeah, better to fire em, ge's not working the way i want after all"
> 
> I mean, I wouldn't have even waited. :shrug


If that's the case, fine, I have no problem with it. But, seems like pretty much everybody changed sides at some point with Comey, which is why I'm not exactly just going to point and criticize the left as being the only ones to be somewhat hypocritical on it. If they should own up it, so should everybody else that 2nd guessed themselves with Comey.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Watching White House acting like an Asian 'democracy' is delicious schadenfreude. Watching the mental gymnastics of Trump supporters defending it is even better. :lol


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Dude lied under oath about Clinton. Also he prevented agents from doing a proper investigation over her: https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2016/10/20/mutliple-fbi-agents-claim-director-comey-protected-hillary-clinton-email-probe/

Trump gave him the benefit of the doubt and it didn't work. What do you want? He had to go.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> "Democrats" and "brains" in the same sentence? Okay then. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> And we can have our own points-of-view whether they're "blind" or not, Headliner. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (at least I think we can. Can we? :hmmm )





Beatles123 said:


> BM having a mental breakdown because people are happy, and @Headliner sounding like a grumpy old man :lol


Logic is for queers.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Logic is for queers.


"IIIIIIIIIIIII DETERMINE WHO'S LOGICAL AROUND HERE! RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE SOMETHING SOMETHING I RUN THIS SITE. :quite" :sk

(That is of course taking this post un-ironically.)


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> So, seems like he's flip flopped himself a couple of times on Comey, but generally speaking has remained pretty negative as a whole on him as of this point, up until he was fired obviously.
> 
> If you want to call all those democrats hypocritical for switching their viewpoints and doing an about-face, sure I got no problem with that, because they should be called out for doing it. But it's not like Trump wasn't also seemingly unsure on whether to support or dislike Comey's actions in general. He's no angel in this scenario, and I really don't think he's some brilliant mastermind who has been planning this out for so long and being on the fence about Comey on purpose just to lead to this scenario.


This post contained no flip-flopping or hypocrisy. He criticized Comey when he refused to recommend indictment, and then praised him when he appeared to be continuing to pursue Clinton. Changing your opinion on someone in light of new information is not "flip-flopping" or hypocritical.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is it flip-flopping when he criticized Goldman Sachs and Hilary during the campaign and ended up hiring the very same people after being elected?


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> "IIIIIIIIIIIII DETERMINE WHO'S LOGICAL AROUND HERE! RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE SOMETHING SOMETHING I RUN THIS SITE. :quite" :sk
> 
> (That is of course taking this post un-ironically.)


I'm sorry for preferring young, yet legal vagina instead of 70 year old dick.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Is it flip-flopping when he criticized Goldman Sachs and Hilary during the campaign and ended up hiring the very same people after being elected?


You'll have to be more specific. In any case, I'm not making the statement that Trump has never flip-flopped or been hypocritical about anything, so I'm not under any obligation to defend whatever examples you come up with.


Here's Scott Adams on the Comey firing, how it looks through the persuasion filter, and why James Comey is a "patriot" in his opinion: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> This post contained no flip-flopping or hypocrisy. He criticized Comey when he refused to recommend indictment, and then praised him when he appeared to be continuing to pursue Clinton. Changing your opinion on someone in light of new information is not "flip-flopping" or hypocritical.


Alright then I guess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's funny what you call facts. You say 'Why else", well whatever the 'else' is are also plausible explanations. You also give another explanation yourself, but you brush it aside in favor of "your" facts.
> 
> At least I can say I don't know what the real reason is, and I am 100% correct on that because I don't have the 100% irrefutable facts sitting right in front of me. Do you? If so, would you mind posting them? I'm still waiting on the proof of Russian collusion that you say is also 100% a fact.


If you can't put two and two together I feel sorry for you. So answer the question why would Trump mention in his letter that fired Comey, thank you for saying you were not investigating me?

Trump always says shit like this when its true because he is dumb and thinks it makes him look innocent.






Beatles123 said:


> BM having a mental breakdown because people are happy, and @Headliner sounding like a grumpy old man :lol


go back to the kiddie pool since you cant swim in the big boy side. But I dont expect much from you since after all you are from the south.




FriedTofu said:


> Is it flip-flopping when he criticized Goldman Sachs and Hilary during the campaign and ended up hiring the very same people after being elected?


its only flip-flopping when the dems do iot not the GOP or Trump. That is Trump supporter logic 101. Haven't you learned that yet.




Marv95 said:


> Dude lied under oath about Clinton. Also he prevented agents from doing a proper investigation over her: https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2016/10/20/mutliple-fbi-agents-claim-director-comey-protected-hillary-clinton-email-probe/
> 
> Trump gave him the benefit of the doubt and it didn't work. What do you want? He had to go.


LOL yeah, he gave him the benefit until he turned his sights on Trump then he got fired.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> go back to the kiddie pool since you cant swim in the big boy side.


I can swim in the deep end, so maybe you could go back and respond to my response to your response. :smile2:


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I'm sorry for preferring young, yet legal vagina instead of 70 year old dick.


GM is single.. :grin2: Okay okay now more GM jokes I promise! It was just so funny!

I'm not up to date on all this so won't make much of a comment other than for a while Democrats have wanted this guy, now that he is what's the fuss about?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I can swim in the deep end, so maybe you could go back and respond to my response to your response. :smile2:


I did, look up

I was in the middle of replying when you posted this LOL

And yes you do swim in the deep end since 99% of your posts are not trolling like beatles are.

Also to add to the above

http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-golf-courses-russia-funding-2017-5
Eric Trump: 'We have all the funding we need out of Russia' for Trump golf courses

But sure keep believing Trump does not have business ties to Russia.

You cant honestly think the real reason why Trump fired Comey was over HIllary Clinton.

I dont care what you claim to know 100% what do you THINK based on all the info we have so far.
You can say what you THINK.

So yes or no, do you really ThINK the reason why Trump fired Comey is just because of HIllray Clinton.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> GM is single.. :grin2: Okay okay now more GM jokes I promise! It was just so funny!
> 
> I'm not up to date on all this so won't make much of a comment other than for a while Democrats have wanted this guy, now that he is what's the fuss about?


Lol

Think of it this way. If your mayor or the people around the mayor are being investigated by the local police department, and your mayor suddenly decided to fire the leader of the investigation or the chief, wouldn't you think that's suspect?


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

He defied protocol with his conference last summer, as the director that is a huge no no, he should of gone then but he's gone now anyways. Dems are saying Trump's trying to bury the investigation but like it was said by I think Rubio "he fired the director not the entire FBI". Investigation will go on as it was and we will hopefully get someone put in charge who will follow the rules and not sink possible legal action by shoving investigation details into the open.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hopefully the peak of Trump's authoritarianism is that he will fire people whom he's legally allowed to fire for any reason that virtually everyone views as incompetent.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> You'll have to be more specific. In any case, I'm not making the statement that Trump has never flip-flopped or been hypocritical about anything, so I'm not under any obligation to defend whatever examples you come up with.
> 
> 
> Here's Scott Adams on the Comey firing, how it looks through the persuasion filter, and why James Comey is a "patriot" in his opinion: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing


With regards to Comey, what is the new information that led to Trump's changing his view on Comey? In the official statement of his firing, the justification seem to be the handling of Hilary's emails for which Trump praised Comey for breaking traditions last year. Trump criticised Comey when Comey's conclusions didn't help him after the hearings and praised Comey again when it benefited Trump by bringing up Weiner's emails.

How is that not flip-flopping?

As for Scott Adams, why wasn't this Comey taking a third bullet as a patriot for attempting to investigate Trump's associates' Russian ties but an example of dominance by Trump?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Five congressional committees including the Senate Intelligence Committee, to which James Comey will testify next week, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, are still investigating whatever ties Democrats and their army of media surrogates suggest Donald Trump has with Russians. The FBI has an entire large division of agents on the case, and that investigation continues with or without Comey. Moreover, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, which oversees not only FBI investigations but probes by variegated intelligence agencies admitted that evidence to support claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy is simply nonexistent, while also arguing on behalf of better safeguards against Russian interference in U.S. elections. (Clapper did, however, unofficially indict Huma Abedin for her wanton mishandling of classified information vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton in that same testimony. It should also be noted that Clapper is obviously not above lying as he directly did so to the American people concerning the Orwellian NSA program of surveillance under the previous administration.) Along with the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee and Government Reform Committee have all been probing the White House to varying degrees of success with regard to ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, and thus far no one has been able to find anything substantive. The NSA is also said to be investigating Trump, and Trump's claims which were ridiculed that he had been listened to by Barack Obama forces have found considerable legitimacy with the revelations pertaining to Susan Rice's role in performing what has been termed an "unmasking." 

According to even CNN and Politico, Trump had considered firing Comey since after he won the election. The chief reason the termination occurred in May rather than at the end of January is because as with so many other matters, Trump presumably wanted maximum input from at least some sagacious sorts whose reviewing of Comey's actions during the Clinton emails/private server probe, which were inexcusable for they usurped the role of the U.S. Attorney General, who at the time was Loretta Lynch. It was only days ago that Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was named to his post, and over the course of a crash course of a week of reviewing Comey's misbehavior, he came to the conclusion that the Justice Department under Bill Clinton did in 1993 in condemning FBI Director William Sessions, who Clinton rightly fired for his many ethical lapses as well as legitimately dubious sense of judgment. 

Now untethered to the FBI, it could well be that Comey may be actually more forthcoming to the Senate Intelligence Committee than he would have been otherwise. As far as the investigation into Trump-Russia goes, it will continue just as the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server scandal had to continue within the FBI even when judged to be inadequate as a base for prosecuting the former Secretary of State by Comey, which was a source of almost absurd levels of tension within the bureau according to numerous trustworthy sources. At the very least Comey massively overstepped his bounds and damaged the FBI's credibility, and as has been said here, were the bureau to uncover something genuinely untoward with regard to Trump's campaign and the Russians, it would probably be better for everyone if the top of the FBI were deemed at least adequately creditable.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Crikey the trumpers sure do sing a different tune when its the left caught being hypocritical, end of the day the left wanted Comey gone in Jan not in the middle of his investigation and certainly not in the way it was done. 










The idea he has tagged that tweet with draintheswamp and he has loaded the swamp even more is irrelevant to Trumpers who just revel in the opportunity to call the left out on something.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Hopefully the peak of Trump's authoritarianism is that he will fire people whom he's legally allowed to fire for any reason that virtually everyone views as incompetent.


Boardroom style.

"Pence, aren't you really just a disaster?"


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> With regards to Comey, what is the new information that led to Trump's changing his view on Comey? In the official statement of his firing, the justification seem to be the handling of Hilary's emails for which Trump praised Comey for breaking traditions last year. Trump criticised Comey when Comey's conclusions didn't help him after the hearings and praised Comey again when it benefited Trump by bringing up Weiner's emails.
> 
> How is that not flip-flopping?


The new information was that, despite not recommending indictment, Comey was still continuing to investigate new evidence, in particular Anthony Weiner's e-mails. I don't claim to know why or what caused Trump to fire Comey at last. It is quite a neat trick to get your opponents to publicly attack you for something they wanted to see happen just a short time ago, and hurts their credibility. I'm admiring the move through that lens. I also don't care much for James Comey.



> As for Scott Adams, why wasn't this Comey taking a third bullet as a patriot for attempting to investigate Trump's associates' Russian ties but an example of dominance by Trump?


Why can't it be both?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I'm sorry for preferring young, yet legal vagina instead of 70 year old dick.


 "So now i'll just separate them into black and white halves!"

Being on your side does not equal being right or wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> go back to the kiddie pool since you cant swim in the big boy side. But I dont expect much from you since after all you are from the south.


You're the one who put me on ignore the first time, Davey! Either do it again or continue to be mocked by me the more you do likewise.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That clears it up.

Now we watch the conspiracy theorists try to spin this into whatever they want.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So it seems as though Trump fired Comey on the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney because of the handling of the Clinton case at the end when he firstly laid out all the ways in which Clinton was guilty and then decided not to indict her even though all the evidence should have led to that point and then reopening the case again closer to the election only to close it again 2 weeks before the election took place. Makes sense in terms of trust from both political aisles as of course the Democrats thought he was going too far with constantly re-opening the case during the election cycle whilst Republicans were upset that despite all the evidence against her, Comey refused to indict Clinton and therefore it came off to them like political partisanship. Looks like Comey signed his own death warrant with the way he's handled investigations and made them so public. That looks likely to the defining reasoning. Add that this is reported by *the Independent*, the most partisan left wing paper in the UK aside from the Guardian who have constantly reported negative stories about Trump even if they weren't true and that adds to the legitimacy of this angle. Doesn't mean it is true but it looks likely to me.

They also pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democrats who have gone against their narrative mere weeks after calling for Comey to resign, mainly I think due to opposing Trump and wanting to put legitimacy on to the Russia/US story. The tweet from Kyle Kuliniski that @CamillePunk shared I think says everything about the reality of the situation.

Couple more articles about the situation, including potential replacements for Comey:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16277/bernie-sanders-questions-what-trump-hiding-over-robert-kraychik#



> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) criticized President Donald Trump’s Tuesday firing of James Comey from the FBI’s directorship via a statement published on the socialist senator's taxpayer-funded website.
> 
> Hyping the Democrats' and the broader left's shared narrative of framing Trump as a co-conspirator with or compromised agent of a Russian governmental political subversion campaign across last year’s presidential election, Sanders describes the termination of Comey as “deeply troubling:”
> 
> _"Donald Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey raises serious questions about what his administration is hiding. Why did President Trump fire the person leading the investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian government? I find it deeply troubling that this decision comes a day after damning testimony by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Russia’s ties to the Trump campaign and just days before Comey was scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee."
> _
> 
> President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to kill inquiries into Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election. It is clear that whomever President Trump handpicks to lead the FBI will not be able to objectively carry out this investigation. We need an independent investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
> 
> In a January interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, however, aside from describing Trump as a “racist,” Sanders essentially called for Comey's resignation:
> 
> _"I think that Comey acted in an outrageous way during the campaign. No one can say that this was decisive and this was what elected [Donald] Trump, but clearly his behavior during the campaign in terms of what he said in the week or two before the election was unacceptable. I think he should take a hard look at what he has done. And I think it would not be a bad thing for the American people if he did step down."_
> 
> Last year, Sanders presented himself as a presidential candidate genuinely interested in securing the presidency. During his campaign, he brushed aside concerns of Hillary Clinton’s evasion of governmental capture of her communications as Secretary of State via her setting up of a private email server. He also took no issue with Clinton's negligent handling of national security secrets, despite the former first lady's role as his primary political opponent.
> 
> Sanders also refused to criticize the Clinton family’s alleged corruption via the sales of political influence through the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation. Following the Clintons’ failed attempt to retake the white house, the Clinton Foundation has been shut down.
> 
> Days after 2016's presidential election, Sanders' latest book was published, entitled, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In.


Partisan Politics, Partisan politics everywhere!


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/who-trump-could-pick-to-replace-comey/



> (CNN)By firing FBI director James Comey on Tuesday, President Donald Trump has created a near-impossible standard for his replacement.
> 
> Some Republicans, in an attempt to protect Trump's decision to fire Comey in the midst of his investigation into Trump associates, Russia and the 2016 election, argued that his replacement will have to be someone who has unquestionable credibility with a deep background in law enforcement matters.
> Democrats agree, but argue Trump's next FBI director must also have no connections to Trump politically or professionally, making it impossible for anyone to question the next director's conflict of interest.
> Working in Trump's favor is the fact that his next FBI director only needs 51 votes to get through the Senate.
> 
> Here's a list of people Trump could pick to replace Comey:
> 
> *Rudy Giuliani*
> 
> Rudy (CNN)By firing FBI director James Comey on Tuesday, President Donald Trump has created a near-impossible standard for his replacement.
> 
> Some Republicans, in an attempt to protect Trump's decision to fire Comey in the midst of his investigation into Trump associates, Russia and the 2016 election, argued that his replacement will have to be someone who has unquestionable credibility with a deep background in law enforcement matters.
> Democrats agree, but argue Trump's next FBI director must also have no connections to Trump politically or professionally, making it impossible for anyone to question the next director's conflict of interest.
> Working in Trump's favor is the fact that his next FBI director only needs 51 votes to get through the Senate.
> Here's a list of people Trump could pick to replace Comey:
> Rudy Giuliani
> Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, would likely be among Trump's top choices for FBI director, given his loyalty to the President and law enforcement background.
> But his vocal advocacy for Trump during the 2016 campaign and clear partisan bent would make it nearly impossible for the former New York mayor to get confirmed by the Senate, even if he only needed 51 votes.
> Giuliani's record is chock full of anti-Hillary Clinton comments, too.
> "When I see her, I see her in an orange jumpsuit, I'm sorry," he said days before the 2016 election. "Or at least a striped one."
> 
> *Chris Christie*
> 
> Christie is in the same boat as Giuliani.
> The New Jersey governor was one of the first top flight Republicans to endorse Trump during the 2016 campaign and stood by him during some of the most trying times in his presidential campaign. His loyalty was rewarded by summarily being fired from the Trump transition, in large measure because of he, as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, put Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner's father in jail.
> But Christie has remained loyal to Trump and was appointed to lead the President's opioid and drug abuse commission earlier this year. He has a law enforcement background and would be close to Trump.
> But like Giuliani, he is clearly partisan.
> "Is she guilty or not guilty," the former federal prosecutor bellowed during the 2016 Republican National Convention after talking about Clinton's character and judgment. The crowd then chanted, "Lock her up," which Christie egged on.
> 
> 
> *Ray Kelly*
> 
> Should Trump consider Kelly, the former commissioner of the New York City Police Department, it wouldn't be the first time the long-time New Yorker was mentioned as a possible candidate for FBI director.
> The New York Times reported in 1993, after Kelly first severed as commissioner of the NYPD after the World Trade Center bombing, that the former police cadet "has been mentioned as a possible replacement" for the FBI under then-President Bill Clinton.
> Kelly didn't become FBI director. That job went to Louis Freeh.
> But the fact he was considered by Clinton, a Democrat, gets to one of Kelly's strongest suits: Possible bipartisan support.
> Kelly held two jobs under Clinton: Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at Treasury and Commissioner of the United States Customs service.
> And he has deep law enforcement credentials: He served a NYPD commissioner for 13 years, longer than anyone in history.
> 
> *John Pistole*
> 
> Pistole, currently the president of Anderson University in Indiana, is another example of someone who could curry bipartisan support.
> Pistole, who last served as the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration under President Barack Obama, also served as deputy director of the FBI under former president George W. Bush.
> He joined the FBI in 1983, serving at the bureau for 26 years until he was confirmed as TSA head in July 2010. While at the FBI he also worked at the bureau's Executive Assistant Director for national security.
> Pistole would be a more establishment pick, given his work on terrorism policy during both the Bush and Obama administrations.
> Unlike other options on this list, it is unclear whether Pistole backed a presidential candidate in 2016.
> The former TSA head has commented on some Trump policies, though.
> After Trump planned to cut the "armed pilot" program, training that was developed after 9/11 to prepare pilots and crew for a highjacking scenario, Pistole told The Washington Post that he disagreed.
> "If you were on one of the four hijacked planes on 9/11, you'd sure say it was important," he said. "To me, it's a relatively small investment for the potential for the risk-mitigation value. It's all about how much risk do you want to take on. I would advocate for a reduction in that program but not elimination."
> 
> *
> Andrew McCabe*
> 
> McCabe would likely be the easiest pick, given he is currently working at the acting director of the FBI and had served as Comey's deputy since early February 2016.
> He joined the FBI as a special agent in 1996 and has since worked in on a host of issues, including counterterrorism, national security and interrogation.
> McCabe's biggest drawback could be his connection to Comey and the fact that he had his hands in both the FBI's investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and was inside the bureau during the investigation into Clinton's emails, which Trump said in a letter Tuesday led to the FBI directors dismissal.
> 
> *Trey Gowdy*
> 
> Picking Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican and former federal prosecutor, would electrify Trump's Republican base.
> Almost immediately after Comey's departure went public, right-wing blogs and websites jumped at the chance to push Gowdy, who became a champion of the right when he led the committee looking into Clinton's handling of the 2012 Benghazi attack.
> Several blogs even started petitions urging Trump to appoint Gowdy director of the FBI.
> Gowdy was critical of Comey's decision not to prosecute Clinton over her use of a private email server, but said in the wake of his firing that the former FBI director "had a very difficult job."
> 
> Like Giuliani and Christie, it would be difficult for Trump to confirm Gowdy, given his clear partisan bent and the fact he endorsed the President during the 2016 Republican primary.


Chris Christie :lmao.

I know this is a CNN sourced article but this is making the rounds on many news sites. Can't see Christie or Giuliani getting the position unless Trump wants to give himself further problems and I can't see him wanting to give someone close to Comey the position either so that's McCabe out. So it's likely to be one of the others.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Crikey the trumpers sure do sing a different tune when its the left caught being hypocritical, end of the day the left wanted Comey gone in Jan not in the middle of his investigation and certainly not in the way it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea he has tagged that tweet with draintheswamp and he has loaded the swamp even more is irrelevant to Trumpers who just revel in the opportunity to call the left out on something.


It's been talked about on here before about presidents and trips, be it golfing or at a ranch. Presidents are never truly on "vacation", even if they leave the white house, they're always on duty . When's the last time Trump's gone golfing? It seems like its been a while since anything has been in the news about it it seems.(genuine question)


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oh jeez. ABC canceled pro Trump Last Man Standing despite high ratings. 

http://deadline.com/2017/05/last-man-standing-canceled-by-abc-after-6-seasons-1202089263/


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> The new information was that, despite not recommending indictment, Comey was still continuing to investigate new evidence, in particular Anthony Weiner's e-mails. I don't claim to know why or what caused Trump to fire Comey at last. It is quite a neat trick to get your opponents to publicly attack you for something they wanted to see happen just a short time ago, and hurts their credibility. I'm admiring the move through that lens. I also don't care much for James Comey.


That isn't new information. Comey's decision was more than 6 months ago. The new information is Comey is now investigating Trump's associate's Russian ties.



> Why can't it be both?


What is not said often reveals more than what is said.


----------



## Marv95

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Except in that letter Comey told Trump 3 times he wasn't under criminal investigation. Even some Dems have publicly said there's no evidence with Trump/Russian collusion. So who's lying?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's been talked about on here before about presidents and trips, be it golfing or at a ranch. Presidents are never truly on "vacation", even if they leave the white house, they're always on duty . When's the last time Trump's gone golfing? It seems like its been a while since anything has been in the news about it it seems.(genuine question)


So if what you are saying is true why are you defending Trump for complaining about Obama? Your point about them always being on duty has nothing to do with the point. The point is what a hypocrite Trump is for bitching about Obama doing the same thing way more often that he is doing now.



Iconoclast said:


> That clears it up.
> 
> Now we watch the conspiracy theorists try to spin this into whatever they want.


Yet the new FBI director contradicts the WHs claim the FBI lost faith in Comey.


The former FBI chief had "broad support" within the agency.

"I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee.
He said Comey enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."



Marv95 said:


> Except in that letter Comey told Trump 3 times he wasn't under criminal investigation. Even some Dems have publicly said there's no evidence with Trump/Russian collusion. So who's lying?


Trump lies 70% of the time, so odds are Trump is lying.

Comey was asked flat out during a hearing is Trump under investigation and he said, he cannot answer that question.

And like I said before, if this was not about Comey asking for more money for the Russia investigation, why would Trump even add that to the letter firing Comey?

Its because Trump is dumb enough to think oh if I put that in there most people will believe it. Sad thing is, some people are dumb enough to believe it.

When you are firing someone you dont put in that letter a reason what they did not get fired for.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Has anyone gone to http://hail-hydra.com today.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Oh jeez. ABC canceled pro Trump Last Man Standing despite high ratings.
> 
> http://deadline.com/2017/05/last-man-standing-canceled-by-abc-after-6-seasons-1202089263/


Apparently Fox has the rights to the show, which I find bizarre. So there's unnecessary cost. Tim Allen gets paid a lot per episode. The show was buried on Friday night anyway. I'm sure the conservative nature of the show had something to do with it, but it wasn't the only reason.

Someone pls hire the actress that plays the middle daugther. Hire her in something I'll watch though not something that is retarded like 13 Reason Why. thanks


lmfao that actress is 30 years old. i knew she was older than her character but this is pretty amusing. shit, this woman is a Broadway actress. no wonder she's so good.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Apparently Fox has the rights to the show, which I find bizarre. So there's unnecessary cost. Tim Allen gets paid a lot per episode. The show was buried on Friday night anyway. I'm sure the conservative nature of the show had something to do with it, but it wasn't the only reason.
> 
> Someone pls hire the actress that plays the middle daugther. Hire her in something I'll watch though not something that is retarded like 13 Reason Why. thanks
> 
> 
> lmfao that actress is 30 years old. i knew she was older than her character but this is pretty amusing. shit, this woman is a Broadway actress. no wonder she's so good.


Yeah. Pretty sure an openly conservative show doesn't get canceled because of its content. I didn't mean to imply that that was the reason. 

Just disappointed that it did. Hopefully Allen has at least one more good show left in him before retirement.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Apparently Fox has the rights to the show, which I find bizarre. So there's unnecessary cost. Tim Allen gets paid a lot per episode. The show was buried on Friday night anyway. I'm sure the conservative nature of the show had something to do with it, but it wasn't the only reason.
> 
> Someone pls hire the actress that plays the middle daugther. Hire her in something I'll watch though not something that is retarded like 13 Reason Why. thanks
> 
> 
> lmfao that actress is 30 years old. i knew she was older than her character but this is pretty amusing. shit, this woman is a Broadway actress. no wonder she's so good.


*Maybe Kaitlyn Dever can go back to Justified.... oh wait... goddamnit!!!!*


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah. Pretty sure an openly conservative show doesn't get canceled because of its content. I didn't mean to imply that that was the reason.
> 
> Just disappointed that it did. Hopefully Allen has at least one more good show left in him before retirement.


I want them to do a home improvement spin-off, and actually have him have his Tool Time show as a real show :lol


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *Maybe Kaitlyn Dever can go back to Justified.... oh wait... goddamnit!!!!*


What about Loretta Queen of Harlan?

oh shit off topic my bad guys

:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah. Pretty sure an openly conservative show doesn't get canceled because of its content. I didn't mean to imply that that was the reason.
> 
> Just disappointed that it did. Hopefully Allen has at least one more good show left in him before retirement.


If fox had a hand in it blame them. They always cancel good shows with decent to good ratings. Most times its a sci fi show they do that to but its fox's MO.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I want them to do a home improvement spin-off, and actually have him have his Tool Time show as a real show [emoji38]


Didn't they actually try reality home improvement show with Allen's costar?

Anyways. We should probably have this conversation in the canceled shows thread lol. I just posted it in here because it was the last election that made me aware of its existence and I binge watched the whole thing with my wife.

We have a very similar dynamic as the Baxters lol.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So now apparently Trump was going to fire Comey regardless of the AG and Deputy AG recommendations. Can these guys keep their lies in order? What was the point in saying you fired him at their recommendations? It makes the whole letter not credible. 

It's recommendations, no it's for what you did to Hilary, no it's because I can??????????


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This boils down to one thing. Do you prefer a well oiled machine that has an intricate system that presents a unified lie or a chaotic system where everyone makes contradictory statements preventing us from the truth?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> This boils down to one thing. Do you prefer a well oiled machine that has an intricate system that presents a unified lie or a chaotic system where everyone makes contradictory statements preventing us from the truth?


The 2nd is better for us because we know when they are lying or should I say its easier to tell.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah I know this is Info Wars, but interesting if true


> Speculation is already swirling as to whether or not Spicer will return after he was “benched” and temporarily replaced with Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
> Spicer has behaved like a “deer in the headlights” in recent weeks and is not able to handle the pressure of the job, according to one source.
> They add that Spicer will be gone by next week and that former prosecutor and current Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was previously considered for the role, is currently the favorite to replace him.
> However, these assertions are being disputed by other insiders who insist that Spicer will return to his current role within the next week.
> White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus could also be on the chopping block as President Trump begins a purge of moderate advisers whom he feels have performed poorly when it comes to investigating the source of leaks that have proved embarrassing for the administration.
> Having been guided by moderate advisers for the last 6 weeks, Trump tried working with the Washington establishment but has come to the realization that they do not want to compromise on any issue, don’t care about the country, and are merely concerned with blocking his policy agenda.
> Trump is set to take the gloves off, sidelining those within his inner circle who he feels he cannot fully trust and going back to the approach he took for the first 50 days of his administration.
> Our sources also confirm that James Comey’s comment that he was “mildly nauseous” at influencing the impact of the 2016 election was the final straw that led to his firing, in addition to the former FBI Director’s failure to investigate Susan Rice for her alleged role in overseeing surveillance of phone calls between Trump and his aides.
> Under Comey, the FBI has refused to work with Attorney General Jeff Sessions in following through on Trump’s directives, leaving Comey’s position as director untenable.


https://www.infowars.com/white-house-sources-spicer-out-as-trump-begins-purge-of-establishment-advisers/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Yeah I know this is Info Wars, but interesting if true
> 
> https://www.infowars.com/white-house-sources-spicer-out-as-trump-begins-purge-of-establishment-advisers/


Legit sources are always saying Spicer could be out. Did you read the story how he was hiding in the bushes when he had no answers for why Comey was fired lol

Also LOL at what a disaster Trump is treating this like its the apprentice.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The 2nd is better for us because we know when they are lying or should I say its easier to tell.


*When it comes to politics and politicians I just assume ever fucking one of them is lying until I have reason to believe otherwise. They have to earn my trust and so very very few have ever done that and even then I assume they are lying most of the time anyway.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *When it comes to politics and politicians I just assume ever fucking one of them is lying until I have reason to believe otherwise. They have to earn my trust and so very very few have ever done that and even then I assume they are lying most of the time anyway.*


Very true and we will never get that until we get money out of politics. 90% of the time they lie to us just to tell us what we want to hear then they turn around and sever their donors.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if what you are saying is true why are you defending Trump for complaining about Obama? Your point about them always being on duty has nothing to do with the point. The point is what a hypocrite Trump is for bitching about Obama doing the same thing way more often that he is doing now.


When did I defend Trump complaining about Obama going golfing? I really don't recall that at all as I've always said the same thing about Trump and Obama comparisons for going on trips. I've said a few times that presidents are hardly on "holidays" or taking "time off" because for them, they're always working. I don't see how thats me defending Trump for criticizing Obama. I did say that I think Trump will relax on the golf trips and I sincerely hope he does. I think political figures should spend less of the public's money on trips and whatever else but its not something i vehemently hate because well they're going to do it , I just hope its kept to a minimum


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Legit sources are always saying Spicer could be out. Did you read the story how he was hiding in the bushes when he had no answers for why Comey was fired lol
> 
> Also LOL at what a disaster Trump is treating this like its the apprentice.


He also made them turn the lights off before he'd answer any questions. But still.....*HE HID IN THE FUCKING BUSHES!!!!!*


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










This fucking guy :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> This fucking guy :lmao


The sad thing is that man child is the US president.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

As long as the world isn't in engulfed in nuclear fire or the United States becomes Mega City One or Hunger Games world, we're going to be fine. 

He's most likely not being re-elected if the Dems can just get an inkling of a clue. All they have to do is act like normal non-crazy people and they win. Oh yeah and know where the battle lines are and go to those states. And don't run a possible criminal.

And then we're fucked again:brady6


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump 

HE CAN'T BE STOPPED


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862767872879325185


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Virgina Democratic Senator and #1 Trump-Russia conspiracy theorist Mark Warner made more than $6 million from Russian tech company Yandex in 2012, representing almost 10% of his entire $80 million net worth, according to the Christian Science Monitor. The revelation further calls into question Warner’s role in the ongoing witch hunt for President Trump’s Russian connections.
> 
> As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate his own ties to Russia.
> 
> Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists.
> 
> Warner, worth over $80 million, is one of the Senate’s richest members.
> 
> Yandex, based in Moscow, is the largest search engine in Russia. Russia’s social policies around gender, as well as its backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Crimean secession, have proved enormously controversial among Democrats.
> 
> Warner won’t allow the appointment of the Treasury Department anti-terror nominee, Sigal Mandelker, to proceed until the Intelligence Committee can examine the finances of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, former adviser Roger Stone, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and ex-foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
> 
> “ntil we get [their documents],” Warner said Wednesday, “I’m not going to support the administration’s nominee for undersecretary of Treasury finance, for terrorism and finance, because they owe us these documents first.”
> 
> GotNews is providing Warner’s most recent annual financial disclosure statement. Are there more Russian assets within he doesn’t want us to know about?



http://gotnews.com/breaking-russian-money-compromises-democrat-conspiracy-theorist-mark-warner/



> While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business.
> 2 of 22
> The Office of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina confirmed to Circa that Mrs. Clinton called her office in March 2011 to demand that Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, be restored to his role as chairman of the country’s most famous microcredit bank, Grameen Bank. The bank’s nonprofit Grameen America, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. Grameen Research, which is chaired by Yunus, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website.
> 3 of 22
> “Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in March 2011 insisting her not to remove Dr. Muhammad Yunus from the post of Managing Director of Grameen Bank,” Deputy Press Secretary Md Nazrul Islam told Circa in an email.
> 4 of 22
> Islam said the prime minister informed Mrs. Clinton that according to Grameen Bank rules and regulations, nobody can hold the position of the Managing Director of Grameen Bank after the age of 60. He was 70 at the time of his removal and had wrangled for months to no avail with the prime minister over his removal.
> 5 of 22
> 
> 6 of 22
> According to the Bangladesh government, Grameen Bank is part of a statutory body of the government and therefore is subject to the banking laws, saying they told Clinton “Dr. Yunus drew salaries and allowances illegally for 10 years.”
> 
> A commission set up by the Bangladesh government also began investigating Grameen Bank in 2012 for financial mismanagement.
> 7 of 22
> Yunus did not return calls seeking comment. But he has long denied any wrongdoing and suggested his ouster was the result of internal politics -- he considered creating a rival political party in 2007 but ended up not doing so.
> 
> In a 2013 interview, Yunus said he feared his ouster would put the bank he founded to help millions of impoverished people with microcredit -- small loans that are often unsecured by assets but have higher interest rates -- under too much government control and alter its mission.
> 8 of 22
> "It will be a disaster," he said at the time. "Everybody in Bangladesh knows that if any business is controlled by the government, it goes down. Now why do they want to do that for the bank?
> 
> "Attack me as a person if you don't like me, but what wrong has the bank done? The bank is owned by the poor women, it is financed with their deposits," he added. "The bank should be under the control of those women. That's the way I had always wanted to keep it."
> 9 of 22
> Mrs. Clinton’s newly disclosed call to reinstate Dr. Yunus marks one of the most direct involvements in an official government matter that impacted one of her husband’s donors. It may trigger new calls for a criminal investigation into the foundation’s activities but “it’s not likely that anything would come of it,” said Richard Painter, former Chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.
> 
> 
> 10 of 22
> “People in public life shouldn’t be raising money from anybody, anywhere, or for anything,” Painter said. “But until we fix the campaign finance system this is the way it’s going to be.”
> 
> Painter, who supported Clinton during her campaign for president, said that there is little if any evidence that she crossed any legal lines regarding the Clinton Foundation. He said favoritism to somebody giving money to campaign is often and frequent in Washington D.C. politics and “if that were the case we’d be investigating the entire U.S. Congress.”
> 11 of 22
> “This shows the Clinton’s insensitivity to the public’s anger and lack of judgement when they expanded the fundraising beyond politics,” said Painter, who said people in public office should not be raising money.
> 12 of 22
> But opponents of Mrs. Clinton, including President Trump before the election, have made calls for a criminal investigation into the foundation and whether there was a pay-for-play, in which they donors allegedly received favors from the State Department during her tenure from 2009-2013.
> 13 of 22
> The Associated Press reported in August, that at least 85 of 154 “people from private interests who met or had phone conversations with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity” or pledged to donate to one of her international programs.
> 14 of 22
> While Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department she also voted to approve 20 percent sale of U.S. uranium production capacity to the Russian Atomic Energy Agency. The company donated $2.5 million to the Clinton Foundation while the deal was ongoing and before the deal was finalized President Bill Clinton was invited to Moscow and given $500,000 for a speech.
> 
> And when it came to Yunus, declassified cables show that Mr. Yunus sought to use Mrs. Clinton’s power as secretary of state to pressure the Bangladesh government.
> 15 of 22
> In 2009, Dr. Yunus sent a personal email to then Secretary of State Clinton’s office asking for intervention into the Bangladesh bank and stated his concerns, according to a declassified WikiLeaks cable.
> 
> Those declassified cables show the U.S. ambassador also raised the issue with government officials prior to Mrs. Clinton’s call and that Mrs. Clinton asked State officials to alert her husband to the problems Yunus was having with Bangladesh.
> 16 of 22
> “Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way,” the email from Yunus to then Clinton advisor Melanne Verveer stated. “I sought an appointment with the Prime Minister to brief her on our problems, at the advice of the U.S. Ambassador in Dhaka.”
> 
> Yunus received the Medal of Freedom in 2009, from President Obama, for his work in aiding the 150 million poor families receive financing and business loans through his microfinance program at the bank.
> 17 of 22
> “Almost every important person in Bangladesh congratulated me for receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” he states in the cable. “But the Prime Minister and her party said not a word about it, so you can see the depth of the problem,“ Yunus wrote in the cable to Verveer, who now is the executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security at Georgetown University. “I thought I should keep you briefed and let you figure out what to be done. Thanks for your help,” Yunus wrote to Verveer in 2009. Verveer could not be reached for comment.
> 18 of 22
> Sajeeb Wazed, the son of Prime Minister Hasina, and a permanent U.S. resident, says that between 2010 and 2012, he was repeatedly pressured to ask his mother to end the investigation into Mr. Yunus, and threatened with an audit or other action if he did not comply.
> 
> 
> 19 of 22
> WATCH | In an interview with Circa News, Wazed claims that Clinton State Department employees pressured him to talk with his mother, the prime minister, and get her to end the investigation into Yunus. He has no documentation to back up this claim.
> 20 of 22
> “At two instances during those conversations they brought up the fact that, ‘look, there could be many actions taken against your country, your mother, your family, who knows, you could get audited by the IRS, since you live in the U.S.,” said Wazed, who has been making the allegations for over five years.
> 21 of 22
> The allegations by Wazed have not been independently confirmed by Circa, and he has no documentation to back up his statement. Requests for comment on both Wazed's claims and response to Prime Minister Hasina's statement have not been returned by Secretary Clinton, her representatives, or the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> Follow Sara Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC


http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862777060254732288


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Savage. :trump will never stop being A Number One Shitposter.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is literally Jonah from Veep


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even though I don't like him, it's still hilarious to me that we basically elected a fucking MEME to lead our country. :lol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> ^ Savage. :trump will never stop being A Number One Shitposter.


Like that? Then get a load of this

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862713452414070784


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump let the Russians bring cameras and recording devices into the oval office? WTF. How stupid can he be?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2beef8121f7_story.html?utm_term=.f4373ce63711


Presence of Russian photographer in Oval Office raises alarms

A photographer for a Russian state-owned news agency was allowed into the Oval Office on Wednesday during President Trump’s meeting with Russian diplomats, a level of access that was criticized by former U.S. intelligence officials as a potential security breach.

The officials cited the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics. Former U.S. intelligence officials raised questions after photos of Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were posted online by the Tass news agency.

[Why was the meeting between Trump, Lavrov and Kislyak so strange?]

Among those commenting on the issue was former deputy CIA director David S. Cohen. Responding to a question posed online about whether it was a sound decision to allow the photographer into the Oval Office, Cohen replied on Twitter: “No it was not.” He declined to elaborate when reached by phone.

The White House played down the danger, saying that the photographer and his equipment were subjected to a security screening before he and it entered the White House grounds. The Russian “had to go through the same screening as a member of the U.S. press going through the main gate to the [White House] briefing room,” a senior administration official said.

Lavrov claims there's no evidence that Russia meddled in U.S. elections Embed Share Play Video2:03
Here are key moments from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's question-and-answer session with reporters at the Russian Embassy in Washington on May 10. (The Washington Post)
Other former intelligence officials also described the access granted to the photographer as a potential security lapse, noting that standard screening for White House visitors would not necessarily detect a sophisticated espionage device.

The administration official also said the White House had been misled about the role of the Russian photographer. Russian officials had described the individual as Lavrov’s official photographer without disclosing that he also worked for Tass.

“We were not informed by the Russians that their official photographer was dual-hatted and would be releasing the photographs on the state news agency,” the administration official said.

As a result, White House officials said they were surprised to see photos posted online showing Trump not only with Lavrov but also smiling and shaking hands with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

[Here’s what we know about Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests]

Kislyak has figured prominently in a series of damaging stories for the administration. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign in February over his contacts with Kislyak last year and over misleading statements about the nature of those conversations to Vice President Pence.

The administration official said that “it is standard practice for ambassadors to accompany their principals, and it is ridiculous to suggest there was anything improper.” He added that White House rooms “are swept routinely” for listening devices.

With Comey's dismissal, the Russia investigation will soon be run by Trump allies VIEW GRAPHIC 
Russia has in the past gone to significant lengths to hide bugs in key U.S. facilities. In the late 1990s, the State Department’s security came under fire after the discovery of a sophisticated listening device in a conference room on the seventh floor, where then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and others often held meetings.

Speaking to reporters at the Russian Embassy after his White House talks with Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Lavrov did not hide his irritation with repeated questions about Moscow’s alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election to boost Trump’s chances and damage Hillary Clinton’s.

“I never thought I’d have to answer such questions, particularly in the United States, given your highly developed democratic system,” he said, according to a simultaneous translation of his remarks into English.

Lavrov said that no evidence exists linking Russia to hacked Democratic Party emails released during last year’s election campaign and that the issue of Russian interference in the campaign did not arise in his meeting with Trump that morning.

U.S. intelligence agencies said they concluded with “high confidence” that Russia tried to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. Lavrov at turns characterized such allegations as “noise” and a “humiliation” for the American people.

“We are monitoring what is going on here concerning Russia and its alleged ‘decisive role’ in your domestic policy,” he said, according to a quote reported in Tass, which added a remark phrased less colorfully by the embassy interpreter. “We have been discussing specific issues, but never touched upon this bacchanalia.”

[Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired, officials say]

By chance, Lavrov visited as the White House is coming under political fire for Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as FBI director on Tuesday night. The FBI has been conducting an investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The overlapping events led to a series of odd scenes.

Before a separate, early-morning meeting with Tillerson at the State Department, Lavrov professed mock surprise when asked whether Comey’s dismissal had cast a shadow over his visit.

“Was he fired?” Lavrov said, arching his eyebrows. “You’re kidding! You’re kidding!”

He then jerked his head back in a dismissive gesture and walked away, shaking his head.

In Moscow, the reaction to Comey’s dismissal also has been acerbic.

“A Comical Firing” was the headline on the Comey story on Russia’s pro-Kremlin NTV news channel. In the report, Konstantin Kosyachev, a senior Russian legislator, said that the FBI director was let go “because he’s not supposed to act like he’s the president.”

The main purpose of Lavrov’s visit to Washington was to discuss the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.

Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Sign up
In a statement after the meeting, the White House said Trump had “emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” particularly urging Russia to “rein in” the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its ally, Iran. He also urged Russia to implement the Minsk accord reached in 2014 in an attempt to end the fighting in Ukraine and “raised the possibility of broader cooperation on resolving conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere,” the statement said.

In his remarks to reporters, Lavrov did not try to paper over his disdain for the Obama administration. He said the Obama administration had driven U.S.-Russian relations to new lows as a result of its “ideological” positions.

Lavrov also said he wants the United States to give back to Russia two properties it seized outside New York and Washington last year after the Obama administration said they were linked to spying.



https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/fo...-let-russians-bring-cameras-into-oval-office/
Former Dep. CIA Director: It was not a good idea for Trump to let Russians bring cameras into Oval Office


a tweet thread by former Deputy Director of the CIA David S. Cohen reveals the former intelligence official’s thoughts on news that Russian ambassadors met in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump.

The first tweet was written by former national security advisor Colin Kahl, which begged the “deadly serious” question of whether it was “a good idea to let a Russian gov photographer & all their equipment into the Oval Office?”

Former Dep. Director Cohen responded, on Twitter: “no, it was not.”

In subsequent tweets, Kahl went on to say that when he worked for Barack Obama’s administration, he “couldn’t let foreign delegations bring phones/cameras” into his own office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and that he had to leave his own phone and camera outside the Oval Office when he worked there.

“Apparently,” Kahl wrote, “that doesn’t apply to Russ Gov in this WH”.

You can read Kahl and Cohen’s tweets below.

Colin Kahl @ColinKahl
Deadly serious Q: Was it a good idea to let a Russian gov photographer & all their equipment into the Oval Office? https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/862330774644637696 …

David S. Cohen @Cohendavid @ColinKahl No, it was not.

Colin Kahl @ColinKahl
I couldn't let foreign delegations bring phones/cameras into my EEOB office, yet Trump let Russian gov photographer+equipment into the Oval.

Colin Kahl @ColinKahl
I was in the Oval daily. Had to leave phone/camera outside. Apparently that doesn't apply to Russ Gov in this WH. https://twitter.com/colinkahl/status/862341867161235456 …


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Even though I don't like him, it's still hilarious to me that we basically elected a fucking MEME to lead our country. :lol


they don't call it meme magic for nothing!


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.
> 
> “If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.
> 
> Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.
> 
> Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.
> 
> “We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
> 
> “Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.
> 
> Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.
> 
> The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination.


http://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says-travel-ban-could-be-constitutional-if-enacted-by-hillary-clinton/


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you can't put two and two together I feel sorry for you. So answer the question why would Trump mention in his letter that fired Comey, thank you for saying you were not investigating me?


Put two and two together? Anyone can do that without facts, and the only thing I'm interested in are facts. I'm not gonna say I know why Trump did it, but if my feet were put to the fire I'd say to point out that the left's insistence that there are connections, but their belief that the connections existed didn't extend to the FBI Director at least 3 different times.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> That clears it up.
> 
> Now we watch the conspiracy theorists try to spin this into whatever they want.


Wouldn't you know it, Trump fired him based on some mundane reason as having reservations about him from the beginning and waiting until Comey's bosses to chime in on whether he was worth keeping. MUH AUTHORITARIAN!!!!


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862760459690274822


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Put two and two together? Anyone can do that without facts, and the only thing I'm interested in are facts. I'm not gonna say I know why Trump did it, but if my feet were put to the fire I'd say to point out that the left's insistence that there are connections, but their belief that the connections existed didn't extend to the FBI Director at least 3 different times.


Comey was asked flat out in a hearing if Trump was under investigation and he said he can't comment on that.

Why do you think that is?

If Comey really did tell Trump he was not being investigated he could have admitted it in the hearing.






TheNightmanCometh said:


> Wouldn't you know it, Trump fired him based on some mundane reason as having reservations about him from the beginning and waiting until Comey's bosses to chime in on whether he was worth keeping. MUH AUTHORITARIAN!!!!


but his bosses did not come to Trump once again Trump is lying.

Trump told them to find a reason to fire Comey.



http://www.businessinsider.com/rod-rosenstein-james-comey-firing-2017-5

Trump's deputy attorney general reportedly threatened to resign after being painted as the mastermind behind Comey's firing


While President Donald Trump's decision to fire the FBI director, James Comey, came as a shock for many, reports now say even a person said to be an architect of the dismissal was surprised with the way the firing was presented to the news media.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had written a three-page memorandum detailing the reasons behind his recommendation for Comey's dismissal, was painted by the White House as the main arbiter of the decision.

Trump had said he acted based on the recommendations of Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

But as Rosenstein was thrust into the spotlight shortly after news of Comey's dismissal broke, he was taken aback and even threatened to resign, according to an unnamed person close to the White House who was cited by The Washington Post.

The Justice Department denied on Thursday morning that Rosenstein had threatened to resign. But Rosenstein was angry that the White House had carried out Comey's termination the way they did, according to CNN.


As many have noted, Rosenstein used his letter to outline his concerns with Comey's leadership, but he did not recommend that Comey be fired. 

The Post reported Wednesday that it was actually Trump who spearheaded Comey's firing. According to multiple news reports Wednesday night, Trump had grown increasingly angry and frustrated over Comey's handling of the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to meddle in the 2016 election. The New York Times reported that Trump was also bothered by his inability to gain assurances of loyalty from Comey.

"He wasn't doing a good job," Trump said Wednesday in his first public comments about Comey's removal. "Very simple. He wasn’t doing a good job."

Comey was further criticized by the White House after the deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday said he had committed "atrocities" for his handling of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

But sources cited by CNN said Rosenstein's purported role in Comey's firing seemed out of place.

"It's not consistent that he walked in here with a hit list and James Comey's name was on the top of it," one law-enforcement official told the network. "That's inconsistent with who he is and what everyone says. This doesn't pass the smell test of Rod Rosenstein."

Natasha Bertrand contributed to this report.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I'm sorry for preferring young, yet legal vagina instead of 70 year old dick.


Do you really want to open that can of worms around here on a wrestling site? :lol



In other news, Trump loves Ice Cream.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Comey was asked flat out in a hearing if Trump was under investigation and he said he can't comment on that.
> 
> Why do you think that is?
> 
> If Comey really did tell Trump he was not being investigated he could have admitted it in the hearing.


Maybe, or maybe there's another reason you're not thinking about.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@birthday_massacre

I'm gonna give putting two and two together a shot. You tell me how I do.

It was reported that Trump wasn't sure over whether he should keep Comey since way back in November, but he decided to wait until Comey's boss was confirmed by the Senate and then ask him whether Comey should stay. In the meantime, he chose to keep Comey in his position until such decision can be made. Once the Senate confirmed Comey's boss, Comey's boss came to Trump and told him that Comey had to go. Trump told him to put it in writing and that he would consider it. Comey's boss did exactly that, Trump read the letter, and then decided to side with Comey's boss that Comey needed to go, and thus Comey was fired.

Please point out how my "truth" is less truer than your "truth".


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Put two and two together? Anyone can do that without facts, and the only thing I'm interested in are facts. I'm not gonna say I know why Trump did it, but if my feet were put to the fire I'd say to point out that the left's insistence that there are connections, but their belief that the connections existed didn't extend to the FBI Director at least 3 different times.


I still say there's no smoke, and thus no fire. 

It's all a big case of continual "sour grapes" that Trump beat Hilary.

Sadly, I have a feeling this will continue for the next 3 years(at least)...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> I'm gonna give putting two and two together a shot. You tell me how I do.
> 
> It was reported that Trump wasn't sure over whether he should keep Comey since way back in November, but he decided to wait until Comey's boss was confirmed by the Senate and then ask him whether Comey should stay. In the meantime, he chose to keep Comey in his position until such decision can be made. Once the Senate confirmed Comey's boss, Comey's boss came to Trump and told him that Comey had to go. Trump told him to put it in writing and that he would consider it. Comey's boss did exactly that, Trump read the letter, and then decided to side with Comey's boss that Comey needed to go, and thus Comey was fired.
> 
> Please point out how my "truth" is less truer than your "truth".


How many times has Trump changed his story on why he fired Comey? He really should make up his mind and the WH should get their stories straight.

Also

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-w...fbi-officials-are-saying-about-comeys-firing/

Here's what current and former FBI officials are saying about Comey's firing
62 Comment Share Tweet Stumble Email
FBI agents at various field offices across the country expressed utter shock over President Trump's abrupt firing Tuesday of FBI Director James Comey -- but also, serious skepticism.

"I think he got rid of him because of the Russian investigation," one FBI agent told CBS News. "They are trying to circle the wagons," said the agent, adding Mr. Trump "wants his own man on there."

A James Comey timeline
Comey "lost the confidence" of FBI employees, says Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Comey's firing comes as the FBI is investigating any ties between Russia and Mr. Trump's associates. Mr. Comey was scheduled to testify before Congress Thursday on any Russian meddling in the election. But Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a letter justifying the reason for the firing to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, cited Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as grounds for his firing. Most recently, Comey gave inaccurate information about the number of Clinton emails that her aide, Huma Abedin, forwarded to her husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner.

Why Trump fired Comey -- and who might replace him 
Play VIDEO
Why Trump fired Comey -- and who might replace him
But that explanation doesn't pass the smell test, and the Russia investigation "is going nowhere now" with Comey out, a recently retired senior FBI official and close friend of Comey told CBS News.

"I do not buy the Rosenstein letter," the former senior official told CBS News. "Trump said get rid of him. What Comey did on HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) was unprecedented but doesn't rise to 'cause' for firing."

A current special agent at the FBI told CBS News the firing is "bulls--."

"I am not happy. I think this is bulls--," the current special agent told CBS News. "We are living in partisan times. Both sides criticized the director; that's why he should still be in the job. The vast majority of the bureau is in favor of director Comey."

"He is one of the first leaders to really care about our people and the institution," the special agent continued. "He talks about ideals and he believes in those ideals; he is the real deal. This is a total shock. This is not supposed to happen."

Another current FBI employee said Comey's firing was, "like we lost a member of our family."

The comments FBI officials made to CBS did not align with those made by Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Sanders, speaking exclusively to CBS News Tuesday night, said Comey lost the confidence of rank-and-file FBI employees.


Senate Democrats calling for special prosecutor
The road ahead at the FBI isn't a bright one, a former senior official who is close to Comey told CBS News, predicting a "mass exodus out of the bureau."

"Anyone under 50 is working on their resume tonight," the former senior official said.

"The FBI is supposed to be independent which is why the term spans administrations," the former senior official added. "Trump will pick someone loyal to him but it will be one hell of a confirmation battle."

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe has been sworn in as acting director of the FBI.

CBS News' Andy Triay, Pat Milton and Jennifer Janisch contributed to this report.



------



Of the 4 or 5 different reasons Trump and the WH have given so far for Comeys firing are you going to stick with this one?

You honstly dont find it odd or it doesnt raise any red flags they cant even get on the same page why he was fired when everyone is giving a different answers?

Trump also lied about Rosenstein coming to him with a letter, Trump made him write a letter giving a reason.

Come on dude use your brain.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of the 4 or 5 different reasons Trump and the WH have given so far for Comeys firing are you going to stick with this one?


OUt of the 4 or 5 different reasons Trump and the WH have given so far for Comeys firing are you going to stick with yours?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> OUt of the 4 or 5 different reasons Trump and the WH have given so far for Comeys firing are you going to stick with yours?


Answer the question.

of course, you deflect the question because you know I am right.

Trump told people to give letters with the reason he can fire Comey, one of the people admitted it and almost quit over it. 

What do you have to say about that?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Like that? Then get a load of this
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862713452414070784


Something tells me this little doozy ain't gonna make it on the wall.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question.
> 
> of course, you deflect the question because you know I am right.
> 
> Trump told people to give letters with the reason he can fire Comey, one of the people admitted it and almost quit over it.
> 
> What do you have to say about that?


It's not a matter of deflecting. From the get go I said I have no idea why Trump did what he did, I merely speculated in the hopes of showing you that you can't possibly be 100% right; and considering it was very easy for me to come up with a counter narrative I was hoping that it would be easy for you to admit that you don't know 100% your narrative is correct. So, I ask again, by your definition, there's 4 or 5 different explanations that have been offered by Trump and the WH alone. How do you know yours is the correct one? At the end of the day, if it's just your confirmation bias choosing the narrative that best fits your line of thinking, then at least be honest and say so. Don't sit there and say you know 100% that what you think is the truth. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's not a matter of deflecting. From the get go I said I have no idea why Trump did what he did, I merely speculated in the hopes of showing you that you can't possibly be 100% right; and considering it was very easy for me to come up with a counter narrative I was hoping that it would be easy for you to admit that you don't know 100% your narrative is correct. So, I ask again, by your definition, there's 4 or 5 different explanations that have been offered by Trump and the WH alone. How do you know yours is the correct one? At the end of the day, if it's just your confirmation bias choosing the narrative that best fits your line of thinking, then at least be honest and say so. Don't sit there and say you know 100% that what you think is the truth. That's all I'm saying.


but your counter claim was easily refuted. 

But you know when I said I know 100% it was hyperbole, right? I was being a wise ass when I said I knew 100%

Until the evidence comes out yes you are right no knows for sure 100%, its all speculation but all the speculation points to it being because Trump was being investigated.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862777060254732288


:sodone

It's a shame so many people are under the delusion that Trump is a fascist, a Russian puppet, or some kind of white nationalist or else they could enjoy this presidency as much as I have been.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> :sodone
> 
> It's a shame so many people are under the delusion that Trump is a fascist, a Russian puppet, or some kind of white nationalist or else they could enjoy this presidency as much as I have been.


trump is the laughing stock of the world. He is a joke.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> US political satire show host, John Oliver, used a tax loophole exploited by Donald Trump in the 1980s, to buy a $9.5 million penthouse apartment in a building that was formerly owned by the billionaire turned President of the United States.
> On Last Week Tonight, Oliver has positioned himself as an everyman, highlighting the cruel injustices in his adoptive home country.
> 
> However, it has now come to light that Oliver (net worth $5 million) and his number one target Trump may, in fact, have something in common.
> 
> In 2014, John Oliver discussed the ever-widening wealth gap in the United States. But mere months before the segment aired, however, Oliver hired high-profile legal firm Proskauer Rose LLP to handle his complex tax matters.
> 
> 
> According to The Observer, Oliver’s lawyer set up two trusts – legal entities which are notoriously hard to prosecute – entitled JO (John Oliver) and KNO (Oliver’s wife Kate Norley Oliver).
> 
> The trusts were then used to create a shell company, Hoagie’s Place LLC, affectionately named after the Oliver family’s dog.
> 
> In 2015, the shell company bought a 39th floor penthouse in an Upper West Side worth $9.5 million, paying half up front and setting up a $4.75 million mortgage with JP Morgan to pay the rest.
> 
> In a cruel twist of fate for Oliver, Trump used to own the apartment building which the then real estate tycoon sold in 2005.
> 
> 
> While Oliver paid $9.5 million for the penthouse apartment, New York City council assessed its market value for tax purposes at a mere $1.3 million.
> 
> Under city tax rules, only $515,000 of that were subject to property taxes, which at a rate of 12.8 percent, Oliver normally would have paid $66,390. Oliver actually benefitted from a tax break engineered by Trump in the 1980s and instead, paid just $27,343 (or a tax rate of roughly 0.25 percent) for the fiscal year in 2016.
> 
> 
> In the 1980s, New York City was experiencing a severe recession and faced the threat of bankruptcy. Banks were loathe to provide any credit to bail the city out and the situation looked increasingly desperate with no hope of redevelopment in sight.
> 
> Here, Trump saw a major opportunity to make a fortune with the city backed into a corner.
> 
> He negotiated with city officials and reached an agreement to redevelop luxury apartments, estimated to have saved the billionaire property mogul close to a billion dollars in taxes over the following decades.
> 
> Trump wanted to use the “421-a” tax exemption in 1980 while redeveloping the Bonwit Teller department store in midtown Manhattan which would later become the first Trump Tower.
> 
> READ MORE: Another season of John Oliver, shameless pro-establishment shill
> 
> “Told by Mayor Ed Koch that the Bonwit site could not qualify for a 421-a tax break, Trump and his lawyer — the infamous Roy Cohn — sued the city,” wrote Latrice Walker and Kevin Parker, two New York State Democrats in an op-ed in The New York Daily news.
> 
> “In the end, Trump won a tax exemption worth $50 million for the extravagant Trump Tower. More importantly, Trump’s lawsuit established that all new development, even luxury projects, would be automatically eligible for the 421-a exemption,” they added.
> 
> It’s this very tax exemption that has benefited Oliver.


https://www.rt.com/viral/388041-john-oliver-trump-tax-loophole/


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*This dumbfuck fires the FBI director WHILE BEING INVESTIGATED and his blind puppets STILL defend him :mj4. Meanwhile, they were crying and demanding to have Hillary thrown in jail :kobelol*


----------



## mattheel

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *This dumbfuck fires the FBI director WHILE BEING INVESTIGATED and his blind puppets STILL defend him :mj4. Meanwhile, they were crying and demanding to have Hillary thrown in jail :kobelol*


In his interview with Lester Holt today, Trump said that Comey told him that he was not under criminal investigation *over dinner!* Hmm...

I seem to recall the majority of Republican elites along with Trump himself really pissed off that Bill Clinton talked with AG Lynch for 30 minutes on an airplane tarmac while his wife was being investigated.

But...Donald Trump can have dinner with the damn director of the FBI who is conducting a criminal investigation into Trump associates and campaign activities and thats super cool?!?! Republicans dont have a single issue? None at all? 

Ok, then...


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



mattheel said:


> In his interview with Lester Holt today, Trump said that Comey told him that he was not under criminal investigation *over dinner!* Hmm...
> 
> I seem to recall the majority of Republican elites along with Trump himself really pissed off that Bill Clinton talked with AG Lynch for 30 minutes on an airplane tarmac while his wife was being investigated.
> 
> But...Donald Trump can have dinner with the damn director of the FBI who is conducting a criminal investigation into Trump associates and campaign activities and thats super cool?!?! Republicans dont have a single issue? None at all?
> 
> Ok, then...


*Nope. He can break laws, ignore the constitution, engage in racist, sexist, and fascist behavior, do blatantly hypocritical things, (like golfing more than Obama within 3 months after bitching about Obama golfing for several YEARS) and his blind and deluded constituency will find ways to defend his stupid fuckery.*


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There's a NYT article that says Trump asked for Comey's loyalty during that dinner and Comey said no, I can promise you honesty. That was probably the beginning of the end right there. Trump is big on loyalty.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In the mean time,



> There's been a lot of other news lately, so you might not have even noticed there was an election on Tuesday. It had been closely watched for months, and it made national news just a few weeks ago. This time, Democrats don't have any victories to claim, moral or otherwise.
> 
> Omaha Mayor Jean Strothert, who had been the first Republican to serve in the office since the last Republican mayor was defeated in 2001, survived (by a seven-point margin) what had been viewed as a strong challenge by Democrat Heath Mello.
> 
> 
> FBI raids Republican campaign consultants in Maryland
> Washington Examiner
> 
> 
> 00:0000:40
> 10:11
> 1:44
> 0:40
> 0:57
> 10:11
> 1:44
> 0:40
> 0:57
> But this wasn't your ordinary mayor's race. During the final weeks, the whole game changed thanks to national Democrats' meddling.
> 
> In most by-elections during the Trump era, Democrats have done unusually well, even if (so far) it hasn't translated to any major or unexpected victories. But in this race, Mello had a real shot. He had finished less than three points behind Strothert in the non-partisan April primary. The incumbent's weak 44 percent finish indicated some potential trouble for her.
> 
> Local Democrats reacted to Mello's defeat with some measure of bitterness, complaining that his campaign basically became a casualty of the "Democratic Unity Tour" staged by DNC Chairman Tom Perez and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
> 
> In late April, Sanders and Perez's surrogate, DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison, went to Omaha to stump for Mello. This generated an unexpected reaction that demonstrates there isn't much unity, and illustrates Democrats' serious, ongoing problem with voters in the heartland. The National Abortion Rights Action League freaked out over the Omaha event. NARAL released a scathing statement that the Democratic Party's embrace of Mello was "politically stupid," because Mello's record as a state legislator had been less than fully supportive of their cause.
> 
> Perez responded a day later by showing his absolute fealty to the abortion lobby, declaring that under his leadership, the DNC will back only candidates who support the right to abortion.
> 
> Mello was quoted by the Associated Press saying that the race took on a "completely different dynamic" after this. Progressive groups withdrew their support. Jane Kleeb, the state Democratic Party chairwoman, gave the AP a quote reflecting some real dismay over what Perez had done:
> 
> "It's astounding that our party chairman would say pro-life Democrats are not welcome," Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb told The Associated Press Tuesday as Mello conceded defeat.
> 
> Others blamed the choice of bringing Bernie Sanders to campaign in what is essentially a moderate town, calling it "a colossal mistake." Either way, the Democrats' "Unity Tour" and their abortion litmus test have just claimed their first casualty.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omaha-democrats-lose-mayors-race-state-party-chair-faults-dnc-chairman-tom-perez/article/2622827

Maybe instead of crying Russia, they might want to repair their damn party.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Watching White House acting like an Asian 'democracy' is delicious schadenfreude. Watching the mental gymnastics of Trump supporters defending it is even better. :lol


You've done mental gymnastics the entire thread. Fuck outa here. :sleep



Legit BOSS said:


> *Nope. He can break laws, ignore the constitution, engage in racist, sexist, and fascist behavior, do blatantly hypocritical things, (like golfing more than Obama within 3 months after bitching about Obama golfing for several YEARS) and his blind and deluded constituency will find ways to defend his stupid fuckery.*


We can do the reverse for democrats as well. Plenty of Obama supporters were blind. It's not like its a repub thing. 

We'll always think of each other as marks. Thats the way politics is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Pretty sweet. Trump has managed to reduce illegal incursions into America simply by talking a tough game and upping the press coverage of deportations. 

- 

Also, I thought that Spicer hiding in the fucking bushes was fake news, but it's starting to look like it wasn't. 

Well, I was one of the first people on here to start demanding that that retard be fired and looks like he's about to be ousted. Not even the least disappointed. Trump's press team needs to work like a proper PR team instead of an idiot coming out and looking like an ass every single day.

That said, the three outlets carrying the Spicer ousting news are all clickbait outlets (MSN, Yahoo and some random Australian tabloid) so it's probably wishful thinking on my part right now.

He needs to hire a memester - not some stiff-necked bureaucrat.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Pretty sweet. Trump has managed to reduce illegal incursions into America simply by talking a tough game and upping the press coverage of deportations.
> 
> -
> 
> Also, I thought that Spicer hiding in the fucking bushes was fake news, but it's starting to look like it wasn't.
> 
> Well, I was one of the first people on here to start demanding that that retard be fired and looks like he's about to be ousted. Not even the least disappointed. Trump's press team needs to work like a proper PR team instead of an idiot coming out and looking like an ass every single day.


Ill never understand the hate for him. Dude told the media to suck a dick just like they should be told.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *but your counter claim was easily refuted.*
> 
> But you know when I said I know 100% it was hyperbole, right? I was being a wise ass when I said I knew 100%
> 
> Until the evidence comes out yes you are right no knows for sure 100%, its all speculation but all the speculation points to it being because Trump was being investigated.


So is yours by the clear lack of evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump administration. There's also this little nugget...



> A Justice Department spokeswoman adamantly denied initial press reports that Comey had asked Rosenstein for additional money or resources to carry out the inquiry.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ed-more-resources-russia-investigation-238216

So, there blows the whole idea that he was fired for trying to dig to deep. Now, is what she said the truth? I have no idea, but if we're going to play the speculation game then that deals a blow to your belief.

There's also this...



> President Donald Trump on Thursday ran into resistance for calling ousted FBI chief James Comey a "showboat," an attack that was swiftly contradicted by top U.S. senators and the acting FBI leader, who pledged that an investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russia would proceed with vigor.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ed-more-resources-russia-investigation-238216

In the end though, you could at least admit that what you believe is speculation and not 100% fact, which you claimed from the start and what I was challenging you on. So, we'll see what happens. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Ill never understand the hate for him. Dude told the media to suck a dick just like they should be told.


I'm sure Trump doesn't care, but it's not just about Trump at this point. Trump is a stronger personality so he can deal with the press the way he wants as that's him. It's his thing. 

Spicer is simply trying to carry on that tone and it's just not as effective. 

You know how Spicer comes across? The pointdexter that hides behind the strong guy and trashtalks in a screechy adolescent voice.

Trump needs a stronger personality on the podium.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Ill never understand the hate for him. Dude told the media to suck a dick just like they should be told.



because you are one of the least informed posters on this forum. There are tons of reason to hate him, it's posted in this thread every day, or just watch the news. But maybe it's just over your head because again you can just stay in the shallow end.

If Hillary did the same things Trump has done, you would be killing her but since its Trump, you accept everything he does. 

but like Trump said he loves the uneducated and uninformed and you have that in spades.

You are the perfect Trump supporter.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> because you are one of the least informed posters on this forum. There are tons of reason to hate him, it's posted in this thread every day, or just watch the news. But maybe it's just over your head because again you can just stay in the shallow end.
> 
> If Hillary did the same things Trump has done, you would be killing her but since its Trump, you accept everything he does.
> 
> but like Trump said he loves the uneducated and uninformed and you have that in spades.
> 
> You are the perfect Trump supporter.


Calling someone uninformed and then talking about Trump when we're talking about Spicer. 

BM. Didn't we have this conversation about you not having knee jerk reactions to conversations I'm having with other people?


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I'm sure Trump doesn't care, but it's not just about Trump at this point. Trump is a stronger personality so he can deal with the press the way he wants as that's him. It's his thing.
> 
> Spicer is simply trying to carry on that tone and it's just not as effective.
> 
> You know how Spicer comes across? The pointdexter that hides behind the strong guy and trashtalks in a screechy adolescent voice.
> 
> Trump needs a stronger personality on the podium.


No he hides behind bushes


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> So is yours by the clear lack of evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump administration. There's also this little nugget...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ed-more-resources-russia-investigation-238216
> 
> So, there blows the whole idea that he was fired for trying to dig to deep. Now, is what she said the truth? I have no idea, but if we're going to play the speculation game then that deals a blow to your belief.
> 
> There's also this...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ed-more-resources-russia-investigation-238216
> 
> In the end though, you could at least admit that what you believe is speculation and not 100% fact, which you claimed from the start and what I was challenging you on. So, we'll see what happens. :shrug


Comey himself said he asked for more money but sure believe Sarah Huckabee Sanders the Trump lackey who embarrassed herself on TV the other night over this whole thing.

It even says in the article you posted 

*Ousted FBI Director James Comey recently told Senate Intelligence Committee leadership that he had requested more resources for the ongoing investigation into allegations Russia meddled in the U.S. election and into contacts between President Donald Trump’s campaign aides and Russian officials, according to two U.S. officials briefed on the conversation.*

So the guy who asked for more money said he asked for it.

Of course the Trump admin is going to try and bury that.




Iconoclast said:


> Calling someone uninformed and then talking about Trump when we're talking about Spicer.
> 
> BM. Didn't we have this conversation about you not having knee jerk reactions to conversations I'm having with other people?


If he is talking about Spicer than my point even more stands since Spicer has always been a clown.

Also the quote had both Trump and Spicer mentioned and Beatles used HE so it could have been Trump or Spicer since both have told the media off.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> No he hides behind bushes


Ok. I legit laughed out loud :ha



birthday_massacre said:


> If he is talking about Spicer than my point even more stands since Spicer has always been a clown.


Doesn't change the fact that you keep butting into my conversations with other people with none of the knowledge and all of the emotions though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Ok. I legit laughed out loud :ha
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that you keep butting into my conversations with other people with none of the knowledge and all of the emotions though.




the quote had both Trump and Spicer mentioned and Beatles used HE so it could have been Trump or Spicer since both have told the media off.

HIs love for spicer is another perfect example of what I was saying. So the point still holds true.

There has been tons of examples posted here what a clown and idiot Spicer is yet beatles still can't see why people wouldn't like spicer either? 

There is zero defense for that. Even I didn't think Beatles could defend spicer that is why I assumed he was talking about Trump.

But I was wrong lol Its worse than I thought

But just watch once Trump turns on Spicer and fires him so will beatels start to trash spicer because he cants think for himself.

All he can do is troll and parrot what Trump says and when Trumps opinion changes on something so does Beatles


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Nope. He can break laws, ignore the constitution, engage in racist, sexist, and fascist behavior, do blatantly hypocritical things, (like golfing more than Obama within 3 months after bitching about Obama golfing for several YEARS) and his blind and deluded constituency will find ways to defend his stupid fuckery.*


They voted for him Legit Boss to take a wreaking ball to the Fed Government. Some of them don't care what he does as long as he does that. Those supporters have a Darwinist view of the country they believe the less help people have the more it will push them to do almost anything good or bad to make high levels of money.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You've done mental gymnastics the entire thread. Fuck outa here. :sleep


Really? I'm not the one arguing for 'freedom' over the past year but liking authoritarian tendencies of the White House here. Trumpcare got you scared yet or are you just happy poor people are going off of Medicaid so you get more of the smaller pie?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Comey himself said he asked for more money but sure believe Sarah Huckabee Sanders the Trump lackey who embarrassed herself on TV the other night over this whole thing.
> 
> It even says in the article you posted
> 
> *Ousted FBI Director James Comey recently told Senate Intelligence Committee leadership that he had requested more resources for the ongoing investigation into allegations Russia meddled in the U.S. election and into contacts between President Donald Trump’s campaign aides and Russian officials, according to two U.S. officials briefed on the conversation.*
> 
> So the guy who asked for more money said he asked for it.
> 
> Of course the Trump admin is going to try and bury that.


It sounds to me like she called him a liar. I'm sure you think Comey was a paragon of virtue, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> It sounds to me like she called him a liar. I'm sure you think Comey was a paragon of virtue, right?


And Trump and his admin are who lie about pretty much everything, and have changed this story on this topic 4 or 5 times.


LOL at the pro trump crowd. They will believe anything the Trump admin says.

If this was Hillary the same people defending Trump would be crucifying Hilary.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.guns.com/2017/05/12/ice-announces-more-than-1000-gang-arrests-in-6-week-nationwide-sting/



> ICE announces more than 1,000 gang arrests in 6 week nationwide sting
> 
> Federal immigration authorities on Thursday announced the arrest of more than 1,300 people as part of a six week, nationwide operation targeting gang members.
> 
> The Homeland Security Investigations arm of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency led the operation, which targeted gang members involved in transnational crime, according to a news release. It was the largest such surge conducted by HSI to date.
> 
> *Of the 1,378 people arrested, 993 were U.S. citizens and 445 were foreign nationals from 21 countries. Of those arrested, 1,095 had gang ties – 137 people affiliated with the Bloods, 118 Sureños, 104 with MS-13, and 104 Crips. The other 283 people didn’t have any gang affiliations.*
> 
> *During the operation, 238 firearms were seized, as were hundreds of pounds of drugs and nearly half a million dollars.
> *
> “Gang-related violence and criminal activity present an ongoing challenge for law enforcement everywhere,” said ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan. “Our efforts to dismantle gangs are much more effective in areas where partnership with local law enforcement is strongest.”
> 
> The efforts took place all over the country, but the most activity happened in Houston, New York, Atlanta and Newark.
> 
> *Three of the nearly 1,400 people incarcerated during the operation had previously been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival status *– a program that defers deportation and grants a work permit for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. at a young age. DACA recipients who “pose a threat to national security or public safety” can have their status terminated and be deported. Since the program began in 2012, the Department of Homeland Security has terminated deferred action status for 1,500 people for criminal or gang affiliation reasons.
> 
> *The six week crackdown announced Thursday was part of Operation Community Shield, an ongoing effort by ICE that started in 2005 and has seen more than 47,000 gang-related arrests.
> *
> The effort comes as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department, at the behest of President Donald Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order cracking down on undocumented criminal immigrants, has opened new offices, threatened gangs with justice, and has tried to force sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration efforts – beefing up data collection to name and shame jurisdictions that decline federal detainer requests.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Ill never understand the hate for him. Dude told the media to suck a dick just like they should be told.


Spicer is the biggest muppet going, are you for real? I think that guy embarrasses Donald Trump and if that happens, you know you have a moron on the podium.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Spicer is the biggest muppet going, are you for real? I think that guy embarrasses Donald Trump and if that happens, you know you have a moron on the podium.


While Spicer is a clown, it makes it 100x that he has to make excuses for all the crap Trump does. Trump embarrssses himself all on his own, the problem is when you have someone like Spicer who is given no direction how to spin it, it makes it even worse


On a side note. Trump now threatening Comey he better hope no one recorded their conversations lol. Isn't that intimidation a witness? 

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...better-hope-there-are-no-tapes-of-our-meeting


----------



## AustinRockHulk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Donald Trump Has Now Admitted He Fired James Comey Because Of The Russia Investigation*
> 
> Many Republicans — from White House staffers to members of Congress to conservative pundits — have been insisting for two days now, despite widespread reports, that President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey had nothing to do with Comey’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.
> 
> Now, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump has admitted it did.
> 
> Asked by Holt about the White House’s initial story that he fired Comey because of a recommendation by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Trump said, “I was gonna fire him regardless of the recommendation.”
> 
> In explaining how he made up his mind, the president directly brought up the Russia case, calling it a “made-up story”:
> 
> He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, he’s highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time do it!
> 
> And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”
> 
> And the reason they should’ve won it is, the electoral college is almost impossible for a Republican to win, it’s very hard, because you start off at such a disadvantage. So everybody was thinking they should have won the election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.
> Comey publicly confirmed that he was investigating Trump allies’ links to Russia back in March. A recent Wall Street Journal report by Shane Harris and Carol Lee claims that the probe has gotten rather serious, with Comey receiving daily updates and being “concerned by information showing possible evidence of collusion,” according to “people with knowledge of the matter.” But Trump has publicly dismissed the allegations in the investigation as “fake news” and asked when “this taxpayer funded charade” will “end":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861713823505494016
> 
> 
> 
> Reports over the past two days have widely claimed that anger at the Russia probe was Trump’s true motivation in firing Comey, but it is still remarkable to hear it from the president himself.
> 
> When Holt then pressed the president on the topic, he maintained he wanted the investigation “to be absolutely done properly.” Since he was concerned the firing would “confuse people,” he went on, perhaps he would even “lengthen” the investigation.
> 
> Look, let me tell you, as far as I’m concerned I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now I said, “I probably, maybe, will confuse people, maybe I’ll expand that, you know, I’ll lengthen the time” — because it should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse. But I said to myself, “I might even lengthen out the investigation.”
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/11/15628276/trump-comey-fired-russia


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AustinRockHulk said:


> https://www.vox.com/2017/5/11/15628276/trump-comey-fired-russia


Comey and the rest of the Bureau *still* haven't found credible evidence of Trump being a Manchurian candidate installed by Putin, yet they still pressed on in light of that narrative effectively being a made-up story like Trump said. To be honest, firing Comey actually saved him from embarrassing himself any further, especially after his fuckery regarding Hillary being indictable. Plus, firing him doesn't mean that any info collected under him goes up in smoke like he does.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So Corey Booker gave an interview on CNN about Trump firing Comey, going on about how awful it was. Then CNN showed a clip of him just a week ago calling for Comey to be "taken to account" for the way he "interfered" in the US election, which was just "dead wrong". He went off the deep end from there. :lol 






THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Please run this guy in 2020, Democrats.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> So Corey Booker gave an interview on CNN about Trump firing Comey, going on about how awful it was. Then CNN showed a clip of him just a week ago calling for Comey to be "taken to account" for the way he "interfered" in the US election, which was just "dead wrong". He went off the deep end from there. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> Please run this guy in 2020, Democrats.


Booker is just Obama 2.0.

The Dems need to run Sanders, Warren or Tulsi in 2020.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Booker is just Obama 2.0.


How so?


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

isn't Tulsi Gabbard a Dem exile at this point?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> How so?


He is a fake progressive just like Obama was.



MrMister said:


> isn't Tulsi Gabbard a Dem exile at this point?


From the establishment Dems maybe but so was/is Bernie Sanders and Bernie is the most popular dem in the country.

Who cares what the establishment thinks they are the reason why Trump is president because they pushed Clinton our throats and rigged the primary to make sure she won.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Booker is just Obama 2.0.
> 
> The Dems need to run Sanders, Warren or Tulsi in 2020.


:kobelol at putting a socialist cuck and White Bread Pocahontas on par with someone competent and compromising like Gabbard.

Come on, breh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :kobelol at putting a socialist cuck and White Bread Pocahontas on par with someone competent like Gabbard.
> 
> Come on, breh.


Sanders and Warren are the two most popular dems in the country.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> isn't Tulsi Gabbard a Dem exile at this point?


Yes, because she dared to do the unthinkable: Tell the truth





> Russian hacker Yevgeny Nikulin claims the FBI offered him money and citizenship if he would accept responsibility for the Clinton email cyberattacks.
> 
> Nikulin is currently being held in a Czech prison. He claims Comey’s FBI offered him citizenship and a free apartment for taking the fall over hacking Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
> 
> 
> Yevgeny Nikulin was arrested in October 2016.
> 
> The Washington Times reported:
> 
> A Russian man wanted by the Justice Department on charges connected to hacking U.S. companies now claims the FBI offered him immunity in exchange for accepting responsibility for cyberattacks targeting former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Yevgeny Nikulin, the alleged hacker, laid the claim to Russian media Thursday in a letter sent from a Czech Republic prison cell amid an international extradition battle currently underway between Washington and Moscow.
> 
> FBI agents promised Mr. Nikulin money, American citizenship and a free apartment for taking the fall over hacking Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, he alleged in a letter published Thursday by Nastoyashchoe Vremya, a Russian-language website.
> 
> “[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [President Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Mr. Nikulin wrote, as translated by The Moscow Times.
> 
> 
> MORE— He claims FBI wanted him to claim he was working for Putin.
> The Moscow Times reported:
> 
> The cyberattack has been widely blamed on Kremlin-backed hackers.
> 
> “[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote. In exchange, his interrogators promised U.S. citizenship, an apartment and money, he said.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/russian-hacker-claims-fbi-offered-citizenship-immunity-apartment-took-responsibility-clinton-email-leaks/


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I feel like I wasn't clear in my previous post because Corey Booker literally said "This is a Paul Revere moment, the Russians are coming" in the video I posted.

This seems worth discussing to me. :lol Thoughts on what Corey Booker thinks the Russians are coming to do?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I feel like I wasn't clear in my previous post because Corey Booker literally said "This is a Paul Revere moment, the Russians are coming" in the video I posted.
> 
> This seems worth discussing to me. :lol Thoughts on what Corey Booker thinks the Russians are coming to do?


Corey Booker is a clown, i dont take anything he says seriously


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Christ, Sanders will be on deaths door surely?


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I guess who the Dems should run and who they will run are two very different things. I don't know enough about Gabbard to have an opinion if she's the optimal candidate or not.




As for Corey Booker...if Erin Burnett makes you look like a fool, you are not prepared.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Christ, Sanders will be on deaths door surely?


He is only like 4 or 5 years older than Trump

Also I would put Ellison in that group or who to run in 2020 but since he is a Muslim the GOP would fixate on that and he probably would not stand a chance in red states.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I feel like I wasn't clear in my previous post because Corey Booker literally said "This is a Paul Revere moment, the Russians are coming" in the video I posted.
> 
> This seems worth discussing to me. :lol Thoughts on what Corey Booker thinks the Russians are coming to do?


Show Americans how to make proper vodka?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders and Warren are the two most popular dems in the country.


And look how popularity worked out for Sanders in the long run. Dude got chumped out by BLM and then gave us a cuck-tastic encore by pussying out instead of crying foul after it was shown that Clinton's goons and the DNC colluded to ensure that she nabbed the nomination.

Warren also bent the knee toward Hilldog in almost record time despite being a consistent critic of her and, again, look how that worked out for her in the long run.

Gabbard is the Dems' only feasible chance for a respectable and capable nominee. And what's funny is that for a political party that preaches about inclusion of minority groups, they'll most likely shaft a female Samoan Hindu who serves in the military because she won't tow the party line due to her not being a bullshit artist.


----------



## AustinRockHulk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Donald Trump Threatens James Comey: ‘Better hope’ there are no tapes of our conversations*
> 
> President Trump threatened former FBI Director James Comey around the possibility that their private conversations were recorded.
> 
> In a tweet Friday morning, Trump wrote, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”
> 
> Trump said in an interview with NBC News Thursday that Comey told him once at dinner and twice over the telephone that he wasn’t under investigation. A New York Times story published Thursday evening reported that Trump had asked Comey at a private January dinner to pledge loyalty to the new president. Comey declined and said that he would be “honest” with the president.
> 
> The series of tweets come as the White House scrambles to deny that it intentionally misled Americans over the series of events that led to Comey’s termination on Tuesday. Administration officials initially said Comey was terminated on the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, but Trump contradicted that message himself on Thursday by saying that he was going to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s opinion.
> 
> The Comey comments were part of a longer series of tweets sent out Friday morning as the president vented on social media, and included a suggestion that he could cancel all future White House press briefings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election.
> 
> 4:51 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/862998775731818496
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> The Fake Media is working overtime today!
> 
> 4:53 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/862999243560288256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!....
> 
> 4:59 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863000553265270786
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> ...Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future "press briefings" and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???
> 
> 5:07 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863002719400976384
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
> 
> 5:26 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?
> 
> 5:54 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863014620516233216
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> 
> China just agreed that the U.S. will be allowed to sell beef, and other major products, into China once again. This is REAL news!
> 
> 6:20 AM - 12 May 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863020954427043840
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-comey-better-hope-no-tapes-conversations-131258224.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And look how popularity worked out for Sanders in the long run. Dude got chumped out by BLM and then gave us a cuck-tastic encore by pussying out instead of crying foul after it was shown that Clinton's goons and the DNC colluded to ensure that she nabbed the nomination.
> 
> Warren also bent the knee toward Hilldog in almost record time despite being a consistent critic of her and, again, look how that worked out for her in the long run.
> 
> Gabbard is the Dems' only feasible chance for a respectable and capable nominee. And what's funny is that for a political party that preaches about inclusion of minority groups, they'll most likely shaft a female Samoan Hindu who serves in the military because she won't tow the party line due to her not being a bullshit artist.


The primary was rigged against Sanders , the DNC is even admitting it now.

Sanders would be president right now if the DNC did not do the fuckery they did to Bernie.

The establishment Dems are dying , the real progressives are starting to take over. The establishment dems are all getting primaried in 2020. Their time is over and the true progressives will take over.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'll keep my own thoughts and views on recent events concerning Trump/Comey etc. to myself for now, but Trump needs a proper team rather than just sending someone out to look like an ass, like how that guy Spicer looked today.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



GOAT Hogan said:


> I'll keep my own thoughts and views on recent events concerning Trump/Comey etc. to myself for now, but Trump needs a proper team rather than just sending someone out to look like an ass, like how that guy Spicer looked today.


That is how Spicer always looks.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The primary was rigged against Sanders , the DNC is even admitting it now.
> 
> Sanders would be president right now if the DNC did not do the fuckery they did to Bernie.
> 
> The establishment Dems are dying , the *real progressives* are starting to take over. The establishment dems are all getting primaried in 2020. Their time is over and the *true progressives* will take over.


Yeah...I'd much rather not have those fuckers succeed the current flabby and sick Dems, since progressivism has devolved into a cancerous ideology that consists of virtue signalling, identity politics, misandrist feminism and "social justice".


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/863076557270765568


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Man Trump literally cannot help himself but keep doing dumb shit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Yeah...I'd much rather not have those fuckers succeed the current flabby and sick Dems, since progressivism has devolved into a cancerous ideology that consists of virtue signalling, identity politics, misandrist feminism and "social justice".


People like Hillary or Booker and even Obama they pretend they are progressives are what gives liberals and progressives a bad name.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> People like Hillary or Booker and even Obama they pretend they are progressives are what gives liberals and progressives a bad name.


Nah. It's the college campus SJWs, socialists, and antifa. Hillary and Obama are just corporate-funded deep state stooges who don't really stand for anything in particular. 

The somewhat rational and level-headed progressives on youtube (people like Kyle from Secular Talk and The Amazing Atheist, NOT the Young Turks who are deranged) are far from a plurality.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah. It's the college campus SJWs, socialists, and antifa. Hillary and Obama are just corporate-funded deep state stooges who don't really stand for anything in particular.
> 
> The somewhat rational and level-headed progressives on youtube (people like Kyle from Secular Talk and The Amazing Atheist, NOT the Young Turks who are deranged) are far from a plurality.


You should also add David Pakman, he is a good progressive.

LOL at the not the young turks, what ever dude.

Cenk and Ana I agree on not level headed but John, Michael Shure and Ben Mankiewicz are all super level headed. Jimmy is even pretty spot on most of the time.

As for antifa they are not progressives, they are alt left. (the alt right of the left)


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is only like 4 or 5 years older than Trump
> 
> Also I would put Ellison in that group or who to run in 2020 but since he is a Muslim the GOP would fixate on that and he probably would not stand a chance in red states.


And point out his trip to mecca was funded by terrorists


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is only like 4 or 5 years older than Trump


tbf when you get that old 4 or 5 years is extremely significant. Bernie will be damn near 80 in 2020.

I don't see it happening; his window closed when he was sacrificed so madam president could get her turn lel. I strongly dislike commie bastard Bernie, but at least he was over and had some momentum.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You should also add David Pakman, he is a good progressive.
> 
> LOL at the not the young turks, what ever dude.
> 
> Cenk and Ana I agree on not level headed but John, Michael Shure and Ben Mankiewicz are all super level headed. Jimmy is even pretty spot on most of the time.
> 
> As for antifa they are not progressives, they are alt left. (the alt right of the left)


The Young Turks are awful and deserve all the hate they get and then some. Especially since they name themselves after a genocidal regime in Turkey that murdered over a million Armenians and openly associate with a man who denied that genocide. I could only imagine how you'd feel if they weren't leftists and identified with another genocidal regime that murdered people based on ethnic cleansing . 

John Iadarola is a moron who thinks if you say you have black friends or claim not to see race(therefore not claiming to be racist), therefore you are in fact a racist. Yeah, thats being a real progressive level headed person


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> As reported earlier — A massive amount of data on 47 hard drives from a government whistle blower was turned over to the Freedom Watch group recently. The information proves Obama and company spied on everyone.
> 
> Via The Conservative Treehouse:
> 
> Freedom Watch notifies congress of a “Deep State” intelligence community whistle blower, Dennis Montgomery, with hundreds of millions of documents showing CIA and FBI and Intelligence Committees were spying on, and conducting surveillance on, American citizens for political purposes.
> 
> Mr. Montgomery is trying to use a legal “whistle-blower” process and not follow the same approach as Edward Snowden.
> 
> In a new report coming from Big League Politics by way of whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, it was revealed that Comey acquired this evidence of government surveillance of Donald Trump before he became President.
> 
> 
> Larry Klayman, from Freedom Watch, the attorney for ex-NSA/CIA contractor and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, gave the FBI 47 hard drives and data, which ultimately meant 600 million pages of documents related to the surveillance scheme.
> 
> At the time, Comey was FBI Director and his general counsel, James Baker, took the data and despite now being in possession of this bombshell revelation, the FBI under Comey did absolutely nothing to act on the information or publicize it.
> 
> As was previously reported by Big League Politics, Timothy Blixseth, a real estate mogul, revealed that he saw records from Dennis Montgomery that prove Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan oversaw and spied on the phone calls of Donald Trump as well as millions of other American citizens. The audiotape – which was released as part of a civil case – can be found below:
> 
> 
> 
> Big League Politics reports:
> 
> In the audiotaped interview — conducted before Trump ever ran for president — Blixseth spoke to former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Mike Zullo. The audio was released in connection with a civil contempt case that the Department of Justice filed against Arpaio. The audio of this conversation appears to only be preserved in one location on the Internet, on a whistleblower Soundcloud page.
> 
> “This guy showed me 900 million phone calls. And I see myself in there. I see people I know. I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg is in there,” Blixseth said on the tape, referring to information that Montgomery allegedly showed him.
> 
> “He’s a very genius computer guy,” Blixseth said of Montgomery. “What they did is, they were actually working for the CIA. And they mask it as — I’m sure you’ll remember this — the contracts with the CIA, of which I had many copies, said that they were decoding Al-Jazeera television, said that there was broadcast embedded, remember that? Owned by Gore? Al Gore’s got part of it now. But it was all bullshit. That was bullshit. That was a front by the CIA. And this guy [Montgomery] worked for Brennan and Clapper. Those were the two guys running it,” Timothy Blixseth told Arpaio and Zullo on the tape.
> 
> “He started out in 2004 with another partner in Reno, Nevada, called eTreppid. They collected about $40 million from the CIA. Top security clearance. All kinds of letters…In 2006 they started a new company that [my ex-wife] owns, and they started doing the same business for the government. What it really turns out they were doing is they were hacking into all of America.”
> 
> The story then gets a bit more finite with a second audiotape being revealed:
> 
> Dennis Montgomery told Zullo in a separate interview — also preserved and released on audiotape — that he gained entry to a Lockheed Martin facility in Los Angeles to work on the surveillance program on a super computer contained at the facility. James Comey served as an executive at Lockheed Martin from 2005 until 2010. An insider close to the story estimates that Montgomery gained access to the facility in 2009, at the beginning of the Obama administration, but that date is only a close estimate. Lockheed Martin did not immediately return a request for comment for this report.
> 
> Montgomery told Zullo on the tape that he accepted nearly eight thousand dollars from someone, with no receipt, and went to Los Angeles to use the facility.
> “Lockheed,” Montgomery said, referring to the company that operated the facility he used.
> 
> Why did he have to use that Lockheed facility? Because it had a super-computer that made it easier for him to open a disk related to the surveillance program.
> “Well, the thing is, I could get on something that was a thousand times faster,” Montgomery said of the facility’s computer.
> 
> Listen to the audiotape below:
> 
> 
> 
> Klayman has now called on the House Intelligence Committee chairman Representative Devin Nunes to hear Montgomery’s testimony.
> 
> Read the full Big League Politics report here.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/report-whistleblower-claims-evidence-showing-president-trumps-phone-calls-spied-audio/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> The Young Turks are awful and deserve all the hate they get and then some. Especially since they name themselves after a genocidal regime in Turkey that murdered over a million Armenians and openly associate with a man who denied that genocide. I could only imagine how you'd feel if they weren't leftists and identified with another genocidal regime that murdered people based on ethnic cleansing .
> 
> John Iadarola is a moron who thinks if you say you have black friends or claim not to see race(therefore not claiming to be racist), therefore you are in fact a racist. Yeah, thats being a real progressive level headed person


LOL

TYT is way more credible than the jokes Trump supporters post on here like Stefan Molyneux, Dibert cartoonist LMFAO, or Ben Shaprio.

As for the name Cenk is from Turkey. He is Turkish.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah. It's the college campus SJWs, socialists, and antifa. Hillary and Obama are just corporate-funded deep state stooges who don't really stand for anything in particular.
> 
> The somewhat rational and level-headed progressives on youtube (people like Kyle from Secular Talk and The Amazing Atheist, NOT the Young Turks who are deranged) are far from a plurality.


Hilarious these people are more in touch with reality than Bill Maher hell I'd rather listen to Sharpiro then most of the Fox News hacks.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> TYT is way more credible than the jokes Trump supporters post on here like Stefan Molyneux, Dibert cartoonist LMFAO, or Ben Shaprio.
> 
> As for the name Cenk is from Turkey. He is Turkish.


They purposely mislead their viewers all the time, there's a reason why several of their videos get shit on because of it. I'm aware of where Cenk is from, it doesn't change the fact that he named his news group "The Young Turks", which he *purposely named after* a genocidal political party in Turkey that had murdered over a million Armenians which he had denied. You're no better than Nazi Sympathizers 

The fact that you claim Ben Shapiro is a Trump supporter further cements that you don't know a damn thing you're talking about, nor do you care about hearing opposing sides . You dismiss anyone who even remotely leans right and claim they're not "credible" because you're rather be isolated by leftist news and have people blindly bow down to you accepting and agree with everything you say.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> They purposely mislead their viewers all the time, there's a reason why several of their videos get shit on because of it. I'm aware of where Cenk is from, it doesn't change the fact that he named his news group "The Young Turks", which he *purposely named after* a genocidal political party in Turkey that had murdered over a million Armenians which he had denied. You're no better than Nazi Sympathizers
> 
> The fact that you claim Ben Shapiro is a Trump supporter further cements that you don't know a damn thing you're talking about, nor do you care about hearing opposing sides . You dismiss anyone who even remotely leans right and claim they're not "credible" because you're rather be isolated by leftist news and have people blindly bow down to you accepting and agree with everything you say.


I am talking about Trump supporters ON THIS BOARD posting videos from those people.

once again you are lying about what I said. But that is your MO so I am not surprised.

As for TYT misleading people, claim what you want but all news so calls misleads people, fox is 100x worse, so is CNN. 

You are being misleading right now with what you just said when you know i was talking about what vidoes Trump supporters are posting.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CNN said:


> Michelle Obama criticizes Trump administration's school lunch policy


From the woman who brought your kids's prison food! :lol




> TYT is way more credible than the jokes Trump supporters post on here like Stefan Molyneux, Dibert cartoonist LMFAO, or *Ben Shapiro.*


FAKE NEWS! Thanks for reminding everybody on the board that you talk out of your ass instead of actually doing research as evidenced by this post. 

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






The ending got awkward real fast...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> From the woman who brought your kids's prison food! :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAKE NEWS! Thanks for reminding everybody on the board that you talk out of your ass instead of actually doing research as evidenced by this post.
> 
> - Vic


the only people that talk out of their asses are Trump supporters.

and are you going to tell me I am wrong that Trump supporters on this forum dont post Ben Sharpio videos?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am talking about Trump supporters ON THIS BOARD posting videos from those people.
> 
> once again you are lying about what I said. But that is your MO so I am not surprised.
> 
> As for TYT misleading people, claim what you want but all news so calls misleads people, fox is 100x worse, so is CNN.
> 
> You are being misleading right now with what you just said when you know i was talking about what vidoes Trump supporters are posting.


TYT is far less credible than Fox or CNN, they're the Buzzfeed of news. 

They spread lies, hate and racist nonsense. They're named after a fucking genocidal group ffs. Would you take news from "THY" aka "The Hitler Youth"? Doubtful. 

Maybe Anna is right though, she's better than us all so we should all listen to her. Though hard to when one week she claims one thing then flipflops the next when it's not part of the agenda. TYT is awful, they're the alt-right of the "Left".


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I wonder how much money the DNC is paying for those bogus-as-fuck stories regarding Trump/Comey? My god are they desperate with their tin-foil hat shit. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/report-whistleblower-claims-evidence-showing-president-trumps-phone-calls-spied-audio/


This along with the "unmasking" is pretty crazy! I thought nobody spied on anyone though.. according the media Trump had no ground on this. :hmmm


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I view tyt about as highly as Alex Jones. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/report-whistleblower-claims-evidence-showing-president-trumps-phone-calls-spied-audio/


I linked a very similar article a couple of months back. Still waiting for something to come of it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> TYT is way more credible than the jokes Trump supporters post on here like Stefan Molyneux, Dibert cartoonist LMFAO, or Ben Shaprio.
> 
> As for the name Cenk is from Turkey. He is Turkish.


You should watch Steven Crowder's videos regarding TYT. If you do though, try to go into it with an open mind.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> The ending got awkward real fast...


Yup, got awkward.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

yeah tbh TYT is just their counter to InfoWars. 

Don't get me wrong, I'll still watch some InfroWars for the lawlz, but I don't rely on it that heavily at all. I don't really use these places for news. I listen to Molyneux, Milo, Shaprio, Peterson, Sargon etc but I don't buy into any of them 100%. There are parts of each of their POV I agree with, others I don't.

There is no single outlet to get an unbiased POV for news. It's up to you to sort it all out and consider what's out there.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Most Trump supporters want anything government related destroyed and if you fuck up and make bad choices of any kind big or small you pay a very big price no one or nothing should exist in the United States to help people.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

47y


> Sessions rescinded policy memos signed in 2013 and 2014 by then-Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. that instructed prosecutors to reserve the toughest charges for high-level traffickers and violent criminals.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-politics-sessions-drugwar-20170511-story.html

Now that the Trump Admin has restarted sending people to jail for low level non violent drug crime will the Trump supporters be willing to accept that Obama was better, if only on this one issue?

Edit: missed there was a thread on this, ignore me


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



glenwo2 said:


> I wonder how much money the DNC is paying for those bogus-as-fuck stories regarding Trump/Comey? My god are they desperate with their tin-foil hat shit. :lol


the stories are coming out of Trumps very own white house and the FBI . Trump even admitted they lied about the reason the fired Comey.

There is a reason why Trump loves people like you. Like Trump said he could shoot and kill someone in NYC and you would still love him


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> TYT is far less credible than Fox or CNN, they're the Buzzfeed of news.
> 
> They spread lies, hate and racist nonsense. They're named after a fucking genocidal group ffs. Would you take news from "THY" aka "The Hitler Youth"? Doubtful.
> 
> Maybe Anna is right though, she's better than us all so we should all listen to her. Though hard to when one week she claims one thing then flipflops the next when it's not part of the agenda. TYT is awful, they're the alt-right of the "Left".


I don't know about fox news though remember the war on Christmas from a few year's back?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You should watch Steven Crowder's videos regarding TYT. If you do though, try to go into it with an open mind.


I have and he is a joke, he is Alex Jones lite. Hes a climate change denier FFS. He is a joke.

Its funny you bash TYT but watch Crowder lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Most Trump supporters want anything government related destroyed and if you fuck up and make bad choices of any kind big or small you pay a very big price no one or nothing should exist in the United States to help people.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

He mirrors some of my thoughts - especially with regards to just how completely incompetent communication from the White House is. But that's ok. Communication hasn't impacted the agenda and that's fine. I disagree with his assertion that communication makes accomplishing the agenda more difficult as there's no evidence of that at all. 

The media are going to shit on Trump no matter what so might as well enjoy the fuckery. At least due to Trump's fuckery people know exactly what's happening unlike with previous governments where apathy ensured governments far too much freedom to do whatever they wanted. 

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/637755356410463



> SOMEONE NEEDS TO SAVE DONALD TRUMP FROM HIMSELF
> 
> Editorial by Kevin Ryan
> 
> The firing of FBI Director James Comey was completely justified, overdue, and likely necessary to reestablish the credibility of the Bureau in the eyes of the public and in Washington.
> And yet the way it was handled turned into yet another political blunder by an administration that has struggled to find its footing since it unexpectedly won election in November. Firing Comey while he was in the midst of investigating members of the Trump campaign for alleged collusion with Russia was poor timing, to say the least. And doing so by letter was amateurish. Director Comey actually found out he was fired from the news.
> 
> Reports say that very few people were consulted on the decision to fire him, a fact that may reveal the problem with Trump's presidency so far: he's not getting (or taking) enough good political advice, and his press office has been uneven in its explanations of Trump's actions.
> 
> Indeed, according to the New York Times, "three senior White House officials conceded that its public explanation for the firing was an unmitigated mess, blaming the communications shop, with one describing it as the 'weakest' element of the West Wing."
> 
> But it may just be that Trump is the weak link. Using Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending the firing as political cover was sound reasoning, but Trump himself blew that explanation when he told Lester Holt that he was gonna fire Comey no matter what Rosenstein recommended. It's clear that this president has trouble sticking to the script, and that has already gotten him in a lot of hot water.
> 
> And every time it seems he's turning a corner, he sabotages himself. The Comey firing happened just after Trump's big legislative victory with the passage of the Obamacare replacement in the House. But rather than parlay that into momentum for Senate passage and tax reform, he decided to drop the Comey bombshell and all discussion of his agenda stopped dead in its tracks.
> 
> Then, just as the Comey controversy was starting to fade a bit, the president blows it back up with his tweet saying Comey should worry about recordings of their conversations coming out.
> 
> People who argue that President Trump wasn't elected to play politics as usual don't understand that the reason politics and messaging are important is because, as much as they don't want to admit it, the American people are very swayed by it. Perception is everything, unfortunately, and it's very easy for opponents to take something like the Comey firing and use it to stir suspicions of a cover-up. Indeed calls for an independent counsel to investigate Trump campaign ties to Russia increased after the firing, and even started getting Republican support.
> 
> So while it's been somewhat refreshing to see a president who's unafraid to give it right back to the media and people like "Cryin' Chuck" Schumer (lol), there needs to be better messge discipline and political coordination to, frankly, keep the Donald from saying or doing something to endanger his presidency. Every day Republicans must dread waking up and checking their new twitter notifications from "The Real Donald Trump", having to wonder whether this might be the day he finally says something that sinks their party. It's been less than 4 months and he's seemingly in trouble daily... does anyone really think he can survive 4 years of this?
> 
> For entertainment value alone, I sure hope so. But more importantly, there are parts of his agenda, like deregulation and tax reform, that America desperately needs, but which are being made more difficult to lift every time Donald Trump pushes the narrative in the wrong direction. Let's hope somebody on his team can finally rein in the president, just enough to put the focus back on his agenda... and keep it there.


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Crowder is great for the most part, has really good guests on too. Disagree with him being Alex Jones lite at all, being a Climate Change skeptic doesn't mean you're a conspiracy theorist in the slightest to be honest. Though I do think he is wacky on that and a couple of other issues.

TYT is trash.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You don't have to listen to people like Crowder and other journalists about Climate Change. There are plenty of authentic scientists that disagree with the politicised version of climate change. But the media would rather call a mechanical engineer who's really just a monkey that dances for money as an authentic "expert". If the left calls Nye an "expert", then at that point you have to start questioning everyone else they call "experts" too and genuinely listen to the other side. You owe it to yourself.



> Here's a list:
> 
> *Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections*
> These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
> 
> 
> David Bellamy, botanist.[18][19][20][21]
> Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[22][23]
> Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[24][25]
> Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[26][27][28][29]
> Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[30][31]
> Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[32]
> Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[33][34]
> Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[35][36][37][38]
> Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
> Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[46][47]
> Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[48][49][50]
> Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[51][52]
> Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[53][54]
> Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[55][56]
> Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[57]
> Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[58][59][60][61]
> Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[62]
> Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[63][64]
> Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[65][66]
> Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[67][68]
> Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[69][70]
> Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[71][72]
> 
> *Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
> *
> Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[73]
> These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[74][75]
> Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[76][77][78]
> Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[79][80][81]
> Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[82][83]
> Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[84][85]
> David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[86][87]
> Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[88][89]
> William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[90][91]
> Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[92][93]
> Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[94][95]
> William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[96][97]
> David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[98][99]
> Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[100][101]
> Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[102][103]
> Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[104][105]
> Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[106][107]
> Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[108][109]
> Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[110][111]
> Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[112][113][114]
> Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[115][116]
> Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[117][118]
> Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[119][120][121][122]
> Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[123][124]
> Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[125][126]
> Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[127][128]
> George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[129][130]
> Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[131][132]
> 
> *Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
> *These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
> 
> 
> Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[133][134]
> Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[135][136]
> Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[137][138]
> Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[139][140]
> John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[141][142][143]
> Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[144][145]
> David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[146][147]
> Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division [148] [149]
> Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[150][151]
> Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[152][153]
> Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[154][155]
> Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[156]
> Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
> These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
> Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[157][158][159]
> Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [160][161]
> Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[162][163]
> Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[164][165]


Wonder why the left never interviews any of these people :hmmm



birthday_massacre said:


> I have and he is a joke, he is Alex Jones lite. Hes a climate change denier FFS. He is a joke.
> 
> Its funny you bash TYT but watch Crowder lol


There is no such thing as a _climate change denier_. It's a leftist strawman.

There are several schools of thought within the climate change skeptic community and they are all scientifically backed up positions. People in the climate change skeptic community hold these very reasonable views:

1. Everyone accepts that the globe is indeed warming.
2. The data on whether humans caused it is inconclusive
3. There are several causes of climate change and therefore only focusing on human caused climate change (if it's happening) is myopic and therefore the solutions presented are incomplete and likely not going to make a difference
3. The position that global change will cause a rising of sea levels is inconclusive. In order for the sea levels to actually rise and not disperse, the earth would have to create new water into existence which simply isn't happening at a fast enough rate for the levels to rise to the point of coastal devastation. 
4. The devastation caused by climate change is over-exaggerated. 1000's of unrelated things have been related to climate change. Dozens of apocalyptic predictions have already been proven false. More are proven false every year than proven true. Mass Extinction isn't happening. More extreme storms aren't happening. Etc Etc. 
5. Even if the devastation caused by climate change isn't exaggerated, current policies will have no impact on reduction in warming
6. Increased funding to government programs designed combat climate change are being misappropriated. If you can't trust the capitalist, what makes the politician trustworthy? 
7. This is the most radical position (and the one I hold): Climate Change is good for life. Life likes warm temperatures. There are more plants, more animals and more humans. Every single time there has been a warming period, scientists have observed a boom in populations through the fossil record. If global warming is happening, then it's good for the world, not bad. 

It's a nuanced position based on science and actual skepticism. But I don't expect you to accept any of this nuance. Carry on with calling everyone that disagrees with you all kinds of names as that is your modus operendi on many topics.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In other news I added birthday massacre to my ignore list he is one of the most annoying people ecer


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You don't have to listen to people like Crowder and other journalists about Climate Change. There are plenty of authentic scientists that disagree with the politicised version of climate change. But the media would rather call a mechanical engineer who's really just a monkey that dances for money as an authentic "expert". If the left calls Nye an "expert", then at that point you have to start questioning everyone else they call "experts" too and genuinely listen to the other side. You owe it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why the left never interviews any of these people :hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a _climate change denier_. It's a leftist strawman.
> 
> There are several schools of thought within the climate change skeptic community and they are all scientifically backed up positions. People in the climate change skeptic community hold these very reasonable views:
> 
> 1. Everyone accepts that the globe is indeed warming.
> 2. The data on whether humans caused it is inconclusive
> 3. There are several causes of climate change and therefore only focusing on human caused climate change (if it's happening) is myopic and therefore the solutions presented are incomplete and likely not going to make a difference
> 3. The position that global change will cause a rising of sea levels is inconclusive. In order for the sea levels to actually rise and not disperse, the earth would have to create new water into existence which simply isn't happening at a fast enough rate for the levels to rise to the point of coastal devastation.
> 4. The devastation caused by climate change is over-exaggerated. 1000's of unrelated things have been related to climate change. Dozens of apocalyptic predictions have already been proven false. More are proven false every year than proven true. Mass Extinction isn't happening. More extreme storms aren't happening. Etc Etc.
> 5. Even if the devastation caused by climate change isn't exaggerated, current policies will have no impact on reduction in warming
> 6. Increased funding to government programs designed combat climate change are being misappropriated. If you can't trust the capitalist, what makes the politician trustworthy?
> 7. This is the most radical position (and the one I hold): Climate Change is good for life. Life likes warm temperatures. There are more plants, more animals and more humans. Every single time there has been a warming period, scientists have observed a boom in populations through the fossil record. If global warming is happening, then it's good for the world, not bad.
> 
> It's a nuanced position based on science and actual skepticism. But I don't expect you to accept any of this nuance. Carry on with calling everyone that disagrees with you all kinds of names as that is your modus operendi on many topics.



Climate change nonsense is big bucks.

It's simply a scare tactic to fleece money out of people with no real way to make any changes.

How will you get people to change their ways? Threat of war? Economic sanctions nobody will sign off on?

Why are the people who are challenging the Climate Change rhetoric not being interviewed and why did nobody bat an eye when fudged numbers were pushed as proof of change?

If there is money to be made off peddling Climate Change rhetoric and regulations then everyone should question it. If there is big money to be made you can be there is sneaky shit going on.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Climate change nonsense is big bucks.


It's also creationism. 

Take the 97% claim which was debunked dozens of times over and yet it's still the first thing every climate change creationist utters. Top of mind like the existence of god. Can't even begin to question its authenticity.

And imagine, the future is going to be filled with kids who've gone through common core.

They're already being trained to boo the one person that's actually fighting for their right to choose. It's like antivaxxers all over again just with school curricula.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's also creationism.
> 
> Take the 97% claim which was debunked dozens of times over and yet it's still the first thing every climate change creationist utters. Top of mind like the existence of god. Can't even begin to question its authenticity.
> 
> And imagine, the future is going to be filled with kids who've gone through common core.
> 
> They're already being trained to boo the one person that's actually fighting for their right to choose. It's like antivaxxers all over again just with school curricula.


It's like current Politics or Social Justice, it's a Religion and not sure why this type of thinking has been creeping up in places that should be pushing facts.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I hope my belief and others in human caused climate change and its effects aren't seen as completely irrelevant because there happens to be scientists and other professionals who hold the belief that either human caused climate change is a non-factor, or that global warming is something that we don't have to worry about at all.

*So it seems like the majority of these scientists are believers in global climate change being more of a result of natural processes than androgenic processes, which is defintely a legitimate argument, and one I can get on board with. 

General consensus also seems like an increase as a whole on greenhouse gasses like CO2 (_speaking of which, I kinda laughed at the few who thought the idea of a greenhouse effect was nonsense. I mean, we'd be basically have the moon's temperatures without it_) would have a positive effect on plants and animals as a whole, which could also be true. However, the main concern with environmentalists seems to be the idea that global climate change is going to continue to contribute to rising sea levels due to the melting of our polar ice caps, thus creating a huge issue within the next century or so for millions of people who call shoreline regions their home, and are in areas prone to bad flooding from storms and storm surge. With increasing sea levels, I can easily see why people would be worried about this sort of thing becoming worse. 

David Legates seems to share my views best. Basically, his views were that anthropogenic climate change is a thing, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as it's made out to be. Instead, he believes that there is a lack of emphasis put onto other factors, such as increased solar activity, water vapor as a greenhouse gas (something I was taught in college that I think should be more well known), and other variables. But that doesn't really make the idea of rapid global climate change suddenly not become an issue at all. If it drives us towards treating our environment with more respect and making us care more about our environment (keeping our water bodies cleaner and friendly towards life, keeping our air cleaner for our own sake, etc), then maybe it isn't such a bad thing.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


Isn't that a little fucked up? Is less your goal is to really cut down on the people that live here because the old saying picking yourself up by your bootstraps does not work as well as you think.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Long post incoming. Might have gone on a tangent or two, I tried not to :lol



Iconoclast said:


> There are several schools of thought within the climate change skeptic community and they are all scientifically backed up positions. People in the climate change skeptic community hold these very reasonable views:
> 
> 1. Everyone accepts that the globe is indeed warming.


Thankfully most people can agree on this point.



> 2. The data on whether humans caused it is inconclusive


While I think that anthropogenic climate change I think does exist in some sort of fashion (how large that is can be up for debate, but I think it's something that shouldn't be ignored), I think that just how much its's been championed as being the main cause of general climate change as a whole is overstated. But, what we're doing as a result of our maybe over-reliance on this claim has been pretty good in terms of the overall health of our environments. Doing this like closing coal plants to instead use solar and other renewables is good for our own air quality as well as good in that is does follow the markets somewhat (solar is becoming incredibly cheap now). However, I think we do go nuts with regulations sometimes. 



> 3. There are several causes of climate change and therefore only focusing on human caused climate change (if it's happening) is myopic and therefore the solutions presented are incomplete and likely not going to make a difference


I wouldn't say ZERO difference is made with the solutions being used, rather they might be somewhat as overstated as the idea of climate change being a result of anthropogenic causes is overstated. If anything, the majority of climate change might be the result of general natural climate change (the earth works in cyclic ways, we might be just in one of those), as well as other aspects such as increased solar activity. In my own eyes, I think we still play an important role in general climate change, and what we do can impact it, but only to an extent. I don't think our actions are the be all end all in terms of reversing the warming pattern, because that is most likely going to continue regardless of what anybody thinks could help. 



> 3. The position that global change will cause a rising of sea levels is inconclusive. In order for the sea levels to actually rise and not disperse, the earth would have to create new water into existence which simply isn't happening at a fast enough rate for the levels to rise to the point of coastal devastation.


If the water cycle is anything to believe, then you're right in terms of the total water on earth never changing. However, global climate change is having a major effect on our polar ice caps, and I'm sure you know of the decrease in our total ice sheets for both areas. We're getting chunks of ice the size of Rhode Island and other small states breaking off and drifting into warmer waters, which melts them. One of the worries is that does release C02 when this happens, as well as gases like methane which are much worse overall than C02 is when it comes to the greenhouse gas discussion.

However, the belief (and one I share) is that when this huge melting happens, you're now taking water which was in a much smaller volume overall (slow molecules = closer together overall = smaller volume being taken up), and melting it so it's a liquid again, and also making that water general warmer as a result of less ice and general global warming, which leads to a larger volume of water simply thanks to states of matter (faster molecules = spread farther apart = larger volume taken up). So with this generally larger volume due to warmer water and less ice, that itself is the main reason that sea level rise is considered a threat, although one that will probably take awhile to happen. 

It's still will cause major issues over many years if nothing is done to help people prepare for it. Higher sea levels with the addition of storm surges will mean that generally these will become worse overall. Even run of the mill flooding events within maybe a century or so could become worse if this warming trend remains (although that itself is unknown at how long this will continue).



> 4. The devastation caused by climate change is over-exaggerated. 1000's of unrelated things have been related to climate change. Dozens of apocalyptic predictions have already been proven false. More are proven false every year than proven true. Mass Extinction isn't happening. More extreme storms aren't happening. Etc Etc.


Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the doomsday projections either, mostly because it screams fear-mongering sometimes, and that it seems like a ploy to get people all up and bothered so they think that they have to become these hardcore environmentalists. I consider myself an environmentalist for the environment itself, not because of some fear over climate change being so quick that life as we know it will be chaos within a few decades (although if WWIII ever happens then we won't need any climate change for that :lol ).

I think more extreme storms are currently happening, and I think this is thanks to the warming as well we've seen from water temperatures. Using tropical cyclones as the example, it seems like while the general number of storms have remained relatively the same, the possibility and likelihood of stronger systems are higher than they were. In general, when looking at the list of the strongest storms on record, for areas like the SW Indian Ocean and South Pacific Ocean, the majority of their strongest storms have occurred within the last 15 years or so. The warming climate also can extend the general season for hurricanes out longer as well.

Mass extinction I think isn't related to climate change as much, rather than just general anthropogenic conditions. However, we're technically not in one now, but I think the chance of us going into one within the next few hundred years is a possibility, and I think its mainly as a result of our own booming population than anything else. I've read articles and studies that say it could happen within anywhere from a few hundred years from now to something like 2000 or more, which is a pretty long time to predict anything that substantial. But this is mainly animal species going extinct more than anything, and I think also people might get this mindset thanks to the lessening populations of some well know huge animals like elephants, tigers, polar bears, and aquatic animals like bluefin tuna. 

If anything, seems like the majority of any devastation seems more human driven than anything, which is not climate change. 



> 5. Even if the devastation caused by climate change isn't exaggerated, current policies will have no impact on reduction in warming


Most policies won't do much for climate change itself, but will do good for our own kind. Stuff like the Clean Air Act did vastly improve the air quality of places like Pittsburgh and other areas, just like the Clean Water Act helped to give the boot in the ass people in Cleveland needed to clean up the Cuyahoga River (The famous one that was on fire three different times). While I agree some Environmental Regulation can be detrimental as a whole, I do like a lot of it, and I think generally speaking over the past 50 years or so it's helped improve things somewhat, even if it doesn't really tackle the issue of climate change as well as intended. 


> 6. Increased funding to government programs designed combat climate change are being misappropriated. If you can't trust the capitalist, what makes the politician trustworthy?


Their funds should be better taken care of, and I think should be used more towards research for things like better and more efficient renewable energy. The idea of money being wasted is something pretty prevalent in a lot of governmental organizations sadly, and while this does make my general trust lessen somewhat, I'm also not on the side to denounce government period either. 

It might be because I don't know much about the libertarian philosophy on ideas, but if you were to have states run by capitalists instead of politicians, would we be able to put that much trust into them than we do politicians? I mean, I suppose it could be better given that capitalists are more reliant on the people as a whole in terms of actually surviving, but it's not like they're all good eggs either. 



> 7. This is the most radical position (and the one I hold): Climate Change is good for life. Life likes warm temperatures. There are more plants, more animals and more humans. Every single time there has been a warming period, scientists have observed a boom in populations through the fossil record. If global warming is happening, then it's good for the world, not bad.


And here's the biggest idea with climate change I think. Generally speaking, life on earth will continue for the foreseeable future, whether or not humans were around or not. Considering earth is cyclic in nature, you'll have warming and cooling, extremely hot periods and ice ages, and even extinctions (although this is less cyclic I think and needs a huge driving factor, like the asteroid impact with the dinosaur extinction). Nevertheless, there is always going to be plenty of life on earth as a whole, and all our species will learn how to adapt and thrive, or whittle away into extinction only to be replaced by newer ones.

Global climate change is solely a worry humans have over their own future, thanks to all the data we are now able to collect as we become increasingly advanced. Warming periods are good for plants, especially higher CO2, plants love the stuff of course. But warming isn't good when we speculate on what might happen, and go doom and gloom over what results we might come up with for the future, in that we could lose species we love and identify with like our elephants and such, or when we watch the world movies like WALL-E predicts could happen as a result of an increasing human population. We don't like change, I don't think the list of people who love change all the time is going to be huge, and that's just how most of us are. So we want to keep the world in a state which we are comfortable with, that would make it so that we never have to worry about anything happening to our homes near the coast, or stuff like that. 

I just want an environment that's good for everybody and maybe a bit of that does involve tackling climate change because I'm afraid of change as a whole, and I don't want to have to imagine a world where the beaches I went to as a kid don't exist anymore. The idea of it really is almost selfish in a way, and while a huge amount are indeed trying help our environment remain like it is for generations down the road, I bet a lot of people are simply concerned about themselves, and this selfish nature I think is also a driving factor for a lot of science even, not just the idea of climate change and how it impacts us.

I might have rambled a lot here, but you kinda get the point I'm coming from :lol


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^ Wait for a response to this on Monday. Reserving a spot so I don't break up any future discussion.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have and he is a joke, he is Alex Jones lite. Hes a climate change denier FFS. He is a joke.
> 
> Its funny you bash TYT but watch Crowder lol


The way your brain works, I don't get it. I have seen Crowder take the common sense route again and again. I've seen him talk logically and sound about many different topics. Yet, you say he's like Alex Jones, a joke, and a climate change denier, which is patently false, by the way. He has never denied that the climate changes, he just questions how much of it is man made. Which is a legitimate question because even scientists can't answer that.

But, TYT, who deny the Armenian genocide, they're harbingers of truth. Again, I don't get it.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> 47y
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-politics-sessions-drugwar-20170511-story.html
> 
> Now that the Trump Admin has restarted sending people to jail for low level non violent drug crime will the Trump supporters be willing to accept that Obama was better, if only on this one issue?
> 
> Edit: missed there was a thread on this, *ignore me*


Don't worry. Plenty of us are. :sleep


(oh and to throw you Obama worshipper a bone here : Sure. I'll accept that. Doesn't change my overall support of the POTUS, though. You can't please everybody. That's impossible. )


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Isn't that a little fucked up? Is less your goal is to really cut down on the people that live here because the old saying picking yourself up by your bootstraps does not work as well as you think.


It's your hallucination of other people's views, you tell me. :draper2

Trump musing about canceling press briefings. :lol He should absolutely do it.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He mirrors some of my thoughts - especially with regards to just how completely incompetent communication from the White House is. But that's ok. Communication hasn't impacted the agenda and that's fine. I disagree with his assertion that communication makes accomplishing the agenda more difficult as there's no evidence of that at all.
> 
> The media are going to shit on Trump no matter what so might as well enjoy the fuckery. At least due to Trump's fuckery people know exactly what's happening unlike with previous governments where apathy ensured governments far too much freedom to do whatever they wanted.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/637755356410463


Tries to sound reasonable 'comey needed to go' then flies off on a tangent 'comey was investigating'.

Ahem, COMEY RUNS THE FBI, DOES NOT INVESTIGATE.

Furthermore, THE INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE.

Results?

NO EVIDENCE

How do i know?

NO NAMES, NO NEW INFO or that WOULD have leaked. You are a imbecile if you think ANYTHING damaging to trump is kept secret. The press bitches when he gets more ice cream for fuck sakes.

Trump did not collude with the russians, and those of us experienced with the slimy, hypocritical left knows how this ends.

Keep the investigation going as long as possible.

If anything is found, no matter what, tie it to trump and scream for his resignation.

If nothing is found, scream that they 'hid their tracks too well' after informing us ad nauseum that trump and his team are dumber than neanderthals


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL at the trump supporters still denying humans making climate change worse. You are just as bad as people who deny evolution. But there is a reason why Trump likes you guys.


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the trump supporters still denying humans making climate change worse. You are just as bad as people who deny evolution. But there is a reason why Trump likes you guys.


Strawman. Nearly everyone agrees they play a part. 

It's how much they play a part and if any thing they change will make a big enough impact. 

So how much does human play a part? 100%,80%,50%,10%?. And if we were able to completely eliminate the human element (which will never happen), will it actually stop the climate change we are seeing. These are questions that can't be answered today, but if anyone asks them,they immediately get called a "climate change denier" , which is a completely false narrative in an attempt to stop the discussion before it can start. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Kink_Brawn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the trump supporters still denying humans making climate change worse. You are just as bad as people who deny evolution. But there is a reason why Trump likes you guys.


LOL at the anti Trumpers who are so incredibly butt blasted by the man, they take the time to type out pointless posts on a forum for a fake sport and act they are they intelligent ones.


----------



## Draykorinee

Why am I not surprised there's climate change sceptics in here.



Kink_Brawn said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL at the trump supporters still denying humans making climate change worse. You are just as bad as people who deny evolution. But there is a reason why Trump likes you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL at the anti Trumpers who are so incredibly butt blasted by the man, they take the time to type out pointless posts on a forum for a fake sport and act they are they intelligent ones.
Click to expand...

Weak comeback.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Why am I not surprised there's climate change sceptics in here.


We aren't skeptical about the existence of it, just how much humans are responsible.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/863441793064607745The Times everyone. MSM really has become a self parody


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/863483266069823490and it keeps on coming


----------



## AustinRockHulk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Donald Trump Thinks Exercise Will Kill You*
> 
> How healthy is President Donald Trump? We don’t really know. The president never released his full medical records, and instead opted for a surreal on-air physical with TV star Dr. Oz.
> 
> One health aspect Trump is transparent about: He doesn’t like to break a sweat. To be more precise, he thinks physical activity will kill you faster.
> 
> In a remarkable New Yorker story this week about how Donald Trump could realistically be removed from the presidency, Evan Osnos writes: “Other than golf, he considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy.”
> 
> The Trump “human body as non-rechargeable battery” theory was first detailed by Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher in their 2016 book, Trump Revealed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After college, after Trump mostly gave up his personal athletic interests, he came to view time spent playing sports as time wasted. Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. So he didn’t work out. When he learned that John O’Donnell, one of his top casino executives, was training for an Ironman triathlon, he admonished him, "You are going to die young because of this."
> 
> 
> 
> On the campaign trail, we learned that Trump didn’t dedicate any extra time to breaking a sweat because he believes exercise is actually harmful, according to this 2015 New York Times profile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. ‘‘All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster,’’ he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. ‘‘That’s exercise.’”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let’s pause to consider how remarkably backward this is.
> 
> There was a time when doctors would have concurred with Trump on this. That was the Victorian era. Back then, people worried a physical activity could cause everything from exhaustion and heart palpitations, particularly in women.
> 
> A century later, doctors’ thinking has moved on. Research now shows exercise is actually the closest thing we have to a miracle cure.
> 
> Regular physical activity can “prevent dementia, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, depression, heart disease and other common serious conditions — reducing the risk of each by at least 30%,” according to this 2015 report on the benefits of exercise from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. “This is better than many drugs,” the authors wrote.
> 
> It also helps people live longer. “Many studies give an approximate 30% risk reduction in all-cause mortality. Smoking is the biggest contributor to early mortality and years living with chronic illness and disability. Physical inactivity, through multiple mechanisms produces an effect one-third the effect of smoking.” Overall, the researchers found, regular exercise reduces cardiac death by 31 percent.
> 
> So for Trump, exercise is deadly. But according to science, it’s a miracle drug.
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/9/15590962/donald-trump-thinks-exercise-will-kill-you

WTF? LOL


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I looked it up and interestingly Athletes do die younger (though it's marginal).

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...athletes-shorter-life-spans-article-1.1320753



> Researchers Richard Epstein and Catherine Epstein said the study, based on analysing 1,000 New York Times obituaries from 2009-2011, found film, music, stage performers and sports people died at an average age of 77.2 years.
> 
> This compared to an average lifespan of 78.5 years for creative workers, 81.7 for professionals and academics, and 83 years for people in business, military and political careers.


There is no evidence yet that proves conclusively that all of our pseudo-scientific obsession with "healthy eating and exercise" is what's elongating our lives. The most conclusive evidence is that our life spans are becoming longer because of sanitation and medical advances and staying away from certain vices. Exercise does not increase life-span by itself, it just keeps us less likely from dying of obesity or fat-related illnesses. In fact, for people with cardiovascular diseases, exertion is restricted.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the trump supporters still denying humans making climate change worse. You are just as bad as people who deny evolution. But there is a reason why Trump likes you guys.


Nobody said humans aren't making it worse. We're just saying there's a huge difference between 1% worse and 90% worse, and scientists are unable to determine whether it's 1%, 90%, or somewhere in the middle. And shame on you for not giving that reservation thought and respect.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Sweenz said:


> Strawman. Nearly everyone agrees they play a part.
> 
> It's how much they play a part and if any thing they change will make a big enough impact.
> 
> So how much does human play a part? 100%,80%,50%,10%?. And if we were able to completely eliminate the human element (which will never happen), will it actually stop the climate change we are seeing. These are questions that can't be answered today, but if anyone asks them,they immediately get called a "climate change denier" , which is a completely false narrative in an attempt to stop the discussion before it can start.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I mentioned the research done by University of Madison Wisconsin about the "Chaotic Solar System" theory and how they found rocks in Colorado that could potential corroborate the theory. Basically , the solar system would also help effect climate change . I mentioned it here a couple times and no one has bothered to reply about it nor is the mainstream media even talking about it. It's rather interesting 

"*Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.*
*
The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history

The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales. *"

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> n article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.
> 
> Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.
> 
> John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.
> 
> A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”
> 
> The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.
> 
> Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).
> 
> The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.” To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.
> 
> All of this took place at the very moment Brennan was auditioning for Hillary. He desperately wanted to keep his job and despised Trump for his alleged “Muslim ban,” a matter near and dear to Brennan’s heart. Not only was he an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but Brennan’s Islamophilia dated to his days in college, when he spent a year in Cairo learning Arabic and taking courses in Middle Eastern studies. He later got a graduate degree with an emphasis in Middle Eastern studies. In 1996, his ties to the Islamic world tightened after he became the CIA’s station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He once recalled that “during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East — as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege — that pilgrimage.”
> 
> Out of this Islamophilia came a special dislike of Michael Flynn, who had planned to rip up the Obama-era “reset” with Muslim countries. Furious with Flynn for his apostasy from political correctness, Brennan and other Obama aides couldn’t resist the temptation to take him out after rifling through transcripts of his calls with the Russian ambassador. They caught him in a lie to Mike Pence and made sure the press knew about it.
> 
> Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”
> 
> Liberals pompously quote the saying — “the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” — even as their media enshrine it. Historians will look back on 2016 and marvel at the audacity of its big lie: whispers of an imaginary Trump-Russia collusion that wafted up from the fever swamps of a real collusion between John Brennan and foreign powers seeking Trump’s defeat.


https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If anything, even though you may live to an older age even if you aren't necessarily the healthiest, how you feel during your life might also have something to do with it. Obviously, if you have a shit diet, never ever exercise, and are overweight, you'll probably feel worse off more often than not than somebody who has a pretty varied diet who moves around somewhat and may only slightly overweight.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Different things make different people happy. To each their own. 

My only point was that there is little evidence to conclusively prove that other than sanitation and medical advances our obsession with healthy eating and exercise is justified. 

I'm just cynical about everything. I feel like I've been lied to so much growing up that now I simply can't trust any conventional knowledge at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Nobody said humans aren't making it worse. We're just saying there's a huge difference between 1% worse and 90% worse, and scientists are unable to determine whether it's 1%, 90%, or somewhere in the middle. And shame on you for not giving that reservation thought and respect.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/huma...times-faster-than-nature-say-researchers.html

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019616688022?journalCode=anra

170x faster some say

No matter what the number is , the number is significant that humans are accelerating climate change. All the evidence backs that up.






Iconoclast said:


> I looked it up and interestingly Athletes do die younger (though it's marginal).
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...athletes-shorter-life-spans-article-1.1320753
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence yet that proves conclusively that all of our pseudo-scientific obsession with "healthy eating and exercise" is what's elongating our lives. The most conclusive evidence is that our life spans are becoming longer because of sanitation and medical advances and staying away from certain vices. Exercise does not increase life-span by itself, it just keeps us less likely from dying of obesity or fat-related illnesses. In fact, for people with cardiovascular diseases, exertion is restricted.


There is a reason why athletes die younger it's because most of them take PEDs and that is the reason why they die younger or because of brain issues they get because of all the concussions they get.

Also the point isn't does exercise increase our life spans, it's does exercise make it shorter like Trump claims.


You don't honestly believe what Trump is saying on that do you?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/huma...times-faster-than-nature-say-researchers.html
> 
> 170x faster some say
> 
> No matter what the number is , the number is significant that humans are accelerating climate change. All the evidence backs that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is a reason why athletes die younger it's because most of them take PEDs *and that is the reason why they die younger or because of brain issues they get because of all the concussions they get.
> 
> Also the point isn't does exercise increase our life spans, it's does exercise make it shorter like Trump claims.
> 
> 
> You don't honestly believe what Trump is saying on that do you?


What research have you done to prove this?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> What research have you done to prove this?


Are you really one of those people who doesn't think athletes are using PEDs lol

I bet you think HHH is clean dont you lol

You are on a wrestling forum FFS you know this is the case especially with wrestlers and how they die young because of all the PEDs they take


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't honestly believe what Trump is saying on that do you?


I never guess as to what someone else knows. All I know is that someone can legitimately believe that exercise can shorten someone's life-span based on personal experience where a lot of athletes and people with cardiovascular problems tend to die sooner. They can create that link in their mind. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong. I think that it might or it might not and that what we know about the link between exercise and life-span is inconclusive at best. 

I do know a lot of people who had pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Enough with the nit-picking though. I mean, I don't remember anyone posting any articles about Bernie Sanders and his belief in Chinese alternate medicine :lol

All politicians have their idiosyncrasies and I believe that in some cases they're allowed to have them as long as they don't use them to push policy.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Different things make different people happy. To each their own.
> 
> My only point was that there is little evidence to conclusively prove that other than sanitation and medical advances our obsession with healthy eating and exercise is justified.
> 
> *I'm just cynical about everything. I feel like I've been lied to so much growing up that now I simply can't trust any conventional knowledge at all.*


To be brutally honest, you do come off across that way sometimes. But I mean, with all the shit you end up realizing as an adult, I can't really blame you. I try my best to be relatively hopeful and positive about my own views, but I have instances where I sit and question my own beliefs and what I was taught as a kid. :lol

Everybody is a little cynical sometimes though, some just happen to be more than others.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> To be brutally honest, you do come off across that way sometimes. But I mean, with all the shit you end up realizing as an adult, I can't really blame you. I try my best to be relatively hopeful and positive about my own views, but I have instances where I sit and question my own beliefs and what I was taught as a kid. :lol
> 
> Everybody is a little cynical sometimes though, some just happen to be more than others.


TBF, I've always been more skeptical than most. I was also this weird kid that used to read encyclopedias to entertain myself. And my dad used to bait and troll us growing up in order to keep our discussion/debate skills sharp. When I come in here and debate it's a just a form of what life's always been like lol. 

It's just poor retention makes me less capable of citing what I read exactly though there's latent information in there that gets triggered. 

When I approach something in order to learn, I put myself in the shoes of the person that fully believes it and then work kinks into the belief. Basically believe and then break it apart.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> TBF, I've always been more skeptical than most. I was also this weird kid that used to read encyclopedias to entertain myself. And my dad used to bait and troll us growing up in order to keep our discussion/debate skills sharp. When I come in here and debate it's a just a form of what life's always been like lol.
> 
> It's just poor retention makes me less capable of citing what I read exactly though there's latent information in there that gets triggered.
> 
> When I approach something in order to learn, I put myself in the shoes of the person that fully believes it and then work kinks into the belief. Basically believe and then break it apart.


That's a good way of trying to understand somebody's viewpoint. Stand in their shoes and see what they see in order to get a better picture. 

It's funny, I think I've become more cynical over the past year because I've followed current events, politics, and the news in general so much more than I used to. I'm trying to dial it back a bit which is why I don't post in here a ton, nor do I get in huge massive debates with people much. Usually I'll just give my opinion on the matter and leave it at that, although sometimes I'll feel compelled to respond. It also depends on the person though and if I feel like going back and forth with them. 

But really, I think a lot of what I do is being able to understand information my parents weren't able to as well. It's not like they aren't smart people, they are still very sharp, but I'm the first in my family to get a bachelors, and eventually will be the first to get a masters as well. And I feel like I should pay attention to all this stuff because unlike when I was a kid, it will impact me a ton over the next few decades, and I should defintely have an input on it in some fashion, instead of being blind to it all.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bringing it back to my favorite topic: Taxation

This time about how raising taxes creates revenue shortfalls which lead to decreasing tax revenue: 



> HIGH TAX RATES ARE DECIMATING STATE ECONOMIES AND LEADING TO A WEALTH EXODUS IN AMERICA
> 
> It's a simple concept that has eluded many politicians and ideologues, especially on the left. When you raise taxes, people and businesses will leave, bringing with them those taxable incomes your government depends on. One look at the migration patterns within the United States verifies just that.
> 
> A book on the subject, How Money Walks, uses official statistics from the Census and the IRS to explore the subject. It found that, between 1995 and 2010:
> 
> • The nine states with no personal income taxes gained $146.2 billion in working wealth
> • The nine states with the highest personal income tax rates lost $107.4 billion
> • The 10 states with the lowest per capita state-local tax burdens gained $69.9 billion
> • The 10 states with the highest per capita state-local tax burdens lost $139 billion
> 
> According to the authors, "The states that gained working wealth are growing and thriving. The states that lost working wealth lost their most precious cargo—their tax base—and the consequences are dire: stagnation, deterioration, an economic death spiral as they continue to raise taxes and lose people, businesses, and working wealth. The numbers don't lie."
> 
> Its website includes a fascinating interactive map that shows where people and their money moved to, on a state and even county basis, here: http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/
> (Note: the interactive map doesn't work on the Safari browser, so iOS users should view it on the Puffin app instead).
> 
> Another website by the authors includes a calculator that will tell you the tax implications of moving from your current state to a different one, here: http://www.savetaxesbymoving.com/
> 
> SOURCES: http://www.howmoneywalks.com/
> https://www.amazon.com/How-Money-Walks-Trillion-ebook/dp/B00B12U5BK/


Apparently California isn't as rich as it likes to pretend that it is.

Almost all southern states (except Louisiana) benefiting significantly from the high taxation of Democratic states as the wealth in the North consistently moves to the South.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Bringing it back to my favorite topic: Taxation
> 
> This time about how raising taxes creates revenue shortfalls which lead to decreasing tax revenue:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently California isn't as rich as it likes to pretend that it is.
> 
> Almost all southern states (except Louisiana) benefiting significantly from the high taxation of Democratic states as the wealth in the North consistently moves to the South.


The problem is that these people moving bring their bad voting habits with them and vote for things that increase taxes.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The problem is that these people moving bring their bad voting habits with them and vote for things that increase taxes.


Exactly. Was just looking at the spread in Florida and guess what: 



















Simply fascinating, isn't it? Only counties losing money in Florida voted democrat in the last election.

---

Did another state just for the heck of it. 

Similar thing happening in Illinois as well. 










More Blue counties losing more money than Red Counties.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Exactly. Was just looking at the spread in Florida and guess what:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply fascinating, isn't it? Only counties losing money in Florida voted democrat in the last election.
> 
> ---
> 
> Did another state just for the heck of it.
> 
> Similar thing happening in Illinois as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Blue counties losing more money than Red Counties.


Conspiracy nut. Just ask, theyll tell you dem policies are good for business.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Conspiracy nut. Just ask, theyll tell you dem policies are good for business.


:lol 

I really hope that Orlando doesn't start going under because they're heavily pro-democrat and have been for years. Lots of idiots from the north moving down here and voting democrat without realizing that they're voting against their self-interest. 

Orlando is built upon some of the most capitalist ideals in existence (and Floridians pride themselves on that largely because we had a huge role to play in resettling Cubans) - but its economy is fragile in the sense that its entire fortune is based on Disney's fortune. If the politicians in Orlando get greedy and start eyeing Disney's wealth, they can take down the ENTIRE state with them. 

Though, with Rick Scott's success in Florida it's unlikely that we'll be voting democrat any time soon.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you really one of those people who doesn't think athletes are using PEDs lol
> 
> I bet you think HHH is clean dont you lol
> 
> You are on a wrestling forum FFS you know this is the case especially with wrestlers and how they die young because of all the PEDs they take


You have no idea where I stand on the issue, so don't presume to automatically know based off a simple question questioning how you came to your conclusion. Again, what research have you done to come up with that conclusion? You say the majority of athletes use PEDS. Okay, show me what research you've done to come to that conclusion. Have you done any research? Or are you just basing it off what you see? And, if so, do you really, honestly, believe that your eyes are infallible?


----------



## krai999

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

SHIT JUST GOT REAL
https://www.facebook.com/earl.critt...ype=2&app_id=350685531728&live_video_guests=0

update it's fake
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209114531648044&set=p.10209114531648044&type=3&theater


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> because you are one of the least informed posters on this forum. There are tons of reason to hate him, it's posted in this thread every day, or just watch the news. But maybe it's just over your head because again you can just stay in the shallow end.
> 
> If Hillary did the same things Trump has done, you would be killing her but since its Trump, you accept everything he does.
> 
> but like Trump said he loves the uneducated and uninformed and you have that in spades.
> 
> You are the perfect Trump supporter.


Im sure you feel that way. The Libs here do too. 

You're still wrong. I have critiqued Trump.

And stop pretending like only those who think like you have facts and maybe both sides could come to an understanding. @Tater is twice the poster you'll ever be ITT. If others like you could stop with your superiority complex like he and @GothicBohemian has, we could get along. 

Still Dunno what I ever did to LB btw. Is something the matter? :/


----------



## TheLapsedFan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


So the FBI doesn't have the leaking problem that the WH does so let's just dismiss everything. ok, move along. Also, lol whataboutism. Please fuck off (the YT show or w/e that is, not you, virus12)


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheLapsedFan said:


> So the FBI doesn't have the leaking problem that the WH does so let's just dismiss everything. ok, move along. Also, lol whataboutism. Please fuck off (the YT show or w/e that is, not you, virus12)


Just gonna slide in here and say about your sig, its not that we should ignore it because it's fake. We rage because its booked INCORRECTLY.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I never guess as to what someone else knows. All I know is that someone can legitimately believe that exercise can shorten someone's life-span based on personal experience where a lot of athletes and people with cardiovascular problems tend to die sooner. They can create that link in their mind. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong. I think that it might or it might not and that what we know about the link between exercise and life-span is inconclusive at best.
> 
> I do know a lot of people who had pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise.


I did not mean guess waht Trump knows, I meant do you think what that article is claiming that you only have a set amount of life and that exercising will make your lifespan shorter for being fit?





TheNightmanCometh said:


> You have no idea where I stand on the issue, so don't presume to automatically know based off a simple question questioning how you came to your conclusion. Again, what research have you done to come up with that conclusion? You say the majority of athletes use PEDS. Okay, show me what research you've done to come to that conclusion. Have you done any research? Or are you just basing it off what you see? And, if so, do you really, honestly, believe that your eyes are infallible?


Well where do you stand, do you not think the reason why a lot of athletes die young is because of PED abuse and all the head trauma they have taken over the years?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well where do you stand, do you not think the reason why a lot of athletes die young is because of PED abuse and all the head trauma they have taken over the years?


I don't have a stance because I haven't given it serious thought. So, when I see someone saying definitively that most athletes use PEDS it piques my interest and I'd like to see what research they've done and then read it myself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't have a stance because I haven't given it serious thought. So, when I see someone saying definitively that most athletes use PEDS it piques my interest and I'd like to see what research they've done and then read it myself.


Do you even watch sports? Just look up the Mitchell report in MLB as a small example. or the steroid era in baseball.

You watch wrestling FFS, you dont think most wrestlers are on PEDs? 

Just look at the size of athletes now compared to 20-30 years ago.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you even watch sports? Just look up the Mitchell report in MLB as a small example. or the steroid era in baseball.
> 
> You watch wrestling FFS, you dont think most wrestlers are on PEDs?
> 
> Just look at the size of athletes now compared to 20-30 years ago.


Wait a minute, your answer to what research you've looked to determine that the majority of all athletes use PEDS is to question whether I watch sports and then cite the Mitchell Report, which found less than 100 players, in one year, and only looked at Major League players?

My question to that is, do you even watch baseball? Are you aware that there are 700+ MLB players in any given year? That isn't a majority. Plus you didn't even mention the research you've done in every other sport. You said ATHLETES, and you cited a report that looked at one sport.

Why do you insist on thinking what you perceive is the truth? Especially when you haven't done the research to back up what you perceive. Just admit you've done no research and you're just making an assumption based off of limited information. I would have agreed with you if you had said that a lot of baseball players have used PEDs, but you didn't say that. You said the MAJORITY of ATHLETES use PEDs. I mean, c'mon!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Wait a minute, your answer to what research you've looked to determine that the majority of all athletes use PEDS is to question whether I watch sports and then cite the Mitchell Report, which found less than 100 players, in one year, and only looked at Major League players?
> 
> My question to that is, do you even watch baseball? Are you aware that there are 700+ MLB players in any given year? That isn't a majority. Plus you didn't even mention the research you've done in every other sport. You said ATHLETES, and you cited a report that looked at one sport.
> 
> Why do you insist on thinking what you perceive is the truth? Especially when you haven't done the research to back up what you perceive. Just admit you've done no research and you're just making an assumption based off of limited information. I would have agreed with you if you had said that a lot of baseball players have used PEDs, but you didn't say that. You said the MAJORITY of ATHLETES use PEDs. I mean, c'mon!


That was 100 players that were randomly caught, it does not count the players that used PEDs and were not tested or beat the test.

it is the truth that most athletes use PEDS, you don't need studies to see that. Just use your eyes and your brain.

If you don't think the majority of athletes use PEDs then you are lying to yourself. And I just used MLB as an one example. You can look at any sport. Just look at wrestling like I also said.

Are you one of those naive people that think HHH is clean or natural?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well where do you stand, do you not think the reason why a lot of athletes die young is because of PED abuse and all the head trauma they have taken over the years?


Most typically athletes who die young are due to accidents such as plane crashes or automobile accidents. I don't recall PED abuse being attributed to really many if any deaths outside of Pro wrestling and even then to blame it entirely on PED abuse wouldn't be exactly fair. Lot of those guys in wrestling lived off prescription drug cocktails and hard drugs such as cocaine , not to mention always being on the road and taking bumps every night is going to take its toll on someone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Most typically athletes who die young are due to accidents such as plane crashes or automobile accidents. I don't recall PED abuse being attributed to really many if any deaths outside of Pro wrestling and even then to blame it entirely on PED abuse wouldn't be exactly fair. Lot of those guys in wrestling lived off prescription drug cocktails and hard drugs such as cocaine , not to mention always being on the road and taking bumps every night is going to take its toll on someone.


when we are talking about dying young i assume we are talking about them dying in their like 40s, 50s or 60s instead of 80s or higher. 

And yes what you mentioned is also a factor just like I also said due to brain drama because of all the concussions they took especially in football for example.

You see more and more athletes dying early because of an enlarged heart which happens because of steroid abuse

The thing is athletes die younger because of everything we are talking about not because they used up their life force because they were in shape like Trump is said to believe.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> That was 100 players that were randomly caught, it does not count the players that used PEDs and were not tested or beat the test.
> 
> it is the truth that most athletes use PEDS, you don't need studies to see that. Just use your eyes and your brain.
> 
> If you don't think the majority of athletes use PEDs then you are lying to yourself. And I just used MLB as an one example. You can look at any sport. Just look at wrestling like I also said.
> 
> Are you one of those naive people that think HHH is clean or natural?


Goddammit, BM, there's so much ignorance in that post. You don't need studies to know if the majority of athletes use PEDs? Use your eyes and brain? Fuck, that's so stupid! By that logic I can't trust climate change now because as I look out the window it looks like a normal ass day. It appears to me that you're really great at using your eyes, but you shut off your brain. Using your brain means learning, not guessing, which you're doing. It's a fucking guess, BM, and you know it. Stop acting like a fool. 

And there's EVIDENCE that HHH isn't clean, can you provide the evidence that most athletes use PEDs? Do you have hundreds of thousands of pictures of all athletes so you can compare all of them to someone who is clean and someone who isn't? No, BM, you fucking guess and then whatever you come up with you believe is the truth. It's flawed logic and you know it. Stop messing around.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Goddammit, BM, there's so much ignorance in that post. You don't need studies to know if the majority of athletes use PEDs? Use your eyes and brain? Fuck, that's so stupid! By that logic I can't trust climate change now because as I look out the window it looks like a normal ass day. It appears to me that you're really great at using your eyes, but you shut off your brain. Using your brain means learning, not guessing, which you're doing. It's a fucking guess, BM, and you know it. Stop acting like a fool.
> 
> And there's EVIDENCE that HHH isn't clean, can you provide the evidence that most athletes use PEDs? Do you have hundreds of thousands of pictures of all athletes so you can compare all of them to someone who is clean and someone who isn't? No, BM, you fucking guess and then whatever you come up with you believe is the truth. It's flawed logic and you know it. Stop messing around.


No you dont because you can just use your eyes and brain. 

As for your climate change example, you don't need a study to know its happen since we keep having record high years every year. Since 2010 the global temp record has been broken FOUR TIMES.

You don't need a study to tell that climate change is happening, just look at the global temperatures.

if you want to live in fairytale land and pretend most hated are not on PEDS that is your right but you are foolish to even dispute that. Just look at the size of everyone compared to athletes back in the 60s 70s and 80s.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> when we are talking about dying young i assume we are talking about them dying in their like 40s, 50s or 60s instead of 80s or higher.
> 
> And yes what you mentioned is also a factor just like I also said due to brain drama because of all the concussions they took especially in football for example.
> 
> You see more and more athletes dying early because of an enlarged heart which happens because of steroid abuse
> 
> The thing is athletes die younger because of everything we are talking about not because they used up their life force because they were in shape like Trump is said to believe.


See, I don't see that's quite fair seeing as the life expectancy in America is 78. How many athletes out there that have died young with enlarged hearts? Genuine question as I don't really know of any outside of pro wrestling. There is a thing called "athletic heart syndrome" ,which from my understanding is that athletes can have larger hearts. How true that is, I'm not sure but its something that one can take into account. We also don't know what an athletes diet is after retiring, a lot do end up gaining weight that their body might not be accustomed to, we don't know their family history etc etc . Simply attributing most to PED abuse isn't exactly concrete . 

As for concussions and head trauma, while I agree that its clearly not good and would increase the likelihood of issues later on in life, there are also lot of boxers who live quite long lives that don't end up being like Muhammad Ali . 

I am interesting in knowing who have died but like I said, I can't recall any


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> See, I don't see that's quite fair seeing as the life expectancy in America is 78. How many athletes out there that have died young with enlarged hearts? Genuine question as I don't really know of any outside of pro wrestling. There is a thing called "athletic heart syndrome" ,which from my understanding is that athletes can have larger hearts. How true that is, I'm not sure but its something that one can take into account. We also don't know what an athletes diet is after retiring, a lot do end up gaining weight that their body might not be accustomed to, we don't know their family history etc etc . Simply attributing most to PED abuse isn't exactly concrete .
> 
> As for concussions and head trauma, while I agree that its clearly not good and would increase the likelihood of issues later on in life, there are also lot of boxers who live quite long lives that don't end up being like Muhammad Ali .
> 
> I am interesting in knowing who have died but like I said, I can't recall any


There is a reason why a lot of football players are now giving their brains when they die to doctors so they can study the effects of all the concussions they had when they played

And we are getting way off topic with this but do you really think the reason why a lot of athletes die young is not due to PED abuse"?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is a reason why a lot of football players are now giving their brains when they die to doctors so they can study the effects of all the concussions they had when they played
> 
> And we are getting way off topic with this but do you really think the reason why a lot of athletes die young is not due to PED abuse"?


Football players are giving up their brains because of concussions, I'm well aware of this but that isn't proof of PED abuse at all. Rather what it proves is that hitting your head over and over isn't a good thing. As I said to you, I'm interested in knowing who these young athletes are and I mean that in a genuine way . I just don't believe simply blaming PED abuse for any young death and it is just a very simple answer to a much more complex question


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Football players are giving up their brains because of concussions, I'm well aware of this but that isn't proof of PED abuse at all. Rather what it proves is that hitting your head over and over isn't a good thing. As I said to you, I'm interested in knowing who these young athletes are and I mean that in a genuine way . I just don't believe simply blaming PED abuse for any young death and it is just a very simple answer to a much more complex question


Dont get me wrong, I am not saying its just PEDS I also said concussions and brain drama, it just seems like we are fixating on the PED part of it.


My main point is, like you said there are may factors to why athletes die younger, I gave two, but its not because they used up their life force early like Trump thinks.

i think most of us can agree, its not the life force thing right?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314



> House Republicans just voted to slash hundreds of billions of dollars in health care for the poor as part of their Obamacare replacement. Now, they’re weighing a plan to take the scalpel to programs that provide meals to needy kids and housing and education assistance for low-income families.
> 
> President Donald Trump’s refusal to overhaul Social Security and Medicare — and his pricey wish-list for infrastructure, a border wall and tax cuts — is sending House budget writers scouring for pennies in politically sensitive places: safety-net programs for the most vulnerable.
> 
> Under enormous internal pressure to quickly balance the budget, Republicans are considering slashing more than $400 billion in spending through a process to evade Democratic filibusters in the Senate, multiple sources told POLITICO.
> 
> The proposal, which would be part of the House Budget Committee's fiscal 2018 budget, won't specify which programs would get the ax; instead it will instruct committees to figure out what to cut to reach the savings. But among the programs most likely on the chopping block, the sources say, are food stamps, welfare, income assistance for the disabled and perhaps even veterans benefits.
> 
> If enacted, such a plan to curb safety-net programs — all while juicing the Pentagon’s budget and slicing corporate tax rates — would amount to the biggest shift in federal spending priorities in decades.
> 
> Atop that, GOP budget writers will also likely include Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposal to essentially privatize Medicare in their fiscal 2018 budget, despite Trump’s unwavering rejection of the idea. While that proposal is more symbolic and won’t become law under this budget, it’s just another thorny issue that will have Democrats again accusing Republicans of “pushing Granny off the cliff.”


Whelp. I hope philanthropy steps up.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314
> 
> 
> 
> Whelp. I hope philanthropy steps up.


Pretty typical rightism. Need to make cuts to the budget? Don't think of going near all our subsidies for big business or Military budget, just slash some social programs.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> That was 100 players that were randomly caught, it does not count the players that used PEDs and were not tested or beat the test.
> 
> it is the truth that most athletes use PEDS, you don't need studies to see that. Just use your eyes and your brain.
> 
> If you don't think the majority of athletes use PEDs then you are lying to yourself. And I just used MLB as an one example. You can look at any sport. Just look at wrestling like I also said.
> 
> Are you one of those naive people that think HHH is clean or natural?


And again, that was one test, done for one year. There's been statistical analysis that has been done that shows that PED use has been down in baseball. Just a simple chart showing that homeruns have decreased since MLB banned PEDs is sufficient enough to show that PED use is on the decline.

https://qz.com/452490/chart-home-ru...keep-falling-since-the-crackdown-on-steroids/

IS it true that most athletes use PEDs? You base this on the always reliable eye test. Here's a fascinating study that looks at the reliability of the eye test vs. statistical analysis through the lens of a comparison of physician's subjective assessment versus statistical methods in estimating mortality risk after cardiac surgery. I'll save you the trouble of reading it and tell you their findings, "in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, statistical risk estimate is a better method to predict operative and long-term mortality compared with physician's subjective risk estimate. However, both methods modestly overestimate actual operative mortality risk." In other words, it is always better to go by statistical analysis over your eyes. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24425699

If that doesn't float your boat, maybe this will. As Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them."

BM, I have watched sports my entire life. As a matter of fact, I am a huge baseball fan. I have gone round after round with people debating the eye test vs. statistical analysis. There's a reason why SABR statistics have made their way into every front office. There's a reason why statistical analysis has made it's way into every front office in every sport. It's because the eye test is a false narrative. Always has been and always will be. 

All that being said, you looked at two sports, which wrestling isn't a sport by the way, and you've concluded based off of your eye test and one report that 
the majority of all athletes in all sports use PEDs. I have given you a chance to prove that statement and you have failed. You have convinced me of nothing. All you've done is strawman your way into attack my credibility and knowledge on the subject without giving me anything regarding your knowledge on the subject. You made the statement, you have to back it up. It's not my job to do your research for you, nor is the burden of proof on me. It's on you and, again, you failed to persuade me even in the slightest.

Oh, and before you make your final statement saying something about me having my head in the sand, know this. When I first asked you what research you had done to prove your statement I had an open mind and was prepared to be persuaded. You should take that piece of information and think long and hard about whether you're any good at persuading people into believing what you believe. At this rate your skill is lacking immensely.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You can live in fairytale land all you want if you really think most athletes are not using PEDs. What ever makes you sleep at night.

IF you are not convinced just by watching sports and athletes then your head is in the sand or some where else. 

And PEDs are not just steroids BTW.

And not the eye test is not a false narrative especially when it comes to just looking at stats or drug tests which are easily beatable

If Jinder passed a drug test, are you really going to believe he is clean or use your eyes and know he is juicing?


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My thoughts on what has been going on...

James Comey's being future endeavored....let's be honest. If Hillary Clinton was President right now, Comey would have been fired no sooner than the dishes were cleared from the Inauguration Luncheon. When he talked about how the emails were extremely inappropriate and then talked about it AGAIN a couple of weeks prior to the election...that means she moved him right to the top of her shitlist. He might has well have cleared out his office on November 8, 2016. 

Comey should have been shit-canned for trying to wear his AG hat rather than the top cop hat. His job was to investigate the e-mail servers, etc...and make his recommendation to the AG on whether HRC should have been indicted or not. When he decided to have the press conference that stated that there would be no indictment after running down the laundry list of why he felt she should have been, he got outside his lane and you can't do that. The argument can be made that the AG was persuaded by former President Clinton not to pursue charges, even if evidence could be interpreted as circumstantial the optics of the AG and Slick Willie talking on the tarmac right before the announcement not to indict don't look good. But that wasn't Comey's decision to make. He might have been better served to sit back, let Trump get into office, and then approach the new AG with this information and ask Sessions to re-open the case. 

Meanwhile, the utter stupidity and nonsense of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (how the hell she keeps getting re-elected is beyond me)...well...check out her interview on the Marxist News Broadcasting Corporation. (Don't know if it was already here or not, too lazy to go back that far). 






She is either a pitcher of lemonade and bowl of macaroni salad short of a picnic or she is that wrapped up in her extreme hatred of Trump she just can't help herself. This "it's OK if I do it but not if you do it" is partly the problem with this country. She's made her political career on such nonsense, and people keep buying into it as she throws the red meat to the zealots who think like her. She just needs to stop talking, she's a fucking idiot. You don't like Trump, we get that. She has no intention of ever working with him, we hear you. Then you can deal with the fact that many of us think you are a complete moron who really sounds stupid when you open your mouth. Also, don't bitch then when he decides he will never work with you or reach out to you for any type of feedback. 

Meanwhile, Trump continues to troll and push the buttons of those who have been against him from day one even more. That's why he threw out there the idea of doing away with the press briefings. He knew the media and those who are against him would once again be lathered up into a frenzy. He lives for it, and he knows his base adores it. He understands the media hates him and he has made clear he won't be sending any Christmas cards anytime soon. He knows exactly what he's doing. They are not going to get rid of the press briefings, although I think it would benefit them to mix things up a bit. I saw a reporter from The Hill have a good idea. One day, have the traditional media. Next day, business reporters. Foreign press another day. This way, you can run the gambit, include everyone, and you can get questions from all sides. The reporters who are interested to know about the President's thoughts on the latest unemployment numbers don't have to jostle with those who want to know what is for lunch on the President's first foreign trip. 

At the same time, the same argument keeps rearing its head again and again, and it is still a very real concern. Trump loves to throw out conflicting messages, he has made it clear that he wants people to wonder about what he is going to say or do next. He thrives on organized chaos, he is perfectly OK with Spicer or Huckabee-Sanders going out there with one narrative, then he goes on an interview and says the exact opposite. 

It might work when you are the head of a business, but not as the POTUS. As much as he has set on its ear the traditional concepts and ideas of what is acceptable politically, some things are still the same. The job of a presidential administration is to speak in one unified voice about the vision of what they want to accomplish. Throughout the history of the American political process, regardless of what side of the aisle is running the show, this has been the way it works. Reagan, Obama, Kennedy, etc...one voice, one message, something that the whole world understands. The country and the world want to know EXACTLY where we stand on things, they don't want to have to guess nor should they have to. 

President Trump needs to follow that part of the blueprint. If you want to drain the swamp, fine. Change up some things about Washington, I'm OK with that. However, some of the political rules are worth following. Let your spokespeople get out there and pimp your message and vision to the American people. Then, when you do speak to the press or in public you reinforce that message. Speak in one unified voice so that we all know exactly where you stand. People can decide from there whether to go with that or not, but at least you have it out there. 




MrMister said:


> I guess who the Dems should run and who they will run are two very different things. I don't know enough about Gabbard to have an opinion if she's the optimal candidate or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Corey Booker...if Erin Burnett makes you look like a fool, you are not prepared.


Amy Klobuchar (Democratic Senator from Minnesota) visited Iowa just a couple of weeks ago. She gave a couple of speeches that has been touted as things a presidential candidate would say by the press. In months to come, those that are wanting to put out feelers will start making their way here. Then you will really start to see who is interested in running in 2020. It'll be here sooner than we think.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

For those who've been sort of confused about my stance on Trump, I'm pretty much 90% in agreement with Ann Coulter here (have been for a while).

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/ann-coulter-is-worried-the-trump-haters-were-right/



> *Ann Coulter Is Worried The ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’
> *
> Conservative author Ann Coulter was one of the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign.
> 
> She wrote “In Trump We Trust” and proclaimed that she worships him like the “people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader – blind loyalty.”
> 
> Coulter described herself as a single-issue voter during the election and was drawn to Trump due to his “Mexican rapist speech” and him calling for a border wall to be built.
> 
> In an interview Sunday with The Daily Caller, Coulter let it be known she still has hope in the Trump presidency, but is ready to jump ship.
> 
> *So there’s no wall, and Obama’s amnesties look like they are here to stay. Do you still trust Trump?
> *
> Uhhhh. I’m not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.
> 
> I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni’s op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?
> 
> *You said during the election and in columns that if there is no wall it’s the end of America.
> *
> Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trumpism. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?
> 
> We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.
> 
> *What’s behind him driving towards New York?
> *
> If he grabs the steering wheel and turns around and takes us toward LA, then I’ll just put it down to him not being a professional politician and having to come into the presidency with no support network, with all of official Washington against him.
> 
> I have from the beginning been opposed to Trump hiring any of his relatives. Americans don’t like that, I don’t like that. That’s the one fascist thing he’s done. Hiring his kids.
> 
> But I understand if you’re in Washington you don’t know who to trust, the party was against you, the politicians were against you, the bureaucracy was against you, and by the way this isn’t to say anything bad about Jared. Everything I know about him, I think he’s doing a great job. But even if he is absolutely the best person for the job, I don’t like the hiring of relatives.
> 
> I could understand all that if he gets control of the steering wheel and turns around and starts going towards LA.
> 
> If we just keep going to New York. Well again, I’ll say we had no choice, but the Trump-haters were right…It’s a nightmare. I can’t even contemplate that. Right now I’m still rooting for him to turn around and take us toward LA.
> 
> *Are you going to be apologizing to these Never Trumpers?
> *
> I don’t apologize for supporting Trump. He said all the right things and nobody else would even say it. I suppose it’s possible that another politician who really meant it would come along. There’s Kris Kobach, Tom Cotton, Jeff Sessions…there are probably a handful of politicians.
> 
> I got to tell you when I wrote “Adios America” I thought there was a 10 percent chance of saving the country. On the evening of November 8, I thought, “Wow we have a 90 percent chance now, this is a chance that comes a long once every thousand years, we can save America now.”
> 
> And now, I don’t know, I’m someplace between 10 percent and 90 percent.
> 
> *How much blame does congressional leadership deserve?
> *
> I do, of course, blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity? People should start sending Paul Ryan bricks to indicate how much we want the wall.
> 
> They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.
> 
> *During the campaign you said you would have to start writing mystery books if Hillary Clinton won. Are you preparing to start writing these?
> *
> No. But I must say I’ve been contemplating it a bit more. You can’t give up yet. We have to keep Trump’s feet to the fire. It’s weird because I really think in his heart he’s a genuine patriot.
> 
> It’s just that it has been such a disaster so far, and that General Kelly is so preposterous, and McMaster — did you see him at that press conference? I thought he was retarded. You have to link to that video.
> 
> I’ve never actually heard anyone other than liberals mocking their idea of a stupid Republican say, “Murica.”
> 
> [Trump] might not have realized how intense the opposition was going to be. Not on everything. Nobody else would have done the trade deals, that is to save American jobs. But they are not going to complain and massively resist on trade. They are not going to massively resist him on things like tax cuts. They are going to love for him to go to war, we have to try to resist him on that.
> 
> The one thing he will get massive resistance from every source in Washington including his “own party” is immigration.
> 
> *What does your friend Matt Drudge think of all of this? Recently on Michael Savage’s radio show he seemed nervous about the Trump administration.
> *
> I’ll let him speak for himself, but I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified.
> 
> This interview was edited and condensed for clarity.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is one of the few presidents who's diplomatic policy I am befuddled by

Whenever something happened in the world you had a good idea of how Obama, GWB or any other president really would react even if it was just a sternly worded letter to the victims that they desired it that Carter would send 

I currently have zero clue what Trump would do in foreign relations and the message he is sending is that he doesn't care and is more interested in domestic pissing matches


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A lot of people were lambasted by the right about crying about the "Trump had two scoops of ice-cream" news report, but tbh I think it's worth thinking about from a different perspective. 

As a grandson of a highly ranked government official, I have had some experience with high profile gatherings with government officials. One of the things that was always a cornerstone of such gatherings was that it was always a buffet .. and if not a buffet, then everyone was served the same menu with some variations here and there. 

Trump is now a member of the government. He's a public servant. He's not the billionaire playboy he used to be. He is on our money and with that money I find it incredibly disingenuous for a public servant (no matter what his status) to eat food that is better than those he's eating with. Does our system entitle him to a better status. I don't think so. The whole point of having civilian governments was so that feudal lords and nobles used to lord over us - dine better than us etc. From what I remember, even Kings and Queens of the time while dined well, didn't dine better than their own company at the time as a show of humility and respect. My grandmother met the Queen of England and told us that since she (my grandmother couldn't speak Urdu), the Queen conversed with her through a translator and not once made her feel inferior for not being able to speak english. I think while this is the whole "slumming it with the commoners" trope, there is some value in portraying yourself in a humble light - even if you're not that humble. 

The thing is that since it's all money that's been stolen from people anyways, him having a better meal than everyone else on that table (irregardless of who paid for it) indicates to me that he's not humble. While I don't care too much about him eating better (as plenty of rich people do anyways), I hold him in less regard than I would a leader who would be more humble than Trump. Still think he's alright, but he's not as high as he used to be.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> A lot of people were lambasted by the right about crying about the "Trump had two scoops of ice-cream" news report, but tbh I think it's worth thinking about from a different perspective.
> 
> As a grandson of a highly ranked government official, I have had some experience with high profile gatherings with government officials. One of the things that was always a cornerstone of such gatherings was that it was always a buffet .. and if not a buffet, then everyone was served the same menu with some variations here and there.
> 
> Trump is now a member of the government. He's a public servant. He's not the billionaire playboy he used to be. He is on our money and with that money I find it incredibly disingenuous for a public servant (no matter what his status) to eat food that is better than those he's eating with. Does our system entitle him to a better status. I don't think so. The whole point of having civilian governments was so that feudal lords and nobles used to lord over us - dine better than us etc. From what I remember, even Kings and Queens of the time while dined well, didn't dine better than their own company at the time as a show of humility and respect. My grandmother met the Queen of England and told us that since she (my grandmother couldn't speak Urdu), the Queen conversed with her through a translator and not once made her feel inferior for not being able to speak english. I think while this is the whole "slumming it with the commoners" trope, there is some value in portraying yourself in a humble light - even if you're not that humble.
> 
> The thing is that since it's all money that's been stolen from people anyways, him having a better meal than everyone else on that table (irregardless of who paid for it) indicates to me that he's not humble. While I don't care too much about him eating better (as plenty of rich people do anyways), I hold him in less regard than I would a leader who would be more humble than Trump. Still think he's alright, but he's not as high as he used to be.


In many east Asian governments that are not run by a megalomaniac its a constant race to see which official can have the humble government lunch

Its actually used annoy diplomats because they had to go to restaurant or buy their own local food to get a decent meal 

Same thing with sleeping arrangements where you usually just shacked up in a hotel to avoid getting a cot


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> In many east Asian governments that are not run by a megalomaniac its a constant race to see which official can have the humble government lunch
> 
> Its actually used annoy diplomats because they had to go to restaurant or buy their own local food to get a decent meal
> 
> Same thing with sleeping arrangements where you usually just shacked up in a hotel to avoid getting a cot


Hey I'm not advocating for a socialist meal of bread and wine either. 

I'm just saying, at least eat what everyone else is eating or let everyone else have the option to eat as well as you if they want. The reason why this got press coverage is because the meals were apparently served by waiters directly and Trump had better of just about everything. 

I go out with friends and sometimes I have less money than them so I'll order cheap - but at least I have the option to order what I want. If I want two scoops of Ice Cream, I can get it. But if I'm at a party hosted by someone else and they serve everyone the same thing but have a plate of better food than everyone else, I'd see that as someone who's insecure in their status and wants to maintain a difference based on a show of material strength. Both things that don't indicate something positive about that person. :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Hey I'm not advocating for a socialist meal of bread and wine either.
> 
> I'm just saying, at least eat what everyone else is eating or let everyone else have the option to eat as much as you. The reason why this got press coverage is because the meals were apparently served by waiters directly and Trump had better of just about everything.


I rather get a decent meal as well, I just thought it was a funny parallel


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> ep. Maxine Waters, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress, got a little surprise when she popped back to her district south of Los Angeles for a town hall -- which usually features a slew of adoring sycophants.
> 
> Auntie Maxine got a healthy serving of impeachment pie.
> 
> Waters has been calling for President Trump's impeachment since 12:01 p.m. Jan. 20. In her world view (which is, of course, miniscule), everything he's done since the minute he took office has been an impeachable crime. Everything.
> 
> But some trollsters were out in force before Waters came back to town, posting signs around town calling for her own impeachment.
> 
> View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
> Follow
> Omar Navarro ✔ @PressGop
> Maxine Waters these signs are valid. People said you showed up an hour late to a Town Hall in Inglewood. Busy an hour away in Hancock Park?
> 3:53 PM - 13 May 2017 · Torrance, CA
> 1,171 1,171 Retweets 1,937 1,937 likes
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Josh Caplan @joshdcaplan
> Another sign trolling Maxine Waters outside her town hall meeting today.
> 6:19 PM - 13 May 2017
> 951 951 Retweets 1,957 1,957 likes
> Turned out famed conservative artist Sabo posted at least one of the signs, according to American Mirror. He had a lot more things to say on his Facebook page, including calling Waters a "poverty pimp."
> 
> He posted this poster at a bus shelter.
> 
> 
> 
> At the Saturday town hall, Waters reprised her schtick about Trump: “In this business you expect there are people who disagree with you or even hate you. I put everything on the line, I’m going for it [because] I cannot suffer him, I’m so offended by him and the way he’s conducted himself, the way he disrespects people and to add insult to injury he doesn’t respect the government, he doesn’t know anything about it.”
> 
> Of course, Waters, like any liberal, can't stand dissent, so when a few Trump supporters piped up at the packed event, they were promptly tossed out. Watch the YouTube video here.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/16433/auntie-maxine-waters-gets-heaping-helping-joseph-curl



> The Democratic National Committee and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz are currently facing a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters in federal court for rigging the Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. On May 12, CBS reported another class action lawsuit was filed against the DNC for stiffing dozens of field organizers all over the country for overtime work during the 2016 election while the DNC gave out $1 million in bonuses, including more than $300,000 to Democratic National Convention Host Committee Executive Director Kevin Washo. The lawsuit was filed by Justin Swidler of Cherry Hill, N.J. on behalf of 40 to 50 field organizers against the DNC, Pennsylvania state Democrats, and five other state Democratic Parties. “These workers were out there in a campaign that was promising $15 an hour minimum wage and expanding the overtime rights of workers,” Swidler told CBS. He added the lawsuit seeks “fair pay for fair work” and to hold the Democratic Party accountable to the ideals it markets itself with.
> 
> Chair of the Democratic National Convention Host Committee and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell alleged that the Democratic National Convention was separate from the operations noted in the lawsuit. Many of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit worked 80 to 90 hours a week for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and were compensated only $3,000 a month.
> 
> The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that although Rendell claimed the large bonus to the Executive Director Kevin Washo was in part due to volunteer work before the convention, they found that Washo, who was vice president of the political consulting firm New Partners, was paid $243,000 to help Philadelphia win the bid to host the Democratic National Convention. At the same time, Washo was paid a salary by the consulting firm and received a monthly salary of $13,000 from the Democratic National Comittee. “We might have double-paid him. I’ll have to check into it. That’s interesting,” Rendell told the publication on May 12. He also claimed that no Democratic Party donors should be upset over the bonuses. “No donor did this out of the kindness of their heart. They all wanted access,” he said. “They got exactly what they donated for. No donor should feel cheated.”
> 
> Congressman Robert Brady, chairman of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, told the Pittsburgh Gazette he was surprised there was any money left over from the convention at all and was unaware bonuses were given out until a reporter called him to ask questions about them.
> 
> advertisement
> 
> The Democratic National Convention Host Committee faced controversy in their initial refusal to disclose donors until FEC rules obligated so at the end of September 2016. The New Republic’s David Dayen dubbed the convention “one big corporate bribe.” The Intercept reported in May 2016 that then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz planned the convention with several anti-Obamacare lobbyists and donors who have traditionally supported Republicans, such as the Host Committee’s finance chair Daniel Hilferty, a health insurance CEO who gave around $40,000 to Republicans in 2016. In response to the bonuses, Pennsylvania State Senate ranking member Joe Scarnati requested an audit by Pennsylvania’s independent auditor general, as the Democratic National Convention Host Committee used a $10 million grant in state funds to win the convention bid and host it.


http://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-class-action-lawsuit-field-organizers-convention-bonuses/


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> California Democrat Representative Maxine Waters held $200,000 in Russia-linked retirement accounts in 2015, even while she hypocritically calls for President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment over his financial connections to Russia, according to her most recently available House financial disclosure documents.
> 
> Waters’s cash-grabbing shamelessness has never known bounds. In 2012, she barely squeaked through a three-year House Ethics Committee investigation after abusing her position to funnel $12 million in bailout money to her husband’s bank.
> 
> Her Russian investments will surprise no one in her district, where impromptu signs declaring the congresswoman a “poverty pimp” and a race baiter have been popping up for years.
> 
> View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
> Follow
> unsavoryagents @unsavoryagents
> #ProudBoy GETTING UP! HITTING MAXINE WATERS AT HER TOWN HALL MEETING IN INGLEWOOD ... @TheFaction1776 @Gavin_McInnes
> 1:03 PM - 14 May 2017
> 150 150 Retweets 389 389 likes
> Waters’ 2015 disclosure statement details her family’s investments in BlackRock’s Russia-connected Global Allocation and Balanced funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 SEC filings for both funds advise of their involvement in Russian precious metals and securities:
> 
> A Fund may invest in the equity securities of companies that explore for, extract, process or deal in precious metals (e.g., gold, silver and platinum), and in asset-based securities indexed to the value of such metals. … The major producers of gold include the Republic of South Africa, Russia, Canada, the United States, Brazil and Australia. … A Fund may invest a portion of its assets in securities issued by companies located in Russia.
> 
> In the midst of a March meltdown comparing the Trump administration, the Ku Klux Klan and Russia, Waters told her Twitter followers to, “Follow the money.”
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Maxine Waters ✔ @MaxineWaters
> The only thing imploding fast is the Trump Administration. Follow the money. Keep the focus on Trump's #kremlinklan and ties to Russia.
> 7:30 AM - 7 Mar 2017
> 5,500 5,500 Retweets 9,034 9,034 likes
> A Sept. 2015 BlackRock Balanced SEC filing reveals her fund’s nearly $2.8 million in obligations to the Russian Federation.
> 
> 
> BLACKROCK BALANCED RUSSIAN FEDERATION OBLIGATIONS (SOURCE: SCREENSHOT, SEPT. 2015 SEC FILING)
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Maxine Waters ✔ @MaxineWaters
> Meet @realDonaldTrump's #KremLINKlan:
> 10:08 AM - 16 Mar 2017
> 14,374 14,374 Retweets 21,136 21,136 likes
> Plus, Waters’ BlackRock Global fund held $3 million in Russian assets, at the same time her family profited!
> 
> On Thursday, GotNews exposed another Democrat conspiracy theorist, Virginia Democrat Senator John Warner, for his millions in Russian profits. Warner is obstructing a Trump anti-terror nominee until Warner gets personal financial documents from former Trump advisers.
> 
> Will the loony Democrats making up fantasies about Trump ever investigate their own Russian ties?
> 
> Especially as, this year, the investors handling Waters’ retirement account are excited to dump more client money into the land of Vladimir Putin.
> 
> From Forbes, Jan. 27:
> 
> Sorry haters, Russia has survived sanctions. It survived $35 oil. And it survived two years of recession. Say what you will about Vladimir Putin, Russia’s economic management team has got its stuff together. And for that reason, BlackRock says Russia is a buy.
> 
> “What gets all of the attention regarding Russia is the geopolitics. But for all the negative opinion you can have out there on Russia, from an economic standpoint it’s been amazing. We are overweight Russian equities,” says Gerardo Rodriguez, a fund manager with BlackRock in New York.
> 
> Don’t hold your breath for the suck-up “journalists” on Capitol Hill to ask Waters if she has divested from Russia.


http://gotnews.com/breaking-povertypimp-trump-conspiracy-theorist-maxine-waters-held-200000-russia-linked-funds-2015/


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> A lot of people were lambasted by the right about crying about the "Trump had two scoops of ice-cream" news report, but tbh I think it's worth thinking about from a different perspective.
> 
> As a grandson of a highly ranked government official, I have had some experience with high profile gatherings with government officials. One of the things that was always a cornerstone of such gatherings was that it was always a buffet .. and if not a buffet, then everyone was served the same menu with some variations here and there.
> 
> Trump is now a member of the government. He's a public servant. He's not the billionaire playboy he used to be. He is on our money and with that money I find it incredibly disingenuous for a public servant (no matter what his status) to eat food that is better than those he's eating with. Does our system entitle him to a better status. I don't think so. The whole point of having civilian governments was so that feudal lords and nobles used to lord over us - dine better than us etc. From what I remember, even Kings and Queens of the time while dined well, didn't dine better than their own company at the time as a show of humility and respect. My grandmother met the Queen of England and told us that since she (my grandmother couldn't speak Urdu), the Queen conversed with her through a translator and not once made her feel inferior for not being able to speak english. I think while this is the whole "slumming it with the commoners" trope, there is some value in portraying yourself in a humble light - even if you're not that humble.
> 
> The thing is that since it's all money that's been stolen from people anyways, him having a better meal than everyone else on that table (irregardless of who paid for it) indicates to me that he's not humble. While I don't care too much about him eating better (as plenty of rich people do anyways), I hold him in less regard than I would a leader who would be more humble than Trump. Still think he's alright, but he's not as high as he used to be.


Grade A satire of non-serious Trump critics 


Scott Adams grades Trump based on the big picture: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160699204216/a-quick-look-at-president-trump-and-the-big

Also an excellent article posted recently by him on how to know when you've won an INTERNET ARGUMENT!~ that I recommend checking out.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...69_story.html?utm_term=.415eaaa91a08#comments



> Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
> 
> By Greg Miller and Greg Jaffe May 15 at 5:01 PM
> 
> President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
> 
> The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
> 
> The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
> 
> “This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
> 
> The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.
> 
> One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.
> 
> For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.
> 
> “The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
> 
> The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.
> 
> “It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
> 
> In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.
> 
> Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
> 
> The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
> 
> “Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
> 
> The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.
> 
> ussia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> “Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.
> 
> A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”
> 
> At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.
> 
> The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.
> 
> “If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.
> 
> Trump also described measures that the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.
> 
> The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.
> 
> Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy?”
> 
> Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.
> 
> A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.
> 
> Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout.
> 
> Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.
> 
> One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.
> 
> Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.
> 
> U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points — and often ignores those.
> 
> “He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”
> 
> Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.
> 
> Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.
> 
> “I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.
> 
> The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.
> 
> “Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. The president also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”
> 
> Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.


These sources seem decent compared to most of these stories. Having said that, while I am not a considerable fan of General H.R. McMasters, I suspect his overview of this sharing of classified intelligence is accurate:


> “The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”



I'm more worried about the U.S. ostensibly pushing for war with Assad with newly revealed intel pertaining to the conflict in Syria:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN18B20E



> U.S. says Syrians built crematorium at prison to dispose of bodies
> 
> The United States has evidence Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government has built a crematorium at a large military prison outside the capital Damascus, a State Department official said on Monday.
> 
> Stuart Jones, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, said U.S. officials believe the crematorium could be used to dispose of bodies at a prison where they believe Assad's government authorized the mass hangings of thousands of inmates during Syria's six-year-old civil war.
> 
> "Credible sources have believed that many of the bodies have been disposed in mass graves," Jones told reporters. During the briefing, he showed aerial images of what he said was a crematorium.
> 
> "We now believe that the Syrian regime has installed a crematorium in the Sednaya prison complex which could dispose of detainees' remains with little evidence."
> 
> Amnesty International reported in February that an average of 20 to 50 people were hanged each week at the Sednaya military prison north of Damascus. Between 5,000 and 13,000 people were executed at Sednaya in the four years since a popular uprising descended into war, it said.
> 
> Jones also said he was not optimistic about a Russia-brokered deal to set up "de-escalation zones" inside Syria. The deal was reached with support from Iran and Turkey during ceasefire talks in the Kazakh capital of Astana earlier this month. Jones attended the talks.
> 
> "In light of the failures of the past ceasefire agreements, we have reason to be skeptical," Jones said.
> 
> Jones said Assad's government had carried out air strikes, chemical attacks, extrajudicial killings, starvation, and other measures to target civilians and its opponents. He criticized Russia and Iran for maintaining their support for Assad despite those tactics.
> 
> "These atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran," Jones said. "The (Assad) regime must stop all attacks on civilian and opposition forces. And Russia must bear responsibility to ensure regime compliance."
> 
> He did not say what measures the United States might take if Russia does not change its stance.
> 
> Tensions between the United States and Russia heightened after President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike in April against a Syrian air base that the United States said had been used to launch a poison gas attack on civilians.
> 
> Jones said he had not yet presented the evidence to Russian officials. He said he hoped Russia would help pressure the Assad government.
> 
> (Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Bernadette Baum and David Gregorio)



And on the Afghanistan troop uptick question, it would appear, based on multiple sources' reports, that it is effectively Steve Bannon versus everybody else in the White House:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864082455841591297


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html

*Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say
*

WASHINGTON — President Trump boasted about highly classified intelligence in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last week, providing details that could expose the source of the information and the manner in which it was collected, a current and a former American government official said Monday.

The intelligence disclosed by Mr. Trump in a meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, was about an Islamic State plot, according to the officials. A foreign ally that closely guards its own secrets provided the information, which was considered so sensitive that American officials did not share it widely within the United States government or pass it on to other allies.

Mr. Trump’s disclosure does not appear to have been illegal — the president has the power to declassify almost anything. But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it represented a major breach of espionage etiquette, and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
The Washington Post first reported the disclosure, which immediately reverberated around Washington.

“The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters, adding, “It’s got to happen.”

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
Trump to Sharply Expand Ban on Funding to Groups That Discuss Abortion
MAY 15
Trump, About to Visit Saudi Arabia, Is Urged to Help Yemen
MAY 15
3 Judges Weigh Trump’s Revised Travel Ban, but Keep Their Poker Faces
MAY 15
A Strong Case Against a Pesticide Does Not Faze E.P.A. Under Trump
MAY 15
Senators Search for Compromise Over House’s Drastic Medicaid Changes
MAY 15
See More »

RELATED COVERAGE


With Awkward Timing, Trump Meets Top Russian Official MAY 10, 2017

Trump Bars U.S. Press, but Not Russia’s, at Meeting With Russian Officials MAY 10, 2017

Trump Finds Respite at Liberty University as Aides Interview F.B.I. Candidates MAY 13, 2017

Trump Warning to Comey Prompts Questions on ‘Tapes’ MAY 12, 2017
RECENT COMMENTS

Dre 2 minutes ago
Well, it's nothing short of phenomenal how quickly we've gone down this road. If Obama had done this with representatives of a nation that...
Leah Gunn Barrett 2 minutes ago
This is why I left the US.
Confused democrat 3 minutes ago
She was entrusted with some of our nation's most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
“Obviously they’re in a downward spiral right now and they’ve got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening,” Mr. Corker said.


322
COMMENTS
Asked about the larger effect of the disclosure, Mr. Corker said, “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said on Twitter, “If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians.”


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/na...vent-trumps-notoriously-short-attention-span/

NATO ‘freaking out’ as they try to figure out how to circumvent Trump’s ‘notoriously short attention span’

NNATO is scrambling and “freaked out” about an upcoming visit from President Donald Trump. The unpredictable and erratic world leader has spent his first few months in office armed with considerable amounts of misinformation about the post-war government alliances.

According to Foreign Policy, the new president’s short fuse is no match for his “notoriously short attention span.” Staff is working to tailor the meeting to ensure no speaker will go over a 4-minute time during discussion.

Trump heads to Europe at the end of May for his first international trip, which will include a summit with the leaders of 28 other NATO countries. FP reports the staff seems more “on edge” than with any other new president and are hurriedly searching for “ways to make the staid affair more engaging.”

“It’s kind of ridiculous how they are preparing to deal with Trump,” one source told FP. “It’s like they’re preparing to deal with a child — someone with a short attention span and mood who has no knowledge of NATO, no interest in in-depth policy issues, nothing. They’re freaking out.”

NATO expert Jorge Benitez admitted that even the briefest summits can be “way too stiff, too formal, and too policy-heavy” for the likes of Trump. Typically, NATO publishes declarations based on the closed door meetings. This year, however, they won’t publish anything. While some experts have said that the declarations would be invaluable to allies still trying to figure Trump’s policies out, they still refused.

Trump’s unpredictable policy flip-flopping and random Twitter meltdowns have left NATO jittery. In March, Trump met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and refused to shake her hand, staring at the floor instead. He also handed her a fake “bill” for what he said were “overdue” payments to NATO, though the White House denies the claim.

“People are scared of his unpredictability, intimidated by how he might react knowing the president might speak his mind — or tweet his mind,” one former official said.

Another NATO official admitted they’re “bracing for impact.”


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Omar Navarro, who looks to have a good chance to finally unseat Maxine Waters in congress, decided to kick off his campaign for the 2018 election by throwing a party in front of Maxine Waters’ mansion which, by the way, is completely outside the district she is supposed to be representing.
> 
> That district is the 43rd Congressional District, and Waters lives far away from the 43rd in a $4.3 million mansion in Beverly Hills. You have to drive through the dangerous 43rd that Maxine has left in ruins, to get to Beverly Hills, where Waters actually lives.
> 
> Omar Navarro on the other hand, who has been featured on Info Wars several times, does live in the 43rd District, and is an avid Trump supporter. Navarro is also not a typical establishment politician and has appeared at dozens of pro-Trump rallies, including Berkeley, fighting for the cause. When was the last time you saw a politician with a helmet on?
> 
> Omar hilariously trolled Maxine Waters on Monday by throwing a party on her front lawn following the Town Hall that Waters held on Saturday. He also brought a loud Mariachi band.


http://theredelephants.com/trump-supporters-party-front-maxine-waters-house/
Trump's troll power has spread


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hmmm who to believe?

- A liberal dirt sheet
or
- The National Security Advisor

:hmmm I guess I'll reserve judgment.

EDIT: why isn't the background to this smiley transparent? Step up your game WF smiley gods.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





Can't this woman go away. On the plus side, this will probably help kill the Democratic Party. They're almost at the same level as UK's Labour Party at this point


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Every time there's a new Russian allegation, I get pushed further to the right - and despite my criticism of Trump want Trump to win in 2020 again because I now genuinely fear the socialists coming into power in America.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even though people who were literally in the room are coming out saying this is bullshit and it was never talked about.... the *classified* info Trump allegedly told them? ISIS wanting to use laptop bombs ofc.

THAT'S the classified hottake? The same hot take main stream media was reporting about 6 weeks ago? Really? :lmao

If this is true... what next? Trump gonna tell Putin about the top secret Toll House Cookie recipe? THE TREASONOUS MAD MAN.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The left's credibility is completely and utterly shot. They have nothing left at all. 

Unfortunately one of the main components of maintaining a socialist government in any country is complete and utter collusion with the mainstream media. Most socialist shitholes like Canada and UK have BBC and CBC which are actually mandated and protected to drive the fascist state's agenda. Here we have voluntary collusion between the capitalist and the socialist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The left's credibility is completely and utterly shot. They have nothing left at all.
> 
> Unfortunately one of the main components of maintaining a socialist government in any country is complete and utter collusion with the mainstream media. Most socialist shitholes like Canada and UK have BBC and CBC which are actually mandated and protected to drive the fascist state's agenda. Here we have voluntary collusion between the capitalist and the socialist.


And Trumps and the WHs is not, espeically after the whole Comey thing where they could not even get their story straight, then finally both Trump and Huckabee Sanders admitted it was to end the Russian investigation faster.

Or how Trump threatened Comey which is witness tampering implying he (Trump) may have recordings of their conversations.

Trump supporters in this thread are so pathetic how they bash the left for everything yet ignore all the shit Trump and his WH are doing.

But I expect nothing less from you guys, Trump and the WHs credibility has been shot months ago but Trump supporters are just too dense to see it but that is how Trump likes his supporters.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Trumps and the WHs is not, espeically after the whole Comey thing where they could not even get their story straight, then finally both Trump and Huckabee Sanders admitted it was to end the Russian investigation faster.
> 
> Or how Trump threatened Comey which is witness tampering implying he (Trump) may have recordings of their conversations.
> 
> Trump supporters in this thread are so pathetic how they bash the left for everything yet ignore all the shit Trump and his WH are doing.
> 
> But I expect nothing less from you guys, Trump and the WHs credibility has been shot months ago but Trump supporters are just too dense to see it but that is how Trump likes his supporters.


It's still not as bad as yours (leftists) BM. 

There's degrees of separation. 

I just posted an article about how much I dislike this administration. So for fucking sake STOP with the absolutely retarded "Trump supporters ignore his shit". You are by FAR the worst leftist on this site. Worst. Because you don't read anything anyone else posts. You don't remember what their political opinions are and you interject in conversations that you haven't even read. You give Beatles a lot of shit, but you're worse than him - and your type of leftist is the very reason why I hate both the extreme left and the extreme right. 

I dislike your brand of politics more. I'll take Trump over any leftist any day of the week on every single issue on earth.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Presidents Trump and Putin joining forces to defeat ISIS while the deranged, depressed, grieving conspiracy theorist US media fights them every step of the way. :trump2


----------



## AustinRockHulk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Donald Trump Has No Clue What NAFTA Is*
> 
> *The Economist: What is Trumponomics and how does it differ from standard Republican economics?*
> 
> Donald Trump: It very much has to do with trade. We have so many bad trade deals. To a point where I’m not sure that we have any good trade deals. I don’t know who the people are that would put us into a NAFTA, which was so one-sided. Both from the Canada standpoint and from the Mexico standpoint. So one-sided.
> 
> *The Economist: It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?*
> 
> Donald Trump: Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive.
> 
> *The Economist: Huge?*
> 
> Donald Trump: It’s got to be. It’s got to be.
> 
> *The Economist: What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?*
> 
> Donald Trump: No, it’s gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA.
> 
> *The Economist: What would a fair NAFTA look like?*
> 
> Donald Trump: I was all set to terminate, you know?
> 
> *The Economist: But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?*
> 
> Donald Trump: We have to be able to make fair deals.
> 
> *The Economist: Some people think this is a negotiating tactic—that you say very dramatic things but actually you would settle for some very small changes. Is that right?*
> 
> Donald Trump: No, it’s not, really not a negotiation. It’s really not. No, will I settle for less than I go in with? Yes, I mean who wouldn’t?


http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript?zid=297&ah=3ae0fe266c7447d8a0c7ade5547d62ca

LOL @ the last answer by Trump. So he has no clue and no plan? Trump could never give a straight answer to any question to explain. Why is that? You guys should read the rest of this interview. It's 10 pages but it's interesting.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864262056849092608
Just think it's funny they treat the press corps like parents treat their kids when they're fighting. 

If one of the reporters turned to another and said "Do you think they're getting divorced?" "If they are I wanna live with Sarah" :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is not a "Death blow" to Trump but it is super out of normality to share classified intel without jumping through hoops

The problem with this situation is it was classified information that was not found by the US but was shared by an ally and by sharing it it allows Russia to narrow down what intelligence services are investigating what threats and make an educated guess on what intel various departments are gathering 

Stack on that it was shared intel and Trump's to give away 

This is not a particular dangerous of intelligence but it sets a negative precedence about if Trump is able to keep classified info quite let alone info that was gathered by allies (Eastern European nations for instance, want Russia to know as little as possible about their knowledge) 

It breaches protocol is basically sharing secretes among friends with a neutral party, is very disrespectful to said friends and so minor that it likely did little to warm Russia to the US

The information is not the problem, its the breach of trust


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> *This is not a "Death blow" to Trump but it is super out of normality to share classified intel without jumping through hoops*
> 
> The problem with this situation is it was classified information that was not found by the US but was shared by an ally and by sharing it it allows Russia to narrow down what intelligence services are investigating what threats and make an educated guess on what intel various departments are gathering
> 
> Stack on that it was shared intel and Trump's to give away
> 
> This is not a particular dangerous of intelligence but it sets a negative precedence about if Trump is able to keep classified info quite let alone info that was gathered by allies (Eastern European nations for instance, want Russia to know as little as possible about their knowledge)
> 
> It breaches protocol is basically sharing secretes among friends with a neutral party, is very disrespectful to said friends and so minor that it likely did little to warm Russia to the US
> 
> The information is not the problem, its the breach of trust


Did he do that? I'm hearing from everywhere that he didn't.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Did he do that? I'm hearing from everywhere that he didn't.


Trump revealed a plan by ISIS to use laptop bombs to Russia

While this is not really a big deal (it had been suspected for a long time) that information was not gathered by US intelligence

Trump basically gave an allies intelligence to a political rival without asking

The big danger it also broadcasts to ISIS that the US and one of its allies knows in stone what one of its plans is which is EXTREMELY dangerous


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The left's credibility is completely and utterly shot. They have nothing left at all.
> 
> Unfortunately one of the main components of maintaining a socialist government in any country is complete and utter collusion with the mainstream media. Most socialist shitholes like Canada and UK have BBC and CBC which are actually mandated and protected to drive the fascist state's agenda. Here we have voluntary collusion between the capitalist and the socialist.


Or be like Sweden where the Government controls all the media and deems which studies can do or say what. Can also make studies moot by taking out key facts and components so that way it doesn't disrupt your narrative.

Then have Police basically ignore problems, slam anyone who disagrees with you as racist, lie about any facts that come out, have the most feminist government in the world and not do anything for women. 

Sweden's Government is pretty sickening when you think about it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Trump revealed a plan by ISIS to use laptop bombs to Russia


You mean telling someone that the worst humans in existence have a plan is now a bad thing? 

I don't give a fuck about my friends' wittle girly fee fees if it helps one of the most powerful forces in the world deal with ISIS. 

This information shouldn't be "classified" with a friend who's fighting a common enemy. And if it is, then that says something about the governments that don't want it to be shared with someone who is also fighting the ISIS and presents them in a worse light. 

I mean that is if you cut through all the anti-Russia propaganda and realize that despite all its bad, it's still a force for good against the sickest human beings in existence. 

Russia had a war with Chechnya once. Guess which country has gulags for gay people? I'm at this point pretty much turning into 95% pro-Russia given all the mass hysteria ... If the left is painting someone in a poor light, they must be good.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You mean telling someone that the worst humans in existence have a plan is now a bad thing?
> 
> I don't give a fuck about my friends' wittle girly fee fees if it helps one of the most powerful forces in the world deal with ISIS.
> 
> This information shouldn't be "classified" with a friend who's fighting a common enemy. And if it is, then that says something about the governments that don't want it to be shared with someone who is also fighting the ISIS and presents them in a worse light.
> 
> I mean that is if you cut through all the anti-Russia propaganda and realize that despite all its bad, it's still a force for good against the sickest human beings in existence.
> 
> Russia had a war with Chechnya once. Guess which country has gulags for gay people?


Telling this information is telling ISIS that they have a leak and they will plug it 

Not only does it say "WE HAVE SPIES" it says "WE HAVE SPIES WHO ARE HIGH ENOUGH TO KNOW YOUR PLANS" 

if the info is coming from an ISIS turn coat or a nation that is not on great terms with the US than even if they survive than that source is gone

Police don't announce where their undercover are, especially to a third party


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Telling this information is telling ISIS that they have a leak and they will plug it
> 
> Not only does it say "WE HAVE SPIES" it says "WE HAVE SPIES WHO ARE HIGH ENOUGH TO KNOW YOUR PLANS"
> 
> if the info is coming from an ISIS turn coat or a nation that is not on great terms with the US than even if they survive than that source is gone
> 
> Police don't announce where their undercover are, especially to a third party


So you think that ISIS aren't aware of any infiltration attempts or turncoats?

I really don't get your point here.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So you think that ISIS aren't aware of any infiltration attempts or turncoats?
> 
> I really don't get your point here.


ISIS likely thought they had spies

ISIS now KNOW they have spies, they KNOW that said spies are talking to the US, they KNOW that said spies are one of the people they briefed about the laptop bombs and said spies now KNOW that US has no problem sharing their undercover reports with a third party even if it puts them in extra danger

What if this is Jordan and Jordan has some massive plan involving this knowledge, now its fucked

What if Israel had a plan to track these bombs and see their European bases, now the plan is fucked

also keep in mind that US media was not allowed in that meeting BUT RUSSIAN STATE CONTROLLED MEDIA WAS

update: this was CODE-WORD LEVEL INFO, we talk in nonsense because this information is so fucking sensitive the walls have ears LEVEL INFO


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> *Telling this information is telling ISIS that they have a leak and they will plug it *
> 
> Not only does it say "WE HAVE SPIES" it says "WE HAVE SPIES WHO ARE HIGH ENOUGH TO KNOW YOUR PLANS"
> 
> if the info is coming from an ISIS turn coat or a nation that is not on great terms with the US than even if they survive than that source is gone
> 
> Police don't announce where their undercover are, especially to a third party


So, shouldn't the blame go to the media? Which is worse, when it comes to ensuring ISIS doesn't know what's up, Trump telling Russian officials, or WaPo telling the world?



> BREAKING: Seth Rich Family Tells FOX 5 DC THERE IS EVIDENCE Their Son was “Emailing” Wikileaks
> 
> On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.
> 
> Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.
> 
> Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”
> 
> in August Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.
> 
> Julian Assange also suggested in August that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864296359754698753


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, shouldn't the blame go to the media? Which is worse, when it comes to ensuring ISIS doesn't know what's up, Trump telling Russian officials, or WaPo telling the world?


US officials let everyone know that Trump leaked the info as a safety net to let everyone know their plans are fucked and to pull up their tents

The fucking day he fired the FBI director he told Sergey Kislyak, one the fuckers who is already in hot water for being friends with, this shit 

Russia has no obligation to keep this info secret, they can sell it on the street for 20$ bucks if they wanted to

The press has actually stated that the will not publish their full knowledge of the event until the government OKs it to make sure no one gets burned

Edit: HE TOLD THEM THE REGION THE INFO CAME FROM


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Steve, I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I think that America needs to start considering Russia an ally on the ISIS thing and there should be sharing of information. I'm also seeing it from the point of view that maybe sharing this information saved lives as well as it might have gotten ISIS to retreat on their plan. We don't know. It's all in the realm of speculation. I'm just not in favor of immediately admitting that our work or desire to work with Russia is just immediately dismissable as negative.

I have never quite understood the anti-Russia hysteria in America.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Steve, I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I think that America needs to start considering Russia an ally on the ISIS thing and there should be sharing of information. I'm also seeing it from the point of view that maybe sharing this information saved lives as well as it might have gotten ISIS to retreat on their plan. We don't know. It's all in the realm of speculation. I'm just not in favor of immediately admitting that our work or desire to work with Russia is just immediately dismissable as negative.
> 
> I have never quite understood the anti-Russia hysteria in America.


Its not that he is sharing it with Russia (its dumb as fuck with all the "Russian puppet" shit going around but that's not the point)

Maybe in the short term in will stop an attack, but in the long term it shows ISIS that they are not as secure that as they think they are and to treat everyone from the milkman to the second in command with extreme suspicion, maybe even torch a couple of "questionable villages" 

It sends the message to other allies that "if you find something juicy don't tell the US because they will leak it", we don't just want to stop attacks we want to catch the people planning them and revealing you know about their actions will just send them underground 

It sends a message to US intelligence that "the government does not have your back and may blow your cover over an afternoon lunch" and makes all of the intelligence department factional as fuck as they don't know who to trust (that is what caused 9/11, they all knew bits and pieces but were so afraid to share Intel) 

The local farmer now knows better than to let a local fighter know that he heard a drunk ISIS douche talk about a secret plan because the PEOPLE LEADING THE FIGHT will broadcast not only that the information was leaked but where it came from

you NEVER want someone to retreat on a plan, you want them go for it when you are ready for them to trap them


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> US officials let everyone know that Trump leaked the info as a safety net to let everyone know their plans are fucked and to pull up their tents
> 
> The fucking day he fired the FBI director he told Sergey Kislyak, one the fuckers who is already in hot water for being friends with, this shit
> 
> Russia has no obligation to keep this info secret, they can sell it on the street for 20$ bucks if they wanted to
> 
> The press has actually stated that the will not publish their full knowledge of the event until the government OKs it to make sure no one gets burned
> 
> Edit: HE TOLD THEM THE REGION THE INFO CAME FROM


For a country actively fighting ISIS, selling the info for any amount of money seems counter productive.

That's a lame excuse for US officials to leak the info.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Surely betraying state secrets is impeachable?

Obvs won't happen until 2018, but this would seem a clear cut legal reason to go for it.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> For a country actively fighting ISIS, selling the info for any amount of money seems counter productive.
> 
> That's a lame excuse for US officials to leak the info.


Its not that the US thinks Russia would sell the info, its that a person who has zero clearance now knows unfiltered classified info, what he does with it is up to him

If he wants to post it on facebook, he can and there are zero repercussions for him because he was not supposed to know it in the first place 

Its like when someone hacks a business and steals partial credit card info, the business lets everyone know "You might be fucked, you might not, stay safe"


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thinking this is going to get Trump impeached :mj4

I'm still waiting for him to get impeached for what he did last week, and the week before that, and the week before that etc.


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think @CamillePunk has the best explanation (c/o Scott Adams). The people who live in a reality where a billionaire who was elected President of the most powerful nation on earth is incompetent and possibly insane must be in a constant state of pain that I can almost understand their need for catharsis any way they can get it. The world has completely betrayed their 'reality'.

:hogan


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Thinking this is going to get Trump impeached :mj4
> 
> I'm still waiting for him to get impeached for what he did last week, and the week before that, and the week before that etc.


You don't consider the leaking of state secrets to be an impeachable offense? 

If it isn't wtf is?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Goku said:


> I think @CamillePunk has the best explanation (c/o Scott Adams). The people who live in a reality where a billionaire who was elected President of the most powerful nation on earth is incompetent and possibly insane must be in a constant state of pain that I can almost understand their need for catharsis any way they can get it. The world has completely betrayed their 'reality'.
> 
> :hogan


Trump supporters don't live in reality if they think he is competent. He can't even string together coherent sentences FFS and he is president.

If Trump supporters can't see how dumb and incompetent Trump is, that speaks volumes of how dumb they are

And LOL at Trump supporters using a comic strip writer to defend Trump. But yeah its the anti-Trump crowd who don't live in reality.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864236430012416000


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's still not as bad as yours (leftists) BM.
> 
> There's degrees of separation.
> 
> I just posted an article about how much I dislike this administration. So for fucking sake STOP with the absolutely retarded "Trump supporters ignore his shit". You are by FAR the worst leftist on this site. Worst. Because you don't read anything anyone else posts. You don't remember what their political opinions are and you interject in conversations that you haven't even read. You give Beatles a lot of shit, but you're worse than him - and your type of leftist is the very reason why I hate both the extreme left and the extreme right.
> 
> I dislike your brand of politics more. I'll take Trump over any leftist any day of the week on every single issue on earth.


You are so far gone from reality I really do feel bad for you. Trump supporters are ignoring his shit, just look at this thread. But keep living in your backward world, its where all the Trumpeters live.

It must be nice to live in your fairytale world. And of course, you would take Trump over progressive values its because you don't have real values.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You don't consider the leaking of state secrets to be an impeachable offense?
> 
> If it isn't wtf is?


That depends if this is looked at as a serious act of treason -or- if this is looked at as Trump using his declassification authority he has as president.

This is also under the guise that this is, in fact, true, which I'm not buying into yet and probably won't believe unless a bombshell is dropped.

Right now this is an anon source's scoop to the Washington Post vs. Tillerson, McMaster, Powell who were literally in the room and came right out in calling BS on the anon source. If it remains that way and nothing more comes out, he's not getting close to being impeached and this is just another thing the left will desperately cling onto just like they were calling for his head last week with Comey and so on and so fourth.

Washington Post rightfully won't say who the anon source is, but we literally have confirmed sources Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell who were in the room who are going on record saying it didn't happen. Obv the left will discredit Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell they don't want believe Trump's WH, just like we don't believe liberal dirt sheets using Meltzer level sources.

EDIT: Apparently, there were only 4 Americans in the room: Trump, Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell. 3 of them have already gone on the record calling BS and the other is the man himself. So who is the stooge out of that group?

Actually half surprised there isn't more left-Alex Jones theories that this is a false flag in order to cool down the HEAT on the Comey/FBI front lel


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> That depends if this is looked at as a serious act of treason -or- if this is looked at as Trump using his declassification authority he has as president.
> 
> This is also under the guise that this is, in fact, true, which I'm not buying into yet and probably won't believe unless a bombshell is dropped.
> 
> Right now this is an anon source's scoop to the Washington Post vs. Tillerson, McMaster, Powell who were literally in the room and came right out in calling BS on the anon source. If it remains that way and nothing more comes out, he's not getting close to being impeached and this is just another thing the left will desperately cling onto just like they were calling for his head last week with Comey and so on and so fourth.
> 
> Washington Post rightfully won't say who the anon source is, but we literally have confirmed sources Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell who were in the room who are going on record saying it didn't happen. Obv the left will discredit Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell they don't want believe Trump's WH, just like we don't believe liberal dirt sheets using Meltzer level sources.
> 
> EDIT: Apparently, there were only 4 Americans in the room: Trump, Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell. 3 of them have already gone on the record calling BS and the other is the man himself. So who is the stooge out of that group?
> 
> Actually half surprised there isn't more left-Alex Jones theories that this is a false flag in order to cool down the HEAT on the Comey/FBI front lel


Yean like Trumps cabinet does not lie about stuff LOL they could not even get their story straight on why Comey got fired.

Trump and his admin have zero credibility when it comes to telling the truth. Trump himself lies 70% of the time.

Just watch his interviews he even contradicts himself mid stance sometimes.

But sure take their word for it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Hopefully this dumbfuck gets impeached for treason. There's more than enough grounds to get him out of office now.*


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yean like Trumps cabinet does not lie about stuff LOL they could not even get their story straight on why Comey got fired.
> 
> Trump and his admin have zero credibility when it comes to telling the truth. Trump himself lies 70% of the time.
> 
> Just watch his interviews he even contradicts himself mid stance sometimes.
> 
> But sure take their word for it.


TBF I understand why you guys don't trust Trump's WH.

Just try to understand why we don't trust liberal main stream media.

I will sooner take confirmed sources in Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell going on the record and take their word for it than I will ever accept a single anon Washington Post source. Unlike the anon source who can say shit with impunity, if something bigger does drop than these 3 could be in trouble since they've now attached their names to it.

If something bigger drops then I'll re-evaluate, but right now it's 3 confirmed people who were literally in the room going on the record saying it didn't happen vs. a single alleged anon source for Washington Post.



Legit BOSS said:


> *Hopefully this dumbfuck gets impeached for treason. There's more than enough grounds to get him out of office now.*


:lmao you don't even know our laws (now I'll rat myself out because I didn't even know this law until a few hours ago lel)

You may not like reading this, however, as I understand it citing Navy v. Egan, the President can declassify classified information as he sees fit whenever he sees fit. It's not a good look and he really shouldn't do that, but as I understand it it's 100% legal.

If this is, in fact, true and Trump did say something close to what is being reported, not only is not treason... it's not even illegal.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm still surprised he hasn't been impeached by that scoop on how much ice cream he gets to eat.

We truly no longer live in a nation of laws. :no:


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If Trump is impeached the President will be a creepy Homophobe who calls his wife mother and will be a boring under the radar rubberstamp for Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell. Even if a smoking gun comes out that makes Trump impeachable be careful what you wish for. That said it's pretty funny to see people who were saying "lock her up" a year ago twisting themselves in pretzels trying to defend Trump doing the same thing intentionally.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well since an anonymous source is 100% accurate and since we have so many law experts on how Trump will get impeached, anyone want to tell me when that will be? 

I just cannot believe how crazy this is, all those anonymous sources about the crazy Obama stuff must be accurate too!

Yuppers I have a good feeling this is all on the up and up. I expect impeachment by the end of the week.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ultimately there is no chance whatsoever of Donald Trump being impeached over this for the very simple reason that as chief executive officer of the federal government and president, he is the primary classifying agent of said government. Declassifying intelligence, after a sort, with foreign dignitaries or ambassadors or what have you simply falls under his purview and is a matter of his prerogative. 

The sheer political ramifications, far more nebulous and abstract, however, remain to be seen. It's curious that this occurs on the same day that the crematoria of the Assad regime is reportedly discovered. 

Trump needs his own "plumbers" with regard to all of these leaks. :lol There's the "Nixonian" angle for ya. Paranoiacs truly do have enemies!


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Hopefully this dumbfuck gets impeached for treason. There's more than enough grounds to get him out of office now.*


How so? Hate to break it to you, but the russian things a red herring, no matter how much the liberals want it to be true.

The media gets refuted routinely on their scoops, and talk sbout twisting into a pretzel to change positions. The liberals have that locked down.

These constant screaming headlines are doing nothing but hurting democrats. Their base is anxiously awaiting impeachment.vwhen it doesnt come, theyll get even more depressed and stay home for the mid terms.

Then the truly delicious thing will be 2020 when they lose to trump again. Liberal tears are so delicious.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You know what, let's make sure we impeach Trump. The libtards deserve Pence. 

We should have gulags with conversion therapy for gays and creationism in schools and all women put back in the home where they belong so there's more jobs for men. Bring in all the muslims from all over the world, bring in the mexican drug dealers and human traffickers and install venezuelan socialism. Let the libtards have their social policies and convert America into the shithole they want. 

Fuck liberty. Let's put the Pope in power because ya know how much the libtards love the pedophile apologist. Haven't you seen the positive press he gets?

Also, ban all the ice cream.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

People think we can trust the Trump administration with what they tell us when they can't even get their own stories straight between them 90% of the time.

People think this should see Trump impeached.

:rock4


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> WASHINGTON - It has been almost a year since Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered in the nation's capital. There have been no solid answers about why he was killed until now.
> 
> Rich was shot and killed last July in Northwest D.C and police have suggested the killing in the District's Bloomingdale neighborhood was a botched robbery. However, online conspiracy theories have tied the murder to Rich's work at the DNC.
> 
> Just two months shy of the one-year anniversary of Rich's death, FOX 5 has learned there is new information that could prove these theorists right.
> 
> Seth Rich Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death
> Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family, suggests there is tangible evidence on Rich's laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death.
> 
> Now, questions have been raised on why D.C. police, the lead agency on this murder investigation for the past ten months, have insisted this was a robbery gone bad when there appears to be no evidence to suggest that.
> 
> Wheeler, a former D.C. police homicide detective, is running a parallel investigation into Rich’s murder. He said he believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation.
> 
> "The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven't been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”
> 
> When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."
> 
> Wheeler also told us, "I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor's office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday].


http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Well since an anonymous source is 100% accurate and since we have so many law experts on how Trump will get impeached, anyone want to tell me when that will be?
> 
> I just cannot believe how crazy this is, all those anonymous sources about the crazy Obama stuff must be accurate too!


#FakeNews 
...........until Trump confirms it himself











This is the same Trump who criticized Obama over telegraphing strategy. Here he is spilling secrets to Russians like they gave him truth syrum.



That said Paul Ryan is the world's biggest pussy so I am not sure what Trump would ever have to do to get Ryan to turn on him as long as enough of Trump supporter's are ride or die.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> #FakeNews
> ...........until Trump confirms it himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same Trump who criticized Obama over telegraphing strategy. Here he is spilling secrets to Russians like they gave him truth syrum.
> 
> 
> 
> That said Paul Ryan is the world's biggest pussy so I am not sure what Trump would ever have to do to get Ryan to turn on him as long as enough of Trump supporter's are ride or die.


Still waiting on how this was illegal. Oh well Friday is coming up, have the moving vans come to get his stuff yet?

Where is our panel of legal experts?


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Still waiting on how this was illegal. Oh well Friday is coming up, have the moving vans come to get his stuff yet?
> 
> Where is our panel of legal experts?


I am more worried about how our allies will be less likely to share info with us and how more at risk we may become to terrorist because Trump has looser lips then a lady at a 1950's sewing circle. Whether this is Impeachable or not is of less concern t


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You know what, let's make sure we impeach Trump. The libtards deserve Pence.
> 
> We should have gulags with conversion therapy for gays and creationism in schools and all women put back in the home where they belong so there's more jobs for men. Bring in all the muslims from all over the world, bring in the mexican drug dealers and human traffickers and install venezuelan socialism. Let the libtards have their social policies and convert America into the shithole they want.
> 
> Fuck liberty. Let's put the Pope in power because ya know how much the libtards love the pedophile apologist. Haven't you seen the positive press he gets?
> 
> Also, ban all the ice cream.


Oh but Reaper, the people pushing for diversity and wanting to open the borders up to everyone don't want to live with these people. You'd have to establish a clause so that way they cannot hide in their lily white 90% areas with Starbucks, lots of Police and shopping areas and fancy places to eat!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh but Reaper, the people pushing for diversity and wanting to open the borders up to everyone don't want to live with these people. You'd have to establish a clause so that way they cannot hide in their lily white 90% areas with Starbucks, lots of Police and shopping areas and fancy places to eat!


Yup. We'd have to pass a law (since lefists love new laws so much) that there cannot be a single white majority neighborhood. ALL white people will be redistributed to black and brown ghettos so their population in those ghettos will never exceed 30% so they are a perpetual minority and get to experience what life's really like.

It's a common sense law after all. You wanna live with the minorities, go live with them. 

No white liberal in California would be allowed to build a wall around their property

All fences will be torn down. 

No houses will be allowed to have locks. 

In a totally open border society we cannot have locks and doors and walls and fences. Everything must be as open as the border itself. If someone opens your door and walks in, you cannot ask them to leave. You have to provide them food and shelter at your expense for as long as they want. If they rape your daughter, you have to thank them for their service. If they kill your wife, you have to apologise to them for their minority status and your whiteness as causing them to kill your wife since you're the one with privilege. 

And there will be no ice cream. The perfect liberal utopia.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yup. We'd have to pass a law (since lefists love new laws so much) that there cannot be a single white majority neighborhood. ALL white people will be redistributed to black and brown ghettos so their population in those ghettos will never exceed 30% so they are a perpetual minority and get to experience what life's really like.
> 
> It's a common sense law after all. You wanna live with the minorities, go live with them.
> 
> No white liberal in California would be allowed to build a wall around their property
> 
> All fences will be torn down.
> 
> No houses will be allowed to have locks.
> 
> In a totally open border society we cannot have locks and doors and walls and fences. Everything must be as open as the border itself. If someone opens your door and walks in, you cannot ask them to leave. You have to provide them food and shelter at your expense for as long as they want. If they rape your daughter, you have to thank them for their service. If they kill your wife, you have to apologise to them for their minority status and your whiteness as causing them to kill your wife since you're the one with privilege.
> 
> And there will be no ice cream. The perfect liberal utopia.


Have to make sure they cannot identify as anything else too, else they may pull a Rachel Dolezal or a Shaun King and you'll have them making sneaky white areas. Also trust fund commies have to give up 100% of their wealth. 

I want this now, just to see how these goobers would react and how long they'd last.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Have to make sure they cannot identify as anything else too, else they may pull a Rachel Dolezal or a Shaun King and you'll have them making sneaky white areas. Also trust fund commies have to give up 100% of their wealth.
> 
> I want this now, just to see how these goobers would react and how long they'd last.


I did a state by state analysis of counties losing money and they almost unanimously voted democrat, therefore no one will be allowed to move to the conservative fiscally responsible states and counties in the New America. 

I propose that we conservatives build walls and no liberal (especially socialist whites) can move states when their tax burdens get too high and their economies start crashing. 

If you're a liberal and you vote democrat then you HAVE to live out your life in the communities you create. You can't escape to a republican State when you voted for the democrat that crashed your economy because all you do is turn around and turn the next place you move to into a shithole. It's so fucking retarded. Almost every democrat county is losing money to republican counties across America and yet these retards continue to move out and vote for the same shit that crashed their city or state. Every single time. 

Keep all democrats in their counties. Let them fuck shit up and keep them from escaping the shithole they create. No more inner state migration. 

Conservatives are too worried about Mexicans and Muslims when they really should be worried about democrats.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Iconoclast how can you not get anti-Russian sentiment in the United States? Remember the Soviet Union, Cold War, etc?

How are we talking about impeachment when this Seth Rich thing is out there?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> @Iconoclast how can you not get anti-Russian sentiment in the United States? Remember the Soviet Union, Cold War, etc?
> 
> How are we talking about impeachment when this Seth Rich thing is out there?


TBH, I was in the East during the height of the second cold war (80's) but once the Soviet Union crashed, it seemed like Russia was moving in a capitalist direction and America and Russia had started working on developing a strong working relationship during the 90's. Up until Obama's war against Syria, there was hardly any anti-Russia sentiment left. 

It was Obama's desire to start a regime change in Russia backed Syria which really started the whole anti-Russia hysteria all over again and this makes little sense to me because the common enemy there is ISIS. I believe that America is on the wrong side of history on this one and they should be working with Russia not against it. 

The other problem is that before Obama's war, America and Russia had been uneasy, but still mostly diplomatic allies through the previous conflicts. 

There's no reason for that to suddenly change as the cause of recent tensions is Obama's war on Assad and nothing else. What else has Russia done to deserve this renewed vitoral by the ignorant left. And you have to remember that conservatives want stable relations with Russia - it's only the hysterical left and Obama's holdovers that are anti-Russia.

History recorded Russia war against Chechnya as Russia being on the wrong side of it, but look at Chechnya now. It's the only country in the world with a Muslim run gulag for gays. That puts Russia on the right side of that conflict and I believe that if I did some actual digging on Ukraine, I'll find things that I don't know yet that would put Russia on the right side there as well. But I need to do more digging into that conflict to know for sure.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

so both WikiLeaks & Assange re-tweeted the Seth Rich story?

:hmm


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

While its not illegal for Trump to disclose things to Russia, I feel like he probably shouldn't disclosed where he got intel from seeing as ISIS can now narrow down where the leak could have come from. Once that happens, it makes things more difficult in the future. If its true anyways, I have no clue anymore this has been very confusing once Trump went to the WH


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> While its not illegal for Trump to disclose things to Russia, I feel like he probably shouldn't disclosed where he got intel from seeing as ISIS can now narrow down where the leak could have come from. Once that happens, it makes things more difficult in the future. If its true anyways, I have no clue anymore this has been very confusing once Trump went to the WH


I agree tbh.

All I've been saying is that people are acting like "he *can't* say that! IMPEACH! TREASON!" where in reality it is "no, he 100% can say that. However, if he did say something, he really *shouldn't* have said it." There is a big difference between can't and shouldn't. The people who want him impeached for this are so misinformed that they probably think that Hillary will take his spot or that Bernie can still win.

back to Seth Rich:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864484292898025472
this was from a few weeks after Seth Rich's murder, but it's relevant today.


----------



## samizayn

I missed the memo on the ice cream meme


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> so misinformed that they probably think that Hillary will take his spot or that Bernie can still win.


This is actually true. They think that an impeachment in America works the same retarded way it does in parliamental systems where all kinds of retarded coups and votes of no confidence etc happen all the time which leads to "Fresh elections" and people keep switching governments till the populist government comes in and fucks shit up even more.

America isn't a parliamental democracy. You have a republican or democratic government for 4 years. That's how it works. Plain and simple.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

On another note: 



> John Podesta joins The Washington Post as a contributing columnist
> 
> The Washington Post today announced that John Podesta will join the Opinion section as a contributing columnist. Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, will provide commentary and analysis on the intersection of politics and policy, the Trump administration and the future of the Democratic Party.
> 
> “No one knows more about how Washington works, how the White House operates, and how policy ideas are translated into reality than John Podesta,” said Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. “His long experience in Congress, inside two Democratic White Houses and on the front lines of numerous presidential campaigns, will offer readers vital insight into Washington and politics at the start of a new era.”
> 
> John Podesta served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and as a counselor to President Barack Obama. He is the founder and board member of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C. He is also a visiting professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center.


"Fair and unbiased media" - He joined WashPo in Feb And guess who's been leading the charge on the whole Russia iz evilz bullshit since. Anyone that posts anything on here from the Washpo as proof of anything at this point might as well take their news from the corner hobo. 

They have no credibility whatsoever. Worse than even Alex Jones because at least Alex Jones is obvious with his conspiracies - meanwhile democratic newspapers like CNN, MSNBC, WashPo, WSJ and NYT still claim that they're "fair and unbiased". 

Bullshit. 

:kobelol

Also: The Anti-Russia hysteria is totally created by the EU globalists which is the new socialist "government" of the west. I use "government" loosely because the fucking elite that run europe were NEVER even elected and yet they've given themselves the entitlement to tax money and are planning to create their own standing army. 

If you're opposing Russia over EU at this point, you've been had. 

Fight me on this b***** !


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just stopping by to say I still don't give a shit about all this Russia stuff nor do I care about what Trump may or may not have "leaked" to them during their meeting. Oh and anyone who thinks he should be impeached for this particular "crime" is a fucking retard.

Carry on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> TBF I understand why you guys don't trust Trump's WH.
> 
> Just try to understand why we don't trust liberal main stream media.
> 
> I will sooner take confirmed sources in Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell going on the record and take their word for it than I will ever accept a single anon Washington Post source. Unlike the anon source who can say shit with impunity, if something bigger does drop than these 3 could be in trouble since they've now attached their names to it.
> 
> If something bigger drops then I'll re-evaluate, but right now it's 3 confirmed people who were literally in the room going on the record saying it didn't happen vs. a single alleged anon source for Washington Post.
> 
> 
> :lmao you don't even know our laws (now I'll rat myself out because I didn't even know this law until a few hours ago lel)
> 
> You may not like reading this, however, as I understand it citing Navy v. Egan, the President can declassify classified information as he sees fit whenever he sees fit. It's not a good look and he really shouldn't do that, but as I understand it it's 100% legal.
> 
> If this is, in fact, true and Trump did say something close to what is being reported, not only is not treason... it's not even illegal.


So of course once again it comes out they were lying. Do you still believe Trump and his cabinet? 

The WH now has to admit Trump did give out the info because Trump admitted doing so and now the narrative goes from oh he didn't which was a lie to well he has every right to give out classified info.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> On another note:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair and unbiased media" - He joined WashPo in Feb And guess who's been leading the charge on the whole Russia iz evilz bullshit since. Anyone that posts anything on here from the Washpo as proof of anything at this point might as well take their news from the corner hobo.
> 
> They have no credibility whatsoever. Worse than even Alex Jones because at least Alex Jones is obvious with his conspiracies - meanwhile democratic newspapers like CNN, MSNBC, WashPo, WSJ and NYT still claim that they're "fair and unbiased".
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> Also: The Anti-Russia hysteria is totally created by the EU globalists which is the new socialist "government" of the west. I use "government" loosely because the fucking elite that run europe were NEVER even elected and yet they've given themselves the entitlement to tax money and are planning to create their own standing army.
> 
> If you're opposing Russia over EU at this point, you've been had.
> 
> Fight me on this b***** !



You do realize Trump HIMSELF tweeted he shared Intelligence Info in a tweet this morning,it's not a crazy liberal #fake news conspiracy. Whether it's Russia or-any country he is doing this with he is putting our operatives at risk. We rely on info from a coalition of dozens of countries and all of them have varying degrees of hot and cold relationships with each other. Let's say for example your India and you have some info on a terrorist cell in Pakistan,maybe now you don't share for your own people's safety because you worry Chatty Kathy Trump loose lip's might relay it to some countries leader he is friendly with but India is not. Or your some Middle Eastern Country the Us has good relations with and you have Isis info but you have shitty relations with Russia and or Syria. Maybe now people start to worry snitches get stiches if they share info with the Usa because Trump might just offhand brag to leaders of some country about what he knows.

It's basically been standard procedure and franky common sense Presidents do not customarily disclose intelligence given us by foreign govs to a 3rd party(Be that officials from Russia or The Micronesian Islands) without that govs permission. It's why consultants do not share details between clients who may be competitors. No one gives you any more info if you share. This is not an Anti Russia thing(even if Russia is with Assad in Syria) this is a Trump don't fucking get our operatives killed and make us more at risk for terrorists attacks because of either your ego,ignorance or naivety.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> You do realize Trump HIMSELF tweeted he shared Intelligence Info in a tweet this morning,it's not a crazy liberal #fake news conspiracy. Whether it's Russia or-any country he is doing this with he is putting our operatives at risk. We rely on info from a coalition of dozens of countries and all of them have varying degrees of hot and cold relationships with each other. Let's say for example your India and you have some info on a terrorist cell in Pakistan,maybe now you don't share for your own people's safety because you worry Chatty Kathy Trump loose lip's might relay it to some countries leader he is friendly with but India is not. Or your some Middle Eastern Country the Us has good relations with and you have Isis info but you have shitty relations with Russia and or Syria. Maybe now people start to worry snitches get stiches if they share info with the Usa because Trump might just offhand brag to leaders of some country about what he knows.
> 
> It's basically been standard procedure and franky common sense Presidents do not customarily disclose intelligence given us by foreign govs to a 3rd party(Be that officials from Russia or The Micronesian Islands) without that govs permission. It's why consultants do not share details between clients who may be competitors. No one gives you any more info if you share. This is not an Anti Russia thing(even if Russia is with Assad in Syria) this is a Trump don't fucking get our operatives killed and make us more at risk for terrorists attacks because of either your ego,ignorance or naivety.


:lol Where did I say that Trump passing on the info is fake news in the post you responded to?

I literally just finished having a conversation with Steve on this subject where my stance is that Russia should be our friend and not the fake enemy it's being perceived as. I'm 95% pro-Russia / America friendship at this point. That's my stance.

What is so evil about Russia. Putin was America's friend till America decided to upend Assad's government. 

So can a SINGLE lefty answer that question please? Instead of talking about Russia as though it's still nuclear powered commie state that we feared in the past? Give me a single fact about what makes Russia evil today without referring to the past.

Americans are currently a global superpower that overthrew Iraq, overthrew Libya, are supporting Saudi ethnic genocide in Yemen, trying to overthrow Assad and Putin is the evil one. This really does not fucking compute at all. We're on the wrong side of history folks. Should wake up and smell the shit on our government's fingers before you start pointing fingers at Russians at this point.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> :lol Where did I say that Trump passing on the info is fake news in the post you responded to?
> 
> I literally just finished having a conversation with Steve on this subject where my stance is that Russia should be our friend and not the fake enemy it's being perceived as. I'm 95% pro-Russia / America friendship at this point. That's my stance.
> 
> What is so evil about Russia. Putin was America's friend till America decided to upend Assad's regime.
> 
> So can a SINGLE lefty answer that question please?


Just like HS though even if you believe Russia/any country and the Us our friends that doesn't mean everyone else is also friends with Russia/any country or that anything told to us by other sources we should share with Russia/any country. A good example is Saudi Arabia and Israel ,both are Us allies but I think people would rightly be pissed if the Trump relied info from Israeli sources to someone in the Saudi Govt.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Just like HS though even if you believe Russia/any country and the Us our friends that doesn't mean everyone else is also friends with Russia/any country or that anything told to us by other sources we should share with Russia/any country. A good example is Saudi Arabia and Israel ,both are Us allies but I think people would rightly be pissed if the Trump relied info from Israeli sources to someone in the Saudi Govt.


That's a fair criticism. However, international diplomatic channels aren't like high school where if the cheerleader dates the nerd, the jocks would get upset. International diplomacy survives accidental friendly fire, intentional sabotage of allies. It happens. Mistakes happen. Things go wrong. Isn't that the explanation democrats gave us every time they "accidentally" bombed hospitals? 

The entire fiasco against Russia was started by the EU which is eyeing the profits from the Ukrainian gas pipelines and then Russia's opposition to overthrowing yet another Middle Eastern leader in 2011. How many middle eastern countries does the US get to destroy before some other super power steps in and says "You know what, this world isn't just your sandbox - FUCK OFF". 

I'm talking about the mass hysteria against Russia ever since Obama and Putin found themselves on the opposite sides. That is created by the democratic media. 

America and Russia should be on the same side on the Syrian issue. America shouldn't be trying to overthrow another government. 

If Trump is a pro-Russian President and he gives himself the authority to share classified information, then I believe that it works out for the better in the long run. Assad is the best option in Syria at the moment to keep ISIS at bay and if that makes Americans and Russians uneasy allies with a few EU globalists slightly pissed off then oh well. 

We're not here to bend over backwards to keep NATO or the EU pleased imo. 

ANd I don't agree with the hysteria that sharing intel endangers those who shared it any more or less than the world is already in danger. 

The greater irony here is that there are far greater outrage over sharing intel in here than there ever was for the hospitals that get frequently bombed by poor intel. It's almost like someone is yanking ya'all's chains and that can only be done by the media.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So of course once again it comes out they were lying. Do you still believe Trump and his cabinet?
> 
> The WH now has to admit Trump did give out the info because Trump admitted doing so and now the narrative goes from oh he didn't which was a lie to well he has every right to give out classified info.


Yeah about that

ops

Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell's cred takes a hit. It's probably the biggest win for the left to come out of all of this.

As for Trump, he p much just took away the left's ammo by saying he most def did it and it was 100% within his scope of power to do so. Now what? It's just them just continuing to be in their perpetual state of outrage saying "RESIGN! IMPEACH!" just like they did with the Comey firing, the Yates firing, him trying to deliver on healthcare, travel bans etc. Even granny Pelosi knows this isn't an impeachable offense.

You don't have to look very far for my narrative to change because most of my posts since this broke have been about the legality of Trump declassifying intelligence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Yeah about that
> 
> ops
> 
> Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell's cred takes a hit. It's probably the biggest win for the left to come out of all of this.
> 
> As for Trump, he p much just took away the left's ammo by saying he most def did it and it was 100% within his scope of power to do so. Now what? It's just them just continuing to be in their perpetual state of outrage saying "RESIGN! IMPEACH!" just like they did with the Comey firing, the Yates firing, him trying to deliver on healthcare, travel bans etc. Even granny Pelosi knows this isn't an impeachable offense.
> 
> You don't have to look very far for my narrative to change because most of my posts since this broke have been about the legality of Trump declassifying intelligence.


Here is the thing about the left calling for Trump being impeached.

Should the left really want him impeached? Trump is a disaster and he has one of the lowest approval ratings of all time for a president as this point, I think it may even be the lowest, but he is such a disaster, and him asking like a child on twitter will only make real progressives stronger. The left needs to stop with the impeaching thing and just focus on 2018 and focus on getting as many seats back as they can while pointing out all the shitty things Trump is doing.

If Trump does get impeached, it will just go back to "normal" for the GOP and that would be a win for them. The best thing that could happen to the GOP for 2018 would be Trump getting impeached.

Plus Pence is way more despicable than Trumo and Pence would be a typical politician and know what to say and how to act so even though what he does could be worst than Trump the perception of it wont be since Trump is such a disaster with everything he says and does.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What Trump did was not illegal and he can't really get in trouble for it

Its fucking stupid though 

so not evil, just dumb...

really, really, really dumb

fuck

As for Russia they have been openly hostile to their neighbors and talking about how they should "liberate" places like Romania and Poland 

Most eastern European nations fucking hate Russia because Russia contentiously funds obscure grass root leftest groups who claim that they should be "thankful" for the have century of oppression and saying they were better off and make official statements that general population is oppressed needs Russian support 

Russia continuously puts out information that western Europe is literally Nazi controlled, full of oppressed citizens and that if they don't do something about a new Reich will rise and try and genocide them 

Its like if US government was talking about how invading Mexico and that the Mexican citizens want US occupation to save them


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> What Trump did was not illegal and he can't really get in trouble for it
> 
> Its fucking stupid though
> 
> so not evil, just dumb...
> 
> really, really, really dumb
> 
> fuck
> 
> As for Russia they have been openly hostile to their neighbors and talking about how they should "liberate" places like Romania and Poland
> 
> Most eastern European nations fucking hate Russia because Russia contentiously funds obscure grass root leftest groups who claim that they should be "thankful" for the have century of oppression and saying they were better off and make official statements that general population is oppressed needs Russian support
> 
> Russia continuously puts out information that western Europe is literally Nazi controlled, full of oppressed citizens and that if they don't do something about a new Reich will rise and try and genocide them
> 
> Its like if US government was talking about how invading Mexico and that the Mexican citizens want US occupation to save them


So it's ok for the US to "liberate" Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria? Help Saudis against Yemenis? At least Ukrainians aren't selling each other as slaves after their "liberation" like the poor Libyans. 

What makes us the better "liberators" than Russia? Like I said, American government fingers are just as dirty (if not more depending on your perspective) than the Ruskies. They belong in bed together.

Also, if Western Europeans weren't feeling oppressed by the EU, then why is there consistent friction and dozens of anti-EU parties forming all over Western Europe - and why is closing their borders and protecting their sovereignty one of their primary concerns? Brexit literally just happened. France will likely be forming a strong anti-EU opposition government. 

So ideally America/Britain and Russia could form a new world bloc. Ideologically they seem closer to each other than America does with most EU countries.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So ideally America/Britain and Russia could form a new world bloc.


Can we invite Japan too? If so I'm down. Better trade and movement between even the UK and the US and Canada would be HUGE for the UK and I've said for years I'd prefer that to the EU where we were always opposed by France and Germany. I'm not too clued up on the state of things in Russia but the place is huge so there's that at the very least.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Can we invite Japan too? If so I'm down. Better trade and movement between even the UK and the US and Canada would be HUGE for the UK and I've said for years I'd prefer that to the EU where we were always opposed by France and Germany. I'm not too clued up on the state of things in Russia but the place is huge so there's that at the very least.


Japan will probably always remain neutral. I haven't seen them side with anyone. They just want to sell their goods all over the world regardless of politics. 

Russia has also been fairly capitalistic since the fall of the Soviet Union. It ranks surprisingly high on the economic freedom index and has largely survived the crippling Merkel and Obama-led sanctions. Russia's goal in Syria is to maintain Syrian government hold over its own oil resources in order to maintain Russia's oil trade in the middle east because America has been installing pro-American leaders across the middle east for decades - something they were successful with in the 60's but the entire pro-American bloc started unravelling in the 70's so throughout the 90's till now Americans have been engaged in attempts to subvert leadership across the middle east to ensure pro-American governments are installed. The only reason why the Terrorist Government of Saudi Arabia and US are in bed together is because of the treaty they signed with Saudi Arabia for "protection for cheap oil" in the 70's. 

I've been doing a ton of reading on the Ukraine situation today as I promised myself and I've walked away with a great new insight on EU politics and how Ukraine is basically a battle between the EU, Russia for the sovereignty of Ukraine - and basically control over the gas pipelines in Ukraine that carry Russian gas over to Europe. 

EU wanted an EU sympathetic government and Russia wanted a Russian sympathetic government because Eastern Ukraine is mostly still russian while western Ukraine is more well "western". 

The whole anti-Russia thing seems extremely manufactured to me at this point. But of course, I need to know more. 

Still haven't found why Americans are still vary of Russians though. Apparently the left that hates Russia so much doesn't have any answers. :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

talk about obstruction lol

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/...ey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0
*
Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation*

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
Woman Is Caught Trying to Scale White House Fence, Officials Say
MAY 16
John Cornyn Takes Himself Out of Running to Lead the F.B.I.
MAY 16
At a Besieged White House, Tempers Flare and Confusion Swirls
MAY 16
Israel Said to Be Source of Secret Intelligence Trump Gave to Russians
MAY 16
‘Pay Trump Bribes Here’ Projected on Trump Hotel in Washington
MAY 16
See More »

RELATED COVERAGE


In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred. MAY 11, 2017

LIVE BRIEFING
Latest Developments on Comey: Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House MAY 11, 2017

Times Reporters Decode the Trump-Comey Saga MAY 11, 2017
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

GRAPHIC
The Events That Led Up to Comey’s Firing, and How the White House’s Story Changed
New disclosures on Tuesday allege that in February, President Trump asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to shut down an investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.


OPEN GRAPHIC
Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo.

Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, only replying: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events in the memo.

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

In testimony to the Senate last week, the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last week. Trump administration officials have provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the reasoning behind Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Mr. Trump said in a television interview that one of the reasons was because he believed “this Russia thing” was a “made-up story.”

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Despite the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey, the investigation of Mr. Flynn has proceeded. In Virginia, a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas in recent weeks for records related to Mr. Flynn. Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial ties to Russia and Turkey.

Mr. Comey had been in the Oval Office that day with other senior national security officials for a terrorism threat briefing. When the meeting ended, Mr. Trump told those present — including Mr. Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions — to leave the room except for Mr. Comey.

Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

Mr. Trump then turned the discussion to Mr. Flynn.

After writing up a memo that outlined the meeting, Mr. Comey shared it with senior F.B.I. officials. Mr. Comey and his aides perceived Mr. Trump’s comments as an effort to influence the investigation, but they decided that they would try to keep the conversation secret — even from the F.B.I. agents working on the Russia investigation — so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.

Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question, according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at times with his relationship with Mr. Trump.

Five Contradictions in the White House’s Story About Comey’s Firing
The Trump administration has offered conflicting answers about how and why the F.B.I. director, James Comey, was fired.


Mr. Comey’s recollection has been bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr. Comey’s account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept notes that backed up Mr. Comey’s story.

The White House has repeatedly crossed lines that other administrations have been reluctant to cross when discussing politically charged criminal investigations. Mr. Trump has disparaged the continuing F.B.I. investigation as a hoax and called for an inquiry into his political rivals. His representatives have taken the unusual step of declaring no need for a special prosecutor to investigate the president’s associates.

The Oval Office meeting occurred a little more than two weeks after Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Comey to the White House for a lengthy, one-on-one dinner at the residence. At that dinner, on Jan. 27, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey at least two times for a pledge of loyalty — which Mr. Comey declined, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

In a Twitter post on Friday, Mr. Trump said that “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”


507
COMMENTS
After the meeting, Mr. Comey’s associates did not believe there was any way to corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements. But Mr. Trump’s suggestion last week that he was keeping tapes has made them wonder whether there are tapes that back up Mr. Comey’s account.

The Jan. 27 dinner came a day after White House officials learned that Mr. Flynn had been interviewed by F.B.I. agents about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. On Jan. 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates told the White House counsel about the interview, and said Mr. Flynn could be subject to blackmail by the Russians because they knew he had lied about the content of the calls.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If you wanna know why leftists have lost their minds ... This is all you need to know. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864580573213360129
He's a fucking elementary school teacher :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> If you wanna know why leftists have lost their minds ... This is all you need to know.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864580573213360129
> He's a fucking elementary school teacher :mj


Oh you mean like the right was sending death threats to the judge who struck down Trumps travel ban?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ho-blocked-second-travel-ban-received-threats

I love how you act like the right doesn't do this.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh you mean like the right was sending death threats to the judge who struck down Trumps travel ban?
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ho-blocked-second-travel-ban-received-threats
> 
> I love how you act like the right doesn't do this.


Based on what recent history has proven over and over again, I'm confident that the threats came from lefties themselves like the dozens of other fabricated threats and attacks. :mj

You can rage all you want. But your side fucked itself over in everything that requires belief.

You post things that have no evidence. I posted something where the person was actually caught complete with evidence of having done it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Based on what recent history has proven over and over again, I'm confident that the threats came from lefties themselves like the dozens of other fabricated threats and attacks. :mj
> 
> You can rage all you want. But your side fucked itself over in everything that requires belief.
> 
> You post things that have no evidence. I posted something where the person was actually caught complete with evidence of having done it.


You and your tin foil hat, you have proven once again you don't live in reality. Keep living in your Trump world, it must be nice. You always have an excuse for everything. You can't even be rational but why should anyone expect you to be, you support Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You and your tin foil hat, you have proven once again you don't live in reality. Keep living in your Trump world, it must be nice. You always have an excuse for everything.


You don't understand the difference between a claim and conjecture like you don't understand 95% of the english vocabulary :mj So this is just going to be another round "You trumper. you evil. you bad. you suck" caveman routine from you that has become a meme on this site. 

I simply said that I have valid reason to believe that these threats are likely made by other leftists because they've been doing it repeatedly and getting caught since Trump won the election :lmao 

Your side is a joke BM. You don't have to accept it, but you have to live with the indignity of your side's disease of tossing out false accusations.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey is apparently known to keep paper trails (like most federal agents), especially on things that he felt were wrong dating back to his time working for Bush so there's probably more stuff he has on him.

But hey, its all fake news.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Comey is apparently known to keep paper trails (like most federal agents), especially on things that he felt were wrong dating back to his time working for Bush so there's probably more stuff he has on him.
> 
> But hey, its all fake news.


Well then let him or someone else in the FBI come forward. 

It's not like Trump disbanded the entire FBI and shut the entire agency down. 

It may not be fake news, but it's definitely getting to the point of absolute desperation to find _something_ at this point.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Haha, good points, @Iconoclast. Unfortunately historically the balance-of-power politics engaged in by the British against Russia has arguably led to an irrevocable global shift between the U.S. and Russia and the U.S. and Great Britain, all dating back to before the Great Rapprochement between the U.S. and Britain following the Venezuelan Crisis of 1895, the last time the Americans and British openly clashed over a major geopolitical dispute.

One of the amusing elements to consider, historically, is how the Russian state sought to lure the western European powers of Great Britain and France to unite against the Ottoman Turks in the early 1850s. It was perhaps one of the great blunders of history that rather than unite with the Russians against the growing, festering threat of Islam, the British in particular sought to assure that their imperial ambitions were properly buttressed and protected against what they viewed as the naturally expansionist Russian regime (which, as far as the description goes, has some elemental truth to it). So instead of a Western alliance running from London through Paris to Moscow against the Turks, the 1850s saw the brutal hostilities of the Crimean War, and the latter half of the nineteenth century became, in part, characterized by the predecessor to the twentieth century's Cold War, or "The Great Game."

We can sit back and say shame on the Brits and French, which is true, but of course the complications are worth delving into. The single most important geopolitical puzzle piece that led to the Crimean War being fought was the vast array of waterways throughout Europe before the creation of a plethora of railroads. With waterways, of course, the island is a backward land: incongruously but logically, the coast is the center, and the inland is the backwater. The European coastal line yawns from the Balticum vis-à-vis Poland, cutting through Germany all the way to the west to Gibraltar into the Mediterranean and back into northeastern Greece. The French Atlantic coast would therefore be approximately in the center of this waterway line; consequently, northwestern France, including the outskirts of Paris, and southeastern England are both at the center of the immediately pre-railroad-dominated European continent. 

From the British and French perspective, though, this balance of power could only be maintained if the Elbe-Danube waterway was kept blocked. Should the waterway not be blocked, suddenly the center of Europe's waterway network is to be found in Austria and Bohemia. As the Turks conquered the Bosporus, London and Paris were jubilant for the blocking of that waterway moved the cultural center of Europe from Prague to Paris and London. Most of the top, most celebrated artistes made the trek from Prague to Paris, and they were known as _Bohème_; it was a majorly vital windfall of sorts for the French and to a lesser extent the British. The Crimean War, the aftereffects pitted London against Moscow in the aforementioned "Great Game" of Central Asia, was a fascinating conflagration in that the Britain and France of the 1850s sought to defend their capitals as European cultural centers against Hamburg, Linz and Prague.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So it's ok for the US to "liberate" Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria? Help Saudis against Yemenis? At least Ukrainians aren't selling each other as slaves after their "liberation" like the poor Libyans.
> 
> What makes us the better "liberators" than Russia? Like I said, American government fingers are just as dirty (if not more depending on your perspective) than the Ruskies. They belong in bed together.
> 
> Also, if Western Europeans weren't feeling oppressed by the EU, then why is there consistent friction and dozens of anti-EU parties forming all over Western Europe - and why is closing their borders and protecting their sovereignty one of their primary concerns? Brexit literally just happened. France will likely be forming a strong anti-EU opposition government.
> 
> So ideally America/Britain and Russia could form a new world bloc. Ideologically they seem closer to each other than America does with most EU countries.


I wasn't super ok with those either but its one thing to "liberate" people from a "necessary evil dictator" or a tribal regime than it is to liberate them from a constitutional democracy and install a dictator

During the cold world the west while united bickered and debated about what to do, all of the Warsaw pact were Russian puppet states that used tanks to gun down protesters

the internet slang "tankie" for communist refers to Hungarians who supported the USSR using armored units to combat "rebels" in farmhouses armed with hunting rifles 

To say western Europe would be thankful to be a Russian puppet state just to get rid of the EU is dumb


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864599355243864066
Great!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I wasn't super ok with those either but its one thing to "liberate" people from a "necessary evil dictator" or a tribal regime than it is to liberate them from a constitutional democracy and install a dictator


I would say that "evil dictator" is essentially fake news at this point. All the countries that were "liberated" from "evil dictator" are doing worse so at this point you might want to re-evaluate your views on just how "Evil" were those dictators really. America overthrew the two most secular dictators in the middle east and yet has allowed the Saudi Kings to rule and harbor the main hub of terrorist schools of thought and in fact, actively supported them. 



> During the cold world the west while united bickered and debated about what to do, all of the Warsaw pact were Russian puppet states that used tanks to gun down protesters


And yet here we are actively selling arms to Saudi Arabia that is actively engaged in ethnic genocide while ignoring dozens of other conflicts in the world. Selective heroism of American governments is kind of nauseating tbh. I'll take bickering over active regime changes that lead to development of terrorist cells and fragmented lame duck governments any day. 



> the internet slang "tankie" for communist refers to Hungarians who supported the USSR using armored units to combat "rebels" in farmhouses armed with hunting rifles


It's all history though. I mean other than the historical evil of the Russian state, is there a legit reason to fear the current Russian state? 



> To say western Europe would be thankful to be a Russian puppet state just to get rid of the EU is dumb


Is there reasonable and overwhelming evidence to suggest that Russia "puppet" states would be worse than EU puppet states other than Russophobia ... What I'm really trying to ask is that is there a problem with Russian ideology or a set of ruling ideologies that makes Russia worse than EU? Even assuming that it wants to have an imperialistic domain over Western Europe?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sending death threats is not a left or right thing, it's a crazy person thing with anger issues. Jesus can we stop assigning things that crazy frustrated people do probably in the heat of the moment (that's being kind I admit) to a fucking political ideology.

There's actually more to a person and the causes of their behaviour than what they think about politics and issues and how we should spend our tax money. When people get mad and don't know how to deal with it they do stupid things like send death threats, it has pretty much zero to do with being at a certain point on the political spectrum IMO. It also has to do with anonymity and them thinking they can get away with it.

All this thread has become for a long time is boring left vs right taking shots at each other when it used to be about the entertainment value of Trump's victories/blunders, and a bit about the actual issues


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864617617297985537
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we have an international incident!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sending death threats is not a left or right thing, it's a crazy person thing with anger issues. Jesus can we stop assigning things that crazy frustrated people do probably in the heat of the moment (that's being kind I admit) to a fucking political ideology.


When one side does it more and more often, then it is either a symptom of their political ideology or part of it.

The SJW death threat phenomena has been around since at least the early 2010s on Tumblr - and last I checked all SJW's are leftists. Not all leftists are SJW's, but all SJW's are leftists.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The laptop bomb story broke more than a month ago. 

The only reason why it's making the kind of rounds it is now is because the left media was able to find a way to pin it on Trump as he told the Russians. 

CNN, Reuters all carried the news after US intelligence put a ban on laptops on airlines. 



> http://www.kcci.com/article/new-ter...de-airport-security-intel-sources-say/9215740
> 
> New terrorist laptop bombs may evade airport security, intel sources say
> 
> *CNN | Updated: 6:45 PM CDT Mar 31, 2017*
> Share
> CNN
> By Evan Perez, Jodi Enda and Barbara Starr
> 
> US intelligence and law enforcement agencies believe that ISIS and other terrorist organizations have developed innovative ways to plant explosives in electronic devices that FBI testing shows can evade some commonly used airport security screening methods, CNN has learned.
> 
> Heightening the concern is US intelligence suggesting that terrorists have obtained sophisticated airport security equipment to test how to effectively conceal explosives in laptops and other electronic devices.
> 
> The intelligence, gathered in the last several months, played a significant role in the Trump administration's decision to prohibit travelers flying out of 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and Africa from carrying laptops and other large electronic devices aboard planes.
> 
> The findings may raise questions about whether the ban is broad enough. CNN has learned that, through a series of tests conducted late last year, the FBI determined the laptop bombs would be far more difficult for airport screeners to detect than previous versions terrorist groups have produced. The FBI testing focused on specific models of screening machines that are approved by the Transportation Security Administration and are used in the US and around the world.
> 
> "As a matter of policy, we do not publicly discuss specific intelligence information. However, evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation, to include smuggling explosive devices in electronics," the Department of Homeland Security told CNN in a statement. "The U.S. government continually re-assesses existing intelligence and collects new intelligence. This allows DHS and TSA to constantly evaluate our aviation security processes and policies and make enhancements when they are deemed necessary to keep passengers safe. As always, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen."
> 
> US authorities have said the electronics ban is focused on the eight countries in part because of intelligence indicating a greater threat there. Intelligence and law enforcement assessments done in recent months also indicate that, though the broader vulnerabilities exist, the US has more confidence in detection machines and security screeners at airports in the US and Europe. Advanced technology and training helps mitigate the risk.
> 
> The US and European countries use a layered approach to security screening that goes beyond X-ray equipment, according to US officials, including the use of bomb-sniffing dogs and explosive-trace detection.
> 
> Aviation security expert Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, said limiting the ban to eight countries makes sense based on the capability and locations of terrorist groups.
> 
> Not only are US and European airports better protected, he said, but developed countries have a "better policy regime" that allows them to set standards and ensure uniform compliance.
> 
> "We don't have the same level of confidence in other areas of the world because we don't have the government bodies and stature to assure compliance," said Liscouski, president of Secure Point Technologies.
> 
> When it originally announced the electronic ban, the TSA issued a statement explaining that it "works closely" with other countries to protect the traveling public. "TSA is confident in the security of all of our last point of departure airports," the statement said. "TSA regularly assesses the effectiveness of security at all foreign airports served by U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers that provide last point of departure services to the United States. This ensures international airports maintain a level of security consistent with international standards."
> 
> When the electronics ban was announced, US officials told CNN they were concerned that terrorists had developed ways to hide explosives in battery compartments. But the new intelligence makes clear that the bomb-makers working for ISIS and other groups have become sophisticated enough to hide the explosives while ensuring a laptop would function long enough to get past screeners. Though advanced in design, FBI testing found the laptops can be modified using common household tools.
> 
> FBI experts have tested variants of the laptop bombs using different battery and explosive configurations to assess how difficult it would be for airport screeners to detect them.
> 
> The intelligence that contributed to the ban on electronic devices was specific, credible and reliable, according to three officials who used the same words to describe it. One official called the intelligence "hair-raising."
> 
> At the same time, they also said there was no single, overwhelming piece of intelligence that led to the ban, rather it was an accumulation of intercepted material and "human intelligence."
> 
> The airline restriction, which took effect March 21, bans many electronics from the cabins of planes flying directly to the United States from airports in eight countries. Passengers on those flights must place electronic devices larger than cellphones in their checked luggage. The United Kingdom, which possesses the same intelligence, implemented a similar rule this month for airplanes flying from six countries, including two that are not on the US list.
> 
> The ban was instigated after intelligence and law enforcement agencies determined that terrorists were working to place explosives inside laptop battery compartments in a way that would enable the devices to still power on in order to pass airport screenings, according to information shared with CNN.
> 
> Intelligence officials received a wake-up call in February 2016, when an operative from al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate in Somali, detonated a laptop bomb on a Daallo Airlines flight from Mogadishu to Djibouti. The explosives were hidden in a part of the laptop where bomb-makers had removed a DVD drive, according to investigators. Airport workers helped smuggle the bomb on the plane after it passed through an X-ray machine. In that case, the bomber was blown out of the airplane but the aircraft was able to make an emergency landing. However, experts have said the bomb would have been more devastating had the plane reached cruising altitude.
> 
> The military and intelligence community has grown increasingly concerned in the last few months about the potential ability of terror groups to get bombs on board airplanes, according to several US officials. The US has been tracking specific intelligence from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al Qaeda in Syria and ISIS, officials said.
> 
> The group with the greatest level of bomb-making expertise is al Qaeda in Yemen. Its master bomb-maker, Ibrahim al Asiri, has worked for years on designing explosive devices that can be hidden on bodies or in items such as printer cartridges. Since 2014, US officials have been concerned that Asiri's expertise had migrated to other groups.
> 
> To some degree, the fact that terrorist groups have been trying to install bombs in electronic devices is a testament to the success of advanced security techniques. Screening equipment and procedures have improved significantly since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, making it more difficult to bring explosives onto airplanes. Bomb-makers continue to modify devices to get around enhanced screening.


Why is it just making the rounds? Because Trump told the Russians and now it's bad? But the news outlet already knew and therefore ISIS was already aware of the mole within. How much has changed since? 

Secondly, the actual statement from the Israeli Ambassador reads: 



> *Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said the two intelligence services would continue to cooperate on counter-terror matters. “Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump,” he told The New York Times in an email statement Tuesday.*


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/...d-intelligence-russia.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The news have gone and asked people who are not directly involved in the Israeli government about their reactions and publishes the most negative reactions. The official statement is still one of confidence in continuing the relationship as is with Trump. 

It's never really fake news. It's just news spun in the most biased way possible :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864617617297985537
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we have an international incident!


Oh boy that' not a good look for Trump. Oh hang on a sec that's mainstream fake news.

I'll wait until it's confirmed by my independent non-biased YT commentators thank you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The laptop bomb story broke more than a month ago.
> 
> The only reason why it's making the kind of rounds it is now is because the left media was able to find a way to pin it on Trump as he told the Russians.


Once again you miss the big picture because you keep making excuses for the blunders of Trump. But keep making excuses its waht you do best to defend Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.8bebe17b9141


Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
*
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.*

*The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.*

*The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
*
*“This is code-word information,” *said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”



The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

*For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.*

White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

McMaster reiterated his statement in a subsequent appearance at the White House on Monday and described the Washington Post story as “false,” but did not take any questions.

Play Video 0:48
McMaster: Trump 'did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known'
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster denied recent reporting that President Trump revealed classified information in a meeting with Russian officials. (Reuters)
In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.

*But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.*

[On Russia, Trump and his top national security aides seem to be at odds]

*“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
*
*In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.
*
*Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
*
Play Video 3:02
What Trump’s classified revelations to Russian officials mean for allies
Washington Post national security reporter Greg Miller explains what President Trump’s potential disclosures to Russian officials means going forward. (The Washington Post)
The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

[Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment in Moscow]

*Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.*

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

*“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.*

Trump also described measures the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.

The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy?”

Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests VIEW GRAPHIC 
Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout. Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.

One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

White House officials defended Trump. “This story is false,” said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. “The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

But officials could not explain why staff members nevertheless felt it necessary to alert the CIA and the NSA.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he would rather comment on the revelations in the Post story after “I know a little bit more about it,” but added: “Obviously, they are in a downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening. And the shame of it is, there’s a really good national security team in place.”

Corker also said, “The chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline is creating an environment that I think makes — it creates a worrisome environment.”

Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.

U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points — and often ignores those.

“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”

Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.

Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.

Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Sign up
“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.

The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.

“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. The president also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.




---

The US allies are going to not give the US intelligence because they can't trust Trump tol keep his mouth shut. Not to mention since Trump had to brag ISIS can probably now figure out who is leaking the information. But sure keep keep defending Trump.


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lot of fake news being created all thanks to the incompetent former director, SAD!

I don't know why people are jumping the gun to believe a guy who literally sabotaged an ongoing legal investigation into a political candidate over our current President who has done nothing but begin to reshape this country into something great again. Unless there is some factual documents and not Comey's own handwriting I am going to believe our Commander in Chief over the defector director. :trump2


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864610385080352768


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Once again you miss the big picture because you keep making excuses for the blunders of Trump. But keep making excuses its waht you do best to defend Trump.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.8bebe17b9141


Who's making excuses for anything. 

*If the Israeli Ambassador comes out and says that it's ok guys, don't worry, we still love you and Trump. 
*
Anyone else making any other claims is a partisan hack :lmao

If Israel has no problem with it - you know the ally that Trump supposedly betrayed and outed, and leftists have a problem with it, then leftists are creating the problem where none exists. :lmao Keep ragiing ya'all. 

Irony here is that American media has been historically anti-Israel and yet, on this issue they're like "WILL ANYONE PLEASE THINK ABOUT POOR ISRAEL LIKE PLEASE". Yeah, the same leftist junk that has spent decades claiming that Israel is a terrorist state now has credibility in faking outrage on behalf of Israel. 

This is so fucking entertaining :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Who's making excuses for anything.
> 
> *If the Israeli Ambassador comes out and says that it's ok guys, don't worry, we still love you and Trump.
> *
> Anyone else making any other claims is a partisan hack :lmao
> 
> If Israel has no problem with it - you know the ally that Trump supposedly betrayed and outed, and leftists have a problem with it, then leftists are creating the problem where none exists. :lmao Keep ragiing ya'all.
> 
> Irony here is that American media has been historically anti-Israel and yet, on this issue they're like "WILL ANYONE PLEASE THINK ABOUT POOR ISRAEL LIKE PLEASE". Yeah, the same leftist junk that has spent decades claiming that Israel is a terrorist state now has credibility in faking outrage on behalf of Israel.
> 
> This is so fucking entertaining :lmao


Oh my God.. the "Left" trying to get upset on behalf of Israel?

Give me a fucking break. The same Left that's been bashing Israel for the past decade? The same Left where Obama was having issues with them? The same Left that harasses Jewish people on college campuses? The same Left that had Palestine flags up at the DNC?

The media and Colleges have been crapping on Israel for sometime now and suddenly now they love them! 

Israel wouldn't care if America shared info with Russia because ties between Russia and Israel have been improving. Israel is the one pumping out intel on terrorist groups and preventing attacks. Without them Europe would be having way more successful terrorist attacks against them.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Still haven't found why Americans are still vary of Russians though. Apparently the left that hates Russia so much doesn't have any answers. :hmmm


It's truly remarkable. The left has gone from (rightfully) chiding the "stuck in the Cold War" right for their Russophobia in the 2012 election to suggesting there is a grand Russian conspiracy to install a puppet government in the US a mere 4 years later. Hilarious. 



Iconoclast said:


> If you wanna know why leftists have lost their minds ... This is all you need to know.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864580573213360129
> He's a fucking elementary school teacher :mj


Not surprising at all that it's a teacher. They love to take advantage of their direct access to impressionable minds and relative lack of oversight to push their views without contradiction, which is just not a healthy paradigm to discipline the mind with reason. Indeed, even at the university level I've seen many professors and ESPECIALLY administrators take advantage of their circumstances to push a myriad of controversial leftist views, positing them as established facts and virtues with no room for debate. In fact, the head of my university just sent out a letter to all students lambasting Trump's immigration reforms as "xenophobic" and "against American values", and letting everyone know that this university continues to stand for diversity and inclusiveness. As usual at these leftist indoctrination centers, this does not include diversity of political thought and inclusiveness of those with world views not endorsed by the left.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> In fact, the head of my university just sent out a letter to all students lambasting Trump's immigration reforms as "xenophobic" and "against American values", and letting everyone know that this university continues to stand for diversity and inclusiveness. As usual at these leftist indoctrination centers, this does not include diversity of political thought and inclusiveness of those with world views not endorsed by the left.


Can you post the letter or some tasty tidbits?

Would honestly be keen to see this kind of thing as my knowledge of huge American Universities extends to movies basically.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I get some of the ideas and beliefs the left has are questionable as all hell and some of their views are hilarious, but yall are just piling on here :lol You may disagree with a lot of them, but I don't think every member of the left is this illogical empty cavern of thoughts who only exists to spout opinions they view as facts while denouncing everything to do with Trump and stroking their own dicks to other people on their own side. :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I get some of the ideas and beliefs the left has are questionable as all hell and some of their views are hilarious, but yall are just piling on here :lol You may disagree with a lot of them, but I don't think every member of the left is this illogical empty cavern of thoughts who only exists to spout opinions they view as facts while denouncing everything to do with Trump and stroking their own dicks to other people on their own side. :shrug


Unfortunately the ones who shout the loudest, stupidest things get labelled as being the face of their whole 'side', while the more moderate majority (I would argue) actually have some intelligent thought behind their views and generally have open minds to an extent.

It's like me saying that this is the average alt-right Trump supporter:


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Unfortunately the ones who shout the loudest, stupidest things get labelled as being the face of their whole 'side', while the more moderate majority (I would argue) actually have some intelligent thought behind their views and generally have open minds to an extent.
> 
> It's like me saying that this is the average alt-right Trump supporter:


There's basically an extreme right, and extreme left, and a bunch of moderates, me included in there :lol

Its sad, but the loudest minority always ends up influencing the thoughts of people who look at the majority.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I get some of the ideas and beliefs the left has are questionable as all hell and some of their views are hilarious, but yall are just piling on here :lol You may disagree with a lot of them, but I don't think every member of the left is this illogical empty cavern of thoughts who only exists to spout opinions they view as facts while denouncing everything to do with Trump and stroking their own dicks to other people on their own side. :shrug


I have less of a problem with leftists as a whole than I do with the current narrative spinning and circle jerking amongst anti-Trumpers who happen to be by and large leftists. Take this current news cycle for example:

1. Washington Post broke this scoop about Trump sharing intel
2. Majority of left media and therefore leftists jumped on the impeach trump wagon
3. Sharing intel isn't an impeachable offense
4. The narrative then immediately shifts to it hurting relations between this ally
5. Then the news breaks out that this is Israel we're talking about here
6. Israel puts out a statement that essentially reads that they're ok with it. 
7. In the meantime, the following narratives have been spun by the left:

- Impeach Trump
- More evidence of Russian collusion
- Israel is upset with Trump
- Israel/US relations are going to go bad because of this (but leftists have wanted Israel/US relations to end for decades now)

There is significant joy amongst leftists on this site alone and immediate knee jerk reactions to how they finally got Trump and then you start seeing the desperation set in. You can see it in this thread alone ... You don't even need to leave the forum to see how the left responded throughout this news cycle and how they've gone from celebrating to more desparation after having come up with nothing once again. 

And finally you've got "but not all leftists are like this" ... It's literally par for the course every single time. 

But they definitely are. Pretty much all the leftists in this thread alone have shown how willing they are to believe the narratives and personally participate in pushing the false narratives. And since I'm the biggest pusher of the "leftists have lost their mind" thing, I'm not coming at it from a simple prejudiced point of view. I see the desperation amongst leftists like I see it in a pack of hungry dogs to pounce at anything they can get their paws on.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I get some of the ideas and beliefs the left has are questionable as all hell and some of their views are hilarious, but yall are just piling on here :lol You may disagree with a lot of them, but I don't think every member of the left is this illogical empty cavern of thoughts who only exists to spout opinions they view as facts while denouncing everything to do with Trump and stroking their own dicks to other people on their own side. :shrug


We don't think all the Left is like this which is why most of us use "Left" when talking about the fringe or about the people who are Left in name only etc.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I have less of a problem with leftists as a whole than I do with the current narrative spinning and circle jerking amongst anti-Trumpers who happen to be by and large leftists. Take this current news cycle for example:
> 
> 1. Washington Post broke this scoop about Trump sharing intel
> 2. Majority of left media and therefore leftists jumped on the impeach trump wagon
> 3. Sharing intel isn't an impeachable offense
> 4. The narrative then immediately shifts to it hurting relations between this ally
> 5. Then the news breaks out that this is Israel we're talking about here
> 6. Israel puts out a statement that essentially reads that they're ok with it.
> 7. In the meantime, the following narratives have been spun by the left:
> 
> - Impeach Trump
> - More evidence of Russian collusion
> - Israel is upset with Trump
> - Israel/US relations are going to go bad because of this (but leftists have wanted Israel/US relations to end for decades now)
> 
> There is significant joy amongst leftists on this site alone and immediate knee jerk reactions to how they finally got Trump and then you start seeing the desperation set in. You can see it in this thread alone ... You don't even need to leave the forum to see how the left responded throughout this news cycle and how they've gone from celebrating to more desparation after having come up with nothing once again.
> 
> And finally you've got "but not all leftists are like this" ... It's literally par for the course every single time.
> 
> But they definitely are. Pretty much all the leftists in this thread alone have shown how willing they are to believe the narratives and personally participate in pushing the false narratives. And since I'm the biggest pusher of the "leftists have lost their mind" thing, I'm not coming at it from a simple prejudiced point of view. I see the desperation amongst leftists like I see it in a pack of hungry dogs to pounce at anything they can get their paws on.


LOL at you talking about circle jerking when that is all you and Trump supporters do in this thread.

And it does not matter if Isreal is ok with Trump sharing the intel or not, it will make other allies not trusting the US with intel because Trump can't keep his mouth shut.

But of course, you keep missing this point. Trump is ruining the trust of the US allies but I guess you are ok with that. But we all know if this was Hillary you would be all over her for it.

Its ok when Trump mishandles sensitive intel but when its Hillary you guys all freak out. Its why you are such hypocrites and cannot be taken seriously.

talk about a circle jerk.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> We don't think all the Left is like this which is why most of us use "Left" when talking about the fringe or about the people who are Left in name only etc.


Ah, so when you do bring them up, you use "the left" to designate the more radical left with the knee jerk reactions and the like? Just curious for when I see it brought up by you and others.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you talking about circle jerking when that is all you and Trump supporters do in this thread.
> 
> And it does not matter if Isreal is ok with Trump sharing the intel or not, it will make other allies not trusting the US with intel because Trump can't keep his mouth shut.
> 
> But of course you keep missing this point


See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Now that he is fully aware that Israel is ok with sharing the intel, he has to find an excuse to keep pushing his narrative that some other person might be upset and not share intel without any evidence or anything. Just another typical leftist fantasy. He has to keep his fantasy alive and he simply won't relent. 

And of course no one ever denied that the right doesn't have its own circle jerk. It happens all the time. 

*But not in this thread. 
*
I disagree with Bruiser on foreign policy, who disagrees with CP on what conservatism is. Deep and I don't agree on just about anything at all. Sally and I are mostly in agreement on a lot of issues. I disagree with Steve on foreign policy and we get into spats all the time. CP and I agree on a lot of things but that's to be expected since we're both right libertarians. 

However, there is more than enough disagreement amongst us in this thread that your claim is complete and utter bullshit as usual. 

It's hardly a circle-jerk when more than half of us are completely ready and willing to disagree with each others' view points on different things. 

But since it's been proven that you don't read anyone's posts and you yourself admitted it after making an ass of a conversation that was happening between me and another member, you have absolutely no credibility to claim that us rightwingers are involved in a circle jerk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Now that he is fully aware that Israel is ok with sharing the intel, he has to find an excuse to keep pushing his narrative that some other person might be upset and not share intel without any evidence or anything. Just another typical leftist fantasy.
> 
> And of course no one ever denied that the right doesn't have its own circle jerk. It happens all the time.
> 
> *But not in this thread.
> *
> I disagree with Bruiser on foreign policy, who disagrees with CP on what conservatism is. Deep and I don't agree on just about anything at all. Sally and I are mostly in agreement on a lot of issues. I disagree with Steve on foreign policy and we get into spats all the time. CP and I agree on a lot of things but that's to be expected since we're both right libertarians.
> 
> However, there is more than enough disagreement amongst us in this thread that your claim is complete and utter bullshit as usual.
> 
> It's hardly a circle-jerk when more than half of us are completely ready and willing to disagree with each others' view points on different things.
> 
> But since it's been proven that you don't read anyone's posts and you yourself admitted it after making an ass of a conversation that was happening between me and another member, you have absolutely no credibility to claim that us rightwingers are involved in a circle jerk.


Keep making excuses, you just keep digging your grave.

Also I can play this game too.

First with the right, it was oh its fake made up news Trump never gave any intel to the Russians.
And you go on and on about the media making things up like you always do but then Trump opens his big mouth showing that so called make made up news was true, then you just make you next excuse.
Now its oh well Trump did give that info but he has the right to give it even though sharing intel that not all allies have yet is bad, especially when it can compromise the leaker who is under cover.
Now you are like well if Isreal says its ok its not even bad, when its still super bad because like I keep saying, it will make other allies not share intel with the US because Trump can't keep his mouth shut.
but of course you keep glossing over that.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse for the fuckery that Trump does.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Ah, so when you do bring them up, you use "the left" to designate the more radical left with the knee jerk reactions and the like? Just curious for when I see it brought up by you and others.


Yup! if you go back to my previous post I mention the "Left" as who I'm speaking about. 

Tater brought this up a while ago because it was insanely hard to know if you were talking about Left fringe or Left as in Liberals, classical Liberals. It's hard because so many fake Liberals and fringe groups have got into the Left. One may call the fringe Far Left but a lot of these "Left" aren't really far Left either.

So if you see "the Left" or "Left" it's referring to fringe, sjws, fake Liberals etc!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep making excuses, you just keep digging your grave.
> 
> Also I can play this game too.
> 
> First with the right, it was oh its fake made up news Trump never gave any intel to the Russians.
> And you go on and on about the media making things up like you always do but then Trump opens his big mouth showing that so called make made up news was true, then you just make you next excuse.
> Now its oh well Trump did give that info but he has the right to give it even though sharing intel that not all allies have yet is bad, especially when it can compromise the leaker who is under cover.
> Now you are like well if Isreal says its ok its not even bad, when its still super bad because like I keep saying, it will make other allies not share intel with the US because Trump can't keep his mouth shut.
> but of course you keep glossing over that.
> 
> I can't wait to hear your next excuse for the fuckery that Trump does.


Yah, I had a lengthy conversation with Steve about "fake news". Further proof that you don't actually read anything, or if you do, you lack the ability to comprehend what you've read :lmao 

Not once did I claim that Trump sharing intel was fake news. If I had thought that it was fake news, why would I have gotten into such a lengthy debate with Steve over something I consider fake news :lmao

I proved once before that you made a claim about something I said AFTER I had already made a post directly contradicting what you said before you even said it. And you're doing it again. 

You have absolutely no credibility. Keep posting your Russian Conspiracy articles. The more you do that, the less credibility you have ... if that's even possible :lmao


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kasich is getting destroyed by Bernie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yah, I had a lengthy conversation with Steve about "fake news". Further proof that you don't actually read anything, or if you do, you lack the ability to comprehend what you've read :lmao
> 
> Not once did I claim that Trump sharing intel was fake news. If I had thought that it was fake news, why would I have gotten into such a lengthy debate with Steve over something I consider fake news :lmao


I am talking about trump supporters in general, the right.

Are you really going to claim the right and people in this very thread did not claim it was fake news about the anon source claimed Trump shared intel?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am talking about trump supporters in general, the right.
> 
> Are you really going to claim the right and people in this very thread did not claim it was fake news about the anon source claimed Trump shared intel?


Name someone in this thread that said it was fake news and that Trump didn't share the intel.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yah, I had a lengthy conversation with Steve about "fake news". Further proof that you don't actually read anything, or if you do, you lack the ability to comprehend what you've read :lmao
> 
> Not once did I claim that Trump sharing intel was fake news. If I had thought that it was fake news, why would I have gotten into such a lengthy debate with Steve over something I consider fake news :lmao
> 
> I proved once before that you made a claim about something I said AFTER I had already made a post directly contradicting what you said before you even said it. And you're doing it again.
> 
> You have absolutely no credibility. Keep posting your Russian Conspiracy articles. The more you do that, the less credibility you have ... if that's even possible :lmao


LOL such conspiracies when they keep coming true. You don't even live in the real world anymore.

You are the one who has no credibility but keep circle jerking dude. You should try living in the real world sometime but you never will because you cant deal with the truth.

Its even more laughable that any of you believes anything the WH says anymore when it comes to Trump because the next day or even hours later Trump comes out and contradicts what they just said

if you don't think Trump and his admin is a total disaster then you are not a serious person


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL such conspiracies when they keep coming true. You don't even live in the real world anymore.
> 
> You are the one who has no credibility but keep circle jerking dude. You should try living in the real world sometime


"True" 

Not one of them has been proven true at all. You don't even know what evidence is BM let alone have proof of anything. 

You keep posting articles without even reading them because all of the articles you post make sure they use words and phrases that absolve them of the liability of having made any actual concrete claims. 

You really are a creationist. They have their gods, and you have your Russian collusion theory. 

You also don't know what circle-jerk means and that is just sad. A 40 year old that's trying to use internet slang without knowing what it means and posting Russian conspiracy theories ... I don't know if I should pity you or those who have to suffer through your inane babbling about Russia Russia Russia day and night :lmao 

I hope for your friends' sake, you don't have a facebook. You must be driving them absolutely insane :kobelol


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just want to let people (liberals) here that Trump will be our president until January 20, 2021 at the earliest. Deal with it and continue to believe your fake news media.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> "True"
> 
> Not one of them has been proven true at all. You don't even know what evidence is BM let alone have proof of anything.
> 
> You keep posting articles without even reading them because all of the articles you post make sure they use words and phrases that absolve them of the liability of having made any actual concrete claims.
> 
> You really are a creationist. They have their gods, and you have your Russian collusion theory.
> 
> You also don't know what circle-jerk means and that is just sad. A 40 year old that's trying to use internet slang without knowing what it means and posting Russian conspiracy theories ... I don't know if I should pity you or those who have to suffer through your inane babbling about Russia Russia Russia day and night :lmao
> 
> I hope for your friends' sake, you don't have a facebook. You must be driving them absolutely insane :kobelol


Keep living in fairytale land.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep living in fairytale land.


Still waiting for you to name one right winger on here who said that Trump sharing intel was fake news. 

That would be one way to restore some of your credibility.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I get some of the ideas and beliefs the left has are questionable as all hell and some of their views are hilarious, but yall are just piling on here :lol You may disagree with a lot of them, but I don't think every member of the left is this illogical empty cavern of thoughts who only exists to spout opinions they view as facts while denouncing everything to do with Trump and stroking their own dicks to other people on their own side. :shrug


Never said everyone on the left was anything. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Can you post the letter or some tasty tidbits?
> 
> Would honestly be keen to see this kind of thing as my knowledge of huge American Universities extends to movies basically.


Sure. Here's a letter from the letter the university Chancellor sent out the day after the election, titled simply "Moving Forward" :lol: 



> Like many of you, we watched the presidential election results in astonishment. Many of us are struggling this morning to reconcile the outcome of the vote with the values we hold close.
> 
> More than 2,000 students marched peacefully across campus last night, expressing their shock and outrage. Many members of the campus community feel uneasy and perhaps unsafe in the wake of campaign rhetoric that targeted so many populations, including undocumented immigrants, Muslims, people of color, people with disabilities, women, and survivors of sexual assault.
> 
> It will take time to fully process this news. Feelings of disbelief, anxiety, and grief are real. If it's any comfort, we are not alone; the shock waves are rippling across the country and around the world.
> 
> The question this morning is how we cope. This is a time to hold each other with respect, and dig deep to support one another. There will be time later for us to strategize how to respond to the challenges we as a university may face.
> 
> We are grateful for the UC Santa Cruz community, where dedicated staff and faculty are coming together to support students and one another. The link below provides highlights of some of the resources the campus is providing, including spaces today where we can debrief together on the election and the national climate that fostered this outcome.
> 
> Today, even more than yesterday, we must continue the difficult conversations, find our voices, listen conscientiously to different viewpoints, and find a way to move forward together, united by our commitment to inclusivity, equality, and compassion.
> 
> If you need support, please reach out. We are providing a range of resources and sharing messages from other campus leaders here.


:banderas 

And the letter from the other day, going to skip the paragraphs describing the history of Trump's immigration ban attempts: 



> If any such order is ultimately enforced, it will adversely affect UC Santa Cruz by preventing scholars and students from visiting our university for collaborative research and conferences. It will also prohibit students from these countries from attending our university. We are concerned about the negative effect the orders have already had on our international reputation by discouraging international students and colleagues from working with us. We are also concerned about the impact such a ban will have on innovation and discoveries resulting from collaborations and sharing of new ideas.
> 
> UC Santa Cruz prides itself on being an open and diverse institution, welcoming students and scholars from all countries, regardless of nationality or religion. Our university thrives because of our diversity that comes from within and without national borders. We therefore condemn the xenophobia implicit in the executive orders, which threatens the democratic principles and values we treasure at UCSC and UC.
> 
> We are encouraged by the commitment from UC President Janet Napolitano to support affected members of the UC community, and urge our administration to continue to offer guidance and support to protect students, faculty, and staff. As faculty, we commit ourselves to remaining aware of the chilling effects that these or similar policies may have on our students, and doing what we can to protect their interests and maximize their participation and success at UCSC.


A hugely important thing to keep in mind during all this: UCSC is extremely over-enrolled and the UC system continues to raise their enrollment numbers throughout the state, even while complaining about a lack of resources and being WOEFULLY unable to provide housing and parking for students. Meanwhile several majors are severely impacted meaning it's extremely difficult to actually be able to enroll in the classes you need and graduate in a reasonable amount of time. But sure, let's bring in a ton more students from all over the world!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> There's basically an extreme right, and extreme left, and a bunch of moderates, me included in there :lol


I will still defend the extreme alt-right because the extreme alt-right isn't out there destroying college campuses, disinviting speakers, looting and rioting just because they lost a democratic election. The far right isn't destroying statues of historical figures just because their fee fees got hurt. The only other group other than leftists that are destroying statues around the world are ISIS and that's a scary similarity.

Most of the alt-right is out on the streets in self-defense protecting their spaces. 

The extreme right is generally more peaceful than the extreme left and there are fewer incidents of hate perpetrated by the far right than the far left. They're no longer equal since the election. 

It's like comparing Christianity to Islam. While there are some assholes amongst christians, there are more amongst Muslims - and the same is true in the whole far right vs far left dynamic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Still waiting for you to name one right winger on here who said that Trump sharing intel was fake news.
> 
> That would be one way to restore some of your credibility.


El Dandy did 



El Dandy said:


> That depends if this is looked at as a serious act of treason -or- if this is looked at as Trump using his declassification authority he has as president.
> 
> This is also under the guise that this is, in fact, true, which I'm not buying into yet and probably won't believe unless a bombshell is dropped.
> 
> Right now this is an anon source's scoop to the Washington Post vs. Tillerson, McMaster, Powell who were literally in the room and came right out in calling BS on the anon source. If it remains that way and nothing more comes out, he's not getting close to being impeached and this is just another thing the left will desperately cling onto just like they were calling for his head last week with Comey and so on and so fourth.
> 
> Washington Post rightfully won't say who the anon source is, but we literally have confirmed sources Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell who were in the room who are going on record saying it didn't happen. Obv the left will discredit Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell they don't want believe Trump's WH, just like we don't believe liberal dirt sheets using Meltzer level sources.
> 
> EDIT: Apparently, there were only 4 Americans in the room: Trump, Tillerson, McMaster, & Powell. 3 of them have already gone on the record calling BS and the other is the man himself. So who is the stooge out of that group?
> 
> *Actually half surprised there isn't more left-Alex Jones theories that this is a false flag in order to cool down the HEAT on the Comey/FBI front lel*


*
*


Comparing the source that was correct to Alex Jones isnt saying its fake news?

Unless you dont think Alex Jones is fake news.




Iconoclast said:


> I will still defend the extreme alt-right because the extreme alt-right isn't out there destroying college campuses, disinviting speakers, looting and rioting just because they lost a democratic election.
> 
> Most of the alt-right is out on the streets in self-defense.
> 
> The extreme right is generally more peaceful than the extreme left and there are fewer incidents of hate perpetrated by the far right than the far left. They're no longer equal since the election.
> 
> It's like comparing Christianity to Islam. The violent far right is a strawman the far left and even moderates have created in order to justify the extreme violence of the far left.


LOL You really lost it dude. Of course, you defend the alt right. And LOL at you claiming they don't do violence.

You are so far gone its not even funny anymore. You seriously need to get some help.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Just want to let people (liberals) here that Trump will be our president until January 20, 2021 at the earliest. Deal with it and continue to believe your fake news media.


Believe it or not real news is very hard to find these days. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are all jokes.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> El Dandy did
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> 
> Comparing the source that was correct to Alex Jones isnt saying its fake news?
> 
> Unless you dont think Alex Jones is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You really lost it dude. Of course, you defend the alt right. And LOL at you claiming they don't do violence.
> 
> You are so far gone its not even funny anymore. You seriously need to get some help.


Thanks for this because you just proved that you don't understand what you read. 

El Dandy said that he is not believing it *yet *and *won't *not believe it *till *a bombshell is dropped. I don't think you understand what "yet" and "till" mean. 

Then you claim that I said that alt right commits *no *violence when I said that the alt right is _*generally more peaceful*_ clearly indicating that I know that they do commit violence.

Now this puts into question everything you ever post about anything because you just proved to everyone that you have *serious *comprehension problems.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Just want to let people (liberals) here that Trump will be our president until January 20, 2021 at the earliest. Deal with it and continue to believe your fake news media.


If Trump did ask Comey to drop the investigation on Flynn then Trump is pretty much done and will get impeached. Comey just needs to prove its true. Trump could be done by the end of the year.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> Believe it or not real news is very hard to find these days. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are all jokes.


Infowars is good


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's also important to re-state that, just because an official is impeached, it does not mean they are removed from office.

I'll humor and play along and say this Comey memo is true, I'm skeptical that both the HOR and Senate would flip on him in this scenario.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> It's also important to re-state that, just because an official is impeached, it does not mean they are removed from office.
> 
> I'll humor and play along and say this Comey memo is true, I'm skeptical that both the HOR and Senate would flip on him in this scenario.


The Democrats didn't even impeach the war criminal named George W. Bush

*#Spineless*

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@CamillePunk; @Miss Sally; @DesolationRow

Staying on the theme of leftist madness caused by Trump's win, I'm noticing a bunch of far left atheists I follow getting red-pilled on Twitter. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864660328726048769

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864581638801510401
The marriage between atheism and the far left always seemed to be one based on a tenuous mutual acceptance of certain social liberal values, but with the increased dogmatism of the far left, I'm happy to see that some atheists are starting to recognize the madness. 

You know you've lost the ideological battle when you start pushing ex-muslim atheists to the center in America. 

I was happy when the leftists embraced Muslims because I knew that that would push liberal Muslims, reformists and apostates to the right. Looks like it's happening as expected.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Twitter is totally abuzz with warning signs of what's about to come in 2018. I didn't even see this much unity amongst Trump supporters and other right wingers as I do now. Also seeing a large number of moderates moving further right. 

Democrats are being fucked over royally by WashPo and NYT. The best part is that Comey himself had nothing to do with the memo getting out to the press.

Apparently it's yet another unknown source that only read parts of a paper he claimed to be a memo from Comey. 

No one has seen this memo.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> Infowars is good


Isn't that the site going around with the tinfoil hat conspiracy that Sandy Hook was fake and everyone involved is actors?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> And the letter from the other day, going to skip the paragraphs describing the history of Trump's immigration ban attempts:



Curious move - Why skip out the parts about Trump? That seemed to be the crux of your previous point about the Uni rabbiting on in leftist, anti-trump ways.

In any case, ridiculous waste of time by the administration it would seem. Shouldn't they be super busy just running the school?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My big q with the Comey memo is why keep that info secret?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> My big q with the Comey memo is why keep that info secret?


Because it's another nothingburger. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...n-the-comey-memo-offers-zero-proof-to-impeach 

Remember before considering this a partisan source that it's a blog by a liberal law professor on The Hill which is essentially Chelsea Clinton's personal PR machine. 

From a LEGAL scholar (not some random partisan hack with an agenda):



> *OPINION: The Comey memo offers zero evidence to impeach Trump*
> 
> With the scandal du jour of the Comey memo, President Donald Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia looks less like a diplomatic flight as fleeing the jurisdiction. For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
> 
> However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
> 
> A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
> 
> However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another." Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
> 
> Then there is the question of corruptly influencing what? There is no indication of a grand jury proceeding at the time of the Valentine's Day meeting between Trump and Comey. Obstruction cases generally are built around judicial proceedings — not Oval Office meetings.
> 
> Of course, that does not change the fact that the question by Trump was wildly inappropriate. Yet, it also raises questions of Comey’s judgment. The account suggests that Comey was so concerned about the conversation that he wrote a memorandum for record. But that would suggest that Comey thought the president was trying to influence the investigation but then said nothing to the Justice Department or to his investigation team. The report says that, while Comey may have told a couple of colleagues at the FBI, he did not tell the investigation team “so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.”
> 
> Why? If he thought the president was trying to derail the investigation, that would seem relevant to the scope of the investigation. It is like a bank president seeking to close a fraud investigation, but the contact in the FBI decided not to tell bank investigators. One explanation would be that Comey did not view Trump as a potential target of the Flynn investigation, and thus did not view the uncomfortable meeting as relevant to the investigation team (and Trump has maintained that Comey told him three times that he was not a target). However, that would make the case even weaker for allegations that Trump was trying to protect himself or his inner circle by seeking closure for Flynn.
> 
> It is highly concerning that Trump has described how Comey actively campaigned to keep his job during this period. As usual, Trump has created the most problematic record for judging his own actions. If Comey was pleading for his job as suggested by Trump, the impropriety of the alleged statement in the Oval Office would be exponentially increased. Trump categorically denies that the statement was ever made. That alone could support an immediate demand for any and all tapes in the possession of Trump and he would be required to turn them over.
> 
> There is a separate question of whether this type of alleged obstruction could be the basis for impeachment. As someone who has been down that long impeachment road before, I would again advocate caution. Last night, respected former presidential advisor David Gergen said that, with the Comey memo, we are now “in impeachable territory.” If so, we have one foot on the shore and one in a raging surf. Before we start an impeachment proceeding, we need to be on terra firma. It requires more than uncomfortable meetings or ill-considered disclosures.
> 
> It is certainly true that an impeachable offense does not have to be a prosecutable crime despite the standard of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” Professors like Laurence Tribe and others have called for impeachment, even before this latest allegation. It is also true that Richard Nixon was facing impeachment allegations that included efforts to influence or obstruct the investigation of his campaign.
> 
> However, Nixon’s impeachment involved a host of clear criminal acts from slush funds to burglaries. There is still no compelling evidence of an actual crime at the heart of the Russian investigation. Flynn is facing allegations of basic reporting or disclosure violations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which is rarely actually prosecuted. Indeed, there have been only seven prosecutions under FARA since 1966, when the law was revised.
> 
> The investigation of Flynn has not produced any reported evidence implicating Trump. A FARA violation is a relatively minor federal violation for a president if that is the scope of the FBI investigation. Obviously, if there is some undisclosed major crime implicating the president, the seriousness of the alleged statement would grow in the same proportion. However, Trump has insisted that he was told repeatedly by Comey that he was not under investigation.
> 
> Impeachment is not meant to be an alternative for criminal cases that cannot be submitted to a grand jury. It is also not meant to be politics by other means. Finally, it is not a vehicle to redo an election for those with morning-after regrets. Ironically, for those who charge that Trump has compromised the legal system, the same objection can be made over demands for criminal charges or impeachment based on his still undisclosed memo.
> 
> Fortunately, there is ample reason to expect answers to these questions. There is a paper trial and witnesses. Moreover, by discussing aspects of these conversations with Comey, Trump has undermined claims of privilege and has made it easier for Comey to speak to Congress. However, absent tapes, this could well end up as a “he said, he said” dispute.
> 
> These men were obviously not fond of each other. Comey reportedly said that Trump was “outside the realm of normal” and possibly “crazy.” Trump has called Comey a “showboat” and equally disdainful remarks. Whether it is a memorandum for record or a diary entry, one-sided accounts of conversations generally fall short of compelling evidence with this type of history of tension.
> 
> For all of these reasons, we need to move beyond the hyperventilated pronouncements of criminal conduct or impeachable offenses based on this memo. This conversation in the Oval Office is a valid matter of concern and worthy of further investigation. It is not proof of an impeachable offense any more than it is proof of a crime.
> 
> Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified during the Clinton impeachment and serves as the lead defense counsel in the last impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate for Judge Thomas Porteous.


Just a reminder. No one but the "anonymous source" that "read only parts of the memo" in question to a NYT reporter on phone has actually seen this memo.

NYT today is not the NYT of 4 years ago that actually broke news. NYT today is more like that pesky internet site that posts about "10 ways Rosie O' Donnel's Vagina looks like Arby's"


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If Trump did ask Comey to drop the investigation on Flynn then Trump is pretty much done and will get impeached. Comey just needs to prove its true. Trump could be done by the end of the year.
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html


Nope. This is just another attempt to by the media to nail Trump on something. He is out president until 2021 deal with it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-gun-without-powder.html



> Gregg Jarrett: Comey's revenge is a gun without powder
> 
> James Comey was lying in wait.
> 
> His gun was cocked, he took aim and fired. But his weapon was empty.
> 
> Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
> 
> Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
> 
> Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
> 
> Here is what we do know.
> 
> Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
> 
> So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
> 
> Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
> 
> There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
> 
> Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
> 
> Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
> 
> But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
> 
> Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
> 
> After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
> 
> Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Because it's another nothingburger.
> 
> From a LEGAL scholar (not some random partisan hack with an agenda):
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder. No one but the "anonymous source" that "read only parts of the memo" in question to a NYT reporter on phone has actually seen this memo.
> 
> NYT today is not the NYT of 4 years ago that actually broke news. NYT today is more like that pesky internet site that posts about "10 ways Rosie O' Donnel's Vagina looks like Arby's"


Read the article, I disagree about this not being corruption if true, there is just no way to characterise a figure of authority asking a law enforcement officer to abandon an active investigation as anything else. This is no different than a Mayor of New York calling the police chief and asking him to abandon an investigation into his friend being a drug dealer. 

Also I disagree that a court would interpret this as purely he said/she said in that contemporaneous notes from a law enforcement officer are generally taken as evidence above and beyond the stated word of an individual. 

If this is real it would be killer. 

I suspect it isn't though, and/or what we've had reported is a vast exaggeration as if what's reported is true then that is clearly criminal behaviour and Comey by hiding it would be an accessory after the fact. 

Probably what we've heard is an exaggeration and Trump was careful enough with his words to avoid trouble.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Read the article, I disagree about this not being corruption if true, there is just no way to characterise a figure of authority asking a law enforcement officer to abandon an active investigation as anything else. This is no different than a Mayor of New York calling the police chief and asking him to abandon an investigation into his friend being a drug dealer.
> 
> Also I disagree that a court would interpret this as purely he said/she said in that contemporaneous notes from a law enforcement officer are generally taken as evidence above and beyond the stated word of an individual.
> 
> If this is real it would be killer.
> 
> I suspect it isn't though, and/or what we've had reported is a vast exaggeration as if what's reported is true then that is clearly criminal behaviour and Comey by hiding it would be an accessory after the fact.
> 
> Probably what we've heard is an exaggeration and Trump was careful enough with his words to avoid trouble.


Asking an FBI director to "can you let this go" isn't an order. It's a request. An order would be corruption. A request would not be. 

Again, as the next article points out, if Comey didn't feel it was obstruction months ago then it's not. If he felt it was obstruction then he didn't bring it up making himself exactly what you said. 

Trump is clean.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Asking an FBI director to "can you let this go" isn't an order. It's a request. An order would be corruption. A request would not be.


If its an employer who can fire an employee at any time for any reason then it can it really ever be considered a request?



> Again, as the next article points out, if Comey didn't feel it was obstruction months ago then it's not. If he felt it was obstruction then he didn't bring it up making himself exactly what you said.


Comey could have not thought it was obstruction even though it was if he is as incompetent as everyone always says. 

I would be very surprised if that was the case though.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> If its an employer who can fire an employee at any time for any reason then it can it really ever be considered a request?


Yes. Because then you have to get into the realm of having to prove that Trump had intent to obstruct as well as prove that Trump fired comey because he wouldn't stop investigating and prove that Comey was still actually investigating Flynn. So much to prove and yet all we have is literally one line from an anonymous source at this point. 



> Comey could have not thought it was obstruction even though it was if he is as incompetent as everyone always says.
> 
> I would be very surprised if that was the case though.


Exactly. 

So essentially if this memo exists and reads exactly as it does (with no other more damaging content), then this is a nothingburger.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Nice to see Putin coming to Trump's defense on the "leaked secrets" thing but honestly I'd prefer Trump and Putin both just stop appeasing the media by defending themselves as if there's anything to defend. With western Europe doing everything it can to commit cultural suicide I see the US having far more in common with Russia in the near future than most countries in Western Europe, excluding perhaps the UK if they can continue to resist the globalists. This being the case, I'd actually favor forming much closer ties with Russia and distancing ourselves from the inevitable Islamic "European" (geographically only) superstate. Saving the world from the evil that is Islam should be the top priority. We don't have time for the petty partisan games from the left that is finding their Cold War paranoia 26 years after the conflict ended. Time to stop acknowledging these lunatics even exist. 

Announce the military alliance and full, open trade relations with Russia tomorrow, as well as our departure from NATO. (Y) Also, we should officially declare war on ISIS if we haven't yet. That'd be good, yeah. 

This is all very agreeable and rational indeed, to be sure.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Toss Israel and India in there as well. India as a secular capitalist state has been trying to get in good terms with America for decades but for some inexplicable reason America has tried to continue to establish better relations with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instead ... who have been engaged in decades long wars of suppression of its own people, harboring terrorists, funding terrorists in Kashmir and committing terrorist attacks in India.

America/India/China/Russia/Israel trade block sounds pretty fricking amazing for global prosperity.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Islamic European superstate...people actually liked that post with this nonsense in it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Toss Israel and India in there as well. India as a secular capitalist state has been trying to get in good terms with America for decades but for some inexplicable reason America has tried to continue to establish better relations with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instead ... who have been engaged in decades long wars of suppression of its own people, harboring terrorists, funding terrorists in Kashmir and committing terrorist attacks in India.
> 
> America/India/China/Russia/Israel trade block sounds pretty fricking amazing for global prosperity.


LOT OF MUSLIMS IN ISRAEL AND INDIA THERE, GUY 



draykorinee said:


> Islamic European superstate...people actually liked that post with this nonsense in it.


European was in QUOTATIONS. Why do they never mention the quotations?! Now I know how :trump felt about the coverage of his tweet about Obama "wiretapping" him.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> LOT OF MUSLIMS IN ISRAEL AND INDIA THERE, GUY
> 
> European was in QUOTATIONS. Why do they never mention the quotations?! Now I know how :trump feels.


How do the quotations help?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> How do the quotations help?


Because I want to be clear that I don't consider Muslims who conquer the geographical continent of Europe to be European, obviously. 

You were extremely brief and vague with your post, so I was left to assume its meaning on my own. How'd I do?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> LOT OF MUSLIMS IN ISRAEL AND INDIA THERE, GUY


Yeah, but the muslims that stayed behind in India and accepted Israel enough to live there somewhat peacefully are not necessarily the bad kind of muslim. 

I have spent years wondering about this, but I give those muslims that did not leave India in 1947 a lot of credit cuz they were that much more aware than the muslims that left because they did not give in to the decades of anti-Hindu propaganda which led to Pakistan's creation. 

That said, doesn't hurt to boost trade and relations with the Indians because they still have a secular majority. The extreme Muslims and Hindus are unlikely to ever come into power :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, but the muslims that stayed behind in India and accepted Israel enough to live there somewhat peacefully are not necessarily the bad kind of muslim.
> 
> I have spent years wondering about this, but I give those muslims that did not leave India in 1947 a lot of credit cuz they were that much more aware than the muslims that left because they did not give in to the decades of anti-Hindu propaganda which led to Pakistan's creation.
> 
> That said, doesn't hurt to boost trade and relations with the Indians because they still have a secular majority. The extreme Muslims and Hindus are unlikely to ever come into power :shrug


Yeah, I wasn't seriously criticizing your idea. :lol It just seemed like something someone would eventually say to your post, even though the political situations are pretty different as you describe. 

Not really a fan of Israel though, to be honest. Pretty sketchy country with an admittedly two-sided history of atrocities in the region, which for some reason we fund and support. Not sure what we gain from tying our fortunes to theirs. It would never happen, and could never be acceptable, but I wouldn't mind seeing us terminate that alliance and distancing ourselves from them, rather than strengthening our ties as you suggest here. Happy to hear counter-arguments on the matter.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Not really a fan of Israel though, to be honest. Pretty sketchy country with an admittedly two-sided history of atrocities in the region, which for some reason we fund and support. Not sure what we gain from tying our fortunes to theirs. It would never happen, and could never be acceptable, but I wouldn't mind seeing us terminate that alliance and distancing ourselves from them, rather than strengthening our ties as you suggest here. Happy to hear counter-arguments on the matter.


Israel is a hot topic for me but I'm not as knowledgeable as someone else on the subject. I can basically say what I like about Israel and maybe that might make it more of an appealing nation to have relations with or not. 

The thing is that since the 40's Israel has essentially been the wall (both physical and metaphorical) against the earliest Muslim invasions since essentially the time of Mohammad where Muslims have always seen it as a prize as they tie in Jeruselam as the origin of their faith. Mohammad used to pray to Aqsa. He venerated it. He claimed that it was via Aqsa that he ascended to heaven. Which gave it a lot of meaning for the Muslims and "owning" Jeruselam has always been the ultimate Muslim goal. Muslims since the early 700's have wanted to control that region and they see it as the nail in the coffin for european/christian dominion over the world. 

The fact that it's so important to them that it's their main unifying force means that it needs to be protected. To me, the fall of Israel - if it ever happens - will really mark the beginning of the new Muslim empire. 

That's why I support the West supporting Israel on just about everything because it really pisses the muslims off and the west unifying behind Israel is one way to keep the Muslim invasion at bay. 

At the same time, in recent history Israel has offered all sorts of amnesty and solutions to the Muslim problem by offering them citizenship, schooling, equal status in their society etc and Muslims have rejected it. This confirms that idea that if Muslims were ever to form any sort of majority/power block within any european country, they will ensure that it is a non-secular state. If a minority of Muslims cannot accept amnesty and equal status, this proves that they really want majority and superior status. 

The other reason is more pragmatic and based on the little knowledge I have about Israeli accomplishments in technology, political theory and intellectual contributions to the world. They are at par with western europe in that regard and form a natural partnership with the academic spirit of the west as a whole.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The thing is that since the 40's Israel has essentially been the wall (both physical and metaphorical) against the earliest Muslim invasions since essentially the time of Mohammad where Muslims have always seen it as a prize as they tie in Jeruselam as the origin of their faith. Mohammad used to pray to Aqsa. He venerated it. He claimed that it was via Aqsa that he ascended to heaven. Which gave it a lot of meaning for the Muslims and "owning" Jeruselam has always been the ultimate Muslim goal. Muslims since the early 700's have wanted to control that region and they see it as the nail in the coffin for european/christian dominion over the world.
> 
> The fact that it's so important to them that it's their main unifying force means that it needs to be protected. To me, the fall of Israel - if it ever happens - will really mark the beginning of the new Muslim empire.


From the research I've done, multiple years ago now and certain my recollection is rusty by now, Muslims and Jews had lived side-by-side in the region relatively peacefully for centuries before Israel became a Jewish nation state by western decree, and continued western support of Israel has served as recruitment fodder for extremist groups. Maybe we're too deep in by now and there's really no good solution to the entire ordeal, but we already have seen increasing Islamic radicalism and the establishment of an expansionist Islamic state in ISIS. I'm not convinced that our support of Israel is a net gain in the fight to curb these factors. 

Speaking for myself, I don't see how it benefits my life for the US to be allied with Israel and defend them. That's ultimately where all my foreign policy views will stem from. Hence my desire to see two nuclear superpowers, the US and Russia, which are unlikely to be conquered by Islam's cultural jihad in the near future (barring the total collapse of Trumpism) as allies.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> From the research I've done, multiple years ago now and certain my recollection is rusty by now, Muslims and Jews had lived side-by-side in the region relatively peacefully for centuries before Israel became a Jewish nation state by western decree, and continued western support of Israel has served as recruitment fodder for extremist groups. Maybe we're too deep in by now and there's really no good solution to the entire ordeal, but we already have seen increasing Islamic radicalism and the establishment of an expansionist Islamic state in ISIS. I'm not convinced that our support of Israel is a net gain in the fight to curb these factors.


About as "peacefully" as all minorities have lived with muslims and do to this day. The ever present axe was always sharpened on minority necks. As far as the whole saga of Palestinians is concerned, would it surprise you at all if I told you that it was a creation by the Muslims of a people that only existed in a small tribes and converted into terrorists by the Sunni surrounding states in order to keep Israelis from maintaining a nation state - and then the leftists simply bought into the "poor persecuted palestinian" instead of highlighting the fact that once the British left and Israel was created all the palestinians of that region were supposed to be made citizens of surrounding states? Which obviously the Muslims refused and started flooding the areas that were meant for Jews? Almost all Palestinians were accounted for by Jordanians, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt etc - but then were consistently added to by surrounding states to keep Israel destabilized. All Palestinians had working and living rights in surrounding muslim states. But they didn't want that. They just want the end of Israel. 

I would agree with removing Israel from our foreign policy funding and even protection, but I don't think conquering Israel is the kind of moral boost I want Muslims of that region to gain.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Because I want to be clear that I don't consider Muslims who conquer the geographical continent of Europe to be European, obviously.
> 
> You were extremely brief and vague with your post, so I was left to assume its meaning on my own. How'd I do?


Ahh, I was guffawing at the idea that Muslims would conquer Europe.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Ahh, I was guffawing at the idea that Muslims would conquer Europe.


:lol I know. Jesus.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Asking an FBI director to "can you let this go" isn't an order. It's a request. An order would be corruption. A request would not be.
> 
> Again, as the next article points out, if Comey didn't feel it was obstruction months ago then it's not. If he felt it was obstruction then he didn't bring it up making himself exactly what you said.
> 
> Trump is clean.






Iconoclast said:


> Because it's another nothingburger.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...n-the-comey-memo-offers-zero-proof-to-impeach
> 
> Remember before considering this a partisan source that it's a blog by a liberal law professor on The Hill which is essentially Chelsea Clinton's personal PR machine.
> 
> From a LEGAL scholar (not some random partisan hack with an agenda):
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder. No one but the "anonymous source" that "read only parts of the memo" in question to a NYT reporter on phone has actually seen this memo.
> 
> NYT today is not the NYT of 4 years ago that actually broke news. NYT today is more like that pesky internet site that posts about "10 ways Rosie O' Donnel's Vagina looks like Arby's"


The memo itself may not be enough to impeach Trump but add that into him firing Comey when Trump and Huckabee Sanders both admitted it was because they wanted the Russian investigation to end, in addition to Trump who keeps trying to contact Flynn, which is witness tampering can all add up to the obstruction of justice.

And LOL at Trump being clean, he asked the guy leading the investigation to drop it against Flynn, who had to step down because of the fuckery he did, then Trump fires the guy still running the investigation on Russia because its still ongoing, and Trump keeps trying to get in touch with Flynn when his lawyers tell him not to.

But yeah Trump is clean. You have to be kidding me


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What kind of gets lost in the impeachment thing is that last part of article II, section IV.



> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other *High Crimes and Misdemeanors.*


High crimes and misdemeanors is a very broad term. As long as the majority of the house agree on what it should mean, you can charge them with anything. Now needing 2/3 majority in the senate to convict was meant to be a bulwark against removing someone from office by just charging whatever the majority felt like.



> It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.


Look, Trump isn't getting impeached. Short of him murdering someone on live television, the GOP controlled house won't vote to bring articles of impeachment and even if they did there is almost no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to remove him. Even if somehow it did happen Pence would be president. Not really looking forward to that. Guy is much too religiously conservative for my tastes.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump completely silent as his visitor's goons stomp on protestors outside of the white house. Someone needs to be put in jail but that's probably asking too much of this administration.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> What kind of gets lost in the impeachment thing is that last part of article II, section IV.
> 
> 
> 
> High crimes and misdemeanors is a very broad term. As long as the majority of the house agree on what it should mean, you can charge them with anything. Now needing 2/3 majority in the senate to convict was meant to be a bulwark against removing someone from office by just charging whatever the majority felt like.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Trump isn't getting impeached. Short of him murdering someone on live television, the GOP controlled house won't vote to bring articles of impeachment and even if they did there is almost no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to remove him. Even if somehow it did happen Pence would be president. Not really looking forward to that. Guy is much too religiously conservative for my tastes.



Trump would resign before he even got impeached. And Pence would just pardon him if there was any chance of chargings being brought to Trump.


Pence is way more dangerous than Trump since Trump is an idiot and he just blurts out what he is doing which makes it easier to fight against. Whereas Pence would do everything in code like how it used to be with the GOP and he would not be dumb enough to say half the stuff Trump does.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would resign before he even got impeached. And Pence would just pardon him if there was any chance of charging being brought to Trump.
> 
> 
> Pence is way more dangerous than Trump since Trump is an idiot and he just blurts out what he is doing which makes it easier to fight against. Whereas Pence would do everything in code like how it used to be with the GOP and he would not be dumb enough to say half the stuff Trump does.


I agree that Trump would resign, but only if it was guaranteed he would removed. His ego makes him a fighter. Pence would probably pardon him. Best guess it would be like Ford pardoning Nixon, saying it as in the best interest of the country to move forward. There is a tiny part of me that could see the Republicans hanging him out to dry though. I don't get the feeling they care much for him even if he is on their team.

Pence would be become Democrats' nightmare. He, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell would be the best of friends since they are all on the same page or close to it. Trump and Ryan may play nice for the cameras, but I don't think they're close on a lot of things. Same with McConnell.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I agree that Trump would resign, but only if it was guaranteed he would removed. His ego makes him a fighter. Pence would probably pardon him. Best guess it would be like Ford pardoning Nixon, saying it as in the best interest of the country to move forward. There is a tiny part of me that could see the Republicans hanging him out to dry though. I don't get the feeling they care much for him even if he is on their team.
> 
> *Pence would be become Democrats' nightmare. He, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell would be the best of friends since they are all on the same page or close to it. Trump and Ryan may play nice for the cameras, but I don't think they're close on a lot of things. Same with McConnell*.


 I agree totally. With Trump the WH is in total chaos, if Trump is gone and Pence takes over, it will go back to normal.

The Dems should not hope Trump gets impeached because he is their ticket to getting their seats back in 2018. The healthcare bill passing would help with that too but with Trump it would be much easier with all the fuckery going on and that he says on twitter, to beat the GOP in 2018 then beating Trump in 2020.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fascinating points pertaining to the general leftist-Islamist "alliance" so to speak and its multifarious ramifications, @Iconoclast.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864860678284333057

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864853202201694209
@CamillePunk and I were discussing the pick of Mike (MV)Pence (that's just a San Francisco GIANTS fandom joke :side when it was made by Donald Trump. For the most part we largely agreed that one substantial problem with picking Pence was that it was almost exactly the opposite of what could be termed "impeachment insurance." Not even John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon, as president-elect and incoming president represented a diametrical opposition to elements of the U.S.'s post-World War II "Deep State" as it is commonly called. As Senator Charles Schumer said on January 1, "'[intelligence officials] have six ways from Sunday at getting back... at getting back at you." 

For the "mainstream" neocons and neolibs who stand to gain clout within the labyrinthine U.S. national-security bureaucracy and teeming fiefdoms of think tanks and institutes and NGOs, that same bureaucracy or "Deep State" represents the U.S.'s _id_, as it were. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is presently openly musing whether the Americans who seek to disrupt their own country by ginning up a new revanchist Cold War against Russia are either stupid or corrupt and dangerous. Can they not be both? 

The significant, though hardly cataclysmic, downturn at Wall Street indicates the uncertainty in the air today. One Republican after another is arguing that Trump's very agenda cannot survive the political climate which has become a broiling, blistering reality since the firing of James Comey--who, according to multiple sources, is pining to have a reality television show made of his exploits. Perhaps he learned something about showbiz from Trump.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You don't get the nickname Mike "AC/DC for the LGBT" Pence for nothing.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/trump-israel-secrets-238465
*
Trump's intelligence gaffe creates tension with Israel
*
Israeli leaders are unlikely to let the revelation that President Donald Trump shared classified Israeli intelligence with Russian officials derail a critical state visit next week.

But behind the scenes, U.S. officials may have some groveling to do in order to regain the trust of one of their most critical intelligence partners.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the Mossad is raging angry right now, and the Israeli defense intelligence agency is questioning how much they should be sharing with the administration," said Ilan Goldenberg, director of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, who worked under former Secretary of State John Kerry on Middle East issues. "That’s a profound national security problem.”

He added: “This is a disaster because we have few intelligence relationships that are more important.”

Nobody expects Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to confront Trump in public. Weakened politically at home and dependent on his far-right coalition government, the embattled Israeli politician needs to use Trump's visit to project a tight bond. He is not expected to start a public feud over the New York Times report that it was Israeli intelligence about an Islamic State threat that Trump shared with Russian officials visiting the Oval Office last week.

But the timing of the intelligence breach, just days before Trump is scheduled to depart for his first foreign trip, has also unnecessarily rattled the relationship, ahead of what was expected to be one of the most meaningful and welcoming stops on Trump's five-country tour.

“The reports that the President shared sensitive intelligence with Russian officials are deeply disturbing,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.
Hill Republicans alarmed by Trump disclosure to Russians
By RACHAEL BADE , BURGESS EVERETT and SEUNG MIN KIM
“The Israeli government won’t want to blow up the issue,” a former senior U.S. official said in an email. “But behind the scenes I would assume that the Mossad is very upset and will want some ironclad assurances from its American counterparts about the handling of similar information before they share it again (like a promise that it won't be shared with the president!).”

Daniel Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 2001, said intelligence officials will be wondering, “Can we really trust you guys?”

The public smoothing of the intelligence fight began Tuesday. Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a close ally of Netanyahu, said in a statement to the New York Times that the country had “full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States” and that Israel “looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer would not comment on the news reports regarding Israeli intelligence but said he was “pleased to see Ambassador Dermer’s comment.”

“We appreciate the relationship that we have with Israel and appreciate the exchange of information we have with them,” Spicer said.

Trump, who during the campaign called himself “a newcomer to politics, but not to backing the Jewish state,” remains popular in Israel, where a poll during last year’s Republican primaries found that one in four Israelis said they would have voted for Trump, making him the favored GOP candidate.

And Trump, who has branded himself as a master negotiator, continues to say he will deliver what he has called "the ultimate deal," peace in the Middle East.

White House officials said Tuesday he plans to visit the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, as well as the Western Wall, a holy site in Judaism.

But the intelligence breach wasn’t the only source of friction ahead of the trip.

rahm1_bm_1160.jpg
OFF MESSAGE
‘America’s reliability is now in question’
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
On Monday, an Israeli news outlet reported that after Netanyahu requested to visit the wall with Trump, a U.S. official said it wasn’t possible because the Western Wall was part of the West Bank and not Israel.

The comments infuriated Israelis, who consider all of Jerusalem their territory. The area around the Western Wall was captured by Israel in a 1967 war. It is longstanding U.S. policy that the status of Jerusalem will be determined in a final negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

At a briefing Tuesday, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster refused to answer questions about whether the administration considered the Western Wall to be part of Israel. “That sounds like a policy decision,” McMaster told reporters at a briefing in the White House.

“For a presidential visit, the failure to describe the Western Wall as part of Israel is a much bigger deal than the intel matter,” said Jeremy Bash, who previously served as chief of staff at the Defense Department and then at the CIA. “I think they seem to be too concerned it would upset the Palestinians, and they seem very eager for a breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian front. It raises the question of whether the administration is as pro-Israel as it claims to be.”

As the White House has been consumed by various self-created crises in the past week -- starting with the fallout of the shock firing of FBI director James Comey -- planning for the eight-day foreign trip has proceeded on a separate track, White House officials said.

Inside the White House, the daily trip planning meeting, which is chaired by son-in-law Jared Kushner, is typically attended by deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell, McMaster and Joe Hagin, the White House chief of staff for operations, as well as National Security Council officials, an administration source said. Those meetings have continued throughout the past week.

Breaking News Alerts
Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox.
Email Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
On the trip, Trump is expected to be joined by almost all of his senior West Wing aides, who even at home often stick close to the president for fear of being out of the loop, or diminished in power, if they stray from his side.

Kushner, daughter Ivanka Trump, chief strategist Steve Bannon, chief of staff Reince Priebus, economic adviser Gary Cohn, Powell, policy adviser Stephen Miller, and Spicer will all be along for major chunks of the trip, according to multiple White House officials. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will travel with the president through the G7 meeting in Sicily, and McMaster will accompany him for the entirety of the trip.

Also among those traveling with the president: his trusted aide Hope Hicks, deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton, among others.

Counselor Kellyanne Conway, whose portfolio does not include foreign policy issues, and communications director Michael Dubke will be staying behind in Washington, White House officials told POLITICO.

Trump officials have been reaching out to Republican senators for guidance ahead of the trip. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, last week hosted Kushner, McMaster and Powell in his office, where they “sought input from a number of senators regarding President Trump’s first foreign trip,” a Corker spokesman said. He would not say which senators participated in the briefing.

Bryan Bender contributed reporting.



http://www.newsweek.com/israeli-and-us-intelligence-services-crisis-over-trump-leak-russia-610420

*TRUMP ISIS LEAK TO RUSSIA COULD END ISRAEL-U.S. INTELLIGENCE SHARING*

President Donald Trump’s decision to disclose highly classified information to Russia, which Israel reportedly provided to Washington, has put the intelligence services “in crisis,” according to a former senior Israeli intelligence official and recruiter of assets for Israel’s Shin Bet security service.

As Washington’s key Middle East ally and partner on counter-terrorism, Israel has a longstanding intelligence sharing arrangement with the U.S., collecting intelligence on a range of threats to U.S. national security, including the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and the Iranian regime.

According to The Washington Post, during a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Oval Office last Wednesday, Trump disclosed details about an ISIS plot involving the use of laptops on airplanes.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Read more: U.S. officials 'warned Israel' not to share sensitive intel with Trump

The revelation that Israel was the ally who provided the intelligence that Trump passed on to Russia now threatens a diplomatic fallout with a longtime ally.

“Trump has made a crisis between Israeli intelligence and American intelligence,” the former official and recruiter tells Newsweek by phone. (He asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.)

The Israeli government tells Newsweek Trump’s visit to the country, in which he plans to revive the moribund peace process, will go ahead as planned. “We have a schedule, we have a plan and everything is going ahead, absolutely,” says Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesperson for the foreign ministry, speaking over the phone from Israel.

But that trip could now become much more awkward. Some Israeli officials speaking to Newsweek were cautious about how the leak would affect relations, emphasizing its severity but unable to predict how the situation would play out between the allies.

“If it involves sources and how we got this information, then it is really serious. It is very damaging. Definitely a breach of confidence,” says Uri Dromi, director of the Jerusalem Press Club and the former press spokesman of the Rabin and Peres governments between 1992 and 1996. “You share this information because they are your best ally and there was reason to give this information. This is bad. But how bad is it? I don’t know.”

Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said the two intelligence services would continue to cooperate on counter-terror matters. “Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump,” he told The New York Times in an email statement Tuesday.

Netanyahu and Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) shake hands following a joint news conference at the East Room of the White House February 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. U.S. intelligence officials reportedly told their Israeli counterparts not to share sensitive intelligence with Trump over concerns of that intelligence exchanging hands with rival powers.
WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY

But the fallout could still seriously affect day-to-day working relationships—so much so that Israel ultimately ceases its sharing of specific, sensitive information with Washington, according to the former senior Shin Bet official. That includes the kind of intelligence that would matter to U.S. interests at home and abroad.

“The fact that the American president is revealing information to other countries, to Russia, for Israel it will lead us to stop giving any intelligence to the Americans,” says the official, who maintains ties to Israeli intelligence circles. “I can’t see how the Israeli intelligence can keep giving sensitive intelligence to the Americans.”

Trump’s reported disclosure of Israeli information gathered from Syria—a particularly sensitive area for security services—has left many in Israeli intelligence circles angry at his lack of care with sensitive information.

Trump allegedly revealed the city in ISIS-held territory where, according to his intelligence briefing, the U.S. ally retrieved evidence that the militant group is actively planning to smuggle a laptop wired with an explosive onto an airliner. The information of the location and nature of the plot threatens to give away Israeli intelligence methods to Russia. Israel fears that Moscow, allied with Iranian forces in Syria, may then pass the intelligence onto Tehran, its longtime enemy.

Many in the White House were quick to downplay the incident before officials identified Israel as the ally in question, saying it was not the first time that key intelligence relationships have been undermined. A senior State Department official, speaking to Newsweek earlier on Tuesday on condition of anonymity, said working-level relationships would be “maintained” for two reasons: first, “political leadership changes” but the security service personnel remain; and, second, partners need to work with Washington.

“They said that about Wikileaks, they said that about the Snowden leaks as well,” the official says, refuting the suggestion that allies will be less forthcoming with sensitive intelligence. “I have not seen after any of these instances over the last few years, a drop off in willingness to talk about these things.”

Trump and his White House team have defended his conversation with the Russian officials as “wholly appropriate.” The president tweeted on Tuesday that he spoke to the Russians about counter-terrorism for “humanitarian reasons” and in hope of pulling Moscow into a greater effort to defeat ISIS. He said he shared “facts” but did not refer to highly classified intelligence.

The former recruiter of human assets for Israeli intelligence said Trump, in divulging sensitive operational information, failed to recognize the significant danger it would create for any Israeli operative in Syria.

“I need to tell you how much effort we put in order to keep our assets safe. You are trying to keep someone alive and safe, and he is working within the ISIS population, which is not really a summer camp. And now the American president is putting [this person at] risk,” the intelligence official says, speculating that it could be a human source within ISIS territory that has been compromised.

Yaakov Amidror, former head of Israel’s National Security Council and national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says the breach is inexcusable. “If this country loses the asset, it's a very bad consequence to a mistake he made. No question and no one can defend it, because it’s very, very hard to have assets in such organizations,” says Amidror.

Related: Trump's Russia ties could hurt key U.S. allies in the Middle East

Trump did not reveal Israel’s method of information gathering in the jihadist group’s self-declared caliphate, according to officials, but the revelation itself and the administration’s leaks to the U.S. press could have a significant impact on Israel’s ability to retrieve vital intelligence on ISIS’s inner workings. The use of human sources is essential for an intelligence agency to carry out its work, since they are able to obtain specific intelligence from more sensitive situations that trained spies cannot access.

Sergei Lavrov Donald Trump 
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. President Donald Trump.
MAXIM ZMEYEV/LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS

“The basics between an asset and a handler is the fact that you always do the maximum to keep him safe,” the former spy says, saying that some people will come to their handlers and refuse to cooperate further because their safety has been undermined.

Related Stories
US 'Warned Israel' Not To Share Intel With Team Trump
Trump's Russia Ties Could Hurt Allies in Middle East
US 'Warned Israel' Not To Share Intel With Team Trump
Israel to Deploy 10,000 Police for Donald Trump Visit
“[In Trump] you see someone that doesn’t understand intelligence. He’s an egomaniac and he thinks he knows best. He is a narcissist and really just a careless person who doesn’t understand how much those people risk their lives to keep us all safe.”

Other Israeli intelligence agents told Buzzfeed that Trump’s disclosure was Israel’s “worst fears confirmed” about the American president. In January, U.S. intelligence officials warned Israeli counterparts against sharing sensitive information with the Trump team because of concerns about potential ties to the Russian government.

The former intelligence official speculates that leaks relating to Trump’s meeting with Lavrov is a direct result of his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey last week, just a day before the meeting. Democrats speculated that Trump, whose associates are subject to an FBI investigation into alleged ties with Russia, fired Comey in an attempt to obfuscate probe on Russian meddling in the presidential election.

“You don’t need to be a genius to understand that whoever leaked the story about Trump talking to the Russians, everything is related the fact he fired Comey,” he says. “I think it’s amazing to see how the intelligence agency is working against the president. I don’t remember something in the last 20 years like this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...nt-special-prosecutor-for-russia-probe-238524

*Justice Dept. to appoint special prosecutor for Russia probe
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller will oversee the probe into Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 presidential election.*

he Justice Department is appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 presidential election, including any possible involvement of President Donald Trump's campaign in that effort.

Meeting the increasingly strident demands of Democratic lawmakers, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named former FBI Director Robert Mueller Wednesday to oversee the probe.

"Based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command," Rosenstein said in a statement. "A special counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the Public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly."

White House spokespeople have said they view the appointment of a special counsel as unnecessary.

Chuck Schumer is pictured. | John Shinkle/POLITICO
Democratic leaders seek to stifle impeachment talk
By HEATHER CAYGLE and ELANA SCHOR
Rosenstein did not say what facts had spurred the decision. However, it came one day after press reports emerged that former FBI Director James Comey kept notes about his interactions with Trump on the issue and that one such memo reflects a request from the president to abandon any investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who played a key role on Trump's campaign.

Rosenstein made the high-profile move in his capacity as acting attorney general after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the matter due to his own role in the Trump campaign.

The Justice Department statement shed little light on the ongoing probe, simply referring to it as "the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, and related matters."

However, the actual order Rosenstein signed appointing Mueller made clear his authority includes actions taken by those affiliated with the Trump campaign.

The deputy attorney general specifically authorized Mueller to probe "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

The deputy attorney general stressed that the move to appoint a special prosecutor did not mean anyone involved acted illegally.

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted," Rosenstein said in a statement.

Mueller has agreed to resign from his private law firm, Wilmer Hale, to pursue the probe, the Justice Department said.

Mueller was appointed under Justice Department regulations allowing the naming of a special counsel from outside the department when a conflict of interest exists or under "extraordinary circumstances."

The appointment of Mueller marked the first time the Justice Department has gone outside its ranks to tap a special prosecutor since 1999, when Attorney General Janet Reno picked former Sen. John Danforth to investigate the showdown at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas.

Breaking News Alerts
Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox.
Email Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Subsequent attorneys general have also named special prosecutors, but from within the department under other rules.

The best-known such appointment in recent years came in 2003 when Comey—then the deputy attorney general—named U.S. Attorney in Chicago Patrick Fitzgerald to oversee an investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Fitzgerald never charged anyone with the leak, but obtained an indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby for lying to investigators and obstructing justice in the probe. A jury convicted Libby, who was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. President George W. Bush commuted that sentence, but declined to wipe out Libby’s conviction.

In previous decades, special prosecutors were usually appointed under a statute commonly referred to as the independent counsel law. That measure—formally part of the Ethics in Government Act—expired in 1999 amid considerable controversy over the spending and conduct of a slew of independent counsels during the 1980s and 1990s. They included Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, whose investigation morphed repeatedly, eventually resulting in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Fascinating points pertaining to the general leftist-Islamist "alliance" so to speak and its multifarious ramifications, @Iconoclast.


Wait, so now there's a Islamist/Leftist alliance is there? Quite sneakily and smoothly snuck in there DROW. Why not just go that step further and call it a Leftist/Terrorist alliance? That's the implication anyway to most who'll eat up that kind of thing.

How does this alliance work? Is it like WCW and ECW coming together to overthrow the West's WWF?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Wait, so now there's a Islamist/Leftist alliance is there? Quite sneakily and smoothly snuck in there DROW. Why not just go that step further and call it a Leftist/Terrorist alliance? That's the implication anyway to most who'll eat up that kind of thing.
> 
> How does this alliance work? Is it like WCW and ECW coming together to overthrow the West's WWF?


The comment was out of courtesy to @Iconoclast for the mention to one of his posts late last night, and terseness was favored over utmost clarity since it was disconnected from the rest of the body of my post.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> The comment was out of courtesy to @Iconoclast for the mention to one of his posts late last night, and terseness was favored over utmost clarity since it was disconnected from the rest of the body of my post.


Do you believe there is a Left/Islam alliance of sorts out there? 

I'm sure this is already a familiar concept on your Stormfronts and similar outlets out there, I think it would be a great way to demonise the evil Left further. Not saying you're doing that of course, you're far too high-minded for such a simple technique.



Edit: Did I miss out on discussion about Poor Trump complaining he's been treated more unfairly that any President ever by the big bad media? This guy bringing the lolz still.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Wait, so now there's a Islamist/Leftist alliance is there? Quite sneakily and smoothly snuck in there DROW. Why not just go that step further and call it a Leftist/Terrorist alliance? That's the implication anyway to most who'll eat up that kind of thing.
> 
> How does this alliance work? Is it like WCW and ECW coming together to overthrow the West's WWF?


You've got me on ignore and yet you're commenting in Deso's post to me without clearly having context and expect me to change my mind that the leftists on this site have any modicum of intelligence at all? 

:kobelol

I was talking about the fact that when apostates first leave Islam they're caught in the seductive web of the faux "liberalism" of the left because of other ignorant atheists that align themselves with liberals.

But now the liberal left calls apostates Islamophobes when apostates criticise the evil of Islam because leftists are too badly brainwashed to see anyone non-white as anything but a poor marginalized minority so apostates are leaving the left and joining the right side.

It's literally because of people like you and other leftists who without knowledge or understanding of Islam have projected your white savior complex onto throngs of extremist Muslims.

The ignorant left are no allies of apostates and apostates are finally realizing it. You guys are as abusive towards ex-Muslims as Muslims themselves.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> Do you believe there is a Left/Islam alliance of sorts out there?
> 
> I'm sure this is already a familiar concept on your Stormfronts and similar outlets out there, I think it would be a great way to demonise the evil Left further. Not saying you're doing that of course, you're far too high-minded for such a simple technique.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Did I miss out on discussion about Poor Trump complaining he's been treated more unfairly that any President ever by the big bad media? This guy bringing the lolz still.


I'm never offended by any of the many posts bemoaning "right-wing" this or "rightist" that because I don't view the political axis through the overfamiliar lens of left vs. right, strictly speaking, though yes there are obviously leftist and rightist ideologies and characteristics, as was being discussed between *birthday_massacre* and *Iconoclast*, and secondly because many right-wingers are dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks whose American stand-ins typically speak incessantly of "muh freedom" and "muh constitution" even though the Constitution as it's known was long-ago chiefly hijacked as a weapon of their most avowed enemies, those who are continuing their own revolution. 

If you notice, I only periodically use the term "leftist," and I did so in this instance because I wanted to employ shorthand in addressing *Iconoclast*'s post, which was intelligent and interesting but I had very little to say on the matter and I had to run off and get offline in a couple of moments while addressing the present imbroglio involving the eponymous figure of this thread. 

Christopher Hitchens, who I had the pleasure to meet at UC Berkeley, was wrong about many things but his analysis of how all too many of his fellow "leftists" if it is okay to use that term fundamentally cast most standard criticisms of Islam under the silencing blanket of "Islamophobia." So obviously a great many leftist is not aligned with Islam at all, but does something of an informal alliance exist to some degree? Part of my comment's meaning was behind what *Miss Sally* was saying with *Dr. Middy* about what she meant when she referred to "the left"; though, again, I do not harp on "the left" as monolith most of the time. 

The truth is one of the reasons I had little to say about *Reaper*'s post is that there is always a danger in becoming a one-note sounding board. Sure, I wish governments and NGOs aligned with same in the West would stop importing Islam _en masse_ into their countries, if only because talking about Islam constantly can both be depressing and taxing. 

Primarily, I noted the "Leftist-Islamist alliance" out of utility. I did not want to write a novel's chapter's worth on the subject but I wanted to assure *Reaper* that I looked over his post and found it interesting. This shorthand, this slightly rough-around-the-edges utility, arguably stems from what many members of the French police of the last fifteen years have referred to, time and time again, as _islamo-gauchisme_, a phenomenon so frequently seen on the streets of Paris that the police felt compelled to name it. The periodical _Libération_ went in-depth on this and argued persuasively that the term, which roughly translates to "Islamo-Leftism" originates from the year 2002 or so. Pierre-André Taquieff wrote compellingly of the political flourishing under the umbrella of same in his book _New Judeophobia_, and he refers both to the aforementioned _islamo-gauchisme_ as well as the somewhat differentiated but close cousin "Islamo-fascism" most directly connected toward anti-Zionist movements originating in the developing or "third world" that dates back to the 1970s and what he and Sonya Faure and Frantz Durupt of _Libération_ wrote of as deriving most directly from "Palestino-Progressives" (the sort which one may find in the John le Carré novel _The Little Drummer Girl_ (one could throw a padded football in any direction at Berkeley and harmlessly strike one of them, too, in the post-9/11 years). German police forces found similar overlaps between far-left Marxist groups and Islamic "rights" advocates, as per 1980s news reports. 

The ultimately _status quo_-shaking event that rocked these tenuous alliances stemming from German trade unions forming the _Gastarbeiter_, with trade union officials encouraging pro-Islam literature written to attract Muslim immigrants who would return the favor by voting left-wing throughout most of the 1970s as well as Socialist leader and French president François Mitterand sanctioning the engendering of widespread political associations of foreigners (mostly Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians, and at least 75% of these immigrants were Muslim) which fed back into the Socialist networking throughout France's centralized political hierarchy was when Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie nearly three decades ago for what Rushdie had written in his censored novel _The Satanic Verses_, and this divergence became greater as French schools demanded restrictions toward girls' headscarves in schools, all the way to today as French officials believe standing up to Islam correlates with going after the burka. So obviously in some regards and at some levels there is more animosity between "the two sides" than there was decades ago.

It should be noted of course that many critiques of Islamic immigration miss the mark (by and large, that is). It's usually not the direct immigrants themselves but the children thereof who become disenchanted with the alienating world in which they find themselves, by the standards they come to know as they learn about the religion of their fathers and fathers' fathers. There's a genuinely empathizing touchstone to recognize. The massive mall that is the U.S. circa the 2010s holds little ingrained allegiance for many; perhaps the most underreported story of 2016 was the actual motivation of the Orlando massacre gunman/terrorist Omar Mateen. As he cold-bloodedly gunned down one person after another in that nightclub, he said into his cell phone that he wished that the U.S. would cease bombing "my country," meaning Afghanistan. (Mateen happened to have been born on U.S. soil and was consequently usually dubbed a "homegrown terrorist.") This was dropped in the U.S. media shortly after being reported by the _Los Angeles Times_ and the Associated Press. 

In a sense, a leftist alliance with Islam may instill a belief system, however flawed, among Muslims and Muslim immigrants in the West that channels the energy that could be exhausted through radicalization and events stemming from same. So perhaps there is something to be appreciative of in this regard, though as Hitchens noted to me personally he believed the motivations were largely quite less-than-altruistic. Many a cynical and power-hungry right-winger has exploited simpleminded Christians' thought processes so it's not like leftists are necessarily altogether special in this regard.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When you have SJWs, College Professors and Politicians from the "Left" clamoring for Islam, calling anyone who criticizes Islam as "Racist" as opposed to "Religious Bigot" (Even this is a far stretch as the Left has been attacking Religion for years with no real consequence.) then there is a case for a Political alliance between the "Left" and Islam.

Men like Dawkins and Hitchens were attacked for attacking Islam while sung as folk heroes for their attacking of Christianity. Even if there is no direct alliance, a bias is present. When Islam gets it's hooks into nearly every protest and makes it seem as though speaking against it is as speaking against a race of people one should see this as a huge warning sign. If a person cannot point out the flaws and the real dangers of an ideology then we should all be very worried.

Leftists that do speak out against Islam are attacked by their very own for doing so. Bill Mahr whom I'm not a huge fan of gets attacked often. I'm quite certain that Sam Bee and Colbert who are media darlings right now would be slammed for making any anti-Islamic sentiment or even pointing out major flaws. The "Left" has done a wonderful job of policing the media, college campuses and their own side to the point that Liberals have no real home.

It's odd that people who value freedom, education and "progressive" movement would rally behind such a disgusting far-far-right backwards ideology such as Islam. 

When Linda Sasour is one of your speakers for a Woman's March that is pretty telling of the Alliance between the "Left" and Islam. It takes far more effort to ignore the placating to a bunch of Religious goons then to see what's obvious even to the most politically dim witted among us. The denial must be at blackout levels to brush off so much evidence as simply "hate".


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The greatest irony of the 21st century liberal atheist is that he hates everything about Christianity but does not hate the religion that usurped everything negative in Christianity, Judaism, and made it 10 times worse.

You can't call that person who lambasts Christians and protects Muslims as anything more than a simple hypocrite.

And I've seen it from posters here too who fall squarely on the left that their primary mode of defense for Islam is to simply say it's as bad as Christianity without having the guts to say it's a terrible ideology though it's even worse on its own merits and that argument is doubly ironic because you can tell it's insincere. They don't deserve respect. Sorry. It's not coming from me.

If you don't want to criticize Islam then don't do it. But don't defend it either because you don't defend other religions. It just makes you come across as a hypocrite.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> When you have SJWs, College Professors and Politicians from the "Left" clamoring for Islam, calling anyone who criticizes Islam as "Racist" as opposed to "Religious Bigot" (Even this is a far stretch as the Left has been attacking Religion for years with no real consequence.) then there is a case for a Political alliance between the "Left" and Islam.
> 
> Men like Dawkins and Hitchens were attacked for attacking Islam while sung as folk heroes for their attacking of Christianity. Even if there is no direct alliance, a bias is present. When Islam gets it's hooks into nearly every protest and makes it seem as though speaking against it is as speaking against a race of people one should see this as a huge warning sign. If a person cannot point out the flaws and the real dangers of an ideology then we should all be very worried.
> 
> Leftists that do speak out against Islam are attacked by their very own for doing so. Bill Mahr whom I'm not a huge fan of gets attacked often. I'm quite certain that Sam Bee and Colbert who are media darlings right now would be slammed for making any anti-Islamic sentiment or even pointing out major flaws. The "Left" has done a wonderful job of policing the media, college campuses and their own side to the point that Liberals have no real home.
> 
> It's odd that people who value freedom, education and "progressive" movement would rally behind such a disgusting far-far-right backwards ideology such as Islam.
> 
> When Linda Sasour is one of your speakers for a Woman's March that is pretty telling of the Alliance between the "Left" and Islam. It takes far more effort to ignore the placating to a bunch of Religious goons then to see what's obvious even to the most politically dim witted among us. The denial must be at blackout levels to brush off so much evidence as simply "hate".


No one is 'clamoring for Islam' FFS and there's no alliance. No one is rallying behind anything, they're questioning rejecting OTT anti-Islam commentator's tendencies to blame a whole religion's worth of people based on the actions of the extreme fringe. Maybe they're speaking up because they see incidents of assault against regular muslim Americans are on the rise because of the rise of anti-muslim sentiment in the community.

This is the height of the internet age, everyone gets criticised for fucking everything they say regardless of it's about muslims or the actors in the new Marvel movie. It's also the PC age where you can't sneeze without making sure you include everybody. These things are not exclusive to discussion about muslims.

You tend to insist on turning people who question and criticise people's blanket assumptions about muslims into 'Islam apologists' and 'Rallying behind Islam' and all that crap. How many leftists are out there in marches insisting we all convert to Sharia Law and take up Ramadan? Wouldn't that be more like 'clamoring for Islam'?

There are plenty of people who are willing to discuss intelligently with people of differing people's views of all different political sides, but they don't get noticed by the YT commentators and your Tucker Carlsons etc. It's only the idiots who spend all their time online pushing the outrage button calling everything under the sun prejudice and racist who paint the rest of the normal people with the extreme brush.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> No one is 'clamoring for Islam' FFS and there's no alliance. No one is rallying behind anything, they're questioning rejecting OTT anti-Islam commentator's tendencies to blame a whole religion's worth of people based on the actions of the extreme fringe. Maybe they're speaking up because they see incidents of assault against regular muslim Americans are on the rise because of the rise of anti-muslim sentiment in the community.
> 
> This is the height of the internet age, everyone gets criticised for fucking everything they say regardless of it's about muslims or the actors in the new Marvel movie. It's also the PC age where you can't sneeze without making sure you include everybody. These things are not exclusive to discussion about muslims.
> 
> You tend to insist on turning people who question and criticise people's blanket assumptions about muslims into 'Islam apologists' and 'Rallying behind Islam' and all that crap. How many leftists are out there in marches insisting we all convert to Sharia Law and take up Ramadan? Wouldn't that be more like 'clamoring for Islam'?
> 
> There are plenty of people who are willing to discuss intelligently with people of differing people's views of all different political sides, but they don't get noticed by the YT commentators and your Tucker Carlsons etc. It's only the idiots who spend all their time online pushing the outrage button calling everything under the sun prejudice and racist who paint the rest of the normal people with the extreme brush.


These marches that you pretend didn't happen actually did happen. The female pussy March was part organized by CAIR which is a known extremist Muslim organization on the west. The next big pussy March was being organized by a convicted Palestinian terrorist who was then deported after right wingers pointed it out.

You will ignore the stats that prove that the majority of Muslims may not be terrorists but are extremists. So why even bother posting your fake claims that Muslim extremism is a fringe issue of a few radicals when statistics and studies prove that it's the vast majorities that hold anti women, anti gay and other extremist views.

It's literally nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and burying ones head in the sand at this point.

You have no knowledge of anything that is ever talked about in these threads. You didn't even know that the Jan 20th pussy march was organized by Linda Sarsour who's a Muslim extremist who is now giving lectures all I've western colleges telling idiot leftist students about the virtues of Islamic feminism.

No alliance my ass.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @Goku @L-DOPA @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @Pratchett 

The Slow-Motion Assassination of President Trump

Fascinating article by the extremely credible cartoon artist Scott Adams about how the media and politicians are conducting a slow-moving assassination of President Trump and possibly ending the Republic for good by rendering future presidents (including possibly Elizabeth Warren?! @birthday_massacre) completely ineffective, which Adams argues might actually be a good thing.

Here's another article I've just read, an opinion piece from Russian news outlet RT, which is funded by the Russian government, on how President Putin has offered Trump's critics "the red pill" but they have refused it. :lol Pretty entertaining read despite or perhaps because of the obvious and expected bias. 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/388730-putin-washington-red-pill/


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There may be _some _truth to ABC cancelling Last Man Standing because of Allen's recent comments about Hollywood after all. 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...bcs-decision-to-cancel-last-man-standing.html



> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864514490804523009
> Allen and his co-star Hector Elizondo declined to comment to Fox News about the cancellation. His co-stars Nancy Travis, Kaitlyn Dever, Molly Ephraim and Christoph Sanders did not return Fox News' request for comment.
> 
> However, Nancy Travis, who plays Allen's wife Vanessa Baxter on the show, has been retweeting fans' efforts to boycott ABC until they bring back "Last Man Standing."
> 
> Amanda Fuller, who plays Allen's daughter Kristen asked fans to sign the petition in support of the show and shared an emotional note on Twitter.
> 
> "To all the devoted 'Last Man Standing' fans, thank you," she wrote in a lengthy note. "I believe in the power that lies in storytelling being a mirror to our world, representing all voices...and for that reason I have always been proud and honored to be a part of 'Last Man Standing,' the only sitcom today that I feel truly strived to do that."


The cast and their recent actions seem to suggest like it was a political decision. Usually if it isn't then they try their best to take the middle road. 

Prime Time show, 8 o' clock on a Friday night pulling in 8 million viewers. It doesn't make sense for someone to cancel a show that successful. I mean, if the ratings were lower, they had a legitimate excuse. But this? Why not just cancel another lower rated comedy and put this in its time slot. That would be the logical thing to do, right?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A lot of executives in Hollywood are more concerned with spreading a liberal narrative than making money.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> A lot of executives in Hollywood are more concerned with spreading a liberal narrative than making money.
> 
> - Vic


Oh they genuinely think that their liberal agenda _is _where the money is (because a lot of executives are from the time period of the 70's where urban sitcoms replaced the original lineup of ******* shows) .. but what's happened is that the twisted form of leftism has promised them that that's what the viewers want when in reality people still want _liberal_ shows but they don't want _SJW _shows - and of course people are starving for somewhat intelligently written shows that have no lean. There's a reason why GoT, Walking Dead and a few others lead the list and none of those shows have any political lean in them at all. 

Take Suits for example (a very conservative leaning show). In the last season took a few well-writ pot shots at modern SJW-ism in its own way as a shout out to conservatives that (Hey, we know you exist too). It's why my wife and I both love that show. There's others too that give us conservatives a nod here and there and it's nice to see. 

But. There's the other side too where it's nothing but blatant attempts to pander to SJW mentality and interestingly enough it's those shows that are barely popular at all. 

Marvel's failed SJW lineup and the guy's comments is painful in that the answer is so obvious (that SJWs simply complain, they don't consume) and yet these so-called execs with business training have no idea how to analyse their own target market.

--

Another teacher on government payroll: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865147665738153984


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did anyone catch that speaker who wanted to give 'a shout out to our muslim brothers and sisters' and the sheeple cheered?

Leftists want muslims as part of their rickety ass coalition. It will be fascinating to see liberal talking heads do gymnastics to justify their inclusion in the base, considering how they treat women and homosexuals.

I also lol at the appointment of the special prosecutor. Theyve found nothing on trump in 9 months, and anyone who isnt a barking moonbat knows if they did it WOULD HAVE LEAKED BY NOW. He wont walk in his first day investigating this and be handed the goods.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.”


  Nelson Mandela  Trump 2017

:frankielel:rileylol:heston:maisielol2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Did anyone catch that speaker who wanted to give 'a shout out to our muslim brothers and sisters' and the sheeple cheered?
> 
> Leftists want muslims as part of their rickety ass coalition. It will be fascinating to see liberal talking heads do gymnastics to justify their inclusion in the base, considering how they treat women and homosexuals.
> 
> I also lol at the appointment of the special prosecutor. Theyve found nothing on trump in 9 months, and anyone who isnt a barking moonbat knows if they did it WOULD HAVE LEAKED BY NOW. He wont walk in his first day investigating this and be handed the goods.


I'm a leftist, I don't want them anywhere near me.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just another note on the Left / Islam Alliance. 

An ex-Pakistani atheist who used to be a regular writer on Huffington Post has not been asked to write anything for them since 2016. He started talking about how Dems are on the losing side. 

He's still active on Twitter. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/tambaqu-887










You notice the same shit all over the place. Muslim apologist Ali Reza is all over the airwaves, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali is relegated to alternative media and getting disinvited at colleges and being protested. Imagine that. An african, black woman, who suffered through FGM and tortured is apparently "Islamophobic" because some pushy white cunts don't know real oppression. 

The left is over-run with pro-Islam apologia and their fake "liberalism" is advocacy for a dangerous ideology under the guise of protecting a "marginalized minority" - which in Muslim countries is the oppressive majority.

Huffpo on Linda Sarsour










Huffpo on Ayaan Hirsi Ali










Linda Sarsour on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 










This is the left today - the real racist/sexist pieces of shits of the world. ... They've already half converted to Islam, might as well own up to it. The faked "open-minded" pretentiousness and "liberalism" of the left is becoming nauseating.



draykorinee said:


> I'm a leftist, I don't want them anywhere near me.


At least you're truthful. 

I don't think that the majority of the left _really _want to live anywhere near a majority muslim state. Otherwise they wouldn't huddle together in majority white neighborhoods and secretly lobby for legislation that makes sure minorities can't ever afford to move into their rich neighborhoods (Especially in places like Cuckifornia). 

They simply use Muslims as objects to push their narcissistic self-promoting faux empathy like they use blacks and hispanics.

NONE of the EU politicians that are forcing muslim refugees upon local populations live anywhere NEAR the muzzies either. It's just the working class that has to suffer their crimes. Just like none of the rich democrats live anywhere NEAR illegal migrant filled shitholes in America. They fill up their shities with illegal trash and then move on to the next republican city and turn it into shit and move on like cancer.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm a leftist, I don't want them anywhere near me.


I applaud your honesty. Just dont tell your friends, they might label you


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864795286992015360


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Just another note on the Left / Islam Alliance.
> 
> An ex-Pakistani atheist who used to be a regular writer on Huffington Post has not been asked to write anything for them since 2016. He started talking about how Dems are on the losing side.
> 
> He's still active on Twitter.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/tambaqu-887
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You notice the same shit all over the place. Muslim apologist Ali Reza is all over the airwaves, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali is relegated to alternative media and getting disinvited at colleges and being protested. Imagine that. An african, black woman, who suffered through FGM and tortured is apparently "Islamophobic" because some pushy white cunts don't know real oppression.
> 
> The left is over-run with pro-Islam apologia and their fake "liberalism" is advocacy for a dangerous ideology under the guise of protecting a "marginalized minority" - which in Muslim countries is the oppressive majority.
> 
> Huffpo on Linda Sarsour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huffpo on Ayaan Hirsi Ali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Sarsour on Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the left today - the real racist/sexist pieces of shits of the world. ... They've already half converted to Islam, might as well own up to it. The faked "open-minded" pretentiousness and "liberalism" of the left is becoming nauseating.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're truthful.
> 
> I don't think that the majority of the left _really _want to live anywhere near a majority muslim state. Otherwise they wouldn't huddle together in majority white neighborhoods and secretly lobby for legislation that makes sure minorities can't ever afford to move into their rich neighborhoods (Especially in places like Cuckifornia).
> 
> They simply use Muslims as objects to push their narcissistic self-promoting faux empathy like they use blacks and hispanics.
> 
> NONE of the EU politicians that are forcing muslim refugees upon local populations live anywhere NEAR the muzzies either. It's just the working class that has to suffer their crimes. Just like none of the rich democrats live anywhere NEAR illegal migrant filled shitholes in America. They fill up their shities with illegal trash and then move on to the next republican city and turn it into shit and move on like cancer.




No politician lives near the poor people if they can help it. If they love them so much they should live by them.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Nelson Mandela  Trump 2017
> 
> :frankielel:rileylol:heston:maisielol2


Nelson fucking Mandela was a filthy communist terrorist that directly killed hundreds of people. WTF. Do you guys know anything about history at all that hasn't been fed to you by government indoctrination centers? Even if you twist the narrative and call him a "freedom fighter", you have a man capable of murder being the face of political change and therefore has established the tone of governments since which have continued his policy of mass murder to get what they want.

His current party is engaged in communist-style takeover of private property and ethnic genocide of white farmers - and have completely destroyed the economy and conditions in South Africa. 

But "muh apartheid". Of course reading actual history and following up on what happened after isn't important because "muh apartheid tho". 

Nelson Mandela should have been allowed to rot and die in jail like he really deserved. He's the Osama Bin Laden of Africa who actually won the country and the ANC are the Taliban that have turned South Africa into yet another shithole in Africa. It would probably surprise you that he got his terrorist training by muslim terrorists in Algiers. I dare you to look up necklacing. I bet they don't mention that in history books because it was part of an extreme black on black violence campaign undertaken by Mandela and his cronies because Mandela was never about freedom of blacks, but about installing a communist regime through violence. 

But no one ever framed him in that light because leftists were told to love him in schools and they hid the truth about the man. 

FFS, the leftists on this site are infuriating fpalm


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Apartheid was bad enough to justify violence.

You can't just brush off an entire system of government which subjegated people based on race as a non entity. Africans were denied the right to vote in their own land and to lauch a violent rebellion against their oppressors to gain basic citizenship rights is to be commended.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Apartheid was bad enough to justify violence.


Apparently you glossed over the fact that much of the violence perpetrated by Mandela and his cronies was based on killing and torturing blacks of other tribes. But I'm not surpried. That's a part of revisionist history taught by pro-socialist whites in white schools in order to hide the true intent of Mandela and his political motivations. 

And no, Apartheid was not bad enough to justify violence. Apartheid was bad. But it was not bad enough to justify any of Mandela's terrorism against whites and blacks who opposed communism. 

Apartheid was non-violent segregation based on the very real fear of communists overthrowing the government. It was part of the Red Scare that enveloped the entire west but it got a racial undertone in Africa because it so happened that the majority of communists were using racial unity to create coalitions of communist blacks ... Which is why there was significant black on black violence in Africa as well - as non-communist/pro-capitalist blacks were hunted down, tortured and killed. African Tribal violence was similar to the tribal violence you see in Muslim countries where different groups absolutely abhor each other. 

The way the National Party of SA responded to the growing wave of this marriage between blacks and communism was definitely wrong. You won't get a disagreement from me on that. 

However, the goal of the ANC and Nelson Mandela was never to free the blacks from this segregation but rather to force a communist regime in Africa which now the ANC is slowly but surely putting in place. You have a dying economy with near terrible inflation, not enough food, farmer genocide, rape and murder gangs, and a country-wide epidemic of murder, rape, violence and poverty. The hallmarks of communist countries. 

Mandela was a convicted terrorist incarcerated for crimes not just against whites or the state, but also other blacks and opposing tribes. In any other country he would have been executed. He was not a political prisoner. He was a mass murderer.



Alkomesh2 said:


> You can't just brush off an entire system of government which subjegated people based on race as a non entity. Africans were denied the right to vote in their own land and to lauch a violent rebellion against their oppressors to gain basic citizenship rights is to be commended.


So then why were black communists killing other blacks as well? Why was necklacing a thing in Africa? Why were the ANC supported MZ killing and torturing other blacks? 

The answer is relatively simple. It was a marriage between communism and blacks masquerading as a racial war. The whites that instituted apartheid also made mistakes definitely, but their original goal was to suppress communism, which morphed into something greater as the political landscape worsened. The end result of ending apartheid was also the installation of a communist government. 

"but muh apartheid". Doesn't matter that communists have killed and starved more since then. Doesn't matter that during 1990-1994 more communist blacks killed non-communist blacks and members of other warring factions. Ya'all on the left moved on to other pet projects based on race and forgot about SA because now that apartheid has ended, you're no longer interested in talking about or learning about the government that took over.

I'm afraid that in 30 years, the children of leftists will believe that Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter fighting against American Imperialism too. No one is their own worst enemy than leftists. They really must hate their children to fill their heads with literal lies about terrorists and mass murderers.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> There may be _some _truth to ABC cancelling Last Man Standing because of Allen's recent comments about Hollywood after all.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...bcs-decision-to-cancel-last-man-standing.html
> 
> 
> 
> The cast and their recent actions seem to suggest like it was a political decision. Usually if it isn't then they try their best to take the middle road.
> 
> Prime Time show, 8 o' clock on a Friday night pulling in 8 million viewers. It doesn't make sense for someone to cancel a show that successful. I mean, if the ratings were lower, they had a legitimate excuse. But this? Why not just cancel another lower rated comedy and put this in its time slot. That would be the logical thing to do, right?


In the 18-49 Demo(aka the demo Advertisers pay for and ABC earns money from) in Live+3 it was the 3rd lowest rated sitcom on ABC and the other 2 shows below it(Dr. Ken and The Real O'Neals starring openly outspoken Liberal Martha Plimpton in a show with a liberal bent) were also cancelled.

You also add to the fact it was a 6th year show going into a 7th season(actors,producers,writers etc salary go up) it was probably costly for ABC who make 0 dollars from it's Syndicated success. Similiarly 2 other bubble shows were in this scenario, 2 Broke Girls and New Girl. 2BG was also cancelled while New Girl got a short final season order with the cast all willingly taking paycuts and the show Owner's lowering their price to Fox so the fans of the show could get a nice bow with final season closure.


Like I don't get the logic of "they cancelled it because he is Conservative" when they airred the show for 6 seasons when Tim Allen's political views were pretty well known since day 1.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> In the 18-49 Demo(aka the demo Advertisers pay for and ABC earns money from) in Live+3 it was the 3rd lowest rated sitcom on ABC and the other 2 shows below it(Dr. Ken and The Real O'Neals starring openly outspoken Liberal Martha Plimpton in a show with a liberal bent) were also cancelled.
> 
> You also add to the fact it was a 6th year show going into a 7th season(actors,producers,writers etc salary go up) it was probably costly for ABC who make 0 dollars from it's Syndicated success. Similiarly 2 other bubble shows were in this scenario, 2 Broke Girls and New Girl. 2BG was also cancelled while New Girl got a short final season order with the cast all willingly taking paycuts and the show Owner's lowering their price to Fox so the fans of the show could get a nice bow with final season closure.
> 
> 
> Like I don't get the logic of "they cancelled it because he is Conservative" when they airred the show for 6 seasons when Tim Allen's political views were pretty well known since day 1.


I didn't either but people change. 6 years ago I was a Leftist hippie who thought social welfare was a great idea and that government was fine for everybody and could be trusted and that in 30 years life as we know it would be drowned in a sea of our melted arctic ice. 6 years ago, the MSM loved Trump. 

My concern is why are the stars making a big deal of it. Also, I'm not even saying that that's why they canceled it. But why rule out the possibility?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Either Comey's memo is fake or he committed perjury. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Leftists can't even create satire that's original :kobelol 










It wasn't Mad official BTW. I believe it's fan art.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> No one is 'clamoring for Islam' FFS and there's no alliance. No one is rallying behind anything, they're questioning rejecting OTT anti-Islam commentator's tendencies to blame a whole religion's worth of people based on the actions of the extreme fringe. Maybe they're speaking up because they see incidents of assault against regular muslim Americans are on the rise because of the rise of anti-muslim sentiment in the community.
> 
> This is the height of the internet age, everyone gets criticised for fucking everything they say regardless of it's about muslims or the actors in the new Marvel movie. It's also the PC age where you can't sneeze without making sure you include everybody. These things are not exclusive to discussion about muslims.
> 
> You tend to insist on turning people who question and criticise people's blanket assumptions about muslims into 'Islam apologists' and 'Rallying behind Islam' and all that crap. How many leftists are out there in marches insisting we all convert to Sharia Law and take up Ramadan? Wouldn't that be more like 'clamoring for Islam'?
> 
> There are plenty of people who are willing to discuss intelligently with people of differing people's views of all different political sides, but they don't get noticed by the YT commentators and your Tucker Carlsons etc. It's only the idiots who spend all their time online pushing the outrage button calling everything under the sun prejudice and racist who paint the rest of the normal people with the extreme brush.


Yes they are, why do you keep denying that there is no alliance between Islam and the "Left"? Go check out any antifa or SJW nonsense and Islamophobia is on there. Bill Mahr gets bashed for even mentioning Islam, we have Islamic apologists from the "Left" on his show constantly talking about Islam and how great it is and how the critique of it is bad. 

When your Religion leads the world in terrorism and Muslim ran countries are huge violators of human rights along with misogynist doctrines there comes a time when one should reflect on the Religion they follow. YOU willingly follow a Religion, you're not born a Muslim, you can see what is going on yet most Muslims tend to simply ignore it and don't think there is a need for change. Someone should be lighting a fire under their asses because their Religion is dangerous.

Can some people take the bashing to far? Sure but the "Left" constantly wagon circles for this ideology nonstop, it's like they're followers of it themselves and it's holy and sacred. It's funny you bring up "assault against regular American muslims" is on the rise yet don't take into account the rise in false flags and outright lies on this subject. You fail to realize Linda Sarsour leads women's marches and is an advocate for Sharia, that people are trying to push the hijab on women. That nobody targets Muslim bakeries for their bigotry for not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings etc. Islam gets a pass on everything. 

I find it funny that a boy can claim they're a girl with no proof and people say that's fine yet ISIS and Islamic terrorists aren't considered "real" Islam despite following it's very doctrines. You cannot even cherry pick holy book quotes to make the Religion seem better like you can with the bible because there are none.

Is you think I'm referring to an alliance between the Left and Islam, there isn't one but the "Left" the SJW, antifa, special snowflake "Left" is in full on support of Islam in all shapes and forms, so far as to try and say hate against an ideology is the same as hating someone based on race/sexuality. It's absurd. It's absurd that a group of people would defend such a hateful ideology. It's absurd that Christianity is a valid target for any form of bigotry yet hands off Islam! It's absurd that people bend over backwards for this Religion and it's absurd that people who want Religion to end, support the most conservative and hateful Religion around to exist. How can one bitch about bible thumpers when people are beheaded for fucking blasphemy in Muslim ran countries?


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Apparently you glossed over the fact that much of the violence perpetrated by Mandela and his cronies was based on killing and torturing blacks of other tribes. But I'm not surpried. That's a part of revisionist history taught by pro-socialist whites in white schools in order to hide the true intent of Mandela and his political motivations.
> 
> And no, Apartheid was not bad enough to justify violence. Apartheid was bad. But it was not bad enough to justify any of Mandela's terrorism against whites and blacks who opposed communism.
> 
> Apartheid was non-violent segregation based on the very real fear of communists overthrowing the government. It was part of the Red Scare that enveloped the entire west but it got a racial undertone in Africa because it so happened that the majority of communists were using racial unity to create coalitions of communist blacks ... Which is why there was significant black on black violence in Africa as well - as non-communist/pro-capitalist blacks were hunted down, tortured and killed. African Tribal violence was similar to the tribal violence you see in Muslim countries where different groups absolutely abhor each other.
> 
> The way the National Party of SA responded to the growing wave of this marriage between blacks and communism was definitely wrong. You won't get a disagreement from me on that.
> 
> However, the goal of the ANC and Nelson Mandela was never to free the blacks from this segregation but rather to force a communist regime in Africa which now the ANC is slowly but surely putting in place. You have a dying economy with near terrible inflation, not enough food, farmer genocide, rape and murder gangs, and a country-wide epidemic of murder, rape, violence and poverty. The hallmarks of communist countries.
> 
> Mandela was a convicted terrorist incarcerated for crimes not just against whites or the state, but also other blacks and opposing tribes. In any other country he would have been executed. He was not a political prisoner. He was a mass murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> So then why were black communists killing other blacks as well? Why was necklacing a thing in Africa? Why were the ANC supported MZ killing and torturing other blacks?
> 
> The answer is relatively simple. It was a marriage between communism and blacks masquerading as a racial war. The whites that instituted apartheid also made mistakes definitely, but their original goal was to suppress communism, which morphed into something greater as the political landscape worsened. The end result of ending apartheid was also the installation of a communist government.
> 
> "but muh apartheid". Doesn't matter that communists have killed and starved more since then. Doesn't matter that during 1990-1994 more communist blacks killed non-communist blacks and members of other warring factions. Ya'all on the left moved on to other pet projects based on race and forgot about SA because now that apartheid has ended, you're no longer interested in talking about or learning about the government that took over.
> 
> I'm afraid that in 30 years, the children of leftists will believe that Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter fighting against American Imperialism too. No one is their own worst enemy than leftists. They really must hate their children to fill their heads with literal lies about terrorists and mass murderers.


Non-Trump related, and I actually find this post extremely intriguing and will certainly be doing my research, but thoughts on the IRA?

I know Trump himself got on with Gerry Adams.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^I wish I knew more about the IRA. Perhaps it'll be my next project. Spent today on South Africa.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> ^I wish I knew more about the IRA. Perhaps it'll be my next project. Spent today on South Africa.


You should. I'd say it'd be an intriguing and interesting topic for anyone outside of Northern Ireland/Ireland/UK etc. I just brought them up mainly because many of them are described as "freedom fighters" (especially Bobby Sands/the hunger strikers) amongst people (primarily those of Catholic faith or Irish) yet are absolutely despised by Unionists, people of Protestant faith, the shitehole area where I live, etc. because they murdered people. Big debate when Martin McGuinness died there recently as it brought memories of 'The Troubles' back up. At the same time, the British Army also murdered innocent people on the Irish side. 'Bloody Sunday' would describe that a lot.

Anyways, I'm babbling  just thought I'd ask due to the whole freedom fighter stuff and I like hearing your thoughts, opinions, and so on even though I'm left-leaning (though open to discussion, debate, changing my mind on a few things etc.). I know Trump got on friendly with Gerry Adams (who's always denied being part of the IRA, which is total bullshit and is often something joked about - even by past members of the Sinn Fein party - and also, the evidence is there) and all that about him attending a Sinn Fein fundraiser (when they were with the IRA) got brought up there a while back.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nths-before-ira-attacked-london-a6767601.html

At the same time though, he got on with Ian Paisley too. (really fought against the IRA, before striking an unlikely friendship with the man he once loathed, Martin McGuiness haha). 



















http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-nothing-to-prove-to-each-other-35203105.html

I believe they talked about the importance of prayer or something due to each person's Christian faith (Trump included). As much as I despise the DUP and Paisley Jnr's anti-gay and anti-Irish views, his father is someone I'll always respect, especially as he visited my dying grandmother during the last few days of her life as she suffered from terminal cancer. Was a lovely man too, even if we did have differing views. Paisley Jnr too.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't IRA kind of fall apart when they realized that running guns and drugs and keeping the money was more fun than running guns and drugs and trying to finance an uprising 

I mostly note the IRA for the only people to use AR-18s in large amounts, 

its kind of fun when your signature gun is a flop, its like being a terrorist hipster "We use the AR-18, you probably never heard of it"


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thoroughly enjoyed both of those articles, @CamillePunk. Thank you for sharing with the class! 

:lol at the RT one in particular.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865258751363735552


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Former Vice President Joe Biden reportedly slammed failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a speech in Las Vegas on Thursday.
> 
> Biden's characterization of Clinton as the wrong candidate came while speaking at the SkyBridge Capital event according to the Huffington Post.
> 
> While discussing Clinton's 2016 candidacy, Biden told the crowd, "I never thought she was the correct candidate. I thought I was the correct candidate," according to a tweet from Fusion reporter Hamilton Nolan.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Hamilton Nolan @hamiltonnolan
> Joe Biden on Hillary: "I never thought she was the correct candidate. I thought I was the correct candidate."
> 8:18 PM - 18 May 2017
> 663 663 Retweets 1,753 1,753 likes
> Twitter Ads info & Privacy
> The audience reportedly applauded at the line attacking Clinton.
> 
> Biden also refused to rule out his own presidential bid in 2020. "Could I run? Yes. Will I? Probably not but—I may very well do it," he said according to a separate tweet.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Robert Wolf ✔ @robertwolf32
> #2020? @SALTConference @JoeBiden is asked about running for President "Could I run- yes- will I- probably not but....I may very well do it"
> 8:28 PM - 18 May 2017
> 61 61 Retweets 92 92 likes
> Twitter Ads info & Privacy
> Biden added that Obama never had any scandals.
> 
> Follow
> Matt Egan ✔ @MattMEgan5
> Without mentioning Trump's scandals, Biden says Obama White House didn't have 'a single scandal in 8 years. Not one.' #SALT2017
> 8:12 PM - 18 May 2017
> 2 2 Retweets likes
> Twitter Ads info & Privacy
> This is not the first shot at the former secretary of state from Biden.
> 
> In March he appeared to attack Clinton for ignoring the middle class during the election saying, "This is the first campaign that I can recall where my party did not talk about what it always stood for, and that is how to maintain a burgeoning middle class."
> 
> Clinton's defeat at the hands of Donald Trump surprised many in the media, as polling had consistently shown her with a lead heading into November.


http://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-clinton-never-thought-correct-candidate/



> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has missed the May 15 deadline for disclosing his 2016 finances. Senators in the U.S. are required to file disclosures with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics on a yearly basis.
> Sanders was granted a 20-day extension, while Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) filed his disclosures on time, according to New Hampshire newspaper Valley News.
> Three of Sanders' spokespeople were contacted by phone and email by Valley News. They did not respond to inquiries about why Sanders needed the extension.
> The Center for Public Integrity wrote in a 2016 article that Sanders was evading disclosures by working the system during his presidential campaign:
> Sanders expertly exploited a system that effectively allowed him to delay, delay, delay — all while he chided Clinton receipt of six-figure paydays for delivering closed-door speeches to officials at investment bank Goldman Sachs and other powerful special interests [...] Voters couldn't definitively know whether Sanders — historically one of the Senate's least wealthy members — suddenly parlayed his political fame into personal profit. Or, for that matter, whether he sustained financial distress.
> Burlington College controversy continues
> 
> Questions about Sanders' financial practices extend to his wife as well. According to the Hill, multiple reports are emerging that Jane Sanders is under FBI investigation amid accusations of improper financial conduct during her time as president of Burlington College.
> VTDigger, an independent, investigative news organization in Vermont under the Vermont Journalism Trust, asked Sanders in April if she had been contacted by the FBI or the U.S. attorney for Vermont amid the investigation into Burlington College. She refused to comment.
> Sen. Sanders cut off a local WCAX television interviewer trying to ask if he'd used improper influence with People's United Bank to secure a loan for Burlington College. Sanders said it would be "improper" to discuss the matter and insinuated that the allegations are political in nature.


https://archive.fo/ipf7w#selection-631.0-2132.0
So, who has problems with taxed now Bernie?


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Iconoclast @Tater @InUtero @Miss Sally @Pratchett

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...deal-sale-arab-nato-gulf-states-a7741836.html



> Donald Trump will use his upcoming Saudi Arabia trip to announce one of the largest arms sales deals in US history - somewhere in the neighbouhood of $98bn to $128bn worth of arms. That could add up to $350bn over ten years.
> 
> The deal will be what the Washington Post said is a “cornerstone” of the proposal encouraging the Gulf states to form its own alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) military alliance, dubbed “Arab Nato."
> 
> Nato is comprised of 28 countries including the US. Mr Trump been an outspoken critic of the organisation but after a face-to-face meeting with Nato Secretary General Jens Stollenberg, he said the alliance was "no longer obsolete."
> 
> The White House said the president will propose it as a template for an alliance that will fight terrorism and keep Iran in check.
> 
> Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began negotiations on this deal shortly after the 2016 US election when he sent a delegation to Trump Tower to meet with the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is serving as a senior advisor of sorts to Mr Trump.
> 
> The idea of an Arab Nato is not new.
> 
> There was talk in 2015 of a “response force” in Egypt, comprised of approximately 40,000 troops from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and a few other Gulf nations.
> 
> The “response force” would have had a Nato-like command structure, with soldiers paid for by their own countries and the Gulf Cooperation Council made up of wealthy oil economies finance operations and management of the force.
> 
> However, intra-regional tensions and centuries-old disputes prevented it from ever being established.
> 
> The Trump administration has not addressed that problem as yet, but the “America First” doctrine seems to be driving the arms deal and proposal.
> 
> More American involvement, a more entrenched Nato-like military structure, and increased professional capability to match Nato forces may come about in the new Arab Nato alliance in part due to the motivation of Saudi Arabia.
> 
> President Barack Obama's administration brokered more arms sales than any US administration since World War II - estimated at $200bn. They sold Saudi Arabia alone $60bn in arms, which sparked criticism by Democrats concerned with Saudi Arabia's alleged human rights violations.
> 
> Mr Trump benefits by bringing about a more “fair” deal; he has claimed several times that Nato is unfair to the US because of the amount of contributions and support provided by the US compared to countries like Germany.
> 
> If Arab Nato succeeds, the White House official said the US could shift the responsibility for security to those in the region and create jobs at home through the arms sales.
> 
> Mr Trump is set to arrive in Riyadh on 20 May after which he will travel to Israel, the Vatican, and Italy for the group of seven meeting.


So not only is he now not against NATO but he has proposed a new Arab Nato (have no idea what to make of that) as well as supplying the Saudi's with EVEN MORE ARMS. $350 Billion over the next ten years.

Yeah, this isn't even close to forgivable in my opinion.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hey, if this causes the pro-Obama pro-war left into criticizing America's foreign policy just because now Trump's white face is on it .... It's the only positive I can take out of it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Saudi Arabia is an extremely shady actor, disavow this move completely. Indeed, Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East has been rather poor thus far, although not nearly as bad as Clinton's plan to shoot down Russian planes in Syria. I will give him positive marks for his dealings with Russia and China, and obviously those relationships are the most important in preventing a world war.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> I'm never offended by any of the many posts bemoaning "right-wing" this or "rightist" that because I don't view the political axis through the overfamiliar lens of left vs. right, strictly speaking, though yes there are obviously leftist and rightist ideologies and characteristics, as was being discussed between *birthday_massacre* and *Iconoclast*, and secondly because *many right-wingers are dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks* whose American stand-ins typically speak incessantly of "muh freedom" and "muh constitution" even though the Constitution as it's known was long-ago chiefly hijacked as a weapon of their most avowed enemies, those who are continuing their own revolution.


Let's be fair now. There are plenty of "leftists" who make the box of rocks look intelligent by comparison. If we're being honest, there are a bunch of fucking retards on all 4 corners of the political spectrum and that's mainly because they do not understand what political ideology actually means. Even when I disagree with someone, at least if they are someone like you, they know what the fuck they are talking about and can adequately explain their position. Even in disagreement, I can appreciate an intelligent position.



Miss Sally said:


> When you have SJWs, College Professors and Politicians from the "Left" clamoring for Islam, calling anyone who criticizes Islam as "Racist" as opposed to "Religious Bigot" (Even this is a far stretch as the Left has been attacking Religion for years with no real consequence.) then there is a case for a Political alliance between the "Left" and Islam.
> 
> Men like Dawkins and Hitchens were attacked for attacking Islam while sung as folk heroes for their attacking of Christianity. Even if there is no direct alliance, a bias is present. When Islam gets it's hooks into nearly every protest and makes it seem as though speaking against it is as speaking against a race of people one should see this as a huge warning sign. If a person cannot point out the flaws and the real dangers of an ideology then we should all be very worried.
> 
> Leftists that do speak out against Islam are attacked by their very own for doing so. Bill Mahr whom I'm not a huge fan of gets attacked often. I'm quite certain that Sam Bee and Colbert who are media darlings right now would be slammed for making any anti-Islamic sentiment or even pointing out major flaws. The "Left" has done a wonderful job of policing the media, college campuses and their own side to the point that Liberals have no real home.
> 
> It's odd that people who value freedom, education and "progressive" movement would rally behind such a disgusting far-far-right backwards ideology such as Islam.


As a far leftist (libertarian), I've never understood how anyone who claims to be on the left could ever come out in support of Islam. My corner of the left is supposed to be opposed to all forms of establishment religion. Even the authoritarian left, which I am not overly fond of either, are big government statists. How support of any organized religion fits into that ideology is beyond me.



L-DOPA said:


> So not only is he now not against NATO but he has proposed a new Arab Nato (have no idea what to make of that) as well as supplying the Saudi's with EVEN MORE ARMS. $350 Billion over the next ten years.
> 
> Yeah, this isn't even close to forgivable in my opinion.


Is it safe now for me to say I told ya so? Not you specifically but everyone in here in general. I was posting articles 10 months ago about how if Trump got elected, he would be a puppet of the Establishment and the military industrial complex. This is not a defense of Hillary because we know for sure how much of a fucking war mongering psycho she is. Point being, we, as Americans, have no option of voting against war.

You've gotta be extra special retarded to believe the MSM war propaganda about how we are supposedly doing this for humanitarian reasons or to fight radical Islam. Saudi Arabia, as Kyle puts it, is ISIS that made it. There is no better example of United States hypocrisy then their support for the Saudis.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Resumes mending fences with Russia by firing Comey and calling him a nut job in order to put this wild goose chase to bed.

______________________________________________________________________________________










Sells a fuckton of weapons to one of the worst shitholes on Earth and mentioned the idea of an Arab NATO.

Fucking hell, Donald. :kobelol


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm just going to post this here because Jimmy was on fucking fire with this video. He does a great job of pointing out the insane hypocrisy of USA foreign policy.






I'm going to post this too because even though I usually disagree with him on economic policy, I'm still a huge fan of Ron Paul. He always nails it on foreign policy and I respect his principled small government conservative positions.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I can't believe Trump is considering Joe Lieberman as the FBI director, I think every Trump supporter has been duped....


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The world known by Richard Nixon, his Treasury Secretary William Simon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is markedly different today, but one common theme persists, which is the U.S.'s precarious petrodollar situation. Simon's U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Gerry Parsky, noted that Nixon told him and Simon that failure was not an option in securing the deal by which the Americans could continue to spend and spend, and Kissinger had convinced Nixon that, with the Yom Kippur War and ramifications thereof stemming from the U.S.'s support for Israel (Nixon essentially saved the Israelis from becoming overwhelmed), the Arab world was looking at the U.S. through a newly cynical and even loathsome lens, and were the Americans to fail to step up in Saudi Arabia further Soviet influence in that part of the world would increase dramatically, with the battle lines drawn coming out of the OPEC embargo on the Americans following the military aid to Israel. U.S. dollar inflation was skyrocketing at that time and the U.S. stock market was hemorrhaging losses, in part due to the one major political catastrophe after another that had beset the U.S. for the better part of two years (Nixon had also cynically manipulated Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur F. Burns to "prime the pump" by easing credit through 1972 to make conditions for his reelection nearly optimal, a practice revisited by the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama to lesser degrees, but inflation was a consequence of such action among others including the removal of the gold standard for the U.S. dollar which is a complex story unto itself).

The U.S. made the conditions plain to the Saudis: the Americans would buy oil from Saudi Arabia, providing the theocratic kingdom with exorbitant military aid and equipment. The Saudis would funnel billions upon billions of their petrodollar-derived revenue largesse back into U.S. Treasuries, thereby financing America's scheme of ever-increasing spending. King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud demanded the caveat that the Saudis' Treasury purchases remain "strictly secret."

That secret was kept for a long time, but Freedom-of-Information-Act requests broke the dam open, so to speak. What was revealed to be a $117 billion "trove" of sorts makes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia one of the U.S.'s most significant and enduring foreign creditors. Of course that number--$117 billion--has been argued to drastically understate and underestimate exactly the voluminous amounts which have represented the Saudis' investments in the colossally metastasizing U.S. government debt, with several former Treasury Department agents and bureaucrats arguing that the actual number is probably at least double the released amount, and possibly considerably more than that tally. 

The amount released would symbolize a mere one-fifth or 20% of the U.S.'s nearly $600 billion of foreign reserves, which would be considerably below the two-thirds that the average central bank holds in U.S. dollar assets. It is rather likely that the Saudis have been camouflaging their U.S. debt holdings by accumulating Treasuries through a myriad network of financial centers, fudging the data and making the kingdom's investment appear wildly more diversified than it actually is. 

One may recall that under the heat of investigations and the threat by members of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation allowing American citizens to sue the Saudi kingdom, holding the Saudis directly liable in American courts for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Saudis delivered the counter threat that they would begin selling as much as $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries and a panoply of other U.S.-derived assets should the U.S. Congress forget by whom their bread was being buttered. Donald Trump and even other presidential candidates argued on behalf of declassifying the 28-page section of the U.S. government's 2004 report that is widely believed (it's more of an open secret) to implicate at least major powers within the Saudi government's hierarchy in being involved in the funding of and even training for the 9/11 attacks.

The U.S.'s chief consideration among a number of others is to preserve the petrodollar system for as long as possible. When one looks at the U.S. budget and the 80,000+ pages to the _Federal Register_, it becomes plain to see that at some point the rubber band is going to snap, in some way or another. By 2030, due to the exploding costs of the welfare state's twin leviathans Social Security and particularly Medicare, the U.S. budget's percentage carved out for discretionary spending is believed to hit the record-low number of 10-12%. Politics is going to become an ever-expanding and inconsequential shell game of sorts because the federal government will be incapable of delivering new programs with discretionary spending so low, and due to the fact that no one in a position to do so will entertain the idea of halving the Pentagon's budget or beginning the orderly reappraisal of the U.S. imperium abroad. 

This may make it sound like I am giving a plethora of excuses on behalf of Donald Trump and his moves vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, however, I am hoping that that he at least recognizes the thorny thicket before him, maintained and grown by one U.S. presidency after another for decades. The U.S. is on the long road to a reckoning and perhaps all that Trump can be realistically hoped to do is make it as padded and painless as possible.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





*It was great to see Stephen A. Smith go on Fox News and clown the retards who sit up there and shout "FAKE NEWS!" all day while offering no counterargument to valid concerns from the general public.*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> As a far leftist (libertarian), I've never understood how anyone who claims to be on the left could ever come out in support of Islam. My corner of the left is supposed to be opposed to all forms of establishment religion. Even the authoritarian left, which I am not overly fond of either, are big government statists. How support of any organized religion fits into that ideology is beyond me.


Control. Stalin was against religion until he realized how effective a tool of control it was and let the churches come back



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Resumes mending fences with Russia by firing Comey and calling him a nut job in order to put this wild goose chase to bed.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sells a fuckton of weapons to one of the worst shitholes on Earth and mentioned the idea of an Arab NATO.
> 
> Fucking hell, Donald. :kobelol


To quote Joe Pesci's character in JFK: Its fun and games man. Fun and games


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mra22 said:


> I can't believe Trump is considering Joe Lieberman as the FBI director, I think every Trump supporter has been duped....


Are you just figuring this out now?

Tried to warn you. More and more people will see this as time goes on and Trump keeps imploding.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> To quote Joe Pesci's character in JFK: Its fun and games man. Fun and games


He's truly living up to his ABSOLUTE MADMAN maymay. :hayden3

Now if only he could fire Kushner... :hmm


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In any case, while it's not what I was expecting from Trump and was hoping for a change, the fact that the foreign policy hasn't changed with SA doesn't break an already broken situation nor make a worsening situation any worse in the short term. 

America has been in bed with the Saudis since the 30s. This is not going to change soon. The thing I feel is that America is still too afraid to become independent on its oil resources and that does surprise me significantly as we're almost there. 

Trump carrying forward all the Democrat policies is essentially a step in the wrong direction... But not one that would have changed if a democratic government was in place. 

The thing for Trump supporters here is still an overall net positive over a democratic government and that's really all that matters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> In any case, while it's not what I was expecting from Trump and was hoping for a change, the fact that the foreign policy hasn't changed with SA doesn't break an already broken situation nor make a worsening situation any worse in the short term.
> 
> America has been in bed with the Saudis since the 30s. This is not going to change soon. The thing I feel is that America is still too afraid to become independent on its oil resources and that does surprise me significantly as we're almost there.
> 
> Trump carrying forward all the Democrat policies is essentially a step in the wrong direction... But not one that would have changed if a democratic government was in place.
> 
> The thing for Trump supporters here is still an overall net positive over a democratic government and that's really all that matters.


yeah, really a net positive the middle class or lower classes will get poorer and shittier medical insurance under Trump.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Quick question(s) for the brain trust here. With all these trending "reports" of Kushner being the current target in the investigation, should he be found "guilty" what implications does that have going forward? I'm assuming any punishment would be levelled at him personally and not Trump/the administration? And is it as big a deal as social media and reactions would suggest?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Quick question(s) for the brain trust here. With all these trending "reports" of Kushner being the current target in the investigation, should he be found "guilty" what implications does that have going forward? I'm assuming any punishment would be levelled at him personally and not Trump/the administration? And is it as big a deal as social media and reactions would suggest?


If the media says that anything in the Trump administration is illegal at this point, it's a bit of news targeted at brain dead Democrats and foreigners who believe anything at this point. 

I'm sure we'll have news tomorrow that Trump did something illegal by putting his socks on inside out.

It's targeted at brain dead hystericals who should not be be taken seriously.

For example Huffpo is trying to convince its readers now that the Saudi deal is illegal.

They have too many ignorant fucks believing everything they say.

There's no illegal activity. If there was it would be out by now. Let it go.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





This woman is nuts


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Quick question(s) for the brain trust here. With all these trending "reports" of Kushner being the current target in the investigation, should he be found "guilty" what implications does that have going forward? I'm assuming any punishment would be levelled at him personally and not Trump/the administration? And is it as big a deal as social media and reactions would suggest?


Kushner is shady as fuck, honestly I'd love to see him fired and barred from the WH.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Quick question(s) for the brain trust here. With all these trending "reports" of Kushner being the current target in the investigation, should he be found "guilty" what implications does that have going forward? I'm assuming any punishment would be levelled at him personally and not Trump/the administration? And is it as big a deal as social media and reactions would suggest?


He is a part of the Trump admin, it should tie back to Trump. But of course Trump supporters will pretend Trump was not aware which will be hilarious.

Trump knew Flynn was dirty and he did not care. Trump still wants Flynn back.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> If the media says that anything in the Trump administration is illegal at this point, it's a bit of news targeted at brain dead Democrats and foreigners who believe anything at this point.
> 
> I'm sure we'll have news tomorrow that Trump did something illegal by putting his socks on inside out.
> 
> It's targeted at brain dead hystericals who should not be be taken seriously.
> 
> For example Huffpo is trying to convince its readers now that the Saudi deal is illegal.
> 
> They have too many ignorant fucks believing everything they say.
> 
> There's no illegal activity. If there was it would be out by now. Let it go.


I'm not sure how that answered my question tbh dude. I wasn't asking "did Kushner do something illegal" I was asking "if Kushner is found to have done something illegal from this investigation, what implications would that have for the administration going forward?" Basically I'm wondering how this current witch hunt would achieve their goal of dethroning Trump? Seems to me like if Kushner did something wrong without Trump's knowledge it would be irrelevant to Trump in the long run despite maybe some embarrassment that someone in his circle fucked up I guess.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not sure how that answered my question tbh dude. I wasn't asking "did Kushner do something illegal" I was asking "if Kushner is found to have done something illegal from this investigation, what implications would that have for the administration going forward?" Basically I'm wondering how this current witch hunt would achieve their goal of dethroning Trump? Seems to me like if Kushner did something wrong without Trump's knowledge it would be irrelevant to Trump in the long run despite maybe some embarrassment that someone in his circle fucked up I guess.


I don't know. This question had the same value as asking whether Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. And what would that have meant if it was true. 

What would it have meant if we find out Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian? I mean there's no harm in asking questions.

You can ask all kinds of questions and talk about their implications. Sure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not sure how that answered my question tbh dude. I wasn't asking "did Kushner do something illegal" I was asking "if Kushner is found to have done something illegal from this investigation, what implications would that have for the administration going forward?" Basically I'm wondering how this current witch hunt would achieve their goal of dethroning Trump? Seems to me like if Kushner did something wrong without Trump's knowledge it would be irrelevant to Trump in the long run despite maybe some embarrassment that someone in his circle fucked up I guess.


Like Trump would not know what he is doing. It just so happens that all the people Trump hired just so happen to have all these illegal ties yet you don't think Trump was aware?

He was told about Flynn yet he did not care. Kushner is his son in law, like Trump would not know what he was doing. 

Its not just one person tried has in his camp that has this illegal ties , its multiple.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not sure how that answered my question tbh dude. I wasn't asking "did Kushner do something illegal" I was asking "if Kushner is found to have done something illegal from this investigation, what implications would that have for the administration going forward?" *Basically I'm wondering how this current witch hunt would achieve their goal of dethroning Trump?* Seems to me like if Kushner did something wrong without Trump's knowledge it would be irrelevant to Trump in the long run despite maybe some embarrassment that someone in his circle fucked up I guess.


For Kushner, it's tough to say exactly.

As for the witch hunt trying to dethrone Trump: even if he were to ever get impeached, he's not getting removed from office. It would take something truly egregious/heinous for a GOP Congress to flip on him.

Imagine the meltdown and outrage to be had if he gets impeached but not removed. It would rival the days following the election.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I don't know. This question had the same value as asking whether Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. And what would that have meant if it was true.
> 
> What would it have meant if we find out Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian? I mean there's no harm in asking questions.
> 
> You can ask all kinds of questions and talk about their implications. Sure.


Except the Queen was never investigated by MI5 under rumours of reptilian ancestry as far as I'm aware. All I'm looking for is a general idea on what the letter of the law out there is in the event of a member of the president's "inner circle" colluding with foreign powers during an election tbh. The very fact that the FBI are investigating makes your comparisons a little off-base don't you think? Or is it fake news I'm seeing that there's an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia, the former FBI head appointed as a special counsel and multiple news outlets from around the world reporting that Kushner's named as a target?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> For Kushner, it's tough to say exactly.
> 
> As for the MSM trying to dethrone Trump: even if he were to ever get impeached, he's not getting removed from office. It would take something truly egregious/heinous for a GOP Congress to flip on him.
> 
> Imagine the meltdown and outrage to be had if he gets impeached but not removed. It would rival the days following the election.


If the GOP thinks they will all lose their sets because of Trump, you dont think that would get them to flip?

And again Trump would not get impeached, he would resign before that happened, just claiming he is tired of this BS to save face.





RavishingRickRules said:


> Except the Queen was never investigated by MI5 under rumours of reptilian ancestry as far as I'm aware. All I'm looking for is a general idea on what the letter of the law out there is in the event of a member of the president's "inner circle" colluding with foreign powers during an election tbh. The very fact that the FBI are investigating makes your comparisons a little off-base don't you think? Or is it fake news I'm seeing that there's an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia, the former FBI head appointed as a special counsel and multiple news outlets from around the world reporting that Kushner's named as a target?


The other caveat to your example is that Kushner is Trumps son in law, so if Kushner is connected, its going to look even worse for Trump since they are related.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Except the Queen was never investigated by MI5 under rumours of reptilian ancestry as far as I'm aware. All I'm looking for is a general idea on what the letter of the law out there is in the event of a member of the president's "inner circle" colluding with foreign powers during an election tbh. The very fact that the FBI are investigating makes your comparisons a little off-base don't you think? Or is it fake news I'm seeing that there's an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia, the former FBI head appointed as a special counsel and multiple news outlets from around the world reporting that Kushner's named as a target?


The original source never named Kushner as a person of interest. It said that the unnamed source said things that matched the description of someone that may be Kushner.

You guys are being led around like lemmings.

This is way too much fun :kobelol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> For Kushner, it's tough to say exactly.
> 
> As for the witch hunt trying to dethrone Trump: even if he were to ever get impeached, he's not getting removed from office. It would take something truly egregious/heinous for a GOP Congress to flip on him.
> 
> Imagine the meltdown and outrage to be had if he gets impeached but not removed. It would rival the days following the election.


I'm just trying to join the dots between "prove Kushner did something wrong" and "bye bye Trump." Seems like a massive reach to me but I'm not American so I'm not clued up on US Law, hence asking the question in the first place lol.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The original source never named Kushner as a person of interest. It said that the unnamed source said things that matched the description of someone that may be Kushner.
> 
> You guys are being led around like lemmings.
> 
> This is way too much fun :kobelol


I'm not being "lead" at all, hence asking questions from people closer to the situation with more information or did you miss that whilst you were swivelling on that pedestal you like to place yourself on? You need to stop reacting like everyone is your enemy tbh, at times it's kinda weird, especially when somebody is simply asking for more information because they're well aware how unreliable the media is  .


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If the GOP thinks they will all lose their sets because of Trump, you dont think that would get them to flip?
> 
> And again Trump would not get impeached, he would resign before that happened, just claiming he is tired of this BS to save face.


Nope. Not yet, at least. 

Not that I put too much stock into polls, but I read earlier in the week that, despite Trump's overall approval rating being in the 30%'s, his approval rating among Republicans is almost 80%. 

If they were to bail on him it would be bad business for the GOP going forward. There will be a fuck ton of angry Trump voters who they seriously risk alienating.

and I disagree about Trump resigning (unless he knows he's 100% fucked and can't recover, which is a scenario you're probably speaking to tbh). His hubris and his loyalty to his supporters will prevent him from doing it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not being "lead" at all, hence asking questions from people closer to the situation with more information or did you miss that whilst you were swivelling on that pedestal you like to place yourself on? You need to stop reacting like everyone is your enemy tbh, at times it's kinda weird, especially when somebody is simply asking for more information because they're well aware how unreliable the media is  .


You're not being led around and yet you frame your question based on the assumption that Kushner is being investigated when none of the sources can even confirm that he's really being investigated.

That's why I'm ridiculing your question. 

If the media is indeed unreliable then does that not mean that the discussion should be about the reliability of the report as opposed to jumping to "what of he's guilty".

It's just jumping the gun as always.

And frankly this sort of thing after being consistently debunked for 6 months. Every single thing the media has cooked up for more than 6 months has been debunked. 

It gets tiresome to see new people fall for the same old shit over and over again. 

Of course. You guys will circle jerk for a few days get bored. Forget that there was ever a story and find the next thing and fall off that cliff.

Hence the lemmings comment. 

Enjoy theorizing though.

Mt frustration isn't over Trump. My frustration is over the generalized lack of skeptism amongst people overall over a great many things. It's part of a growing number of people who are just refusing to be skeptics.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Control. Stalin was against religion until he realized how effective a tool of control it was and let the churches come back


Well, you're not wrong. Religion is most certainly a mechanism of control.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Nope. Not yet, at least.
> 
> Not that I put too much stock into polls, but I read earlier in the week that, despite Trump's overall approval rating being in the 30%'s, his approval rating among Republicans is almost 80%.
> 
> If they were to bail on him it would be bad business for the GOP going forward. There will be a fuck ton of angry Trump voters who they seriously risk alienating.
> 
> and I disagree about Trump resigning (unless he knows he's 100% fucked and can't recover, which is a scenario you're probably speaking to tbh). His hubris and his loyalty to his supporters will prevent him form doing it.


Its in decline for republcans.

It was 80% just last week but now its down to 75% and dropping


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You're not being led around and yet you frame your question based on the assumption that Kushner is being investigated when none of the sources can even confirm that he's really being investigated.
> 
> That's why I'm ridiculing your question.
> 
> If the media is indeed unreliable then does that not mean that the discussion should be about the reliability of the report as opposed to jumping to "what of he's guilty".
> 
> It's just jumping the gun as always.
> 
> And frankly this sort of thing after being consistently debunked for 6 months. Every single thing the media has cooked up for more than 6 months has been debunked.
> 
> It gets tiresome to see new people fall for the same old shit over and over again.
> 
> Of course. You guys will circle jerk for a few days get bored. Forget that there was ever a story and find the next thing and fall off that cliff.
> 
> Hence the lemmings comment.
> 
> Enjoy theorizing though.


Again with the passive aggressiveness, it's actually quite cute. I have nothing to "circle jerk" over, I'm simply looking for more information about a situation that people are going nuts over at the moment. I'm also not theorising anything, if anything I'm trying to understand exactly why so many Trump haters on social media are elated over the news when it doesn't seem to pertain directly to the man himself. Our entire political and legal system is different, all I was looking for was a basic "if someone was found guilty of that, x would happen." I should've known it would've turned into a typical superiority-complex bullshit response with no worthwhile information and a lot of posturing about how "intelligent" some people think they are (without realising how much of a child they look most of the time.) My mistake, carry on.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its in decline for republcans.
> 
> It was 80% just last week but now its down to 75% and dropping


If I'm being honest, given the number that has been done over the last few days, I am surprised it only fell 5%.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You're not being led around and yet you frame your question based on the assumption that Kushner is being investigated when none of the sources can even confirm that he's really being investigated.
> 
> That's why I'm ridiculing your question.
> 
> If the media is indeed unreliable then does that not mean that the discussion should be about the reliability of the report as opposed to jumping to "what of he's guilty".
> 
> It's just jumping the gun as always.
> 
> And frankly this sort of thing after being consistently debunked for 6 months. Every single thing the media has cooked up for more than 6 months has been debunked.
> 
> It gets tiresome to see new people fall for the same old shit over and over again.
> 
> Of course. You guys will circle jerk for a few days get bored. Forget that there was ever a story and find the next thing and fall off that cliff.
> 
> Hence the lemmings comment.
> 
> Enjoy theorizing though.
> 
> Mt frustration isn't over Trump. My frustration is over the generalized lack of skeptism amongst people overall over a great many things. It's part of a growing number of people who are just refusing to be skeptics.


I love how you can lie to yourself and pretend what you say is the truth.

Most of the stuff being said about Trump and his admin comes to be true. Like Trump giving Russia classified info. 

You can't even be honest with this stuff.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Anti Trump news is the leftists new dopamine. That's all it is.

They can make up anything they want and have been doing it for months. 

Some people are addicted.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> If I'm being honest, given the number that has been done over the last few days, I am surprised it only fell 5%.


Give it another week to see if what happened this week will really affect him. The polls usually take a week to reflect what is going on.



Iconoclast said:


> Anti Trump news is the leftists new dopamine. That's all it is.
> 
> They can make up anything they want and have been doing it for months.
> 
> Some people are addicted.


LOL There is a thing called the internet people can see the truth for themselves and know what you are claiming is BS.

but keep denying the truth. That is why Trump loves supporters like you


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you can lie to yourself and pretend what you say is the truth.
> 
> Most of the stuff being said about Trump and his admin comes to be true. Like Trump giving Russia classified info.
> 
> You can't even be honest with this stuff.


And yet you couldn't name a single person that actually said that that one was fake news.

You're one of those anti Trump news crack addicts. You ight as well start shooting up heroin because once this campaign trail ends you'll miss the daily dopamine fix.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And yet you couldn't name a single person that actually said that that one was fake news.
> 
> You're one of those anti Trump news crack addicts. You ight as well start shooting up heroin because once this campaign trail ends you'll miss the daily dopamine fix.


Keep ignoring the facts all you want, what ever makes you sleep at night in your little Trump world. Must be nice in your fantasy land.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Give it another week to see if what happened this week will really affect him. The polls usually take a week to reflect what is going on.


Caught me after my edit lel

That's fair enough; all I'm saying is I don't see a GOP Congress flipping on him unless their hand is practically forced. 

In the back of their minds, they know if they flip on Trump, they can for certain kiss the WH goodbye on January 20, 2021.


----------



## glenwo2

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

OMG!! TRUMP TO RESIGN MONDAY????? - #Leftistwishfulthinking


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring the facts all you want, what ever makes you sleep at night in your little Trump world. Must be nice in your fantasy land.


You keep using the word fact. Add that to the list of words you have no idea what they mean. 

You don't even know how to read someone's post where they clearly say that they will change their mind if evidence presents itself to mean that they're denying the report completely.

You think that talking friend of a friend of a friend of a Russian means Trump is already guilty. You believe that settling is admission of guilt. 

Your standards of evidence are incredibly low. 

If you claim something as a fact, it should automatically be assumed to not be one.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Give it another week to see if what happened this week will really affect him. The polls usually take a week to reflect what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL There is a thing called the internet people can see the truth for themselves and know what you are claiming is BS.
> 
> but keep denying the truth. That is why Trump loves supporters like you


What I'm claiming is that there is a single reporter that said that someone told him that someone close to Trump is being investigated. Then some other reporter tweeted that 4 of his sources claimed that it was Jared Kushner. 

If that is evidence to you and your fellow leftists then I'm sorry this country really is going to hell in a handbasket if Democrats ever come back into power.

The problem here is that this may turn out to be right. I'm not going to deny that. However this doesn't mean that due diligence was done before the news was spread across the crack addicted circle. 

The issue I have is with jumping the gun and spreading hysteria across your circles. 

I mean you're the kind of person that thinks that someone being investigated already means they're guilty. Your standards are incredibly low at this point. 

You just want that gotcha moment that you've been desperate for for months. If only there was something your life would have meaning.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We are living in an era where even search engines do this: 










It's actually kind of funny :lol 










(The first article is satire and still about negative things)

This is the news climate we're living in right now where search engines are somehow displaying the opposite of what you're asking and you're telling me that people will have an objective view on the president? 










Trump's successes gets you results on who he's fired? 

It's literally like the search engine is completely broken. 

"Fair and objective". I don't think that this phrase has any meaning left anymore. Of course there are people like BM now because all they are exposed to is conspiracy theories and spun news.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

After a 1932050606r69067t times of being wrong, they'll eventually get it right!


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> After a 1932050606r69067t times of being wrong, they'll eventually get it right!


I really think that the leftists need a Russian conspiracy theory sticky on this site :kobelol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You do realise that unless you put quotations around the sentence a search engine just searches based on the keywords at random right? You might want to learn how SEO works too considering you really don't seem to grasp how a search engine gives you the results from the keywords you've written. If you type: "List of accomplishments of Donald Trump" it'll search for that exact phrase. If you type: List of accomplishments of Donald Trump it'll give you the best matches based on each word separately, that's why your last screenshot has "list" and "Donald Trump" in bold. Lol, and you say "leftists" are conspiracy theorists...


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Never hear a peep about how the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 28-years

:mj


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Never hear a peep about how the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 28-years
> 
> :mj


Eh, I don't attribute the unemployment rate dropping to anything more than the _expected_ federal tax reform (Not directly a result of anything Trump has done). The market is already starting to fear the worst and so it's declining slowly as the last few policies pushed by Trump have been RINO and mostly pushing bipartisan policies. 

The market will continue to slow down and come to a halt and _then _they will talk about it because that's when the media will put the anti-Trump spin on it. If it's doing well, then it'll be ignored. 

It's how the media always is with a republican president.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Eh, I don't attribute the unemployment rate dropping to anything more than the _expected_ federal tax reform. The market is already starting to fear the worst and so it's declining slowly as the last few policies pushed by Trump have been RINO and mostly pushing bipartisan policies.
> 
> The market will continue to slow down and come to a halt and _then _they will talk about it.


I know I know hence the :mj


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Iconoclast

Pffft... everybody knows that the ONLY thing bing is good for is porn :mj


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> @Iconoclast
> 
> Pffft... everybody knows that the ONLY thing bing is good for is porn :mj


:lol 

That, and I use it to get points to get me amazon gift cards


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Never hear a peep about how the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 28-years
> 
> :mj


Its 0.2 lower than it was back in November. And again the UE was already going down for years under Obama.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

does the :mj have no meaning anymore?!!!!!!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> does the :mj have no meaning anymore?!!!!!!!


No, because someone trying giving legit credit with exactly what you said a few weeks ago.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> You do realise that unless you put quotations around the sentence a search engine just searches based on the keywords at random right? You might want to learn how SEO works too considering you really don't seem to grasp how a search engine gives you the results from the keywords you've written. If you type: "List of accomplishments of Donald Trump" it'll search for that exact phrase. If you type: List of accomplishments of Donald Trump it'll give you the best matches based on each word separately, that's why your last screenshot has "list" and "Donald Trump" in bold. Lol, and you say "leftists" are conspiracy theorists...


Assuming that all leftwing sites are excellent at SEO since they always show up first and rightwing sites don't know what they're doing because they never show up in the news boxes of either Bing, Yahoo or Google :lmao 

When it comes to displaying news, SEO is irrelevant. Google, Yahoo and Bing all prefer leftist outlets over rightwing ones. Always. Even when you search. It's not because those sites have superior SEO compared to the rightwing ones until and unless you think that major right wing organizations are too stupid to do SEO well? 

In fact, SEO would try to match the words to the best of the search engine's programming by going match keyword1, keyword2, keyword3. The fact is that what I searched for didn't exist, so it went to the next best word match in an intuitive algorithm and gave me what it thought I wanted based on what others search for more. People simply aren't writing about Trump's successes and that's why those pages don't exist. I know SEO. I was a website product development manager for 2 years. 

Also, you do realize that I was searching based on how normal people tend to search if they even search like that - which they don't. 

The vast majority of internet users are not internet nerds. 

The majority get their news on their facebook feeds from their friends and trending topics. And friends tend to share partisan news. 

The point I was trying to make was that if someone did try to search the way I did they won't get anything positive. 

There has also been some collusion post november elections to restrict the spread of fake news so all search engines have gone through the exercize of developing algorithms that put fake news sites below the "legit" one and those were all based on human input as opposed to an actual study on authenticity. Many right wing sites claimed that they were placed on the fake news lists. Whether it's true or not is questionable, but try doing some random searches for some news and tell me if these right wing news sites show up on the first page or not: 

1. Dailycaller 
2. The Blaze
3. Brietbart
4. Drudge Report
5. Gateway Pundit

They don't unless you are actually searching for a debunking of a leftist myth or fake news. By and large you'll get 10:1 leftwing results. How do people get the counterpoint when Facebook, yahoo, bing and Google are all providing less exposure to right wing sites. The only access conservatives have to their own news sources is via direct access. Search engines don't help. They hinder. 

It has nothing to do with them not covering the news or having bad SEO. It has everything to do with search engines having algorithms that favor left wing news outlets.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No, because someone trying giving legit credit with exactly what you said a few weeks ago.


yeah but did he :mj

:kobe7


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If you search for Hilary Clinton you get very similar results. Negativity attracts eyeballs on the internet and the algorithms reflect that. You really dug yourself too deep into the conservative media echo chamber since you started supporting Trump almost 2 years ago if you really start to believe this crap.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> THE COMEY MEMO, PART 2
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> FBI Director James Comey has agreed to testify in an open session in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It will likely be one of the most highly anticipated testimonies in congressional history.
> And also one of the most important. That's because if Comey goes on record as saying he believes Donald Trump was obstructing the Russia investigation, it could very well set in motion the impeachment of the president. If, on the other hand, he says he does not consider Trump's actions to be obstruction, then the president's fate will rest with the investigators probing his campaign's ties to Russia. And so far there has been zero evidence uncovered personally tying Trump to Russian efforts to influence the election.
> 
> There is reason to believe Comey will say Trump's actions were not obstruction. Here's why:
> 
> 1. Comey could put himself in legal jeopardy if he states that he believed obstruction occurred, because he did not report the incident at the time it occurred. In fact Comey testifed to the various congressional committees several times and never mentioned the events of February 13th, when the President Trump allegedly took him aside and said "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go." He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 17th, the House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election on March 20th, and the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the FBI on May 3rd. Not once did he mention the meeting or say there had been any effort to obstruct his the FBI's investigations.
> 
> 2. The Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified just last week that there had been no obstruction to the agency’s investigation at any point. "The work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date," he said on May 11th before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
> 
> Of course, even if he says he doesn't believe Trump's action amounted to obstruction, that doesn't mean Democrats will agree. But it significantly reduces Trump's chances of facing impeachment.
> 
> In part 3 I'll look at what will happen if Comey instead testifies that Trump attempted to obstruct his investigation. Hint: the markets will collapse and the calls for impeachment will grow, even from Republicans.


The Comey memo is starting to look more and more like a nothingburger. 

Probably why the leftist media immediately started humping the Jared Kushner story. Yet another nothingburger.



FriedTofu said:


> If you search for Hilary Clinton you get very similar results. Negativity attracts eyeballs on the internet and the algorithms reflect that. You really dug yourself too deep into the conservative media echo chamber since you started supporting Trump almost 2 years ago if you really start to believe this crap.


You should've put that to the test. 










3 of the 6 results are positive (last one was also positive, it just got cut off when I made the screenshot). 1 is neutral. 1 is negative and 1 is talking about someone else. 










In this one 6/8 are positive, 1 is neutral, 1 is negative.

At least double-check something that takes like 2 seconds to double check before making a claim.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The Comey memo is starting to look more and more like a nothingburger.
> 
> Probably why the leftist media immediately started humping the Jared Kushner story. Yet another nothingburger.
> 
> 
> 
> You should've put that to the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of the 6 results are positive (last one was also positive, it just got cut off when I made the screenshot). 1 is neutral. 1 is negative and 1 is talking about someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this one 6/8 are positive, 1 is neutral, 1 is negative.
> 
> At least double-check something that takes like 2 seconds to double check before making a claim.


Wasn't it Google that was accused of messing with the searches on Hillary to show more positive than negative? Or was that a rumor?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Wasn't it Google that was accused of messing with the searches on Hillary to show more positive than negative? Or was that a rumor?


Well, the story was that there was the "fake news" hysteria and some collusion with members of the Clinton campaign to include a list of genuine fake sites (the ones that were full of clickbait) that google won't index anymore. 

However, a lot of rightwingers claimed that their sites and blogs were included in those lists. 

Not sure if it's all true or not, but since the elections, I have to explicitly create a search string that would get me conservative site results. Most every generic search only gives me NYT, WashPo, BBC, CNN, and HuffPo. Sometimes Fox is included. I'll even get sites like Gizmodo, i09, variety etc over genuine rightwing sites now for political news which is weird as fuck. 

Most of the other major right wing sites are just gone from the first pages or so of search engines. 

When you go into the news sections explicitly, there's nothing but left wing news. I started swiping away all the left wing sites from my phone on google cards and now it no longer gives me any news at all so it indicates that it's really not indexing right wing sites .. or at least has a system which has made it harder for those sites to gain exposure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Wasn't it Google that was accused of messing with the searches on Hillary to show more positive than negative? Or was that a rumor?


Oh it was true but Trump supporters claimed it was just fake news by the bernie supporters.


But now that its happening to Trump oh it must be real now lol




Iconoclast said:


> Well, the story was that there was the "fake news" hysteria and some collusion with members of the Clinton campaign to include a list of genuine fake sites (the ones that were full of clickbait) that google won't index anymore.
> 
> However, a lot of rightwingers claimed that their sites and blogs were included in those lists.
> 
> Not sure if it's all true or not, but since the elections, I have to explicitly create a search string that would get me conservative site results. Most every generic search only gives me NYT, WashPo, BBC, CNN, and HuffPo. Sometimes Fox is included.
> 
> Most of the other major right wing sites are just gone from the first pages or so of search engines.
> 
> *When you go into the news sections explicitly, there's nothing but left wing news. I started swiping away all the left wing sites from my phone on google and now it no longer gives me any news at all so it indicates that it's really not indexing right wing sites .. or at least has a system which has made it harder for those sites to gain exposure*.


Pretty sure sites like CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc all pay to have their sites higher in the results.

All the sites you mentioned are independent, thus why they don't show up as high as the mainstream sites.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If Hilary is in the spotlight, the algorithm that push sites up due to relevancy would push the negatives higher up. I don't know about you but during the election when I was searching on both candidates the list of negative news on either candidate were ridiculous. Search Trump and liberal media dominate the results. Search Clinton and conservative media dominate the results.

For whats its worth, Breitbart News and WND have been popping up more often than before due to the algorithm on my search results but still lower on the list than MSM outlets and their equal in huffpo (urgh). :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> If Hilary is in the spotlight, the algorithm that push sites up due to relevancy would push the negatives higher up. I don't know about you but during the election when I was searching on both candidates the list of negative news on either candidate were ridiculous. Search Trump and liberal media dominate the results. Search Clinton and conservative media dominate the results.
> 
> For whats its worth, Breitbart News and WND have been popping up more often than before due to the algorithm on my search results but still lower on the list than MSM outlets and their equal in huffpo (urgh). :shrug


The problem is with Hillary though on google the negative articles were getting pushed down for her and not even showing up in the autocomplete. But if you did the same searches on yahoo or bing they would.

So yes there is fuckery with how searches come up depending on the site

Just to note, there are ways to optimize your articles to make them show up higher on all search engines and companies also pay people good money to do that as well. There is a formula to making them pull up higher, you just need to know what each engine weights the heaviest.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*









http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/james-comey-trump-influence/

"A person familiar with his thinking"

"A person familiar with his thinking"

:mj4


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The problem is with Hillary though on google the negative articles were getting pushed down for her and not even showing up in the autocomplete. But if you did the same searches on yahoo or bing they would.
> 
> So yes there is fuckery with how searches come up depending on the site


Probably due to a gag order on established liberal sites that were mostly pro-Hilary that make the articles seem less valid and pushed them down the search results. There seem to be a heavier weightage of relevancy on google than other search engines in what gets push onto the first few pages of results.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Let's be fair now. There are plenty of "leftists" who make the box of rocks look intelligent by comparison. If we're being honest, there are a bunch of fucking retards on all 4 corners of the political spectrum and that's mainly because they do not understand what political ideology actually means. Even when I disagree with someone, at least if they are someone like you, they know what the fuck they are talking about and can adequately explain their position. Even in disagreement, I can appreciate an intelligent position.














RavishingRickRules said:


> Quick question(s) for the brain trust here. With all these trending "reports" of Kushner being the current target in the investigation, should he be found "guilty" what implications does that have going forward? I'm assuming any punishment would be levelled at him personally and not Trump/the administration? And is it as big a deal as social media and reactions would suggest?


Ultimately, unless some truly impeachable wrongdoing on the part of Donald Trump is uncovered, and if, as you ask, the reports concerning Kushner eventually bear fruit and he is found "guilty" like you say, much will hinge upon whether or not Trump actively "covered up" for his son-in-law. 

Richard Nixon wasn't truly caught because of the Watergate break-in. Nixon, for all of his faults, was a tremendously loyal friend and because he refused to cut loose of a few of his friends, he implicated himself in what could have been an isolated scandal if he had proactively cut several people loose when the time was right.

By contrast, John Poindexter fell on his sword so that the Iran-Contra Affair would not go any further up the White House food chain toward Ronald Reagan. Poindexter served, I believe, six months in prison, and that sealed the case from going any further against the Reagan White House. 

So taking the allegations and reports concerning Kushner at face value that is my 



Miss Sally said:


> Kushner is shady as fuck, honestly I'd love to see him fired and barred from the WH.


I honestly agree. Perhaps he's not as shady or untoward as his public image and reputation let on but his at least quasi-globalism seems like a mismatch for the ideological wing of this administration emanating from Steve Bannon.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/james-comey-trump-influence/
> 
> "A person familiar with his thinking"
> 
> "A person familiar with his thinking"
> 
> :mj4


It's literally now a matter of convincing fools with word garbage. This literally only says that someone thinks what Comey might be thinking being passed off as Comey is thinking this. 

That's why I get so frustrated sometimes. The articles themselves refute themselves within their own content and it's not even buried, and yet people walk away with a completely different impression.



birthday_massacre said:


> The problem is with Hillary though on google the negative articles were getting pushed down for her and not even showing up in the autocomplete. But if you did the same searches on yahoo or bing they would.
> 
> So yes there is fuckery with how searches come up depending on the site
> 
> Just to note, there are ways to optimize your articles to make them show up higher on all search engines and companies also pay people good money to do that as well. There is a formula to making them pull up higher, you just need to know what each engine weights the heaviest.


This is why I stick to Youtube now and specific personalities more than anything else on the internet. Youtube is fairly evenly distributed with both the left and right where many of the individuals are highly reliable.

As for news, the best way to get both sides to the same story is RealClear's aggregate where you literally have an MSM left wing outlet followed immediately with a rightwing outlet talking about the same piece of news. If you're not reading their daily aggregate, you're not getting the complete picture on any issue at all.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/james-comey-trump-influence/


This fact has been approved by @birthday_massacre 

:bayley2


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Dershowitz took a step away from the left bubble and p much just shit on the whole Trump/Russia thing Liberal's are all in on.

Tucker's mind was blown.

:trump


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> On June 8, Hillary Clinton is scheduled to serve as the Class of 2017 commencement speaker at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, where she will also be awarded an honorary degree. The announcement has incited protests from several members of the Haitian community who plan to protest the speech and are pushing the college’s president, Rudy Crew, to rescind the invitation.
> 
> “Every time the Clintons get in a bind, they run to the black community to whitewash their tarnished image,” said Komokoda, the Haitian group protesting the speech, in a statement. “After Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky affair, he brought in Jesse Jackson and a host of black preachers to lead prayers with him at the White House. To divert attention from her ‘deleted emails’ debacle, Hillary had Bill DeBlasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, bring her to Brownsville, one of the most impoverished neighborhoods in Brooklyn, for a photo op with little black children. When newspaper editorials and cartoons were blasting her for her unending lies and demanding investigations and prosecutions, former New York City mayor David Dinkins brought her out for a keynote speech at his Dinkins Leadership & Public Policy Forum at Columbia University. Today, for her resurrection from a shameful defeat by the last person most reasonable people felt could ever be president of the United States, the dirty work falls to Rudy Crew.”
> 
> The Clintons’ role in Haiti has incited immense criticism and has tarnished their relationship with the Haitian community. In 2010, Haiti suffered a massive earthquake. Several NGOs and the United Nations flocked to Haiti to help relief efforts, but their intervention came with several costs. In 2011, UN Peacekeepers caused a massive cholera outbreak that killed at least 9,500 people and sickened 800,000 others. During this time, Bill Clinton served as the United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. While the Clinton Foundation has staunchly defended their role in Haiti, their involvement in the country has been far from successful. “Many of the most notable investments the Clintons helped launch, such as the new Marriott in the capital, have primarily benefited wealthy foreigners and the island’s ruling elite, who needed little help to begin with,” wrote Jonathan Katz for Politico in 2015.
> 
> advertisement
> 
> For Komokoda and many Haitians, the Clintons epitomize NGOs and corporations exploiting the crisis and relief efforts in Haiti for their own gain. Haitians also blame the Clintons for the controversial rule of former Haitian President Michel Martelly, who stepped down in February 2016 due to his record of corruption after the Clintons helped him get elected in 2010. The Washington Post reported, “Clinton reportedly pressured then-President René Préval with the loss of U.S. and international aid unless the election results were changed to fit the OAS’s recommendation.” That recommendation handed the election to Clinton ally Martelly—despite the drastic irregularities and controversies associated with the election. Manolia Charlotin, a Haitian journalist based in New York, told the Washington Post, “What does that mean as to her approach to foreign policy? To have a secretary of state visit a country, to make a stop, and as a result of that meeting, you have an illegal selection of leaders? How does that decision promote the American views of democracy?”
> 
> The Haitians involved with Komokoda don’t want Hillary Clinton to exploit Medgar Evers’ students the way that the Clintons and foreign countries have exploited Haiti and its people for decades.


http://observer.com/2017/05/haitians-protest-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-medgar-evers-college/


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The problem is with Hillary though on google the negative articles were getting pushed down for her and not even showing up in the autocomplete. But if you did the same searches on yahoo or bing they would.
> 
> So yes there is fuckery with how searches come up depending on the site
> 
> Just to note, there are ways to optimize your articles to make them show up higher on all search engines and companies also pay people good money to do that as well. There is a formula to making them pull up higher, you just need to know what each engine weights the heaviest.


Thanks for pointing this out, I was sure it was you who brought it up before but couldn't remember all the details.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its in decline for republcans.
> 
> It was 80% just last week but now its down to 75% and dropping


*Remember when they told us Trump having the worst approval rating of all time in record time was FAKE NEWS? :kobelol*


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Dershowitz took a step away from the left bubble and p much just shit on the whole Trump/Russia thing Liberal's are all in on.
> 
> Tucker's mind was blown.
> 
> :trump


This is a more important video than is being given credit for at the moment. Thanks for sharing :trump.

In other US political news.....

https://capitalresearch.org/article...cratic-party-for-failing-to-pay-minimum-wage/



> Claiming the Democratic Party has failed to live up to its promise of “fair pay for fair work,” workers have* filed a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for not providing employees with a $15 minimum wage and sufficient overtime pay, according to the Washington Free Beacon.*
> 
> The 2016 Democratic Party platform calls the current federal minimum wage “a starvation wage”, and calls for an almost $8 increase to a minimum of $15 per hour. In addition, the platform notes that Americans have the right to unionize and promises Democrats “will work in every way we can… to reach this goal.”
> 
> Despite paying out nearly a million dollars in bonus money, *staffers were paid “below market rates”, according to former Pennsylvania Governor and DNC Host Committee Chairman Ed Rendell. For many staffers that amounted to a flat salary of $3,000 a month, or $36,000 per year, despite some employees working 80-90 hours each week.*
> 
> Capital Research Center has written on the debate over increasing the federal minimum wage, concluding that in some local jurisdictions the policy has been more effective at galvanizing organized labor to political action than raising workers out of poverty or creating jobs:
> 
> …Requiring employers to pay a [$15] “living wage” would significantly raise prices to consumers, reduce the availability of products and services, and weaken an already-weak economy.
> 
> In addition, CRC analysis has showed that many labor unions fail to provide their own employees with the same treatment they demand of other employers. Despite generating “record revenue” in 2014, for example, reports revealed that:
> 
> * 64% of local union employees earn less than the living wage for a single adult with two children ($59,717 per year).
> * 6% of local union employees earn less than a full time $15 an hour minimum wage ($31,200 per year).
> 
> For more on Capital Research Center and the minimum wage, see Labor Watch.


Why am I not surprised :lmao. You'd think according to some leftists that Democrats aren't capable of hypocrisy.....newsflash, it can happen on all sides.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Meanwhile, @L-DOPA, the raising of the minimum wage to $15/hr has closed some businesses in the locations it was being done. I'm all for an increase in the wage to reflect current cost of living standards, but this ends up destroying jobs as small businesses can only absorb so many costs before having to pass them on. In the case of McDonalds, for example...it's not the corporation that is impacted, it's the franchisees that have to find a way to raise the wage and keep costs down. People aren't going to pay $8 for a Big Mac. 

Couple of opinion pieces that strike me as interesting, and really hit on what Trump is and is doing from all sides. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/15/learning-to-live-and-love-in-era-trump-anxiety.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/cal-thomas-mr-trump-are-poisoning-your-presidency.html

Gutfeld and Thomas are both spot on here in their assessments. 

Yes, Trump is completely different from any other President we have ever had, he makes even Andrew Jackson calm in comparison. In fact, this is what some of the voters wanted. One quote from the comments from Cal's column comes from a user named hazwaste who said, "I didn't vote for President Trump because I wanted him to play nice. I want him to be the bull in the china closet. Washington needs a remodel, and a good remodel begins with demolition." Every time he takes a punch at a critic of his, whether in Congress or the media, they cheer. They love it when he counterpunches or he takes the first swing. Trump has made very clear that he is out to shake up the establishment and the status quo in DC. He's accomplishing his goal so far. A good number of his core base have just doubled down on defending him, and we have seen his enemies in a frenzy never before seen. 

Meanwhile (this is probably once again going to put me at odds with some here but that's never stopped me before), there comes a time when being on the warpath just becomes counterproductive. Just as the Democrats are sounding really stupid with impeachment cries for everything Trump does right down to using the wrong fork on those beautiful pieces of chocolate cake at dessert, Trump is causing some self-inflicted damage when he attacks. He remains in campaign mode all the time, partly because he truly hates the opposition and maybe because he knows that many will support him. He will do whatever it takes to get the last word in. As a result, he is giving his enemies ammunition to keep firing back at him. In a way to avoid giving them what they want, he is actually giving them exactly what they want. 

Make no mistake, there is a massive bias in the media and there are a substantial number of people that want this man to fail. There is absolutely no question there. I understand that it is important to hold our leadership accountable and they are going completely over the top in doing so. Meanwhile, people love the fact Trump will go into the gutter and bash his opponents over the head with steel chairs. But, at some point, all that is going on is taking away from the narrative of his campaign and is having an effect on what he wants to accomplish. I know I have been critical of him in the past, but I want to see shit get done and actually hope he succeeds. I want to see health care issues resolved. I want to see tax reform that helps consumers and provides incentives for businesses to stay here or return here to do business. I want to see an America on the world stage our allies respect and our enemies fear. I want to see our $20 trillion debt start to get cut down. I want a government that is accountable to us and does what we want it to do, not just do whatever because they think they know best. However, when Trump keeps taking the bait, he ends up being distracted. In turn, this will cause his enemies to keep the pressure on, he keeps responding, and then nothing gets done but snipping and fighting. And, in the end, We The People get screwed. 

Trump needs to simply exit from the fight. Yes, there is an absolute feeding frenzy and his enemies want him gone. But, why take the bait? What he should do is say, "I'm done with all this nonsense that everyone wants to throw at me. I am going to move forward with my agenda. For those that support me, thank you. For those that don't, we're moving on. If you change your mind and want to stand with me, you are welcome to do so. Until then, you do not get a seat at the table." And then leave it at that. Ignore all the garbage, but just keep on going. Let them look stupid when there is no response. 

Again, there is a place for Twitter to be used...he could use it to make announcements. For example, "Today will be meeting with Pope Francis and walking through St. Peter's Square in the Vatican." Use it to let people know what is on the agenda for today...he could use this in the way FDR used the radio for his Fireside chats or those like Eisenhower and Kennedy used television. His Twitter use could be productive if he wanted it to be. 

Meanwhile, he can also use the hiring of the special counsel Mueller (who is well liked and respected by all sides) to finally stop talking for now about Russia, email servers, intelligence, etc. He can get to work on what We The People want. 

Again, it is also up to you folks to help. Email and call your Congresspeople and Senators, let them know what you expect done. Hold them accountable. Don't be annoying about it, but get to the point where they know your voice when you call. We can't sit back and hope that they will do it, we have to sometimes push them in the right direction. Be politically active, be politically literate, but let them know you will hold them accountable and they need to do what they promised.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Jeffrey Toobin pretty much let the cat out of the bag about the real desired purpose (by the Democrats and the mainstream media) of the investigation by the new Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the May 19 New Yorker. He basically concedes that there is a good possibility that no criminal evidence of collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians will be found. What he reveals, and it is no big surprise to anyone who follows politics, is that the information collected during the course of this investigation could be politically damaging to President Trump if it is released.
> 
> First Toobin admits that there is a good chance that there is no there there as far as criminal evidence of Trump-Russia collusion:
> 
> It may well be difficult to identify any criminal laws violated by the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. It will be important for Mueller to investigate, for example, whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign aided and abetted the hacking of e-mail accounts connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign; that would certainly be a federal crime. But unlike, say, the Watergate investigation, which began with a break-in, it is not immediately clear what crimes may have been committed.
> 
> It looks like Toobin has been listening to what such Democrats as Dianne Feinstein and even Maxine Waters have admitted. Namely that there is no evidence yet found of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. However, he quickly jumps to what he considers to be the real main purpose of the investigation: dirt digging to hurt the President.
> 
> 
> <<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
> 
> DONATE
> ...regardless of whether Mueller ends up bringing any cases, he will surely collect a great deal of evidence. He may subpoena President Trump’s tax returns. He will almost certainly interview Trump as part of a grand-jury proceeding.
> 
> Even if no criminal charges are made over the Trump-Russia collusion about which no evidence has yet been found so far, Toobin holds out the hope that political harm could still be harvested from the Mueller investigation:
> 
> If Mueller doesn’t bring any cases, the tax returns and interviews might never be made public; but the contents of both could be included in a report. If and how Mueller chooses to spell out his evidence will be a critical decision that he must make.
> 
> As for the question of whether Rosenstein will decide to release the report to the public, the regulation is again unclear. It states that the appointing authority—in this case, Rosenstein—“may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.” How will Rosenstein determine whether disclosure is in the public interest? What are the other legal restrictions? Could Mueller include grand-jury testimony, which is usually secret, in his report and, if he did, would Rosenstein later agree to release it? There will be great pressure, at least from Democrats, to release Mueller’s findings. But, based on the regulation, it appears that Rosenstein’s decision on disclosure will be final and unreviewable by any court.
> 
> Please, Mr. Rosenstein. Even though no evidence has been found of Trump-Russia collusion, could you please release Mueller's findings such as Trump's tax returns so we could smear him?
> 
> Oh, and thank you Jeffrey Toobin for spelling out loud so clearly what most of us have already suspected; the purpose of this investigation for many Democrats and their MSM allies is not to find evidence of Trump-Russia collusion which most of them already know didn't happen. Instead the real purpose is to gather information to politically damage President Trump.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/05/19/jeffrey-toobin-trump-russia-collusion-evidence-not-main


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865733992921870336

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865684310296330241

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865727672000724993


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump didnt bow to the saudi king like obama did.

Thats the next scandal right there!&#55357;&#56846;


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When will people learn that many of Trump supporters voted for him to pretty much be as close to a dictator as we can have in this country. They voted for him to take a wreaking ball to pretty much every part of human life in the US and rebuild from the ground up. 

Realistic or not they voted for him to push everyone who can't live or work for or under him out of the country.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Trump didnt bow to the saudi king like obama did.
> 
> Thats the next scandal right there!��


And his wife didn't wear a hijab.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That Dershowitz video is gold.


edit: And why hasn't Alan Dershowitz been on CNN or MSNBC?:max


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Trump didnt bow to the saudi king like obama did.
> 
> Thats the next scandal right there!��


I'm not sure either should have though right? Do heads of state bow to other heads of state? I dunno, that seems odd to me. Like Theresa May's the Prime Minister but she probably would rank-wise as she's the leader of the government but not the head of state. In a republic the President ranks the same as a King/Queen in a Monarchy, in my mind you would bow to the President but the President wouldn't bow I guess. Like if I met Theresa May I'd call her either Theresa or Mrs May, if I met the Queen I'd call her "Your Majesty" and if I met Trump I'd call him "Mr President." I dunno, I think he's right not to bow, they're equals he's not subordinate to another head of state.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> And his wife didn't wear a hijab.


Actually, Michelle didn't wear one and Trump criticized her for not doing so.

The whole point of being free and powerful as Americans is to assert that freedom around the world. I'm glad Trump realized this and accepted that he was wrong. 

Not be like these euro and canadian cucks that call themselves "empowered women".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Actually, Michelle didn't wear one and Trump criticized her for not doing so.
> 
> The whole point of being free and powerful as Americans is to assert that freedom around the world. I'm glad Trump realized this and accepted that he was wrong.
> 
> Not be like these euro and canadian cucks that call themselves "empowered women".


Trump did not realize he was wrong, he is just a hypocrite like with everything else. Everything he criticizes others for does not apply to him 

The excuses Trump supporters make for him are so hilarious


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump did not realize he was wrong


Did you get that in a Comey memo?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Did you get that in a Comey memo?


Must have been from one of those anonymous sources we keep hearing about


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I remember Le Pen refused to wear one in Jordan and was branded a racist.....


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Did you get that in a Comey memo?


Typical reaper deflection because you know its true.






Stinger Fan said:


> Must have been from one of those anonymous sources we keep hearing about


Oh you mean the ones that keep being right


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Theresa May and Angela Merkel have both not worn hijabs too. I'm not sure how big a deal it is though, seems like something about nothing to me.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Theresa May and Angela Merkel have both not worn hijabs too. I'm not sure how big a deal it is though, seems like something about nothing to me.


Well if you assume that it's a state policy and in most of those countries there's actual state police responsible for hitting/fining/arresting women who refuse to wear hijabs, it's an important matter of civil disobedience.

What I really want to see is an end to the America/Saudi relationship in its entirety however. Complete sanctions for its human rights violations.



L-DOPA said:


> I remember Le Pen refused to wear one in Jordan and was branded a racist.....


It was Lebanon and a meeting with a Muslim Cleric which I don't even know why she agreed to in the first place. I believe the meeting was called by the cleric himself. 

Lebanon interestingly has no such sate policy of hijab. However, the hardline clerics don't allow women in their presence without one.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh you mean the ones that keep being right


So then why isn't Trump impeached again?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> When will people learn that many of Trump supporters voted for him to pretty much be as close to a dictator as we can have in this country. They voted for him to take a wreaking ball to pretty much every part of human life in the US and rebuild from the ground up.
> 
> Realistic or not they voted for him to push everyone who can't live or work for or under him out of the country.


When will people learn something that I totally made up just now? Realistic or not they voted for him because another reason I made up also just now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Theresa May and Angela Merkel have both not worn hijabs too. I'm not sure how big a deal it is though, seems like something about nothing to me.


You are missing the point, Trump criticized Michelle Obama for not wearing one but now he is ok with Melania not wearing one. It makes him a hypocrite


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> I remember Le Pen refused to wear one in Jordan and was branded a racist.....


You're only racist if you lean right in any way


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> So then why isn't Trump impeached again?


Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> What I really want to see is an end to the America/Saudi relationship in its entirety however. Complete sanctions for its human rights violations.


Pretty much echoes my opinion on the British/Saudi relationship too. It's not hard to see that the majority of terrorist organisations are following a particularly Saudi slant of Islam. One of my Pakistani friends from Lahore recently had his entire family do an "intervention" to stop him posting anti-Saudi things online as it was attracting altogether dangerous attention within the more extreme areas in his local community. Now, I'm not informed enough to say Saudi Arabia are the "people behind" groups like ISIS, however, if a country is aggressively promoting the specific version of Islam that most of these groups are following I'd be looking a lot closer at that country and being a hell of a lot less friendly with them.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.


:lol Then you'll get Mike Pence, but don't worry I'm sure you'll manage to get impeachments on him too as well as the rest of the Republican party


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Pretty much echoes my opinion on the British/Saudi relationship too. It's not hard to see that the majority of terrorist organisations are following a particularly Saudi slant of Islam. One of my Pakistani friends from Lahore recently had his entire family do an "intervention" to stop him posting anti-Saudi things online as it was attracting altogether dangerous attention within the more extreme areas in his local community. Now, I'm not informed enough to say Saudi Arabia are the "people behind" groups like ISIS, however, if a country is aggressively promoting the specific version of Islam that most of these groups are following I'd be looking a lot closer at that country and being a hell of a lot less friendly with them.


Saudi Arabia didn't want to create ISIS. They wanted to implement as they always have their version of Arab Sunno Islam across the Muslim world, however, the Saudi Kings are directly not responsible. 

They are indirectly responsible in that their extreme sunni version was taken by people in their kingdom and spread outward throughout the sunni muslim countries - most helped by Pakistan and Operation cyclone money that was used to fund the Mujahideen and train the Taliban in Pakistani medressahs. The saudis supplied the intellectuals that spread the ideology in those schools. Pakistan supplied the military training. 

The Saudi extremism started as a response to the Irani revolution and it morphed into literally the sunni version of shia extremism that existed in Iran. 

Now Saudis and the rest of the world are under threat of the monster they helped create and funded. 

I can understand why western governments are still sympathetic to the kings, but enough is enough. The Saudi kings have done nothing but spread cancer around the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> :lol Then you'll get Mike Pence, but don't worry I'm sure you'll manage to get impeachments on him too as well as the rest of the Republican party


I already said people should not be pushing to impeach Trump since he is much easier to fight since he is such an idiot and the WH and Trump cant keep their lies straight. Pence is a lot worse than Turmp and he will get it back to the status quo of being hiding everything again and getting their stories straight.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Since we're making predictions about how long Trump will last as president, as one of the only people (in fact, did anyone but me on here do this...?) who said he would win the election, even in the waning days when many were certain Hill dog's coronation was imminent (the same people saying he'll be impeached btw), I want to reaffirm my prediction that he will serve two full terms barring assassination or a health emergency (the man is 71 and the presidency is known to accelerate aging).


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Saudi Arabia didn't want to create ISIS. They wanted to implement as they always have their version of Islam across the Muslim world however, the Saudi Kings are directly not responsible. They are indirectly responsible in that their extreme sunni version was taken by people in their kingdom and spread outward throughout the sunni muslim countries. The Saudi extremism started as a response to the Irani revolution and it morphed into literally the sunni version of shia extremism that existed in Iran.
> 
> Now Saudis and the rest of the world are under threat of the monster they helped create and funded.
> 
> I can understand why western governments are still sympathetic to the kings, but enough is enough. The Saudi kings have done nothing but spread cancer around the world.


For me personally the human rights issues they have there would've been enough for us to distance ourselves but the propogation of Wahhabism puts it so far over the line. I struggle to understand how we can be so close with a people with such an opposing set of values to our own. Though I know the word "liberal" is a bad word in these parts, there are certain liberal values we all take for granted in the west that seem anathema to many of the values upheld in Saudi Arabia. I'm forever debating my friend in Pakistan over similar "built in" ways of looking at things that differ so greatly between the west and there (he's looking to move to the UK actually.) Sadly it seems many people are much harder to move out of the more archaic ways of thinking, but then we all have our varying degrees of what we consider right and wrong I guess. I'm very anti death penalty for example as I'm especially not comfortable with the government having the right to kill citizens criminal or otherwise. (I also don't consider death a deserving punishment, I think prison should be a lot less comfortable too - though that's another discussion.) Many people support a death penalty, many people elsewhere support stoning, cutting hands off etc, for me personally those are all varying degrees of the same thing that I disagree with. I dunno, the Saudi Arabian "lifestyle" just seems completely incompatible with our own.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> For me personally the human rights issues they have there would've been enough for us to distance ourselves but the propogation of Wahhabism puts it so far over the line. I struggle to understand how we can be so close with a people with such an opposing set of values to our own. Though I know the word "liberal" is a bad word in these parts, there are certain liberal values we all take for granted in the west that seem anathema to many of the values upheld in Saudi Arabia. I'm forever debating my friend in Pakistan over similar "built in" ways of looking at things that differ so greatly between the west and there (he's looking to move to the UK actually.) Sadly it seems many people are much harder to move out of the more archaic ways of thinking, but then we all have our varying degrees of what we consider right and wrong I guess. I'm very anti death penalty for example as I'm especially not comfortable with the government having the right to kill citizens criminal or otherwise. (I also don't consider death a deserving punishment, I think prison should be a lot less comfortable too - though that's another discussion.) Many people support a death penalty, many people elsewhere support stoning, cutting hands off etc, for me personally those are all varying degrees of the same thing that I disagree with. I dunno, the Saudi Arabian "lifestyle" just seems completely incompatible with our own.


Just to be clear, I don't think "liberal" is bad at all. I'm socially liberal. I'm just not on the left side of things at all. I'm far bottom right where I the only things I really believe in are free markets, individual liberties over collectivism, a society of common sense laws based around the "do no harm" to individuals and protection of private property. 

Now these are concepts that are completely absent as a cohesive ideology in any Muslim country because Islam is literally the opposite. It's socialist in demanding redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, it mandates a charity tax that the government has an authority to collect, it demands submission to the the god and state which are one and the same and that can be used to demand submission to any hadith that can be "verified" by any "scholar" as authentic giving clerics the supreme authority over the land as their divine right. 

Ideologically if you notice there IS some compatibility between the western world and Islam especially when you look at how western leftists (authoritarians) worship the State and give it supreme command over their lives assuming that the State is always a force for good. Islam says the same thing. This is why you'll sometimes here Muslims claim that Westerners are better Muslims than Muslims themselves -- because they have been able to apply the core fundamental value of big government and submission to authority in their own countries. 

The marriage between the far left authoritarian europe and Islam is natural. 

The problem they have is with social liberty and in that Muslims are experts in using buzzwords like "Islam is a feminist religion", "Islam is about equal rights" etc to bullshit left authoritarians into accepting them. Combine this with the western natural and indoctrinated need to support and protect the so-called marginalized minority, and you've got a vulnerability to feel a misguided empathy for muslims even though ideologically they're very different ... The differences are more pronounced in areas that Muslims tend to ignore while they're in a minority, but immediately implement upon creating a majority. 

This is one of the main reasons why the far left and Islam are almost one and the same and mostly always have been. A big centralized government taxing, creating and enforcing laws and handing out benefits to society is a very important common feature of both Muslim and Western societies.

This is one of the main reasons why you'll see the far right small government conservatives being the most critical of Islam. Far more than leftists.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Just to be clear, I don't think "liberal" is bad at all. I'm socially liberal. I'm just not on the left side of things at all. I'm far bottom right where I the only things I really believe in are free markets, individual liberties over collectivism, a society of common sense laws based around the "do no harm" to individuals and protection of private property.
> 
> Now these are concepts that are completely absent as a cohesive ideology in any Muslim country because Islam is literally the opposite. It's socialist in demanding redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, it mandates a charity tax that the government has an authority to collect, it demands submission to the the god and state which are one and the same and that can be used to demand submission to any hadith that can be "verified" by any "scholar" as authentic giving clerics the supreme authority over the land as their divine right.
> 
> Ideologically if you notice there IS some compatibility between the western world and Islam especially when you look at how western leftists (authoritarians) worship the State and give it supreme command over their lives assuming that the State is always a force for good. Islam says the same thing. This is why you'll sometimes here Muslims claim that Westerners are better Muslims than Muslims themselves -- because they have been able to apply the core fundamental value of big government and submission to authority in their own countries.
> 
> The marriage between the far left authoritarian europe and Islam is natural.
> 
> The problem they have is with social liberty and in that Muslims are experts in using buzzwords like "Islam is a feminist religion", "Islam is about equal rights" etc to bullshit left authoritarians into accepting them.
> 
> This is one of the main reasons why the far left and Islam are almost one and the same and mostly always have been. A big centralized government taxing, creating and enforcing laws and handing out benefits to society is a very important common feature of both Muslim and Western societies.
> 
> This is one of the main reasons why you'll see the far right small government conservatives being the most critical of Islam. Far more than leftists.


What far-left authoritarian Europe though? UK is right-wing Conservatives and has been since 2010, France are now "Third Way" politics a la Tony Blair, Merkel is a neo-con centre-right, Italy is centre-left, Spain is centre-right neo-cons. I mean I agree with what you're saying with far-left and Islam lining up in places, it's just that Europe is far more right wing than left and has been for a while now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Short Attention Span President, by Scott Adams


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> What far-left authoritarian Europe though? UK is right-wing Conservatives and has been since 2010, France are now "Third Way" politics a la Tony Blair, Merkel is a neo-con centre-right, Italy is centre-left, Spain is centre-right neo-cons. I mean I agree with what you're saying with far-left and Islam lining up in places, it's just that Europe is far more right wing than left and has been for a while now.


You do realize that your centre left is actual far left for me. Merkel being a center right neo-con is just ridiculous. Her party may have been, but she's center left which would be squarely left when viewed from the American perspective. In fact it can be argued that Merkel is actually farther left than even Bernie. Everyone in Europe is a bunch of degrees more left than everyone in America. Our center right is your far right. Our far left is your left, left/center and so on.

I don't think small government anti-welfare statist conservatives even exist in Europe anywhere. Everyone pretty much unanimously worships the state as god and savior. 

@L-DOPA might have a better answer to this.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Theresa May and Angela Merkel have both not worn hijabs too. I'm not sure how big a deal it is though, seems like something about nothing to me.


That wasn't what I was going with, I'm glad neither of them wore headscarves. It's the hypocrisy again from Trump. It's just amused me more than anything.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Michelle didn't wear one and Trump criticized her for not doing so.
> 
> The whole point of being free and powerful as Americans is to assert that freedom around the world. I'm glad Trump realized this and accepted that he was wrong.
> 
> Not be like these euro and canadian cucks that call themselves "empowered women".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did not realize he was wrong, he is just a hypocrite like with everything else. Everything he criticizes others for does not apply to him
> 
> The excuses Trump supporters make for him are so hilarious
Click to expand...

Aye, the lengths people go to to defend Trump. I mean, it's only a bit of fun, I'd assumed everyone would just laugh it off as a bit of hypocrisy, not make excuses.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Why is that dude in the bottom pictures wearing a hijab? Thought it was only for women.

The answer to the hijab hypocrisy charge re: Trump btw is that Ivanka and Melania are strong independent women who can make their own decisions you unbelievable sexists.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Why is that dude in the bottom pictures wearing a hijab? Thought it was only for women.
> 
> The answer to the hijab hypocrisy charge re: Trump btw is that Ivanka and Melania are strong independent women who can make their own decisions you unbelievable sexists.


Not sure about the dude in the picture but some men in Iran are wearing them to support their wives who are forced to.

So you admit Trump was sexist then when he bashed Michelle Obama for not wearing a hijab.

Good to see you can admit that about Trump.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.


Ooooh, I like this. I'll take the bet. If he doesn't get impeached or resign what are you prepared to offer as a sacrifice? If he does get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I'll not post on this board for a year. Can I get a similar sacrifice????


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ooooh, I like this. I'll take the bet. If he doesn't get impeached or resign what are you prepared to offer as a sacrifice? If he does get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I'll not post on this board for a year. Can I get a similar sacrifice????


If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Why is that dude in the bottom pictures wearing a hijab? Thought it was only for women.
> 
> The answer to the hijab hypocrisy charge re: Trump btw is that Ivanka and Melania are strong independent women who can make their own decisions you unbelievable sexists.


In the libtard world, if Milania had worn a hijab, the news would be "Trump is sexist because he forced Milania to wear a hijab". Now that she hasn't worn one, he's a hypocrite because he didn't force his woman to wear a hijab. I suppose the hypocrite charge is a better one than the sexist one considering he's going to be charged with something either way.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure about the dude in the picture but some men in Iran are wearing them to support their wives who are forced to.
> 
> So you admit Trump was sexist then when he bashed Michelle Obama for not wearing a hijab.
> 
> Good to see you can admit that about Trump.


Not sure why you think I would have a problem admitting that. :lol I find the entire concept of the hijab or any forced attire entirely reprehensible. My post was a joke though, obviously it's another example of a retroactively hypocritical tweet by Trump. I'd prefer to focus on and applaud the powerful feminist statement being made by Ivanka and Melania rather than take the focus of their actions away from them as empowered women and instead focus on the man they're associated with. That's just how I roll. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure why you think I would have a problem admitting that. :lol I find the entire concept of the hijab or any forced attire entirely reprehensible. My post was a joke though, obviously it's another example of a retroactively hypocritical tweet by Trump. I'd prefer to focus on and applaud the powerful feminist statement being made by Ivanka and Melania than take the focus of their actions away from them as empowered women and instead focus on the man they're associated with. That's just how I roll. :trump


At least you admit Trump is a hypocrite. If you are not Muslim you should not have to wear a hijab. 

The only reason why the focus is on Ivanka and Melania not wearing a hijab is because of what Trump said when Michelle didn't.

You are right they should be applauded for not wearing one if they don't want to.

its just funny Trump is so against Isam yet he thought Michelle should have to wear a hijab.

None of them should have to. If Trump never made that comment about Michelle no one would even be bringing up them not wearing one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> In the libtard world, if Milania had worn a hijab, the news would be "Trump is sexist because he forced Milania to wear a hijab". Now that she hasn't worn one, he's a hypocrite because he didn't force his woman to wear a hijab. I suppose the hypocrite charge is a better one than the sexist one considering he's going to be charged with something either way.


LOL Keep making excuses. Trump is a hypocrite because he bashed Michelle for not wearing one but is ok with his wife and daughter not wearing one.

It's a joke you can't even admit Trump is a hypocrite on this. You cant even be honest.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit Trump is a hypocrite. If you are not Muslim you should not have to wear a hijab.


Interesting viewpoint for a liberal atheist. Personally I don't even think Muslim women should have to wear it. I'm just really all about freedom, you know, even for women. :aryep


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Keep making excuses. Trump is a hypocrite because he bashed Michelle for not wearing one but is ok with his wife and daughter not wearing one.
> 
> It's a joke you can't even admit Trump is a hypocrite on this. You cant even be honest.


Flexible men change their minds.

Also, he has no control over his woman to do what he wants her to do because he's not a sexist. So maybe he did ask her. She refused and he said "ok" because he believes his wife and daughter are free women. 

In every single way here, Trump ends up looking better no matter how hysterically you want this to make him look bad :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Interesting viewpoint for a liberal atheist. Personally I don't even think Muslim women should have to wear it. I'm just really all about freedom, you know, even for women. :aryep


Islam is a terrible religion, just like Christianity.

I like how some people think because I defend the non-extremist Muslims it means I support Islam. 

There is a difference between supporting some Muslims (the peaceful ones) and supporting Islam.

And for the record, as TYT fan but what Cenk did to Sam Harris was embarrassing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Flexible men change their minds.
> 
> Also, he has no control over his woman to do what he wants her to do because he's not a sexist. So maybe he did ask her. She refused and he said "ok" because he believes his wife and daughter are free women.
> 
> In every single way here, Trump ends up looking better no matter how hysterically you want this to make him look bad :lol


LOL yeah, he changed his mind. It's just because it's his family. You really think if Hillary was president and went there and did not wear a hijab that Trump wouldn't bash her for not wearing one?

Trump makes himself look bad all on his own. If he never said anything about Michelle not wearing a hijab this whole thing would not even be an issue

Like I have said before, there is a former Trump tweet for every occasion. It's quite comical at this point.


----------



## Draykorinee

Wow, that's some desperate grasping from reaper.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not sure either should have though right? Do heads of state bow to other heads of state? I dunno, that seems odd to me. Like Theresa May's the Prime Minister but she probably would rank-wise as she's the leader of the government but not the head of state. In a republic the President ranks the same as a King/Queen in a Monarchy, in my mind you would bow to the President but the President wouldn't bow I guess. Like if I met Theresa May I'd call her either Theresa or Mrs May, if I met the Queen I'd call her "Your Majesty" and if I met Trump I'd call him "Mr President." I dunno, I think he's right not to bow, they're equals he's not subordinate to another head of state.


Which is why obama doing it was stupid. Hes the leader. Of the free world, you show respect to other leaders, not deference.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Trump didnt bow to the saudi king like obama did.
> 
> Thats the next scandal right there!��


A scandal raised by Conservatives...










Funny thing is he did a kind of half bow for the medal to go on and then a little curtsy... Maybe his knees gave way?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread.


I'll do you one better. You gotta write a 5 paragraph essay on the definition of a fact. What are they, how do you find them, different misconceptions of a fact. No sense in disappearing and if you wanna change my sacrifice, go ahead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






But wait theres more


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106


*Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources*

By Ned Parker, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel | WASHINGTON
Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.

In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn's lawyer declined to comment. In Moscow, a Russian foreign ministry official declined to comment on the contacts and referred Reuters to the Trump administration.

Separately, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington said: “We do not comment on our daily contacts with the local interlocutors.”

The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what U.S. intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favor of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

leftright
6/6leftright
President Donald Trump (L-R), joined by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, senior advisor Steve Bannon, Communications Director Sean Spicer and then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, speaks by phone with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
1/6leftright
2/6leftright
3/6leftright
4/6leftright
5/6leftright
6/6leftright
1/6
Those discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said.

Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have gone to the CIA and the National Security Agency to review transcripts and other documents related to contacts between Trump campaign advisers and associates and Russian officials and others with links to Putin, people with knowledge of those investigations told Reuters.

The U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday it had appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential campaign and possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Mueller will now take charge of the FBI investigation that began last July. Trump and his aides have repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.

'IT'S RARE'

In addition to the six phone calls involving Kislyak, the communications described to Reuters involved another 12 calls, emails or text messages between Russian officials or people considered to be close to Putin and Trump campaign advisers.

One of those contacts was by Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch and politician, according to one person with detailed knowledge of the exchange and two others familiar with the issue.

It was not clear with whom Medvedchuk was in contact within the Trump campaign but the themes included U.S.-Russia cooperation, the sources said. Putin is godfather to Medvedchuk’s daughter.

Medvedchuk denied having any contact with anyone in the Trump campaign.

"I am not acquainted with any of Donald Trump's close associates, therefore no such conversation could have taken place," he said in an email to Reuters.

In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said.

ALSO IN U.S.

China killed CIA sources, hobbled U.S. spying from 2010 to 2012: NYT
Massachusetts college apologizes for racist tweets on hacked Twitter account
Veterans of previous election campaigns said some contact with foreign officials during a campaign was not unusual, but the number of interactions between Trump aides and Russian officials and others with links to Putin was exceptional.

“It’s rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,” Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.

FLYNN FIRED

Beyond Medvedchuk and Kislyak, the identities of the other Putin-linked participants in the contacts remain classified and the names of Trump advisers other than Flynn have been “masked” in intelligence reports on the contacts because of legal protections on their privacy as American citizens. However, officials can request that they be revealed for intelligence purposes.

U.S. and allied intelligence and law enforcement agencies routinely monitor communications and movements of Russian officials.

After Vice President Mike Pence and others had denied in January that Trump campaign representatives had any contact with Russian officials, the White House later confirmed that Kislyak had met twice with then-Senator Jeff Sessions, who later became attorney general.

Kislyak also attended an event in April where Trump said he would seek better relations with Russia. Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also attended that event in Washington. In addition, Kislyak met with two other Trump campaign advisers in July on the sidelines of the Republican convention.

Trump fired Flynn in February after it became clear that he had falsely characterized the nature of phone conversations with Kislyak in late December - after the Nov. 8 election and just after the Obama administration announced new sanctions on Russia. Flynn offered to testify to Congress in return for immunity from prosecution but his offer was turned down by the House intelligence committee.

(Additional reporting by John Walcott in Washington, Natalia Zinets and Alessandra Prentice in Kiev and Christian Lowe in Moscow; Editing by Kevin Krolicki and Ross Colvin)


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Speaking of past Trump tweets that lefties will never bring up. 

Practically sounds like a prophet and an alert father figure for all young Americans here. I'm glad a real man is in the White House and another perverted filthy democrat is in jail. Especially one that close to child rapist apologist Clinton.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Not a single MSM outlet is carrying the Anthony Weiner sentence btw. Suddenly all their paid for and remarkable SEO isn't working anymore :lmao 










And CNN is apparently asking people to stop talking about it. 










Because why exactly? Pedophilia is a crime. News outlets are supposed to tell you about criminals. That's part of their job. Their job isn't to tell people to stop talking about a fucking pedophile piece of shit. 

But they want you to continue to believe that everyone in the Trump administration is guilty despite nothingburger after nothingburger. 

A news outlet that wants you to stop talking about a real criminal has no credibility. Whatsoever.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

To add to the the prior Trump tweets where he nailed it, would be remiss to leave this one out:


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not a single MSM outlet is carrying the Anthony Weiner sentence btw. Suddenly all their paid for and remarkable SEO isn't working anymore :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And CNN is apparently asking people to stop talking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because why exactly? Pedophilia is a crime. News outlets are supposed to tell you about criminals. That's part of their job. Their job isn't to tell people to stop talking about a fucking pedophile piece of shit.
> 
> But they want you to continue to believe that everyone in the Trump administration is guilty despite nothingburger after nothingburger.
> 
> A news outlet that wants you to stop talking about a real criminal has no credibility. Whatsoever.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In line with picking up some of the best Trump tweets, here's a glowing tribute from a Venezuelan about how Trump's tweet about her country helped energize the anti-communist protesters: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../trump-venezuela-maduro-lopez-tintori/517128/



> *How a Trump Tweet Upended My Country's Politics*
> 
> Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, Venezuelans have been scratching their heads, wondering how U.S. policy toward their country might be transformed under his administration. Up until this week, we had precious little to go on. Trump criticized the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during the campaign in South Florida, which many read as mere pandering for the Venezuelan American vote. His aides’ Russian entanglements, meanwhile, caused suspicion about his true intentions: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s intimate associate in Russia, Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin, is closely linked to Maduro, and has deep energy interests in Venezuela.
> 
> While many Venezuelans revile Trump, nothing would please us more than to see a foreign power call out our government for what it is—an outright dictatorship. But fear now runs deep. Everyone here knows that the government is criminal, and we also know reporting on it is a quick way to wind up in jail. So, for many, openly celebrating any form of sanction against Maduro is too risky.
> 
> RELATED STORY
> 
> Demonstrators clash with members of Venezuelan National Guard
> How Much Longer Can Venezuela Go On Like This?
> 
> Nevertheless, of late, Washington seems intent on scrambling Venezuela’s political scene. On Monday, the U.S. Treasury Department, following a lengthy investigation, announced that it had identified Maduro’s vice president, Tareck El-Aissami, as a drug kingpin, freezing his assets and barring U.S. entities from engaging in transactions with him. In Venezuela, El Aissami’s drug links are old news, and yet the public greeted the sanctions with real anxiety. Seeing your bully called out should feel satisfying, but El-Aissami is as scary as they come. The morning after the announcement, Venezuelan media, both pro-government and opposition, gave the sanctions scant coverage, and the political sphere went silent. Even regular citizens feared reprisals.
> 
> Then, on Wednesday evening, Trump tweeted a picture of the himself, Vice President Mike Pence, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, on either side of a woman named Lilian Tintori. “Venezuela should allow Leopoldo López, a political prisoner & husband of @liliantintori (just met w/ @marcorubio) out of prison immediately,” the accompanying message read. Here in Venezuela, jaws dropped.
> 
> To translate: Tintori, a professional athlete and former television personality, is the wife of López, Venezuela’s highest-profile political prisoner. A handsome, charismatic, hardline critic of Venezuela’s slide to dictatorship, and a staunch advocate of civic resistance, he’s been shown in a slew of surveys to be Venezuela’s most popular political leader. In jail since early 2014 for his role in organizing anti-government demonstrations, he’s the standard-bearer for Venezuelans who think no accommodation is possible with the chavista regime. His obstinate approach has been maligned by the more risk-averse wing of the opposition. López makes people uncomfortable.
> 
> Tintori was thrust into the spotlight when her husband turned himself in to Venezuelan authorities in a highly choreographed political stunt. Her foray into the world of international human-rights activism had a rocky start: She’s no politician, and her learning curve was steep. But López’s imprisonment turned her into a single mother of two, and pictures of her trudging up the hill to her husband’s military prison, two kids in tow, have earned her real admiration. Over the years, she’s enjoyed the help of a formidable PR team, as well as handlers, and advisers. She’s withstood the ridicule of her peers for everything from the clothes she wears to her diction, in a way men never have to. Through it all, she has scored diplomatic victories no one else in the Venezuelan opposition has.
> 
> Trump’s tweet set off a deep political shockwave in the country. For Venezuelans accustomed to living in fear of their dictatorial government, the sight of the president of the United States siding publicly with the most fearless champion of Venezuelan democracy was powerful.
> 
> Of course, there are perils to his taking this position, too. Trump has become a toxic figure on the international stage. Some observers, like Phil Gunson of the International Crisis Group, are concerned that explicit backing from Trump could make it politically impossible for other leaders in the region to actively support his endorsement.
> 
> This is not a concern I share.
> 
> This most unlikely of endorsements was the shot of courage that timid leaders, both in Venezuela and the region, needed to speak their minds. For once, Trump is making good on his campaign promise: to call things by their names, to shed political correctness. (And no, I can’t believe I’m writing this.) There’s certainty in Trump’s tweet, and certainty is in short supply in Caracas—just like toilet paper.
> 
> The sight of the president of the United States siding with the most fearless champion of Venezuelan democracy was powerful.
> We know from recent readouts of calls between Trump and leaders in Colombia and Perú that the incoming president makes a point of asking regional presidents about Venezuela. Much will depend now on how skillfully the United States confronts Maduro. We know Obama’s policy of containment did nothing to slow the death of Venezuela’s democracy. But we also know the incoming U.S. administration comes at this problem with limited diplomatic credibility, and a sometimes alarming tendency to undermine its own policy goals via 4:00 a.m. tweets. We’re past hoping for magical solutions here.
> 
> But for long-suffering Venezuelans, there’s an undeniable rush from seeing a superpower call out Venezuela’s dictatorship. Whether this more assertive U.S. stance will help us restore our democracy is very much an open question. Nobody sane would feel comfortable gambling on a positive outcome here. But, diplomatically, the game has changed in Venezuela. It’s hard to suppress a smile.
> 
> Look, we know the score with Trump. It took extraordinary circumstances to turn a leader like him into the best news for Venezuela’s democratic struggle in ages. A contradiction? For sure. Then again, I’m Venezuelan. What isn’t?*


Here's the tweet: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/832016501657968640
Saving countries, one tweet at a time :banderas


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not a single MSM outlet is carrying the Anthony Weiner sentence btw. Suddenly all their paid for and remarkable SEO isn't working anymore :lmao


Hmm, do the NY Times count as MSM? That's the first that showed up in my Google search. In fact the top 4 results after wikipedia are NY times, Washington Post, BBC and Daily Mail. I thought those were MSM organisations but I dunno how you all classify which is which any more tbh.


----------



## TheLapsedFan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Speaking of past Trump tweets that lefties will never bring up.
> 
> Practically sounds like a prophet and an alert father figure for all young Americans here. I'm glad a real man is in the White House and another perverted filthy democrat is in jail. Especially one that close to child rapist apologist Clinton.


You realize this guy said to a girl that looked to be aged 9-11, "I'll date you one day". He also said this to a 13 year old. Of course this insinuates that he's attracted to these children but knows the laws enough to not say "I'll fuck you tonight", or you know, grab them by the pussy.

edit: I don't mean to imply that democrats or whoever the fuck is doing whatever the fuck to children should be treated lightly. I'm simply pointing out you're a huge hypocrite.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So Trumps makes a huge arms deal with one of the biggest Muslim terrorist countries in the world LOL

Cant wait to hear what Trump supporters have to say about this


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-signs-110-billion-arms-deal-saudi-arabia/story?id=47531180

Trumps signs $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on 'a tremendous day'

President Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on Saturday, the initial day of his first foreign trip since taking office.

"That was a tremendous day. Tremendous investments in the United States," Trump said. "Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs," he said.

The agreement commits Saudi Arabia to buying military equipment from the U.S. and to hiring American companies to build such equipment in Saudi Arabia, according to Gary Cohn, the president's chief economic adviser. The deal includes tanks and helicopters for border security, ships for coastal security, intelligence-gathering aircraft, a missile-defense radar system and cybersecurity tools, according to the State Department.

In a joint press appearance on Saturday with the Saudi foreign minister, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the pact as a "historic moment in U.S.-Saudi relations." He also expressed an openness to talks with Iran.

“I’ve never shut off the phone to anyone that wants to talk or have a productive conversation,” he said. “At this point, I have no plans to call my counterpart in Iran, although in all likelihood we will talk at the right time.”

Tillerson said the pact sends a "very strong message to our common enemies" on trying to disrupt "violent extremist messaging" and "financing of terrorism." He also said the deal "lowers the cost to the American people of providing security in this region."

The Trump administration has been working to finalize the deal over the past several months. White House press secretary Sean Spicer called the deal "huge news for U.S. companies and American workers who will benefit" in a tweet on Saturday morning.

Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner personally called the president of Lockheed Martin, a major supplier of U.S. military equipment, in order to negotiate a lower price for the radar system, according to the New York Times.

"This package of defense equipment and services supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of malign Iranian influence and Iranian related threats. Additionally, it bolsters the Kingdom's ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on U.S. military forces," the State Department said in a statement.

A White House official added that in addition to demonstrating the U.S. commitment to Saudi Arabia "and our Gulf partners," it also expands "opportunities for American companies in the region, and supporting tens of thousands of new jobs in the U.S. defense industrial base."

Lockheed Martin President Marillyn Hewson praised the deal as one that will bolster the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and "strengthen the cause of peace in the region."

“At Lockheed Martin, we are proud to be part of this historic announcement that will strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," Hewson said in a statement. "We are especially proud of how our broad portfolio of advanced global security products and technologies will enhance national security in Saudi Arabia, strengthen the cause of peace in the region, and provide the foundation for job creation and economic prosperity in the U.S. and in the Kingdom."

The arms deal includes military sales to Saudi Arabia of $110 billion immediately and $350 billion total over the next decade, according to a White House official. The two countries also agreed to a joint vision statement, private-sector agreements and defense cooperation agreements.

Trump's first overseas trip since the election also includes planned stops at the Vatican and Israel.

The trip comes as controversy swirls in the U.S. around the investigation into potential collusion between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government, which could distract from the president's diplomatic mission.

In response to a question about reports that a current White House official is caught up in the investigation, Tillerson said "I do not have any information or knowledge regarding the person of interest."


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Hmm, do the NY Times count as MSM? That's the first that showed up in my Google search. In fact the top 4 results after wikipedia are NY times, Washington Post, BBC and Daily Mail. I thought those were MSM organisations but I dunno how you all classify which is which any more tbh.


Fair enough. I don't use google so I didn't bother to check. Bing on the other hand did not list any of the usual MSM sources. Have an explanation for that? 

There is still more to criticize. Almost none of them are talking about the fact that he plead guilty to sexting with a minor. And the usual MSM outlets are doing their best to hide the fact that this is a pedophilia verdict, not just sexting. 

NYT: "Anthony Weiner Pleads guilty to federal obscenity charge"
NBC: "Anthony Weiner pleads guilty in teen sexting case" 
WashPo: "A necessary moment for Anthony Weiner" --- Takes them 6 paragraphs to talk about the fact that he was sexting a minor. 

NPR: Finally someone puts "minor" in their headline. 
ABC: Mentions it was a sext to a minor 

Rolling Stones: Asks the question like it's even a question that should be asked "Can Anthony weiner go to jail for sexting a minor?" 

CNN: Went full retard. They basically put Weiner sexting a minor and Trump winning the White house in the same story as though they're one and the same or that it was Anthony Weiner that cost the honorable Clinton the election :lmao. Here's a line from a CNN article: "Washington (CNN)Anthony Weiner sexted a 15-year-old and Donald Trump won the White House."

You can never expect honesty from liberal outlets, can you? Even when they're reporting the news, it's almost like they're trying their best not to tell us anything at all.

Meanwhile, Trump has two scoops of Ice Cream and it's a matter of public outcry :lol 

"Fair and objective" ... only when it comes to denouncing a pedophile I suppose.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Fair enough. I don't use google so I didn't bother to check. Bing on the other hand did not list any of the usual MSM sources. Have an explanation for that?
> 
> There is still more to criticize. Almost none of them are talking about the fact that he plead guilty to sexting with a minor. And the usual MSM outlets are doing their best to hide the fact that this is a pedophilia verdict, not just sexting.
> 
> NYT: "Anthony Weiner Pleads guilty to federal obscenity charge"
> NBC: "Anthony Weiner pleads guilty in teen sexting case"
> WashPo: "A necessary moment for Anthony Weiner" --- Takes them 6 paragraphs to talk about the fact that he was sexting a minor.
> 
> NPR: Finally someone puts "minor" in their headline.
> ABC: Mentions it was a sext to a minor
> 
> Rolling Stones: Asks the question like it's even a question that should be asked "Can Anthony weiner go to jail for sexting a minor?"
> 
> CNN: Went full retard. They basically put Weiner sexting a minor and Trump winning the White house in the same story as though they're one and the same or that it was Anthony Weiner that cost the honorable Clinton the election :lmao. Here's a line from a CNN article: "Washington (CNN)Anthony Weiner sexted a 15-year-old and Donald Trump won the White House."
> 
> You can never expect honesty from liberal outlets, can you? Even when they're reporting the news, it's almost like they're trying their best not to tell us anything at all.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump has two scoops of Ice Cream and it's a matter of public outcry :lol
> 
> "Fair and objective" ... only when it comes to denouncing a pedophile I suppose.


There aren't many liberal outlets in the UK tbh so I can't comment, we don't get much in the way of US news networks in the UK. We have a very right-wing heavy media in general tbh. In fact the only really "liberal/left" newscaster who comes to mind here is Jon Snow, and he spends most of his time calling out people in interviews when THEY lie through their teeth, no bullshit allowed. You'd probably consider the BBC "liberal" or "leftist" but they're campaigning very hard for the Conservative Party and have since they've been in power (2010) so I'm not sure they deserve the label as much as "panders to political correctness but attempts to assassinate the left-wing parties in favour of the conservatives" which is far more apt. Paedophiles here are generally fairly universally hated, except for the Conservative party, home to one of the highest profile paedophiles in UK history, numerous scandals with cover-ups of paedo rings within the government and heavy support of Jimmy Savile who may be our most notorious paedo in history. Whilst paedo-apoligist may apply to "liberals" out there, it's very much the domain of the right-wing in the UK.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> There aren't many liberal outlets in the UK tbh so I can't comment, we don't get much in the way of US news networks in the UK. We have a very right-wing heavy media in general tbh. In fact the only really "liberal/left" newscaster who comes to mind here is Jon Snow, and he spends most of his time calling out people in interviews when THEY lie through their teeth, no bullshit allowed. You'd probably consider the BBC "liberal" or "leftist" but they're campaigning very hard for the Conservative Party and have since they've been in power (2010) so I'm not sure they deserve the label as much as "panders to political correctness but attempts to assassinate the left-wing parties in favour of the conservatives" which is far more apt. Paedophiles here are generally fairly universally hated, except for the Conservative party, home to one of the highest profile paedophiles in UK history, numerous scandals with cover-ups of paedo rings within the government and heavy support of Jimmy Savile who may be our most notorious paedo in history. Whilst paedo-apoligist may apply to "liberals" out there, it's very much the domain of the right-wing in the UK.


I'd call BBC Statists. Not leftists or rightists since they're state run media so obviously they're going to be the propaganda arm of the ruling party.

Pedophilia apologia in America is squarely an extreme left-wing ideology. The right wing here absolutely abhors it. In fact, most of them have abandoned the Catholic Church after the numerous scandals broke out. The left wants to re-label it as a mental disorder or even more extreme as a sexual orientation.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheLapsedFan said:


> You realize this guy said to a girl that looked to be aged 9-11, "I'll date you one day". He also said this to a 13 year old. Of course this insinuates that he's attracted to these children but knows the laws enough to not say "I'll fuck you tonight", or you know, grab them by the pussy.


Saying that I'm going to date you one day basically means that he can envision her turning into a beautiful woman that would be his type. Trump clearly has a type as you can see with all the beautiful women he has dated over the years. 

It doesn't mean that he wants to fuck the young version. Actual pedophiles fuck young girls and boys. They don't need to or want to wait for them to get older as they are attracted to the young person - not their older version.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Saying that I'm going to date you one day basically means that he can envision her turning into a beautiful woman that would be his type. Trump clearly has a type as you can see with all the beautiful women he has dated over the years.
> 
> It doesn't mean that he wants to fuck the young version. Actual pedophiles fuck young girls and boys. They don't need to or want to wait for them to get older as they are attracted to the young person - not their older version.


The hoops you have to jump through to defend Trump especially on this is sickening.

You always defend and have excuses for conservatives when it comes to this sort of thing. 

Its sickening you are defending Trump for saying to a child oh when you grow up I may date you meaning he wants to fuck her .

How can you even defend a grown man imagining what a child will look like grown up and wanting to date her

You need some serious help.

If any older man came up to someones child and said when you grow up, I am doing to date you, that older man would be in the hospital.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The hoops you have to jump through to defend Trump especially on this is sickening.
> 
> You always defend and have excuses for conservatives when it comes to this sort of thing.
> 
> Its sickening you are defending Trump for saying to a child oh when you grow up I may date you meaning he wants to fuck her .
> 
> *How can you even defend a grown man imagining what a child will look like grown up and wanting to date her
> *
> You need some serious help


Because that's literally not at all what pedophilia is at all. 

Pedophilia is an attraction to children. 



> Pedophilia is a psychosexual disorder in which an adult or adolescent has a sexual preference for prepubescent children. This disorder is also considered to be a paraphilia, which is a group of disorders defined by abnormal sexual activity.


A pedophile imagines or has sex with _children_. Not _older _versions of children. 

Irony is that your group only wants to label Trump a pedophile by mischaracterizing or even intentionally misrepresenting what pedophilia even is, but not actually care about protecting children from real pedophiles. 

Anything to get a political victory by mischaracterizing and misrepresenting something. That's pretty much all you do all day anyways.

Having to change the definition of something in order to make someone fit that label is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and hysteria I've ever seen :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Because that's literally not at all what pedophilia is at all.
> 
> Pedophilia is an attraction to children.
> 
> 
> 
> A pedophile imagines or has sex with _children_. Not _older _versions of children.
> 
> Irony is that your group only wants to label Trump a pedophile by mischaracterizing or even intentionally misrepresenting what pedophilia even is, but not actually care about protecting children from real pedophiles.
> 
> Anything to get a political victory by mischaracterizing and misrepresenting something. That's pretty much all you do all day anyways.


Take the word pedophile out of it.

Do you think its ok for Trump to tell a child, oh when you grow up he will be dating her?

that is what we are talking about her, not what label you want to call it. 

pedophile or not Trump was trying to flirt with a fucking child.

but in your sick head that is ok.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BTW. BM, if you really ever thought that Trump was a pedophile, then how come you've spent more of your energy trying to prove that he's also a russian agent? 

Or maybe it's just that you're a partisan hack that simply moves from fake news to fake news to fake news in absolute maddening desparation to get something to stick. I can picture you waking up in the morning "IS TRUMP IMPEACHED TODAY!" 

You need help because you're literally become the MSM's lapdog.



birthday_massacre said:


> Take the word pedophile out of it.
> 
> Do you think its ok for Trump to tell a child, oh when you grow up he will be dating her?
> 
> that is what we are talking about her, not what label you want to call it.
> 
> pedophile or not Trump was trying to flirt with a fucking child.
> 
> but in your sick head that is ok.


Oh shit. NOW YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE WORD PEDOPHILE FROM THE DISCUSSION. Because you fucking lost that point and aren't even man enough to admit it, but would rather change the goal post :lmao :lmao 

I won't play your game of changing goal posts. The discussion here was that this statement made Trump a pedophile. You don't know what pedophile means. Now you want to change the goal posts. 

I don't need to or care to answer your question because your games are tiresome and have always been. Everyone in this site including the leftists are sick of your shit because you don't know how to argue and abuse the rules of engagement and critical thought. 

Always. 

Someone saying that is simply weird. It doesn't make them a sexual predator, doesn't make them a pedophile. Doesn't even make them a bad person :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> BTW. BM, if you really ever thought that Trump was a pedophile, then how come you've spent more of your energy trying to prove that he's also a russian agent?
> 
> Or maybe it's just that you're a partisan hack that simply moves from fake news to fake news to fake news in absolute maddening desparation to get something to stick. I can picture you waking up in the morning "IS TRUMP IMPEACHED TODAY!"
> 
> You need help because you're literally become the MSM's lapdog.


You are the one who thinks it's ok for adult men to flirt with children telling them oh when you get older they will be dating them.

Keep defending Trump on stuff like this and you call me a lapdog LMAO.

And you are the one who plays these games because you are defending Trump flirting with a child.

the projection of you over the past few days has been hilarious

You are not a serious person.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who thinks it's ok for adult men to flirt with children telling them oh when you get older they will be dating them.
> 
> Keep defending Trump on stuff like this and you call me a lapdog LMAO.
> 
> And you are the one who plays these games because you are defending Trump flirting with a child.
> 
> the projection of you over the past few days has been hilarious
> 
> You are not a serious person.


I'm defending him from pedophile accusations and given that you're no longer using the word pedophile and want it removed from the discussion but want to try to paint him as a pedophile without actually using the word since that word doesn't fit because he's not a pedophile, looks like I was able to change that hysterical stance that Trump is a pedophile. 

You're not even using that word in your posts anymore and want me to remove it as well. 

I think my argument is won. 

Trump is not a pedophile.

Carry on with your Russian investigation. Let me know when they find the Comey Memo :sleep


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I'm defending him from pedophile accusations and given that you're no longer using the word pedophile and want it removed from the discussion but want to try to paint him as a pedophile without actually using the word since that word doesn't fit because he's not a pedophile, looks like I was able to change that hysterical stance that Trump is a pedophile.
> 
> You're not even using that word in your posts anymore and want me to remove it as well.
> 
> I think my argument is won.
> 
> Trump is not a pedophile.
> 
> Carry on with your Russian investigation. Let me know when they find the Comey Memo :sleep


I was bashing Trump for telling a child he is going to date her when she grows up and you are defending him doing that.

You did not win shit LOL You are defending Trump for hitting on a child

Maybe you won if you want the creep factor. But sure keep defending Trump hitting on a child and think you won just because he said he would wait until that child is legal.


Sure go with that.

All you had to say was yeah Trump should not be saying that to young girls and everyone would have agreed.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I was bashing Trump for telling a child he is going to date her when she grows up and you are defending him doing that.
> 
> You did not win shit LOL You are defending Trump for hitting on a child.
> 
> Maybe you won if you want the creep factor. But sure keep defending Trump hitting on a child and think you won.


At least you've gone from calling him a full on pedophile to "hitting on the girl" which is still a flight of fancy since telling a young girl that she's beautiful and marriable or dateable in the future is not hitting on them. However, you've always been like a Mullah/Cleric when it comes to how you interpret things that are anti-Trump sounding so you can stick to your guns on this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> At least you've gone from calling him a full on pedophile to "hitting on the girl" which is still a flight of fancy since telling a young girl that she's beautiful and marriable or dateable in the future is not hitting on them. However, you've always been like a Mullah/Cleric when it comes to how you interpret things that are anti-Trump sounding so you can stick to your guns on this.


Its not a flight of fancy when Trump told her he would be dating her when she is older. 

Love how you ignore that part. Who the fuck tells a 10 year old oh you are marriable. really you are going to go with that? Keep digging your hole deeper. The hoops you keep jumping through get even more pathetic

we all know if Bill Clinton said this to a child you would be all over him, but since its Trump, you will defend him to the end

Your MO is to defend all the conservative creeps but bash all the democrats for doing the same thing.

You are a hypocrite.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who thinks it's ok for adult men to flirt with children telling them oh when you get older they will be dating them.
> 
> Keep defending Trump on stuff like this and you call me a lapdog LMAO.
> 
> And you are the one who plays these games because you are defending Trump flirting with a child.
> 
> the projection of you over the past few days has been hilarious
> 
> You are not a serious person.


Dude he never said it was ok, he actually said he thought it was weird. You called him a pedophile for saying that, when that is not the actual definition of a pedophile. 

You can discuss politics with someone without actually attacking them as a person. There is no crime saying you cannot be liberal or cannot be a conservative. Both sides have valid opinions and beliefs on subjects. The most important thing is that we understand both sides, we may not agree with them but we understand them. 

Trump has a ton of issues that liberals can target him on, saying he is a sexual predator is not one of them. 

Was it weird? Yes, but that was not your original point. If somebody else did this to you, you would be the first one to call them out on it and call them a stupid idiot. 

If I did this at my job talking about one of the kids I would probably be fired on the spot, but if you cared so much about making that point you should've made that your original point.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> Dude he never said it was ok, he actually said he thought it was weird. You called him a pedophile for saying that, when that is not the actual definition of a pedophile.
> 
> You can discuss politics with someone without actually attacking them as a person. There is no crime saying you cannot be liberal or cannot be a conservative. Both sides have valid opinions and beliefs on subjects. The most important thing is that we understand both sides, we may not agree with them but we understand them.
> 
> Trump has a ton of issues that liberals can target him on, saying he is a sexual predator is not one of them.
> 
> Was it weird? Yes, but that was not your original point. If somebody else did this to you, you would be the first one to call them out on it and call them a stupid idiot.
> 
> If I did this at my job talking about one of the kids I would probably be fired on the spot, but if you cared so much about making that point you should've made that your original point.


I did not use the word pedophile reaper brought up that word.

Quote me in this exchanged where I used the word pedophile.

This was my first post on this



birthday_massacre said:


> The hoops you have to jump through to defend Trump especially on this is sickening.
> 
> You always defend and have excuses for conservatives when it comes to this sort of thing.
> 
> Its sickening you are defending Trump for saying to a child oh when you grow up I may date you meaning he wants to fuck her .
> 
> How can you even defend a grown man imagining what a child will look like grown up and wanting to date her
> 
> You need some serious help.
> 
> If any older man came up to someones child and said when you grow up, I am doing to date you, that older man would be in the hospital.



And reaper was the one who defended what I said in that quote with the word pedophile


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its sickening you are defending Trump for saying to a child oh when you grow up I may date you meaning he wants to fuck her .
> 
> How can you even defend a grown man imagining what a child will look like grown up and wanting to date her


BM backpeddling like fuck :kobelol

You clearly said that he wanted to fuck the child, not the adult version of the child therefore he's a pedophile.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> BM backpeddling like fuck :kobelol


How am I backpedaling, you quoted me saying WHEN YOU GROW UP..

But keep ignoring that part.

You are not a serious person.

Keep making excuses for Trump on this. Keep digging deeper.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> How am I backpedaling, you quoted me saying WHEN YOU GROW UP..
> 
> But keep ignoring that part.


You said he wanted to "fuck her" in the same sentence as you're talking about the girl, not the grown up therefore you were talking about him wanting to fuck the child. That is the same as saying he's a pedophile. It was also in a discussion (that you butted into as always) with someone else who also heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile and you carried on his talking points meaning that that's what you think as well. 

Stop backpeddling and just admit like a man that you wanted to either paint him as a pedophile, imply that he's one, paint him as a predator of children, or imply that he might be one. 

All without evidence. 

If you don't think he's a sexual predator of children, then why are you even having this argument with me because that was all I was debunking and you kept twisting arguments to pain him as a child predator. 

We're then in agreement that he's not a sexual predator of children.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You said he wanted to "fuck her" in the same sentence as you're talking about the girl, not the grown up therefore you were talking about him wanting to fuck the child. That is the same as saying he's a pedophile. It was also in a discussion (that you butted into as always) with someone else who also heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile and you carried on his talking points meaning that that's what you think as well.
> 
> Stop backpeddling and just admit like a man that you wanted to either paint him as a pedophile, imply that he's one, paint him as a predator of children, or imply that he might be one.
> 
> All without evidence.
> 
> If you don't think he's a sexual predator of children, then why are you even having this argument with me. We're then in agreement that he's not a sexual predator of children.


I am said he wants to fuck her in the same sentence I said WHEN YOU GROW UP.

Trump said to a child when you grow up I am going to date her and dating means fucking. 

I said it was fucked up Trump told a child when she grows up he will be dating her and when you date you fuck the person.

The argument is not over Trump being a pedophile its over him telling a child he will be dating her when she is older.

that is why I even said take the word pedophile out of it, because that is what you were fixating on. And just admit how fucked up it was for Trump to tell a child he would be dating her when she grows up and you could not even do that.

why would anyone even tell a child oh I will be dating you when you are older.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am said he wants to fuck her in the same sentence I said WHEN YOU GROW UP.
> 
> Trump said to a child when you grow up I am going to date her and dating means fucking.
> 
> I said it was fucked up Trump told a child when she grows up he will be dating her and when you date you fuck the person.
> 
> that is why I even said take the word pedophile out of it, because that is what you were fixating on. And just admit how fucked up it was for Trump to tell a child he would be dating her when she grows up and you could not even do that.


You're backpeddling. But if you don't think he's a sexual predator and a pedophile, then this conversation is done. 

Thanks for the admission. 

I don't think it's fucked up to tell a young girl that you want to date them in the future. From a historical context, based on all the western popular culture I've consumed, it used to be considered a fairly normal thing to tell a girl that she'll make some man a beautiful/wonderful wife. And I believe that that's the context that's missing from all of this. 

The difference here is that Trump said that about himself instead of some random man. Even if he's imagining a relationship with a 21 year old when he's 56, that sort of dating arrangement is very noramlized amongst liberals and conservatives. I don't see a problem with it at all.



Smarkout said:


> Dude he never said it was ok, he actually said he thought it was weird. You called him a pedophile for saying that, when that is not the actual definition of a pedophile.
> 
> You can discuss politics with someone without actually attacking them as a person. There is no crime saying you cannot be liberal or cannot be a conservative. Both sides have valid opinions and beliefs on subjects. The most important thing is that we understand both sides, we may not agree with them but we understand them.
> 
> Trump has a ton of issues that liberals can target him on, saying he is a sexual predator is not one of them.
> 
> Was it weird? Yes, but that was not your original point. If somebody else did this to you, you would be the first one to call them out on it and call them a stupid idiot.
> 
> If I did this at my job talking about one of the kids I would probably be fired on the spot, but if you cared so much about making that point you should've made that your original point.


It's because what BM really did care about in this conversation was the fact that Trump is a sexual predator of children. Now that he can't prove it, his mental gymnastics are simply a cover for his original thought that Trump is indeed a sexual predator/pedophile. 

When the media was hysterically screaming about the sexual predation allegations, BM was their biggest cheerleader on here. When they were all proven to be bunk, he moved on to the russian thing because that's what his ilk has been doing. BM is the perfect democrat that toes the party line. He even follows all the scandals in the same order as the MSM want him to. 

He forgot for a second that Trump isn't a sexual predator and went into default mode because someone else brought it up so he had to become their cheerleader. Not an iota of original thinking. Just follows either the media or someone else. I actually can't remember if he has ever given his own original thoughts on anything, or if he's even capable of them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You're backpeddling. But if you don't think he's a sexual predator and a pedophile, then this conversation is done.
> 
> Thanks for the admission.
> 
> I don't think it's fucked up to tell a young girl that you want to date them in the future. From a historical context, based on all the western popular culture I've consumed, it used to be considered a fairly normal thing to tell a girl that she'll make some man a beautiful/wonderful wife. And I believe that that's the context that's missing from all of this.
> 
> The difference here is that Trump said that about himself instead of some random man. Even if he's imagining a relationship with a 21 year old when he's 56, that sort of dating arrangement is very noramlized amongst liberals and conservatives. I don't see a problem with it at all.


You think its ok for a man to tell a young girl he wants to date her in the future? WTF 

A man imagining a 10-12 year old in 10 years is totally fucked up. You are a totally sick dude. AT least that explains a lot

It's one thing for a 56 year told to imagine being with a 21-year-old, its another for a 56 year old to be imagining what a 11 year told will be like in 10 years and being with her.

Fuck dude, you have real issues. Please get some help. You are talking about child grooming. And you know who does that alot? Muslims.

Wait didn't you used to be Muslim? guess that explains it.

some things never die.

Im done with this topic, you are sick.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You think its ok for a man to tell a young girl he wants to date her in the future? WTF
> 
> A man imagining a 10-12 year old in 10 years is totally fucked up. You are a totally sick dude. AT least that explains a lot
> 
> It's one thing for a 56 year told to imagine being with a 21-year-old, its another for a 56 year old to be imagining what a 11 year told will be like in 10 years and being with her.
> 
> Fuck dude, you have real issues. Please get some help. You are talking about child grooming. And you know who does that alot? Muslims.
> 
> Wait didn't you used to be Muslim? guess that explains it.
> 
> some things never die.
> 
> Im done with this topic, you are sick.


So :triggered 

Just because I don't think it indicates that someone else is a sexual predator or pedophile or even fucked up when they do it doesn't mean that I do it. There is nothing wrong with imagining someone's older version and wanting a relationship with them. It is fucked up to want to have sex with a child. 

"Grooming". Another word that you have no idea what it means. The glossary of BM's words he doesn't know how to use keeps growing. 

Just in case you might actually want to learn what it means, here's what it really means:



> Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions for child sexual abuse. It lures minors into trafficking of children, illicit businesses such as child prostitution, or the production of child pornography.


Thank you for being the perfect example of everything that's wrong with the American left and thank you for reminding us why we will never vote for democrats. 

:mj4


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Did BM really just try to imply you had paedophile tendencies because you used to be a Muslim?...

...

...

...I thought he was "liberal?" I have no words to express how retarded that really is. So much for "don't blame the many for the actions of the few" narrative I guess. Besides, paedophilia is (very sadly) prevalent in all races and religious leanings as far as I'm aware. Should we start calling every Catholic a paedophile? Is every white conservative a ruthless sexual predator and necrophiliac because Jimmy Savile was? We've had "grooming gangs" of just about every variety in the UK, the Muslim ones get a lot more press in our heavily right-wing media though I guess, maybe BM's a secret Daily Mail/Express/Sun reader lol. Seriously, what the actual fuck....


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Did BM really just try to imply you had paedophile tendencies because you used to be a Muslim?...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...I thought he was "liberal?" I have no words to express how retarded that really is. So much for "don't blame the many for the actions of the few" narrative I guess. Besides, paedophilia is (very sadly) prevalent in all races and religious leanings as far as I'm aware. Should we start calling every Catholic a paedophile? Is every white conservative a ruthless sexual predator and necrophiliac because Jimmy Savile was? We've had "grooming gangs" of just about every variety in the UK, the Muslim ones get a lot more press in our heavily right-wing media though I guess, maybe BM's a secret Daily Mail/Express/Sun reader lol. Seriously, what the actual fuck....



If you read my whole post you would see that not what I said. I said he is sick because he thinks its ok to imagine what a 10-12 year old would be like in 10 years and imagine dating her.

Do you really see a 10-12 year old and say oh you think she will be hot in 10 years and imagine what it would be like dating her?

Because reaper thinks there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to defend him on that, go right ahead.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Did BM really just try to imply you had paedophile tendencies because you used to be a Muslim?...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...I thought he was "liberal?"


And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people.


yeah, you admit you think its ok to imagine yourself with a 10-12-year-old in 10 years when she is legal. 

You think normal people think highly of people that think way?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Did BM really just try to imply you had paedophile tendencies because you used to be a Muslim?...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...I thought he was "liberal?"


And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Because reaper thinks there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to defend him on that, go right ahead.


Other than you arbitrarily defining it as a thought crime out of convenience, what is exactly wrong with it. Does it make someone a pedophile? No. Does it make someone a sexual predator? No. Does it mean that they want to fuck children. No? It's not even sexual deviancy. It's not even a fetish. It's not even fetishization of a child. What is exactly wrong with it other than what your personal fee fees are telling you. 

It was a massive reach on your part to paint it as something that's close to pedophilia and predation. And after you couldn't prove the link between this and sexual criminality, you immediately turned on me and heavily implied that I'm a pedophile for thinking that there's nothing wrong with this as this is not even a thought crime .. and then you threw in the fact that I'm an ex-muslim and muslims are pedophiles. 

YOu completely fucked up here BM. There's no defense for your overt abusive behavior over simply losing an argument. You've done this in the past with Beatles as well when you mocked him for his disability. 

You are a terrible human being. You have a tendency to abuse people when you lose arguments because you have no points to back up your own argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than you arbitrarily defining it as a thought crime out of convenience, what is exactly wrong with it. Does it make someone a pedophile? No. Does it make someone a sexual predator? No. Does it mean that they want to fuck children. No?
> 
> It was a massive reach on your part to paint it as something that's close to pedophilia and predation. And after you couldn't prove the link between this and sexual criminality, you immediately turned on me and heavily implied that I'm a pedophile for thinking that there's nothing wrong with this as this is not even a thought crime .. and then you threw in the fact that I'm an ex-muslim and muslims are pedophiles.
> 
> YOu completely fucked up here BM. There's no defense for your overt abusive behavior over simply losing an argument.


You are imagining what a child will be like in 10 years when they are legal, that is totally fucked up. You are thinking of a child sexually but you said oh but you are rationalizing it by saying you thinking about them in 10 years when she will be legal

You need seriously help


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I heard trump once saw a cow getting milked and imagined what it would be like to eat ice-cream made from that milk.

what a demon :no:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people.


I don't even think they're all that "left wing" in a lot of their views tbh, just twisted. I'm so glad that despite many on the far-right trying to act like it's the same here as it is there (not even remotely tbh) our "lefties" tend to actually look to improve things for the vulnerable rather than forming riot mobs and attacking everybody who doesn't fit into their bizarre PC narrative. I may not like Jeremy Corbyn much, but at least he's done what he said he would in turning the Labour party into a party "for the people" and aimed the majority of his policies at the working and lower middle classes, many of whom are legitimately struggling badly after the last 7 years of exploitative Tory financial policy which is only getting worse (as well as tripling our national debt and borrowing more money than every single left wing government in UK history combined.) I'm not keen on many of his methods at all, but as it stands with the current tory manifesto and complete dismissal of Scotland and it's people/parliament I'm more likely to vote "left" in June I think...anyway I digress.

If the rest of your "left wing" out there is like BM then something definitely needs to change out there, especially with how right-wing the entire spectrum is in general. I personally believe you need both sides putting in input to get the best results, having a choice between a homogeneous political system or a bunch of raving lunatics I don't see any real "win" on the table...crazy shit.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are imagining what a child will be like in 10 years when they are legal, that is totally fucked up. *You are thinking of a child sexually *but you said oh but you are rationalizing it by saying you thinking about them in 10 years when she will be legal
> 
> You need seriously help


So you are going back to admitting that you think that this was about pedophilia after all. Well, unfortunately it's not. Pedophilia is specifically about sexualizing a child, not what the child might look like when they're of age.



RavishingRickRules said:


> If the rest of your "left wing" out there is like BM then something definitely needs to change out there, especially with how right-wing the entire spectrum is in general. I personally believe you need both sides putting in input to get the best results, having a choice between a homogeneous political system or a bunch of raving lunatics I don't see any real "win" on the table...crazy shit.


Other than the overt communistic tendencies of the european far left (which I believe doesn't have much support in Europe), your far, far left is still PC but not as bad as many of the far leftists here. You should see the shit that gets posted in the PC madness thread. Some of it is batshit insane and many of us rightwingers became politically active to try to stop America from moving farther to the left. It's what's really galvanizing the American right. It has nothing to do with ensuring or maintaining the status quo - a lot of it has to do with preventing America from descending into PC madness. 

There was an increase of about 5% voting for Trump in the 18-29 age bracket and that increase is those kids who are growing up in an increasingly hostile environment. 

Unlike Europe, there is a huge movement here to suppress conservative thought on college campuses and in the media. We're in the midst of a culture war against that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So you are going back to admitting that you think that this was about pedophilia after all. Well, unfortunately it's not. Pedophilia is specifically about sexualizing a child, not what the child might look like when they're of age.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And this is why I keep engaging the American left because eventually they break down and reveal what they _really _think about people.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than you arbitrarily defining it as a thought crime out of convenience, what is exactly wrong with it. Does it make someone a pedophile? No. Does it make someone a sexual predator? No. Does it mean that they want to fuck children. No? It's not even sexual deviancy. It's not even a fetish. It's not even fetishization of a child. What is exactly wrong with it other than what your personal fee fees are telling you.
> 
> It was a massive reach on your part to paint it as something that's close to pedophilia and predation. And after you couldn't prove the link between this and sexual criminality, you immediately turned on me and heavily implied that I'm a pedophile for thinking that there's nothing wrong with this as this is not even a thought crime .. and then you threw in the fact that I'm an ex-muslim and muslims are pedophiles.
> 
> YOu completely fucked up here BM. There's no defense for your overt abusive behavior over simply losing an argument. You've done this in the past with Beatles as well when you mocked him for his disability.
> 
> You are a terrible human being. You have a tendency to abuse people when you lose arguments because you have no points to back up your own argument.


He'll never get it tbh. Seriously though, isn't what Trump said one of those things the older generation used to say as a compliment to children? I've heard that tons as a kid "ooo he's going to be a heartbreaker one day" "why aren't you pretty, you'll make someone very happy some day." Sure it probably wasn't the best choice of words (does he ever have the best choice of words though? lol) saying "im going to date you" or whatever he said but let's not act like things like this aren't a common occurrence and hold absolutely zero sexual connotations at all in most polite society. He's basically telling a little girl she looks pretty, he's not fucking grooming the girl ffs. I've made no secret of the fact I'm no huge fan of Trump and I consider him a fairly artless man without much political acumen but criticise him for the shit he's actually doing wrong instead of the fantasy bullshit if you're against him. All the bullshit stories and "gotcha" moments are getting tiresome now.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> He'll never get it tbh. Seriously though, isn't what Trump said one of those things the older generation used to say as a compliment to children? I've heard that tons as a kid "ooo he's going to be a heartbreaker one day" "why aren't you pretty, you'll make someone very happy some day." Sure it probably wasn't the best choice of words (does he ever have the best choice of words though? lol) saying "im going to date you" or whatever he said but let's not act like things like this aren't a common occurrence and hold absolutely zero sexual connotations at all in most polite society. He's basically telling a little girl she looks pretty, he's not fucking grooming the girl ffs. I've made no secret of the fact I'm no huge fan of Trump and I consider him a fairly artless man without much political acumen but criticise him for the shit he's actually doing wrong instead of the fantasy bullshit if you're against him. All the bullshit stories and "gotcha" moments are getting tiresome now.


This is basically how I viewed it too. If anything, Trump's choice of words might have not been the best, and he came off a bit creepy, but overall I really don't think he meant anything sexual in nature. If anything, insinuating this from a small quote Trump made just seems like a massive overreaction to something which didn't really deserve it. 

I'm also in your boat as well with Trump. Not a fan of him at all (and with this huge Middle East arms deal with the Saudi's I'm even less of a fan), but I'm not going to just shit on him on any instance I can get my hands on.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> He'll never get it tbh. Seriously though, isn't what Trump said one of those things the older generation used to say as a compliment to children? I've heard that tons as a kid "ooo he's going to be a heartbreaker one day" "why aren't you pretty, you'll make someone very happy some day." Sure it probably wasn't the best choice of words (does he ever have the best choice of words though? lol) saying "im going to date you" or whatever he said but let's not act like things like this aren't a common occurrence and hold absolutely zero sexual connotations at all in most polite society. He's basically telling a little girl she looks pretty, he's not fucking grooming the girl ffs.


I actually did try to point that out to him. It's funny how much I know about western culture considering I have spent much less time in the west than BM. 

I would like to believe that BM's outrage and misrepresentation of the context is _intentionally _manipulative (as he tends to purposefully manipulate what someone says all the time) and not actually born out of not knowing or understanding his own culture or inability to understand basic human conversation.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I think the diff btwn Trump and say a regular boomer,is that is that if a regular dude crossed the line his wife,friends,family etc will be like alert him his comment is wrong and inappropriate and he knows where the limit is. With Trump he says inappropriate creepy stuff daily but since he was a kid he had has nothing but enablers and yes men. So when he makes a joke about his toddler daughter's potential bust line when she grows or tells a little girl he will date her in 10 years his group of yes men just laugh. The man has never been told his life a joke is not funny,an idea he has had is bad or anything he said has crossed a line. It's not entirely his fault how inappropriate and out of touch with social norms he is more then the weird quirks of Justin Bieber,Vince McMahon,Mr Burns from the Simpsons or Some Saudi Trust Fund Oil Billionare.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> I think the diff btwn Trump and say a regular boomer,is that is that if a regular dude crossed the line his wife,friends,family etc will be like alert him his comment is wrong and inappropriate and he knows where the limit is. With Trump he says inappropriate creepy stuff daily but since he was a kid he had has nothing but enablers and yes men. So when he makes a joke about his toddler daughter's potential bust line when she grows or tells a little girl he will date her in 10 years his group of yes men just laugh. The man has never been told his life a joke is not funny,an idea he has had is bad or anything he said has crossed a line. It's not entirely his fault how inappropriate and out of touch with social norms he is more then the weird quirks of Justin Bieber,Vince McMahon,Mr Burns from the Simpsons or Some Saudi Trust Fund Oil Billionare.


I can live with this kind of explanation of Trump's behavior. I do admit that the man as some atrocious attitudes, but to overtly misrepresent a bad joke, or a bad comment as sexual predation or pedophilia is just as bad, if not worse because while yes men enable bad (but not dangerous or harmful) behaviour, people who intentionally misplace context can endanger a man's life, reputation and career. 

BM is an especially bad case of envisioning every single person he opposes as the worst monster in existence and his kind of personality that creates false narratives about people needs to be countered as well and not enabled either. Unfortunately, it's not just BM, but it's basically the democratic party as a whole at this point that is doing this and it's reached levels of insanity that have never been witnessed before. It's this horrendous mischaracterisation that is partly responsible for Trumpism.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Other than the overt communistic tendencies of the european far left (which I believe doesn't have much support in Europe), your far, far left is still PC but not as bad as many of the far leftists here. You should see the shit that gets posted in the PC madness thread. Some of it is batshit insane and many of us rightwingers became politically active to try to stop America from moving farther to the left. It's what's really galvanizing the American right. It has nothing to do with ensuring or maintaining the status quo - a lot of it has to do with preventing America from descending into PC madness.
> 
> There was an increase of about 5% voting for Trump in the 18-29 age bracket and that increase is those kids who are growing up in an increasingly hostile environment.
> 
> Unlike Europe, there is a huge movement here to suppress conservative thought on college campuses and in the media. We're in the midst of a culture war against that.


I can't comment for the rest of Europe as each country really is as different from each other as we are from you and them tbh and the UK has even less in common with continental Europe as they do with each other. Here though most "extreme" political views struggle to get support. Communists, fascists, far-right nutjobs (which we have more of than far-left tbh) etc get very little support out here. Probably the closest thing to an "extreme" party with any resemblance of credibility would be UKIP who currently have no seats in Parliament and once we leave the EU won't have any real political power at all because they won't even have any MEP's any more either. Farage is seen as way more credible by Americans than the majority of the British also, he's a bit of a joke here for the most part having never gotten himself elected in British Parliament and leading the party that's mostly known for being able to put a more PC face on many of the values of the BNP (actual fascists/racists.) It just doesn't fly as much out here, we're a fairly conservative (not politically though we are that too atm I mean in general) country, we don't like things as over-the-top as most other places and the more extreme you get the more you lose the people. Our problems are different, we mostly have a choice between the Tory party who have proven time and time again they're just bad for the common man and terrible with money or the Labour party who are infighting between actual left-wingers and the neo-cons who remain from Blair's tenure who lost a lot of support over the Iraq war and have a leader who could possibly be our "Trump" and faces the same kind of media assassination attempts that Trump did. It's another "no good choice" situation tbh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I can live with this kind of explanation of Trump's behavior. I do admit that the man as some atrocious attitudes, but to overtly misrepresent a bad joke, or a bad comment as sexual predation or pedophilia is just as bad, if not worse because while yes men enable bad (but not dangerous or harmful) behaviour, people who intentionally misplace context can endanger a man's life, reputation and career.
> 
> BM is an especially bad case of envisioning every single person he opposes as the worst monster in existence and his kind of personality that creates false narratives about people needs to be countered as well and not enabled either. Unfortunately, it's not just BM, but it's basically the democratic party as a whole at this point that is doing this and it's reached levels of insanity that have never been witnessed before.


If someone thinks its ok to see a 10-12 year old and imagine what they will be like in 10 years and dating them, then they are a monster.

Do you imagine what it would be like with a 10-12 year old in 10 years a lot?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you read my whole post you would see that not what I said. I said he is sick because he thinks its ok to imagine what a 10-12 year old would be like in 10 years and imagine dating her.
> 
> Do you really see a 10-12 year old and say oh you think she will be hot in 10 years and imagine what it would be like dating her?
> 
> Because reaper thinks there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to defend him on that, go right ahead.


You conveniently forgot the part where you asked if he used to be a Muslim and then answered your own question by saying, "guess that explains it".

What exactly did you mean by "guess that explains it"???


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If someone thinks its ok to see a 10-12 year old and imagine what they will be like in 10 years and dating them, then they are a monster.
> 
> Do you imagine what it would be like with a 10-12 year old in 10 years a lot?


I don't think I need to answer any of your questions anymore because it's clear that your agenda here is now to try to paint me as a pedophile simply for defending Trump against accusations of pedophilia (which I've successfully done as most people are in agreement with me). You just don't want to live with the indignity of losing an argument on the internet, so you want to paint the person who defeated you as a pedophile too. Because ya simply can't live with the fact that you've made a mess of this situation. 

It's actually pretty disgusting and everyone else has seen through your shit and that's all I care about now. Your attempts to mischaracterize me are backfiring completely.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I don't think I need to answer any of your questions anymore because it's clear that your agenda here is now to try to paint me as a pedophile simply for defending Trump against accusations of pedophilia (which I've successfully done as most people are in agreement with me). You just don't want to live with the indignity of losing an argument on the internet, so you want to paint the person who defeated you as a pedophile too. Because ya simply can't live with the fact that you've made a mess of this situation.
> 
> It's actually pretty disgusting and everyone else has seen through your shit.


You are a sick human being for thinking it's ok to imagine a young girl when she is older and dating her.

Anyone who thinks that is ok, is also sick in the head.

I did not make a mess of anything, you admitted its ok to do that shit. You showed what a truly sick person you are.

And sorry but the majority of society does not think that is ok. But maybe in your sick circle you surround yourself in its ok.

Only on WF will some people think its ok to tell a young child oh you are pretty and then saying you will be dating her in 10 years.

but keep thinking that is normal.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are a sick human being for thinking it's ok to imagine a young girl when she is older and dating her.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that is ok, is also sick in the head.
> 
> I did not make a mess of anything, you admitted its ok to do that shit. You showed what a truly sick person you are.
> 
> And sorry but the majority of society does not think that is ok. But maybe in your sick circle you surround yourself in its ok.


So it's not enough to imagine just me as a pedophile now, you are suggesting that everyone else who disagrees with you is a sick human being as well. 

You're so badly triggered that all I can actually hope for your sake at this point is that you're not actually believing any of this, but are simply lashing out because you can't handle losing an argument.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are a sick human being for thinking it's ok to imagine a young girl when she is older and dating her.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that is ok, is also sick in the head.
> 
> *I did not make a mess of anything*, you admitted its ok to do that shit. You showed what a truly sick person you are.
> 
> And sorry but the majority of society does not think that is ok. But maybe in your sick circle you surround yourself in its ok.
> 
> Only on WM will some people think its ok to tell a young child oh you are pretty and then saying you will be dating her in 10 years.
> 
> but keep thinking that is normal.


Denial isn't just a river in Egypt @birthday_massacre


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> *So it's not enough to imagine just me as a pedophile now, you are suggesting that everyone else who disagrees with you is a sick human being as well.
> *
> You're so badly triggered that all I can actually hope for your sake at this point is that you're not actually believing any of this, but are simply lashing out because you can't handle losing an argument.


The progressive mindset in action!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM may wanna take a time out, casting wide aspersions like that isn't going to do him any favours. I'm glad I have him on ignore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So it's not enough to imagine just me as a pedophile now, you are suggesting that everyone else who disagrees with you is a sick human being as well.
> 
> You're so badly triggered that all I can actually hope for your sake at this point is that you're not actually believing any of this, but are simply lashing out because you can't handle losing an argument.


Anyone who thinks its ok to look at a child and imagine them being legal in 10 years and saying you will be dating her, yes that person is sick.

It's one thing to say oh your daughter is beautiful and leave it at that, its another to say you will be dating that child in 10 years.

you don't think if most fathers heard you tell them their daughter is pretty and you will be dating her in 10 yrs that he wouldn't kick your ass especially if you are 56


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> BM may wanna take a time out, casting wide aspersions like that isn't going to do him any favours. I'm glad I have him on ignore.


He doesn't realize that irrational abuse and name-calling has become so wide-spread amongst his brand of leftists, that most everyone has developed an immunity to the worst accusations. 

It's why Trumpism was born and why it's never going to die - even after Trump is no longer our president. 

The more his ilk do this, the stronger it gets.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He doesn't realize that irrational abuse and name-calling has become so wide-spread amongst his brand of leftists, that most everyone has developed an immunity to the worst accusations.
> 
> It's why Trumpism was born and why it's never going to die - even after Trump is no longer our president.
> 
> The more his ilk do this, the stronger it gets.


I couldn't cope being surrounded by people like that, I'd get myself arrested if people tried to call me a paedophile or targeted me with their nutjob hysterical bullshit. It's ridiculous, he has more in common with our far-right nazi groups like Britain First than he does anybody with actual liberal values that I've ever met. "Think like me or you are scum!!" If it wasn't such a common word for right wingers I'm sure he'd have called people "Traitor" too by now smfh.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am pretty sure Trump just meant that in a complimentary way, not that he would actually try to date her.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I couldn't cope being surrounded by people like that, I'd get myself arrested


Yeah. It is happening here and has been happening since well before Trump got elected. The SJW movement started as early as 2010 and basically a lot of people don't quite make the connection yet but the first great unitor of men was gamergate in 2015 which first exposed the left as abusive oppressors - this was immediately followed up by the extreme opposite and character assassination of Trump in 2016 to now which has made anti-left warriors stronger and increasingly united. I would say that most of the support we get isn't even from right-wingers, but anti-leftists which is basically a breed of disenfranchised liberals. 

America really is going through a major cultural war where ironically the right and left have switched sides on some issues. The weirdest thing is that suppression, oppression and abuse (and in some cases even spreading their ideology through violence) is now firmly a weapon of the left when it really used to be a weapon of the right here too. 

It is one of the most unique switches I've ever experienced in my life and I used to participate in protests to overthrow an eastern Dictator. I lived a peaceful transition of power from dictatorship to democracy and experienced it from within the media as a journalist. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life :woo 

But it doesn't compare to the complex cultural war I'm living in America right now.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I couldn't cope being surrounded by people like that, I'd get myself arrested if people tried to call me a paedophile or targeted me with their nutjob hysterical bullshit. It's ridiculous, he has more in common with our far-right nazi groups like Britain First than he does anybody with actual liberal values that I've ever met. "Think like me or you are scum!!" If it wasn't such a common word for right wingers I'm sure he'd have called people "Traitor" too by now smfh.


The term Fascist is pretty common now and Nazi.

Also Trump's comment was weird but nothing terrible.

I've heard loads of people talk about how someone young will be a knock out or handsome or a lady killer etc when they get older.

Hell people here have commented in the entertainment section and in general about such and such girl in a TV show who's underage is smoking hot or will be insanely hot when older.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He doesn't realize that irrational abuse and name-calling has become so wide-spread amongst his brand of leftists, that most everyone has developed an immunity to the worst accusations.
> 
> It's why Trumpism was born and why it's never going to die - even after Trump is no longer our president.
> 
> The more his ilk do this, the stronger it gets.


The stronger trump gets LOL

His approval rating is 38% its one of the lowest ever for a president at this point. OH yeah Trump is getting so stronger.

This forum lives in bizarro world.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The stronger trump gets LOL
> 
> His approval rating is 38% its one of the lowest ever for a president at this point. OH yeah Trump is getting so stronger.
> 
> This forum lives in bizarro world.


Trumpism is an ideology started by Trump. His approval rating as a president has no bearing on the ideological movement he started. 

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a sociology degree is that I can still interpret and understand how society works and shapes up unlike my uneducated detractors.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He doesn't realize that irrational abuse and name-calling has become so wide-spread amongst his brand of leftists, that most everyone has developed an immunity to the worst accusations.
> *
> It's why Trumpism was born and why it's never going to die - even after Trump is no longer our president. *
> 
> The more his ilk do this, the stronger it gets.


Oh, it's here and it's not going anywhere. In fact, the stonewalling against progressives is only going to grow stronger. The left thinks it's all Trump, that's why they're flipping birds and saying fuck Donald Trump. They have no idea that it's a mass movement against their ideology. We just have decorum and don't go around crying at the top of our lungs how unfair it is. We just sit back, do our jobs, raise our families, and every two years we vote. 2018 is going to be the year leftists heads explode.

They'll have spent two years tearing Trump down, every single day, thinking that we'll just give up, or we'll think we're all dumb and think they're so awesome and vote them in. When they lose more seats, after all the fake news shit they've pulled, all the lying, all the cons, they're gonna go ballistic.

Also, 2018 is gonna be the year of the third party. Mark it down.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> The term Fascist is pretty common now and Nazi.
> 
> Also Trump's comment was weird but nothing terrible.
> 
> I've heard loads of people talk about how someone young will be a knock out or handsome or a lady killer etc when they get older.
> 
> Hell people here have commented in the entertainment section and in general about such and such girl in a TV show who's underage is smoking hot or will be insanely hot when older.


See we actually do have fascists/nazis here, they're a very small minority but they are here sadly, including the fucked up "worship Hitler" variety. If you ever want to see just how disturbing those minority groups of hate are go take a look at the comments on Britain First's Facebook page where you have people saying things like "Hitler had it right, put them all in the gas chamber" etc. The problem for me is that the more people call the non-nazi's "fascist" and "nazi" the easier it is for those actual hateful and dangerous groups to get traction and support. It's that whole "boy who cried wolf" shit all over again. As someone who's family was actually directly affected by "the" Nazis, I'm vehemently against using those words for anything less than the real thing. Real Nazis and Fascists are horrible, dangerous people. We need to be able to fight against them should they gain traction, not be ignored because the words have lost any real meaning in society.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Oh, it's here and it's not going anywhere. In fact, the stonewalling against progressives is only going to grow stronger. The left thinks it's all Trump, that's why they're flipping birds and saying fuck Donald Trump. They have no idea that it's a mass movement against their ideology. We just have decorum and don't go around crying at the top of our lungs how unfair it is. We just sit back, do our jobs, raise our families, and every two years we vote. 2018 is going to be the year leftists heads explode.


Shhhh ... Don't tell them our secrets :mj 

Though they wouldn't know what to do with the information anyways. 

Kek.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Trumpism is an ideology started by Trump. His approval rating as a president has no bearing on the ideological movement he started.
> 
> One of the unfortunate consequences of having a sociology degree is that I can still interpret and understand how society works and shapes up unlike my uneducated detractors.


Sociology? That's a liberal leftie cop-out degree if ever I heard of one! :ambrose5 (I'd hope you know that's a joke but I've been bitten on this forum before so I added this just to be sure lol)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Oh, it's here and it's not going anywhere. In fact, the stonewalling against progressives is only going to grow stronger. The left thinks it's all Trump, that's why they're flipping birds and saying fuck Donald Trump. They have no idea that it's a mass movement against their ideology. We just have decorum and don't go around crying at the top of our lungs how unfair it is. We just sit back, do our jobs, raise our families, and every two years we vote. 2018 is going to be the year leftists heads explode.


You truly are clueless the US is moving more and more left and progressive. All the most popular ideas are progressive, not conservative.

But keep living in your alt fact reality.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Sociology? That's a liberal leftie cop-out degree if ever I heard of one! :ambrose5 (I'd hope you know that's a joke but I've been bitten on this forum before so I added this just to be sure lol)


Yes, but in my defense I realized that I might have been indoctrinated into anti-capitalist propaganda so I got my MBA right after that because I wanted to learn their version too ::vince$

I have always studied both sides of propaganda. It's almost an obsession


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yes, but in my defense I realized that I might have been indoctrinated into anti-capitalist propaganda so I got my MBA right after that because I wanted to learn their version too ::vince$
> 
> I have always studied both sides of propaganda. It's almost an obsession


Yeah I like a bit of propaganda myself though I've studied it more from the psychological side (and also the design side interestingly enough, propaganda and advertising aren't too far apart from each other as I'm sure you know.) I mean I can't say shit I have a Philosophy degree which is almost the definition of pointless qualification (though where I got it is all that really mattered in real terms tbh, and it was incredibly fun to study.)


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Shhhh ... Don't tell them our secrets :mj
> 
> Though they wouldn't know what to do with the information anyways.
> 
> Kek.


I'm actually quite interested in seeing how they react, because you know they're sitting back right now thinking that everything they're doing is working. They don't have the slightest clue that the only people they're rallying are the same sheeple in their bubble on Nov. 7th. They've gained no followers, they've done nothing, all they've done is turn Centrists into Nazis and eat their own. It's a long year and a half, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the DNC is in complete and utter disarray come election time. What the fuck are they even gonna run on? "Hey, we're not Trump! Vote for us!" 

:ha


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *You truly are clueless the US is moving more and more left and progressive.* All the most popular ideas are progressive, not conservative.
> 
> But keep living in your alt fact reality.


Did you hear that on MSNBC?

:HA


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I like a bit of propaganda myself though I've studied it more from the psychological side (and also the design side interestingly enough, propaganda *and advertising* aren't too far apart from each other as I'm sure you know.) I mean I can't say shit I have a Philosophy degree which is almost the definition of pointless qualification (though where I got it is all that really mattered in real terms tbh, and it was incredibly fun to study.)


I am personally fascinated with WWII propaganda.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm actually quite interested in seeing how they react, because you know they're sitting back right now thinking that everything they're doing is working. They don't have the slightest clue that the only people they're rallying are the same sheeple in their bubble on Nov. 7th. They've gained no followers, they've done nothing, all they've done is turn Centrists into Nazis and eat their own. It's a long year and a half, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the DNC is in complete and utter disarray come election time. What the fuck are they even gonna run on? "Hey, we're not Trump! Vote for us!"
> 
> :ha


I remember one of my favorite atheists (at one point, not anymore), made a video once proclaiming that the internet is where religion goes to die. It's starting to look like that internet is now where leftism goes to die. 

The SJW propaganda machine has already lost the financial battle and that's a result of losing the ideological battle. 

As long as the republican party continues to field small government republicans (not RINO's) there's no way in hell that America is going back to leftism. 

I wish that in 8 years America will have a legit third party, but the chances of that are looking slim. However, the third party infiltration and destabilization of the republican party has already begun. There's a lot of optimism and the undercurrent of Trumpism has been largely successful up until now ... It's a kind of success that's not mainstream, but the main rallying cry is "never democrat" even amongst those that are strictly anti-Trump (amongst conservatives) or losing faith in him.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Catalanotto said:


> I am pretty sure Trump just meant that in a complimentary way, not that he would actually try to date her.


_*Yeah as in a respect and kind heart complimentary way and I doubt he would try anything with a kid. *_


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @TheNightmanCometh; @virus21; @CamillePunk; @BruiserKC; 

Ann Coulter, despite being very much ready to jump off the Trump wagon in recent weeks/months pretty much testifies to exactly why I've developed a new energy to continue supporting Trump - For me the catalyst wasn't the Russia allegation, but rather the Comey memo. The fact of the matter is the left really has become dangerous now - there is no way in hell they should be allowed to install another government in America. I think more people are recognizing this. 

When a party-led partisan media simply gives up all shred of objectivity and falls 100% behind the opposition party line, you know you're on your way to a society where if they ever came into power it would be absolute, unchecked and unrestrained power. It will represent the populist nightmare no society should have to ever face. 

Ann makes a fantastic case for the potential danger of the collusion between left leaning federal judges and democrats which nullify our system of separation of powers and everyone should read this. 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/c...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social


> *COULTER: Every Time I Try To Be Mad At Trump, The Media Pull Me Back*
> 
> Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.
> 
> The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.
> 
> The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.
> 
> The New York Times, March 22, 2017:
> 
> This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.
> 
> Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?
> 
> *Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.
> 
> As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because 1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and 2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”
> 
> Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”
> *
> To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.
> 
> Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)
> 
> At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”
> 
> There’s a new legal principle!
> 
> Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”
> 
> As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!
> 
> *But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?
> 
> For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?
> 
> Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”
> 
> Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.
> *
> After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.
> 
> Here’s what Trump actually said:
> 
> What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. … Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …
> Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.
> 
> In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:
> 
> He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.
> To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:
> 
> It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …
> One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:
> 
> I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.
> He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.
> 
> The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.


The dangers of an entirely democrat controlled and operated media, combined with collusion between democrats and federal judges and an ignorant populous is exactly what needs to be prevented from ever happening legally in America.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*Well...I thought this would never happen. Trump has slowly won me already while being president. I mean he is all action and I respect him for his cause so far. *


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Thank you for the mention, @Iconoclast. Ann Coulter has been an intriguing voice amidst all of the craziness considering her early support for Donald Trump and her principled agitation against his myriad capitulations thus far, ha.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm so glad Reaper and Trump won't be anywhere near my 7 year old daughter, can you imagine me walking in to school with my kids and saying to another parent, oh you're daughters going to be a looker, I think I'll marry her one day. Grim.

The ignore function sucks, I have to read all that garbage in quotes.

Trump sold out to one of the worst countries in the middle east just so he could make some jobs and some dollar. Doubly grim. Lets arm one of the most dogmatic theocracies with more technologically advanced weapons.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Filthy socialists destroying the world one industry at a time:



Spoiler: Long images


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm so glad Reaper and Trump won't be anywhere near my 7 year old daughter, can you imagine me walking in to school with my kids and saying to another parent, oh you're daughters going to be a looker, I think I'll marry her one day. Grim.
> 
> The ignore function sucks, I have to read all that garbage in quotes.
> 
> Trump sold out to one of the worst countries in the middle east just so he could make some jobs and some dollar. Doubly grim. Lets arm one of the most dogmatic theocracies with more technologically advanced weapons.


Only in reapers and conservative land is it thought to be normal to look at a 10-year-old and talk about how he will be with her in 10 years.

How can any normal person look at a child and think that? Only sickos do that kind of shit.


I posted an article about Trump and his arms deal with SA and of course silence from Trump supporters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Filthy socialists destroying the world one industry at a time


If a business cannot support a living wage they have no right to be in business.

And 13 an hour isn't really even a living wage in CA


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If a business cannot support a living wage they have no right to be in business.
> 
> And 13 an hour isn't really even a living wage in CA


So the solution to existing poverty is to create more poverty by destroying jobs. 

Yup and this is how socialists destroy their countries and then pretend that it was capitalism that did it :lmao

Also thanks for proving that you simply quote and don't read. There is no way you read that entire post in 2 minutes. 

This is why the left stays and remains ignorant. Responding to shit without even reading it :lmao

Always suspected that you shit post in this thread without even reading what you're posting. This just confirms it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So the solution to existing poverty is to create more poverty by destroying jobs.
> 
> Yup and this is how socialists destroy their countries and then pretend that it was capitalism that did it :lmao
> 
> Also thanks for proving that you simply quote and don't read. There is no way you read that entire post in 2 minutes.
> 
> This is why the left stays and remains ignorant. Responding to shit without even reading it :lmao
> 
> Always suspected that you shit post in this thread without even reading what you're posting. This just confirms it.


LOL sorry you are a slow reader. Keep making excuses.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL sorry you are a slow reader. Keep making excuses.


Ok. Here is some maths for you. I don't know if you know how math works, but I'll show you how it works. 

The average person reads at 250-300 words per minute. 
Let's assume that you can read at 350 words per minute (ignoring the hindrance of having to read small text on a jpeg)

The total words in the article without the heading and sources was 634. 

This means that at 350 wpm, it would still take you 1 minute and 49 seconds to read the article in full. 

Then about 1 second for clicking the quote button.

we're at 1:50 seconds. 

You then typed 28 words. 

The average person types about 44 wpm. Let's say you do 50 words a minute (and don't habitually double-check or re-read what you type). That's about 36 seconds there. So we're already at around the 2:34 second mark assuming that you're a faster reader and typer than the average (though given your overall intellect, I find that hard to believe anyways). 

Now let's say you simply read at as fast a speed as possible (managed to overcome all the hindrances, didn't process what you actually read because reading fast and processing are both time-consuming and necessary to make sense of all the information that is being assimilated, typed a response and hit post ... You still pushed over 2 minutes. 

Just admit you didn't read as you never do. You did it once before, it's habitual. 

You're such a fake or just a pathological liar -- or just so incredibly insecure and arrogant that you have no idea how to behave like a decent human being on the internet. 

From faking about reading, to calling people who disagree with you pedophiles, to mischaracterizing and misrepresenting everyone and everything ... You're such a hot mess .. for a 40+ year old dude, this is really sad. It must be so embarrassing to be you to have to resort to screeching hysterically at people who simply win arguments.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Woah, the average person only types 44wpm? That's crazy, I guess I'm VERY lucky to have a computer programmer for a father, I never realised how fast I was when colleagues would comment on how fast I type at work. 

I mainly came here to express shock that BM is in his 40's. I honestly would have pegged him around the same age as the kid who goes to clown college yet acts like he's some intellectual heavyweight whilst thinking a cartoonist is the biggest authority on politics around lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Ok. Here is some maths for you. I don't know if you know how math works, but I'll show you how it works.
> 
> The average person reads at 250-300 words per minute.
> Let's assume that you can read at 350 words per minute (ignoring the hindrance of having to read small text on a jpeg)
> 
> The total words in the article without the heading and sources was 634.
> 
> This means that at 350 wpm, it would still take you 1 minute and 49 seconds to read the article in full.
> 
> Then about 1 second for clicking the quote button.
> 
> we're at 1:50 seconds.
> 
> You then typed 28 words.
> 
> The average person types about 44 wpm. Let's say you do 50 words a minute (and don't habitually double-check or re-read what you type). That's about 36 seconds there. So we're already at around the 2:34 second mark assuming that you're a faster reader and typer than the average (though given your overall intellect, I find that hard to believe anyways).
> 
> Now let's say you simply read at as fast a speed as possible (managed to overcome all the hindrances, didn't process what you actually read because reading fast and processing are both time-consuming and necessary to make sense of all the information that is being assimilated, typed a response and hit post ... You still pushed over 2 minutes.
> 
> Just admit you didn't read as you never do. You did it once before, it's habitual.
> 
> You're such a fake or just a pathological liar -- or just so incredibly insecure and arrogant that you have no idea how to behave like a decent human being on the internet.
> 
> From faking about reading, to calling people who disagree with you pedophiles, to mischaracterizing and misrepresenting everyone and everything ... You're such a hot mess .. for a 40+ year old dude, this is really sad. It must be so embarrassing to be you to have to resort to screeching hysterically at people who simply win arguments.




Since you are so hard up on math here is some math for you.

The medium price in SF for a one bedroom apt is $3,590..

Someone making min wage at $13 before taxes is $2080 which means after taxes they get about 1200 of that.

So how is anyone living in SF making min wage supposed to live? 

Sorry but anyone with a full time job especially working in the restaurant business should be able to earn a living wage. Even 13 an hour still isnt enough in SF.

What do you expect them to do work 3 jobs?


And are you really still trying to defend your sicko view that its ok to say oh that 10 year old is pretty, you will be dating here in 10 years.

yeah keep going with that. 

You need seriously help. 

Don't go near any playgrounds or school yards.

The projection at the end on your part is so hilarious. You are talking about yourself.










You think being a decent human being is thinking about dating a 10-year-old in 10 years.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And are you really still trying to defend your sicko view that its ok to say oh that 10 year old is pretty, you will be dating here in 10 years.
> 
> yeah keep going with that.
> 
> You need seriously help.
> 
> Don't go near any playgrounds or school yards.
> 
> The projection at the end on your part is so hilarious. You are talking about yourself.


It's incredible how badly triggered you are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's incredible how badly triggered you are.


Yeah any normal person would be triggered when someone claims its ok to think about dating a 10-year-old in 10 years.


It's really telling what kind of person you are when you think that is normal and ok.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Woah, the average person only types 44wpm? That's crazy, I guess I'm VERY lucky to have a computer programmer for a father, I never realised how fast I was when colleagues would comment on how fast I type at work.


I can type about 70, but I have typing dyslexia so I end up making a lot of errors and it fluctuates between 50 and 70 :shrug

I also have a bit of arthritis and that's no fun. Typing speed also declines with age - so there's no way BM was able to both read the entire article and respond within 2 minutes. 

So arrogant to even admit that he didn't read what was posted at all :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah any normal person would be triggered when someone claims its ok to think about dating a 10-year-old in 10 years.
> 
> It's really telling what kind of person you are when you think that is normal and ok.


:mj4


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I can type about 70, but I have typing dyslexia so I end up making a lot of errors and it fluctuates between 50 and 70 :shrug
> 
> I also have a bit of arthritis and that's no fun. Typing speed also declines with age - so there's no way BM was able to both read the entire article and respond within 2 minutes.
> 
> So arrogant to even admit that he didn't read what was posted at all :lol


AH sorry to hear about the arthritis, I dunno how I'd cope with that tbh being a guitarist and working almost exclusively at a computer. The last test I did at work was around 85 ish, but I do think I have an advantage in having played guitar for nearly 30 years, my fingers can GO lol. At least I know I'm deserving of the strange looks I get when I go to a European office and people I've never met before hear/see me type for the first time I guess. It's actually shameful to debate people without even reading their posts, you should lose your "Anything" posting privileges if you do that. Seems like something that's more appropriate to the General WWE section . Oh and I can dig the "typing dyslexia." Doesn't happen often but sometimes I'll be typing and looking away from the screen to talk to a colleague or read a report or something and look back and find the odd word where it's so jumbled I have no idea wtf I was trying to type lol.


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I mainly came here to express shock that BM is in his 40's. I honestly would have pegged him around the same age as the kid who goes to clown college yet acts like he's some intellectual heavyweight whilst thinking a cartoonist is the biggest authority on politics around lol.


 @CamillePunk


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yeah that's the one. I've had him on ignore for a while and forgot what his name was.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Staying on the theme of the San Fransisco restaurant closures:

https://sf.eater.com/2016/12/9/13901596/restaurants-bars-closed-winter-2016-san-francisco-bay-area



Spoiler: Long Article






> February 24
> 
> There are changes in the works over at Westfield Mall, where four food court vendors have suddenly shuttered, including Peet’s Coffee, which means you’ll have to get your caffeinated shopping break elsewhere for now. No word yet on the retailers who will be taking over the empty spaces. In other restaurant news, longtime French bistro L’Olivier also announced that it will be closing after thirty-eight years serving traditional French food.
> 
> EMBARCADERO — Heirloom bean shop Rancho Gordo is vacating its stand inside the Ferry Building. The brand has done so well selling its goods both online and wholesale that a physical location isn’t necessary anymore. The good news? If you’re still hankering for Rancho Gordo’s flavorful bean selections, you can now buy them exclusively online. [SFGate]
> 
> MID-MARKET — Four of Westfield Mall’s food court stopovers closed this month as the mall makes way for seismic changes and new retailers. Peet’s Coffee, sandwich shop Amoura Cafe, Japanese grab-and-go Mr. Hana, and burger stop Bistro Burger, are all currently empty. [Hoodline]
> 
> EMBARCADERO — After nearly four decades of serving French food in a fine dining atmosphere, bistro L’Olivier at 465 Davis Street announced that it will close in April. The owners are inviting guests to join them for a final meal in the interim in which they’re offering all dinner guests fifteen percent off as well as a complimentary glass of wine. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> February 17
> 
> Three restaurants vacated the Bay this week, with Berkeley’s Bistro Liaison getting the most attention. It’s a bittersweet exit for the owners, who plan to start new careers. They’re currently in negotiations with the team behind Two Sisters Bar & Books, who will soon open a French cafe of their own in Bistro Liaison’s former location.
> 
> POLK — No-frills lunch stopover Thai 4 You has been sold to an unknown bidder. The restaurant opened three years ago, serving up casual Thai food from its walk-up shop at 807 Ellis Street. [Hoodline]
> 
> BERKELEY — Longtime Shattuck Avenue cafe Bistro Liaison has quietly closed after sixteen years of serving classic French cuisine to its loyal patrons. It’s rumored that the owners of Hayes Valley’s literary minded cocktail room Two Sisters Bar & Books will soon be opening a French cafe and wine bar in its stead, called Les Arceaux. Meanwhile, its low-key sister restaurant Le Petit Cochon closed February 5, and will become another location of Pedro’s Brazil Cafe. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> NORTH BEACH — Barbary Coast gastropub shuttered in January after less than year of business the city’s brutal dining scene. For now, its venue at 478 Green Street remains empty. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> February 10
> 
> Two East Bay restaurants shuttered this week — casual Mexican cantina Remy’s and College Avenue’s A.G. Ferrari (don’t worry though, its other Bay Area locations are still open). Old-timer Rose Pistola also waved its classic North Beach venue farewell, citing San Francisco’s rising expenditures as being too unrealistic to keep up with.
> 
> BERKELEY — Longtime deli and cafe A.G. Ferrari is vacating its spot at 2905 College Ave. due to ever-burgeoning overhead costs. The company has plans to transfer employees to its other Bay Area locations. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> NORTH BEACH — After two long decades, jazz-happy Italian eatery Rose Pistola has closed its doors. For now, the space at 532 Columbus Ave. remains empty. [EaterWire]
> 
> ALBANY — A sudden eviction notice left popular Thai restaurant Da Nang Krungthep/Muang Thai at 905 San Pablo Ave. without a home last week. The owner hopes to pursue legal recourse, but until later notice the shop remains closed. [East Bay Express]
> 
> BERKELEY — Mexican diner and casual cantina Remy’s Mexican Restaurant has closed. There’s no word yet on why the restaurant shuttered, nor any news of the newcomer that will be taking over the lease at 2506 Haste Street. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> —
> 
> February 3
> Six closures to account for this week, with Lefty O’Doul’s certainly getting the most noise. It’s been a back-and-forth battle between the building owners and business owner as to who has the rights to the name and memorabilia, and it’s up to the courts now to decide its fate.
> 
> NOE VALLEY — In order to pare down, the owners of La Ciccia have decided to close sister restaurant and casual Italian pizzeria La Nebbia. The last night of service is Saturday, February 4. [EaterWire]
> 
> UNION SQUARE — After lots of drama and with its fate still up in the air, baseball bar Lefty O’Doul’s had its closing party this week. It’s unclear in what form it will return, though building owners say they will reopen it in the same spot, while the business owner maintains he will reopen it elsewhere. It’s up to the courts now. [EaterWire]
> 
> BERNAL HEIGHTS — After last June’s fire, dive bar 3300 Club will unfortunately be permanently closing. The owners wrote on Facebook that the lease was terminated without their input. [Bernalwood]
> 
> LOWER NOB HILL — In an emotional blogpost, Flour & Co. owner Emily Day announced that the restaurant has closed its doors for good as of January 31. But there’s still plans for Flour & Co. in the works -- Day has her sights set on an online iteration of the bakeshop, where you can order handmade treats like nutty granola with a click of the mouse. [EaterWire]
> 
> OAKLAND — Beloved vegetarian restaurant Encuentro is ditching the dining scene, siting bloated overheads and a spike in operational costs as its primary detractors. However, the space won’t be empty for long -- two cash-only pop-ups already have plans to host meals during the week. [EaterWire]
> 
> MISSION — Sushi bar Kiji Japanese exchanged ownership last fall, but the new proprietors were unable to keep the restaurant afloat. It was announced closed as of last Tuesday. [Tablehopper]
> 
> —
> 
> January 27
> In this week’s closing round up, several pocket-sized Oakland restaurants are on the chopping block, Romper Room’s technicolor room is going black and white, and San Francisco’s Village Market experiences an exchange of ownership.
> 
> FINANCIAL DISTRICT — Maiden Lane’s technicolor cocktail bar Romper Room will close this week as the owner focuses on his real estate business, making way for a new establishment. The liquor license and lease have been purchased by the owner of Playland and Topsy’s. [EaterWire]
> 
> INNER RICHMOND — Twenty-five-year-old Village Market is retiring, with the ownership transferring hands. According to the previous owners, Beanstalk Cafe (of Nob Hill) is taking over the lease and has plans on reopening with a similar menu, plus the addition of beer and wine. Opening timeline is March/April. [EaterWire]
> 
> OAKLAND — After a string of poor Yelp reviews siting skimpy portions and surly service, the Subway at 4013 Telegraph Ave. has permanently vacated. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Previously, Bakeshop Oakland was thought to be experiencing a temporary closure due to repairs, but according to an updated Yelp listing, the mom-and-pop bakery has closed its doors for good. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Guadalajara-style sandwich shop Tortas Ahogados Mi Barrio has shut down its International Avenue counter service spot. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Pho restaurant Pho Hiep Hung has closed for an ownership swap and reopened under a different name. This time, it’s going by Pho Vy. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Baja fast food joint Taco del Mar has officially waved adios to its downtown walk-up. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> January 20
> Issues with the city and rent disputes continue to characterize closures around the Bay Area, with Crogan’s and Le Chat Rouge falling victim this go round.
> 
> WALNUT CREEK — Longtime sports bar Crogan’s Sports Bar and Grill shutters on January 23 after issues with the city. [Inside Scoop]
> 
> NORTH BEACH — After just seven months at 1314 Grant Ave., French bakery Le Chat Rouge has shut down, following complications with opening and a recent rent dispute. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> January 13
> Quiet closures characterized this week’s departures, with food delivery app Bento and wine bar Les Clos both tiptoeing out of the SF scene.
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO — Food delivery app Bento has undergone a demise similar to that of several of the city’s meal delivery apps, announcing last week that the service is no longer in operation due to financial struggles. [EaterWire]
> 
> SOMA — French bistro Les Clos is vacating its downtown premises so that Big Night Restaurant Group’s (Leo’s Oyster Bar, Park Tavern) newcomer Petit Marlowe can take over in its stead. Les Clos’ owner, Mark Bright, will continue to oversee Petit Marlowe’s cellar, acting as wine adviser to the restaurant’s curated wine selections. [EaterWire]
> 
> SOMA — AQ bids adieu to San Francisco this weekend, following a steady drop in sales after an initially lauded debut. [EaterWire]
> 
> UNION SQUARE — Bristol Farms, the steeply priced Westfield grocery store with a running history of questionable health scores, is making a dismal departure from the mall’s basement at the end of the month. [EaterWire]
> 
> OAKLAND — Down-to-earth burger joint Crossburgers wished its patrons a fond farewell with a final celebration party in December. [Hoodline]
> 
> SUNSET — Irving Cafe, the reneged stepchild of Quickly’s boba tea chain, has closed up shop, making way for what a splashy window-length poster boasts as Takuya, a Japanese hot dog restaurant. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> January 7
> Two longtime restaurants unexpectedly depart the scene this week, as the end-of-the-year closures drag into the new year.
> 
> SOMA — Family-style, French-leaning LuLu has abruptly vacated its SoMa headquarters after twenty-four years. In its opening days, LuLu garnered high praise from city food critics and patrons alike. [Inside Scoop]
> 
> EMBARCADERO — Butterfly’s fifteen-year lease is up, and the restaurant has thus closed. No word yet on what restaurant is expected to fill this coveted location along the waterfront’s prime tourist thoroughfare. [Inside Scoop]
> 
> OUTER RICHMOND — After less than year of cooking up Italian food on Clement Street, Luna Rossa has permanently shuttered. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> December 30
> The death march of December continues with a number of longtime restaurants permanently vacating the Bay. Most significantly, all of Pasta Pomodoro’s 15 Bay Area locations (nine of which are in San Francisco) have closed for business, at least according to a text message employees received the day after Christmas. Founded by Bay Area restaurant empire builder Adriano Paganini (Super Duper, Beretta, Lolinda) in the 90s, the chain floundered once it was sold to new owners in 2010. More departures bleakly continue, with veterans like Sushi Boat, Lori’s Diner, and Pacifica’s Donut Time making way for new landlords and new leases.
> 
> DOGPATCH — Poquito has closed after six years of Ecuadorian-inspired tapas, ceviches and empanadas on Third Street. No word yet on what will take its place. [Hoodline]
> 
> BAY AREA — Pasta Pomodoro has abruptly closed all of its fifteen locations. Employees were notified not to come into work and that the chain was no longer open for business, but there was no reason given for the closures. [SF Gate]
> 
> TENDERLOIN — Vintage-styled Lori’s Diner will close its original Mason Street location at the beginning of January, though its nearby Sutter Street location will remain open. [Hoodline]
> 
> TENDERLOIN — Show Dogs and its next door cafe, Machine Coffee, are decamping from their corner at Market and Taylor, although a letter posted to the window suggests that the team may have plans in store for future projects. [Hoodline]
> 
> UNION SQUARE — Longtime restaurant Sushi Boat will abandon ship on New Year’s Eve. According to employees, the building’s new landlord has plans for an extensive remodel, as well as tripling the property’s rent. [Hoodline]
> 
> NAPA — Highway 29 Café has shuttered after 55 years of serving up straightforward diner fare to its steadfast customers. Its owner, Allen Organ, hopes to give up his 80-hour work weeks to hit the road. [Napa Valley Register]
> 
> PACIFICA — Donut Time’s new landlord has refused to renew its lease, which means that the 36-year-old doughnut shop will bake its final batch at the end of January. [The Chron]
> 
> —
> 
> December 22
> December continues with an unprecedented number of closures as restaurateurs crunch the numbers and realize they can’t make it work in the coming year.
> 
> BERKELEY — Grocery Cafe has closed up shop, at least for now. The Health Department cited a long list of health code violations back in November, causing Berkeley’s beloved tea leaf salad shop to go on what we hope will be only a temporary hiatus. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> INNER RICHMOND — The Health Department has cracked down on D&A Cafe due to a number of health violations, including rodent infestation. It’s closed for now, but plans to re-open are scheduled for early 2017. [Hoodline]
> 
> SANTA ROSA — Oxford Public Market’s Ca’Momi will close on Sunday, January 1. As a result, its sister restaurant, Ca’Momi Osteria, plans to expand its takeout options. [Eaterwire]
> 
> CIVIC CENTER — Burmese mom-and-pop Tender Loving Food has closed. Owner William Lue hopes to turn his focus to the opening of his newest Burmese iteration in the Tenderloin on a spot called Laphet. [Hoodline]
> 
> MISSION — Neighborhood health food cafe Green Heart Foods has shuttered. But don’t worry — its organic rice bowls and salads will still be available via UberEats and Postmates. [Hoodline]
> 
> SANTA ROSA — The original Johnny Garlic’s of Guy Fieri fame has closed, just a few months after Fieri relinquished ownership of the Johnny Garlic’s chain. [BiteClub Eats]
> 
> FINANCIAL DISTRICT — Despite a petition signed by Deli &...’s loyal customers (many of whom have been the shop’s longtime patrons during its 34 years in business), the property’s new landlord has declined to renew its lease. It will serve its final sandwich on Saturday, December 31. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Cambodian sandwich shop Siem Reap’s bahn mi prices may have been too steep for its neighborhood clientele, causing it to shutter after being open only a short few months. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> UNION SQUARE — After nearly two decades of serving up appetizers and Californian wines, First Crush has closed its doors for good. [Hoodline]
> 
> —
> 
> December 15
> OAKLAND — After nearly sixty years, a handful of different owners, and three name changes, Oakland’s kosher Grand Bakery is throwing in the towel. The owner hopes to hand off the bakery to a buyer who will continue to maintain its kosher certified status. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> OAKLAND — alaMar Kitchen and Bar as you know it is shuttering on December 17, but will reopen in the new year with a fast casual format. The owner points to minimum wage raises and the cost of doing business in the Bay Area as the reasons cited for the closure/change. [EaterWire]
> 
> OAKLAND — The small duo of Actual Cafe and Victory Burger will close both operations, effective December 23. The owner said that the decision to close was due to his own “missteps,” in running the business, as well as the increasingly difficult task of hiring staff. [EaterWire]
> 
> JACK LONDON SQUARE — Seafood waterfront restaurant Jack’s Oyster Bar closed its doors two weeks ago, although its next door sister restaurant, Bocanova, still remains open. [EBX]
> 
> ALAMO SQUARE — Long time Divisadero pizza shop Stelladoro has shuttered, at least until further notice. For the meantime, you’ll have to get your pies elsewhere. [Hoodline]
> 
> OAKLAND — Church-owned soul food spot Souls Restaurant at 6403 Foothill Blvd. shuttered quietly back in October for unknown reasons. [EBX]
> 
> —
> 
> December 9
> BERKELEY — Cafe Rouge, the restaurant and butcher shop that’s operated on Berkeley’s Fourth Street for just over 20 years, will close on December 30 due to staffing issues. [EaterWire]
> 
> MISSION — Twelve years after it opened, Range’s days are limited to the end of the month. There are already (apparently secret) plans for the Mission space since there’s 10 years left on the lease, but an increase in dining options and changes in the local economy are the reasons behind the closure. [The Chron]
> 
> SOMA — After 26 years, Boudin Bakery has called it quits on its Market Street location to focus on its new Boudin SF concept in other stores. Employees were shuffled around to other locations around the city, which remain open. [Hoodline]
> 
> BERKELEY — After sixty years of feeding people easy cafe fare, Caffe Med on Telegraph is now closed. It will reopen next year after an extensive renovation, but it’s unclear if it will be the same concept and name. [Berkeleyside]
> 
> UNION SQUARE — New Year’s Eve will be Kuleto’s last night, deciding to close after the head chef left in August. [Tablehopper]
> 
> NAPA — Fast casual burger spot BurgerFi has shuttered after two-and-a-half years, determining it was not a cost effective location. [Napa Valley Register]
> 
> MISSION — Less than a year after opening, late-night restaurant Starboard has closed, with no clear reason why. [Tablehopper]
> 
> BERKELEY — The College Avenue location of La Panotiq has closed, until further notice. Locations in SF and beyond are still open. [Berkeleyside]






So, I went through the closures one by one and very quickly and roughly determined the following: 










Date range: from December 2016 till March 2017. 

Just some more observations:

- The number isn't 64 as according to the article there were several restaurants that shuttered multiple restaurants which the article didn't tally so I did that instead making the data slightly unreliable. However, that data skew is in the "No response" category. 

Evictions (which were all largely caused by the landlords wanting to increase rent) combined with increasing costs (labor, overhead etc) accounted for nearly 39% of all closures (32) in just 3 months. A fair chunk I believe of the non-responses probably belong in this category. I won't guess as to how much. You can make your own guesses if you like. 

The rate of replacement of these businesses is low. The industry workers however clearly have far fewer options as a fair chunk of the "re-opening" also includes a change in business strategy to online only or smaller-scale restaurants with fewer jobs. 

The situation is pretty bleak. 

Cali needs to follow the Orlando model otherwise most of their businesses will continue to move here as per my last share on California's money flow to Florida.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Goku said:


> @CamillePunk


I come to the Trump thread to have a good time and I'm honestly feeling so attacked right now


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Saudi Arabia didn't want to create ISIS. They wanted to implement as they always have their version of Arab Sunno Islam across the Muslim world, however, the Saudi Kings are directly not responsible.
> 
> They are indirectly responsible in that their extreme sunni version was taken by people in their kingdom and spread outward throughout the sunni muslim countries - most helped by Pakistan and Operation cyclone money that was used to fund the Mujahideen and train the Taliban in Pakistani medressahs. The saudis supplied the intellectuals that spread the ideology in those schools. Pakistan supplied the military training.
> 
> The Saudi extremism started as a response to the Irani revolution and it morphed into literally the sunni version of shia extremism that existed in Iran.
> 
> Now Saudis and the rest of the world are under threat of the monster they helped create and funded.
> 
> I can understand why western governments are still sympathetic to the kings, but enough is enough. The Saudi kings have done nothing but spread cancer around the world.


It's the concept of the public/private position (yes I making a reference to something the Hildebeast said). Publicly, the Saudi government has condemned the Wahhabist movement and all it stands for. Privately, they have tossed multiple bones to that pack of dogs in the hopes that one day they won't turn and bite the hands that have fed them. Other governments in the ME have seen this as well, Turkey and Jordan as other examples. In the case of the Saudi government, there are enough people in the world that like Saudi oil. To them, the idea of an ISIS-like organization overthrowing the Saudi government and controlling the oil supply is not something they are willing to risk. 

Right now, the Saudi government has grown more nervous as Iran expands its influence in the region. They especially freaked out when Obama helped finalize the nuclear agreement with the Iranian government. This has led them to a stronger relationship with Israel (which just a few years ago would have been almost unthinkable). The Saudi monarchy is looking to us for help, now more than ever. Thus, that's why the closing of the arms deal is significant. 

All the more interesting will be Trump's speech today to the leaders of 50 Muslim nations, especially considering his anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign. There is no way he will ever apologize for what he said then, but he has the opportunity to show the Muslim world that he wants to be a partner with them in the fight to exterminate groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Ultimately, that goal will be easier if we can get them these leaders on board to work with us.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> All the more interesting will be Trump's speech today to the leaders of 50 Muslim nations, especially considering his anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign. There is no way he will ever apologize for what he said then, but he has the opportunity to show the Muslim world that he wants to be a partner with them in the fight to exterminate groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Ultimately, that goal will be easier if we can get them these leaders on board to work with us.


It's really weird what's going on in the world right now. Given what I'm seeing around me, I sometimes feel compelled to give up my ethical objection to war because I have to accept that this world is never going to behave within my narrow scope of what's ethical. So in light of thinking beyond my own ethical scope, I can understand why people are compelled to support a pro-war leader. I can see why "this must end" 

Muslim leaders won't unite under a muslim leader. They won't unite under the banner of ending terrorism because many of their own livelihoods are dependent on keeping other muslim countries unstable. 

Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other oil states benefit tremendously from the instability of other oil states especially since their own oil economy is stagnating and struggling. The reason why Saudi Arabia is arming so heavily is because they're preparing for the chaos that's going to grip their country when it becomes the next Venezuela. (It's really not a matter of IF, but WHEN at this point). I can understand why America wants to support this, but they're again doing it at the risk of another failed state flooding the middle east with even more terrorists. 

The problem are Muslim countries themselves. The only governments we should trust are those that are ideologically and culturally similar to our own. Saudi Arabia simply cannot be trusted with all this support. I hope that despite whatever face he shows to the Saudis, Trump knows this or has someone in his administration telling him. Saudis are already panicking over how much oil USA is pumping out because it's severely impacting its economy so if America wants to squeeze those fuckers and bring them aboard, then they need to hit them where it hurts. Their oil money. 

Otherwise, I'm all for just breaking ties with the middle east and go full out in an economic oil war.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I do have to say, I REALLY hope this visit goes well for Mr Trump. If there was ever a time for him to rehearse some lines and make sure he's not taken the wrong way, it may just be this time. I'm really not a fan of working with Saudi Arabia, but if the plan of action is to "work with" these middle eastern countries then we really don't need them getting offended over a poorly worded remark or ad-libbed fuck up.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's really weird what's going on in the world right now. Given what I'm seeing around me, I sometimes feel compelled to give up my ethical objection to war because I have to accept that this world is never going to behave within my narrow scope of what's ethical. So in light of thinking beyond my own ethical scope, I can understand why people are compelled to support a pro-war leader. I can see why "this must end"
> 
> Muslim leaders won't unite under a muslim leader. They won't unite under the banner of ending terrorism because many of their own livelihoods are dependent on keeping other muslim countries unstable.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other oil states benefit tremendously from the instability of other oil states especially since their own oil economy is stagnating and struggling. The reason why Saudi Arabia is arming so heavily is because they're preparing for the chaos that's going to grip their country when it becomes the next Venezuela. (It's really not a matter of IF, but WHEN at this point). I can understand why America wants to support this, but they're again doing it at the risk of another failed state flooding the middle east with even more terrorists.
> 
> The problem are Muslim countries themselves. The only governments we should trust are those that are ideologically and culturally similar to our own. Saudi Arabia simply cannot be trusted with all this support. I hope that despite whatever face he shows to the Saudis, Trump knows this or has someone in his administration telling him. Saudis are already panicking over how much oil USA is pumping out because it's severely impacting its economy so if America wants to squeeze those fuckers and bring them aboard, then they need to hit them where it hurts. Their oil money.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm all for just breaking ties with the middle east and go full out in an economic oil war.


Trump understands. Perhaps he hopes that he can be the one that makes progress finally in the Middle East. For years, Nixon screamed at the top of his lungs about how evil Communism was, then he went to China. Reagan waxed poetic about the Soviet Union being the "Evil Empire", then made arms deals with them and welcomed Gorbachev with open arms. Trump envisions being that person when it comes to achieving peace in a region that has only known violence. He feels that his tough talk qualifies him to be the one to make it happen. 

Of course, almost every President has hoped for that, but they have all failed. The reason is that the leaders of the Middle East have not been truly willing to go along with it. You need that person who is truly willing to be a partner in the peace process. I referred to Reagan and the Russkis earlier...Gorbachev was a more willing partner to work with then Brezhnev, Andropov, or Chernenko were. If the right leader came along within Palestine, one that was willing to work for peace and not just lip service, Netanyahu would work with that person without hesitation. 

I am not pro-war myself, I am as anti-war as most others. I understand, however, that war is sometimes necessary. However, you can't fight with one hand tied behind your back, as we are seeing. I talked earlier in the thread about serving in Kosovo with KFOR. We started to see this, and it became even worse for US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, where commanding officers were having to talk to UN liaisons and lawyers and get permission to take action where necessary. Imagine being in the middle of a firefight and wanting to take out an enemy installation and having to call to get permission from a lawyer to do it while the battle is going on. That's exactly what we dealt with in Kosovo, and what some of my fellow soldiers saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fight, but only as a last resort. When I fight, I will kick that person's ass and spare no quarter. 

Many here talk about how Islam is not a religion of peace, etc. I am probably a holdout as I do believe that there are good Muslims who want to just live like the rest of us and don't want a one-world caliphate. However, I also understand that the goal of groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda is the conquest of the world and force us all to submit to Allah or die. In fact, I was considered extremist by some for saying all radical Islamic groups should be wiped off the face of the earth with extreme prejudice when I first came to this message board. :lol Now, I am moderate in my views compared to what others here believe. The radicals only respect strength and force...and we will have to use that in order to put them down. People say that more will come back...but I believe that if we kill enough of them some of the survivors might be willing to ask for peace. In the meantime, we need to kill as many of them as possible and make them see we will be happy to play 72 Virgins Travel Agency and supply as many one-way tickets as needed. Once that is solved, then the Islamic imams and leaders can have the discussion on where they want their faith to go.


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I come to the Trump thread to have a good time and I'm honestly feeling so attacked right now


:sadpanda


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You truly are clueless the US is moving more and more left and progressive. All the most popular ideas are progressive, not conservative.
> 
> But keep living in your alt fact reality.


Is that why democrats/progressives have lost so many elected offices recently?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BM talking like a damn Borg. "YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED"

Nah.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The facial expressions and reactions of these backwards ass camel humpers and goat fuckers is all you need to see that his words are useless and it's nothing but time wasted :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866304385386774529


----------



## MOX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Anark said:


>


:lmao that's hilarious. I'm so looking out for any papers with people with their mouths open now.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Many here talk about how Islam is not a religion of peace, etc. I am probably a holdout as I do believe that there are good Muslims who want to just live like the rest of us and don't want a one-world caliphate. However, I also understand that the goal of groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda is the conquest of the world and force us all to submit to Allah or die. In fact, I was considered extremist by some for saying all radical Islamic groups should be wiped off the face of the earth with extreme prejudice when I first came to this message board. :lol Now, I am moderate in my views compared to what others here believe. The radicals only respect strength and force...and we will have to use that in order to put them down. People say that more will come back...but I believe that if we kill enough of them some of the survivors might be willing to ask for peace. In the meantime, we need to kill as many of them as possible and make them see we will be happy to play 72 Virgins Travel Agency and supply as many one-way tickets as needed. Once that is solved, then the Islamic imams and leaders can have the discussion on where they want their faith to go.


Even when I was more towards sympathy towards a lot of Muslims who are generally good people (before I realized just how many of them actually showed support to the terrorist attacks of their extremist bretheren), I always had some sort of nagging discomfort about Islam as a whole, and how technically speaking, you could put your friendly co-worker who happens to be a Muslim under the same blanket as the extremists you see killing dozens with trucks. Now, I don't think that every Muslim has the potential to just want to kill as many people in the name of Allah as possible, but I defintely have an increasingly negative view of the religion as a whole, and do slightly question those who practice it while they know sure and well what is going on in the world today. It's hard because I really don't want to have prejudice on certain Muslim people I've met and seen, like a dude I knew at college who was studying to become a biology teacher, but when you see statistics like 1/5 Muslims in the UK having some sort of sympathy towards the terrorists and such, it just makes things difficult. 

I'm really against war altogether as well, and I really don't want to see thousands upon thousands of US troops have to get involved again (I know some are over there I believe), but we might just have to go open season on all those radicals, by hell or high water.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Even when I was more towards sympathy towards a lot of Muslims who are generally good people (before I realized just how many of them actually showed support to the terrorist attacks of their extremist bretheren), I always had some sort of nagging discomfort about Islam as a whole, and how technically speaking, you could put your friendly co-worker who happens to be a Muslim under the same blanket as the extremists you see killing dozens with trucks. Now, I don't think that every Muslim has the potential to just want to kill as many people in the name of Allah as possible, but I defintely have an increasingly negative view of the religion as a whole, and do slightly question those who practice it while they know sure and well what is going on in the world today. It's hard because I really don't want to have prejudice on certain Muslim people I've met and seen, like a dude I knew at college who was studying to become a biology teacher, but when you see statistics like 1/5 Muslims in the UK having some sort of sympathy towards the terrorists and such, it just makes things difficult.
> 
> I'm really against war altogether as well, and I really don't want to see thousands upon thousands of US troops have to get involved again (I know some are over there I believe), but we might just have to go open season on all those radicals, by hell or high water.


They continue to believe in it because they have walled out any connection between Islam and terrorism ... The relationship between the US and KSA that started in the 30's has had its share of inflow of intellectual exchanges just as much as the intellectual exchanges have flowed out to the east. As you're aware, a lot of people in the west are always sympathetic towards foreign cultures and that sympathy was used both against the west and the east by sunni scholars all the way from Turkey to KSA to create a sympathetic view of muslims and Islam. 

A lot of schools teach the "Golden age of Islam" myth. More schools teach children that the Crusades were a Christian offensive against Muslims and gloss over the fact that it was a defensive war against Muslims who had been taking over and oppressing Christians for several hundred years prior to the first crusade. Western media presents Muslims as these sympathetic non-violent benevolent rules because Saudi and Turkish scholars popularized the ideology that "Islam wasn't spread through the sword, but through its benevolent message" and liberal westerners simply ate it up without any scrutiny whatsoever. 

It's one of life's greatest ironies that I learnt of the golden age of Islam in a Canadian school when I was from Pakistan where no such mythology existed till it was exported back to Pakistani by the westerners in the 2000's :lmao 

For decades westerners and Muslims alike have been fed pro-Islamist propaganda in their own homes and in their own schools. This is the reason why almost everyone is willing to look the other way and pretend that there's no connection between the extreme violence in the Quran and the violent actions of the terrorists. 

The Islamic State today is EXACTLY a replica of Mohammad's original Islamic State according to the Sunni faith and their historical record and hadith. There's no difference. The problem is that Westerners don't know the history of Mohammad and his first 4 caliph's barbarism so they're blank on how such a thing can evolve when the answer is in Mohammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman's lives themselves. 

Anyways, this isn't to say that good people can't exist as Muslims. I know hundreds that are. But at the same time, all of them too hold extremely anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-liberty views. They're not terrorists, but they are extremists and their culture can never be compatible with the west no matter how hard everyone wants it to be.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> A lot of schools teach the "Golden age of Islam" myth. More schools teach children that the Crusades were a Christian offensive against Muslims and gloss over the fact that it was a defensive war against Muslims who had been taking over and oppressing Christians for several hundred years prior to the first crusade. Western media presents Muslims as these sympathetic non-violent benevolent rules because Saudi and Turkish scholars popularized the ideology that "Islam wasn't spread through the sword, but through its benevolent message" and liberal westerners simply ate it up without any scrutiny whatsoever.


That's actually pretty reprehensible to me. When I was in school I learned that the Crusades were a counter-attack offensive in reaction to the Turks, Moors etc and their expansion into Eastern Europe and the Iberian peninsula, called for and sanctioned by the Pope who feared the rise of Islam. 



> Anyways, this isn't to say that good people can't exist as Muslims. I know hundreds that are. But at the same time, all of them too hold extremely anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-liberty views. They're not terrorists, but they are extremists and their culture can never be compatible with the west no matter how hard everyone wants it to be.


Just have to add to that in that there are also millions of much more integrated and liberal people who identify as Muslims in western society who don't hold those views. I grew up in a community of them and though the law of averages would say at least some of them have those extremist views, the vast majority of "settled" Muslims aren't much different than your average UK citizen minus the insane love of Bacon, Pork Scratchings and Beer that many of the rest of us have lol.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's actually pretty reprehensible to me. When I was in school I learned that the Crusades were a counter-attack offensive in reaction to the Turks, Moors etc and their expansion into Eastern Europe and the Iberian peninsula, called for and sanctioned by the Pope who feared the rise of Islam.


Well yeah ... you just switch the narrative around a little. Islam started in a small Arab country in the 600's. They had a Prophet start the tradition of "Convert, pay tax, or die" after he had conquered all of Medina and then Mecca and subjugated the Quraysh and Jewish tribes and murdered or forcefully converted all the pagans. This was carried forward by Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali, Muawiya, Yazid where within a period of 150 years, a small Arab group that started off as 70 people controlled all of the following area: 










This area already had thriving cultures which were all subjugated complete with looting, mass murder, enslavement and outright ethnic cleansing. The call to Islam was simple "Convert, Pay tax and live as a second class citizen, die or become a slave". That's literally what the ISIS are doing. This is why the early Crusades happened. Mohammad and his expansion was the original ISIS and they were just as bad. 



> Just have to add to that in that there are also millions of much more integrated and liberal people who identify as Muslims in western society who don't hold those views. I grew up in a community of them and though the law of averages would say at least some of them have those extremist views, the vast majority of "settled" Muslims aren't much different than your average UK citizen minus the insane love of Bacon, Pork Scratchings and Beer that many of the rest of us have lol.


52% of all British Muslims want to ban homosexuality. 

Do you really want their population to ever become a voting majority? 

Muslims live peacefully for a while and slowly increase their numbers and then once they're the majority they install an Islamic republic. Always.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> 52% of all British Muslims want to ban homosexuality.
> 
> Do you really want their population to ever become a voting majority?


Despite the propaganda distributed by the far-right wackos out here that's incredibly unlikely to happen in my lifetime at the very least, the bandied about numbers I've seen are patently false (both the base numbers and calculations) and don't reflect the truth of the UK population and shifting demographics tbh. We're talking 5% of the population, and despite the waves of bullshit flowing from certain circles over here it'd take somewhat of a miracle for them to achieve any majority over the rest of the electorate. 2.5% of the population (i rounded down but there's your 50 ish percent) not all of whom are voting age or even have the right to vote as non-citizen immigrants isn't much of something I'm worrying about. I'd be much more worried if 52% of our devout Christian population had the same views tbh, more of them are citizens and they actually could massively influence elections if they chose (last I saw it was around 60% ish.) :shrug


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I thought it was a good speech. While he used the term "Islamic extremism" in place of "Radical Islamic Terrorism", overall I thought it was very well done considering what the audience was made up of. It's called, "Know Your Audience." That means Trump was not going to go storming in there and scream for an hour about how Islam is evil and everyone in that room should face a horrible death followed by being buried for all eternity wrapped in ribs and bacon. The only thing I would have added that was missing was that the governments need to stop funding, unintentionally or otherwise, these terror organizations. We all know money goes to these groups, either because the leadership believes in the cause or they don't want to be a target. Otherwise, very well done. He struck the right tone, saying we will work with you but unless you are willing to fight this matter head-on we're not going to save your ass. 



Dr. Middy said:


> Even when I was more towards sympathy towards a lot of Muslims who are generally good people (before I realized just how many of them actually showed support to the terrorist attacks of their extremist bretheren), I always had some sort of nagging discomfort about Islam as a whole, and how technically speaking, you could put your friendly co-worker who happens to be a Muslim under the same blanket as the extremists you see killing dozens with trucks. Now, I don't think that every Muslim has the potential to just want to kill as many people in the name of Allah as possible, but I defintely have an increasingly negative view of the religion as a whole, and do slightly question those who practice it while they know sure and well what is going on in the world today. It's hard because I really don't want to have prejudice on certain Muslim people I've met and seen, like a dude I knew at college who was studying to become a biology teacher, but when you see statistics like 1/5 Muslims in the UK having some sort of sympathy towards the terrorists and such, it just makes things difficult.
> 
> I'm really against war altogether as well, and I really don't want to see thousands upon thousands of US troops have to get involved again (I know some are over there I believe), but we might just have to go open season on all those radicals, by hell or high water.





Iconoclast said:


> They continue to believe in it because they have walled out any connection between Islam and terrorism ... The relationship between the US and KSA that started in the 30's has had its share of inflow of intellectual exchanges just as much as the intellectual exchanges have flowed out to the east. As you're aware, a lot of people in the west are always sympathetic towards foreign cultures and that sympathy was used both against the west and the east by sunni scholars all the way from Turkey to KSA to create a sympathetic view of muslims and Islam.
> 
> A lot of schools teach the "Golden age of Islam" myth. More schools teach children that the Crusades were a Christian offensive against Muslims and gloss over the fact that it was a defensive war against Muslims who had been taking over and oppressing Christians for several hundred years prior to the first crusade. Western media presents Muslims as these sympathetic non-violent benevolent rules because Saudi and Turkish scholars popularized the ideology that "Islam wasn't spread through the sword, but through its benevolent message" and liberal westerners simply ate it up without any scrutiny whatsoever.
> 
> It's one of life's greatest ironies that I learnt of the golden age of Islam in a Canadian school when I was from Pakistan where no such mythology existed till it was exported back to Pakistani by the westerners in the 2000's :lmao
> 
> For decades westerners and Muslims alike have been fed pro-Islamist propaganda in their own homes and in their own schools. This is the reason why almost everyone is willing to look the other way and pretend that there's no connection between the extreme violence in the Quran and the violent actions of the terrorists.
> 
> The Islamic State today is EXACTLY a replica of Mohammad's original Islamic State according to the Sunni faith and their historical record and hadith. There's no difference. The problem is that Westerners don't know the history of Mohammad and his first 4 caliph's barbarism so they're blank on how such a thing can evolve when the answer is in Mohammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman's lives themselves.
> 
> Anyways, this isn't to say that good people can't exist as Muslims. I know hundreds that are. But at the same time, all of them too hold extremely anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-liberty views. They're not terrorists, but they are extremists and their culture can never be compatible with the west no matter how hard everyone wants it to be.


So, serious question here...and anyone else who wants to add into this please feel free. 

What is the end game for dealing with the issue of Islamic extremism? Would it require a massive Reformation of the faith, where they denounce the violence and terror they have used to make their point over the years? Will it satisfy people to just have Muslims live separately from the rest of us? Or, does it go even further as in it would require either the conversion of all from Islam to Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/anything else or die (much like ISIS does)? Worse-case scenario...will it satisfy certain people that the issue is only resolved when all Muslims worldwide are killed? 

I'm not trying to be smart-ass here, I really am curious as to what will finally solve this issue and will that end result satisfy everyone. I understand many here want to enlighten, educate, etc...I appreciate that. At the same time, what needs to be the resolution to solve the whole matter?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Golden Age of Islam was an era when they were sort of unified.

The Muslim armies when they took over a place were excellent about copying down data and storing it.

While Islamic scholars are credited with a lot of Astronomy based Science and Mathematics, one has to realize during that time the Mid East was heavily into Astrology regardless of Religion, even European primitives had ways of calculating planetary movements and star mapping. This is present in nearly all cultures. Another thing to remember is that many conquered peoples often had their names changed to an Islamic name.

Islam was very good about assimilating cultures and beneficial knowledge into itself. This isn't terrible but often times Islam gets credit for simply taking what was established and using it as if it was Islam that brought it forth.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There's not much that can be done except implementation of Trump's original plan to limit immigration back to historic levels instead of falling for the refugee hysteria. 

Merkels EU policies are cancer and I don't even understand what her end game is so that's the exact polar opposite. 

Muslim countries need to reform themselves but since my belief is that they can't they need to be isolated into their own bubble and we should allow the secularists safe passage into our countries. Seek them out and bring them here so like myself and other ex Muslims that can establish a dialogue with westerners in their close circles of how to spot the secular Muslims from the extremist ones. 

For the Muslim extremists and terrorists that have already infiltrated the West there needs to be a set of laws specific to them where preemptive jailing and deportations have to happen. There are tens of thousands of known persons to intelligence agencies in all western countries and there needs to be a policy to deal with those extremists similar to the detainment and deportation of illegals. If you're a known person and an investigation has determined that you're potentially a danger, your citizenship or immigration status should be revoked and you should be detained or deported. If you've left the country to known terrorist areas and you've been determined to have had contact with extremists without proper justification you can't be let back in and if you've been determined to want to go am fight, then you need to be on an exit control list. All these aren't perfect solutions but they're good enough to limit the damage.

The point is to slow down the March of Islam to a crippling halt in much the same way it was before the Syrian crisis.

Of course refusing to arm and support Muslim countries is something of a risk because Russia and China are both countries that will immediately jump in. One unfortunate consequence of the way the world politics are shaped up. 

Trump had the right idea here to get China and Russia both in America's camp because both countries are not sympathetic to religious extremists either. The Arab/US coalition needs to end and America needs to enter a new age of political Dominion with China and Russia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So Trump is always going on and on about how democrats refuse to use the term radical Islamic terrorism then in his speech he does not use the term lol
And to top it off Trump calls Islam one of the world's greatest faiths.

Cant wait to see all the Trump supporters make excuses to defend this.

Not even reaper can defend Trump on saying that right?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't need to defend Trump at all because he clearly used the words "Islamist terrorism" and "Islamist terror groups"

Trump speech transcript: 



> *That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.
> *


Hence, everything that follows from here on in is a direct reference to Islamist Extremist and Islamist Terror groups - which literally means the same as Radical Islam:



> Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: *Barbarism will deliver you no glory -- piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.*
> And political leaders must speak out to affirm the same idea: heroes don't kill innocents; they save them. Many nations here today have taken important steps to raise up that message. Saudi Arabia's Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development.
> *The United Arab Emirates has also engaged in the battle for hearts and souls—and with the U.S., launched a center to counter the online spread of hate. Bahrain too is working to undermine recruitment and radicalism.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.
> 
> ...
> 
> But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the *government *that gives terrorists all three—safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.
> 
> From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.


The last I checked, Iran calls itself the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Basically by calling out the State i.e. "Islamic republic of Iran" Trump sent out a clear message that a state by itself represents Islamist terrorism. 

---



> Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. *The Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims are its own people. *Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders' reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.
> Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.
> 
> ---


Calling out a government as a terrorist harboring, funding nation that calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran as a terrorist state leaves no doubt that it was a clear statement of at least half the knowledge of what goes on in the Muslim world and how States and Islamist regimes themselves are terrorists. This is actually the strongest statement of any US politician ever to link Islam to terrorism. 

Now the issue here is that while he has successfully demonized the Shias, he has made a significant political mistake by inadvertently promoting more sectarian violence amongst Muslims because Sunni Saudi Arabia has always committed acts of terror against Shias themselves. That needed to have been acknowledged as well. Unfortunately, Trump and his advisors are either woefully unaware of this, or chose intentionally to use words specifically designed to let people know that they are aware of rogue terrorist states and Islamist terrorism, but they couldn't say so in front of Saudi Arabia. As I've said a thousand times already, the US/KSA coalition needs to die. 

But make no mistake, "Islamist terrorism" and "radical Islam" are one and the same things. In fact he went one step further by calling an Islamic republic a terrorist state which is far more than anyone in the history of American politics has ever done :clap 

Of course, I don't expect BM to actually read this, but I post for the benefit of those who might be new to this thread. BM as always is just the purveyor of fake news.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Trump speech transcript:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, everything that follows from here on in is a direct reference to Islamist Extremist and Islamist Terror groups - which literally means the same as Radical Islam:
> 
> 
> 
> The last I checked, Iran calls itself the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Basically by calling out the State i.e. "Islamic republic of Iran" Trump sent out a clear message that a state by itself represents Islamist terrorism.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> Calling out a government as a terrorist harboring, funding nation that calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran as a terrorist state leaves no doubt that it was a clear statement of at least half the knowledge of what goes on in the Muslim world and how States and Islamist regimes themselves are terrorists. This is actually the strongest statement of any US politician ever to link Islam to terrorism.
> 
> Now the issue here is that while he has successfully demonized the Shias, he has made a significant political mistake by inadvertently promoting more sectarian violence amongst Muslims because Sunni Saudi Arabia has always committed acts of terror against Shias themselves. That needed to have been acknowledged as well. Unfortunately, Trump and his advisors are either woefully unaware of this, or chose intentionally to use words specifically designed to let people know that they are aware of rogue terrorist states and Islamist terrorism, but they couldn't say so in front of Saudi Arabia. As I've said a thousand times already, the US/KSA coalition needs to die.
> 
> But make no mistake, "Islamist terrorism" and "radical Islam" are one and the same things.
> 
> Of course, I don't expect BM to actually read this, but I post for the benefit of those who might be new to this thread.



Of course you make excuses, why am I not surprised. You are such a fraud.

Trump and the right were so big on using the term radical Islamic terrorism and how the left were too afraid to use it.

Then whenTrump doesn't use the term radical Islamic terrorism that he used all the time and was proud to do so, and now, of course, his supporters are making up excuses why he did not use his favorite phrase.

The right always bashed the left for using other terms instead of radical Islamic terrorism but now that Trump doesn't well its ok he used other terms that kind of mean the same thing which is what the left was doing all the time.

Keep making excuses you are more and more of a fraud every day.

Still waiting to hear you speak about Trump saying Islam is one of the world's greatest faiths but I am sure you will have an excuse for that too to defend Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you make excuses, why am I not surprised. You are such a fraud.
> 
> Trump and the right were so big on using the term radical Islamic terrorism and how the left were too afraid to use it.
> 
> Then whenTrump doesn't use the term radical Islamic terrorism that he used all the time and was proud to do so, and now, of course, his supporters are making up excuses why he did not use his favorite phrase.
> 
> The right always bashed the left for using other terms instead of radical Islamic terrorism but now that Trump doesn't well its ok he used other terms that kind of mean the same thing which is what the left was doing all the time.
> 
> Keep making excuses you are more and more of a fraud every day.
> 
> Still waiting to hear you speak about Trump saying Islam is one of the world's greatest faiths but I am sure you will have an excuse for that too to defend Trump.


So your gripe here is that he said doo doo head instead of poo poo head. That's as usual your inability to understand english. It's not on Trump or anyone. 

And ironically, if you think that Republicans were bad or stupid or whatever for getting stuck on a word, then what does make you for doing the same?

Calling Islam one of the world's great faiths is stupid. Though I have no clue why you're reverting to my assertion of what something is as though I'm a papal authority on interpreting Trumpism :lol

I'm flattered that you have spent literally 24 hours obsessing over what I think.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866338607606497281

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866274650141200385
:lmao Trump dancing in Saudi Arabia is the single greatest thing I've ever seen :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So your gripe here is that he said doo doo head instead of poo poo head. That's as usual your inability to understand english. It's not on Trump or anyone.
> 
> And ironically, if you think that Republicans were bad or stupid or whatever for getting stuck on a word, then what does make you for doing the same?


Keep making excuses. Trump and his supporters like you are hypocrites, and it always funny how there is a Trump tweet for every occasion where he will bash the left or someone for something, and his supports will follow suit, then Trump will do the exact thing or someone in his family will, then his supports make excuses whey its ok when Trump does the thing he was bashing other for.

And it's not irony for pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump and his supporters.



Iconoclast said:


> And ironically, if you think that Republicans were bad or stupid or whatever for getting stuck on a word, then what does make you for doing the same?
> 
> Calling Islam one of the world's great faiths is stupid. Though I have no clue why you're reverting to my assertion of what something is as though I'm a papal authority on interpreting Trumpism :lol
> 
> I'm flattered that you have spent literally 24 hours obsessing over what I think.


Well you keep claiming you are the WF expert on Islam, just wanted to see if you would defend Trump with his comment.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866338607606497281


well of course he paid well for that with his arms deal and for not putting SA on his Muslim ban which we all know why SA was not on it


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865991004951859203


birthday_massacre said:


> Keep making excuses. Trump and his supporters like you are hypocrites, and it always funny how there is a Trump tweet for every occasion where he will bash the left or someone for something, and his supports will follow suit, then Trump will do the exact thing or someone in his family will, then his supports make excuses whey its ok when Trump does the thing he was bashing other for.
> 
> And it's not irony for pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump and his supporters.
> 
> Well you keep claiming you are the WF expert on Islam, just wanted to see if you would defend Trump with his comment.


I've already denounced all that needed to be denounced in my post that was too long for you to read :kobelol

I think MrMister should institute a rule against posting without reading in this thread because all you do is bring down the quality of posts with your Histrionic Personality Disorder.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/865991004951859203
> 
> 
> I've already denounced all that needed to be denounced in my post that was too long for you to read :kobelol


Keep making excuses for your hypocrisy and hoops you need to jump through to defend Trump. That's all you do now.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep making excuses for your hypocrisy and hoops you need to jump through to defend Trump. That's all you do now.


But I didn't defend Trump. Islamist terrorism and Radical Islam are the same things. I said that he wrongfully fueled the fires of sectarian violence and said that Trump calling Islam a great faith was stupid. 

I really think that there should be a rule against posting without reading because you don't read and just screech hysterically. 

Keep failing.

I think you should be banned from this thread because your lack of reading and comprehension ability buries quality posts by other members as well.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'd just stop responding to BM regarding this topic. He's going to keep replying the same way forever. Literally forever:max


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> But I didn't defend Trump. Islamist terrorism and Radical Islam are the same things. I said that he wrongfully fueled the fires of sectarian violence and said that Trump calling Islam a great faith was stupid.
> 
> I really think that there should be a rule against posting without reading because you don't read and just screech hysterically.
> 
> Keep failing.
> 
> I think you should be banned from this thread because your lack of reading and comprehension ability buries quality posts by other members as well.


Its not the same thing according to Trump and his supporters before today but now you are now changing your tune because Trump didn't use his favorite term.




MrMister said:


> I'd just stop responding to BM regarding this topic. He's going to keep replying the same way forever. Literally forever:max


Oh yeah I forgot its only ok when Trump supporters do that lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

radical islamic terrorism and islamic extremism are the same thing jfc lol

I don't care about him going and saying it's a great faith either. He needs the Muslim world to get its shit together and if that means appeasing them with flowery words then fine. It's a very superstitious low IQ part of the world and nothing is to be gained by going there and criticizing them in a way that will only make them double down on their insanity. It was a very good speech overall and hit the key notes it needed to hit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> radical islamic terrorism and islamic extremism are the same thing jfc lol
> 
> I don't care about him going and saying it's a great faith either. He needs the Muslim world to get its shit together and *if that means appeasing them with flowery words then fine. *It's a very superstitious low IQ part of the world and nothing is to be gained by going there and criticizing them in a way that will only make them double down on their insanity. It was a very good speech overall and hit the key notes it needed to hit.


yet that is not what Trump and his supporters were saying before when democrats were doing that. Trump ran on not using flowery words and now he is doing it and of course, Trump supporters are ok with it because Trump is doing it

Just like with Michelle Obama not wearing a hijab Trump getting all pissy about it, but then when his wife and daughter don't, oh its ok now and his supporters follow suit

Its just funny the things the democrats were doing was the wrong way that is until Trump is doing it then well its ok now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet that is not what Trump and his supporters were saying before when democrats were doing that. Trump ran on not using flowery words and now he is doing it and of course, Trump supporters are ok with it because Trump is doing it
> 
> Just like with Michelle Obama not wearing a hijab Trump getting all pissy about it, but then when his wife and daughter don't, oh its ok now and his supporters follow suit
> 
> Its just funny the things the democrats were doing was the wrong way that is until Trump is doing it then well its ok now.


I have never cared about trivial bullshit like this regardless of who is doing it.

I just want the US out of the middle east entirely and to never look back.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I have never cared about trivial bullshit like this regardless of who is doing it.
> 
> I just want the US out of the middle east entirely and to never look back.


You may not have but a lot of Trump supporters especially on this board. And now they are backtracking because Trump is doing what he was bashing the left for.

What is your take on the arms deal Trump did? I would hope all Trump supporters would disagree with Trump doing that


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866339491094691840

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866344079612837889

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866354077231448064
Tulsi should take this one step further. If the Saudis are the biggest sponsor of terror & Wahhabi Salafist ideology and the United States is the biggest sponsor of the Saudis... do the math.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866316404873625600
:ha

Now that's just fucking funny right there.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You may not have but a lot of Trump supporters especially on this board. And now they are backtracking because Trump is doing what he was bashing the left for.
> 
> What is your take on the arms deal Trump did? I would hope all Trump supporters would disagree with Trump doing that


I already posted that I was against having any dealings with Saudi Arabia, although everything DesolationRow wrote in his post regarding the matter rings true as well. Indeed, while he has improved relations with Russia and China considerably, I'd say Trump's foreign policy in the middle east shows the powerful influence of the military industrial complex no matter who is in charge.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Iranian terrorism? I thought Iran was Shia


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Iranian terrorism? I thought Iran was Shia


Exactly. Saudi sponsored wahabism, mujahideen, taliban medressahs across the sunni world was a direct response to Iran's shia revolution of 1979 in the modern era. 

However, the core of shia extremism lies in everything that led up to the fateful battle of Karbala where The fifth and sixth caliphs of Islam massacred Mohammad's direct descendants, their families and friends.

Anyways, this is a little bit of historical context on the Shia/Sunni conflict so if you already know this feel free to skip, but I figured it would be interesting to finally talk about the origins of Shia extremism. 

Shias are basically also refered to as Shiane Ali which means followers of Ali who was Mohammad's son in law through is first born daughter Fatima. 

Historically, shia extremism is a direct result of the attempt of Mohammad's direct descendants to install themselves into power and began as early as the day of Mohammad's death and the creation of the Muslim majlis-e-shura which in the absence of Ali chose Abu Bakr and then forced Ali to swear fealty to Abu Bakr. 

At the same time, Abu Bakr robbed Fatima (Mohammad's daughter) of her rightful inheritance by forcing her to submit her land to the state treasury which caused her to die of a broken heart. Ali was originally a peaceful man and in order to maintain good relations amongst the muslims kept his followers (who were growing because there was supposedly a written will by Mohammad that magically disappeared) at bay. But since he remained alive, each and every ascension to the Caliphate was contested with increasing force till eventually Usman (the third caliph) was assassinate by some of Ali's followers and Ali was made Caliph. 

There was also a civil war that was started by Mohammad's crazy wife Ayesha which was put to rest by Ali who did everything in his power to keep peace between the growing Shia/Sunni schism. 

Then came the caliphate of Muawiya after Ali was assassinated and at that time the tensions between Shias and Sunnis peaked. Muawiya was a powerful man (son of Aby Sufiyan who was the leader of Quraysh and at one point Islam's greatest enemy) and since the Quraysh were incredibly powerful they managed to once again usurp the Caliphate after Ali's assassination. Then after Muawiya appointed his son Yazid against the wishes of the Shia, Yazid led a seige of Mohammad's entire family at Karbala where the entire family of Mohammad and their followers were brutally massacred, looted, women raped and sold into slavery and thus the shia/sunni schism and blood feud was really born and has lasted 1500 years since. 

Essentially, the main fundamental core of the religion of Sunni/Shia remains the same. So whatever leads sunnis to extremism also leads shia to extremism. They both follow the Quran and they both follow Mohammad, but they have different hadith books. 

The rise of Shia extremism is a result of sunni attempts at ethnic genocide that have remained parallel to their conquests of the rest of the world where more and more Shai gathered in Iran and eventually formed a majority. The shia extremism is a response to sunni extremism against the shia and basically a blood feud. Shias have always hated the Sunnis, the Sunnis have always hated the Shias and the West is directly involved in picking sides. America's support of Saudi Arabia and hatred of Iran is essentially America being dragged into a thousands year long family feud.

The main difference between Shias and Sunnis is with regards to _who _should rule the Muslim empire, not what its features are supposed to be. The current Iranian government was the shia version of ISIS that installed itself after a brutal slaughtering of the Irani civil/secular society before the Sunni version of ISIS was born.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I'd just stop responding to BM regarding this topic. He's going to keep replying the same way forever. Literally forever:max


Sorry but reading this made me think of this movie scene!


----------



## Warlock

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When did the left call it Islamic extremism and others complain that they didn't call it radical Islamic terrorism? A link would be helpful. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866438687126638592
:dead2


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866438687126638592
> :dead2


Respectable dems: "Oh look, more proof that Tulsi is looking more and more like our most viable chance for the presidency."

DNC: "LOL fuck that noise, we're gonna push for the ugly Cuomo brother instead."

:kappa


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> Now that's just fucking funny right there.


Well. Not really. Especially after spotting the one girl's LGBT flag, it's actually extremely sad.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862025823280259073


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Tulsi Gabbard tho :kobe6


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Respectable dems: "Oh look, more proof that Tulsi is looking more and more like our most viable chance for the presidency."
> 
> DNC: "LOL fuck that noise, we're gonna push for the ugly Cuomo brother instead."
> 
> :kappa


I don't usually get upset by someone naming a decent choice for future president because I think she just might be, but her stance on religion, especially Islam is terrible.

She's on record with these views:

Tulsi Gabbard acknowledges Mohammad as a messenger of God even though she's a Hindu? Confusing. I don't even know what she meant by that statement: 



Tulsi Gabbard is a Mohammad apologist. 

Tulsi Gabbard who I believe is engaged in a similar kind of partisan hackery at the moment using the Saudi situation for political gain while praising Mohammad and Islam in her public writings. 

Tulsi Gabbard cherry picks verses from the Quran to portray Islam in a positive light like a true Apologist. 

Sources:























































She said some decent things in the same article. A lot of what she said sounds exactly like what Trump said. 

None this however inspires any confidence in me at all that she understands Islamist extremism or has any ability to fight terrorism either.

I understand her message of inclusivity but it toes the party line implying that she's a multiculturalist and that might mean potentially she's also a globalist as both illnesses tend to infect the same person. 

Finally, while she may have an agreeable stance on KSA with regards to ending our relationship with them, she inspires no confidence in me because she's an Islam apologist. She may not like Saudi Arabia but then given her apologist leanings, one has to wonder that she too is vulnerable to lending her support behind any organization or country that fools her based on her lack of understanding of how Islam causes terrorism. 

She's far too heavily convinced in the "Islam is a religion of peace" ideology to make an effective president as far as I'm concerned - and for me this is a big issue.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> May 22, 2017
> *In Defense of Tulsi Gabbard*
> by Gerry Condon
> 
> What a breath of fresh air it is to have an elected representative in our Congress who is willing to go against the grain of official Washington in matters of war and peace. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii dared to question the sanctioned narrative justifying President Trump’s recent missile attack against the Syrian Airforce. Even while Trump was enjoying his first ever bipartisan applause, and the media was unquestioning in its “Assad gasses his own people” story, Tulsi Gabbard cautioned us to wait and find out what really happened before rushing to escalate the U.S. war on Syria.
> 
> The Congresswoman from Hawaii is not a newcomer to the issues of war and peace. Tulsi Gabbard is a Major in the Hawaiian National Guard and a veteran of the Iraq War. Unlike other Congressional representatives, Rep. Gabbard has closely studied U.S. intervention in Syria. She actually visited Syria in January, and spoke with Syrians from many walks of life. Rep. Gabbard, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also spoke with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for which she received bipartisan rebukes upon her return to the United States.
> 
> Rep. Gabbard went on to introduce the *Stop Arming Terrorists Act*, which would prohibit the U.S. government from doing just that. Since the beginning of the war in Syria in 2011, the CIA has been arming terrorist groups – both supposed “moderates” and outright jihadists – who are seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. Senator Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
> 
> It takes a lot of integrity and a lot of courage to stand up against the raging pack that is clamoring for war. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has earned the admiration of many in the U.S. who are not in a rush to go to war, in Syria, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, in Iran or in North Korea. In U.S. politics, however, there is always a price to pay for not going along with the war drive.
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard has been targeted for political assassination, not only by Republicans but by leaders of her own Democratic Party. None other than Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and former head of the Democratic National Committee, has attacked Rep. Gabbard harshly on national television. Dean later called on Rep. Gabbard’s Hawaii constituents to vote her out of office in the next election.
> 
> All peace-loving people should stand up for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard while she is standing up for us. Send her a message of support at:
> 
> Phone: (202) 225-4906
> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
> Email: [email protected]
> 1433 Longworth House Office Building
> Washington, DC 20515
> 
> Also ask your own Representatives and Senators to support Rep. Gabbard’s bill, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, HR 608, and in the Senate, S. 532 (introduced by Sen. Rand Paul).
> 
> Please sign the petition in support of Stop Arming Terrorists Act, HR 608 at: http://hr608.info.
> 
> SOURCE


Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard wanting to end our government's arming of terrorists is the kind of bipartisan agreement I can support.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is Donald Trump Hamlet? Is James Comey Polonius? Polonius hid behind the arras or the curtains just as Comey attempted to hide against the curtains. Hamlet extended his sword believing he had perhaps discovered Claudius. Is Trump putting on airs pretending to be a madman ala Hamlet to discover who his enemies are? 

_________________________________________________________________________

That Donald Trump quote shared by @Tater indicates that Trump was always keenly aware of the precarious situation between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia all along. Fascinating. 

Analyzing Donald Trump's speech in Riyadh I shall go through what I consider to be *The Good, the Bad and the Ugly*...

*The Good*

Trump spoke of his Inaugural Address to the American people. He reminded everyone--perhaps most critically himself--of his commitment to flip the page, as it were, in U.S. foreign policy and no longer obsessively endeavor to push forward particular values or mores where they are unwelcome. A good line was something akin to, "We seek partners, no perfection," (only half-listened to the speech, to be honest, while reading, eating and watering my garden outside :side, which hit home how unspeakably important it is in _realpolitik_ to accept the world as it is and not attempt to remake it in one's own image where unfeasible. As potentially horrific as this "Arab NATO" likely-boondoggle is, Trump may be attempting to utilize the Saudis and other Sunni states as something of a bulwark going forward against Shiite Iran. Israel is the silent partner in this arrangement, too. The fact of the matter is that Iran is logistically a greater source of trouble, directly, for the Sunni states and Persian Gulf kingdoms and Israel, than Iran is for the U.S. directly. With greater energy independence going forward the import of the Strait of Hormuz wanes for the U.S., even if the U.S. maintains a relatively minor interest in seeing freedom of movement throughout the international waters. Seventeen million barrels of oil flow through that tiny body of water every single day. So long as the U.S. is kingpin of the world some residual interest in seeing as much peace there as possible will persist. 

Some of the flowery language criticized was fine. And conceding that Islam is one of the great religions of the earth in no way contradicts any major point made by Trump the Candidate. Crusaders who fought against sultans often recognized that Islam had grown into a beastly, powerful force in this world centuries and centuries ago. With Christianity slowly dying as any sort of considerable force in the West but for Latin and third world immigration thereto, and Islam growing rapidly throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and most robustly in Africa today, Trump would be having to live in another universe to not speak with deference to Islam's near-ubiquity. Indeed, the very violence that rings Islam like fire, from Libya to the streets of Paris where French officials are worried about the burka to the hillside villages of the Xinjiang province of China where officials want grown men to keep their countenances shaved and beardless to the Philippines and everywhere Islam goes in great numbers--how could a strongman like Trump, or a strongman like Vladimir Putin who has to deal with his own Islamist issues within Russian borders to an alarming degree on a constant basis, not at some level respect that? The atavistic, hyper-masculine nature of Islam speaks to its warrior ethos. 

*The Bad*

For the most part, everything else. 

It's one thing to mimic Richard Nixon in China, but the Cold War, though a monumental twilight struggle in its own right, cannot compare to nearly a millennium and a half of the internal Islamic civil war of which @Iconoclast speaks and writes above. 

While it may tangentially serve American interests to stand up to Iranian aggression in the Middle East (a good deal of which was inevitable thanks to the U.S. intervention in Iraq), one does pine for the days of "America First" from Trump. This entire Sunni State NATO shindig feels like it was cooked up between Riyadh and Tel Aviv and was belatedly endorsed by the great arms-dealer, the U.S. Israel has forged powerful alliances in the region with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etcetera, etcetera, but from the Israeli standpoint, a nuclear-armed Iran is simply unacceptable. Which makes perfect sense for the Israelis. Trump's speech may as well have been written by an Israeli hardliner, for most of his harsh words were directed toward the Iranians, Israel's most ostentatious foe, as well as the Assad regime of Syria, and the Shia Crescent which was growing in greater and greater power in the years following the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad until the Americans, Israelis and Sunni states all coordinated with one another toward redirecting the regional emphasis of strength back in line toward the Sunni states. 

Trump's incessant talk of Hezbollah was another Israeli touchstone. Granted, Trump has spoken in the past of the horridness of the Barack Obama- and John Kerry-engineered deal with the Iranians, and to some degree quite rightly so, and he has also declared something of a war against radical Islamic terrorism in general, but in many campaign speeches, and in the first weeks of his presidency, it became fairly clear that Trump's chief goal was to obliterate ISIS--including taking out their headquarters in Raqqa, Syria--and as he kept saying, over and over, "We've got to do it, we've got to do it fast, so we can come back and fix our own country." "Fast" is a subjective term; if one were to be liberal in appointing "credit," perhaps Ronald Reagan deserves a hefty amount of credit for speeding up the demise of the Soviet Union, and considering the length of the Cold War struggle, a two-term presidency is in the eyes of history something like a pair of heartbeats in terms of speed. However, Trump's speech in Riyadh this weekend practically promised armed conflict with Iran unless the Iranians make an about-face with regard to their present plans, and expanded the scope of the general struggle back toward Syria and Hezbollah. 

Trump, again, painted Assad as a mustache-twirling, villainous monster, but this seemed to at least partly contradict his line about "...partners, not perfect..." as well as the spirit of his Inaugural Address in which he declared that the U.S. would be guided by the stern weighing of each strategic matter at hand unto itself, and view it through the prism of American interests. Even if Assad did use chemical weapons, and even if civilians were slaughtered, as horrific as it is, bombing Assad's forces in retaliation is not helpful to the securing of U.S. interests, which, in Syria, are chiefly to see the annihilation of ISIS and the end to the mayhem which has engulfed the state entire. Again, it seems like U.S. interests are being considered, but also the interests of the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis and Israelis, whose interests in Syria are markedly apart from what would nominally be agreed to be American interests. Threading the needle may be difficult but in being so equivocating, Trump opens up a multitude of potentially awful outcomes, none of which benefit the U.S. in the slightest.

*The Ugly* (@AryaDark's favorite... That's an inside joke. )

This may be the largest sector to go over, unfortunately. 

On the one hand, everything I wrote the other evening holds true. The Saudis are indispensable to the U.S. maintaining its debt situation through the securing of the petrodollar scheme as devised by Richard Nixon and his Treasury Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury following Nixon's reelection. It's one of the reasons why Trump's oft-heard cry as candidate, "Take the oil!" made no sense. Just as some antiwar voices decry "wars for oil" in the Middle East honestly made no sense. The U.S. isn't siphoning off oil like a mercantilist imperial power of old. That would actually not serve the U.S. interests at all; the only way the U.S. can ride the tiger with its exploding debt crisis is to maintain the relationship established several decades ago with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however distasteful that may be. Of course Trump could decide to become something like Marcus Tullius Cicero-meets-King Arthur-meets-Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket-meets-GRRM's-Lord Eddard Stark (probably, if it is to ever happen, once he's secured a second term) and declare to the plebeians, _No, we will no longer finance our immoral debt which we are bestowing upon generation after generation of unborn, we will not pretend that we can pay for our gargantuan warfare-welfare state without instituting such crippling taxation that society itself would almost grind to a halt, we will not kick these matters down the caliginous, unknowable, unseen road of the future, and we will not pretend that we will ever pay off this absurd national debt, to which we add trillions upon trillions more, all while playing this bloody, murderous game of thrones in order to secure our petrodollar and keep the U.S. dollar in its place as the world's reserve currency_... _buuut_, just in case that never happens... This is where we are: inexorably lurching toward an unwelcome horizon line, holding off, pretending that everything is going to end up just fine.

On the other hand, there are points at which the Trumpian bluster of the campaign trail has to be remembered. 

Aside from the quote shared by *Tater*, above, here are a couple of goodies from Candidate Trump:


> Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!


Not truly hypocrisy, exactly, as matters of statecraft are apart from a personal foundation such as the Clintons'. Nevertheless, something of a bad look, as the kids say.

There is something almost incongruous when one looks back at this tweet and the reality of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner actually talking to Lockheed-Martin in order to broker a discount for the Saudis:


> Tell Saudi Arabia and others that we want (demand!) free oil for the next ten years or we will not protect their private Boeing 747s. Pay up!


There is also the point that the Saudis are using U.S. weapons to perform some of the most hideous atrocities of any regime this decade in Yemen, resulting in sure mass starvation of children among other unconscionable lowlights. 

So, a bit of ugliness to be found here. 

Of course it may be wise to recall the question raised at the beginning of this post. Is Trump Hamlet? Is he pretending to be mad? Is he putting on dispositions to lure his enemies? 

On one level, I am inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt. 

On another plane, though, it would seem as though somewhere along the way he became directly acquainted with at least some semblance of the actual permanent government. The House of Representatives, the Senate, all of that is more or less spectacle. Even the philosopher-king critics of culture we call judges in the judiciary lend themselves toward theatricality. With the amount of money dwindling in terms of the U.S. federal budget's discretionary budget, politics as hollow blood sport, performed more for spectacle and visceral catharsis (blue flag down, red flag up, and vice versa), will doubtless continue along its sad trajectory, with ever fewer possibilities existing, so that the worst entrails of democracy will continue to be readily apparent, the demagoguery, the pandering, etcetera, but with hardly any of whatever salutary benefit may have once existed from its existing in the form of mere consequence.

_This above all: to thine own self be true..._


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump has now touched down in Tel Aviv for the second stage of this foreign tour. Among things that are on his itinerary...

Day 1:
Meets with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin
Visits the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
Visits Western Wall
Meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (dinner at Netanyahu's private residence)

Day 2:
Travels to the West Bank city of Bethlehem to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
Visits Israel's Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, to lay a wreath
Delivers remarks at the Israel Museum

Although, it's interesting that Netanyahu apparently ordered members of his administration to attend the touching down of Air Force One at Tel Aviv. People over there are extremely nervous about what they perceive as Trump's wavering on some of his promises. They've watched him greet Abbas at the WH, he told Netanyahu to maybe lay off additional settlements (which has really been the stance of the last several occupiers of the Oval Office), and some are convinced he has reneged on his promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. 

On that last one...June 1 will be a key date. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 had mandated moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, but every six months our previous Commanders-in-Chief have signed waivers on it stating such a move could be a threat to national security as it would stir up a major shitstorm. June 1 is the expiration date of the latest waiver...speculation is whether or not Trump will re-sign a new waiver or let it expire. 

As for people that are blasting the POTUS for going back on some of his words and rhetoric...while I understand that positions can change to an extent, that is what you get when you have used certain rhetoric throughout the course of your campaign. In fact...going to some sites some of his supporters are abandoning Trump now fully, claiming he has sold out to Islam, etc... I saw this segment on YouTube of Alex Jones' show...while he seems to be fully supporting Trump going to Saudi Arabia and brokering the arms deal, part of me gets the sense he wants to scream at the top of his lungs that Trump has sold us out. 









Tater said:


> Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard wanting to end our government's arming of terrorists is the kind of bipartisan agreement I can support.


I can definitely be on board with this...especially where we are sending arms and supplies but more often than not watch them end up in the wrong hands.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> I can definitely be on board with this...especially where we are sending arms and supplies but more often than not watch them end up in the wrong hands.


If there's a buyer, then there's a seller. If America stops selling arms to KSA, Russia or China (or some other arms dealer) will fill that need. 

After all the anti-KSA rantings by everybody including myself, the fact of the matter is that America isn't the only country in the world capable of filling KSA's arms void and I would rather not they get in bed with an anti-US regime over this issue and perhaps this is why the US has had this relationship with KSA all along. 

As much as I know and believe in the disgusting fact that it's blood money, I'd rather not see it go to Russia or China because in a world where arms dealing is commonplace, someone is going to take it and then make more arms with it giving themselves a major military advantage. While I want to improve relations with Russia and China, I have to live with the fact that they can and are our allies, but they have allies that are our enemies so ultimately what benefits Russia/China does somewhat benefit our enemies too. When we put sanctions on Iran and Russia we forced them to make love to each other even more vigoriously than before. For every action, there's a reaction and not all reactions can be predicted. 

I can accept why Trump is doing this now and I believe that he sees it similarly as I do at this point and this would explain why every US government since the 30's has had to get in bed with the Saudis.

Yes, the MIC is an ugly thing. The MIC should be crushed. But the MIC cannot be crushed because maintaining whatever tenuous balance of power that we have created in the 21st century is partly because of the MIC. It's _both _war and peace.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This weapons thing is just unforgivable in my eyes.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I'd just stop responding to BM regarding this topic. He's going to keep replying the same way forever. Literally forever:max


Thats pretty much the same for all the Trumpers too...

:una


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Thats pretty much the same for all the Trumpers too...
> 
> :una


I would argue many of us are quite capable of debating nicely in here.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not even reaper can defend Trump on saying that right?












:maisielol2


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I would argue many of us are quite capable of debating nicely in here.


Yes, as is BM, unfortunately when reaper and BM get together its just the same stuff from both of them, I have zero reason why they don't just ignore each other because its getting a little boring now. Mister just picked up on BM instead of Reaper because reasons...

I was wrong to say all trumpers.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Yes, as is BM, unfortunately when reaper and BM get together its just the same stuff from both of them, I have zero reason why they don't just ignore each other because its getting a little boring now. Mister just picked up on BM instead of Reaper because reasons...


BM has a history of being banned from the thread though. Honestly it's even worse between I and him. :shrug

We both have been warned, so I won't comment on it. Just know he's not without fault either.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm not agreeing with a lot of the premise here, but $100 million was given to Ivanka Trumps charity about female empowerment in business by the Saudis the same day as the big arms deal. Now, I doubt they're linked the same way this site is suggesting, I just find it hilarious that Saudis are donating to a charity about female empowerment ><

Irony overload.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump inspiring WWE to do the Jinder swerve :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This weapons deal makes me mad, it's exactly what Hillary would have done and that's not what anyone wants! (Well except war mongering Republicans and Democrats who pretend to love peace.)

I think any President would have been strong armed into making the deal. It's no excuse but think the US is forever tied with the Saudis which is ironic considering the US backed Israel during the Cold War and the Russians backed the Arabs.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I would argue many of us are quite capable of debating nicely in here.


:Will


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm not agreeing with a lot of the premise here, but $100 million was given to Ivanka Trumps charity about female empowerment in business by the Saudis the same day as the big arms deal. Now, I doubt they're linked the same way this site is suggesting, I just find it hilarious that Saudis are donating to a charity about female empowerment ><
> 
> Irony overload.


There's no need to link trash, NPR has a perfectly serviceable article on the issue. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...00-million-to-a-fund-inspired-by-ivanka-trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> If there's a buyer, then there's a seller. If America stops selling arms to KSA, Russia or China (or some other arms dealer) will fill that need.


I'd much prefer Russia or China sell them the weapons than my country. To sell the weapons we have to make the weapons, which means the MIC, the merchants of death in our country get richer and more powerful. Not to mention how unconscionable it is. I don't find the "If we don't do this terrible thing someone else will do it" argument particularly convincing.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I'd much prefer Russia or China sell them the weapons than my country. To sell the weapons we have to make the weapons, which means the MIC, the merchants of death in our country get richer and more powerful. Not to mention how unconscionable it is. I don't find the "If we don't do this terrible thing someone else will do it" argument particularly convincing.


*I absolutely agree. The "if we don't do it someone else will" argument might be the stupidest kind of argument one can make. *


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/862025823280259073


I am beside myself after all these years that the United States still does not have free healthcare. My mom has gone through 3 different cancers and had to pay $5000 a month for treatments. That is fucking retarded.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866493143545294848
:banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm not agreeing with a lot of the premise here, but $100 million was given to Ivanka Trumps charity about female empowerment in business by the Saudis the same day as the big arms deal. Now, I doubt they're linked the same way this site is suggesting, I just find it hilarious that Saudis are donating to a charity about female empowerment ><
> 
> Irony overload.


Just another way for Trump to launder money out of SA.


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I'm not agreeing with a lot of the premise here, but $100 million was given to Ivanka Trumps charity about female empowerment in business by the Saudis the same day as the big arms deal. Now, I doubt they're linked the same way this site is suggesting, I just find it hilarious that Saudis are donating to a charity about female empowerment ><
> 
> Irony overload.


*Why do you doubt they are linked? *


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Catalanotto said:


> I am beside myself after all these years that the United States still does not have free healthcare. My mom has gone through 3 different cancers and had to pay $5000 a month for treatments. That is fucking retarded.


Its even more retarded that these same insurance companies make hundreds of millions to billions of dollars per year and people like your mom and others get fucked over on healthcare

Healthcare is one of those industries that should not work at a profit, its so fucked up how much they make while letting people die because they can't afford insurance.e

The US is the richest country in the world we could easily have universal healthcare like most every other country in the world


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*









Ummm I got nothing


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Ummm I got nothing


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I'd much prefer Russia or China sell them the weapons than my country. To sell the weapons we have to make the weapons, which means the MIC, the merchants of death in our country get richer and more powerful. Not to mention how unconscionable it is. I don't find the "If we don't do this terrible thing someone else will do it" argument particularly convincing.


I don't think anyone should be selling anyone any weapons at all, but it doesn't change the fact that it will happen so I might as well accept the financial benefit derived from being the market leader. I don't see it as that much different from any other harmful products being traded globally.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I don't think anyone should be selling anyone any weapons at all, but it doesn't change the fact that it will happen so I might as well accept the financial benefit derived from being the market leader.


So would rather the blood be on the US hands rather than Russia or someone else as long as they make money?

Also wasn't Trump's campaign promise to be hands off with this type of thing?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866613814443339778
:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866613814443339778
> :lol


And people think Trump is smart LOL


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So would rather the blood be on the US hands rather than Russia or someone else as long as they make money?
> 
> Also wasn't Trump's campaign promise to be hands off with this type of thing?


I'd rather there be no blood on anyone's hands. And being hands off didn't imply that there would be no arms deals. Also, I'm completely against the US/KSA coalition. But don't be short-sighted in thinking that if KSA ends up in bed with someone else that that's good for our interests either. 

Isolation from the world at this point is a pipe dream as much as it's a pipe dream to have a libertarian government. The global change isn't going to come at the expense of us stepping back either. 

Russia and China supply our allies and our enemies alike and in that we risk losing Europe even more. 

I would love to live in a world where we can isolate ourselves and not have enemies or global interests. But we do. 

Theoretically, I'm for global disarmament before I for arms sales as a mode of peace. But at the same time, I can see the value of using "arms for peace" as well. As I've already pointed out it's a tenuous balance and there's a need to maintain that. Since we're never going to have world peace through disarmament, maintaining the power balances through armed deterrents is a decent solution. Of course, it's not perfect. 

Talking about perfect utopias has never been my thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Respectable dems: "Oh look, more proof that Tulsi is looking more and more like our most viable chance for the presidency."
> 
> DNC: "LOL fuck that noise, we're gonna push for the ugly Cuomo brother instead."
> 
> :kappa


This is why the corp. DNC is getting primary in 2018. The ones who think that way need to go or the dems will never win again.





Iconoclast said:


> I'd rather there be no blood on anyone's hands. And being hands off didn't imply that there would be no arms deals. Also, I'm completely against the US/KSA coalition. But don't be short-sighted in thinking that if KSA ends up in bed with someone else that that's good for our interests either.
> 
> Isolation from the world at this point is a pipe dream as much as it's a pipe dream to have a libertarian government. The global change isn't going to come at the expense of us stepping back either.
> 
> Russia and China supply our allies and our enemies alike and in that we risk losing Europe even more.
> 
> I would love to live in a world where we can isolate ourselves and not have enemies or global interests. But we do.
> 
> Theoretically, I'm for global disarmament before I for arms sales as a mode of peace. But at the same time, I can see the value of using "arms for peace" as well. As I've already pointed out it's a tenuous balance and there's a need to maintain that. Since we're never going to have world peace through disarmament, maintaining the power balances through armed deterrents is a decent solution. Of course, it's not perfect.
> 
> Talking about perfect utopias has never been my thing.


If you would there be no blood on anyone's hands then why should it be the US's?

Just because you think others will help arm SA it does not have to be the US doing it.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you would there be no blood on anyone's hands then why should it be the US's?
> 
> Just because you think others will help arm SA it does not have to be the US doing it.


Economic reasons ... as abhorring as it is, the top 10 military suppliers alone employ 720-750k people. 

It's also given us about $504,325,000,000,000 (a number I don't even know how to say) in our economy since 1970 alone. 

This ugly trade while perfectly legal is a major economic stimulus. I would like it to end, but I do wonder if our economy can absorb the hit. 

Do you have any proposals to find a way to replace this amount of money?


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866725092591579136:Oooh


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Economic reasons ... as abhorring as it is, the top 10 military suppliers alone employ 720-750k people.
> 
> It's also given us about $504,325,000,000,000 (a number I don't even know how to say) in our economy since 1970 alone.
> 
> This ugly trade while perfectly legal is a major economic stimulus. I would like it to end, but I do wonder if our economy can absorb the hit.
> 
> Do you have any proposals to find a way to replace this amount of money?


If you are ok with taking blood money and blood jobs for supplying SA with arms knowing all the innocent lives they will take that is fine.

I never said it was not illegal. It's just wrong in my opinion. I am for making militaries smaller, not bigger.

And like I asked before, didn't Trump claim he would be hands off with this kind of thing and not get involved? Seems to me he is right in the middle of it.

If Hillary did this, he would be tweeting about how bad it is.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you are ok with taking blood money and blood jobs for supplying SA with arms knowing all the innocent lives they will take that is fine.
> 
> I never said it was not illegal. It's just wrong in my opinion. I am for making militaries smaller, not bigger.
> 
> And like I asked before, didn't Trump claim he would be hands off with this kind of thing and not get involved? Seems to me he is right in the middle of it.
> 
> If Hillary did this, he would be tweeting about how bad it is.


I'm pretty sure he would. 

The problem here with the whole "blood money" argument is that it's only blood money if those weapons are used and there's both sides to that as I tried to point out with the "arms for peace" argument. I admit that Saudis are a terrible government with regards to military armament because the day the Sauds are killed/assassinated and a coup happens, that will be one of the most heavily armed military forces in the world. 

That alone is partly responsible for the relationship Americans have with the kings since the 50's. 

They're despicable human beings that have harbored and funded terrorists, but we all know that every single time a regime is toppled in the middle east, things go from bad to worse. 

I'd rather we lie in bed with the Sauds out of fear of what could come next. It's not entirely irrational. This is also why I want Americans to support Assad. 

I don't know what the solution is. But I don't think isolationism, or forcing our "friends" into the arms of the others are better solutions than having these uneasy and unpalatable alliances.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/19/donald-trump-end-payments-obamacare-subsidies-238616

Trump tells advisers he wants to end key Obamacare subsidies

Many senior aides oppose the move for fear it will backfire politically.

By JOSH DAWSEY , JENNIFER HABERKORN and PAUL DEMKO 05/19/2017 03:06 PM EDT Updated 05/19/2017 09:15 PM EDT



President Donald Trump has told advisers he wants to end payments of key Obamacare subsidies, a move that could send the health law's insurance markets into a tailspin, according to several sources familiar with the conversations.

Many advisers oppose the move because they worry it would backfire politically if people lose their insurance or see huge premium spikes and blame the White House, the sources said. Trump has said that the bold move could force Congressional Democrats to the table to negotiate an Obamacare replacement.

Lawyers and other administration officials are trying to thread the needle.

Trump told aides in a Tuesday Oval Office meeting that he wants to end the payments to insurers because he doesn't gain anything by continuing them, according to a senior White House adviser. "Why the hell would we?" he asked about continuing the payments, according to the adviser. Trump added that if Congress wants the subsidies, lawmakers would find a way to pay for them, the adviser said.

Trump has previously expressed conflicting opinions on the issue. Insurers have been pressing for certainty as they plan for next year.

The payments, estimated at $7 billion for this year, go to insurance companies to reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for low-income consumers — an estimated 7 million people in 2017. Insurers are on the hook under the health law to keep paying even if the federal money stops.

Paul Ryan is pictured. | AP Photo
CBO score of Obamacare repeal bill expected Wednesday
By POLITICO STAFF
Many senior administration officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, are leery of ending the payments, however, because doing so could immediately unravel the Obamacare insurance markets and strongly discourage insurers from participating next year. Insurance companies in many states would be allowed to pull out of the Obamacare markets, which in many states already have scant competition.

Several polls show that the public would blame the administration and the Republican-controlled Congress if the markets collapsed.

The issue is coming to a head: On Monday, the Trump administration has to inform the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia how it wants to resolve a lawsuit the House Republicans brought against the Obama administration saying the White House was making the payments without congressional approval. The White House and House could also ask for a 90-day hold on the case.

Some in the administration are hoping to persuade Trump to change his mind. Mick Mulvaney, the administration's budget director, is more "agnostic" on the issue, according to a person close to him, and has presented Trump with options other than immediately suspending the funding.

The lawsuit is moving ahead against the backdrop of the effort on Capitol Hill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Any bill would be expected to unwind the health law over at least a year. But defunding the cost-sharing program could destabilize the market immediately.

Breaking News Alerts
Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox.
Email Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
In a statement, the administration said the White House has told Congress it will continue the payments through May but no commitment has been made beyond that.

“No final decisions have been made at this time, and all options are on the table," the statement said.

The administration has said in the past it would continue to make the payments while the lawsuit, House v. Price, is pending. The D.C. District Court ruled in 2016 that the Obama administration had been illegally funding the program. The Obama administration appealed that decision, but the court did not rule on the issue before Trump was sworn in.

Many of the country's most influential health care associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Friday wrote to Senate leaders, warning them of massive coverage losses if lawmakers didn’t immediately rescue the subsidies.

“At this point," they wrote, "only Congressional action can help consumers."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I'm pretty sure he would.
> 
> The problem here with the whole "blood money" argument is that it's only blood money if those weapons are used and there's both sides to that as I tried to point out with the "arms for peace" argument. I admit that Saudis are a terrible government with regards to military armament because the day the Sauds are killed/assassinated and a coup happens, that will be one of the most heavily armed military forces in the world.
> 
> That alone is partly responsible for the relationship Americans have with the kings since the 50's.
> 
> They're despicable human beings that have harbored and funded terrorists, but we all know that every single time a regime is toppled in the middle east, things go from bad to worse.
> 
> I'd rather we lie in bed with the Sauds out of fear of what could come next. It's not entirely irrational. This is also why I want Americans to support Assad.
> 
> I don't know what the solution is. But I don't think isolationism, or forcing our "friends" into the arms of the others are better solutions than having these uneasy and unpalatable alliances.


So you are basically saying better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Either way its a lose lose.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are basically saying better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
> 
> Either way its a lose lose.


Unfortunately. And I think that that kind of thing dawned on Trump in the White House as well. 

I still think that overall Trumpism is a valid ideology on pretty much all fronts. I'm just starting to wonder at this point if it's practically applicable and that's all.

I would still rather have some of what Trump offered than none of it and on that he's still pretty good.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Unfortunately. And I think that that kind of thing dawned on Trump in the White House as well.
> 
> *I still think that overall Trumpism is a valid ideology on pretty much all fronts*. I'm just starting to wonder at this point if it's practically applicable and that's all.
> 
> I would still rather have some of what Trump offered than none of it and on that he's still pretty good.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this. lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@Iconoclast : I'm not big on Gabbard's level of inclusiveness due to it bordering on naive. However, I still have some optimism toward her when it comes Islamism / radical Islam because she doesn't totally and blindly tow the party line, as evident by her:

- Opposing the removal al-Assad due to how his absence will only exacerbate the clusterfuck that Syria's devolved into

- Wanting Congress to cut back assistance to Pakistan due to their violence towards India

- Criticizing the Syria airstrike due to the lack of concrete evidence that al-Assad initiated it 

She needs to do a hell of a lot more on that front, but I'm willing to give her a chance because of the aforementioned instances.

:draper2



birthday_massacre said:


> This is why the corp. DNC is getting primary in 2018. The ones who think that way need to go or the dems will never win again.


I'm perfectly fine with the dems never winning anything ever again so long as they continue to be cancerous by embracing fuckery like SJWs, BLM and third wave feminism, being shady as hell and promoting multiculturalism while denouncing their own culture.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Going to enjoy the level of butthurt from the media now that InfoWars has White House press credentials. :lol


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Going to enjoy the level of butthurt from the media now that InfoWars has White House press credentials. :lol


Considering how they reacted when The Rebel did, then yeah


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Going to enjoy the level of butthurt from the media now that *InfoWars has White House press credentials.* :lol







Any word on if PJW will replace Woody Johnson as the ambassador to the UK? :yoshi


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @Iconoclast : I'm not big on Gabbard's level of inclusiveness due to it bordering on naive. However, I still have some optimism toward her when it comes Islamism / radical Islam because she doesn't totally and blindly tow the party line, as evident by her:
> 
> - Opposing the removal al-Assad due to how his absence will only exacerbate the clusterfuck that Syria's devolved into
> 
> *- Wanting Congress to cut back assistance to Pakistan due to their violence towards India
> *
> - Criticizing the Syria airstrike due to the lack of concrete evidence that al-Assad initiated it
> 
> She needs to do a hell of a lot more on that front, but I'm willing to give her a chance because of the aforementioned instances.


Not that I'm in any way supportive of USAID in Pakistan, but to ignore India's role in occupied Kashmir and make it just about Pakistan is either ignorance or prejudicial. Kashmir is a sovereign state that wants fuck all to do with either india or pakistan, but both have been involved in terror attacks and border skirmishes against one another for decades. 

Either way, still not impressed. She sounds as much, if not more naive than Trump on global politics and therefore isn't inspiring much confidence as someone who won't be easily converted to the MIC agenda once in power.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Going to enjoy the level of butthurt from the media now that InfoWars has White House press credentials. :lol


Infowars has white house clearance...

THE PAIN

THE FEAR 

THE FURY 

THE SORROW 

THE END 

I am a Joy away from becoming a two man Cobra team


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Not that I'm in any way supportive of USAID in Pakistan, but to ignore India's role in occupied Kashmir and make it just about Pakistan is either ignorance or prejudicial. Kashmir is a sovereign state that wants fuck all to do with either india or pakistan, but both have been involved in terror attacks and border skirmishes against one another for decades.
> 
> Either way, still not impressed. She sounds as much, if not more naive than Trump on global politics and therefore isn't inspiring much confidence as someone who won't be easily converted to the MIC agenda once in power.


Like I said, she has a lot of room for improvement in regard to her viewpoints on radical Islam. But like Trump, I find her to be refreshing from the typical party line-towing stooges we see en masse.

:draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

InfoWars now has White House press credentials :heston

About to jump off the :trump train I don't dig reptile lizard alien conspiracy theorists who hate Jews


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> InfoWars now has White House press credentials :heston
> 
> About to jump off the :trump train I don't dig reptile lizard alien conspiracy theorists who hate Jews


I don't see how that's more conspiratorial than the stuff I've been seeing out of the NYT or CNN.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

CNN,MSNBC and FOXNEWS are all awful in their own unique way but none of them have done anything remotely bad as Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories. If Infowars has press credentials then every homeless guy with mental health issues screaming on a subway should have them too.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't see how that's more conspiratorial than the stuff I've been seeing out of the NYT or CNN.


the nyt and cnn don't like israel very much

infowars hates jews

all these right-wing fringe types no matter who they blame, the globalist elite, reptile lizard aliens, whoever, scratch the surface just a tiny bit and you discover what they mean is Jews

one is way worse than the other


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> infowars hates jews


citation needed


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Honestly, watching a long debate between David Duke and Alex Jones, and holding no ill will toward Jews _per se_, it was somewhat discomfiting how decisively Duke seemed to "win" the debate simply because Jones was ostensibly so terrified of even dignifying anything connected to Duke's conclusions (about Jews). Perhaps Jones is a raging anti-Semite in his personal life and is therefore overcompensating in such instances as the one described here but that seems like an ugly accusation to level without any evidence (in fact, Jones repeatedly went to the proudly Jewish coworker of his to confront Duke during swaths of their debate).


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Didn't info wars come out and admit they aren't real news and that alex jones doesn't actually believe the stuff he says?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We've always had an odd relationship with the royal Saudi family, but I'd rather have them as allies against Iran.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> We've always had an odd relationship with the royal Saudi family, but I'd rather have them as allies against Iran.
> 
> - Vic


What makes Saudi Arabia better than Iran?

The only difference I can think of is that Iran has a vague, limited democracy where Saudi Arabia have none at all.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> We've always had an odd relationship with the royal Saudi family, but I'd rather have them as allies against Iran.
> 
> - Vic


Lol in what way? Mental.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> CNN,MSNBC and FOXNEWS are all awful in their own unique way but *none of them have done anything remotely bad as Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories*. If Infowars has press credentials then every homeless guy with mental health issues screaming on a subway should have them too.







Does a discussion about black holes and the Bermuda triangle qualify? :lol

On a more serious note, I'd say that helping Bush and Cheney lie us into war with Iraq is much worse than a nut job like Alex Jones talking about insane conspiracy theories because most people don't take InfoWars seriously but a lot of people believe the bullshit propaganda they see on TV.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Didn't info wars come out and admit they aren't real news and that alex jones doesn't actually believe the stuff he says?


No, his attorney appears to have went rogue with that one during a child custody hearing. Alex Jones himself went to court and denied playing a character and as a result he's lost custody of his children, quite unfortunately. Everyone who knows Alex Jones IRL including PJW, Joe Rogan, Stefan Molyneux, and others say he's exactly the same on and off the air.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@L-DOPA



> *The price tag on universal health care is in, and it’s bigger than California’s budget*
> BY ANGELA HART
> [email protected]
> My feed
> The price tag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
> 
> California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
> 
> The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
> 
> It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
> 
> Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.
> 
> “Health care spending is growing faster than the overall economy ... yet we do not have better health outcomes and we cover fewer people,” Lara said at Monday’s appropriations hearing. “Given this picture of increasing costs, health care inefficiencies and the uncertainty created by Congress, it is critical that California chart our own path.”
> 
> The idea behind Senate Bill 562 is to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs and expand coverage to everyone in the state regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Instead of private insurers, state government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.
> 
> Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. They seek to rein in rising health care costs by lowering administrative expenses, reducing expensive emergency room visits, and eliminating insurance company profits and executive salaries.
> 
> In addition to covering undocumented people, Lara said the goal is to expand health access to people who, even with insurance, may skip doctor visits or stretch out medications due to high copays and deductibles.
> 
> “Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to negotiate rates and deal with insurance companies to seek reimbursement,” Lara said.
> 
> Insurance groups, health plans and Kaiser Permanente are against the bill. Industry representatives say California should focus on improving the Affordable Care Act. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.”
> 
> “A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans.
> 
> “It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.
> 
> Underlying the debate is uncertainty at the federal level over what President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will do with Obamacare. The House Republican bill advanced earlier this month would dismantle it by removing its foundation – the individual mandate that requires everyone to have coverage or pay a tax penalty.
> 
> Republican-led efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare is fueling political support for the bill, Atkins said at a universal health care rally this past weekend in Sacramento hosted by the California Nurses Association, a co-sponsor.
> 
> RELATED STORIES FROM THE SACRAMENTO BEE
> Who could lose health insurance in California under GOP Obamacare repeal plan?
> 
> Bernie Sanders wants California to lead on health care
> 
> Nurses heckle Democratic leader, threaten legislators over health care
> “This is a high-ticket expense ... We have to figure out how to cover everyone and work on addressing the costs in the long-term – that’s our challenge,” Atkins said. “I’m optimistic.”
> 
> The bill has to get approval on the Senate floor by June 2 to advance to the Assembly. A financing plan is underway, which could suggest diverting money employers pay for workers’ compensation insurance to a state-run coverage system.
> 
> Lara said he believes California can and should play a prominent role in improving people’s lives.
> 
> “We can do better,” he said.


#UsefulIdiots .


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Having to go $200 Billion potentially in the hole to provide worse healthcare in the attempt to cover everyone. The fact that it's more expensive than the budget of the state should indicate to people the price in which they would have to pay in order to for the state to be the main and only provider of healthcare. Once you give up the power of healthcare solely to the state it is very difficult to reverse the trend as shown here in the UK with all of our problems with our healthcare system which is directly caused by government policy. That is the single biggest problem with the single payer system and why generally speaking in countries with higher populations such as the UK, Ireland, Canada and until recently New Zealand perform worse overall in terms of health outcomes than countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Singapore and France. Because none of the latter countries have a state monopoly on healthcare and have either a thriving private market alongside public insurance/option or are completely privatized.

The positive however is if California goes through with it and it ends up having massive problems and failing like I predict it would then it might at least put off states from following suit. Of course Bernie will never give up the dream regardless of the evidence that is placed before him but that is another story for another time. I feel for @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






The US has a "gay bomb" that used on their own troops to (redacted)

This man is given official access to the white house 

anyone who thinks infowars is "just as valid as the evil mainstream"...

I can't even


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> I haven't posted here in a while but I felt compelled to respond to an article I was tagged to read. Here is the link to it if anyone wants a look:
> 
> http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/we-already-live-in-free-market-heres.html


My apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I haven't had the time or mental resources available lately to properly do so.



L-DOPA said:


> I've read the article @Tater and whilst it makes some decent observations on the movement of market economies through technology there are a few really glaringly obvious problems with his arguments. One in particular which essentially proves that we are definitely not living in a free market as we currently stand. I have broken my response down into three subsections, two of which I believe are fundamental flaws in his argument and one where I believe he's on the right track but is lacking in understanding.
> 
> 
> *The Free Market and Governments*
> 
> I'm going to start out by quoting the beginning of the article because this really sets the tone for what is about to come:
> 
> 
> 
> This opening couple of sentences really illustrates what this article is about. Whilst it is claiming to articulate why we are already in a free market the underlining tone is really one of anti-government/anti-state rhetoric. Which would be fine if there wasn't holes in the argument. The argument is essentially in today's world that it is the free market and "freedom" that has helped create governments in which powerful entities have used these concepts in order to impose their will on the rest of the populace. Whilst it is indeed true that elite powerful people through corporations among other things have used the state to their advantage, this is an incredibly simplistic argument which fails to deliver nuance.
> 
> The first obvious thing to point out as most people will notice is that there have been many big government authoritarian regimes which have undeniably opposed free market principles. I'm of course talking about top down state-socialist/communist states since the turn of the 20th Century. The USSR, Mao's China, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba being some really big examples. But more importantly there has also been examples of countries with small governments with/without decentralized levels of power and even stateless societies (though they have not lasted long) both with market economies and without. Switzerland's economy for example is massively market orientated yet their political system is very decentralized to the point of having direct democracy which includes the right to submit a federal initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions. Hong Kong and Singapore are some of the most economically free countries in the world and yet have small governments. These are three countries which undermine the idea that you need a big government to enforce market economies.
> 
> The most important example however comes from the Spanish Anarchist Revolution known more specifically as Revolutionary Catalonia where Anarchist and Socialist trade unions, parties and militias were in direct control of the region. This is important because whilst Catalonia at this time was completely decentralized and had no government whatsoever it was the furthest thing from a free market. You had worker's control of business and factories which were essentially collectivized along with agriculture in rural areas. Small and Medium size businesses that were under collective could not actively produce goods for services as a business owners for their own living. For example, In Barcelona, the trade unions collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective. So although there was no government entity, there was still very little to no freedom in terms of economic activity. Everything was controlled and planned out by the trade unions during that period in Catalonia.
> 
> Finally, when you look at the history of government versus the conception of free market economics, you will find that both the concept of and the practical application of governments precede the ideas of the free market by a significant amount even looking into the formation of the modern state. The foundations laid for what would now be the modern state and nation were very much laid in the aftermath of the English Civil War where the victorious Parliamentarians installed a governing body which would be known as the English Parliament to keep a check on the incoming King's power after ousting Charles I. This would begin the development of what is now known as the modern state and laid the groundwork for example of the French, German and of course American governments in terms of the idea of separation of powers within government itself. Of course, there are very many specifics in terms of all those examples which I won't get into here but the important point to make is this development in history came a Century before both the Industrial Revolution and before the thinking of Classical economists were put down on paper. This happened at a time where feudalism was still at large and whereby both economic and political activity were still very much top down.
> 
> So keeping all of this in mind, the idea that it is currently the "free market" and the "freedom" of these individuals that create governments simply does not hold weight. Political and economic systems are not mutually exclusive to each other and never have been. You can have smaller and even no government at all and still be in a position where there is little freedom in terms of what you can and can't do especially in terms of economic activity and it certainly is not entirely based on political ends as this author continuously argues.
> 
> It is not the free market or "freedom" that has created current governments that are under market economics, rather it is individuals that have certain identifiable traits such as power or lust for power, wealth, status and inheritance. Those conditions would and have existed regardless of what economic model individual countries have undertaken and whether or not those people were either elected or took power through force. It is a very dense and quite frankly historically ignorant argument to suggest.
> 
> Even if everything I said is wrong, in order for his overall argument to be true he would have to not only show how we are living in a free market today but also how the free market currently correlates with the governments you see today. And in terms of the former, he undermines his own argument pretty spectacularly.
> 
> 
> *Monopoly*
> 
> In simplistic terms there are two main principles behind free market economic thinking. The first is the idea of voluntary exchange in goods and services between people free from coercion and outside interference. The other one is the idea of the freedom to choose, both as being a producer i.e to sell whatever products you may see fit and as a consumer; to be able to choose who it is you wish to engage in voluntary exchange with. It is from these two principles that the concerns of economic monopoly were first raised from Classical economists and have continued ever since in various circles of economic thought, particularly those of the neo-classical thought in the Chicago School and from the Austrian School of Economics. Whilst many Classical and Neo-Classical economics have conceded that in rare instances such as minerals that there is indeed a chance of monopoly to occur through natural market forces, those who believe in the ideas of the free market have always feared and opposed the idea of monopoly, particularly those monopolies in which are created by government policy. This is because monopoly in any one economic field robs the consumer the freedom to choose between different providers of service and are thus stuck with one option in which he or she can engage in voluntary exchange with. This of course takes away one of the core principles of a free market economy, that being the freedom to choose. In other words, *monopoly is the very antithesis of a free market.
> *
> 
> And yet the author of the article claims that we are already living within a free market and readily admits that we have monopolies in key areas such as manufacturing, communication and energy production....all his words not mine. Pretty much every example which the author lists has become a monopoly through the collusion and relationship between business/corporations and the state. What is even more bizarre is that whilst there is much anti-government and anti-state rhetoric within the article, he does not mention of monopolies in which are currently held by governments. Most of the modern world for example has education systems which are monopolized under the state, a significant amount of modern countries like the UK, Canada, Denmark and Norway also have a state monopoly over healthcare. Many other countries have monopolies over other individual economic sectors, the biggest example being railways.
> 
> From my own perspective, it also strikes me as weird why you would link this article when the biggest example of monopoly currently right now is on money and banking, something we have talked about in regards to the Federal Reserve. Legal tender laws especially have given Central Banks a stranglehold over the medium of exchange i.e money, which is the biggest and most important element of a free market. You cannot for example use Euros to buy items in the UK or use pounds to buy items in the US. In a true free market economy, we would have free flow of exchange in currency and it would be the market which decides what is the best and strongest form of currency through the actions of individuals. Instead, the strength of currencies are regularly manipulated and devalued by the Central Bank, not even backed up by real commodities of worth such as gold or silver. Monetary exchange is something the author even readily admits is in a monopoly.
> 
> With a significant amount of monopoly still at play within the market due to government interference and with regular government action to manipulate the market through corporate welfare, subsidies, tax credits and over-regulation there is absolutely no fathomable way you can argue that we are living in a free market. The fact that the author does not seem to recognize that these current monopolies demonstrate the antithesis of a free market shows a lack of understanding of the concept. He could call me one of the ideological purists he's used as an argument to try and back up his claims if he understood what he is arguing.
> 
> *Decentralization*
> 
> Decentralization is an interesting concept in which he has illustrated. Indeed decentralization within individual private businesses and of course within national and international economies are both desirable and has to an extent been happening. However, there is a couple of points I'd like to make in response. The first is whilst the author has made mention of decentralization in terms of business and industry, his arguments and solutions are very much of political persuasion. In terms of political decentralization versus economic decentralization, again the two don't go and hand in hand and this is something I'm not entirely convinced the author understands.
> 
> For example, here in the UK since the Conservative government has been in charge we have seen the beginnings of some real decentralization of power from Westminster to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies as well further power being brought down to a more local level in the counties. And yet at the same time, we have seen the government get more and more involved in areas such as energy whereby they have deliberately intervened in the sector to try and stop energy companies from rising prices. The problem being that here in the UK, we have a very corporate set up and the barriers to entry for smaller and medium energy companies to compete are very high thanks to several governments involvement in regulation of the energy sector in order to bring about "fair prices". The Labour party also have pledged if they were to get into government that they would extend decentralization of the political system even further and yet have also promised to nationalize both the railways and energy. Something which @GOAT Hogan will be familiar with. The author seems to put both political and economic decentralization together without going into detail how economic decentralization has either been happening specifically or how it can be further achieved beyond using the technology that has been constantly developing.
> 
> The example of the Thailand government in particular illustrates this as it focuses directly on governmental decentralization both on the international and national scale and makes very little mention of economics. Governmental decentralization does not necessarily guarantee a free market and governmental centralization does not mean that a largely free market cannot exist as the two concepts together are not mutally exclusive. Pinochet's Chile is the perfect example of this.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> The article makes some decent points in terms of the global movement towards a marketplace with more competition yet fails to put forward a comprehensive argument of why this means we are in a free market. Not only that but he consistently undermines himself by referring to the various monopolies within both the global and national markets whilst ignoring the many monopolies which are state driven. He seems to either not understand or ignore the fact that a) monopolies that are propped up and maintained through governments are the antithesis of a free market and that b) highlighting these said monopolies prove that a free market cannot be existing at this current moment.
> 
> He has the right idea with decentralization and yet focuses a lot on political decentralization when the issue is solely one of economic decentralization and that one can exist without the other. Overall I think he's more interested in getting rid of the state rather than delving into motions that can be done to open up the market on national and global scales and I think it's indicative of his very political rather than economic led write up.


I'm going to start by pointing out the myth of a free market. It's an oxymoron, in a sense. Even if a market starts as free, it won't stay that way. Without regulation, power always condenses into monopolies. With monopolies, one cannot have a free market. Therefore, the whole concept of a "free market" is now and has always been a myth. For a free market to function as a _free market_, it has to be regulated to keep it a free market. You're smart enough to understand the point I am making here. As stated in the article I posted: 

_Without a sufficient means of deterrence, gangs, mafias, governments, and supranational blocs will run roughshod over any and all who stand between them and greater wealth and influence. To prevent a gang, mafia, government, or supranational bloc from expanding further, it requires an equal but opposed center of organized power arrayed against it._

Now, I should say, I don't agree with everything from the article. I simply posted it as a reminder to you and @DesolationRow that being in favor of "free markets" is not exclusively a right wing ideal. I posted it as an example of a different perspective and of course, you made many valid criticisms of it.

I still like the general idea of what the author was trying to state, even if he didn't perfectly state those ideals. Mainly, I support the idea of decentralized government, local people using modern technology to produce goods for local use and local governments with direct democracy having more power in deciding the outcome of their communities.

I think his point about already living in a free market was made in a hamfisted sort of way but the way I interpret it is that he was trying to point out that it was the lack of regulation and the "freedom" of concentrated wealth to buy our centralized government that has led to our current problems.

You claim that the author was simply being anti-state but he clearly pointed out that without government, mafia governments would arise to take their place. It's the same oxymoron as a free market. A government is needed to prevent government from taking over. Again, you're smart enough to understand the point I am making.

The biggest problem with the world today is capitalism. Capitalism is the subjugation of the many by the private ownership of the few. Capitalism is the exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the owner class. Capitalism will never bring about a society that benefits all. Capitalism will always end with extreme wealth concentration in the hands of a few while the vast majority suffers in poverty. What I'd like from you is for you to *admit* that you believe the majority should be subjugated. That's what your "free market" pro-capitalism ideology leads to. It leads to a small handful of people owning all of the power and the wealth while all the rest of us work for their benefit. You're smart enough to look at historical trends and see what the outcome will be. Now I want you to man the fuck up and just outright admit that you believe us peons and serfs should never have any say over the outcome of our own lives and society as a whole. You freely admit in your own sig that you want a government so small that you can barely see it. Yet, you are unwilling to advocate for the policies that would make society work for the many instead of the few. I would respect an admittance of that belief. What I would not respect is a denial because I already know you to be smart enough to know better.

Back to the point at hand... we, as modern humans, have the technology to provide enough food and housing for every living person on this planet. The people who tell you we can't are getting rich by preventing it. 

_Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though either the technology and production, or sharing capacity exists to create a theoretically limitless abundance, as well as the use of laws to create scarcity where otherwise there wouldn't be._

A number I often bring up is the fact that the USA throws away over 40% of the food it produces. Here's another fun fact. Empty houses outnumber the homeless 6 to 1. So, we have the capacity to feed and house everyone in the USA, but we don't. Because fucking capitalism. Because we have reduced human life to a bottom line. We have turned humanity into a number on a sheet of paper. Can I profit from you? No? Then go fuck yourself. That's the ideology of capitalists. Profit above all else.

We can argue over how best to create a society but where I will never agree with you is about valuing money over human life. I recently criticized you for your celebration of corporate tax cuts in the name of cutting social programs. What I pointed out then was your callous disregard to how much suffering that will cause. The capitalistic system we currently live under has created a society of many people who rely on those government programs to simply survive. By supporting the fucking over of poor people in the name of tax cuts for the rich without addressing the root cause of why there are so many people who need those government programs to *not die*, it says a lot about your willingness to choose ideology over actual human life.

I feel like I am asking your forgiveness a lot but I am asking again. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit harsh with you because you know I love ya buddy but you've got some fucked up ideologies. The economic ideas you advocate for, whether you are willing to admit it or not, lead to suffering and death. All for the benefit of some rich asshole who wants to buy his 5th yacht.

The modern mainstream argument between "liberals" and "conservatives" is over how much to tax the rich to give to the poor. I disagree with both sides of this argument because it never addresses the fundamental flaw in our economic system that allows so much wealth to be funneled to the top to begin with. A: the people who do the work and generate the wealth should share in that wealth and B: we shouldn't be deciding a person's worth based on how much wealth they can generate for an owner class.

Quick question: do you or do you not believe in a democratic society? Because you cannot have extreme wealth concentration and a democratic society at the same time. Take your pick because you cannot have both. If we are to have an actual democratic society, then the people need to be put in control of that society. Our "democracy" now is a fucking joke. We are being given a choice between rape and rape with lube. At no point are we being given the choice of not being raped. We are told we get to vote for people to represent us. In reality, we are given the illusion of choice. We elect representatives and then we have to beg them for crumbs. That is completely backasswards from how a democratic society should function. A government in a free society is _supposed_ to work for us; not the other way around.

Speaking of direct democracy, ever wonder why it is that there are not more direct ballot initiatives? If the people want something and it has majority support, it seems like to me they should be able to vote yay or nay on it instead of having to plead for their so-called representatives to reject the wishes of their donors in favor of actually doing what the people want. Just a thought.

I live in a good community here in the islands. People here seem to get it; the aloha spirit and all. Buy local is very important to us. It's why farmer's markets are such a big deal here. I go to them every chance I get. When you spend money locally, that money goes back into the community. The more wealth that stays local, the more healthy the community is. Capitalism doesn't give a fuck about your local needs. Capitalism is all about how much profit can be generated for the owner class. The entire premise of capitalism is to suck the wealth out of every community it can get it's greedy hands on. Here's a fun one... Suppliers of Lowe’s in the US and Walmart in Brazil linked to slave labor in the Amazon. That was found with a quick google search. There are thousands of others. Capitalism uses slave labor in third world countries because that's what maximizes profit. Please, be my guest and defend that.

The idea of using technology to produce locally for local use, as referenced in the article I posted, is a sound one, whether or not you agree on the details of how it should be done. I can't speak for anybody else but I would much rather have items that are made in Hawai'i than I would items that are made anywhere else. When I spend my money on local goods, I know that money is going to local residents, who in turn spend their money on other local businesses. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I might feel bad about the shitholes around the world but at the same time, I advocate for fixing your own house before worrying about what's going on in anyone else's. We can't even fix what is wrong in our own country. Maybe we should stay the fuck out of everyone else's business until we can do so.

Farmer's markets in Hawai'i are what an ideal free market looks like. That's the kind of free market I support. And if some big corporation tried to step in and buy them all out, I would support legislation to prevent them from forming a monopoly on local business. Without that "free market" antithesis legislation, a free market cannot exist.

Honestly, just look back at history. There's a reason why antitrust laws exist. Money, power, greed... it corrupts. And it doesn't give a fuck about you or me. Money cares about money and nothing else. Which reminds me of another excellent point from the article... 

_Musk's popularity and prominence is owed to his ability to put purpose before profits - but still make profits._

Profit should be secondary to purpose. Purpose should be creating a healthy society for all. I believe in democracy. I believe in society. I believe we should all be working together to create the best society we can. I don't believe in authoritarianism. I don't believe in any kind of centralized power. As a libertarian leftist, I believe the power of society should be spread out amongst the people who live in that society. We the people should be the deciders of our outcome. 

The people who should not be deciding our outcomes are the assholes sitting in a boardroom meeting or a government office.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Message in the Book of Remembrance at the Holocaust museum.










Looks like a year book message. Raoul Wootliff, reporter for the Times of Israel, posted on Twitter, “He forgot: ‘See you next summer.’” :lol

Message in the Israeli president's guestbook.










OK he's just writing the same thing in every book.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> citation needed


1. alex jones claiming ezekiel and rahm emanuel are part of a "jewish mafia"
2. paul craig roberts
3. paul joseph watson
4. various classic anti-semitic economic/financial conspiracy theories peddled by infowars for over a decade
5. the rampant anti-semitism tolerated in their comments 
6. i will say that the reliance on classic anti-semitic conspiracy theories was toned way down when jones went all-in for :trump since :trump loves him some israel

i've been reading infowars and prison planet for a decade plus, they don't like them the hebrews.

it's really not hard to spot the meaning when someone foams at the mouth ad nauseam for years and years about the international financial/government conspiracy with jews being very prominent in the list of those participating in and being in charge of the conspiracy. 

sorry i'm not ever going to believe alex jones is cool with jews because he's not. what, alex jones?! how could it be! expressions of shocked disbelief aren't going to change my mind either, i've known alex jones a lot longer than i've known any of you.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> 1. alex jones claiming ezekiel and rahm emanuel are part of a "jewish mafia"


Not equivalent to "hating jews". 


> 2. paul craig roberts
> 3. paul joseph watson


Listing names is not providing evidence. 


> 4. various classic anti-semitic economic/financial conspiracy theories peddled by infowars for over a decade


Give examples and show how they are anti-Semitic. 


> 5. the rampant anti-semitism tolerated in their comments


:lol Not moderating your YouTube comments does not mean you approve of their contents. Ridiculous. 



> i've been reading infowars and prison planet for a decade plus, they don't like them the hebrews.


Then you'd think providing actual evidence for such a claim would not be such a difficult task for you. And yet...


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Not equivalent to "hating jews".


Yes, talking about the "Jewish Mafia" is clearly not an indication of anti-semitism :heston



> Listing names is not providing evidence.


You're clearly unfamiliar with their writings. Especially Roberts'. 

I am sorry that I gave you too much credit by presuming you were familiar with the writings of men you are defending.



> Give examples and show how they are anti-Semitic.


If you are incapable of understanding how endless foaming at the mouth about global financial conspiracies run by Jews is not anti-semitic, it is quite likely that you are incapable of recognizing anti-semitism period. 



> :lol Not moderating your YouTube comments does not mean you approve of their contents. Ridiculous.


I'm talking about InfoWars.com not YouTube.

A fine example here:

https://www.infowars.com/video-trump-effigy-held-at-gunpoint-by-gazan-protesters/#disqus_thread

Let's see here:

1. InfoWars.com comment threads are dominated by anti-semitism
2. InfoWars.com provides that forum
3. There is no way that those running InfoWars.com are unaware of it
4. There is no effort made whatsoever at pushing back against the anti-semites who dominate their comment threads by those running InfoWars.com

But yes it is ridiculous to think that providing a forum dominated by anti-semites and doing nothing about that domination is an indication of at least tacit acceptance of widespread anti-semitism among the audience. 

It's Ron Paul's newsletters all over again, the same silly, retarded denials and excuses.



> Then you'd think providing actual evidence for such a claim would not be such a difficult task for you. And yet...


A pathetic attempt at rebuttal by you. Sad!

But please, do go on demanding explanations as to how classic anti-semitic conspiracy theories are not anti-semitic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Okay so you have no intention of providing any evidence to support your claim. :lol Fine. Reminds me of trying to argue with the anti-Trump people in this thread any time they took up some bogus MSM charge against him.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Okay so you have no intention of providing any evidence to support your claim. :lol Fine. Reminds me of trying to argue with the anti-Trump people in this thread any time they took up some bogus MSM charge against him.


Tell us again how "Jewish Mafia" isn't anti-semitic. 

Tell us again how a conspiracy theory about a global elite dominated by Jews isn't anti-semitic.

InfoWars has run articles claiming Israel was involved in the September 11th attacks. Not anti-semitic of course.

Like this one:

https://www.infowars.com/govt-insider-confirms-israels-role-in-911-attacks/

Nope, no evidence of anti-semitism there...

InfoWars has been a key proponent of the Rothschild "Luciferian agenda/NWO" conspiracy theory. Not anti-semitic of course.

https://www.infowars.com/rothschild-family-indicted-mainstream-media-silent/

Such not anti-semitism going on here:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/conspiracy-theorist-admired-by-trump-raps-jewish-mafia/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_8ULVmIksg



not dabbler in anti-semitism at all alex jones said:


> I’ve just got to say it, it was one thing with the last administration and I was hoping it was a fluke and was going to stop, but come on folks, every key person in the Bush administration and now in this next administration just so happen to be the sons and daughters of the founders of Israel and Mossad chiefs and people, and they’re openly not even really U.S. citizens, and they’re openly are at the head of the table in anti-gun operations in the U.S.
> 
> ...
> 
> Is it not enough that Israel had fingerprints all over 9/11?
> 
> The executive branch is nothing but a nozzle to suck up the wealth and the treasury of this country and offshore it.


Now Alex Jones did have a Jewish wife and has argued with anti-semites on his show and has been accused of being a secret Jew and other such anti-semitic attacks aimed at him by people even farther out in the fringe than he is, so I suppose it would be fair to say he doesn't believe in anti-semitic conspiracy theories that condemn all Jews.

Just some Jews.

Such a paragon of not anti-semitism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

But I thought Trump was going to prevent companies for doing this. And carrier of all companies who he bragged about saving jobs LOL












*‘Trump doesn’t care about workers’: Carrier employees react to announcement that 632 jobs are moving to Mexico*

IIn a letter released today, the Carrier corporation announced it was firing 632 workers from its factory in Indianapolis and moving those jobs to Monterrey, Mexico, by the end of 2017.

The company, which makes heating and air conditioning units, became the posterchild of offshoring when during the 2016 presidential campaign a video went viral of management announcing to angry workers that the entire plant was being shut down and 1,400 jobs were being eliminated.

Donald Trump leapt on the issue and hammered Hillary Clinton for supporting free-trade deals like NAFTA that by 2004 led to the net loss of 1 million U.S.-based jobs.

Trump vowed to save all the jobs at Carrier, as well as at another Indianapolis factory, Rexnord, that announced last year that it was also moving 300 jobs to Monterrey. Bashing Carrier helped propel Trump to an upset victory.

On December 1, President-elect Trump swept into Indianapolis and triumphantly announced that he struck a deal with Carrier’s parent company, UTC, to save “over 1,100” jobs. Trump claimed too that was the “minimum number” of jobs being saved and the number of workers would “go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant.”

Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents workers at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant, said when he heard Trump’s announcement, “I almost threw up in my mouth.” Jones and other union officials said Trump knew before he got up on stage that 550 jobs were going to Mexico. “It really pissed me off he misled people their jobs might be saved. He didn’t want to get up and tell people part of the plant is going to stay and part of the plant is going to Mexico.”

Jones sparked a controversy by telling the Washington Post Trump “lied his ass off” about saving 1,100 jobs. The Raw Story visited Indianapolis in January and sat down with Jones and 16 other workers at three Indiana factories where Trump said he would save jobs.

Reached by phone today, after Carrier’s announcement, Jones gives Trump credit for saving 800 Carrier jobs in Indianapolis. Another 269 research and administrative jobs were never leaving, but Trump apparently included them to get the “over 1,100” figure.

Jones says he is “bitter” about 1,600 workers being given the boot from that plant, the Rexnord factory, and a second Carrier facility in Huntington. And his opinion of Trump hasn’t softened. “I didn’t trust Trump when he was running, playing on working-class hopes. This guy who has businesses in other countries and wraps himself in the American flag.”

Jones is dismayed at how Trump pulled the wool over people’s eyes. “Sad thing is people bought into it then, when he was a candidate. Some working-class people still buy into it. They’re fucking stupid. Trump is the Titanic. The greatest ship ever and it fucking sunk. He said he’s going to save this country and if he keeps going like he has, he’s going to sink the country.”

Robert James, who works at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant and will become USW 1999 president in June, says the job losses are “devastating.” James says the mood among workers today is one of “closure.” But, “It’s going to be hard for them. You don’t replace jobs paying $25 an hour, like at Carrier and Rexnord. They got warehouse jobs paying ten to twelve dollars an hour. This is going to do damage to families, cause unnecessary stress and strain.”

James says, “I don’t think the president is going to be of any help to the workers. Things he’s proposing like healthcare are going to hurt them and their families. I don’t think Trump cares about workers.”

He adds, “If he really wanted to help workers, why doesn’t he start with bringing his own jobs back to the United States? His daughter and son-in-law all got jobs overseas where they pay people $60 a week or less. It’s a tragedy where all these companies go overseas and abuse people.”

Jones said the 632 jobs being cut includes some 80 seasonal workers. But more cuts are in the works he warns. Trump crowed that UTC would invest $16 million in the Carrier plant over the next two years, which would lead to job growth. Except Greg Hayes, the CEO of UTC, directly contradicted that a week later. Hayes told CNBC the investment was “to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. … what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.”

The state of Indiana promised UTC $7 million in taxpayer money if it keeps the jobs in the state and makes the planned investment. That’s nearly $9,000 per job, but Jones says, “By the time the investment is completed quite a few jobs will be eliminated. There’s no way of knowing if it’s going to be 50 or 100 or 200 jobs that will be gone.”

“The taxpayers got hoaxed out of $7 million to move more than 1,250 Carrier jobs out of this country. The whole thing was a scam.”

Ultimately, Jones says the blame lies with Wall Street. “These greedy sons of bitches don’t care about anyone else if they can make more money. This is going to destroy a lot of people.”


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Tell us again how "Jewish Mafia" isn't anti-semitic.


The same way talking about an Italian mafia or a Japanese mafia (Yakuza) doesn't mean someone is against Italians and Japanese people. 



> Tell us again how a conspiracy theory about a global elite dominated by Jews isn't anti-semitic.
> 
> InfoWars has run articles claiming Israel was involved in the September 11th attacks. Not anti-semitic of course.
> 
> Like this one:
> 
> https://www.infowars.com/govt-insider-confirms-israels-role-in-911-attacks/
> 
> Nope, no evidence of anti-semitism there...
> 
> InfoWars has been a key proponent of the Rothschild "Luciferian agenda/NWO" conspiracy theory. Not anti-semitic of course.
> 
> https://www.infowars.com/rothschild-family-indicted-mainstream-media-silent/
> 
> Such not anti-semitism going on here:
> 
> http://www.timesofisrael.com/conspiracy-theorist-admired-by-trump-raps-jewish-mafia/
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_8ULVmIksg


Criticizing individual Jewish people or the state of Israel for shady behavior is not equivalent to hating Jews or being anti-Semitic. Israel is a shady ass country with a monstrous history. It's valid to be critical of them. Doesn't mean you think ALL JEWS this or ALL JEWS that. 



> Now Alex Jones did have a Jewish wife and has argued with anti-semites on his show and has been accused of being a secret Jew and other such anti-semitic attacks aimed at him by people even farther out in the fringe than he is, so I suppose it would be fair to say he doesn't believe in anti-semitic conspiracy theories that condemn all Jews.
> 
> Just some Jews.
> 
> Such a paragon of not anti-semitism.


I do find it interesting how you take 3 posts to finally respond with some (albeit weak and non-conclusive, in my view) evidence, and then you throw sass at me as if I was stating for a fact there was no evidence. I simply noted you failed to provide any, and until this post you did fail. That's not on me, that's on you. 

Then you seem to strawman me by suggesting I claimed Alex Jones is a paragon of not anti-Semitism, when I simply asked you to provide evidence for your claim. This is not how an intelligent, rational person reacts to being asked to provide evidence to support a claim. 

This idea that if you criticize individuals belonging to a certain race, or a group of people from the same race, you must be bigoted against that entire race, is exactly the kind of thing you see leftists do all the time. I wonder if I went back through old Trump threads if I wouldn't find you defending Trump from similar charges using the same logic I'm using now, but I don't really care to do that so I won't be baselessly accusing you of doing it without providing evidence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> The same way talking about an Italian mafia or a Japanese mafia (Yakuza) doesn't mean someone is against Italians and Japanese people.
> 
> Criticizing individual Jewish people or the state of Israel for shady behavior is not equivalent to hating Jews or being anti-Semitic. Israel is a shady ass country with a monstrous history. It's valid to be critical of them. Doesn't mean you think ALL JEWS this or ALL JEWS that.
> 
> I do find it interesting how you take 3 posts to finally respond with some (albeit weak and non-conclusive, in my view) evidence, and then you throw sass at me as if I was stating for a fact there was no evidence. I simply noted you failed to provide any, and until this post you did fail. That's not on me, that's on you.
> 
> Then you seem to strawman me by suggesting I claimed Alex Jones is a paragon of not anti-Semitism, when I simply asked you to provide evidence for your claim. This is not how an intelligent, rational person reacts to being asked to provide evidence to support a claim.
> 
> This idea that if you criticize individuals belonging to a certain race, or a group of people from the same race, you must be bigoted against that entire race, is exactly the kind of thing you see leftists do all the time. I wonder if I went back through old Trump threads if I wouldn't find you defending Trump from similar charges using the same logic I'm using now, but I don't really care to do that so I won't be baselessly accusing you of doing it without providing evidence.


Couple of articles asking if Jones is anti-Semitic or not

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/10/28/another-anti-semitic-rant-from-alex-jones/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/26/has_alex_jones_gone_full_anti_semite.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/infowa...l-alex-jones-goes-zionist-under-trump/223907/

You can say these dont show he is one but its why some people claim he is. It has to do with what you are talking about


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Couple of articles asking if Jones is anti-Semitic or not
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/10/28/another-anti-semitic-rant-from-alex-jones/
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/26/has_alex_jones_gone_full_anti_semite.html


These articles quote a rant where Alex Jones explicitly noted he was criticizing one family of Jews and not Jews in large, and even attacked people for being Nazis (in his view), and somehow the article draws the conclusion that he was being anti-Semitic and "letting his Nazi flag fly". :done This is sheer lunacy. 



> http://www.mintpressnews.com/infowa...l-alex-jones-goes-zionist-under-trump/223907/
> 
> You can say these dont show he is one but its why some people claim he is. It has to do with what you are talking about


The last article is actually just noting some hypocrisy with Alex Jones going from being critical of Israel to apparently defending it under Trump's presidency. Fair enough.

Those charges levied at Steve Bannon are completely without merit though, from what I've been able to uncover. Generally if you see an article where they throw a bunch of negative adjectives in front of a person's name, you're probably reading a partisan hack job.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> These articles quote a rant where Alex Jones explicitly noted he was criticizing one family of Jews and not Jews in large, and even attacked people for being Nazis (in his view), and somehow the article draws the conclusion that he was being anti-Semitic and "letting his Nazi flag fly". :done This is sheer lunacy.
> 
> The last article is actually just noting some hypocrisy with Alex Jones going from being critical of Israel to apparently defending it under Trump's presidency. Fair enough.
> 
> Those charges levied at Steve Bannon are completely without merit though, from what I've been able to uncover. Generally if you see an article where they throw a bunch of negative adjectives in front of a person's name, you're probably reading a partisan hack job.


I am not saying if he is anti-semantic or not, because I ignore most of what he says. But these are the articles where people get the idea that he is.
Just pointing out no one is pulling it out of their asses, it came from somewhere.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am not saying if he is anti-semantic or not, because I ignore most of what he says. But these are the articles where people get the idea that he is.
> Just pointing out no one is pulling it out of their asses, it came from somewhere.


In the case of the articles you linked, it seems to come from people who are indeed pulling it out of their asses. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> In the case of the articles you linked, it seems to come from people who are indeed pulling it out of their asses. :lol


 I meant the poster who said Jones was. The articles evidence may not be strong enough to show he is, but the notion of him being anti-semantic is out there.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I meant the poster who said Jones was. The articles evidence may not be strong enough to show he is, but the notion of him being anti-semantic is out there.


I'm pretty anti-semantic myself, to be fair. :draper2


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"I don't hate the Jews because I'm racist, I hate Jews because they control our banks and Hollywood with their Zionist agenda and use us to fight their proxy wars so they can become the supreme power on the planet and rape all the kids an stuff"

"If they Jews weren't evil I wouldn't hate them yo"

The beloved HP Lovecraft was a raging anti-semite who hurled abuse at Jews in public but married a Jewish women, I guess she was not part of the Zionist agenda


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

I saw this one earlier and had a little chuckle. I swear, every time this man goes near a wall someone's gonna make it into a meme.


----------



## wwe9391

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

lol man so many people really should not be posting in this thread


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> lol man so many people really should not be posting in this thread


Surely anybody can post in whatever thread they like?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> @L-DOPA
> 
> 
> 
> #UsefulIdiots .


As a Californian, I expect a massive increase in taxes to make up that $200 billion. Doesn't matter though, cause once that begins I'll be on the way out, along with hundreds of thousands of others.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> As a Californian, I expect a massive increase in taxes to make up that $200 billion. Doesn't matter though, cause once that begins I'll be on the way out, along with hundreds of thousands of others.


You might have missed my post earlier that more than half of California is already in a massive revenue decline to other states especially Florida. 

We are a tax free state.

The more Democratic states raise taxes the more states like Florida benefit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...p-top-table-main_brennan-1030a:homepage/story


CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates
Play Video 1:18
Brennan convinced Russians were trying to interfere in election
Former CIA director John Brennan testified May 23 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential election. (The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller May 23 at 6:15 PM

The CIA alerted the FBI to a troubling pattern of contacts between Russian officials and associates of the Trump campaign last year, former agency director John Brennan testified on Tuesday, shedding new light on the origin of a criminal probe that now reaches into the White House.

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Brennan said he became increasingly concerned that Trump associates were being manipulated by Russian intelligence services as part of a broader covert influence campaign that sought to disrupt the election and deliver the presidency to Trump.

“I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see proof of collusion before he left office on Jan. 20, but “felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.”

Brennan’s remarks represent the most detailed public accounting to date of his tenure as CIA director during the alleged Russian assault on the U.S. presidential race, and the agency’s role in triggering an FBI probe that Trump has sought to contain.

[Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence]
Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests View Graphic

“It should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 presidential election process,” Brennan said at one point, one of several moments in which his words seemed aimed squarely at the president.

Trump has refused to fully accept the unanimous conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia stole thousands of sensitive emails, orchestrated online dumps of damaging information and employed fake news and other means to upend the 2016 race.

GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday’s hearing trying to get Brennan to concede that he had no conclusive evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Brennan acknowledged that he still had “unresolved questions” about the purpose of those contacts when he stepped down as CIA director in January.

But, “I know what the Russians try to do,” Brennan said. “They try to suborn individuals and they try to get individuals, including U.S. persons, to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly.”

Brennan refused to name any of the U.S. individuals who were apparently detected communicating with Russian officials. The FBI investigation, which began last July, has scrutinized Trump associates including Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager; Carter Page, who was once listed as a foreign policy adviser to Trump; and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign after misleading statements about his contacts with the Russian ambassador were exposed.

The probe has intensified in recent weeks and identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest.

Because Russia uses intermediaries and other measures to disguise its hand, “many times, [U.S. individuals] do not know that the individual they are interacting with is a Russian,” Brennan said.
Play Video 1:52
Trump asked intelligence officials to deny connections with Russia
The Washington Post's Adam Entous explains how President Trump asked two top ranking intelligence officials to publicly deny any connection between his campaign and Russia. (Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)

He added that Russian agencies routinely seek to gather compromising information, or ”kompromat,” to coerce treason from U.S. officials who “do not even realize they are on that path until it gets too late.” The remark appeared to be in reference to Flynn.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is issuing two new subpoenas for information from Flynn’s companies and challenging his lawyer’s refusal to comply with an existing subpoena for documents detailing his contacts with Russian officials, committee leaders announced Tuesday.

“A business does not have the right to take the Fifth,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the committee’s lead Democrat, told reporters as he and chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) pledged to “keep all options on the table.”

Brennan was also asked about Trump’s disclosure of highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting this month. Brennan said that the CIA at times provided tips about terrorist plots to the Kremlin, but he indicated that Trump violated key protocols.

Sensitive information should only be passed through intelligence services, not divulged to foreign ministers or ambassadors, Brennan said. Referring to the information revealed by Trump, Brennan said it had neither gone through “the proper channels nor did the originating agency have the opportunity to clear language for it.”

Brennan was a key figure in the Obama administration’s handling of Russian election interference. As alarm grew, Brennan held classified meetings with top congressional officials in the fall to impress upon them the unprecedented nature of Moscow’s interference.

Later, Brennan was among the top officials who briefed then-President-elect Trump on the scale of Russia’s intervention, and its assessed goal of helping Trump win.

[FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House]

On Tuesday, Brennan testified that he was the first to confront a senior member of the Russian government on the matter, using an August phone conversation with the head of Russia’s security service, the FSB, to warn that the meddling would backfire and damage the country’s relationship with the United States.

Brennan said he told FSB chief Alexander Bortnikov that “American voters would be outraged by any Russian attempt to interfere in the election” and that such activity “would destroy any near-term prospect of improvement” in relations with the United States.

Bortnikov twice denied that Russia was waging such a campaign, according to Brennan, but said he would carry the message to Russian President Vladi.mir Putin.

[Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow]

“I believe I was the first U.S. official to brace Russia on this matter,” Brennan said.

The Obama administration went on to issue statements publicly accusing Moscow of election meddling, and in December announced punitive measures including the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States.

Despite those warnings and efforts at retaliation, Brennan said that Russia was probably not dissuaded from attempting similar interference operations in the future.

The former CIA chief is the latest senior Obama administration official to appear publicly before Congress in hearings that have often produced damaging headlines for Trump.

Earlier this month, former acting attorney general Sally Yates testified that she expected White House officials to “take action” after warning that Flynn had misled administration officials about his contacts with Russia.

At that same hearing, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said that Moscow’s leaders “must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded their wildest expectations with a minimal expenditure of resource,” a reference not only to the outcome of the 2016 race but also to the chaos that has characterized the early months of the Trump administration.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

Brennan has feuded publicly with Trump over the president’s treatment of intelligence agencies. In January, he lashed out at Trump for comparing U.S. spy agencies with Nazi secret police.

Brennan was particularly offended by Trump’s remarks during a speech at CIA headquarters on the day after he was inaugurated. Trump used the CIA’s Memorial Wall — a collection of engraved stars marking the lives of agency operatives killed in the line of duty — to launch a rambling speech in which he bragged about his election victory.

Brennan called the appearance “despicable” and said that Trump should be “ashamed.”

Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Read more:

Trump angrily calls Russia investigation a ‘witch hunt,’ and denies charges of collusion

Justice Department ethics experts clear Mueller to lead Russia probe

Comey prepared extensively for his conversations with Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You might have missed my post earlier that more than half of California is already in a massive revenue decline to other states especially Florida.
> 
> We are a tax free state.
> 
> The more Democratic states raise taxes the more states like Florida benefit.


I always love how disengious you are with this stuff

The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in FL $1,223.
The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in CA i$3,560

Cost of living is way higher in CA than FL


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love how disengious you are with this stuff
> 
> The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in FL $1,223.
> The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in CA i$3,560
> 
> Cost of living is way higher in CA than FL


Yeah and taxes have nothing to do with that at all. :mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah and taxes have nothing to do with that at all. :mj4


It doesn't.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> It doesn't.


:ha: :ha :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> :ha: :ha :ha


The US always does better the higher the taxes are on the rich. You can ignore those facts all you want.

In the 50s and early 60s the top marginal tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle class and the stock market did great.

But sure keep pretending higher taxes on the rich don't help the middle class, econ, and stock market.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*REMEMBER THE CARRIER JOBS TRUMP 'SAVED'? COMPANY ANNOUNCES 600 LAYOFFS BEFORE CHRISTMAS*

A plant where jobs were purportedly saved by Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration is set to make at least 600 staff cuts, many before Christmas.

Carrier had opted in December 2016 not to move a number of jobs to Mexico from its Indianapolis furnace factory, following a visit to the plant by Trump. The president claimed he had convinced Carrier to retain 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis rather than outsourcing them in Mexico. And of those 1,100 jobs Trump spoke of, 300 had reportedly never been threatened with a move to Mexico—meaning a total of 800 jobs had been saved.

05_22_carrier_01
Donald Trump greets workers as he tours a Carrier factory with Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, left, in Indianapolis, Indiana, December 1, 2016.
REUTERS

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

But the company has since announced that at least 600 employees at the factory will still be laid off, with the final 290 job cuts coming just ahead of Christmas.

In a filing seen by CNN, the company announced it would be making an initial 338 job cuts in July, four in October and a further 290 jobs on December 22, just three days before Christmas.

During a press conference at Carrier, Trump said: “that big, big beautiful plant behind us… will be even more beautiful in about seven months from now. They're so happy. They're going to have a great Christmas. That's most important.

He added: “And that these companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They're not going to be taking people's hearts out. They're not going to be announcing, like they did at Carrier, that they're closing up and they're moving to Mexico, over 1,100 jobs.

“And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant. So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number,” he said.

The plant said at the time the number of jobs saved was closer to 800, but explained it would be replacing some of the jobs that were saved with an automated system in order to save money, although CEO Greg Hayes did say there would be less money saved by the company in doing so than if they moved production to Mexico.

Carrier did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s request for comment.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> "I don't hate the Jews because I'm racist, I hate Jews because they control our banks and Hollywood with their Zionist agenda and use us to fight their proxy wars so they can become the supreme power on the planet and rape all the kids an stuff"
> 
> "If they Jews weren't evil I wouldn't hate them yo"
> 
> The beloved HP Lovecraft was a raging anti-semite who hurled abuse at Jews in public but married a Jewish women, I guess she was not part of the Zionist agenda


Are you having a debate with your imagination here?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You might have missed my post earlier that more than half of California is already in a massive revenue decline to other states especially Florida.
> 
> We are a tax free state.
> 
> The more Democratic states raise taxes the more states like Florida benefit.


I saw it and thanks for sharing it. Pretty sure I upvoted it as well. My GF and I are thinking about Texas as a possibility.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> John Podesta: ‘Alt-Right’ Media Like Sean Hannity Colluding with Russia
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief John Podesta attacked the First Amendment rights of the free press as he continued to spin his conspiracy theory of Russia colluding with American news websites to damage Democrats.
> During a conversation with the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, *he cited the “participation and the support of the alt-right media,” naming “guys like Sean Hannity” and “disgusting” Newt Gingrich for helping spread “fake news” to hurt Democrats. He specifically criticized Hannity and Gingrich for asking questions about DNC staffer Seth Rich’s murder and whether or not it had a connection with Wikileaks.*
> 
> *Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were “very active in propagating and distributing fake news, working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them.” *He also cited an “echo system” created by the Russians that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats.
> 
> He pointed out that “legitimate sites” like the Washington Post and the New York Times suffered, as other “alt-right” websites got more traction during the election.
> 
> Podesta blamed websites in the United States for publishing emails from Emmanuel Macron during the French presidential election to influence the outcome.
> 
> “The first reports of them came from U.S. alt-right sites back into France,” he said. “This is a global phenomena.”
> 
> He praised the French media for helping censor the information to stop it from damaging Macron’s campaign.
> 
> “I think unfortunately for us, but maybe fortunately for the world, I think the French press was more sensitive to it,” he said, praising them for helping Macron “win by a landslide” after censoring their reporting on the hacked emails.
> 
> He suggested that the American media should have done the same things with his leaked emails.
> 
> “I didn’t feel like that really happened last fall … the mainstream U.S. press was much more interested in the gossip,” he said.
> 
> Podesta warned the media about Russia’s efforts to use the emails to hurt Democrats, pointedly directing them to be more responsible. He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.
> 
> “I think if you contextualize it — if you say that ‘The Russians are coming,’ and ‘The Russians are here’ — that can give people a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they’re hearing and what they’re seeing and what’s being peddled,” he said.
> 
> He described the period of leaks as “the Soviet days” and griped that the “low burn” of email stories helped revive questions about Clinton’s own private emails.
> 
> “We hadn’t put it to bed completely,” he admitted.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If I'm John Podesta, I'd be shitting my pants too when you have quotes like "I'm definitely for making an example of the suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it" attached to your name.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Emperor has no clothes. :HA

http://circa.com/politics/barack-ob...s-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans



> Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years
> 
> The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.
> 
> 
> 1 of 12
> More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.
> 
> The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.
> 
> 
> 2 of 12
> The normally supportive court excoriated administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to a “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.
> 
> The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.
> 3 of 12
> Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.
> 
> Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legals under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.
> 
> 
> 4 of 12
> The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.
> 
> “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries inviolation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”
> 
> 
> 5 of 12
> The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
> 
> “I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.
> 6 of 12
> “You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices.
> 
> “I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards,” she added. “And the headline now is they actually haven’t been in compliacne for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor.”
> 7 of 12
> The NSA acknowledged it self-disclosed the mass violations to the court last fall and that in April it took the extraordinary step of suspending the type of searches that were violating the rules, even deleting prior collected data on Americans to avoid any further violations.
> 
> “NSA will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target,” the agency said in the statement that was dated April 28 and placed on its Web site without capturing much media or congressional attention.
> 8 of 12
> In question is the collection of what is known as upstream “about data”about an American that is collected even though they were not directly in contact with a foreigner that the NSA was legally allowed to intercept.
> 
> The NSA said it doesn't have the ability to stop collecting ‘about’ information on Americans, “without losing some other important data. ” It, however, said it would stop the practice to “reduce the chance that it would acquire communication of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target.”
> 9 of 12
> The NSA said it also plans to “delete the vast majority of its upstream internet data to further protect the privacy of U.S. person communications.”
> 
> Agency officials called the violations “inadvertent compliance lapses.” But the court and IG documents suggest the NSA had not developed a technological way to comply with the rules they had submitted to the court in 2011.
> 10 of 12
> Officials "explained that NSA query compliance is largely maintained through a series of manual checks" and had not "included the proper limiters" to prevent unlawful searches, the NSA internal watchdog reported in a top secret report in January that was just declassified. A new system is being developed now, officials said.
> 
> The NSA conducts thousand of searches a year on data involving Americans and the actual numbers of violations were redacted from the documents Circa reviewed.
> 11 of 12
> But a chart in the report showed there three types of violations, the most frequent being 5.2 percent of the time when NSA Section 702 upstream data on U.S. persons was searched.
> 
> The inspector general also found noncompliance between 0.7 percent and 1.4 percent of the time involving NSA activities in which there was a court order to target an American for spying but the rules were still not followed. Those activities are known as Section 704 and Section 705 spying.
> 12 of 12


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @AryaDark


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867133159355428865


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @AryaDark
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867133159355428865


Appropriate:


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Good guy Rand strikes again .


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I like that Rand guy right now.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> One America News Network is reporting a White House source told them President Trump is going to fire three White House staffers for leaking classified information when he comes back from overseas.
> 
> According to OAN's Trey Yingst, "one of the sources" he spoke with today told him "this is criminal, people could go to jail."
> 
> From The American Mirror:
> “A source here at the White House told me that three people have been identified as leaking classified information,” OAN’s Trey Yingst said in a live broadcast reposted to YouTube Monday. “This has been a major issue for the Trump administration since President Trump came into office on Jan. 20., inauguration day, here in Washington, D.C.
> 
> “One of the sources I spoke with today is telling me this is criminal, people could go to jail. That source went on to say that this is dangerous and terrible.”
> 
> Multiple sources told OAN Trump is “extremely concerned” about a leak last week pertaining to information about Syrian radicals potentially using laptop bombs on commercial airliners – a method that could be used to target the United States.
> 
> “It was leaked to the media. It was leaked from a classified format and that is one of the many leaks that has come out of this White House in the past few weeks that has been a major concern to President Trump,” Yingst said.
> Trump's coming back from his overseas trip on Saturday.


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56785


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










I think this is kinda cute and it's from my favorite artist so sharing it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

FISA court reveals today that the NSA was shitting all over the 4th amendment for the entirety of obamas presidency. Which apparently the court itself just found out about days before the election when Obama decided to tell them about it on his way out the door. Everything obama ever said about how he wasnt indiscriminately spying on Americans = 100% bullshit. Big Boss of choom gang tilts his sunglasses and flips the bird to everyone with a shit eating grin on his face because he knows no one will ever hold him to account. again. 

Media will of course largely ignore what should be one of the biggest scandals in American political history. MUH RUSSIA needs another 400 anonymously sourced evidence free stories to be published today don't you know.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56785


Ironic how Trump is the worst leaker in the white house


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

OH look at what Trump supporters are doing
So typical


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lynching-threats_us_59219710e4b094cdba54b768

U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) received voicemails threatening to lynch him and calling him racial slurs after he called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, he said Saturday.

Green, who is black, played the recordings for about 100 attendees at a town hall in Houston, according to the Houston Chronicle. They include death threats, racial epithets and graphic language.

“Hey Al Green, we’ve got an impeachment for you. It’s going to be yours,” one caller said. “It’s actually going to give you a short trial before we hang your ...... ass.” 


(Listen to two other voicemails at the Houston Chronicle.)

“We’ll lynch all you fuckin’ ......s,” another caller said. “You’ll be hanging from a tree.”

That caller went on to claim no one had called for Barack Obama’s impeachment (they had), even though “he was born in Kenya” (he wasn’t). Trump helped spread the “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. He finally disavowed it last year, though in a September HuffPost/YouGov poll, 39 percent of Republicans still said Obama was not born in the U.S., and 28 percent said they weren’t sure where he was born.

“It does not deter us,” Green said after playing the recordings. “We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to allow this to cause us to deviate from what we believe to be the right thing to do, and that is to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump.”

“When people say that they will lynch you, I think you have to take that seriously,” Green told MSNBC host Joy Reid on Saturday, adding that his team had “extreme security measures” in place for the town hall.

Green on Wednesday called for Trump’s impeachment on the House floor after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia and the question of interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump reportedly asked Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to a memo Comey wrote describing a February meeting in the Oval Office. The memo was shared with The New York Times.

“I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America for obstruction of justice,” Green said Wednesday. “I do not do this for political purposes. I do it because, Mr. Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law. And that includes the president of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, our democracy is at risk.”

The White House denied that Trump had made the request and contested Comey’s account of the two men’s meeting.

More than 20 other members of Congress, including several Republicans, have spoken about the possibility of impeachment, suggesting the events described in Comey’s memo could amount to obstruction of justice.

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH look at what Trump supporters are doing
> So typical
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lynching-threats_us_59219710e4b094cdba54b768
> 
> U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) received voicemails threatening to lynch him and calling him racial slurs after he called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, he said Saturday.
> 
> Green, who is black, played the recordings for about 100 attendees at a town hall in Houston, according to the Houston Chronicle. They include death threats, racial epithets and graphic language.
> 
> “Hey Al Green, we’ve got an impeachment for you. It’s going to be yours,” one caller said. “It’s actually going to give you a short trial before we hang your ...... ass.”
> 
> 
> (Listen to two other voicemails at the Houston Chronicle.)
> 
> “We’ll lynch all you fuckin’ ......s,” another caller said. “You’ll be hanging from a tree.”
> 
> That caller went on to claim no one had called for Barack Obama’s impeachment (they had), even though “he was born in Kenya” (he wasn’t). Trump helped spread the “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. He finally disavowed it last year, though in a September HuffPost/YouGov poll, 39 percent of Republicans still said Obama was not born in the U.S., and 28 percent said they weren’t sure where he was born.
> 
> “It does not deter us,” Green said after playing the recordings. “We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to allow this to cause us to deviate from what we believe to be the right thing to do, and that is to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump.”
> 
> “When people say that they will lynch you, I think you have to take that seriously,” Green told MSNBC host Joy Reid on Saturday, adding that his team had “extreme security measures” in place for the town hall.
> 
> Green on Wednesday called for Trump’s impeachment on the House floor after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia and the question of interference in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> Trump reportedly asked Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to a memo Comey wrote describing a February meeting in the Oval Office. The memo was shared with The New York Times.
> 
> “I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America for obstruction of justice,” Green said Wednesday. “I do not do this for political purposes. I do it because, Mr. Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law. And that includes the president of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, our democracy is at risk.”
> 
> The White House denied that Trump had made the request and contested Comey’s account of the two men’s meeting.
> 
> More than 20 other members of Congress, including several Republicans, have spoken about the possibility of impeachment, suggesting the events described in Comey’s memo could amount to obstruction of justice.
> 
> Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.


The only typical thing here is you thinking that ONLY Trump supporters do this. I mean... Don't liberals like you call Trump supporters Nazi's and whatnot?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> The only typical thing here is you thinking that ONLY Trump supporters do this. I mean... Don't liberals like you call Trump supporters Nazi's and whatnot?


Both sides do it and its wrong when either do it.

But Trump supporters giving death threats is way over the line and those people should be put in jail just like if someone from the left put a death threat against Trump


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH look at what Trump supporters are doing
> So typical
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lynching-threats_us_59219710e4b094cdba54b768
> 
> U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) received voicemails threatening to lynch him and calling him racial slurs after he called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, he said Saturday.
> 
> Green, who is black, played the recordings for about 100 attendees at a town hall in Houston, according to the Houston Chronicle. They include death threats, racial epithets and graphic language.
> 
> “Hey Al Green, we’ve got an impeachment for you. It’s going to be yours,” one caller said. “It’s actually going to give you a short trial before we hang your ...... ass.”
> 
> 
> (Listen to two other voicemails at the Houston Chronicle.)
> 
> “We’ll lynch all you fuckin’ ......s,” another caller said. “You’ll be hanging from a tree.”
> 
> That caller went on to claim no one had called for Barack Obama’s impeachment (they had), even though “he was born in Kenya” (he wasn’t). Trump helped spread the “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. He finally disavowed it last year, though in a September HuffPost/YouGov poll, 39 percent of Republicans still said Obama was not born in the U.S., and 28 percent said they weren’t sure where he was born.
> 
> “It does not deter us,” Green said after playing the recordings. “We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to allow this to cause us to deviate from what we believe to be the right thing to do, and that is to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump.”
> 
> “When people say that they will lynch you, I think you have to take that seriously,” Green told MSNBC host Joy Reid on Saturday, adding that his team had “extreme security measures” in place for the town hall.
> 
> Green on Wednesday called for Trump’s impeachment on the House floor after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia and the question of interference in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> Trump reportedly asked Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to a memo Comey wrote describing a February meeting in the Oval Office. The memo was shared with The New York Times.
> 
> “I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America for obstruction of justice,” Green said Wednesday. “I do not do this for political purposes. I do it because, Mr. Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law. And that includes the president of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, our democracy is at risk.”
> 
> The White House denied that Trump had made the request and contested Comey’s account of the two men’s meeting.
> 
> More than 20 other members of Congress, including several Republicans, have spoken about the possibility of impeachment, suggesting the events described in Comey’s memo could amount to obstruction of justice.
> 
> Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.


According to @Iconoclast only the left do this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> According to @Iconoclast only the left do this.


Even thought it was Trump and his supporters who started this trend during the primaries when Trump said he would pay the lawyer fees for anyone that punches out a protestor.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> According to @Iconoclast only the left do this.





birthday_massacre said:


> Even thought it was Trump and his supporters who started this trend during the primaries when Trump said he would pay the lawyer fees for anyone that punches out a protestor.


Never said that it's ONLY the leftists that do this. My point is that it's MOSTLY leftists that do this. In fact, it turned out that it was anti-Trumpers posing as Trumpers during the primaries. 

Do you guys really trust the leftist mob that managed to get your own Bernie kicked out of the primaries wouldn't sink so low as to do this to Trump as well. It was your own fellow leftists that cut Bernie's knees off during the primaries and you're still defending them :kobelol 

Also, the other point is that the evidence is against you guys considering that it's the majority of leftists that have actually been caught and charged with faking racial attacks. Both making them up and committing them themselves in order to frame Trump supporters. 

Another faux "gotcha" moment.

I love that BM acknowledges that the Democrats completely betrayed Bernie and is simply just another voice for John Podesta's propaganda arm in this thread :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Never said that it's ONLY the leftists that do this. My point is that it's MOSTLY leftists that do this.
> 
> Also, the other point is that the evidence is against you guys considering that it's the majority of leftists that have actually been caught and charged with faking racial attacks. Both making them up and committing them themselves in order to frame Trump supporters.
> 
> Another faux "gotcha" moment.


Oh you mean like who Trump supporters had the rape Melania signs faking like they were leftist.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh you mean like who Trump supporters had the rape Melania signs faking like they were leftist.


Citation needed.

And if it's Buzzfeed, then remember who published the Piss Dossier before claiming they have any credibility :lmao

Ok. Here's more the rape Melania sign thing. The funny thing here is that BM thinks it was Trump supporters who showed up with the sign to frame protesters, when in fact, it was shopped by an unknown person on pictures. 










Also, it would have be a real idiot who would have their sign facing _away _from the hotel anyways since the picture captures the back of the sign with it facing cameras and not Trump Tower :lmao

As long as we don't actually have to think about anything, amirite?

The desperation to nail _anything _on Trump or his supporters is at peak levels now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Citation needed.
> 
> And if it's Buzzfeed, then remember who published the Piss Dossier before claiming they have any credibility :lmao
> 
> Ok. Here's more the rape Melania sign thing. The funny thing here is that BM thinks it was Trump supporters who showed up with the sign to frame protesters, when in fact, it was shopped by an unknown person on pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it would have be a real idiot who would have their sign facing _away _from the hotel anyways since the picture captures the back of the sign with it facing cameras and not Trump Tower :lmao
> 
> As long as we don't actually have to think about anything, amirite?
> 
> The desperation to nail _anything _on Trump or his supporters is at peak levels now.


You know citation but of course, you ignore it like you always do.

You do anything you can to explain away Trump fuckery.

But keep defending Trump supporters.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.
> 
> The latest figures for Trump include 31% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 42% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. (see trends).
> 
> Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily email update).
> 
> The Islamic State (ISIS) took credit for this week’s horrific bombing attack at a concert venue in Manchester, England that killed 22 people. Before the latest incident, 53% of Americans said the United States and the international community can do more to help Europe fight these terrorists.
> 
> Rasmussen Reports is in the process of surveying voters about the threat ISIS poses to the United States and will release those results on Thursday.
> 
> During his visit to Saudi Arabia this week, President Trump called on the Saudis and others in the Muslim-majority world to lead the fight against terrorism globally. Voters still say the Saudis have not been aggressive enough in fighting terrorism.
> 
> Trump’s statements in Saudi Arabia are the topic of this week’s Rasmussen Minute.
> 
> Trump also visited Israel this week, and voters believe the U.S. relationship with Israel is more important to stability in the Middle East than the relationship with Saudi Arabia is.
> 
> President Trump is set to travel to Brussels on Thursday to address NATO, an alliance the new president once referred to as “obsolete” before reversing that stance. We’ll tell you at 10:30 EST what voters think of NATO these days.
> 
> (More below)
> 
> 20-Jan-17
> 06-Feb-17
> 21-Feb-17
> 08-Mar-17
> 23-Mar-17
> 07-Apr-17
> 24-Apr-17
> 09-May-17
> 24-May-17
> 30%
> 40%
> 50%
> 60%
> 70%
> www.RasmussenReports.com
> Total Approve
> Former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has pleaded guilty to texting sexually explicit material to an underage girl, and voters strongly believe he should be put in prison for it.
> 
> Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats think questions being raised about the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey are due mostly to concern that the law may have been broken. Most Republicans (58%) and voters not affiliated with either major party by a 48% to 35% margin think those questions are mostly due to partisan politics.
> 
> (More below)
> 
> -11
> 20-Jan-17
> 06-Feb-17
> 21-Feb-17
> 08-Mar-17
> 23-Mar-17
> 07-Apr-17
> 24-Apr-17
> 09-May-17
> 24-May-17
> 20%
> 30%
> 40%
> 50%
> 60%
> www.RasmussenReports.com
> Strongly Disapprove
> Strongly Approve
> Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.
> 
> To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.
> 
> Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
> 
> Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may24


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

Donald Trump’s Base Is Shrinking

Nate Silver
widely held tenet of the current conventional wisdom is that while President Trump might not be popular overall, he has a high floor on his support. Trump’s sizable and enthusiastic base — perhaps 35 to 40 percent of the country — won’t abandon him any time soon, the theory goes, and they don’t necessarily care about some of the controversies that the “mainstream media” treats as game-changing developments.

It’s an entirely reasonable theory. We live in a highly partisan epoch, and voters are usually loyal to politicians from their party. Trump endured a lot of turbulence in the general election but stuck it out to win the Electoral College. The media doesn’t always guess right about which stories will resonate with voters.

But the theory isn’t supported by the evidence. To the contrary, Trump’s base seems to be eroding. There’s been a considerable decline in the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump, from a peak of around 30 percent in February to just 21 or 22 percent of the electorate now. (The decline in Trump’s strong approval ratings is larger than the overall decline in his approval ratings, in fact.) Far from having unconditional love from his base, Trump has already lost almost a third of his strong support. And voters who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve of him by about a 2-to-1 ratio, which could presage an “enthusiasm gap” that works against Trump at the midterms. The data suggests, in particular, that the GOP’s initial attempt (and failure) in March to pass its unpopular health care bill may have cost Trump with his core supporters.

These estimates come from the collection of polls we use for FiveThirtyEight’s approval ratings tracker. Many approval-rating polls give respondents four options: strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove. Ordinarily, we only estimate Trump’s overall approval and disapproval. But we went back and collected this more detailed data for all polls for which it was available, and then we reran our approval ratings program to output numbers for all four approval categories instead of the usual two.1 Here are Trump’s strongly approve and somewhat approve ratings from shortly after the start of his term2 through this Tuesday:


After a slight uptick in the first two to three weeks of his term, Trump’s strong approval ratings have headed downward. But it hasn’t been a steady decline. Instead, they fell considerably from about 29 percent on March 6 — when Republicans introduced their health care bill — to around 24 percent on April 1, shortly after the GOP pulled the bill from the House floor. They then remained stable for much of April, before beginning to fall again this month after the reintroduction (and House passage) of the health care bill and after Trump fired FBI director James Comey on May 9. As of Tuesday, just 21.4 percent of Americans strongly approved of Trump’s performance.

By comparison, 45 percent of Americans strongly approved of President Obama’s performance as of April 2009, although Obama’s strong approval numbers would fall considerably over the course of his term — to the mid-to-high 20s by the midterms and to the high teens by 2014.

The share of Americans who somewhat approve of Trump’s performance has actually increased slightly, however, from about 16 percent in early February to 17.9 percent as of Tuesday. In part, this probably reflects voters who once strongly approved of Trump and who have now downgraded him to the somewhat approve category. (Trump’s strongly approve and somewhat approve numbers have been inversely correlated so far, meaning that as one has risen, the other has tended to fall.) A potential problem for Trump is that in the event of continued White House turmoil, the next step for these somewhat approve voters would be to move toward disapproval of the president.


The number of Americans who strongly disapprove of Trump has sharply risen since early in his term, meanwhile, from the mid-30s in early February to 44.1 percent as of Tuesday. In most surveys, Trump’s strongly disapprove rating exceeds his overall approval rating, in fact.

The bulk of the increase in Trump’s strong disapproval ratings came early in his term, over the course of late January and early February. It’s possible that this was partly a reaction to Trump’s initial travel ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, which was the biggest news of Trump’s first few weeks in office. But presidential disapproval often rises in the first month or so of a president’s tenure as voters who initially give a new president the benefit of the doubt find things to dislike in his performance.

Meanwhile, the share of Americans who somewhat disapprove of Trump has been small and fairly steady throughout his term, usually averaging around 10 or 11 percent. It was 11.6 percent as of Tuesday.

During last year’s presidential primaries, Trump received about 14 million votes out of a total of 62 million cast between the two parties, which works out to 23 percent of the total. So perhaps it’s not a coincidence that 20 to 25 percent of the country still strongly supports Trump; they were with him from the start.

But 20 to 25 percent isn’t all that large a base — obviously not enough to win general elections on its own. Instead, Trump won the White House because most Republicans who initially supported another GOP candidate in the primary wound up backing him in the November election. Trump has always had his share of reluctant supporters, and their ranks have been growing as the number of strong supporters has decreased. If those reluctant Trump supporters shift to being reluctant opponents instead, he’ll be in a lot of trouble,3 with consequences ranging from a midterm wave against Republicans to an increased likelihood of impeachment.

So while there’s risk to Democrats in underestimating Trump’s resiliency, there’s an equal or perhaps greater risk to Republicans in thinking Trump’s immune from political gravity.

If you look beneath the surface of Trump’s approval ratings, you find not hidden strength but greater weakness than the topline numbers imply.

Harry Enten and Dhrumil Mehta contributed to this article.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-approval-rating-go/?utm_term=.96873dc32d42\
Once again, it’s time to ask: How low can Donald Trump’s approval rating go?

In the past few weeks, President Trump’s approval rating has taken a hit. According to three different polling averages, Trump’s approval rating is as low as it has been — and perhaps lower.

Now, to compound the White House’s woes, a new forecast suggests that Trump’s rating is unlikely to improve in the coming months. If anything, it’s more likely to fall further.

This forecast comes from the “State of the Union” forecasting competition co-sponsored by Good Judgment and this site. One of the questions in the tournament is: “What will Gallup report President Trump’s approval rating to be on 1 August 2017?” Thus far, there have been about 500 forecasts. Here’s the trend:



Initially, forecasters believe that Trump’s approval would most likely stay in the 40 to 50 percent range through the summer — much where it had been since his inauguration. But after the Comey firing, there was a sharp shift in the forecast that preceded the actual shift in Trump’s approval rating.
On average, forecasters now suggest that there is a 63 percent chance that Trump’s approval will be at or under 40 percent on Aug. 1. In other words, the most likely outcome is that Trump’s approval stays about where it is, just under 40 percent in Gallup’s current polling, or falls somewhat lower.

subscribe
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Try 1 month for 99¢
There is a smaller, though not insignificant, chance (26 percent) that Trump’s approval rebounds to between 41 and 50 percent, which would still be a relatively low number at this stage of a president’s first term.

Forecasters place a smaller probability (11 percent) that Trump’s approval rating falls below 30 percent, which has occurred only rarely for presidents in the era of polling.

Notably, the current forecast suggests no chance — literally, a zero percent chance — that Trump’s approval rating increases to above 50 percent by the beginning of August.

Needless to say, the forecast may change if other important events occur. But in our previous forecasting tournament with Good Judgment, a similar forecast of Trump’s 100th-day approval rating proved correct. Even in early February, forecasters believed that Trump’s approval rating was most likely to remain stable, somewhere between +15 and -15 in “net approval” (the percent approving minus the percent disapproving). On April 28, at the end of the 100 days, his net approval rating was -8.

Of course, a poor approval rating early in a president’s first term hardly spells doom. (Ask Bill Clinton.) But for Trump, it suggests the serious challenges that his presidency must overcome.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Something stinks here.
> 
> February we first reported on the Anwan brothers, the (Not-Russian) IT Staff Who Allegedly Hacked Congress' Computer Systems.
> 
> Imran Awan seen below with Bill Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> The brothers were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.
> 
> Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.
> 
> The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.
> The three men are “shared employees,” meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and use them as needed for IT services.
> 
> Then in March, we noted that House Democrats decided to delay the firing (until today) because their Muslim background, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.
> 
> “I wanted to be sure individuals are not being singled out because of their nationalities or their religion. We want to make sure everybody is entitled to due process,” Meeks said.
> 
> “They had provided great service for me. And there were certain times in which they had permission by me, if it was Hina or someone else, to access some of my data.”
> 
> Fudge told Politico on Tuesday she would employ Imran Awan until he received “due process.”
> 
> “He needs to have a hearing. Due process is very simple. You don’t fire someone until you talk to them,” Fudge said.
> 
> On Wednesday, Lauren Williams, a spokeswoman for Fudge, wouldn’t provide details about Imran Awan’s firing but did confirm he was still employed in Fudge’s office as of Tuesday afternoon.
> The bottom line is simple - these House Democrats decided it was better to be at risk of hacking and extortion than to be accused of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> Then yesterday we reported that Congressional Aides Fear Suspects In IT Breach Are Blackmailing Members With Their Own Data...
> 
> The baffled aides wonder if the suspects are blackmailing representatives based on the contents of their emails and files, to which they had full access.
> 
> “I don’t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It’s been months at this point” with no arrests, said Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years. “Something is rotten in Denmark.”
> A manager at a tech-services company that works with Democratic House offices said he approached congressional offices, offering their services at one-fourth the price of Awan and his Pakistani brothers, but the members declined. At the time, he couldn’t understand why his offers were rejected but now he suspects the Awans exerted some type of leverage over members.
> 
> “There’s no question about it: If I was accused of a tenth of what these guys are accused of, they’d take me out in handcuffs that same day, and I’d never work again,” he said.
> And today, The Daily Caller's Luke Rosiak reports Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.
> 
> The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence Thursday, in what could be considered using her authority to attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Capitol Police and outside agencies are pursuing Imran Awan, who has run technology for the Florida lawmaker since 2005 and was banned from the House network in February on suspicion of data breaches and theft.
> 
> “My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members’ equipment when the Member is not under investigation,” Wasserman Schultz said in the annual police budget hearing of the House Committee On Appropriations’ Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
> 
> “We can’t return the equipment,” Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa told the Florida Democrat.
> 
> “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,” Wasserman Schultz said.
> As one of eight members of the Committee on Appropriations’ Legislative Branch subcommittee, Wasserman Schultz is in charge of the budget of the police force that is investigating her staffer and how he managed to extract so much money and information from members.
> 
> In a highly unusual exchange, the Florida lawmaker uses a hearing on the Capitol Police’s annual budget to spend three minutes repeatedly trying to extract a promise from the chief that he will return a piece of evidence being used to build an active case.
> 
> “If a Member loses equipment and it is found by your staff and identified as that member’s equipment and the member is not associated with any case, it is supposed to be returned. Yes or no?” she said.
> Police tell her it is important to “an ongoing investigation,” but presses for its return anyway.
> 
> The investigation is examining members’ data leaving the network and how Awan managed to get Members to place three relatives and a friend into largely no-show positions on their payrolls, billing $4 million since 2010.
> 
> The congresswoman characterizes the evidence as “belonging” to her and argues that therefore it cannot be seized unless Capitol Police tell her that she personally, as opposed to her staffer, is a target of the investigation.
> 
> When TheDCNF asked Wasserman Schultz Monday if it could inquire about her strong desire for the laptop, she said “No, you may not.” After TheDCNF asked why she wouldn’t want the Capitol Police to have any evidence they may need to find and punish any hackers of government information, she abruptly turned around in the middle of a stairwell and retreated back to the office from which she had come.
> 
> Her spokesman, David Dameron, then emerged to say “We just don’t have any comment.”
> 
> Though on the surface Wasserman Schultz would have been a victim of Awan’s scam, she has inexplicably protected him, circumventing the network ban by re-titling him as an “adviser” instead of technology administrator.
> 
> Politico described him and his wife, Hina Alvi, as having a “friendly personal relationship” with both Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York.
> 
> That baffled a Democratic IT staffer, who said
> 
> “I can’t imagine why she’d be that good of friends with a technology provider.”
> 
> “Usually if someone does bad stuff, an office is going to distance themselves” rather than incur political fallout for a mere staffer.
> Wasserman Schultz resigned as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 after Wikileaks published thousands of internal emails obtained by an as-yet unidentified hacker.
> 
> The last 30 seconds of the exchange can also be seen here...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-24/caught-tape-wasserman-schultz-threatens-police-chief-investigating-her-it-staffs-cri


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The enormity of Trump’s scam is coming into view

THE MORNING PLUM:

The Congressional Budget Office will release its score of the GOP health-care bill today, and whatever the details, it will confirm once again that the Republican plan would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, leaving many millions uncovered. This, plus continued discussion of President Trump’s budget — which would heap a whole array of other cuts on top of that — will demonstrate that Trump is fully committed to a truly transformative downsizing of social programs that help lower-income people, packaged with an enormous tax cut for the rich.

But the evidence is mounting that Trump’s economic blueprint — whatever considerable harm it would do to people who didn’t vote for Trump — is also likely to hurt untold numbers of people who did vote for him.

First, I’ve obtained some new polling data from the Kaiser Family Foundation that shows large numbers of Trump voters and their families rely on Medicaid, and large numbers of them oppose cutting the program. Click to enlarge:










This polling, which comes from Kaiser’s February tracking poll and was broken down at my request, shows that 42 percent of Trump voters, and 51 percent of people who approve of Trump, say Medicaid is somewhat or very important to them and their families. More to the point, only 24 percent of Trump voters and 20 percent of people who approve of Trump want to decrease spending on Medicaid, while majorities of both want to keep it the same and many more want to increase it. (A recent Quinnipiac poll also found that 54 percent of Republicans oppose cutting Medicaid.)

Trump’s budget would transform the structure of Medicaid and cut spending on the program by hundreds of billions of dollars on top of the GOP health-care plan’s hundreds of billions in cuts to the Medicaid expansion over 10 years. This would chop down the program by nearly half. It’s hard to know how many Trump voters would be hit by these cuts, but judging by Kaiser’s polling, we’re talking about a lot of them.

Meanwhile, other data suggests many Trump voters in the Rust Belt would be hurt by the Trump budget’s huge cuts to other social programs. Ron Brownstein reports on a new analysis finding that in four key Rust Belt states that flipped from Barack Obama to Trump, large percentages of those who benefit from food stamps and Social Security Disability Insurance — both of which would get slashed by Trump — are non-college whites, a core Trump constituency. Those states are Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Other data shows that large percentages of those who stand to lose health coverage under the GOP health plan in those states are also blue-collar whites. Many of them are likely on Medicaid, and this toll would undoubtedly be made worse by the Trump budget.

Trump took great pains to distinguish himself from Paul Ryan and limited-government Republicans by vowing no cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, staking out an ideologically heterodox posture that likely helped boost him among working-class white voters. Obviously, that’s no longer operative.

The White House has an explanation for Trump’s reversal on Medicaid. Asked by John Harwood to explain the flip, budget director Mick Mulvaney claimed the promise was supplanted by Trump’s promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is nonsense: As Brian Beutler explains, Mulvaney “layered a lie of his own on top of Trump’s,” because Trump’s budget cuts to Medicaid “go hundreds of billions of dollars beyond phasing out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.”

I’d go further still: There are numerous Trump lies being forced out into the open right now. Trump claimed he would not touch Medicaid and simultaneously that he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better for all. It was a lie for Trump to claim he wouldn’t touch Medicaid; it was a lie to suggest preserving Medicaid and repealing Obamacare were compatible; it was a lie to claim that his repeal-and-replace plan would result in better coverage for everybody. If anything, the White House’s justifications only throw the scale and audacity of these intertwined scams, lies and betrayals into even sharper relief.

The scam may end up running even deeper than this. One might argue that Trump promised his voters something better than safety-net protections: good jobs with benefits. Indeed, as Catherine Rampell reports, the White House is defending its cuts by arguing that the true measure of success is “the number of people we get off of those programs.” This is compatible with Trumpism’s promise to restore an old economic order via a revival of manufacturing and coal — jobs are better than government help, and surely many of his voters made this calculation. But what if those jobs don’t ever materialize? Trump’s renegotiated trade deals and his infrastructure plan are a long way off. If this promise of Trumpism never comes to pass, all that would be left behind is the massive downsizing of the safety net, justified by conventional GOP rhetoric about freeing people from Ryan’s version of the safety net, the dreaded “hammock” of “dependency.” This isn’t what Trumpism was supposed to be about, on many levels.

* GET READY FOR THE BIG CBO SCORE: Margot Sanger-Katz previews what to look for: Will it increase the deficit? How many would be uninsured? And this:

The hardest job for the C.B.O. is estimating the effects of the MacArthur Amendment, which allows states to waive several insurance regulations … the office’s economists must … estimate how many states will decide to pursue the waivers, how many people live in those states, and which rules they will choose to waive … Some experts have said the waivers will be unpopular, and only a few states will pursue them. Others have argued that they are likely to become widespread. Our panel estimated a wide range of effects, saying as few as 10 percent of Americans would be affected or as many as half.

One big question: what the CBO will project on how many states will waive the prohibition on jacking up rates on preexisting conditions. This could make the bill politically more dangerous.

* TRUMP PRAISES PHILIPPINES PRESIDENT: The Post has obtained a transcript of a call that Trump held with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, and this is notable:

In their call he praised Duterte for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem.” … “Many countries have the problem, we have the problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that,” Trump said, according to the transcript.

Duterte has been criticized by human rights observers for killing thousands in his war on drugs, and this praise fits into a broader pattern of Trumpian affection for authoritarian strongmen.

* SCHIFF: WE MAY TRY TO FORCE FLYNN’S COOPERATION: Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the probe of the Russia affair, tells CNN that his committee is considering new steps to force Michael Flynn to turn over relevant documents, as he has refused to do:

“It was our preference initially to get these documents and testimony voluntarily,” Schiff said. “It’s now going to be necessary to subpoena it, and if the General refuses and does so without a good legal basis, then I think we do have to explore the use of contempt.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee is now taking similar steps. Yesterday I laid out some of the options that investigators can deploy to try to compel Flynn’s cooperation.

* TRUMP LAWYERS UP: The Post reports that Trump has hired attorney Marc Kasowitz, who has known him for decades and represented him numerous other times, to “help him navigate” the various Russia probes:

In recent days, Trump has been looking at pulling together a unit of lawyers outside the White House to guide him as he responds to the ongoing federal probe and to congressional investigations … The outside legal team would be separate from the White House Counsel’s Office, which is led by Donald F. McGahn, who served as the Trump campaign’s attorney.

Bright spot: Because Joe Lieberman is senior counsel at Kasowitz’s firm, picking him as director of the FBI (which is probing the Russia affair) could present a conflict, so it might not happen.

* INFRASTRUCTURE ‘PLAN’ IS IN THE WORKS: The Post reports:

The Trump administration, determined to overhaul and modernize the nation’s infrastructure, is drafting plans to privatize some public assets such as airports, bridges, highway rest stops and other facilities, according to top officials and advisers … two driving themes are clear: Government practices are stalling the nation’s progress; and private companies should fund, build and run more of the basic infrastructure of American life.

The big question here will be whether his plan will actually involve a substantial public expenditure designed to create jobs. This suggests the opposite. And whether this can pass is anyone’s guess.

* TRUMP VOWS TO READ POPE’S TRACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Trump met with Pope Francis this morning, and per Reuters, this happened:

Francis also gave Trump a signed copy of his 2017 peace message whose title is “Nonviolence — A Style of Politics for Peace,” and a copy of his 2015 encyclical letter on the need to protect the environment from the effects of climate change.

“Well, I’ll be reading them,” Trump said.

Whether he reads them or not, in Trump’s imagination, climate change will forever remain a hoax, or more precisely, not worth spending much time thinking about.

* AND REPUBLICANS FEAR HAVING ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports on the gloom settling in among Republicans as they realize that “total control” could result in “nine months of failure”:

Republican leaders are coming to the bleak conclusion they will end summer and begin the fall with ZERO significant legislative accomplishments … they see the next four months as MORE troublesome than the first four. They’re facing terrible budget choices and headlines, the painful effort to re-work the healthcare Rubik’s Cube in the House (presuming it makes it out of the Senate), a series of special-election scares (or losses) — all with scandal-mania as the backdrop.

Are you tired of all the winning yet?


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> FISA court reveals today that the NSA was shitting all over the 4th amendment for the entirety of obamas presidency. Which apparently the court itself just found out about days before the election when Obama decided to tell them about it on his way out the door. Everything obama ever said about how he wasnt indiscriminately spying on Americans = 100% bullshit. Big Boss of choom gang tilts his sunglasses and flips the bird to everyone with a shit eating grin on his face because he knows no one will ever hold him to account. again.
> 
> Media will of course largely ignore what should be one of the biggest scandals in American political history. MUH RUSSIA needs another 400 anonymously sourced evidence free stories to be published today don't you know.


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67945578-post3342.html


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Rand talking about the Saudi Arms Deal.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @TheNightmanCometh

Saw this live after a sleepless night, showering, watched this as I was tying my tie.

Please skip ahead to 22:30 for approximately seven minutes RAND Paul. The bulk of this appearance has to do with the developing NSA spying scandal stemming from years of illegal surveillance conducted on American citizens during the Obama years.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @TheNightmanCometh
> 
> Saw this live after a sleepless night, showering, watched this as I was tying my tie.
> 
> Please skip ahead to 22:30 for approximately seven minutes RAND Paul. The bulk of this appearance has to do with the developing NSA spying scandal stemming from years of illegal surveillance conducted on American citizens during the Obama years.


Honestly, this doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, ever since Homeland Security was created this has been a common fear verbalized by many Americans. I always felt if it wasn't true then, then it was only a matter of time before it does become true. I really wanna see something be done about this because it is a violation of our 4th Amendment, no matter how backwards of a way they try to do it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Oh look Trump leaking even more info to foreign leaders


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*





The Democratic party is broken


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Honestly it seems to be whoever is the Prez, no matter who they are or the views they hold, are by default still to some degree beholden to the faceless rulers of your NSA's and high ranking military leaders etc.

It seems that ObamaJamma, GWB, Clinton, etc etc going back they all seemingly have little say in what the huge 'Security' and military agencies do in the end. Or if they do it's basically saying yes to the orders of the Star Wars-like emperors who make the final decisions.

Depressing.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ah well at least it looks like that traitor Lieberman won't be getting the FBI director.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wow. Crazy shit going down in Montana.


----------



## li/<o

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't know the recent things that have happen I have been very dissatisfied for the choices he has done. From giving big corporations tax cuts, to getting rid of health care and last, but not least the whole Russia scandal.

I don't see why big corporations need tax cuts they already make tons of money. I don't see this benefiting the U.S. in the long run other than the rich getting richer in a big gap.

Health care is nice to have millions of Americas not having access to affordable health care. I wouldn't mind paying for health care out of my own pocket as long as it was something I can afford that is resonable. I remember when I was in my moms health care plan she had the lowest plan and would pay $400 dollars a month and would cover very minimal stuff and we rarily used it. Lots of that money went to waste. Yet when it comes to military their is never an issue where the money comes because the money is always their for the military.

As for Russia thats the least I followed, but I hope nothing bad is going between them giving away U.S. secrets or anything from our own country.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867770115160518656
---

@L-DOPA; @DesolationRow;

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/642670372585628



> *THE CBO HAS RELEASED ITS ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT BILL*
> by Kevin Ryan
> The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have released their estimate of the effects of the House Republican's Obamacare repeal and replace plan. For the 2017-2026 period:
> • It would reduce spending by $1,111 billion
> • It would reduce taxes by $992 billion (including the elimination of $210 billion in penalties for people who don't have insurance).
> • It would reduce the cumulative federal deficits by $119 billion
> • It would not increase net spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027
> *• Average premiums would be between 4% and 30% lower in 2026 than under current law, depending on the state of residence and the age of the insured. Young people, and people in states that apply for waivers for the law's more expensive provisions will see the largest declines.
> • 23 million fewer people will carry health insurance. Note: The CBO definition of health insurance coverage does NOT include policies with limited insurance benefits (known as mini-med plans); policies that cover only specific ailments; supplemental plans; and plans that pay a certain amount per day for illness or hospitalization. People who own such policies are counted as uninsured.
> *• Subsidies to purchase insurance would attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market, and grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund would lower premiums by reducing the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures.
> • States could apply for a waiver that would allow insurers to set premiums on the basis of an individual’s health status if the person had not demonstrated continuous coverage, and that could result in high premiums for those people. However, this only affects those who wait until they are sick to get insurance, and only in states that choose to apply for this waiver. Those who maintain coverage will be unaffected.
> 
> The main features of the law would be as follows.
> REPEAL - The American Health Care Act, if passed by the Senate and signed into law, will dismantle most core aspects of ObamaCare, including:
> • The employer mandate and penalties for not insuring employees who work more than 30 hours a week at companies with more than 50 employees are repealed.
> • The individual mandate and penalties for not having insurance are repealed.
> • The expansion of Medicaid will effectively end in 2020 when the federal government stops funding it. States that have not already expanded would not be allowed to do so, starting immediately.
> • Obamacare's income-based subsidies are ended.
> • The 3.8% tax on investment income is repealed.
> • The 0.9% tax on higher income Americans is repealed.
> • The tax on medical devices is eliminated.
> • The tax on prescription medications is repealed.
> • The tax on health insurance premiums is ended.
> • The tax on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) is repealed.
> • The tax on tanning salons is repealed.
> • The tax on retiree prescription drug coverage is repealed.
> • The tax deduction on expenses exceeding 7.5% of a family's income is reinstated (Obamacare had increased the threshold to 10%).
> • Obamacare's prohibition on using Flexible Spending Account and Health Savings Account (HSA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines is repealed.
> • The tax penalty on withdrawing money from Health Savings Account for non-qualified medical expenses is repealed.
> • State Medicaid plans will no longer have to cover some Obamacare-mandated essential health benefits.
> • Planned Parenthood funding is eliminated.
> 
> KEEP - The law will keep several features of Obamacare:
> *• People with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. The measure would provide states with federal funds to help set up high-risk pools to provide insurance to the sickest patients and to help those with pre-existing conditions pay for insurance.
> *• Dependents can still stay on their parent's health insurance plan until age 26.
> • Insurers are still prohibited from setting annual and lifetime limits on individual coverage.
> • The "Cadillac tax" on generous healthcare plans will remain, but be postponed from 2020 to 2025.
> • Current Medicaid enrollees will be grandfathered in when the federal government stops providing the extra federal funds that allow for expansion in 2020.
> 
> REPLACE - The replacement part of the bill includes several major changes to existing law:
> *• Obamacare's income-based subsidies are replaced by age-based tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per person per year, increasing with someone’s age. The credits would start to phase out for individuals earning $75,000 and households earning $150,000, and would be unavailable for individuals who earn more than $215,000.
> *• Although the annual penalty for not having insurance is repealed, people who wait until they become sick or let their coverage lapse for more than 63 days can be charged a 30% surcharge on premiums for one year when they do finally sign up.
> • The amount people and employers can contribute to tax-free health savings accounts will double.
> • Private plans are still required to offer ten essential health benefits, but states can now opt out of the requirement.
> • States will now be able to opt out of Obamacare's mandate that insurers charge the same rates to sick and healthy people.
> • Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge seniors up to 3 times more than they charged young people. The new law changes that restriction to 5 times more.
> 
> MEDICAID REFORM - The GOP bill would also significantly overhaul the Medicaid program.
> • The bill would end Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement and would put the program on a budget.
> • States would receive an allotment of federal money for each beneficiary, or, as an alternative, they could take the money in a lump sum as a block grant, with fewer federal requirements.
> • States will also be able to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work, participate in job training programs, or do community service.
> • The Congressional Budget Office projects that bill would cut the federal government's spending on Medicaid by 25% by 2026 as compared to current law.


Kevin Ryan cutting through the bullshit and media narratives so that you don't have to. It's not as horrible as the partisan lens makes it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867770115160518656
> ---
> 
> @L-DOPA; @DesolationRow;
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/642670372585628
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Ryan cutting through the bullshit and media narratives so that you don't have to. It's not as horrible as the partisan lens makes it.





Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867770115160518656
> ---
> 
> @L-DOPA; @DesolationRow;
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/642670372585628
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Ryan cutting through the bullshit and media narratives so that you don't have to. It's not as horrible as the partisan lens makes it.


http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-...e-bill-ahca-macarthur-upton-amendments-2017-5

It's much worse lol

23 MILLION will lose coverage, but didn't Trump say no one would lose coverage?

Sure the cost will go down for just young people who are healthy but it wont cover shit but older people or if you are sick or have been sick you will even less access to good plans.
They can also charge people more if they are just at risk to get sick or something like cancer.
Not to mentions states have the option to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or make their premiums sky high like paying 4x as much as they are now
Nor sure why you keep claiming states cannot do this, they can get a waiver for pre-existing conditions, stop acting like they cant
Not sure why you think putting caps on coverage it a good thing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...-travel-ban/3a947sJnZ6dhDggBfxVGGJ/story.html

Federal appeals court deals another blow to Trump’s revised travel ban

US President Donald Trump delivers a speech during the unveiling ceremony of the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, on May 25, 2017, during a NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) summit. / AFP PHOTO / POOL AND BELGA / Christophe LICOPPECHRISTOPHE LICOPPE/AFP/Getty Images
AFP/GETTY IMAGES

President Donald Trump.

By Jessica Gresko ASSOCIATED PRESS MAY 25, 2017
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries on Thursday, siding with groups that say the policy illegally targets Muslims.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican’s administration from temporarily suspending new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.


The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban, which Trump’s administration had hoped would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered.

‘‘Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,’’ the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:
Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.


Trump will likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A central question in the case is whether courts should consider Trump’s past statements about wanting to bar Muslims from entering the country.

The federal judge in Maryland who blocked the travel ban cited comments made by Trump and his aides during the campaign and after the election as evidence that the policy was primarily motivated by the religion.


Trump’s administration argued that the court should not look beyond the text of the executive order, which doesn’t mention religion. The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration says.

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.

The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn’t apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.

Critics said the changes don’t erase the legal problems with the ban.

The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Famous Internet entrepreneur and hacker, Kim Dotcom set social media ablaze recently when he tweeted out that he knew slain DNC staffer, Seth Rich and was involved in the DNC leak to Wikileaks.
> 
> Follow
> Kim Dotcom ✔ @KimDotcom
> #SethRich was a hero#SethRich changed history#SethRich exposed the corrupt
> Here is my statement > http://Kim.com
> 12:00 PM - 23 May 2017
> 10,900 10,900 Retweets 14,356 14,356 likes
> Twitter Ads info & Privacy
> There is complete panic in the highest levels of the DNC over the Seth Rich murder investigation which makes us even more suspicious that the DNC had something to do with it.
> 
> Why wouldn’t they want this murder solved?… What are they afraid of?
> 
> On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.
> 
> Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.
> 
> Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”
> 
> 
> 
> The Metropolitan police posted a reward for information on Rich’s murder.
> Seth Rich Bloomingdale2
> 
> In August Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.
> 
> Julian Assange also suggested in August that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.
> Via Mike Cernovich:
> 
> YouTube ‎@YouTube
> Follow
> Mike Cernovich ✔ @Cernovich
> Was Seth Rich, the source of #DNCleaks, murdered? https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Kp7FkLBRpKg …
> 7:15 PM - 9 Aug 2016
> 1,028 1,028 Retweets 760 760 likes
> Twitter Ads info & Privacy
> Now this—
> Republican lawmaker Blake Farenthold on Wednesday called for a special investigation of Seth Rich’s murder.
> 
> 
> The Corpus Christi Caller reported, via Free Republic:
> 
> Corpus Christi Republican Congressman Blake Farenthold considers the source behind the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email server an unanswered question and believes a federal investigation is warranted.
> 
> Speaking on CNN Wednesday, the fourth-term congressman refuted a widely believed conclusion that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. presidential election to aid President Donald Trump’s campaign and instead indicated a conspiracy theory about a slain Democratic National Committee staffer could be true.
> 
> “My fear is our constant focusing on the Russians is deflecting away for some other things that we need to be investigating,” Farenthold said on the network. “There’s still some question as to whether the intrusion of the DNC server was an insider job or whether or not it was the Russians.”
> 
> Later Wednesday, Farenthold elaborated on his opinion of how the investigation should be handled in a phone interview with the Caller-Times. The death should be investigated in the same manner Russian interference has been reviewed, he said.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-gop-lawmaker-calls-federal-investigation-seth-rich-murder/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...state-election-in-district-that-voted-big-for

Sanders delegate wins NY state election in district that voted big for Trump
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 05/24/17 09:48 AM EDT


Democrat Christine Pellegrino has defeated her Republican challenger in a New York state special election, just months after the district went big for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race.

Pellegrino, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the Democratic presidential primary, defeated Republican challenger Thomas Gargiulo in the District 9 State Assembly special election.

Thank you to all the volunteers and supporters who worked so hard during my campaign," Pellegrino posted on her Facebook page.

"I look forward to representing the people of the 9th Assembly District!"

Some Democrats applauded the win on Twitter to warn Republicans that their unified control of the federal government is at risk in the 2018 midterm elections. The race represents another victory for Democrats, who are looking for wins in state races and House special elections in Georgia and Montana as proof that an anti-Trump backlash is building.


In New Hampshire, Democrat Edith DesMarais also won a special election in the town of Wolfeboro, defeating Republican Matthew Planche.

Pellegrino will take the seat of Republican Joseph Saladino. He has served in the position since 2004 but stepped down earlier this year after he was appointed Oyster Bay town supervisor. 

Matt Walter, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said Democrats may be beginning to understand that "political action starts in the states."

“After investing unprecedented dollars in failed efforts to flip seats, it appears Democrats could be waking to the reality that political action starts in the states," he said in a statement.

"Before last night, the only seat to change parties was from Democrat to Republican after Democrats failed to flip any seats in blue states with Republican control, including both chambers in Virginia, the Minnesota House – where Republicans have an all-time high – and a tied Connecticut Senate.”

- Updated at 11:52 a.m.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*






America first! :lol

*#LikeABoss*

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*










President of Croatia wants the D :done

Meanwhile President Trump takes NATO leaders to task for not paying their fair share: 

http://nypost.com/2017/05/25/trump-tells-nato-leaders-they-need-to-pay-up/


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I wonder how Eastern European countries view Trump? We know how Western European countries seem to view Trump (although the Iberian Peninsula seems to not get much coverage in that area). Any Eastern Europeans want to chime in on this? :trump3


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What @L-DOPA would say in a thousand words or more illustrated in one graph 










Spending more isn't the solution to end the global healthcare cost crisis. All spending results in increasing poverty across the board resulting in more spending resulting in more cost increases.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> What @L-DOPA would say in a thousand words or more illustrated in one graph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spending more isn't the solution to end the global healthcare cost crisis. All spending results in increasing poverty across the board resulting in more spending resulting in more cost increases.


Of course, healthcare spending will rise the more people that are on it and with inflation.

Its Common sense, is that lost on you?

US needs to just go with universal health care like most every other top country in the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Israel & UK Reduce Intel Sharing With US After Trump Blurts Out Secrets


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, healthcare spending will rise the more people that are on it and with inflation.
> 
> Its Common sense, is that lost on you?
> 
> US needs to just go with universal health care like most every other top country in the world.


Since you're so well versed in economics, care to explain why historically America's cost of healthcare rises are higher than inflation?










Inflation:









Healthcare expenditure/capita









BM talking about economics should be interesting. I really want to read what hysterical ideas you come up with this time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Since you're so well versed in economics, care to explain why historically America's cost of healthcare rises are higher than inflation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Healthcare expenditure/capita
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BM talking about economics should be interesting. I really want to read what hysterical ideas you come up with this time.


Its pretty simple, its because the insurance companies jack up the cost of everything so they can make billions instead of doing what insurance is meant to do and that is to help the sick.

Like I also pointed out the more people that are covered and are sick the less money these companies make, so to compensate they jack up the prices to offset their bottom line

Have you ever looked at an insurance bill before? I had surgery and stayed one night in the hospital. They charged $10,000 just for the hospital room. 

Not to mention the BS rising cost of drugs because of jackasses like Martin Shkreli who raises drug costs from like $14 to $700 just to line is pockets.

Just look at the cost of medical drugs in the US vs other countries. Its 4x as higher as most countries in some cases


Insurance should be nonprofit. If insurance companies were not trying to make billions, insurance would be much cheaper. 

People should not be dying because they can't afford insurance just because insurance companies want to make billions of dollars.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The main problem I see with American healthcare costs is the government is prohibited from using their purchasing power to negotiate for lower prices in many areas. Every other developed country uses some form of state power to bring down prices before the free market is allowed to work its magic. Republicans are doing it ass-backwards with regards to free market and healthcare, while the democrats are trying to live in a utopia where they can have a single-payer system without asking for EVERYONE to pay a lot more in taxes.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Its pretty simple, its because the insurance companies jack up the cost of everything so they can make billions instead of doing what insurance is meant to do and that is to help the sick.*
> 
> *Like I also pointed out the more people that are covered and are sick the less money these companies make, so to compensate they jack up the prices to offset their bottom line
> *
> Have you ever looked at an insurance bill before? I had surgery and stayed one night in the hospital. They charged $10,000 just for the hospital room.
> 
> Not to mention the BS rising cost of drugs because of jackasses like Martin Shkreli who raises drug costs from like $14 to $700 just to line is pockets.
> 
> Just look at the cost of medical drugs in the US vs other countries. Its 4x as higher as most countries in some cases
> 
> 
> Insurance should be nonprofit. If insurance companies were not trying to make billions, insurance would be much cheaper.
> 
> People should not be dying because they can't afford insurance just because insurance companies want to make billions of dollars.


All of the highlighted is literally pointed out in the original graph I shared. What the hell were you shrieking about?

For once, instead of responding to my post with your hysterical screeching about my personality, read and try to understand what I shared. 

The reason why drug costs are high is because of government patents favoring the pharmaceutical industry

The reason why people like Shrekeli can charge that much is because the insurance system exists therefore he's basically charging the insurance company and not the consumer. The consumers without insurance get screwed because the system of health insurance exists which it shouldn't. But then the insurance company drives up the cost of premiums on everybody. If the insurance system doesn't exist and the capitalist can't charge that much he won't. This is why all other industries show lower levels of inflation. 

Free market healthcare is the cheapest solution. Single payer will only drive costs even higher which would require higher taxes on everybody because the rich simply transfer their tax burden to the consumer so the cost of living goes higher till we reach a point where the system degrades and isn't affordable anymore either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> All of the highlighted is literally pointed out in the original graph I shared. What the hell were you shrieking about?
> 
> For once, instead of responding to my post with your hysterical screeching about my personality, read and try to understand what I shared.
> 
> Or rub one out to relieve the stress.


So if you knew why they are rising why did you even ask?

Oh yeah typical Reaper BS

You asked why did it rise and I answered and you still get pissy about it LOL


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if you knew why they are rising why did you even ask?
> 
> Oh yeah typical Reaper BS
> 
> You asked why did it rise and I answered and you still get pissy about it LOL


You shrieked hysterically over a graph and said some unintelligle crap about spending will rise the more people are on it and because of inflation 

Here's what you said: 



> Of course, healthcare spending will rise the more people that are on it and with inflation.


This was in response to me saying the _spending _isn't the solution implying that insurance+medicaid(government interference) are the reasons for the rise in spending in healthcare (meaning rise in cost in healthcare) 

So obviously I responded with informing you that CPI has always been lower than medical inflation which simply means that spending isn't the solution as you brought inflation into the discussion. 

THEN you actually thought about why the costs are higher and ended up agreeing with the post you disagreed with original :lmao

Why does seeing my name on here trigger you into having to respond to my post within a minute of posting without even reading it thoroughly. What did you think I actually even said in the graph I posted or why I posted it?


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> (although the Iberian Peninsula seems to not get much coverage in that area)


They have the same opinion as the rest of the West


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> They have the same opinion as the rest of the West


How do you know?


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> How do you know?


Talking with my family, to strangers, seeing public reactions when the news come on. Anecdotal obviously, but it's not hard to tell.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> You shrieked hysterically over a graph and said some unintelligle crap about spending will rise the more people are on it and because of inflation
> 
> Here's what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was in response to me saying the _spending _isn't the solution implying that insurance+medicaid(government interference) are the reasons for the rise in spending in healthcare (meaning rise in cost in healthcare)
> 
> So obviously I responded with informing you that CPI has always been lower than medical inflation which simply means that spending isn't the solution as you brought inflation into the discussion.
> 
> THEN you actually thought about why the costs are higher and ended up agreeing with the post you disagreed with original :lmao
> 
> Why does seeing my name on here trigger you into having to respond to my post within a minute of posting without even reading it thoroughly. What did you think I actually even said in the graph I posted or why I posted it?


You are just triggered because I was right in what I said when you claimed it would be some hysterical ideas.

Also inflation does have an effect on the rise in cost, its just not the only reason again common sense stuff you just ignore.

You really are going to claim inflation has zero impact on the rise in cost?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are just triggered because I was right in what I said when you claimed it would be some hysterical ideas.


So then why didn't you just say that you agreed with what was on the graph when you actually did agree with it? It was because you didn't actually look at what the graph was trying to show but then looked at it later and realized that it agreed with what you know as well. 



> Also inflation does have an effect on the rise in cost, its just not the only reason again common sense stuff you just ignore.
> 
> You really are going to claim inflation has zero impact on the rise in cost?


Where did I say it has 0 impact? Could you provide a quote? 

But everything _else _explains why it's higher than CPI. You remove the corporate+government collusion and you reduce medical inflation. 

Government involved in healthcare is what's created the disaster. The solution isn't to keep increasing spending as historically it's shown to increase costs. If you go single-payer than you increase poverty and costs of living because it won't reduce the cost of healthcare - and just keep raising it, raising the tax burdens, raising the costs of living overall, causing a decline in growth. The solution to rising healthcare costs isn't to keep meeting those costs, but to find ways to reduce them.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Never mind.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It is mystifying to some people that a guaranteed source of revenue encourages the people getting that revenue to grab with both hands.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Liberals couldn't care less if innocent people die so long as they get their way.

*#TravelBan #ManchesterBombing*

- Vic


----------



## Goku

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

hello boys


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...state-election-in-district-that-voted-big-for
> 
> Sanders delegate wins NY state election in district that voted big for Trump
> BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 05/24/17 09:48 AM EDT
> 
> 
> Democrat Christine Pellegrino has defeated her Republican challenger in a New York state special election, just months after the district went big for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race.
> 
> Pellegrino, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the Democratic presidential primary, defeated Republican challenger Thomas Gargiulo in the District 9 State Assembly special election.
> 
> Thank you to all the volunteers and supporters who worked so hard during my campaign," Pellegrino posted on her Facebook page.
> 
> "I look forward to representing the people of the 9th Assembly District!"
> 
> Some Democrats applauded the win on Twitter to warn Republicans that their unified control of the federal government is at risk in the 2018 midterm elections. The race represents another victory for Democrats, who are looking for wins in state races and House special elections in Georgia and Montana as proof that an anti-Trump backlash is building.
> 
> 
> In New Hampshire, Democrat Edith DesMarais also won a special election in the town of Wolfeboro, defeating Republican Matthew Planche.
> 
> Pellegrino will take the seat of Republican Joseph Saladino. He has served in the position since 2004 but stepped down earlier this year after he was appointed Oyster Bay town supervisor.
> 
> Matt Walter, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said Democrats may be beginning to understand that "political action starts in the states."
> 
> “After investing unprecedented dollars in failed efforts to flip seats, it appears Democrats could be waking to the reality that political action starts in the states," he said in a statement.
> 
> "Before last night, the only seat to change parties was from Democrat to Republican after Democrats failed to flip any seats in blue states with Republican control, including both chambers in Virginia, the Minnesota House – where Republicans have an all-time high – and a tied Connecticut Senate.”
> 
> - Updated at 11:52 a.m.


Congrats, dems won a couple of special races. Now, whos won the special congressional races? 

Oh yeah, republicans.

including montana last night


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> **BREAKING NEWS**
> *Republican Greg Gianforte wins Montana's special election*
> 
> By Michael Lee
> 
> In a race that has been closely followed across the country, Republican Greg Gianforte defeated Democratic candidate Rob Quist to take Montana's lone congressional seat.
> The race was already being closely watched by the national media, many thinking it was an early referendum on the popularity of President Trump. Despite Montana's at-large district being safely Republican for most of two decades, polls showed the race was close coming down the stretch.
> 
> The race garnered even more national attention when Gianforte was charged with assault the night before the election. During a campaign event, Gianforte was getting set to conduct an interview with Fox News when Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs entered the room uninvited. After making multiple attempts to persuade Gianforte to answer his questions on the recently released CBO report, Gianforte jumped out of his seat and physically assaulted the reporter.
> 
> Despite the assault, Gianforte will fill the seat vacated Ryan Zinke, who was confirmed to serve as U.S. Secretary of the Interior in March.


I'm kinda lolling at the moment :kobelol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868060024450551809
You know conservatism is the new counter culture when Dinesh D'Souza starts dropping dank memes :banderas


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Liberals couldn't care less if innocent people die so long as they get their way.
> 
> *#TravelBan #ManchesterBombing*
> 
> - Vic


Post the stats of the crimes committed in America by people from the countries listed in the ban.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Post the stats of the crimes committed in America by people from the countries listed in the ban.


It's not reasonable to compare those who are already living here to those who could come here in the midst of the current climate in Muslim countries which has also changed dramatically (the causes of which are incredibly varied, but radicalization of the Muslim faith is a big reason). 

Since they're coming from over there where terrorism is rampant, it's more reasonable to look at how much terrorism exists where they're coming from as opposed to comparing them directly with those already here. Pro-refugee countries in Europe have already provided us with a massive litmus test of how dangerous open borders can be. 

Those already in the West are westernized and came here to assimilate and settle largely as economic migrants. They're not the same people who are being forced upon everyone else. Different time. Different eras. Different attitudes. 

Not a valid comparison.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Post the stats of the crimes committed in America by people from the countries listed in the ban.


Tell us why people from those countries killing hundreds of people in europe is irrelevant first. 

Oh you're just trying to define the limits of the debate with no justification for why those limits should be what you want them to be. Never mind.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's not reasonable to compare those who are already living here to those who could come here in the midst of the current climate in Muslim countries which has also changed dramatically (the causes of which are incredibly varied, but radicalization of the Muslim faith is a big reason).
> 
> Since they're coming from over there where terrorism is rampant, it's more reasonable to look at how much terrorism exists where they're coming from as opposed to comparing them directly with those already here. Pro-refugee countries in Europe have already provided us with a massive litmus test of how dangerous open borders can be.
> 
> Those already in the West are westernized and came here to assimilate and settle largely as economic migrants. They're not the same people who are being forced upon everyone else. Different time. Different eras. Different attitudes.
> 
> Not a valid comparison.





deepelemblues said:


> Tell us why people from those countries killing hundreds of people in europe is irrelevant first.
> 
> Oh you're just trying to define the limits of the debate with no justification for why those limits should be what you want them to be. Never mind.


So ya'll not going to post them. Ok.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...state-election-in-district-that-voted-big-for
> 
> Sanders delegate wins NY state election in district that voted big for Trump
> BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 05/24/17 09:48 AM EDT
> 
> 
> Democrat Christine Pellegrino has defeated her Republican challenger in a New York state special election, just months after the district went big for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race.
> 
> Pellegrino, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the Democratic presidential primary, defeated Republican challenger Thomas Gargiulo in the District 9 State Assembly special election.
> 
> Thank you to all the volunteers and supporters who worked so hard during my campaign," Pellegrino posted on her Facebook page.
> 
> "I look forward to representing the people of the 9th Assembly District!"
> 
> Some Democrats applauded the win on Twitter to warn Republicans that their unified control of the federal government is at risk in the 2018 midterm elections. The race represents another victory for Democrats, who are looking for wins in state races and House special elections in Georgia and Montana as proof that an anti-Trump backlash is building.
> 
> 
> In New Hampshire, Democrat Edith DesMarais also won a special election in the town of Wolfeboro, defeating Republican Matthew Planche.
> 
> Pellegrino will take the seat of Republican Joseph Saladino. He has served in the position since 2004 but stepped down earlier this year after he was appointed Oyster Bay town supervisor.
> 
> Matt Walter, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said Democrats may be beginning to understand that "political action starts in the states."
> 
> “After investing unprecedented dollars in failed efforts to flip seats, it appears Democrats could be waking to the reality that political action starts in the states," he said in a statement.
> 
> "Before last night, the only seat to change parties was from Democrat to Republican after Democrats failed to flip any seats in blue states with Republican control, including both chambers in Virginia, the Minnesota House – where Republicans have an all-time high – and a tied Connecticut Senate.”
> 
> - Updated at 11:52 a.m.


Congrats, dems won a couple of special races. Now, whos won the special congressional races? 

Oh yeah, republicans.

including montana last night


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> So ya'll not going to post them. Ok.


Your perspective on this is trapped inside a vacuum where things remain the same even if you change the variables. That's not how predictive models are made.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Your perspective on this is trapped inside a vacuum where things remain the same even if you change the variables. That's not how predictive models are made.


I'd rather see your President govern based on facts and accuracy. Not fear and bigotry.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Post the stats of the crimes committed in America by people from the countries listed in the ban.


So you'd welcome halting travel from countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon , UAE and Egypt? Dahir Ahmed Adan and Abdul Razak Ali Artan are both Somali refugees killing 2 people and injuring over 20 people combined in the process. 

Why should people ignore attacks by refugees on European countries? If so...why? Why do you believe its acceptable to ignore crimes committed by refugees in Sweden, Finland, Germany etc etc ?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> I'd rather see your President govern based on facts and accuracy. Not fear and bigotry.


I'd rather not see videos of mothers crying over dead daughters and sons anymore than already exists in America.

Accusations of racism and bigotry are meaningless if such policies save even one life.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> So you'd welcome halting travel from countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon , UAE and Egypt? Dahir Ahmed Adan and Abdul Razak Ali Artan are both Somali refugees killing 2 people and injuring over 20 people combined in the process.
> 
> Why should people ignore attacks by refugees on European countries? If so...why? Why do you believe its acceptable to ignore crimes committed by refugees in Sweden, Finland, Germany etc etc ?





Iconoclast said:


> I'd rather not see videos of mothers crying over dead daughters and sons anymore than already exists in America.
> 
> Accusations of racism and bigotry are meaningless if such policies save even one life.


0 refugees from the countries listed on the ban have killed people on American soil. 17 people from the countries listed on the ban have been convicted of attempting or being involved in terror attacks on US soil in the last 40 years.

But nah, let's demonize and fear monger more.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> 0 refugees from the countries listed on the ban have killed people on American soil. 17 people from the countries listed on the ban have been convicted of attempting or being involved in terror attacks on US soil in the last 40 years.
> 
> But nah, let's demonize and fear monger more.


Deeply ironic that people celebrate America's clean record of terrorism since 9/11 as though the security measures taken since have nothing to do with it.

Given the rise of terror in Europe, the country needs to respond and the temporary ban is fair. 

You do accept that it's a temporary ban right at least since you want to ignore everything else.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Goku said:


> hello boys


Funny story

It was Dusko Markovic's (the guy Trump pushed) first NATO meeting as well

Montenegro has been dodging Soviet Loyalist assassination attempts and gets daily threats from Russia for years now and just got into NATO this year

NATO is literately the only thing keeping his current government protected

and he has to go a meeting where the biggest member complains about how stupid the alliance is and pushes him out of the way to get a better picture


fuck


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I'd rather not see videos of mothers crying over dead daughters and sons anymore than already exists in America.
> 
> Accusations of racism and bigotry are meaningless if such policies save even one life.


Ironic how you don't think that way when it comes to all the shootings in the US and how you are against better gun control which would save way more than one life.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Deeply ironic that people celebrate America's clean record of terrorism since 9/11 as though the security measures taken since have nothing to do with it.
> 
> Given the rise of terror in Europe, the country needs to respond and the temporary ban is fair.
> 
> You do accept that it's a temporary ban right at least since you want to ignore everything else.


Doesn't matter if it's temporary or not. The stats don't justify the action.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Doesn't matter if it's temporary or not. The stats don't justify the action.


 America does not exist in a vacuum. 

Stats in Europe justify the action in America.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ironic how you don't think that way when it comes to all the shootings in the US and how you are against better gun control which would save way more than one life.


Where have I said that? I said that I don't want more bodies than we already see here. Why import even more murderers in a system that according to you will allow them even easier access to guns and weapons?

Living in denial of the refugee led terror in Europe is self suicide at this point. 

Learn to read.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> America does not exist in a vacuum.
> 
> Stats in Europe justify the action in America.


Ok. Let's adopt all of their rules and regulations here in America based on that logic.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Ok. Let's adopt all of their rules and regulations here in America based on that logic.


Why? Are we not capable of determining the difference between failed and successful policies?


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Why? Are we not capable of determining the difference between failed and successful policies?


Using other countries situations to override are own stats and facts doesn't sound successful to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Where have I said that? I said that I don't want more bodies than we already see here. Why import even more murderers in a system that according to you will allow them even easier access to guns and weapons?
> 
> Living in denial of the refugee led terror in Europe is self suicide at this point.
> 
> Learn to read.


You are always against better gun control. And why are you ignoring there have been zero fatal attacks from the refugees on Trump's banned list?




Iconoclast said:


> Why? Are we not capable of determining the difference between failed and successful policies?


The US vetting process is a success. There have been zero fatal attacks on Americans from those listed on Trump's ban list.

Not sure why you keep missing this point

Carry on with ignoring the facts like you always do


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Using other countries situations to override are own stats and facts doesn't sound successful to me.


It's a good thing that people unable to see that the same people are fighting a war against both europe and north america, like you, aren't in charge of anything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's a good thing that people unable to see that the same people are fighting a war against both europe and north america, like you, aren't in charge of anything.


So what is your answer then? The US vetting of 18-24 months has made it so the US has had ZERO fatal attacks from Trumps banned list.

So that seems to be working for those countries. What else should the US do? What is your answer?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> 0 refugees from the countries listed on the ban have killed people on American soil. 17 people from the countries listed on the ban have been convicted of attempting or being involved in terror attacks on US soil in the last 40 years.
> 
> But nah, let's demonize and fear monger more.


Wrong. 2 Somalian refugees killed a combined 2 people and injured over 20 . Funny how you ignore the questions being asked.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's a good thing that people unable to see that the same people are fighting a war against both europe and north america, like you, aren't in charge of anything.


Anything to justify bigotry when the facts suggest this wouldn't have an effective impact.



Stinger Fan said:


> Wrong. 2 Somalian refugees killed a combined 2 people and injured over 20 . Funny how you ignore the questions being asked.


Link so I can look at it? Also, the stats still don't add up. Crime is a bigger problem domestically, not internationally or from immigrants.

There's nothing for me to duck. The shit ya'll say don't add up and it's fueled by ya'll bias beliefs.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Link so I can look at it? Also, the stats still don't add up. Crime is a bigger problem domestically, not internationally or from immigrants.
> 
> There's nothing for me to duck. The shit ya'll say don't add up and it's fueled by ya'll bias beliefs.


I think the main issue with the "travel ban" is the poor language used by the White House and the media trying to claim they're banning Muslims. For one, the word "ban" shouldn't have been used as it sounds far more negative than say a suspension . Secondly, the media kept trying to claim that they were specifically banning Muslims from coming into the country, which is simply false as there are over 50 Muslim countries and only 7 of which are "banned". What the media also didn't tell you is how 6 of those 7 countries have full bans of their own on Jews, which no one seems to protest mind you

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-st-cloud-minnesota-stabbing-suspect-n651061
^Dahir Ahmed Adnan 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-state-attack-what-we-know-about-abdul-razak-ali-n689556
^Abdul Razak Ali Artan


Looking at other countries and how things have transpired should be something America needs to take into consideration. You can't just ignore it and say it doesn't count because you don't like the current regime. That isn't to say all refugees are criminals and terrorists, that would be incredibly insane to say but to completely ignore whats happening and act like it doesn't matter is a recipe for disaster


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I think the main issue with the "travel ban" is the poor language used by the White House and the media trying to claim they're banning Muslims. For one, the word "ban" shouldn't have been used as it sounds far more negative than say a suspension . Secondly, the media kept trying to claim that they were specifically banning Muslims from coming into the country, which is simply false as there are over 50 Muslim countries and only 7 of which are "banned". What the media also didn't tell you is how 6 of those 7 countries have full bans of their own on Jews, which no one seems to protest mind you
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-st-cloud-minnesota-stabbing-suspect-n651061
> ^Dahir Ahmed Adnan
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-state-attack-what-we-know-about-abdul-razak-ali-n689556
> ^Abdul Razak Ali Artan
> 
> 
> Looking at other countries and how things have transpired should be something America needs to take into consideration. You can't just ignore it and say it doesn't count because you don't like the current regime. That isn't to say all refugees are criminals and terrorists, that would be incredibly insane to say but to completely ignore whats happening and act like it doesn't matter is a recipe for disaster


It was not poor language by the WH, Trump said over and over he was going to put in a Muslim ban. Even Rudy admitted Trump came to him and asked how to ban Muslims.

but sure lets not listen to Trumps own words saying it was a Muslim ban before he tried doing it.

Also the reason Trumps didnt ban Muslims from countries ilke SA is because he does business with them.

There is already a 2-year vetting process and that is working. There is no need to ban or suspend anyone, especially with how they were doing it to people with green cards coming back into the country.


----------



## TheLapsedFan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I think the main issue with the "travel ban" is the poor language used by the White House and the media trying to claim they're banning Muslims. For one, the word "ban" shouldn't have been used as it sounds far more negative than say a suspension . Secondly, the media kept trying to claim that they were specifically banning Muslims from coming into the country, which is simply false as there are over 50 Muslim countries and only 7 of which are "banned". What the media also didn't tell you is how 6 of those 7 countries have full bans of their own on Jews, which no one seems to protest mind you


Of course the issue with the travel ban was the wording. Nobody's going to dispute that. It's insane that you're actually trying to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban though after it was said many, many, many times that it is and that Daddy got elected because of it. Equally insane is trying to blame the media for it. They didn't take Daddy out of context, he fucking said it. You could stop being willfully ignorant but that's too much to ask when Trump got elected because of a bunch of ignorant racists.


----------



## MrMister

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also the reason Trumps didnt ban Muslims from countries ilke SA is because he does business with them.


ya'll continue to argue about stuff that was argued about awhile back but it needs to be said that the US govt has been doing business with the Saudis for a really long time now. it's not just Trump.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I think the main issue with the "travel ban" is the poor language used by the White House and the media trying to claim they're banning Muslims. For one, the word "ban" shouldn't have been used as it sounds far more negative than say a suspension . Secondly, the media kept trying to claim that they were specifically banning Muslims from coming into the country, which is simply false as there are over 50 Muslim countries and only 7 of which are "banned". What the media also didn't tell you is how 6 of those 7 countries have full bans of their own on Jews, which no one seems to protest mind you
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-st-cloud-minnesota-stabbing-suspect-n651061
> ^Dahir Ahmed Adnan
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-state-attack-what-we-know-about-abdul-razak-ali-n689556
> ^Abdul Razak Ali Artan
> 
> 
> Looking at other countries and how things have transpired should be something America needs to take into consideration. You can't just ignore it and say it doesn't count because you don't like the current regime. That isn't to say all refugees are criminals and terrorists, that would be incredibly insane to say but to completely ignore whats happening and act like it doesn't matter is a recipe for disaster


Thanks. As far as the links, they been in America for a bit so I don't view it as the same thing but I'm not arguing your links. I got my stats from cnn that listed a research institution as their source. Can't link you because I'm on my phone.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't disagree in an argumentive sense, but Trump doomed himself when he said he wanted to ban muslims. And Rudy G helped doom him when he mentioned it on Fox News.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

OH look, just like I predicted


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> ya'll continue to argue about stuff that was argued about awhile back but it needs to be said that the US govt has been doing business with the Saudis for a really long time now. it's not just Trump.


But Trump has PERSONAL business with SA. That is a huge difference. Trump putting SA on the banned list could hurt Trump personally.

Neither should be doing business but the reason why SA was not put on the list was that of persona business relations, just yet another Trump conflict.


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But Trump has PERSONAL business with SA. That is a huge difference. Trump putting SA on the banned list could hurt Trump personally.
> 
> Neither should be doing business but the reason why SA was not put on the list was that of persona business relations, just yet another Trump conflict.


While I do agree SA and a couple of other countries should have absolutely been on the travel ban list, the 7 countries weren't picked at random. Since Day 1 they've said that these 7 countries were the same 7 identified by the Obama administration as countries of concern, and sure enough, that actually checks out as fact.

Yes, Obama didn't name these 7 countries with the same intent as Trump, but the fact remains the 7 countries on the travel ban list are the exact 7 countries the Obama administration outlined as threats.

Now, whether or not that was just convenient for Trump is another discussion and can filed in the same speculative folder as MUH RUSSIA or Seth Rich. Probably was a convenient out for Trump and I would rather SA be on the list than not be on it, but it is what is.

Next stop for the travel ban: SCOTUS


----------



## MickDX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I wonder how Eastern European countries view Trump? We know how Western European countries seem to view Trump (although the Iberian Peninsula seems to not get much coverage in that area). Any Eastern Europeans want to chime in on this? :trump3


Eastern European here, people from here mostly hate Trump. Reasons:
- he is undermining UE & NATO, two vital institutions for Eastern Europe given the protection of NATO from Russia and UE which is needed for economical and political reasons 
- given the rumours that he has ties with Russia, people here feel insecure about the help USA is gonna give us if Russia attacks.
- supports Brexit and supports the limitation of visas for US which gives headaches to people who want to immigrate
- he wants more jobs in the US from US companies which may mean some US companies can retire their offices from here.

The only pro thing here may be that the UE might become more united because they need to oppose him as an entire group.

We view him as a delusional egomaniacal populist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> While I do agree SA and a couple of other countries should have absolutely been on the travel ban list, the 7 countries weren't picked at random. Since Day 1 they've said that these 7 countries were the same 7 identified by the Obama administration as countries of concern, and sure enough, that actually checks out as fact.
> 
> Yes, Obama didn't name these 7 countries with the same intent as Trump, but the fact remains the 7 countries on the travel ban list are the exact 7 countries the Obama administration outlined as threats.
> 
> Now, whether or not that was just convenient for Trump is another discussion and can filed in the same speculative folder as MUH RUSSIA or Seth Rich. Probably was a convenient out for Trump and I would rather SA be on the list than not be on it, but it is what is.
> 
> Next stop for the travel ban: SCOTUS


I always love when people bring up oh well that list came from Obama. The list from Obama was a list of countries the US needs to pay better attention to for possible threats but people like you ignore the fact countries like SA, Turkey, and Egypt were already known threats because that is where the attacks were already mostly coming to. Those 7 countries were just like in addition to the countries we are already paying close attention to

Not sure why people like you keep missing this simple point.

If Trump really cared about stopping terrorist threats in the US those three countries woudl have also been on the list but since Trump does major business in them that is why he did not include them.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Washington (CNN)Then-FBI Director James Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email was fake -- created by Russian intelligence -- but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process.
> 
> As a result, Comey acted unilaterally last summer to publicly declare the investigation over -- without consulting then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- while at the same time stating that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information. His press conference caused a firestorm of controversy and drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.
> Comey's actions based on what he knew was Russian disinformation offer a stark example of the way Russian interference impacted the decisions of the highest-level US officials during the 2016 campaign.
> The Washington Post reported Wednesday that this Russian intelligence was unreliable. US officials now tell CNN that Comey and FBI officials actually knew early on that this intelligence was indeed false.
> FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role
> FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role
> In fact, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe went to Capitol Hill Thursday to push back on the notion that the FBI was duped, according to a source familiar with a meeting McCabe had with members of the Senate intelligence committee.
> The Russian intelligence at issue purported to show that then-Attorney General Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation. The intelligence described emails between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a political operative suggesting that Lynch would make the FBI investigation of Clinton go away.
> In classified sessions with members of Congress several months ago, Comey described those emails in the Russian claim and expressed his concern that this Russian information could "drop" and that would undermine the Clinton investigation and the Justice Department in general, according to one government official.
> Still, Comey did not let on to lawmakers that there were doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to sources familiar with the briefings. It is unclear why Comey was not more forthcoming in a classified setting.
> US-UK intel sharing back on after Trump vows to plug leaks
> US-UK intel sharing back on after Trump vows to plug leaks
> Sources close to Comey tell CNN he felt that it didn't matter if the information was accurate, because his big fear was that if the Russians released the information publicly, there would be no way for law enforcement and intelligence officials to discredit it without burning intelligence sources and methods. There were other factors behind Comey's decision, sources say.
> In at least one classified session, Comey cited that intelligence as the primary reason he took the unusual step of publicly announcing the end of the Clinton email probe.
> In that briefing, Comey did not even mention the other reason he gave in public testimony for acting independently of the Justice Department -- that Lynch was compromised because Bill Clinton boarded her plane and spoke to her during the investigation, these sources told CNN.
> Multiple US officials tell CNN that to this day Russia is trying to spread false information in the US -- through elected officials and American intelligence and law enforcement operatives -- in order to cloud and confuse ongoing investigations.
> UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that there were additional factors behind Comey's decision and to clarify the description of the political operative.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/james-comey-fbi-investigation-fake-russian-intelligence/index.html


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love when people bring up oh well that list came from Obama. The list from Obama was a list of countries the US needs to pay better attention to for possible threats but people like you ignore the fact countries like SA, Turkey, and Egypt were already known threats because that is where the attacks were already mostly coming to. Those 7 countries were just like in addition to the countries we are already paying close attention to
> 
> Not sure why people like you keep missing this simple point.
> 
> If Trump really cared about stopping terrorist threats in the US those three countries woudl have also been on the list but since Trump does major business in them that is why he did not include them.


Not missing any point.

BM I believe it came from this:



> WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of *Libya, Somalia,* and *Yemen* as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.
> 
> Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security had sixty days to determine whether additional countries or areas of concern should be subject to the travel or dual nationality restrictions under the Act. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that Libya, Somalia, and Yemen be included as countries of concern, specifically for individuals who have traveled to these countries since March 1, 2011. At this time, the restriction on Visa Waiver Program travel will not apply to dual nationals of these three countries. DHS continues to consult with the Department of State and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop further criteria to determine whether other countries would be added to this list.
> 
> Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join *Iran, Iraq, Sudan* and *Syria* as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals. Under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive these restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States. Such waivers will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, categories of travelers who may be eligible for a waiver include individuals who traveled to these countries on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty; on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; or as a journalist for reporting purposes.


https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

I agree, SA at the very very least should've also been on that list. 

It's a fair question to ask; however, if one want's to ask why Trump didn't include SA, Turkey, Egypt then one should also ask why those countries weren't included in Obama's Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (since that was used as the base for the list of the travel ban)?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Thanks. As far as the links, they been in America for a bit so I don't view it as the same thing but I'm not arguing your links. I got my stats from cnn that listed a research institution as their source. Can't link you because I'm on my phone.
> 
> As far as the rest of your post, I don't disagree in an argumentive sense, but Trump doomed himself when he said he wanted to ban muslims. And Rudy G helped doom him when he mentioned it on Fox News.


Well, the political climate certainly has changed in that short span of time. I wont argue against Trump dooming himself with his words and I do agree that people on his team really need to get on the same page and "stick to the script" because it doesnt' seem like the left hand knows what the right hand is doing sometimes. There's a lack of communication and it does need to be fixed for sure.



TheLapsedFan said:


> Of course the issue with the travel ban was the wording. Nobody's going to dispute that. It's insane that you're actually trying to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban though after it was said many, many, many times that it is and that Daddy got elected because of it. Equally insane is trying to blame the media for it. They didn't take Daddy out of context, he fucking said it. You could stop being willfully ignorant but that's too much to ask when Trump got elected because of a bunch of ignorant racists.


As I said, I think its poor wording more than anything else. You have to remember there's over 50 Muslim countries, over 1 billion Muslims world wide and only 7 Muslim majority countries were put on the list(6 have bans on Jews). It absolutely is fair to blame the media for purposely misleading what the executive order was and judging by the sounds of it, you fell for it. The words Islam and Muslim were nowhere to be found in the executive order but the media seemed to keep that hidden . They also seem to have completely ignored past presidents who have put similar "bans" as well. The media isn't about to play ball with Trump , even though I think both should 

And not to go down a rabbit hole of what Trump has or has not said, do you believe he sexually assaulted those women? I mean, he said he didn't do it and since you're taking him at his word, does that mean you think those women are lying?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Eastern European here, people from here mostly hate Trump. Reasons:
> - he is undermining UE & NATO, two vital institutions for Eastern Europe given the protection of NATO from Russia and UE which is needed for economical and political reasons
> - given the rumours that he has ties with Russia, people here feel insecure about the help USA is gonna give us if Russia attacks.
> - supports Brexit and supports the limitation of visas for US which gives headaches to people who want to immigrate
> - he wants more jobs in the US from US companies which may mean some US companies can retire their offices from here.
> 
> The only pro thing here may be that the UE might become more united because they need to oppose him as an entire group.
> 
> We view him as a delusional egomaniacal populist.


You're supposed to. He's not the world's babysitter.


----------



## Mra22

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Eastern European here, people from here mostly hate Trump. Reasons:
> - he is undermining UE & NATO, two vital institutions for Eastern Europe given the protection of NATO from Russia and UE which is needed for economical and political reasons
> - given the rumours that he has ties with Russia, people here feel insecure about the help USA is gonna give us if Russia attacks.
> - supports Brexit and supports the limitation of visas for US which gives headaches to people who want to immigrate
> - he wants more jobs in the US from US companies which may mean some US companies can retire their offices from here.
> 
> The only pro thing here may be that the UE might become more united because they need to oppose him as an entire group.
> 
> We view him as a delusional egomaniacal populist.


Trump puts Americans first unlike that terrorist Obama.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Not missing any point.
> 
> BM I believe it came from this:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
> 
> I agree, SA at the very very least should've also been on that list.
> 
> It's a fair question to ask; however, if one want's to ask why Trump didn't include SA, Turkey, Egypt then one should also ask why those countries weren't included in Obama's Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (since that was used as the base for the list of the travel ban)?


At least you agree SA should be included but if Trump really cared about keeping America safe the three countries would be on the list but they are not because Trump does business in those countries.

You can try to spin it all you want oh its Obamas list but Trump cares more about lining his pockets than keep America safe.




Mra22 said:


> Trump puts Americans first unlike that terrorist Obama.


Trump puts himself first. Trump is not putting America first, who are you fooling?


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You're supposed to. He's not the world's babysitter.


I love how the NATO countries now literally feel entitled to a privilege. 

Typical European mentality.

Let a monkey take a piece of candy and he wants the whole jar.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-line-with-kremlin-before-inauguration-report

Kushner wanted secure line with Kremlin before inauguration: report



Jared Kushner reportedly talked with a top Russian official in early December about establishing a private communications channel between President Trump's transition team and the Kremlin.

The president's son-in-law and senior adviser inquired about using Russian diplomatic facilities for the communications, apparently to shield the talks, U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports told The Washington Post.

Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak told his superiors that Kushner floated the idea during a meeting at Trump Tower on Dec. 1 or 2, according to the Post, which cited intercepts of Russian communications reviewed by U.S. officials.

Kislyak was reportedly taken aback by the proposal of allowing an American to use Russian communications equipment, which the Post noted could have carried security risks for both the Trump transition team and Moscow.

Michael Flynn, whom Trump had already tapped to serve as national security adviser at the time, reportedly attended the meeting.

Kushner is under scrutiny in the FBI's ongoing investigation into whether Trump campaign officials colluded with the Russians, The Washington Post and NBC News reported this week.

The FBI is interested in the details of Kushner's meeting with Kislyak, a meeting that the White House first disclosed in March.

Officials told the Post that knowledge of the discussion came because of communication surveillance on the Russians, not on the meeting or U.S. citizens.

The White House declined the Post’s request for comment as did Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner. The Russian embassy did not respond the outlet’s requests for comment.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Eastern European here, people from here mostly hate Trump. Reasons:
> - he is undermining UE & NATO, two vital institutions for Eastern Europe given the protection of NATO from Russia and UE which is needed for economical and political reasons
> - given the rumours that he has ties with Russia, people here feel insecure about the help USA is gonna give us if Russia attacks.
> - supports Brexit and supports the limitation of visas for US which gives headaches to people who want to immigrate
> - he wants more jobs in the US from US companies which may mean some US companies can retire their offices from here.
> 
> The only pro thing here may be that the UE might become more united because they need to oppose him as an entire group.
> 
> We view him as a delusional egomaniacal populist.


Sorry, many people in the west view NATO and the EU as a stupid idea where their tax dollars go to die 

Most people on this forum have the luxury of not having neighbor who openly claims that invading you is the "morally correct" thing to do


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> Sorry, many people in the west view NATO and the EU as a stupid idea where their tax dollars go to die
> 
> Most people on this forum have the luxury of not having neighbor who openly claims that invading you is the "morally correct" thing to do


You are talking about Trump and how he wanted to invade Mexico if they refused to pay for the wall right?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are talking about Trump and how he wanted to invade Mexico if they refused to pay for the wall right?


That was awkward shit

I don't hate Trump but I can understand why other nations dislike him

The world is a community and you are expected to be a good "member of society" and Trump is pushing a "fuck you, whats good for me is good for me" 

Its like if your boss stopped caring about how the business is run or how its progressing as long as he gets his paycheck, its worrying


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love when people bring up oh well that list came from Obama. The list from Obama was a list of countries the US needs to pay better attention to for possible threats but people like you ignore the fact countries like SA, Turkey, and Egypt were already known threats because that is where the attacks were already mostly coming to. Those 7 countries were just like in addition to the countries we are already paying close attention to
> 
> Not sure why people like you keep missing this simple point.
> 
> If Trump really cared about stopping terrorist threats in the US those three countries woudl have also been on the list but since Trump does major business in them that is why he did not include them.


You're giving Trump far too much credit for all of this. It's not like he's the one making these decisions. He is now and has always been an establishment puppet.



Mra22 said:


> *Trump puts Americans first* unlike that terrorist Obama.


:ha

Just to be clear, I do not disagree with the terrorist Obama part. It's the first half of that sentence that's laughably retarded.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> That was awkward shit
> 
> I don't hate Trump but I can understand why other nations dislike him
> 
> The world is a community and you are expected to be a good "member of society" and Trump is pushing a "fuck you, whats good for me is good for me"
> 
> *Its like if your boss stopped caring about how the business is run or how its progressing as long as he gets his paycheck, its worrying*


Isn't that what capitalism is all about?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Eastern European here, people from here mostly hate Trump. Reasons:
> - he is undermining UE & NATO, two vital institutions for Eastern Europe given the protection of NATO from Russia and UE which is needed for economical and political reasons
> - given the rumours that he has ties with Russia, people here feel insecure about the help USA is gonna give us if Russia attacks.
> - supports Brexit and supports the limitation of visas for US which gives headaches to people who want to immigrate
> - he wants more jobs in the US from US companies which may mean some US companies can retire their offices from here.
> 
> The only pro thing here may be that the UE might become more united because they need to oppose him as an entire group.
> 
> We view him as a delusional egomaniacal populist.


Wow, Eastern Europe expects everyone to babysit them and ensure that they get most of the benefits? 

No wonder the EU is popular in some places, as long as you get a few shillings you don't care about corrupt un-elected rulers telling you what to do.

Me, me,me, me, ME! Cannot be bothered with improving because people expect everyone else to do everything for them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Wow, Eastern Europe expects everyone to babysit them and ensure that they get most of the benefits?
> 
> No wonder the EU is popular in some places, as long as you get a few shillings you don't care about corrupt un-elected rulers telling you what to do.
> 
> Me, me,me, me, ME! Cannot be bothered with improving because people expect everyone else to do everything for them.


Are you expecting those nations to stay up to the might of the Russian Army and Russian economy all by themselves?

Ironically the very attitude you are labelling them with is the same attitude you are portraying in this very post.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Isn't that what capitalism is all about?


And it's why capitalism does not work


----------



## Arya Dark

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*What's your definition of "work"?*


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And it's why capitalism does not work


Worked way better than socialism. :shrug

Can't bat 100.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *What's your definition of "work"?*


Work as in the middle and lower class not getting fucked over while the rich just get rich at their expense. 




FriedTofu said:


> Worked way better than socialism. :shrug
> 
> Can't bat 100.


No it doesn't LOL


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you expecting those nations to stay up to the might of the Russian Army and Russian economy all by themselves?
> 
> Ironically the very attitude you are labelling them with is the same attitude you are portraying in this very post.


I believe in Nations and people improving themselves. Many Nations and people now expect everything handed to them.

Nations shouldn't rely on the US for everything, we're not the world Police. If you want protection then put more money into NATO.

Do I expect these nations to do it by themselves? Probably not but they act like a 10 year old kid not wanting to stop sucking on their mama's tit because things are "too hard". This is why it's funny when people willingly give themselves to things like the EU and expect to have their lives lead for them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I believe in Nations and people improving themselves. Many Nations and people now expect everything handed to them.
> 
> Nations shouldn't rely on the US for everything, we're not the world Police. If you want protection then put more money into NATO.
> 
> Do I expect these nations to do it by themselves? Probably not but they act like a 10 year old kid not wanting to stop sucking on their mama's tit because things are "too hard". This is why it's funny when people willingly give themselves to things like the EU and expect to have their lives lead for them.


Israel is probably the best example of a smaller nation that relied on itself against hostile bigger neighbours in the world. They still rely on the US for 'everything' if we go by your opinion.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Dunno if this was posted or not:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/james-comey-fbi-investigation-fake-russian-intelligence/

One can only wonder how long it'll be before dems cry foul about him again after sucking him off when Trump fired his stooge-ass.

:kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Dunno if this was posted or not:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/james-comey-fbi-investigation-fake-russian-intelligence/
> 
> One can only wonder how long it'll be before dems cry foul about him again after sucking him off when Trump fired his stooge-ass.
> 
> :kobelol


How were they sucking him off when Trump fired him?

You can dislike the guy for his fuckery during the election and still say its was wrong and shady for Trump to fire him when he is the guy investigating Trump.

Trump fired Comey because he wanted the Russian investigation to end and that is what people were complaining about. Because Trump was impeding the investigation. It was against Trump not being pro Comey.

Its also funny how much dick sucking Trump was doing to Comey during the election then someone tells Trump Comey is investigating him, and Trump fires him then start talking shit about him.

But sure ignore that part like all Trumpets do


----------



## MickDX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You're supposed to. He's not the world's babysitter.





Mra22 said:


> Trump puts Americans first unlike that terrorist Obama.





Iconoclast said:


> I love how the NATO countries now literally feel entitled to a privilege.
> 
> Typical European mentality.
> 
> Let a monkey take a piece of candy and he wants the whole jar.





Miss Sally said:


> Wow, Eastern Europe expects everyone to babysit them and ensure that they get most of the benefits?
> 
> No wonder the EU is popular in some places, as long as you get a few shillings you don't care about corrupt un-elected rulers telling you what to do.
> 
> Me, me,me, me, ME! Cannot be bothered with improving because people expect everyone else to do everything for them.





Miss Sally said:


> I believe in Nations and people improving themselves. Many Nations and people now expect everything handed to them.
> 
> Nations shouldn't rely on the US for everything, we're not the world Police. If you want protection then put more money into NATO.
> 
> Do I expect these nations to do it by themselves? Probably not but they act like a 10 year old kid not wanting to stop sucking on their mama's tit because things are "too hard". This is why it's funny when people willingly give themselves to things like the EU and expect to have their lives lead for them.


Oda wanted a view, I never said it's wrong/right. People here are comparing Trump to the previous US presidents and right now there are only downsides from this change. That was not necessarily my personal view, it is more like an summarisation of what I saw from other people from here.

This is probably my last post on this thread because I don't want to argue with people who don't know the real situation here. I don't blame you because the Western media shows us as some kind of parasites who can't wait to steal from you. And in some cases, that happens and media is in such a hurry to generalise for the other people. People from these countries are very mixed, you can find any kind of people so you can expect almost anything from people around here.

People who are born in Western countries like you think it's so easy to change the mentality of an entire country when there are hundreds of years of external interference. A lot of people here still mourns the old Communist party and want them to come back therefore they vote with Socialists and populists who don't care about the people who work hard, they just steal what they can for themselves and in rest they increase the welfare for lazy people who vote them. I'm not optimistic about a mentality change very soon, most likely in 20 years there may be some improvement. But the countries as a whole are improving, several of them have high economic increase in the last year.

Many people from here would rather stay neutral than being allies with US. Several countries from here are in a cold war with Russia and the Russians increased the gas prices. US came here and installed their shields and troops as they liked, no questions asked. US soldiers are treated like some kind of nobility, if they do something bad, they are protected and nobody can do shit against them. Even though NATO is mostly a defense alliance, we sent troops to Afganistan and Iraq and dozens of people died there. US has a big influence in the politics from around here, they influenced elections, they helped their bankrupt companies to survive with money from here and those companies didn't do anything for the money they received.

People don't want Trump to fall, they want him to become better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

wrong thread


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The White House’s proposed budget for 2018 designates billions of dollars for refugee assistance and supports the resettlement of 50,000 new refugees.
> 
> The budget, “A New Foundation For American Greatness,” was unveiled Monday and includes significant spending cuts to entitlements. Congressional Republicans applauded it as a step in the right direction.
> 
> However, it presents issues for the hardline immigration stance the president campaigned on. The budget provides a fraction of the estimated funds needed to build a wall on the Mexican border and includes billions of dollars for refugee programs.
> 
> The budget proposal calls for $2.7 billion to be spent on the State Department’s Migration and Refugee Assistance program, which goes towards assistance overseas and admissions in the U.S. This is down from $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2017. The proposed budget would give $410 million towards refugee admissions in the U.S.
> 
> 
> Sponsored Links by
> The Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum, refugee, and international operations budget would also get a $14 million increase from the previous budget.
> 
> Health and Human Services runs the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The 2018 budget proposal for the agency allots $320 million that will go towards cash and medical assistance for 50,000 refugees. Obama resettled 85,000 refugees in his final fiscal year in office.
> 
> The proposed 50,000 refugees in 2018 would be the least in ten years. However, Obama resettled just six thousand more in 2011 and eight thousand more in 2012.
> 
> President Trump signed executive orders after getting into office to temporarily halt refugee admissions, but both have been blocked by federal courts. He slammed refugee resettlement while on the campaign trail, and likened the threat of terrorism from Syrian refugees to a “great Trojan horse.”
> 
> Since getting into office, Trump has resettled 15,140 refugees. Former President Obama admitted 23,191 refugees during the same time period last year.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/23/trumps-budget-request-supports-50000-refugees/


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *How were they sucking him off when Trump fired him?*
> 
> You can dislike the guy for his fuckery during the election and still say its was wrong and shady for Trump to fire him when he is the guy investigating Trump.
> 
> Trump fired Comey because he wanted the Russian investigation to end and that is what people were complaining about. Because Trump was impeding the investigation. It was against Trump not being pro Comey.
> 
> Its also funny how much dick sucking Trump was doing to Comey during the election then someone tells Trump Comey is investigating him, and Trump fires him then start talking shit about him.
> 
> But sure ignore that part like all Trumpets do


http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/o...mey-then-wants-to-impeach-trump-when-he-does/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/liberal-hypocrisy-on-comeys-firing-brutally-exposed

Considering Hillary was doing shady shit that actually had some weight behind it, why wouldn't she be investigated? Comey showed evidence that he was a stooge when he mentioned how said shady shit should've gotten her indicted, but did fuck-all and simply let her slide.

He then confirmed his status as a stooge by following on fake intel regarding Russia. But like it's been said before in this thread: Just because he's gone doesn't mean any worthwhile intel accumulated by the FBI while under his watch will go with him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/o...mey-then-wants-to-impeach-trump-when-he-does/
> 
> http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/liberal-hypocrisy-on-comeys-firing-brutally-exposed
> 
> Considering Hillary was doing shady shit that actually had some weight behind it, why wouldn't she be investigated? Comey showed evidence that he was a stooge when he mentioned how said shady shit should've gotten her indicted, but did fuck-all and simply let her slide.
> 
> He then confirmed his status as a stooge by following on fake intel regarding Russia. But like it's been said before in this thread: Just because he's gone doesn't mean any worthwhile intel accumulated by the FBI while under his watch will go with him.


I always love when people say oh look at so and so saying Comey should be fired and its back in Nov when he should have been fired.

Then when the same person points out how shady Trump is for firing Comey because Trump wanted the Russian thing to end they call them hypocrites.

They are pointing out two different things, stop acting like they wanted him fired the week before, it was six months before.

If Trump fired him on his first day, no one would have complained.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love when people say oh look at so and so saying Comey should be fired and its back in Nov when he should have been fired.
> 
> Then when the same person points out how shady Trump is for firing Comey because Trump wanted the Russian thing to end they call them hypocrites.
> 
> They are pointing out two different things, stop acting like they wanted him fired the week before, it was six months before.
> 
> If Trump fired him on his first day, no one would have complained.


I agree that he should've been axed as soon as he pussied out of taking Hillary to task. I was hoping that Trump would've dropped him like a bad habit as soon as he got in after that debacle and especially because of the wild goose chase regarding Russia, but oh well better late than never.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I agree that he should've been axed as soon as he pussied out of taking Hillary to task. I was hoping that Trump would've dropped him like a bad habit as soon as he got in after that debacle and especially because of the wild goose chase regarding Russia, but oh well better late than never.


People had a problem with the timing of Comeys firing because it was right after he asked for more resources for the Russian investigation and Trump even admitted he was fired to try and end it not that he got fired like he should have back in Nov or Jan when Trump took over.

I think most an agree Comey should have been fired way before he was. The timing just makes Trump look like he has something to hide and that is what outraged everyone.


----------



## xio8ups

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump told me he prefers to tweet alot. Because he really knows how to trigger liberals. And he gets enjoyment out of it.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Can somebody tell me why Senators McCain, Graham, and others (including Obama's bitch boy Boehner) are going against President Trump even though the Republicans have the White House and Congress?!! They should be getting shit done instead of wasting time being counter-productive.

Reminds me of Obama's first two years in office when the Democrats didn't want to work with him either. 

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No it doesn't LOL


Ask Venezuelan citizens how socialism is working for them. Better yet, go and ask the Russians who lived through the USSR, especially during Stalin's era and ask them how socialism worked for them. I could go on.

And don't argue the Nordic countries because we've been through that, they are market economies. They are state capitalist/corporatist with big welfare states. They aren't collectivizing multiple sectors of the economy or are running a planned economy like Socialists would truly want. Because they are at least smart enough to know it doesn't work.

No economic system is perfect and sure, "capitalism" in it's current form has a lot of flaws, but socialism is a horrific system that has ended up killing hundreds of millions of people. I wouldn't recommend living in a socialist system to my worst enemy.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> People don't want Trump to fall, they want him to become better.


"Better" in what sense? Do his Tweets offend you? Is he too right? Too left?

Also, many DO want him to fail. @Tater for example...but then again, by Tater's own definition, Trump failing IS succeeding...Of course, if he Succeeds, would that mean he fails at failing to succeed? :hmm


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Can somebody tell me why Senators McCain, Graham, and others (including Obama's bitch boy Boehner) are going against President Trump even though the Republicans have the White House and Congress?!! They should be getting shit done instead of wasting time being counter-productive.
> 
> Reminds me of Obama's first two years in office when the Democrats didn't want to work with him either.
> 
> - Vic


Because the Depends-wearing Fossil, the ***** Southern Belle and the Crybaby Carrot are among the most prominent tumors that riddle the flabby and sick body known as the republican party. And it's been known for a while that they, like the rest of that party's malignant swine, will fight tooth and nail to fuck over anyone or anything that even so much as thinks about not towing the party line (much like the equally cancerous democrats).


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> the Depends-wearing Fossil


Sounds like Bernie Sanduhz! 0


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Can somebody tell me why Senators McCain, Graham, and others (including Obama's bitch boy Boehner) are going against President Trump even though the Republicans have the White House and Congress?!! They should be getting shit done instead of wasting time being counter-productive.
> 
> Reminds me of Obama's first two years in office when the Democrats didn't want to work with him either.
> 
> - Vic


Because they disagree with Trump on some things.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Sounds like Bernie Sanduhz! 0


Sanders is actually pretty spry for his age, so he doesn't count, brah. :hayden3

The only times when he needed Depends were when he shat the bed by basically surrendering to BLM and then again to Hilldog.


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Can somebody tell me why Senators McCain, Graham, and others (including Obama's bitch boy Boehner) are going against President Trump even though the Republicans have the White House and Congress?!! They should be getting shit done instead of wasting time being counter-productive.
> 
> Reminds me of Obama's first two years in office when the Democrats didn't want to work with him either.
> 
> - Vic


Because they have a spine and don't follow the normal political spin/downplay/defend/deflect game.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

McCan and Graham whinge and moan on TV, but when it comes down to a vote, they fall right in line. 

They criticized and agonized over Tillerson for weeks and then when it came time, they voted for him as SOS. They're all bark, no bite.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


Can't the Clintons just go away already.


----------



## MickDX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> "Better" in what sense? Do his Tweets offend you? Is he too right? Too left?
> 
> Also, many DO want him to fail. @Tater for example...but then again, by Tater's own definition, Trump failing IS succeeding...Of course, if he Succeeds, would that mean he fails at failing to succeed? :hmm


Eastern Europe doesn't use Twitter mostly and anyway people here care about official declarations not tweets. The majority of people doesn't know about the political spectrum, you are either sided with the socialists or against them.

I already explained in my first post why people dislike him so basically if he stops doing those things people will think he is better than his current status.

I don't blame people who want him to fall, perhaps because they think he is beyond redemption at this point. He doesn't show like he is learning from what he has already done.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Can't the Clintons and Jared Kushner just go away already.


FTFY, fam. :trump3

Just stick them in one of Elon Musk's SpaceX rockets and launch those fuckers into the sun already. However, if the rocket is wonky like the last one and explodes with them in it, that's a perfectly fine substitute.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Because they have a spine and don't follow the normal political spin/downplay/defend/deflect game.


Except for when the speak out against Liberal policy and/or ideology, right? Then they play the political spin/downplay/defend/deflect game, right?


----------



## Headliner

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Except for when the speak out against Liberal policy and/or ideology, right? Then they play the political spin/downplay/defend/deflect game, right?


Nah. It's just them having an opinion. There's a difference between ideology differences and clearly kissing Trump's ass and trying to unsuccessfully deflect and spin everything for some BS agenda.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> "Better" in what sense? Do his Tweets offend you? Is he too right? Too left?
> 
> Also, many DO want him to fail. @Tater for example...but then again, by Tater's own definition, Trump failing IS succeeding...Of course, if he Succeeds, would that mean he fails at failing to succeed? :hmm


To be fair, I want to see the complete and total collapse of the entire United States government, Democrats and Republicans included. I'd consider that failure a massive success for the entire human race.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867820399542714370


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Headliner said:


> Nah. It's just them having an opinion. There's a difference between ideology differences and clearly kissing Trump's ass and trying to unsuccessfully deflect and spin everything for some BS agenda.


I was just finding out where you stand when you consume news. There are certain posters here that are perfectly fine with what guys like Graham and McCain are doing, but only as far as it's directed at Trump. If it's directed towards the left, then they have a problem with it, and that's disingenuous.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I was just finding out where you stand when you consume news. There are certain posters here that are perfectly fine with what guys like Graham and McCain are doing, but only as far as it's directed at Trump. If it's directed towards the left, then they have a problem with it, and that's disingenuous.


Or it could be because we are glad that McCain at least one one issue we agree with is against Trump like how McCain killed Trumps anti-environment bill.

Yes we are ok with people like McCain the times they vote with the things we agree with, and we don't like it when it votes against things we are for.

At least some posters are not just Trump supporters who no matter what he does agrees with everything.

You dont have to be in 100% agreement with everything someone does. Maybe you should learn that.

I will give any conservative credit for being against Trumps anti-environment bills and terrible healthcare plan or any other thing I agree with them on.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Or it could be because we are glad that McCain at least one one issue we agree with is against Trump like how McCain killed Trumps anti-environment bill.
> 
> Yes we are ok with people like McCain the times they vote with the things we agree with, and we don't like it when it votes against things we are for.
> 
> At least some posters are not just Trump supporters who no matter what he does agrees with everything.
> 
> *You dont have to be in 100% agreement with everything someone does. Maybe you should learn that.
> *
> I will give any conservative credit for being against Trumps anti-environment bills and terrible healthcare plan or any other thing I agree with them on.


Like Iconoclast has pointed out on repeated occasions, you only read what you want to read, and sometimes you don't even do that before responding. If you had you'd notice I've never gone out of my way to praise Trump. All I've ever done has been a harbinger of truth. That's the most important thing to me and because I don't automatically believe what you want me to believe I'm labeled, by you, as an undying loyalist of everything Trump. It's a false narrative and you're blind by your own cognitive dissonance.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Like Iconoclast has pointed out on repeated occasions, you only read what you want to read, and sometimes you don't even do that before responding. If you had you'd notice I've never gone out of my way to praise Trump. All I've ever done has been a harbinger of truth. That's the most important thing to me and because I don't automatically believe what you want me to believe I'm labeled, by you, as an undying loyalist of everything Trump. It's a false narrative and you're blind by your own cognitive dissonance.


You like reaper love to play your little games, you will say something then pretend it's not what you really meant.

Here is your quote again



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I was just finding out where you stand when you consume news. There are certain posters here that are perfectly fine with what guys like Graham and McCain are doing, but only as far as it's directed at Trump. If it's directed towards the left, then they have a problem with it, and that's disingenuous.



You said some posters on here are fine when it's directed at Trump but once it's directed toward the left they have a problem.

My reply to you was perfectly logical since we don't have to disagree with McCain all the time just because he is a conservative. 

So stop playing these childish games.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You like reaper love to play your little games, you will say something then pretend it's not what you really meant.
> 
> Here is your quote again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said some posters on here are fine when it's directed at Trump but once it's directed toward the left they have a problem.
> 
> My reply to you was perfectly logical since we don't have to disagree with McCain all the time just because he is a conservative.
> 
> So stop playing these childish games.


And, as typical, per you, you read that to be what you want it to be, which is I'm a blind follower of all things Trump. You have no ability to see beyond what is within your cognitive dissonance. Headliner is someone who I've noticed leans to the left, I wanted to see what kind of leftist he was. The comment I made didn't even concern you, to be quite honest, but you had to throw you cognitive dissonance into the equation with the express purpose of trying to discredit me as a republican hack. The truth of the matter is that I'm not, and no matter how much you try to twist things you'll be unable to get anyone to believe what you believe because I have the unbiased truth on my side, where you have to twist things around to make what you believe true.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> And, as typical, per you, you read that to be what you want it to be, which is I'm a blind follower of all things Trump. You have no ability to see beyond what is within your cognitive dissonance. Headliner is someone who I've noticed leans to the left, I wanted to see what kind of leftist he was. The comment I made didn't even concern you, to be quite honest, but you had to throw you cognitive dissonance into the equation with the express purpose of trying to discredit me as a republican hack. The truth of the matter is that I'm not, and no matter how much you try to twist things you'll be unable to get anyone to believe what you believe because I have the unbiased truth on my side, where you have to twist things around to make what you believe true.


Oh so you are not implying that some people are hypocrites because they are ok when someone like McCain is against Trump but not when he against someone on the left?
Are you not implying those people are biased against Trump? that is exactly what it sounds like.

Also you were not just including headliner in your post when you said certain POSTERS on here....


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so you are not implying that some people are hypocrites because they are ok when someone like McCain is against Trump but not when he against someone on the left?
> Are you not implying those people are biased against Trump? that is exactly what it sounds like.
> 
> Also you were not just including headliner in your post when you said certain POSTERS on here....


I was implying that there are people on the left, who hate Trump, and will gladly argue for anything that is anti-Trump, just like there are others on the opposite side who do the same thing, but I don't need to reference them because I wasn't talking about them. I think it's implied that they already exist, I just wanted to know if Headliner was one of them on the left side. I think that's perfectly acceptable. That being said, I only know of one poster who seems loyal to Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I was implying that there are people on the left, who hate Trump, and will gladly argue for anything that is anti-Trump, just like there are others on the opposite side who do the same thing, but I don't need to reference them because I wasn't talking about them. I think it's implied that they already exist, I just wanted to know if Headliner was one of them on the left side. I think that's perfectly acceptable. That being said, I only know of one poster who seems loyal to Trump.


So I was right in what I was saying and my reply was perfectly logical when I said we are ok with people like McCain the times they vote with the things we agree with, and dont like it when they vote against things we are for.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> So I was right in what I was saying and my reply was perfectly logical when I said we are ok with people like McCain the times they vote with the things we agree with, and dont like it when they vote against things we are for.


Maybe you should go back and read what I bolded from your comment. That might clue you in on what my response to you was about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Maybe you should go back and read what I bolded from your comment. That might clue you in on what my response to you was about.


Oh so you are just cherry picking one thing from my reply, gotcha. more games.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so you are just cherry picking one thing from my reply, gotcha. more games.


Dude, you need to relax. You know what else that could also mean? It could mean that I don't disagree with what you were saying except for the part I bolded.


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Progressives suck.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/23/trumps-budget-request-supports-50000-refugees/


Good God, cute entitlements but bring more refugees? This is retarded, why is the US settling them here? It costs 10 times the amount to bring them here then to settle them in a safe area within their own country or a near by one.

Why is everyone obsessed with spending billions on these people when we have people living in poverty here?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Get em out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Progressives suck.


Of course, you hate progressives because you are from the south. you are against things like science, equal rights, basic human rights and helping everyone and anti-war , saving the environment which are all progressive values





Miss Sally said:


> Good God, cute entitlements but bring more refugees? This is retarded, why is the US settling them here? It costs 10 times the amount to bring them here then to settle them in a safe area within their own country or a near by one.
> 
> *Why is everyone obsessed with spending billions on these people when we have people living in poverty here?*


I agree with this 100% before the US spends a penny on refugees they should be helping our poor, homeless and vets first.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, you hate progressives because you are from the south. you are against things like science, equal rights, basic human rights and helping everyone and anti-war , saving the environment which are all progressive values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this 100% before the US spends a penny on refugees they should be helping our poor, homeless and vets first.


You don't identify as a progressive in the sense of what I think sucks except for economics tho


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Say what you will about Scott Adams, but he makes sense.



> Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers
> Posted May 23rd, 2017 @ 9:52am in #Trump #Losers #ISIS
> Scott Adams
> 
> President Trump just gave ISIS its new name: Losers. (Short for Evil Losers).
> 
> If you think that’s no big deal, you’re wrong. It’s a big deal. This is – literally – weapons-grade persuasion from the most powerful Master Persuader of our time.
> 
> As I have taught you in this blog, President Trump’s clever nicknames for people are not random. They are deeply engineered for visual impact and future confirmation bias.
> 
> In this case, the visuals will be provided by future terror attacks. That reinforces the “evil” part, obviously. But more importantly, the Losers will be doing nothing but losing on the battlefield from now until “annihilation.” They are surrounded, and the clock is ticking. Oh, and the press isn’t allowed to watch the final battles. In other words, we won’t need to build new holding cells on Guantanamo Bay this time. No press means no prisoners, if you know what I mean. (American soldiers won’t be shooting the prisoners. We have allies for that sort of thing.)
> 
> As you know, “annihilation” of the Losers in Loserdom won’t stop the loser’s ideas from spreading. You still have to kill the ideas. And that takes persuasion, not bullets. President Trump just mapped out the persuasion solution: Evil Losers.
> 
> Quickly, name one other way you could label/insult the Losers that would be as powerful as the word Loser. You can’t do it with any other name or insult that is also repeatable in polite company.
> 
> What kinds of people join the Losers? Mostly young males. And you know what brand young males do not want on them? Right: Losers.
> 
> If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.
> 
> Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t. Remember, your brand has to fit with future confirmation evidence. The Losers on the battlefield will continue to be losing, so the brand is engineered to get stickier over time. Your alternative idea for a brand solution has to have that quality of future confirmation too. Good luck finding a better persuasion brand.
> 
> This is not accidental. President Trump does (laugh if you will) have the best words, at least for this sort of thing. He’s proven it over and over. Just ask Jeb, Ted, and HIllary.
> 
> 
> As a mental experiment, imagine the CEOs of the major browser companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and the open source products getting together to stop the spread of Loser propaganda. They could collectively decide to program their browsers to auto-convert ISIS or Al-Quaeda or other cool terror names to Evil Losers. If all the browser products agree, that’s all your teenager in Europe will see as he tries to self-radicalize. That would, in time, end recruitment for Losers.
> 
> An hour ago you believed there was no way to stop the spread of the ideas behind terrorism. I just told you how to do it by the end of the week. While I don’t expect the browser companies to take my suggestion, I do expect some of you will realize for the first time how winnable the war of ideas is.
> 
> So long as your Commander in Chief is also a Master Persuader.
> 
> Otherwise you’re out of luck.
> 
> America, as it turns out, has lots of luck left in it.
> 
> You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just getting started.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> You don't identify as a progressive in the sense of what I think sucks except for economics tho


Its because you have zero clue what you are talking about. 


LOL yeah the comic strip writer really makes sense when he thinks to call ISIS a loser will stop the spread of terrorism. 

And LOL at claiming Trump who speaks like a 5 year old is a master of persuasion. 

You can't be serious with this stuff. No wonder Trump likes you guys. You should be embarrassed if you really think calling ISIS losers will stop people from joining.

Scott Adams is a joke its hilarious how Trump supporters take him seriously.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because you have zero clue what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> LOL yeah the comic strip writer really makes sense when he thinks to call ISIS a loser will stop the spread of terrorism.
> 
> And LOL at claiming Trump who speaks like a 5 year old is a master of persuasion.
> 
> You can't be serious with this stuff. No wonder Trump likes you guys. You should be embarrassed if you really think calling ISIS losers will stop people from joining.
> 
> Scott Adams is a joke its hilarious how Trump supporters take him seriously.


that has NOTHING to do with what i said. I was literally trying to make peace with you.....and ya shat on it :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because you have zero clue what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> LOL yeah the comic strip writer really makes sense when he thinks to call ISIS a loser will stop the spread of terrorism.
> 
> And LOL at claiming Trump who speaks like a 5 year old is a master of persuasion.
> 
> You can't be serious with this stuff. No wonder Trump likes you guys. You should be embarrassed if you really think calling ISIS losers will stop people from joining.
> 
> Scott Adams is a joke its hilarious how Trump supporters take him seriously.


I just find it so funny that you think your way of thinking is the only right way to think. Have you ever asked yourself if you're wrong? I seriously doubt it.

And Adams has some credibility. He called a Trump victory over a year ago, before the primaries.


----------



## MickDX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The guys from ISIS are ready to give their life for the cause and you are thinking calling them losers is gonna affect them. I bet ISIS laughed their asses off when they heard that Trump called them evil losers. :HA

Terrorism is not a game for ten year olds like Trump.

"most powerful Master Persuader" :booklel. Scott Adams is such an objective person.:trump3


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> The guys from ISIS are ready to give their life for the cause and you are thinking calling them losers is gonna affect them. I bet ISIS laughed their asses off when they heard that Trump called them evil losers. :HA
> 
> Terrorism is not a game for ten year olds like Trump.
> 
> "most powerful Master Persuader" :booklel. Scott Adams is such an objective person.:trump3


The guy with the 1% chance of being elected got elected.

That's not displaying an ability to persuade. :hmmm

Calling ISIS losers isn't aimed at ISIS members. It's aimed at the great undecided mass who in any political/ideological conflict jump off the fence to the side of whoever looks like the winner.

BM please take a xanax and smoke a blunt before you get banned from the thread for like the 12th time k


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The guy with the 1% chance of being elected got elected.
> 
> That's not displaying an ability to persuade. :hmmm
> 
> Calling ISIS losers isn't aimed at ISIS members. It's aimed at the great undecided mass who in any political/ideological conflict jump off the fence to the side of whoever looks like the winner.
> 
> BM please take a xanax and smoke a blunt before you get banned from the thread for like the 12th time k


I find it funny that people dismiss his persuasion skills after winning the election. It's denial if you can't accept that he has a way of persuading people to think in the terms that he sets up. It won't work against people who are entrenched in an ideology, but those on the fence, it's been proven to work.


----------



## xio8ups

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What a great time to be American. TRUMP is *OUR* 45th us president. :]


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I just find it so funny that you think your way of thinking is the only right way to think. Have you ever asked yourself if you're wrong? I seriously doubt it.
> 
> And Adams has some credibility. He called a Trump victory over a year ago, before the primaries.



Adams has zero credibility. A lot of clueless people claimed Trump was going to win, just because he won does not mean they have credibility.

Adams thinks terrorist will be affected because they are called losers LOL That is a good one.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I find it funny that people dismiss his persuasion skills after winning the election. It's denial if you can't accept that he has a way of persuading people to think in the terms that he sets up. It won't work against people who are entrenched in an ideology, but those on the fence, it's been proven to work.


Like Trump said he loves the uneducated, its easy to persuade simpletons, that is all Trump can persuade, anyone with half a brain sees right through his BS.

That is like calling a person who can trick little kids a master of persuasion.

Trumps approval rating is at 35%, oh yeah he is a real master alright

And lets also not forget less than half the country voted for him.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Like Trump said he loves the uneducated, its easy to persuade simpletons, that is all Trump can persuade, anyone with half a brain sees right through his BS.
> 
> That is like calling a person who can trick little kids a master of persuasion.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



xio8ups said:


> What a great time to be American. TRUMP is *OUR* 45th us president. :]


He's got a long way to go, both in regard to policies and weeding out the shitstains in his inner circle (*cough* Kushner *cough*), but his presidency has been alright so far and most importantly, he was the lesser of two evils.

Plus, having an IRL shitposter as the leader of the free world is a good way to let off steam due to how surreal it is. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> He's got a long way to go, both in regard to policies and weeding out the shitstains in his inner circle (*cough* Kushner *cough*), but his presidency has been alright so far and most importantly, he was the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Plus, having an IRL shitposter as the leader of the free world is a good way to let off steam due to how surreal it is. :lol


Trumps whole inner circle are shit stains, Trump himself is a shit stain.

And he has been a disaster so far for everyone but him and his rich friends


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> The guys from ISIS are ready to give their life for the cause and you are thinking calling them losers is gonna affect them.


Completely missed the point of the article. :lol 

The people already in ISIS probably aren't going to have their resolve weakened for being branded as losers, but who is going to want to join the group with the "loser" brand, which is designed to be reinforced with every ISIS defeat (it's called pre-suasion)? ISIS depends on recruiting new people for obvious reasons. If they can't do that as effectively, they aren't going to be around much longer. 

It sounds overly simple, but so was calling Jeb low energy, "Lyin' Ted", and "Crooked Hillary". 

Will it work with ISIS? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly hope it does.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Completely missed the point of the article. :lol
> 
> The people already in ISIS probably aren't going to have their resolve weakened for being branded as losers, but who is going to want to join the group with the "loser" brand, which is designed to be reinforced with every ISIS defeat (it's called pre-suasion)? ISIS depends on recruiting new people for obvious reasons. If they can't do that as effectively, they aren't going to be around much longer.
> 
> It sounds overly simple, but so was calling Jeb low energy, "Lyin' Ted", and "Crooked Hillary".
> 
> Will it work with ISIS? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly hope it does.


You are the one missing the point but you are a Trump supporter so why i am not surprised.

ISIS is not going to promote their brand as losers, and Trump calling ISIS losers will just get more people to join because they will see it as another attack against Islam. 

It's so funny how Trump supporters think just by Trump calling ISIS losers is that going to beat them.

So that was Trumps secret plan to beat ISIS, calling them losers? LMFAO


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one missing the point but you are a Trump supporter so why i am not surprised.
> 
> ISIS is not going to promote their brand as losers


:lol <3 u


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Neuron

At one of the busiest intersections of Marin County (a sprawling six-way stop), about an hour and a half ago, a group of perhaps 150 marchers were holding up large signs about Trump being Vladimir Putin's puppet, a Russian agent and the Trump administration being infested by nefarious Russian spies. The signs were white with red and blue lettering, and two old hippie types, a woman and a man (hope I'm not offending them by profiling them by gender when naturally they could identify as anything including crocodile in The Current Year) shared a bullhorn, leading the chant, "WE DON'T WANT NO RUSSIAN MASTERS/TRUMP AND HIS SONS ARE ALL BASTARDS!"

At least Ivanka (and Tiffany!) was (were!) spared. Perhaps because her tears inspire Tomahawk missile strikes on Russia's Middle Eastern ally!


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Completely missed the point of the article. :lol
> 
> The people already in ISIS probably aren't going to have their resolve weakened for being branded as losers, but who is going to want to join the group with the "loser" brand, which is designed to be reinforced with every ISIS defeat (it's called pre-suasion)? ISIS depends on recruiting new people for obvious reasons. If they can't do that as effectively, they aren't going to be around much longer.
> 
> It sounds overly simple, but so was calling Jeb low energy, "Lyin' Ted", and "Crooked Hillary".
> 
> Will it work with ISIS? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly hope it does.


Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable didn't stop other people from supporting him. :draper2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Adams has zero credibility. A lot of clueless people claimed Trump was going to win, just because he won does not mean they have credibility.


In your eyes, why does Adams have zero credibility?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> In your eyes, why does Adams have zero credibility?


Just read the nonsense he writes.

He thinks Trump will beat ISIS by calling them losers. You really are going to give someone credibility who claims that?

that is something the Onion would write as satire and he is being serious about it.

Trump supporters love to claim Trump won because of the names they called him and his supporters and he won. 

So the logic makes no sense


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just read the nonsense he writes.
> 
> He thinks Trump will beat ISIS by calling them losers. You really are going to give someone credibility who claims that?
> 
> that is something the Onion would write as satire and he is being serious about it.


Do you read his blog?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Do you read his blog?


Only the ones that are posted on here and based on those he is not credible and even less credible wit the last one that was posted that we are talking about right now


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Only the ones that are posted on here and based on those he is not credible and even less credible wit the last one that was posted that we are talking about right now


Well, then maybe you should get a bigger sample. Go read his blog for a couple of weeks and then come back and tell me he's full of shit. This board has a tendency to make you hard headed, so if someone who you differ from ideologically posts a blog from him you'll automatically dismiss it, without giving the blogger the proper respect of an open mind.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, then maybe you should get a bigger sample. Go read his blog for a couple of weeks and then come back and tell me he's full of shit. This board has a tendency to make you hard headed, so if someone who you differ from ideologically posts a blog from him you'll automatically dismiss it, without giving the blogger the proper respect of an open mind.


The sample size that has been posted on this forum is a big enough sample since in those he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the blog posts on this forum.

Again take how he thinks Trump will end ISIS by calling them losers because he thinks it will make it harder for them to recruit. How can you take that seriously?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Losers is a pretty good term for ISIS and not a bad move on Trump to label them that.

Obama tried this too when he called them "JV", it was a good attempt but hit a snag when ISIS grew in power.

Losers will work a bit better as ISIS has been losing ground. They already have a strained relationship with most other Islamic groups and thus painting them as losers and guys who cannot get anything done right will hurt their numbers.

Will it stop all recruiting? No, but it will take some wind out of their sails as both Western Governments and fellow Jihadists mock them. ISIS is progressive with it's recruitment of anyone and everyone over the other and more tribal and secluded groups of Jihadists. If ISIS ever brings in smaller tribal Jihadists and unities with other fairly big groups like Boko Haram it could cause major issues. ISIS has taken advantage of the migrant crisis and with many Africans looking to migrate to Europe this gives ISIS a great advantage in spreading terror.

It's a good start, after all ISIS loses ground and they gain sympathy, if they lose because they're just incompetent dorks then they get no sympathy and mocked.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable didn't stop other people from supporting him. :draper2


Yeah giving someone a cool nickname that nobody really has a negative association with was horrible persuasion. It's not as simple as giving your opponent a negative nickname.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah giving someone a cool nickname that nobody really has a negative association with was horrible persuasion. It's not as simple as giving your opponent a negative nickname.


All Trump does is give out horrible nicknames, they are not even clever. 

How is calling ISIS losers not horrible? Or are you agreeing it is horrible and wont do shit


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah giving someone a cool nickname that nobody really has a negative association with was horrible persuasion. It's not as simple as giving your opponent a negative nickname.


And what makes you think ISIS can't spin losers into a cool nickname like Trump supporters have done with the term deplorable?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Aren't losers what they are?


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Like Trump said he loves the uneducated, its easy to persuade simpletons, that is all Trump can persuade, anyone with half a brain sees right through his BS.
> 
> That is like calling a person who can trick little kids a master of persuasion.


You repeat yourself a lot. You should try getting some new material. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Calling Isis losers achieves nothing, it's not some grand scheme it's just a silly name which Isis will just laugh, Isis are losers but a president calling them that its meaningless. Adams is irrelevant.

I can just imagine Mr Mohammed seeing his family bombed by a drone changing his mind on joining Isis because the man he hates called them losers...PMSL, I'm getting an image of Baldrick going 'I have a cunning plan my Lord, we'll call them losers and they'll be so upset by the word they'll never bomb anyone'


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> *Calling Isis losers achieves nothing*, it's not some grand scheme it's just a silly name which Isis will just laugh, Isis are losers but a president calling them that its meaningless. Adams is irrelevant.
> 
> I can just imagine Mr Mohammed seeing his family bombed by a drone changing his mind on joining Isis because the man he hates called them losers...PMSL, I'm getting an image of Baldrick going 'I have a cunning plan my Lord, we'll call them losers and they'll be so upset by the word they'll never bomb anyone'


I disagree. It creates the illusion that he is doing something different against Islamic terrorism. This was a play to his base, not a serious plan against terrorism recruitment. The guy is stuck in campaign mode.


----------



## MickDX

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Completely missed the point of the article. :lol
> 
> The people already in ISIS probably aren't going to have their resolve weakened for being branded as losers, but who is going to want to join the group with the "loser" brand, which is designed to be reinforced with every ISIS defeat (it's called pre-suasion)? ISIS depends on recruiting new people for obvious reasons. If they can't do that as effectively, they aren't going to be around much longer.
> 
> It sounds overly simple, but so was calling Jeb low energy, "Lyin' Ted", and "Crooked Hillary".
> 
> Will it work with ISIS? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly hope it does.


Joining ISIS is not like joining a political party or a golf club. People who join by their free will are also willing to give their life and to do horrible things in order to help their cause. If he would have called Hillary's supporters "losers" during the campaign, I agree that this move would have some impact. Trump is persuasive no doubt about it, this is one of his strengths but there is a long way to "most powerful Master Persuader" and for the entire article you can see Adams is a fanboy.

I don't know about other people, but for me personally when someone is calling me loser or that i'm about to join a group of "losers", it would rather motivate me than breaking me down.

I would be happy too if this would really work but I believe Trump should focus on real priorities like letting them without money.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The sample size that has been posted on this forum is a big enough sample since in those he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the blog posts on this forum.
> 
> Again take how he thinks Trump will end ISIS by calling them losers because he thinks it will make it harder for them to recruit. How can you take that seriously?


No, it isn't. You have no context. You just read a few blogs without context and you have no idea what Scott Adams' background is and why what he's saying should be taken into consideration. The reason why it should be taken seriously is for the simple reason that branding the opposition with a name has worked in the past. It worked against Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton. The problem is you think what he's saying is that by calling them losers current ISIS members are gonna drop their weapons and leave ISIS, but that's not what's being said. He's saying nobody wants to join a group that's losing. So, it's about attacking recruitment, not current ISIS members. The loser tag has hurt recruitment before, in other avenues, and it can again. But it doesn't help when there are people out there who refuse to get behind such an idea because Trump's doing it.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am sick and fucking tired of these stupid fucking Hillbots whining about how much better it would be were Hillary elected. Just shut the fuck up already. Whining about Russia and Bernie Bros and sexism and James Comey and what the fuck else ever as reasons why she lost does not address the fact that under Obama, Democrats have been wiped out nationally. Is it Bernie Sanders' fault that Democrats lost both houses of Congress before the last election? Is it the fault of sexism that they lost a majority of governorships? Is it Russia's fault that they lost nearly a thousand state seats nationally before the most recent election even took place?

When they say that James Comey is the reason Trump got elected, I tell them they are right. Yessir. James Comey got Trump elected because he didn't push for an indictment of that fucking criminal Hillary when he had the chance. That bitch should be locked up in a federal penitentiary right next to Bush, Cheney and Obama because they are all war criminals.

Let's just play this out for all the retarded Hillbots though... let's say Hillary got an extra hundred thousand votes and squeaked out a win... Republicans would still be in control of literally everything else in the USA. Any change we would have gotten would have been even more right wing drifting retardation. She would have been a one term president and the next president to come along would have been an even more right wing retarded psycho and he wouldn't have been a complete fucking moron like Trump. Are you Hillbots really so fucking stupid that you would rather have Mike _I think the planet is 6000 years old and evolution is a hoax creationist retard_ Pence as president? Goddamn.

Ya know, I thought the ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) that right wingers had was bad during the last presidency but holy fucking fuckballs, TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is taking it to a whole new level.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I am sick and fucking tired of these stupid fucking Hillbots whining about how much better it would be were Hillary elected. Just shut the fuck up already. Whining about Russia and Bernie Bros and sexism and James Comey and what the fuck else ever as reasons why she lost does not address the fact that under Obama, Democrats have been wiped out nationally. Is it Bernie Sanders' fault that Democrats lost both houses of Congress before the last election? Is it the fault of sexism that they lost a majority of governorships? Is it Russia's fault that they lost nearly a thousand state seats nationally before the most recent election even took place?
> 
> When they say that James Comey is the reason Trump got elected, I tell them they are right. Yessir. James Comey got Trump elected because he didn't push for an indictment of that fucking criminal Hillary when he had the chance. That bitch should be locked up in a federal penitentiary right next to Bush, Cheney and Obama because they are all war criminals.
> 
> Let's just play this out for all the retarded Hillbots though... let's say Hillary got an extra hundred thousand votes and squeaked out a win... Republicans would still be in control of literally everything else in the USA. Any change we would have gotten would have been even more right wing drifting retardation. She would have been a one term president and the next president to come along would have been an even more right wing retarded psycho and he wouldn't have been a complete fucking moron like Trump. Are you Hillbots really so fucking stupid that you would rather have Mike _I think the planet is 6000 years old and evolution is a hoax creationist retard_ Pence as president? Goddamn.
> 
> Ya know, I thought the ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) that right wingers had was bad during the last presidency but holy fucking fuckballs, TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is taking it to a whole new level.


The only difference between a Hillary and Trump presidency at this point would be that Hillary would have nominated a far left justice and we'd still be going through that because there's no way a Republican Senate would approve of her choice. Everything else would remain as it is today, with just less vitriol, because the majority of Republican voters don't complain or cry that they didn't get their way.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> The only difference between a Hillary and Trump presidency at this point would be that *Hillary would have nominated a far left justice* and we'd still be going through that because there's no way a Republican Senate would approve of her choice. Everything else would remain as it is today, with just less vitriol, because the majority of Republican voters don't complain or cry that they didn't get their way.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:ha

You can't seriously believe something that fucking stupid, can you? Hillary would have nominated a far left justice?!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :ha
> 
> You can't seriously believe something that fucking stupid, can you? Hillary would have nominated a far left justice?!
> 
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!


At this point man I think this country has to crash and burn in ways it never has before. I mean to the point where no one wants to live here and no one was to do business here.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So what we're saying is Trump is following Obama's lead by calling the terrorists jayvee/losers or whatever? K.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> No, it isn't. You have no context. You just read a few blogs without context and you have no idea what Scott Adams' background is and why what he's saying should be taken into consideration. The reason why it should be taken seriously is for the simple reason that branding the opposition with a name has worked in the past. It worked against Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton. The problem is you think what he's saying is that by calling them losers current ISIS members are gonna drop their weapons and leave ISIS, but that's not what's being said. He's saying nobody wants to join a group that's losing. So, it's about attacking recruitment, not current ISIS members. The loser tag has hurt recruitment before, in other avenues, and it can again. But it doesn't help when there are people out there who refuse to get behind such an idea because Trump's doing it.


Yes I have context, since its Adams fans posting what they think are some of his best work and they are pretty bad. I can take what he is saying at face value since the stuff of his posted on here shows how clueless he is. 

And no branding the opposition with a name hasn't worked in the past, if you really think the reason why Jeb and Cruz lost are best of Trumps stupid names then you are even more clueless than Adams. And lets not forget that Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million votes. Trump calling her crooked Hillary is not why she lost. 

And like another posted said, Trump supporters were called deplorables did it work on them?

If you really think Trump calling ISIS losers will have any effect on recruiter then you are even less informed than I realized. If anything it will just piss off ISIS more and cause more people to join.




TheNightmanCometh said:


> The only difference between a Hillary and Trump presidency at this point would be that Hillary would have nominated a far left justice and we'd still be going through that because there's no way a Republican Senate would approve of her choice. Everything else would remain as it is today, with just less vitriol, because the majority of Republican voters don't complain or cry that they didn't get their way.


First off like Tater said she never would have nominated a far right justice it would have been someone like who Obama nominated that is more center.

Also there would be a ton of things different right now if Hillary was president. You would not have morons like DeVos as Secretary of Education or Carson as the head of HUD ruining those programs. You would not have someone like Pruitt as the head of the EPA fucking it up and denying climate change is real and ruining the environment. You wouldn't have the US pulling out of the Paris agreement like Trump is planning nor would she be ruining our realtions with NATO. She wouldn't be trying to make healthcare in the US even worse like Trump is doing. 

Oh yeah but things wouldn't be different under Hillary right?


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> At this point man I think this country has to crash and burn in ways it never has before. I mean to the point where no one wants to live here and no one was to do business here.


I concur with this sentiment. The USA is reliving the 1920s. We are so royally fucked and so few people seem to grasp the concept that nothing short of a complete and total collapse is ever going to change anything for the better.



samizayn said:


> So what we're saying is Trump is following Obama's lead by calling the terrorists jayvee/losers or whatever? K.


The more things change, the more they stay the same. Trump is the massive fucking retard to Obama's pretend like everything is okay. The agenda of the deep state has not changed one iota between administrations.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

To follow up what I said before there can't be one glimmer of hope in this country for people to learn what happens when you don't take your civic responsibilities seriously. Let Trump & GOP run out of control at this point. Let people actually think that blowing their brains out is a better choice then living another day in this country.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> To follow up what I said before there can't be one glimmer of hope in this country for people to learn what happens when you don't take your civic responsibilities seriously. Let Trump & GOP run out of control at this point. Let people actually think that blowing their brains out is a better choice then living another day in this country.


I really hate to say it but I think you're right about this. People are so fucking stupid that they choose ideology over empirical fact. They'll ride that crashing car down over the cliff before they'll admit that maybe just maybe they made a mistake when they drove towards the cliff in the first place.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :ha
> 
> You can't seriously believe something that fucking stupid, can you? Hillary would have nominated a far left justice?!
> 
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!


I'm sorry, ya, she would have nominated a far right justice. How silly of me. :maisielol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes I have context, since its Adams fans posting what they think are some of his best work and they are pretty bad. I can take what he is saying at face value since the stuff of his posted on here shows how clueless he is.
> 
> And no branding the opposition with a name hasn't worked in the past, if you really think the reason why Jeb and Cruz lost are best of Trumps stupid names then you are even more clueless than Adams. And lets not forget that Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million votes. Trump calling her crooked Hillary is not why she lost.
> 
> And like another posted said, Trump supporters were called deplorables did it work on them?
> 
> If you really think Trump calling ISIS losers will have any effect on recruiter then you are even less informed than I realized. If anything it will just piss off ISIS more and cause more people to join.


You have no idea what he stands for and why he posts what he posts. All you do is read what some here copy and paste and you draw a conclusion based on limited information. I know as well as you do that his stuff is linked sparingly.

Hey, BM, you call me, or anyone around here, stupid one more time we're gonna have a chat with the mods. I'm tired of your shtick of "if you don't agree just call them stupid". Learn to debate with at least a modicum of class.

And if you think it won't have an effect then you're less informed than I realized. 




> First off like Tater said she never would have nominated a far right justice it would have been someone like who Obama nominated that is more center.
> 
> Also there would be a ton of things different right now if Hillary was president. You would not have morons like DeVos as Secretary of Education or Carson as the head of HUD ruining those programs. You would not have someone like Pruitt as the head of the EPA fucking it up and denying climate change is real and ruining the environment. You wouldn't have the US pulling out of the Paris agreement like Trump is planning nor would she be ruining our realtions with NATO. She wouldn't be trying to make healthcare in the US even worse like Trump is doing.
> 
> Oh yeah but things wouldn't be different under Hillary right?


I know she wouldn't have nominated a far right justice, she would have nominated a far LEFT justice. A justice who pays no attention to the Constitution and Bill of Rights when making decisions. And I think it was plainly obvious what I meant by it being the same I was referring to policy being brought forward and passed. Trump has had zero policy successes so far, and if Hillary was President she would also have zero policy successes so far.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You have no idea what he stands for and why he posts what he posts. All you do is read what some here copy and paste and you draw a conclusion based on limited information. I know as well as you do that his stuff is linked sparingly.
> 
> Hey, BM, you call me, or anyone around here, stupid one more time we're gonna have a chat with the mods. I'm tired of your shtick of "if you don't agree just call them stupid". Learn to debate with at least a modicum of class.
> 
> And if you think it won't have an effect then you're less informed than I realized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know she wouldn't have nominated a far right justice, she would have nominated a far LEFT justice. A justice who pays no attention to the Constitution and Bill of Rights when making decisions. And I think it was plainly obvious what I meant by it being the same I was referring to policy being brought forward and passed. Trump has had zero policy successes so far, and if Hillary was President she would also have zero policy successes so far.


Where did I call any poster stupid? Quote me on that.

Also I think its funny you guys all cricle jerk when Trump labels people yet when someone on this forum does it you get all pissy.

Does labeling you have any negative effect you on? Does it make you follow your cause or change your opinion to go against what you believe?

I am going to be it doesn't just like Trump labeling ISIS losers won't do anything either.

I meant far left Justice not right. Hillary would never have nominated a far left Justice. You can't be serious.

You keep proving you dont know what you are talking about. Obama did not even nominate a far left justice.

And I will keep calling people that are uninformed uninformed all I want. Reaper does that all the time when it comes to certain things and no one has an issue with it.

The hypocrisy on this board amuses me more and more every day.

As for policies successes, Trump is undoing what Obama did so in his eyes those are successes with Hillary those things would have stayed in place.


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm sorry, ya, she would have nominated a far right justice. How silly of me. :maisielol


I know this is a difficult concept for one of your IQ level but there is a helluva lot of gray area between far left and far right. Hillary, being the neoliberal corporate war monger that she is, would have nominated a center-right corporatist like Garland, just the same as Obama did.

Hey, it ain't my damn fault you have no idea what the fuck actually constitutes left and right. Sounds like a personal problem to me. You might want to work on that.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Where did I call any poster stupid? Quote me on that.
> 
> Also I think its funny you guys all cricle jerk when Trump labels people yet when someone on this forum does it you get all pissy.
> 
> Does labeling you have any negative effect you on? Does it make you follow your cause or change your opinion to go against what you believe?
> 
> I am going to be it doesn't just like Trump labeling ISIS losers won't do anything either.
> 
> I meant far left Justice not right. Hillary would never have nominated a far left Justice. You can't be serious.
> 
> You keep proving you dont know what you are talking about. Obama did not even nominate a far left justice.
> 
> And I will keep calling people that are uninformed uninformed all I want. Reaper does that all the time when it comes to certain things and no one has an issue with it.
> 
> The hypocrisy on this board amuses me more and more every day.
> 
> As for policies successes, Trump is undoing what Obama did so in his eyes those are successes with Hillary those things would have stayed in place.


I take back what I said about calling me stupid, you said, "stupid names" and I read it wrong.

There you go again lumping me in with "you guys" who support Trump. I only support Trump in so far as I want him to be successful, just as I'd want any President to be successful.

Does labeling me have an effect on me? That's not the question. The question is, will it prevent people from going to their sites and learning their ideology before they have a chance to be indoctrinated? I would say, by and large, that it could have an effect. People don't want to be on the side of the losers, so if calling ISIS losers means even one Muslim child doesn't go looking for ISIS propaganda then Trump's labeling has been a success.

If you notice, I didn't comment about you calling me uninformed. I think you're uninformed regularly and I tell you so all the time.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Tater said:


> I know this is a difficult concept for one of your IQ level but there is a helluva lot of gray area between far left and far right. Hillary, being the neoliberal corporate war monger that she is, would have nominated a center-right corporatist like Garland, just the same as Obama did.
> 
> Hey, it ain't my damn fault you have no idea what the fuck actually constitutes left and right. Sounds like a personal problem to me. You might want to work on that.


Okay, you win, but you win without class. Take a bow, you classless jerk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I take back what I said about calling me stupid, you said, "stupid names" and I read it wrong.


fair enough



TheNightmanCometh said:


> There you go again lumping me in with "you guys" who support Trump. I only support Trump in so far as I want him to be successful, just as I'd want any President to be successful.
> 
> Does labeling me have an effect on me? That's not the question. The question is, will it prevent people from going to their sites and learning their ideology before they have a chance to be indoctrinated? I would say, by and large, that it could have an effect. People don't want to be on the side of the losers, so if calling ISIS losers means even one Muslim child doesn't go looking for ISIS propaganda then Trump's labeling has been a success.
> 
> If you notice, I didn't comment about you calling me uninformed. I think you're uninformed regularly and I tell you so all the time.


But do you support Trump on a lot of things.

You dont seem to understand why people join ISIS, and them being called losers is not going to stop anyone from joining. If anything it will just piss them off more and cause more to join.

Also you really think some Muslim kid in a middle eastern city cares what Trump has to say?

You are so uninformed you keep proving it with this whole Hillary would nominate a far left SCOTUS.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> fair enough
> 
> 
> 
> But do you support Trump on a lot of things.
> 
> You dont seem to understand why people join ISIS, and them being called losers is not going to stop anyone from joining. If anything it will just piss them off more and cause more to join.
> 
> Also you really think some Muslim kid in a middle eastern city cares what Trump has to say?
> 
> You are so uninformed you keep proving it with this whole Hillary would nominate a far left SCOTUS.


I support Trump in so much as I want the President to succeed. If Trump does things that I think are good then and I say something positive about it that doesn't make me a Trump supporter. I'm a President supporter.

I understand why people join ISIS, more than you'll ever know. I know that when you have a kid living here in the states, in order for them they have to want to go to the sites where indoctrination is present. If all that child sees all over the news is how they're losers and they're losing the battle, that child is going to be less likely to go to those sites, for the simple reason of why get involved on the side that's destined to lose. I'm not sitting here saying it's gonna solve all our problems and I would appreciate it if you didn't proscribe that belief to me for the remainder of this discussion. I'm saying even if it helps a little then it'll be worth it. 

Do I think a kid in a middle eastern city cares? Not particularly, but I do believe that a Muslim kid in an american city might care.

Keep grabbing at that straw, BM. I make one off-hand comment, and you think that's enough to discredit everything I say? That just shows me you've given little thought to anything I've said since I started posting here. Why should I continue to debate with someone who's willing to do that?


----------



## xio8ups

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is making america great again


----------



## Tater

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Okay, you win, but you win without class. Take a bow, you classless jerk.


Awww.... pwecious wittle snowflake got his feewings hurt.










:ha

The tears of unfathomable sadness. Yummy.


----------



## samizayn

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You cannot malign a group while also expecting to sway its opinion. If Trump has already made that Muslim teen know what he thinks of him, his only two options are being a loser or being a loser. Any possible semblance of power Trump held in that regard was forfeited when he made clear he's not entirely sure they should be allowed in the country at all. This """plan""" might have worked otherwise but as it is now, there's no benefit or drawback to being on either side for them.


----------



## Draykorinee

You can't threaten to run to mods because someone called you stupid and have any credibility left surely?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

There will be no running, thank you very much. :trump3

Keep the personal insults and/or stealth insults to an absolute minimum, guys. I'm okay with a Wild West atmosphere in here from time to time (as Trump himself would have it







), but don't let it derail the thread. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So this Obama thing with the admin spying on well.. everyone and everything including Trump isn't going to get much traction?

Hear about Russia all the time but stuff being uncovered about Obama's admin spying which actually seems to have validity is kind of ignored. Maybe there should be a big investigation on this while chasing Russian ghosts.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869418165083803648
:quimby


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Say what you will about Scott Adams, but he makes sense.


_*Interesting article...it kind of makes a little since in this..the only thing I will agree about leaders. Thank you for posting this article. It was a good read and so far Trump has been doing a lot of talking but at the same time has been doing actions. To me I want a leader with both words but with the actions to back him up. I'll return for another article.. *_


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

After months of abuse, President Trump (or whoever runs his Twitter account) is finally blocking trolls. They are on suicide watch now, :lol

Normally, I would be against this, BUT since Twitter has been proven to be liberal biased, I'm okay with it.

Here's a troll block list so you can enjoy Twitter better.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

At least one Euro leech (Germany) decided to "go on their own". 

Here's hoping others follow suit.

Huge win for Trump.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868644363743576064
:hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> After months of abuse, President Trump (or whoever runs his Twitter account) is finally blocking trolls. They are on suicide watch now, :lol
> 
> Normally, I would be against this, BUT since Twitter has been proven to be liberal biased, I'm okay with it.
> 
> - Vic


Guess Trump needs his safe space.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> At least one Euro leech (Germany) decided to "go on their own".
> 
> Here's hoping others follow suit.
> 
> Huge win for Trump.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868644363743576064
> :hmmm


There's a reason why this story isn't huge news right now. 

Media must be besides themselves angry he's not a Trump supporter but isn't he a Bernie Bro?

Also haven't heard much of the guy who killed like 8 people over the weekend. Maybe didn't fit the story the media wanted to put out.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> There's a reason why this story isn't huge news right now.
> 
> Media must be besides themselves angry he's not a Trump supporter but isn't he a Bernie Bro?
> 
> Also haven't heard much of the guy who killed like 8 people over the weekend. Maybe didn't fit the story the media wanted to put out.


Yahoo is the only one I saw has that story on its front page. They don't know anything about the criminal.

Meanwhile no one (but local news) is reporting on the Chicago violence. 44 shot this year compared to 67 last year. ISIS starting to take over the philippines is buried. The massacre of the coptic christians is buried. The Afghanistan bombings are buried. The Baghdad bombings are buried. 

It's just russia russia russia and nothingburger after nothingburger - the democrats' opium.


----------



## Draykorinee

Safe spaces on Twitter is now a thing for republicans.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least one Euro leech (Germany) decided to "go on their own".
> 
> Here's hoping others follow suit.
> 
> Huge win for Trump.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868644363743576064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason why this story isn't huge news right now.
> 
> Media must be besides themselves angry he's not a Trump supporter but isn't he a Bernie Bro?
> 
> Also haven't heard much of the guy who killed like 8 people over the weekend. Maybe didn't fit the story the media wanted to put out.
Click to expand...

If I read that tweet right she didn't say HE was a trump supporter only mentioned trumps America, so the person replying to her is talking nonsense.
Either way, check the guys Facebook out, why is this guy not on a terror watch list or something, he is clearly a deranged psycho.

Either way


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> If I read that tweet right she didn't say HE was a trump supporter only mentioned trumps America, so the person replying to her is talking nonsense.
> Either way, check the guys Facebook out, why is this guy not on a terror watch list or something, he is clearly a deranged psycho.
> 
> Either way


"In Trump's America" is as clear an implication as you can possibly make without actually saying it. 

Classic political speak but we all know what she's really saying here. I believe that if you're smart enough to realize that she hasn't actually said trump supporter, you're also smart enough to realize the other implication as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## virus21

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> A shocking new photo has emerged of comedian Kathy Griffin posing with a bloody, severed head—one resembling President Donald Trump.
> 
> The leaked image was taken by provocative photographer Tyler Shields.
> 
> TMZ broke the news: “During the photo shoot, Kathy joked that she and Tyler would need to move to Mexico once the pics got released, for fear they’d be thrown in prison.”
> 
> What do you think? Did Griffin go too far? Leave a comment below.


http://breaking911.com/kathy-griffin-beheads-president-trump-shocking-new-photos/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://breaking911.com/kathy-griffin-beheads-president-trump-shocking-new-photos/


she is a no talent hack just looking for attention on this.

Why even give it to her.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

She even managed to alienate a lot of her fellow liberals. I hope she gets a visit from the Secret Service. 

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> She even managed to alienate a lot of her fellow liberals. I hope she gets a visit from the Secret Service.
> 
> - Vic


Would you have a problem if a Trump or a supporter of his did this or do they play under a different set of rules?


----------



## El Dandy

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

^^^
I know you weren't asking me, but didn't care when ******** did this stuff to Obama and I don't care that she's pulling this stunt. I'll leave outrage culture to the facebook and twitter crowd. 

That being said, amazes me how retarded people can be. Do they not realize threatening the president is a felony?

Isn't she also technically under CNN employ? ayy lmao


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's tasteless. But meh. 

The fact that the right is outraged by this and is making it so popular is exactly one of the objectives of this. They're playing right into her hands. 

Personally, I don't care. It's just a typically shitty and self-serving, narcissistic, leftist "art" piece from another typically unfunny and vulgar female that makes up the majority of the #resist movement.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I always hated when dumbasses sprout "He/She should have died in BLANK" or wish death upon politicians

You have no idea why people make the choices they do and, at least from what I have seen, very few people wake up in the morning and wonder "What kind of evil can I do"

Even the worst aspects of people tend to come from ignorance, self pain, or some kind of chemical imbalance

Its childish to assume that if everyone you disapprove of would die or be removed than the world would be utopia, there are very few cases where the world would be better off with one few person


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> After months of abuse, President Trump (or whoever runs his Twitter account) is finally blocking trolls. They are on suicide watch now, :lol
> 
> Normally, I would be against this, BUT since Twitter has been proven to be liberal biased, I'm okay with it.
> 
> Here's a troll block list so you can enjoy Twitter better.
> 
> - Vic


So Trump has now proven be the snowflake.


----------



## Stephen90

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://breaking911.com/kathy-griffin-beheads-president-trump-shocking-new-photos/


She's a fucking idiot anyway along with her dumbass pal Bill Maher.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> there are very few cases where the world would be better off with one few person


Such as if John McCain had died in Vietnam.


----------



## M_J

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> She even managed to alienate a lot of her fellow liberals. *I hope she gets a visit from the Secret Service.*
> 
> - Vic


Since Ted Nugent never got one for threatening to kill Hillary or Obama no.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

All of them should get or should have gotten a visit from the Secret Service.

A little judicious use of the threat of the overwhelming force of the State (or use of the overwhelming force of the State) would have a beneficial effect on all these violence fantasizing or outright violent assholes. Nothing like pissing their pants when they realize oh shit this shit really is real and I'm going to be very unhappy if it gets any more real to get people to stop their bullshit. 

But to get back to what is really important, MUH RUSSIA.

What with Washington currently having more leaks than a hundred year old scow that hasn't had any maintenance since 1947, it's rather weird that there has not been a single leak of actual evidence of coordination or collusion between the :trump campaign and Joe Russia.

Very rather weird. It's almost like the evidence doesn't exist so it can't be leaked or something :hmmm


----------



## amhlilhaus

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Such as if John McCain had died in Vietnam.


Brutal


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> All of them should get or should have gotten a visit from the Secret Service.
> 
> A little judicious use of the threat of the overwhelming force of the State (or use of the overwhelming force of the State) would have a beneficial effect on all these violence fantasizing or outright violent assholes. Nothing like pissing their pants when they realize oh shit this shit really is real and I'm going to be very unhappy if it gets any more real to get people to stop their bullshit.
> 
> But to get back to what is really important, MUH RUSSIA.
> 
> What with Washington currently having more leaks than a hundred year old scow that hasn't had any maintenance since 1947, it's rather weird that there has not been a single leak of actual evidence of coordination or collusion between the :trump campaign and Joe Russia.
> 
> Very rather weird. It's almost like the evidence doesn't exist so it can't be leaked or something :hmmm


Loads of leaks nothing on Russia. Yet things about Obama Admin spying are coming out, remember when people called Trump crazy for saying Obama spied on him? Then the unmasking came out, now more leaks on actual spying on nearly everyone. Yet media play on it is low.

The guy who killed two people hasn't been getting as much play either because he wasn't a Trump supporter. Now if he was, it would be getting all kinds of air time. What also makes me laugh is the whole "MUH WHITE SUPREMACY" about it, yet if I recall correctly the two men that died were white and the third injured was white, who protected a Muslim woman.. yeah don't think they'll point that out because "WHITES MALEZ IZ EVIL".

I'd not have an issue with the media roasting Trump if they at least held back some of their bias but they don't on anything.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That photo is the face of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Might be time to set up a hotline and a charity fund to help those affected.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Such as if John McCain had died in Vietnam.


He was tortured, beaten and left to die with multiple broken limbs in a prison camp and refused medical treatment

He was thrown in solitary for 2 years and tortured until he signed a propaganda paper and after he did he felt dishonored so he refused to sign more and then tortured more 

He still can't raise his arms above his head due to the damage

you are a child speaking ill of an adult for not supporting your views


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869766994899468288


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Loads of leaks nothing on Russia. Yet things about Obama Admin spying are coming out, remember when people called Trump crazy for saying Obama spied on him? Then the unmasking came out, now more leaks on actual spying on nearly everyone. Yet media play on it is low.
> 
> The guy who killed two people hasn't been getting as much play either because he wasn't a Trump supporter. Now if he was, it would be getting all kinds of air time. What also makes me laugh is the whole "MUH WHITE SUPREMACY" about it, yet if I recall correctly the two men that died were white and the third injured was white, who protected a Muslim woman.. yeah don't think they'll point that out because "WHITES MALEZ IZ EVIL".
> 
> I'd not have an issue with the media roasting Trump if they at least held back some of their bias but they don't on anything.


Look on the brightside, at least the leaks themselves aren't yet liberal biased unlike the MSM, Social Media, Hollywood, and whatever cyborg Kathy Griffin is. They're all against that leftist Obama yet the alt-right is getting a free pass.


----------



## Reaper

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:move

#covfefe


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Covfefe is masterful persuasion holy shit. :banderas


stevefox1200 said:


> you are a child speaking ill of an adult for not supporting your views


Considering the views in question are in regard to starting frivolous wars that will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, I'm fine with it. Enduring torture doesn't absolve someone of being a horrible person.

Scott Adams actually did a periscope about covfefe. :lmao The absolute madman. https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1RDxlZRzkngGL?t=3


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The darkest timeline is about to nuke Russia.

In this timeline we get full covfefe.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869766994899468288


Did he have a stroke?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump the greatest inventor of words for the English language since some guy named Bill Shakespeare


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

My favorite part of Trump typos is the people who try to draw deeper meaning from it. :lol "WHAT DOES THIS TWITTER TYPO SAY ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO RUN THE COUNTRY? WILL WORLD WAR 3 BE CAUSED BY A TYPO?! SCARY. DARK. UNHINGED."


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Space computer-wizard Barron :trump hacked the nuclear football and changed the password to covfefe

The NSA's best hackers couldn't crack Barron's code 

:trump just so proud of his little boy


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Like the news of the fall of Rome or the Battle of Hastings or "The Shot Heard Round the World" people will remember the moment they heard the God-Emperor had a debilitating stroke while in mid-tweet, became possessed by the spirit of President James K. Polk and planned the invasion of Mexico, otherwise known as "Operation #covfefe ."

Trump's emergency address to Congress will simply be a ten-minute _narcocorrido_ in which the end of every line is either "_jefe_" or "_covfefe_."


----------



## Cooper09

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> My favorite part of Trump typos is the people who try to draw deeper meaning from it. :lol "WHAT DOES THIS TWITTER TYPO SAY ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO RUN THE COUNTRY? WILL WORLD WAR 3 BE CAUSED BY A TYPO?! SCARY. DARK. UNHINGED."


WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Brace yourselves,covfefe is finally coming. :trump 

Kudos for trump for actually doing something good. The tweets from this were gold.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Liberals focus on the important issues at hand like handshakes, typos, and ice cream scoops.



> So Trump has now proven be the snowflake.


Nah, he just doesn't have time for fuckboys who have nothing better to do with their lives, but bitch and moan about him on social media every day.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Covfefe has given me some great laughs, I knew this president would entertain.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> My favorite part of Trump typos is the people who try to draw deeper meaning from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "WHAT DOES THIS TWITTER TYPO SAY ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO RUN THE COUNTRY? WILL WORLD WAR 3 BE CAUSED BY A TYPO?! SCARY. DARK. UNHINGED."


Cofveve is actually a Russian codeword, its proof he's in collusion with the Russians.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

























































































:trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> My favorite part of Trump typos is the people who try to draw deeper meaning from it. :lol "WHAT DOES THIS TWITTER TYPO SAY ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO RUN THE COUNTRY? WILL WORLD WAR 3 BE CAUSED BY A TYPO?! SCARY. DARK. UNHINGED."





> Covfefe is masterful persuasion holy shit. :banderas


Erm......


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Are we really calling Trump a mastermind of persuasion because he tweeted some made up word? Any president could have done that and people could have gone "WTF?"

Come on now...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Liberals focus on the important issues at hand like handshakes, typos, and ice cream scoops.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, he just doesn't have time for fuckboys who have nothing better to do with their lives, but bitch and moan about him on social media every day.
> 
> - Vic


Yet Trump is the one who is bitching and moaning on social media every day LOL


This is why Trump supporters can't be taken seriously for posts like this.

You guys can't even see the hypocrisy of when you post tings like this. No one bitches moans and cries more on Twitter than Trump.


He is the biggest snowflake of them all.



Dr. Middy said:


> Are we really calling Trump a mastermind of persuasion because he tweeted some made up word? Any president could have done that and people could have gone "WTF?"
> 
> Come on now...


Trump is only a mastermind of persuasion for his unintelligent and uninformed supporters. Its easy to persuade them because they are dumb.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yet Trump is the one who is bitching and moaning on social media every day LOL
> 
> 
> This is why Trump supporters can't be taken seriously for posts like this.
> 
> You guys can't even see the hypocrisy of when you post tings like this. No one bitches moans and cries more on Twitter than Trump.
> 
> 
> He is the biggest snowflake of them all.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is only a mastermind of persuasion for his unintelligent and uninformed supporters. Its easy to persuade them because they are dumb.


Says the 'smart' poster whos sure of trump colluding with russia, yet is strangely silent about the fact that

No leaks have come out tying trump to it. You seriously believe a made up story, that for EVERYTHING theyre leaking, that they wouldnt leak trumps smoking gun.

Seriously, those guys would leak trumps dick size (and pics) if it would embarrass trump, yet theyre keeping info that would force him from office? Fuck outta here


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Says the 'smart' poster whos sure of trump colluding with russia, yet is strangely silent about the fact that
> 
> No leaks have come out tying trump to it. You seriously believe a made up story, that for EVERYTHING theyre leaking, that they wouldnt leak trumps smoking gun.
> 
> Seriously, those guys would leak trumps dick size (and pics) if it would embarrass trump, yet theyre keeping info that would force him from office? Fuck outta here


Trump and his admin have tons of ties to Russia but keep ignoring the facts

Kushner had a back channel with Russia FFS.

And lets not forget about the random Trump server in the middle of no where pinging that Russia bank over and over again, the same server that was also pinging Betsys Devos's husband.

Also how Trump knew about Flynns Russia connections yet still hired him etc etc etc


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*











Damn good covfefe.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ok. "Cov" I can get. But how do you get "fefe" when trying to type "erage"? 

:hmmm

This is going to be _the_ great philosophical and scientific dilemma of our generation.

I picture him angrily tweeting and one of his aides trying to take his phone away from him and it turned into this mess in the ensuing struggle.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Ok. "Cov" I can get. But how do you get "fefe" when trying to type "erage"?
> 
> :hmmm


Someone probably grabbed the phone from him mid tweet, he did not even fish his thought


----------



## TKOK

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Someone probably grabbed the phone from him mid tweet, he did not even fish his thought


Or his batteries ran out?


----------



## Goku

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


:jetgood


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869897666741755905
Is it pronounced "Fef", "Feef", "Fe Fe" or "FeeFee"?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is covfefe the greatest shitpost of the century so far?

SIGNS POINT TO YES


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Erm......


pls stop being the worst person on the internet

some of us just wanna have a good time here


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869858333477523458
This president. :done This _timeline_.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> pls stop being the worst person on the internet
> 
> some of us just wanna have a good time here
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869858333477523458
> This president. :done This _timeline_.


Your powers of persuasion need improving. You need to be able to ignore facts like your president to be better at it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Maybe Trump shouldn't stop using twitter :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Is it just me, or is this site #covfefe 'd?

The cbox, likes and quick reply aren't working.


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Is it just me, or is this site #covfefe 'd?
> 
> The cbox, likes and quick reply aren't working.


Same here. I thought initially that it's my browser.



Stinger Fan said:


> Maybe Trump shouldn't stop using twitter :lol


Who said he should stop using twitter? This is actually a good idea, communicating directly with the people, although I think he is a bit obsessed with it.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

covfefe is French for "lel we're pulling out of the Paris Agreement."

:trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> covfefe is French for "lel we're pulling out of the Paris Agreement."
> 
> :trump


You can say that the Paris Accord got covfefe'd.

:move


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Who said he should stop using twitter? This is actually a good idea, communicating directly with the people, although I think he is a bit obsessed with it.


Well many people have been saying he should stop using it all together while others have said he should use it less and not complain about people who don't like him lol. Which is a valid argument. Personally, I think he should keep it strictly to politics and announcements of things etc , not how much SNL sucks lol . He keeps falling for their traps basically


----------



## Administrator

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Testing...

#covfefe 

Jeff M


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



OG Jeff said:


> Testing...
> 
> #covfefe
> 
> Jeff M


^Why don't you fix the site instead of posting memes :armfold


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*If New Day doesn't come out with a Covfefe Kingston shirt I'll be highly disappointed.*


----------



## Administrator

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> ^Why don't you fix the site instead of posting memes :armfold


Testing posting attachements, working on it.

Jeff M


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


This is when I love Twitter.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No worries. I'm just yankin' your chain. 

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869920118578585600


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*You're Covfefe the Strong aren't you @MrMister *


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I guess everyone is happy Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement joining Serra and Nicaragua as the only countries not involved.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


> *You're Covfefe the Strong aren't you @MrMister *


If only I was such a valiant warrior! 

Someone should make Covfefe the Strong and Wizard Covfefe into smilies IMO.

@AryaDark wait you're batting 1.000 when tagging me so you're the Wizard Covfefe aren't you. Confirmed.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I guess everyone is happy Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement joining Serra and Nicaragua as the only countries not involved.


a campaign promise kept!

:trump2


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> a campaign promise kept!
> 
> :trump2


I forgot it everything about that was a lie getting in the way of making money. Maybe that's my problem I don't view money as the end all be all of life.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> No worries. I'm just yankin' your chain.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869920118578585600


That's fucking weird since Stein is basically a hippie.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> That's fucking weird since Stein is basically a hippie.


The point isn't to throw shade on Stein or Bernie.

The dude was just fucking crazy and sometimes that's the only rational explanation.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's sad that the only 3 countries in the world that arent completely retarded are Sierra leone, Nicaragua and the United states


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The point isn't to throw shade on Stein or Bernie.
> 
> The dude was just fucking crazy and sometimes that's the only rational explanation.


Oh I understand


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's sad that the only 3 countries in the world that arent completely retarded are Sierra leone, Nicaragua and the United states


It's funny how people call Trump a populist but then whine when he goes against an actual populist policy. 

Also reminds me of childhood when parents used the cliff analogy to warn us against the dangers of peer pressure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's funny how people call Trump a populist but then whine when he goes against an actual populist policy.
> 
> Also reminds me of childhood when parents used the cliff analogy to warn us against the dangers of peer pressure.


Trump is far from populist, he just likes to pretend he is. All Trump cares about is himself and his rich friends, he couldn't give two shits about everyday people.

He just pretended he was to get elected.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is far from populist, he just likes to pretend he is. All Trump cares about is himself and his rich friends, he couldn't give two shits about everyday people.
> 
> He just pretended he was to get elected.


And Bernie truly cared about everyone :lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is far from populist, he just likes to pretend he is. All Trump cares about is himself and his rich friends, he couldn't give two shits about everyday people.
> 
> He just pretended he was to get elected.


I think you should just let Trump have full 100% authoritarian control and when he ruins the country for years to come maybe people will learn. We might have to suffer maybe even lose our lives but the United States HAS TO become the worse place to live in the western world before things can get better.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I think you should just let Trump have full 100% authoritarian control and when he ruins the country for years to come maybe people will learn. We might have to suffer maybe even lose our lives but the United States HAS TO become the worse place to live in the western world before things can get better.


Haven't you been listening to Leftists? It already is the worst place in the world


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Haven't you been listening to Leftists? It already is the worst place in the world


Trump is the one who said make America great AGAIN which means to Trump its not great.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Haven't you been listening to Leftists? It already is the worst place in the world


I am talking about a situation where if Trump's polices hurt you or you don't agree with him you have two choices: 1. Move out of the US and never come back. 2. Blow your brains out.


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's sad that the only 3 countries in the world that arent completely retarded are Sierra leone, Nicaragua and the United states


And Earth is flat, isn't it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> And Earth is flat, isn't it?


And 10,000 years old LOL


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> And Earth is flat, isn't it?


"From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’ 

The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. *The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history.*
*
The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales*. "

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> "From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’
> 
> The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. *The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history.*
> *
> The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales*. "
> 
> http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/


Humans make climate change happen MORE. Of course, climate change happens on it's on to some degree but humans make it way worse.

You really don't think humans have an impact on climate change?

97% of published in peer-reviewed scientific show humans have a huge impact on climate change, I always love when deniers like to find the 3% and go SEE.

That would be like quoting the small percent of people that claim the earth is flat and go SEE the earth is not a sphere.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> And Earth is flat, isn't it?


No

Some people's heads are quite pointed though

Like the heads of those who believe in the Roland Emmerich movie script (literally!) that constitutes what we are told about global warming


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Remember that time they ran away from cold in that movie. Then they shut the door on the cold. That was a close call.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Remember that time they ran away from cold in that movie. Then they shut the door on the cold. That was a close call.


Day After Tomorrow and 2012! :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> "From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’
> 
> The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. *The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history.*
> *
> The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales*. "
> 
> http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/


First hard proof doesn't make a theory to be confirmed. Nobody denies the planet is getting warmer by itself but humans are clearly accelerating the process.

The accord also encourages the countries to use green energy which would mean less pollution.


deepelemblues said:


> No
> 
> Some people's heads are quite pointed though
> 
> Like the heads of those who believe in the Roland Emmerich movie script (literally!) that constitutes what we are told about global warming


You mean "Days after Tomorrow"? I saw the movie but I don't even remember the theories from there. I don't give a crap about theories from Sci-Fi movies.


----------



## MOX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> First hard proof doesn't make a theory to be confirmed. Nobody denies the planet is getting warmer by itself but humans are clearly accelerating the process.
> 
> The accord also encourages the countries to use green energy which would mean less pollution.





birthday_massacre said:


> Humans make climate change happen MORE. Of course, climate change happens on it's on to some degree but humans make it way worse.
> 
> You really don't think humans have an impact on climate change?
> 
> 97% of published in peer-reviewed scientific show humans have a huge impact on climate change, I always love when deniers like to find the 3% and go SEE.
> 
> That would be like quoting the small percent of people that claim the earth is flat and go SEE the earth is not a sphere.


My point isn't that humans have no impact, my point is that there are too many variables to fully determine what causes how much. Research that I just pointed out, should absolutely be hitting the mainstream media yet, not a single peep about it. The whole 97% has been debunked and I don't need to say anymore on that. 






Why isn't she on more media outlets? You'd figure they'd love to have someone who is well versed in the field but I suppose since they can't exactly "debate" with her, they just act like she doesn't exist


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Why isn't she on more media outlets? You'd figure they'd love to have someone who is well versed in the field but I suppose since they can't exactly "debate" with her, they just act like she doesn't exist


What a surprise, scientists have different opinions. There are thousands of scientists who work on this worldwide, and you want people to change their opinion because very few of them are contesting if people really have an impact? These people may also have other reasons why are contesting these motives like being paid by the companies which are using fossil fuel.(I don't actually believe this but it may be a possibility). 

The problem with her is she doesn't give any facts. It's purely her interpretation of the data she received. Even if it is was on more media outlets, I have doubts that video will really convince a lot of people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> My point isn't that humans have no impact, my point is that there are too many variables to fully determine what causes how much. Research that I just pointed out, should absolutely be hitting the mainstream media yet, not a single peep about it. The whole 97% has been debunked and I don't need to say anymore on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't she on more media outlets? You'd figure they'd love to have someone who is well versed in the field but I suppose since they can't exactly "debate" with her, they just act like she doesn't exist


why don't you deny evolution while you are at it

As for the 97% thing what was wrong is the 97% of all scientists, what the 97% is number is 97% of publishing climate scientists agree


From NASAs webisite

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...yer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/

Keep ignoring the facts and evidence like you always do. You are like a creationist on this

it's funny how it's always conservatives who are so anti-science when it comes to these sort of things.

read a science book.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Fuck tapatalk for making me type this as it has changed how it posts pictures.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Scott Adams, who is by far the most credible voice on all matters Trump, which no one here disputes, on "covfefe" and how delightfully human and artistic President Trump is: 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/161280001386/covfefe


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Mister Abigail

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The thing is, Tromp makes a mistake and posts the weird tweet. Fine.

Why aren't there staff cleaning that shit up? If people aren't watching for simple things like dodgy tweets, how do you know if they're watching for something more serious? 

What's more, next day they act like it was on purpose. They'll never own up on any mistake, or back down on anything no matter how small. 

That's what is scary as shit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Mister Abigail said:


> The thing is, Tromp makes a mistake and posts the weird tweet. Fine.
> 
> Why aren't there staff cleaning that shit up? If people aren't watching for simple things like dodgy tweets, how do you know if they're watching for something more serious?
> 
> What's more, next day they act like it was on purpose. They'll never own up on any mistake, or back down on anything no matter how small.
> 
> That's what is scary as shit.


#Covfefe is scary?

As someone who just managed to find a way to conflate a typo into something scary and ominous, I think you need to get some counseling for Paranoid Delusion disorder or something.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Would love for someone to give the analytical breakdown of covfefe and its deep persuasive potency #4Dchess


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Would love for someone to give the analytical breakdown of covfefe and its deep persuasive potency #4Dchess


Sometimes a covfefe is just a covfefe


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> #Covfefe is scary?
> 
> As someone who just managed to find a way to conflate a typo into something scary and ominous, I think you need to get some counseling for Paranoid Delusion disorder or something.


Red herring much? I think the reference was towards the sycophants enabling the president rather than the typo itself.

Off your meds again making you jump back onboard the Trump train?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Red herring much? I think the reference was towards the sycophants enabling the president rather than the typo itself.
> 
> Off your meds again making you jump back onboard the Trump train?


Sure. Keep deluding yourself that this guy didn't go through a mental cascade failure in conflating a typo into something scary.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Hillary Clinton says she takes full responsibility for her decisions.
> 
> There's just one catch: She says her decisions weren't the reason that she lost to Donald Trump.
> At Recode's Code Conference in California on Wednesday, the former Democratic presidential nominee was reflective, quick to crack jokes -- and eager to cast blame. The more than hour-long question-and-answer event marked the latest in a series of public appearances for Clinton in which she explicitly took on the actions of those around her and other external circumstances in explaining why she lost on Election Day.
> "I take responsibility for every decision I make -- but that's not why I lost," Clinton said.
> Perhaps Clinton's most fresh and savage criticism on Wednesday was directed at the Democratic National Committee. She went as far as to say that when she became her party's presidential nominee, she inherited "nothing" from the committee.
> "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said. "It was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. I had to inject money into it -- the DNC -- to keep it going."
> The sad state of things at the DNC, Clinton continued, was only exacerbated by numerous efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election. As she has now said many times, the ex-secretary of state again alleged that former FBI Director James Comey's decision on October 28, 2016, to send a letter to Congress about her email controversy was simply devastating.
> Here's a timeline leading up to James Comey's firing and the fallout it unleashed
> Here's a timeline leading up to James Comey's firing and the fallout it unleashed
> "I can't look inside the guy's mind. He dumped that on me on October 28, and I immediately start falling," she said.
> And while she repeated that it was a "mistake" to use a private email server during her time at the State Department, she also said that plenty of others -- including the media -- were complicit in fanning the flames.
> In the new book that she is currently working on, she said: "I'm just using everything that anybody else said about it besides me to basically say: This was the biggest nothing burger -- ever."
> Watching the story about her private email server explode was a "maddening" experience, Clinton said, as she specifically called out The New York Times for its coverage of the issue.
> "They covered it like it was Pearl Harbor," she said.
> Clinton also described the attention around her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs as having been blown out of proportion. Asked why she insisted on addressing the big bank, she challenged the moderators by asking: "Why do you have Goldman Sachs here?"
> "Because they pay us," a moderator answered.
> "They paid me," Clinton responded.
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Hide Caption
> 22 of 43
> Clinton holds up her book "Living History" before a signing in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in 2003.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton holds up her book "Living History" before a signing in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in 2003.
> Hide Caption
> 23 of 43
> Clinton and another presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, applaud at the start of a Democratic debate in 2007.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton and another presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, applaud at the start of a Democratic debate in 2007.
> Hide Caption
> 24 of 43
> Obama and Clinton talk on the plane on their way to a rally in Unity, New Hampshire, in June 2008. She had recently ended her presidential campaign and endorsed Obama.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama and Clinton talk on the plane on their way to a rally in Unity, New Hampshire, in June 2008. She had recently ended her presidential campaign and endorsed Obama.
> Hide Caption
> 25 of 43
> Obama is flanked by Clinton and Vice President-elect Joe Biden at a news conference in Chicago in December 2008. He had designated Clinton to be his secretary of state.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama is flanked by Clinton and Vice President-elect Joe Biden at a news conference in Chicago in December 2008. He had designated Clinton to be his secretary of state.
> Hide Caption
> 26 of 43
> Clinton, as secretary of state, greets Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during a meeting just outside Moscow in March 2010.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton, as secretary of state, greets Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during a meeting just outside Moscow in March 2010.
> Hide Caption
> 27 of 43
> The Clintons pose on the day of Chelsea's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons pose on the day of Chelsea's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
> Hide Caption
> 28 of 43
> In this photo provided by the White House, Obama, Clinton, Biden and other members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In this photo provided by the White House, Obama, Clinton, Biden and other members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
> Hide Caption
> 29 of 43
> Clinton checks her Blackberry inside a military plane after leaving Malta in October 2011. In 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state. The account, fed through its own server, raises security and preservation concerns. Clinton later said she used a private domain out of "convenience," but admits in retrospect "it would have been better" to use multiple emails.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton checks her Blackberry inside a military plane after leaving Malta in October 2011. In 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state. The account, fed through its own server, raises security and preservation concerns. Clinton later said she used a private domain out of "convenience," but admits in retrospect "it would have been better" to use multiple emails.
> Hide Caption
> 30 of 43
> Clinton arrives for a group photo before a forum with the Gulf Cooperation Council in March 2012. The forum was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton arrives for a group photo before a forum with the Gulf Cooperation Council in March 2012. The forum was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
> Hide Caption
> 31 of 43
> Obama and Clinton bow during the transfer-of-remains ceremony marking the return of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who were killed in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama and Clinton bow during the transfer-of-remains ceremony marking the return of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who were killed in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012.
> Hide Caption
> 32 of 43
> Clinton ducks after a woman threw a shoe at her while she was delivering remarks at a recycling trade conference in Las Vegas in 2014.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton ducks after a woman threw a shoe at her while she was delivering remarks at a recycling trade conference in Las Vegas in 2014.
> Hide Caption
> 33 of 43
> Clinton, now running for President again, performs with Jimmy Fallon during a "Tonight Show" skit in September 2015.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton, now running for President again, performs with Jimmy Fallon during a "Tonight Show" skit in September 2015.
> Hide Caption
> 34 of 43
> Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack during a House committee meeting in October 2015. "I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said during the 11-hour hearing. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done." Months earlier, Clinton had acknowledged a "systemic breakdown" as cited by an Accountability Review Board, and she said that her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack during a House committee meeting in October 2015. "I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said during the 11-hour hearing. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done." Months earlier, Clinton had acknowledged a "systemic breakdown" as cited by an Accountability Review Board, and she said that her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
> Hide Caption
> 35 of 43
> U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders shares a lighthearted moment with Clinton during a Democratic presidential debate in October 2015. It came after Sanders gave his take on the Clinton email scandal. "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails," Sanders said. "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing the United States of America."
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders shares a lighthearted moment with Clinton during a Democratic presidential debate in October 2015. It came after Sanders gave his take on the Clinton email scandal. "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails," Sanders said. "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing the United States of America."
> Hide Caption
> 36 of 43
> Clinton is reflected in a teleprompter during a campaign rally in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 2015.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton is reflected in a teleprompter during a campaign rally in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 2015.
> Hide Caption
> 37 of 43
> Clinton walks on her stage with her family after winning the New York primary in April.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton walks on her stage with her family after winning the New York primary in April.
> Hide Caption
> 38 of 43
> After Clinton became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, this photo was posted to her official Twitter account. "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want -- even president," Clinton said. "Tonight is for you."
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> After Clinton became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, this photo was posted to her official Twitter account. "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want -- even president," Clinton said. "Tonight is for you."
> Hide Caption
> 39 of 43
> Obama hugs Clinton after he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The president said Clinton was ready to be commander in chief. "For four years, I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline," he said, referring to her stint as his secretary of state.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama hugs Clinton after he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The president said Clinton was ready to be commander in chief. "For four years, I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline," he said, referring to her stint as his secretary of state.
> Hide Caption
> 40 of 43
> Clinton arrives at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York on September 11. Clinton, who was diagnosed with pneumonia two days before, left early after feeling ill. A video <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html" target="_blank">appeared to show her stumble</a> as Secret Service agents helped her into a van.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton arrives at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York on September 11. Clinton, who was diagnosed with pneumonia two days before, left early after feeling ill. A video appeared to show her stumble as Secret Service agents helped her into a van.
> Hide Caption
> 41 of 43
> Clinton addresses a campaign rally in Cleveland on November 6, two days before Election Day. She went on to lose Ohio -- and the election -- to her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton addresses a campaign rally in Cleveland on November 6, two days before Election Day. She went on to lose Ohio -- and the election -- to her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
> Hide Caption
> 42 of 43
> After conceding the presidency to Trump in a phone call earlier, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-to-offer-remarks-in-new-york-city/index.html">Clinton addresses supporters and campaign workers</a> in New York on Wednesday, November 9. Her defeat marked a stunning end to a campaign that appeared poised to make her the first woman elected US president.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> After conceding the presidency to Trump in a phone call earlier, Clinton addresses supporters and campaign workers in New York on Wednesday, November 9. Her defeat marked a stunning end to a campaign that appeared poised to make her the first woman elected US president.
> Hide Caption
> 43 of 43
> Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic Party's nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28. The former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state was the first woman to lead the presidential ticket of a major political party.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic Party's nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28. The former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state was the first woman to lead the presidential ticket of a major political party.
> Hide Caption
> 1 of 43
> Before marrying Bill Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Here she attends Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Her commencement speech at Wellesley's graduation ceremony in 1969 attracted national attention. After graduating, she attended Yale Law School.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Before marrying Bill Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Here she attends Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Her commencement speech at Wellesley's graduation ceremony in 1969 attracted national attention. After graduating, she attended Yale Law School.
> Hide Caption
> 2 of 43
> Rodham was a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee, whose work led to impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Rodham was a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee, whose work led to impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
> Hide Caption
> 3 of 43
> In 1975, Rodham married Bill Clinton, whom she met at Yale Law School. He became the governor of Arkansas in 1978. In 1980, the couple had a daughter, Chelsea.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In 1975, Rodham married Bill Clinton, whom she met at Yale Law School. He became the governor of Arkansas in 1978. In 1980, the couple had a daughter, Chelsea.
> Hide Caption
> 4 of 43
> Arkansas' first lady, now using the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, wears her inaugural ball gown in 1985.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Arkansas' first lady, now using the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, wears her inaugural ball gown in 1985.
> Hide Caption
> 5 of 43
> The Clintons celebrate Bill's inauguration in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1991. He was governor from 1983 to 1992, when he was elected President.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons celebrate Bill's inauguration in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1991. He was governor from 1983 to 1992, when he was elected President.
> Hide Caption
> 6 of 43
> Bill Clinton comforts his wife on the set of "60 Minutes" after a stage light broke loose from the ceiling and knocked her down in January 1992.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Bill Clinton comforts his wife on the set of "60 Minutes" after a stage light broke loose from the ceiling and knocked her down in January 1992.
> Hide Caption
> 7 of 43
> In June 1992, Clinton uses a sewing machine designed to eliminate back and wrist strain. She had just given a speech at a convention of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In June 1992, Clinton uses a sewing machine designed to eliminate back and wrist strain. She had just given a speech at a convention of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union.
> Hide Caption
> 8 of 43
> During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton jokes with her husband's running mate, Al Gore, and Gore's wife, Tipper, aboard a campaign bus.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton jokes with her husband's running mate, Al Gore, and Gore's wife, Tipper, aboard a campaign bus.
> Hide Caption
> 9 of 43
> Clinton accompanies her husband as he takes the oath of office in January 1993.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton accompanies her husband as he takes the oath of office in January 1993.
> Hide Caption
> 10 of 43
> The Clintons share a laugh on Capitol Hill in 1993.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons share a laugh on Capitol Hill in 1993.
> Hide Caption
> 11 of 43
> Clinton unveils the renovated Blue Room of the White House in 1995.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton unveils the renovated Blue Room of the White House in 1995.
> Hide Caption
> 12 of 43
> Clinton waves to the media in January 1996 as she arrives for an appearance before a grand jury in Washington. The first lady was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The Clintons' business investment was investigated, but ultimately they were cleared of any wrongdoing.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton waves to the media in January 1996 as she arrives for an appearance before a grand jury in Washington. The first lady was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The Clintons' business investment was investigated, but ultimately they were cleared of any wrongdoing.
> Hide Caption
> 13 of 43
> The Clintons hug as Bill is sworn in for a second term as President.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons hug as Bill is sworn in for a second term as President.
> Hide Caption
> 14 of 43
> The first lady holds up a Grammy Award, which she won for her audiobook "It Takes a Village" in 1997.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The first lady holds up a Grammy Award, which she won for her audiobook "It Takes a Village" in 1997.
> Hide Caption
> 15 of 43
> The Clintons dance on a beach in the U.S. Virgin Islands in January 1998. Later that month, Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons dance on a beach in the U.S. Virgin Islands in January 1998. Later that month, Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
> Hide Caption
> 16 of 43
> Clinton looks on as her husband discusses the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on January 26, 1998. Clinton declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." In August of that year, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to having "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky, but he said it did not constitute sexual relations because they had not had intercourse. He was impeached in December on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton looks on as her husband discusses the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on January 26, 1998. Clinton declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." In August of that year, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to having "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky, but he said it did not constitute sexual relations because they had not had intercourse. He was impeached in December on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> Hide Caption
> 17 of 43
> The first family walks with their dog, Buddy, as they leave the White House for a vacation in August 1998.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The first family walks with their dog, Buddy, as they leave the White House for a vacation in August 1998.
> Hide Caption
> 18 of 43
> President Clinton makes a statement at the White House in December 1998, thanking members of Congress who voted against his impeachment. The Senate trial ended with an acquittal in February 1999.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> President Clinton makes a statement at the White House in December 1998, thanking members of Congress who voted against his impeachment. The Senate trial ended with an acquittal in February 1999.
> Hide Caption
> 19 of 43
> Clinton announces in February 2000 that she will seek the U.S. Senate seat in New York. She was elected later that year.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton announces in February 2000 that she will seek the U.S. Senate seat in New York. She was elected later that year.
> Hide Caption
> 20 of 43
> Clinton makes her first appearance on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton makes her first appearance on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
> Hide Caption
> 21 of 43
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Hide Caption
> 22 of 43
> Clinton holds up her book "Living History" before a signing in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in 2003.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton holds up her book "Living History" before a signing in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in 2003.
> Hide Caption
> 23 of 43
> Clinton and another presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, applaud at the start of a Democratic debate in 2007.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton and another presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, applaud at the start of a Democratic debate in 2007.
> Hide Caption
> 24 of 43
> Obama and Clinton talk on the plane on their way to a rally in Unity, New Hampshire, in June 2008. She had recently ended her presidential campaign and endorsed Obama.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama and Clinton talk on the plane on their way to a rally in Unity, New Hampshire, in June 2008. She had recently ended her presidential campaign and endorsed Obama.
> Hide Caption
> 25 of 43
> Obama is flanked by Clinton and Vice President-elect Joe Biden at a news conference in Chicago in December 2008. He had designated Clinton to be his secretary of state.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama is flanked by Clinton and Vice President-elect Joe Biden at a news conference in Chicago in December 2008. He had designated Clinton to be his secretary of state.
> Hide Caption
> 26 of 43
> Clinton, as secretary of state, greets Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during a meeting just outside Moscow in March 2010.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton, as secretary of state, greets Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during a meeting just outside Moscow in March 2010.
> Hide Caption
> 27 of 43
> The Clintons pose on the day of Chelsea's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons pose on the day of Chelsea's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
> Hide Caption
> 28 of 43
> In this photo provided by the White House, Obama, Clinton, Biden and other members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In this photo provided by the White House, Obama, Clinton, Biden and other members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
> Hide Caption
> 29 of 43
> Clinton checks her Blackberry inside a military plane after leaving Malta in October 2011. In 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state. The account, fed through its own server, raises security and preservation concerns. Clinton later said she used a private domain out of "convenience," but admits in retrospect "it would have been better" to use multiple emails.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton checks her Blackberry inside a military plane after leaving Malta in October 2011. In 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state. The account, fed through its own server, raises security and preservation concerns. Clinton later said she used a private domain out of "convenience," but admits in retrospect "it would have been better" to use multiple emails.
> Hide Caption
> 30 of 43
> Clinton arrives for a group photo before a forum with the Gulf Cooperation Council in March 2012. The forum was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton arrives for a group photo before a forum with the Gulf Cooperation Council in March 2012. The forum was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
> Hide Caption
> 31 of 43
> Obama and Clinton bow during the transfer-of-remains ceremony marking the return of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who were killed in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama and Clinton bow during the transfer-of-remains ceremony marking the return of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who were killed in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012.
> Hide Caption
> 32 of 43
> Clinton ducks after a woman threw a shoe at her while she was delivering remarks at a recycling trade conference in Las Vegas in 2014.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton ducks after a woman threw a shoe at her while she was delivering remarks at a recycling trade conference in Las Vegas in 2014.
> Hide Caption
> 33 of 43
> Clinton, now running for President again, performs with Jimmy Fallon during a "Tonight Show" skit in September 2015.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton, now running for President again, performs with Jimmy Fallon during a "Tonight Show" skit in September 2015.
> Hide Caption
> 34 of 43
> Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack during a House committee meeting in October 2015. "I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said during the 11-hour hearing. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done." Months earlier, Clinton had acknowledged a "systemic breakdown" as cited by an Accountability Review Board, and she said that her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack during a House committee meeting in October 2015. "I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said during the 11-hour hearing. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done." Months earlier, Clinton had acknowledged a "systemic breakdown" as cited by an Accountability Review Board, and she said that her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
> Hide Caption
> 35 of 43
> U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders shares a lighthearted moment with Clinton during a Democratic presidential debate in October 2015. It came after Sanders gave his take on the Clinton email scandal. "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails," Sanders said. "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing the United States of America."
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders shares a lighthearted moment with Clinton during a Democratic presidential debate in October 2015. It came after Sanders gave his take on the Clinton email scandal. "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails," Sanders said. "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing the United States of America."
> Hide Caption
> 36 of 43
> Clinton is reflected in a teleprompter during a campaign rally in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 2015.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton is reflected in a teleprompter during a campaign rally in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 2015.
> Hide Caption
> 37 of 43
> Clinton walks on her stage with her family after winning the New York primary in April.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton walks on her stage with her family after winning the New York primary in April.
> Hide Caption
> 38 of 43
> After Clinton became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, this photo was posted to her official Twitter account. "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want -- even president," Clinton said. "Tonight is for you."
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> After Clinton became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, this photo was posted to her official Twitter account. "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want -- even president," Clinton said. "Tonight is for you."
> Hide Caption
> 39 of 43
> Obama hugs Clinton after he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The president said Clinton was ready to be commander in chief. "For four years, I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline," he said, referring to her stint as his secretary of state.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Obama hugs Clinton after he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The president said Clinton was ready to be commander in chief. "For four years, I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline," he said, referring to her stint as his secretary of state.
> Hide Caption
> 40 of 43
> Clinton arrives at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York on September 11. Clinton, who was diagnosed with pneumonia two days before, left early after feeling ill. A video <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html" target="_blank">appeared to show her stumble</a> as Secret Service agents helped her into a van.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton arrives at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York on September 11. Clinton, who was diagnosed with pneumonia two days before, left early after feeling ill. A video appeared to show her stumble as Secret Service agents helped her into a van.
> Hide Caption
> 41 of 43
> Clinton addresses a campaign rally in Cleveland on November 6, two days before Election Day. She went on to lose Ohio -- and the election -- to her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton addresses a campaign rally in Cleveland on November 6, two days before Election Day. She went on to lose Ohio -- and the election -- to her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
> Hide Caption
> 42 of 43
> After conceding the presidency to Trump in a phone call earlier, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-to-offer-remarks-in-new-york-city/index.html">Clinton addresses supporters and campaign workers</a> in New York on Wednesday, November 9. Her defeat marked a stunning end to a campaign that appeared poised to make her the first woman elected US president.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> After conceding the presidency to Trump in a phone call earlier, Clinton addresses supporters and campaign workers in New York on Wednesday, November 9. Her defeat marked a stunning end to a campaign that appeared poised to make her the first woman elected US president.
> Hide Caption
> 43 of 43
> Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic Party's nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28. The former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state was the first woman to lead the presidential ticket of a major political party.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic Party's nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28. The former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state was the first woman to lead the presidential ticket of a major political party.
> Hide Caption
> 1 of 43
> Before marrying Bill Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Here she attends Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Her commencement speech at Wellesley's graduation ceremony in 1969 attracted national attention. After graduating, she attended Yale Law School.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Before marrying Bill Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Here she attends Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Her commencement speech at Wellesley's graduation ceremony in 1969 attracted national attention. After graduating, she attended Yale Law School.
> Hide Caption
> 2 of 43
> Rodham was a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee, whose work led to impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Rodham was a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee, whose work led to impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
> Hide Caption
> 3 of 43
> In 1975, Rodham married Bill Clinton, whom she met at Yale Law School. He became the governor of Arkansas in 1978. In 1980, the couple had a daughter, Chelsea.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In 1975, Rodham married Bill Clinton, whom she met at Yale Law School. He became the governor of Arkansas in 1978. In 1980, the couple had a daughter, Chelsea.
> Hide Caption
> 4 of 43
> Arkansas' first lady, now using the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, wears her inaugural ball gown in 1985.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Arkansas' first lady, now using the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, wears her inaugural ball gown in 1985.
> Hide Caption
> 5 of 43
> The Clintons celebrate Bill's inauguration in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1991. He was governor from 1983 to 1992, when he was elected President.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons celebrate Bill's inauguration in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1991. He was governor from 1983 to 1992, when he was elected President.
> Hide Caption
> 6 of 43
> Bill Clinton comforts his wife on the set of "60 Minutes" after a stage light broke loose from the ceiling and knocked her down in January 1992.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Bill Clinton comforts his wife on the set of "60 Minutes" after a stage light broke loose from the ceiling and knocked her down in January 1992.
> Hide Caption
> 7 of 43
> In June 1992, Clinton uses a sewing machine designed to eliminate back and wrist strain. She had just given a speech at a convention of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> In June 1992, Clinton uses a sewing machine designed to eliminate back and wrist strain. She had just given a speech at a convention of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union.
> Hide Caption
> 8 of 43
> During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton jokes with her husband's running mate, Al Gore, and Gore's wife, Tipper, aboard a campaign bus.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton jokes with her husband's running mate, Al Gore, and Gore's wife, Tipper, aboard a campaign bus.
> Hide Caption
> 9 of 43
> Clinton accompanies her husband as he takes the oath of office in January 1993.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton accompanies her husband as he takes the oath of office in January 1993.
> Hide Caption
> 10 of 43
> The Clintons share a laugh on Capitol Hill in 1993.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons share a laugh on Capitol Hill in 1993.
> Hide Caption
> 11 of 43
> Clinton unveils the renovated Blue Room of the White House in 1995.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton unveils the renovated Blue Room of the White House in 1995.
> Hide Caption
> 12 of 43
> Clinton waves to the media in January 1996 as she arrives for an appearance before a grand jury in Washington. The first lady was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The Clintons' business investment was investigated, but ultimately they were cleared of any wrongdoing.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton waves to the media in January 1996 as she arrives for an appearance before a grand jury in Washington. The first lady was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The Clintons' business investment was investigated, but ultimately they were cleared of any wrongdoing.
> Hide Caption
> 13 of 43
> The Clintons hug as Bill is sworn in for a second term as President.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons hug as Bill is sworn in for a second term as President.
> Hide Caption
> 14 of 43
> The first lady holds up a Grammy Award, which she won for her audiobook "It Takes a Village" in 1997.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The first lady holds up a Grammy Award, which she won for her audiobook "It Takes a Village" in 1997.
> Hide Caption
> 15 of 43
> The Clintons dance on a beach in the U.S. Virgin Islands in January 1998. Later that month, Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The Clintons dance on a beach in the U.S. Virgin Islands in January 1998. Later that month, Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
> Hide Caption
> 16 of 43
> Clinton looks on as her husband discusses the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on January 26, 1998. Clinton declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." In August of that year, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to having "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky, but he said it did not constitute sexual relations because they had not had intercourse. He was impeached in December on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton looks on as her husband discusses the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on January 26, 1998. Clinton declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." In August of that year, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to having "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky, but he said it did not constitute sexual relations because they had not had intercourse. He was impeached in December on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> Hide Caption
> 17 of 43
> The first family walks with their dog, Buddy, as they leave the White House for a vacation in August 1998.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> The first family walks with their dog, Buddy, as they leave the White House for a vacation in August 1998.
> Hide Caption
> 18 of 43
> President Clinton makes a statement at the White House in December 1998, thanking members of Congress who voted against his impeachment. The Senate trial ended with an acquittal in February 1999.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> President Clinton makes a statement at the White House in December 1998, thanking members of Congress who voted against his impeachment. The Senate trial ended with an acquittal in February 1999.
> Hide Caption
> 19 of 43
> Clinton announces in February 2000 that she will seek the U.S. Senate seat in New York. She was elected later that year.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton announces in February 2000 that she will seek the U.S. Senate seat in New York. She was elected later that year.
> Hide Caption
> 20 of 43
> Clinton makes her first appearance on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Clinton makes her first appearance on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
> Hide Caption
> 21 of 43
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Photos: Hillary Clinton's life in the spotlight
> Sen. Clinton comforts Maren Sarkarat, a woman who lost her husband in the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a ground-zero memorial in October 2001.
> Hide Caption
> 22 of 43
> RESTRICTED hillary clinton DNCHillary Clinton Wellesley College RESTRICTED01 hillary clinton 1020Bill Clinton Hillary Chelsea 1980Hillary Rodham Clinton 1985Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton 1991Bill Hillary Clinton 1992 RESTRICTED07 Hillary Clinton 1992Bill Hillary Clinton Al Tipper Gore 1992Bill Clinton inauguration 199307 hillary clinton 1020Hillary Clinton Blue Room 199510 hillary clinton 1020Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Inauguration RESTRICTEDHillary Clinton Grammy 1997Bill Hillary Clinton 199811 hillary clinton 1020Bill Hillary Chelsea 1998Bill Clinton statement 1998Hillary Clinton senate run 2000Hillary Clinton Senate 2000 RESTRICTEDHillary Clinton 911 memorial 2001 RESTRICTEDHillary Clinton Living History signingHillary Clinton Barack Obama 200725 hillary clinton 1020Obama Clinton Biden 2008Clinton Putin 201030 hillary clinton 1020Osama bin Laden death 2011Hillary Clinton 2011Hillary Clinton Saudi Arabia 2012Obama Clinton Benghazi remains 201201 hillary clinton 0602Hillary Clinton Jimmy Fallon 2015 RESTRICTEDHillary Clinton Benghazi hearing 2015 RESTRICTEDHillary Clinton Bernie Sanders CNN DebateHillary Clinton 2015Hillary Bill Chelsea Clinton 201601 hillary clinton twitter 0608RESTRICTED obama clinton DNC hugHilary Clinton ach1009hillary clinton cleveland ohio 110604 clinton concession speech 1109
> Her decision to speak at the firm, Clinton said, was partly shaped by her understanding of Goldman's role in the economy.
> "You know, men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made," she said. "And it was used, and I thought it was unfairly used."
> Something else that worked to her disadvantage? The widespread perception that she would win.
> "I also think I was the victim of the very broad assumption that I was going to win," she said. "I never believed that. I always thought it was going to be a close election."
> Asked the unavoidable question -- whether she will run for president again -- Clinton quickly answered, "No."
> But, she also added: "I won 3 million more votes than the other guy."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-recode-loss/index.html
Its everyone elses fault except mine.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-recode-loss/index.html
> Its everyone elses fault except mine.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870077441401905152it feels like.... home.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The only worrying thing is how much people are talking about covfefe. Seems like a diversion to place all the attention there and away from something perhaps? 

Or it's just a messed up tweet and makes zero difference.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> The only worrying thing is how much people are talking about covfefe. Seems like a diversion to place all the attention there and away from something perhaps?
> 
> Or it's just a messed up tweet and makes zero difference.


It's about clickbait. The only reason why the MSM is talking about it is because their target audience can't get enough of it so they're trying to cash in. That's it. 

Trump = Ratings = Money.

It's not a red herring i.e. distraction (that would be the correct use of the word @FriedTofu), it's not an inside joke, it doesn't have a deeper meaning, there's no hidden agenda ... It's just a gaff that became a viral sensation overnight.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday issued seven new subpoenas in its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
> 
> Four of the subpoenas are related directly to Russian meddling, which is also also the subject of probes from the Senate Intelligence Committee and FBI.
> 
> The other three focus on allegations of improper “unmasking” of Trump campaign officials, according to The Wall Street Journal.
> 
> Those three subpoenas went to the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and are related to questions — primarily from Republicans — about how the names of associates of President Trump were un-redacted and distributed in classified Obama administration reports during the transition period.
> 
> The committee said in a statement that it had issued subpoenas to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and one company associated with the former intelligence official, Flynn Intel Group LLC; and longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and his firm, Michael D. Cohen & Associates PC.
> 
> The statement did not address the three subpoenas related to unmasking, reportedly related to requests made by former national security adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former United Nations Ambassador Susan Power.
> 
> Power has not previously been reported as a potential witness in the probe.
> 
> Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names — listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example — be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence.
> 
> But Republicans want to know if any of those requests were politically motivated.
> 
> They have signaled that they see unmasking as the key to investigating the source of media leaks damaging to the Trump administration — such as the exposure of Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports based on surveillance leaks revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of his discussions with the Russian ambassador.
> 
> The GOP seized on a Bloomberg View report in April that Rice had requested that at least one Trump transition team member be “unmasked,” leading to claims that the Obama White House had intended to use that intelligence to damage Trump’s transition.
> 
> Rice has denied any political manipulation of intelligence by the Obama administration.
> 
> Earlier in the year, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stepped back from the probe after making a clandestine trip to the White House to view documents he says revealed inappropriate unmasking of transition team officials.
> 
> The revelation quickly devolved into partisan infighting that threaten to derail the House panel’s investigation permanently. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) has taken over the probe in Nunes’s place, and the fracas has largely died down since.
> 
> The Senate Intelligence Committee is also investigating Russian interference in the election and has issued its own slate of subpoenas targeted at Flynn.
> 
> Earlier this month, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee the federal government's probe following Trump's surprise firing of FBI Director James Comey.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/335833-seven-subpoenas-issued-in-house-russia-probe-report


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Sure. Keep deluding yourself that this guy didn't go through a mental cascade failure in conflating a typo into something scary.


Keep deluding yourself that you didn't try to present his concern about the people around Trump enabling his mistakes and present it in your narrative that he was blowing things out of proportion over a typo.



Iconoclast said:


> It's about clickbait. The only reason why the MSM is talking about it is because their target audience can't get enough of it so they're trying to cash in. That's it.
> 
> Trump = Ratings = Money.
> 
> It's not a red herring i.e. distraction (that would be the correct use of the word @FriedTofu), it's not an inside joke, it doesn't have a deeper meaning, there's no hidden agenda ... It's just a gaff that became a viral sensation overnight.


You did not attempt to distract from the conversation about the concern about the competence of the White House into it being an overblown concern about the typo itself?

:ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Keep deluding yourself that you didn't try to present his concern about the people around Trump enabling his mistakes and present it in your narrative that he was blowing things out of proportion over a typo.
> 
> You did not attempt to distract from the conversation about the concern about the competence of the White House into it being an overblown concern about the typo itself?
> 
> :ha


That's not a distraction. Do you not know what a distraction is now? 

I simply made a suggestion to him about getting counseling based on following _his _train of thought that went from thinking about a typo -> incompetence -> danger. Where is it logical to go from typo to danger? That sort of flight of fancy indicates paranoid delusional thinking and hence my conclusion was correct. 

That was his train of thought. Where did I distract? 

There should be a rule against people like BM and FT trolling these threads because they don't even understand simple english and try to use words they don't understand.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> That's not a distraction. Do you not know what a distraction is now?
> 
> I simply made a suggestion to him about getting counseling based on following _his _train of thought that went from thinking about a typo -> incompetence -> danger. Where is it logical to go from typo to incompetence to danger? That sort of flight of fancy indicates paranoid thinking and hence my conclusion was correct.
> 
> That was his train of thought. Where did I distract?
> 
> There should be a rule against people like BM and FT trolling these threads because they don't even understand simply english and try to use words they don't understand.


You made your suggestion from your red herring argument that he was so worried about the typo when in his post he has already said he was fine with the error.

Wait, aren't you trolling these threads as well with the very post that start this? Should the rule apply to you as well?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A surprisingly competent article about Trump's impending Paris Accord decision (which it turns out that he hasn't actually made a decision yet unlike what the leftist echo chamber is reporting in order to drum up the usual mass Anti-Trump hysteria by riling up the indoctrinated climate hippies). I like this article because it doesn't give in to the usual alarmist propaganda and simply speculates about the options and its outcomes. As good journalism should. 



> *Trump’s climate conundrum nears a verdict
> *U.S. allies say they're mystified about the president's intentions for the 2015 Paris agreement — though some aides believe he'll withdraw.
> By ANDREW RESTUCCIA 05/30/2017 07:43 PM EDT Updated 05/30/2017 08:08 PM EDT
> 
> President Donald Trump has only a few main options for dealing with the non-binding climate deal, one of former President Barack Obama’s proudest diplomatic achievements. | Getty
> 
> Shortly before the G-7 summit in Italy last week, U.S. officials had private conversations with foreign diplomats that seemed to suggest Trump was open to staying in the landmark 2015 pact, two people briefed on the discussions told POLITICO. But then, to their frustration, the U.S. backed away, instead becoming the lone holdout from a declaration expressing “strong commitment" to the agreement.
> 
> The administration’s public statements have been no less mixed. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, who supports staying in the agreement, told reporters last week that Trump’s "views are evolving." But allies of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, who wants the U.S. to leave, made it known that Trump privately agrees with them. Administration officials on both sides of the issue are increasingly convinced that he will withdraw, though they stressed late Tuesday that the decision is not yet final.
> 
> For all the mystery, though, Trump has only a few main options for dealing with the nonbinding climate deal, one of former President Barack Obama’s proudest diplomatic achievements.
> 
> He can stick with the deal, while unwinding most of Obama’s climate policies and pledges for reducing greenhouse gas pollution. He can use the threat of leaving to push other countries for concessions that benefit U.S. fossil fuels. He can even try to renegotiate the agreement — highly implausible, given that nearly 200 governments took part in crafting it.
> 
> Or he can do nothing.
> 
> *Withdraw
> *
> Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to "cancel" the Paris agreement, portraying it as a threat to U.S. jobs and energy production, and conservatives are convinced he’ll make good on that promise.
> 
> Pruitt and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon have emerged in recent months as the administration’s biggest opponents of the Paris agreement, and both men have made their case for withdrawal directly to Trump.
> 
> Pruitt and Trump discussed the issue again on Tuesday, a possible indication that he’s preparing to withdraw. Sources confirmed that Trump indicated in recent conversations with Pruitt that he was leaning toward pulling out of the agreement, as Axios reported last weekend.
> 
> But the climate discussions at the G-7, paired with a lobbying campaign from Pope Francis and other leaders, could have changed Trump’s mind. Other U.S. officials were convinced as recently as last week that Trump would remain in Paris.
> 
> Others are just uncertain. "I’ve stopped trying to figure it out," said one longtime climate negotiator.
> 
> A withdrawal would strain U.S. relations with countries in Europe and elsewhere, and it could destabilize the foundation of the Paris deal. Such considerations have helped persuade even Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to support staying — as well as GOP lawmakers like North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, an energy adviser to the president.
> 
> If Trump decides to pull out, though, the text of the deal would prevent a U.S. exit from formally taking effect until at least Nov. 4, 2020 — a little over two months before the end of his first term. But Trump's public disavowal of the pact would certainly have an immediate impact on the global effort to tackle climate change.
> 
> In addition, Trump would have one speedier option for pulling out: He could withdraw the U.S. from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the treaty that undergirds the entire regime of international climate negotiations. According to the Paris text: "Any party that withdraws from the convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this agreement."
> *
> Remain, but win concessions
> *
> Administration officials who support remaining in the agreement have been working for months to try to flesh out a middle ground.
> 
> One option that has won support from some White House aides: weakening Obama’s pledges for cutting U.S. carbon emissions, and persuading world leaders to offer greater support for technologies to reduce pollution from fossil fuels like coal.
> 
> The first part is entirely within Trump’s power: Obama’s pledges were nonbinding, and the current administration would be free to substitute its own, less-ambitious promises if it chooses to — even as Trump seeks to undo Obama’s domestic climate regulations and slash EPA’s budget. Winning concessions from other countries would require some high-stakes dealmaking, however.
> 
> Before the summit in Italy, U.S. officials discussed those options with representatives from other G-7 countries, in conversations that gave diplomats hope that Trump was open to staying in the agreement if he could be reassured the U.S. has flexibility, according to two people briefed on the issue. But the U.S. ultimately backed away from pro-Paris language in the G-7’s closing joint communique, breaking with the six other countries that participated in the meeting.
> 
> Energy Secretary Rick Perry attempted a similar gambit during an April meeting of G-7 energy ministers in April. But the other countries rebuffed his attempt to place stronger pro-coal, pro-nuclear language into a proposed joint statement on energy policy, which wound up being scuttled.
> 
> If Trump decides to remain in the agreement, he’d probably cast the decision as a sign of his dealmaking prowess, and a wholesale repudiation of Obama’s climate pledge.
> 
> But it comes with political risks: Conservative groups would probably bash Trump if he decides to stay in the Paris deal, even if many people who voted for him probably don’t view the issue as a top priority.
> 
> *Renegotiate the agreement — but that’s unlikely
> *
> Some in Trump’s orbit have urged the president to renegotiate the agreement, an option that is seen as all but impossible among international climate negotiators.
> 
> The 2015 Paris talks were the culmination of years of preparations, and it’s unlikely that Trump could persuade negotiators from nearly 200 nations to reopen the underlying text.
> 
> Some closely tracking the issue suspect that "renegotiate" is just shorthand for ensuring that the U.S. gets a better deal in future discussions arising from Paris. That could be accomplished through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with individual countries, or by influencing the discussions at subsequent climate conferences over how to implement the agreement.
> 
> Do nothing
> 
> Trump could also delay a decision for months or even years, avoiding the political fallout of withdrawing or remaining.
> 
> Instead of issuing a firm verdict this week, the president could announce he’ll tentatively remain in the agreement, but continue to review his options and reserve the right to withdraw at a future date.
> 
> Some who follow the issue think that could be his most politically savvy option.
> 
> "What good does it do to announce your intention to leave 2 ½ years early?" asked one longtime climate negotiator. "You’ve given up all your leverage."


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

People salty about the Paris Accord because Europe and everyone else was expecting the US to foot most of the bill for it all, just like NATO and the U.N and a load of humanitarian nonsense.

I hope Europe leads the way and spends money on this instead of wasting tax payer money on economic migrants.

The Celebs losing their mind is great, hive mind of morons who want everyone to throw money in all directions regardless of if it would actually do anything.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> People salty about the Paris Accord because Europe and *everyone else was expecting the US to foot most of the bill for it* all, just like NATO and the U.N and a load of humanitarian nonsense.
> 
> I hope Europe leads the way and spends money on this instead of wasting tax payer money on economic migrants.
> 
> The Celebs losing their mind is great, hive mind of morons who want everyone to throw money in all directions regardless of if it would actually do anything.


You know why that is right? Oh wait you are a Trump supporter of course you don't.

The US is the world 2nd biggest greenhouse gas emitter and are historically the largest polluter ever. 

There is a reason why they are paying so much.


----------



## Goku

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump taking money away from the church of climate change. :move


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Let's see if this moves the needle...



> The Kathy Griffin Controversy
> Posted May 31st, 2017 @ 10:47am in #kathygriffin #Trump
> 
> Comedian Kathy Griffin got into some hot water for a staged photo of herself holding a realistic-looking severed head that looks like President Trump. I won’t reproduce the photo here. It is disturbing. People asked me what it all means in terms of persuasion, if anything. I’ll tell you.
> 
> Disclosure: Kathy Griffin played the voice of the Alice in my old Dilbert TV show on UPN. I like Kathy, both personally and professionally. I’m a fan. Feel free to factor in my bias when you read this post.
> 
> The fascinating part of the story is that Griffin and at least one photographer thought this photo would be provocative but within bounds. The Internet quickly informed them they were wrong. Griffin issued a video apology that some people judge to be insincere. But it looked 100% sincere to me.
> 
> I have been telling you since before the inauguration that the country was going to split into two movies on one screen. Some of us are watching a new president do his best to make America great. But half the country is watching a disaster movie in which we unknowingly elected a Hitler-monster to destroy civilization. The Kathy Griffin situation illustrates the two-movie idea perfectly. For Kathy and her associates at the photoshoot, this photo was intentionally provocative, but in a silly way. In their movie, beheading the Hitler-monster is a widely-approved fantasy. Perfectly acceptable. Nothing to see here.
> 
> Then they published the photo.
> 
> And learned there was another movie on the same screen.
> 
> You and I get to live in the movies in our heads until your script and mine come into conflict. That’s what happened with the Griffin photo. The photo showed us with disturbing clarity that we are not experiencing the same movie. In some of our movies, Griffin literally took the side of ISIS (EviLosers) against the Commander in Chief of the United States. But in Kathy’s movie, a comedian made a provocative joke, as she often does. That’s all.
> 
> Obviously I support Griffin’s right to produce provocative and sometimes offensive art. That is part of her job. And I also respect her rapid and thorough apology. To feel otherwise about Kathy would make me one of the overly-sensitive folks I have been mocking for years. You don’t get to turn me into that person. But you can go full-snowflake on this topic if you like.
> 
> The takeaway here should not be so much about Griffin. The takeaway is that a room full of people involved in the photoshoot did not see this as a huge problem from the start. They were living a different movie. If you judge this situation to be an error of taste, judgement, intelligence, or morality, you are missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the country is living two movies at the same time, and Griffin was acting “normal” in one of them.
> 
> Persuasion-wise, Griffin’s photo was so over-the-line that I assume it ruined the movie for a lot of people following the anti-Trump script. The audience in Griffin’s movie just had a mirror held up to them. If they liked what they saw, they will stay in their seats. If they don’t like being the villains in their own movie, they might change the channel.
> 
> History might record this as the beginning of Trump’s rise in popularity. I have been predicting you will see the rise in the polls by year end.
> 
> Do you consider Kathy Griffin’s disturbing photo to be “art”? That’s a purely subjective evaluation. But Griffin did turn most Trump supporters into hypocrites by making them complain about political correctness.
> 
> If that isn’t art, you don’t know art.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> But Griffin did turn most Trump supporters into hypocrites by making them complain about political correctness.


Oh fuck off, it's a double standard all the way down and how does this typical the rules are different for me than they are for thee asshole know what "most :trump supporters" think about portraying a president you don't like as dead.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You know why that is right? Oh wait you are a Trump supporter of course you don't.
> 
> The US is the world 2nd biggest greenhouse gas emitter and are historically the largest polluter ever.
> 
> There is a reason why they are paying so much.


You'd have a point if the U.N and NATO weren't also mostly paid for by the US and just about nearly venture is mostly paid for by the US. It's just a way to shakedown the US for more cash.

My supporting Trump has nothing to do with this, there needs to be more studies to determine the best course of action, not waste millions to billions of dollars on shit that doesn't work. Else it will end up like corn fuel which takes more to produce than gasoline and is far more polluting.

Another crisis that's more obvious and blatant would be the population explosion that will have an effect on the environment as well, more people, more pollution yet nobody's told India, China, Africa and South America to stop having so many children. 

So what's the point of gutting the economy, jobs and tossing money at a problem with no clear solution? Who's going to pay for all this? The billionaire club of virtue signalers? Hollywood? I'd really love to know the solution because this seems like another U.N where nothing gets done and you have the Saudis part of a woman's rights counsel. 

Seems like until an actual solution is set it will be a waste of money and time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> You'd have a point if the U.N and NATO weren't also mostly paid for by the US and just about nearly venture is mostly paid for by the US. It's just a way to shakedown the US for more cash.
> 
> My supporting Trump has nothing to do with this, there needs to be more studies to determine the best course of action, not waste millions to billions of dollars on shit that doesn't work. Else it will end up like corn fuel which takes more to produce than gasoline and is far more polluting.
> 
> Another crisis that's more obvious and blatant would be the population explosion that will have an effect on the environment as well, more people, more pollution yet nobody's told India, China, Africa and South America to stop having so many children.
> 
> So what's the point of gutting the economy, jobs and tossing money at a problem with no clear solution? Who's going to pay for all this? The billionaire club of virtue signalers? Hollywood? I'd really love to know the solution because this seems like another U.N where nothing gets done and you have the Saudis part of a woman's rights counsel.
> 
> Seems like until an actual solution is set it will be a waste of money and time.


Its not a way to shake down the US, the US has the biggest military on the world so of course, they will pay more they are also one of the biggest and riches countries in the world. 

There does not need to be more studies LOL There are plenty. Even oil and gas companies are urging Trump not to pull out of the Paris Accord.

Wind and solar are where all the jobs are going to be in the future, coal is dying because of fracking. And fracking fucks up the environment big time with all the earthquakes it causes and how it can poison fresh water. Green energy is the way to go and because of Trump the US will be left behind

Green engery will make more jobs not sure why you think it will gut jobs. 

Also WTF are you talking about nobody told China to stop having so many children from 1979-2016 they were limited to having one child and that was just changed to 2 last year.

You dont even know what you are talking about FFS.

Maybe if you were a little more informed you would know its not a waste of money, and that is where the future is with green energy which will also help the environment.

Do some more research already

You keep proving how uninformed conservatives are but they have always been since they are anti-science


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/tr...ng-as-russia-probe-swamps-white-house-report/

Trump ‘gaining weight’ and ‘emotionally withdrawing’ as Russia probe swamps White House: report

DDonald Trump is “emotionally withdrawing” and gaining weight as the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian government creeps closer to the Oval Office.

As he returns from his mercurial trip abroad, the president is forced to deal with the fallout from news that members of his inner circle, including son-in-law and “Secretary of Everything” Jared Kushner is a person of interest in the FBI probe.

CNN’s Gloria Borger reports the president was already “in a pretty glum mood” when he set out for a multi-day blitz through Europe and the Middle East. But now he faces even more legal woes after reports revealed Kushner tried to establish a backchannel line of communication between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin. He’s even brought on his longtime personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, who will “supervise” the president’ legal team.

One source told Borger Trump’s major misstep was firing former FBI Director James Comey, which ultimately resulted int he appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

“Allowing a special counsel to happen was idiocy,” a Trump ally told Borger. “Special counsels never end well.”

Commenting on the White House’s less-than-strategic handling of all matters Russia, another ally remarked, “These guys don’t play chess. They play checkers.”

The culmination of distracting and damaging scandals at the White House have caused the president to withdraw from others, a source told CNN.

“He now lives within himself, which is a dangerous place for Donald Trump to be,” a confidante said. ”I see him emotionally withdrawing. He’s gained weight. He doesn’t have anybody whom he trusts.”

And as the president receives conflicting advice from aides and officials, there’s concern over whether the president will even listen to the information. “No one is giving him the landscape—this is how it works, this is what you should do or not do,” a friend told Borger. “And no one has enough control—or security—to do that.”

Instead, the president hopes for a magic bullet to quell the Russia scandal.

“He’s sitting there saying, like he does with everything, ‘You guys work for me. Fix this,’” a source said.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sounds like fake news. The God Emperor has just put smiles on everyone's faces with his latest "covfefe" linguistic loveshot. Even the La Résistance folks at my liberal campus were having a much needed laugh about the matter. Looks like Scott Adams' prediction of rising public opinion polls by the end of the year is right on track.

But in all seriousness, those quotes do sound absolutely bogus and like they came from either a disgruntled staffer who isn't getting his way, or even a journalist's imagination. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Officials in El Salvador held emergency meetings after seeing a sharp increase in the number of violent gang members being deported back to the country from the United States under the Trump administration.
> Salvadoran authorities have held emergency meetings and proposed new legislation to monitor returning criminals and gang members that are returning to El Salvador after deportation, according to the Washington Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The move by Salvadoran officials comes as a direct result of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration and efforts to deport more criminal illegal aliens from the U.S.
> 
> This year the U.S. has already deported 398 gang members back to El Salvador – compared to only 534 for all of 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> It is due to this rapid increase in deportations that Salvadoran officials like Héctor Antonio Rodríguez, the director of the country’s immigration agency, are worried about the impact the returning gang members will have in the country.
> 
> “This clearly affects El Salvador. We already have a climate of violence in the country that we are combating,” Rodríguez said. “If gang members return, of course this worries us.”


Priceless. :lol


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I thought things kinda similar to Scott Adams. I was wondering why they thought this would be an ok idea. I have no problem with them doing what they did, and I totally agree it's art. It's disturbing art. It's certainly provocative. But it makes her look like a maniac. It makes HER look bad. That was not her nor the photographer's intent. She metaphorically became the monster she sees Donald Trump as IRL.

I just seriously question where their head was at.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Sounds like fake news. The God Emperor has just put smiles on everyone's faces with his latest "covfefe" linguistic loveshot. Even the La Résistance folks at my liberal campus were having a much needed laugh about the matter. Looks like Scott Adams' prediction of rising public opinion polls by the end of the year is right on track.
> 
> But in all seriousness, those quotes do sound absolutely bogus and like they came from either a disgruntled staffer who isn't getting his way, or even a journalist's imagination. :mj




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/869858333477523458
So fucking BASED. :trump2

And since it's regarding Trump, odds are that it *is* fake news, considering Borger, like Toobin and Lemon, has consistently been one of the most venomous heads of CNN's hydra (the mythological one, since the Clinton News Network are never cool enough to hail).

:kappa


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I thought things kinda similar to Scott Adams. I was wondering why they thought this would be an ok idea. I have no problem with them doing what they did, and I totally agree it's art. It's disturbing art. It's certainly provocative. But it makes her look like a maniac. It makes HER look bad. That was not her nor the photographer's intent. She metaphorically became the monster she sees Donald Trump as IRL.
> 
> *I just seriously question where their head was at.*


Like other shitstains who espouse progressivism, it's typically in the same place:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not a way to shake down the US, the US has the biggest military on the world so of course, they will pay more they are also one of the biggest and riches countries in the world.
> 
> There does not need to be more studies LOL There are plenty. Even oil and gas companies are urging Trump not to pull out of the Paris Accord.
> 
> Wind and solar are where all the jobs are going to be in the future, coal is dying because of fracking. And fracking fucks up the environment big time with all the earthquakes it causes and how it can poison fresh water. Green energy is the way to go and because of Trump the US will be left behind
> 
> Green engery will make more jobs not sure why you think it will gut jobs.
> 
> Also WTF are you talking about nobody told China to stop having so many children from 1979-2016 they were limited to having one child and that was just changed to 2 last year.
> 
> You dont even know what you are talking about FFS.
> 
> Maybe if you were a little more informed you would know its not a waste of money, and that is where the future is with green energy which will also help the environment.
> 
> Do some more research already
> 
> You keep proving how uninformed conservatives are but they have always been since they are anti-science


Is your day job by chance a label maker? Because you like to label everyone and everything here things without even knowing the person or what it is being said half the time.

This isn't the night shift at your local grocery store, cannot just slap whatever labels you want on things.

As i said I want more studies, more solutions rather than just tossing money into the wind. The biggest problem with any bad situation is you always have grifters and carpet baggers trying to make money, which is why I said things need to be certain before spending money and making no difference.

Knee jerking and cutting jobs from coal and other places isn't a great solution until Green Energy becomes completely viable, I don't mean corn fuel viable or bogus nonsense that's supposed to work but doesn't. Sure Green Energy is the future but you have to build up to that future. Having no plan and fucking up jobs and the economy won't help anyone.

I don't see fracking a solution for anything but poisoning water. Plenty of natural gas vents around that can be used. 

How will the US be left behind? Who is leading the way exactly? Is there a Green Energy Nation yet? Woah you're telling me there is a place with nothing but electric cars and a Nation that runs on no emissions? I got to move there! If Green Energy is the future then the US will get on board with or without the accord. It's not like any nation held onto the horse and buggy when cars became dominant and affordable.

Yes China reduced their population and now they're going to allow for more Children in a place that has over a billion people. If we're going to worry about the environment perhaps we should fix the population problem too. That's not going to happen unless effort is put into poor Nations.

The US is rich but so is Europe, so is China, well richer than most. The US has covered the compete cost for a bunch of shit since WWII. Though if you're suggesting rich should pay then by all means have Hollywood and billionaire tech giants pay for America to transition to Green Energy, pay for Americans to get more jobs, nah they would rather bring over cheap labor. Must be good to be a virtue signaler.

Story short, I want solutions, less knee jerk reactions, less bullshit from the celeb "climate experts" (Who are just climate change populists LOL POPULISM) and less junk data, you know data that's been fudged, like some that was given to the U.N? Didn't you post some screwy information before? Nah, you're informed and not going to label you and call you "un-informed". Considering I'm not conservative and rely on science but you know, not junk science, also I don't treat it as a Religion. I'm just asking everyone get their ducks in a row before wasting money and possibly cutting any jobs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Is your day job by chance a label maker? Because you like to label everyone and everything here things without even knowing the person or what it is being said half the time.
> 
> This isn't the night shift at your local grocery store, cannot just slap whatever labels you want on things.


Pot kettle black.



> As i said I want more studies, more solutions rather than just tossing money into the wind. The biggest problem with any bad situation is you always have grifters and carpet baggers trying to make money, which is why I said things need to be certain before spending money and making no difference.
> 
> Knee jerking and cutting jobs from coal and other places isn't a great solution until Green Energy becomes completely viable, I don't mean corn fuel viable or bogus nonsense that's supposed to work but doesn't. Sure Green Energy is the future but you have to build up to that future. Having no plan and fucking up jobs and the economy won't help anyone.


This thinking is what kills companies that fail to adapt to technological changes. In the long run, this approach will kill more jobs than the ones that are lost currently. Same thing can happen to states that refuse to adapt. It is the difference between how Kodak and Fujifilm adapted to digital.



> I don't see fracking a solution for anything but poisoning water. Plenty of natural gas vents around that can be used.


Coal also poison water and the air. :shrug



> How will the US be left behind? Who is leading the way exactly? Is there a Green Energy Nation yet? Woah you're telling me there is a place with nothing but electric cars and a Nation that runs on no emissions? I got to move there! If Green Energy is the future then the US will get on board with or without the accord. It's not like any nation held onto the horse and buggy when cars became dominant and affordable.


You 'might' get left behind if you have to buy the green energy product other countries produces at a more efficient rate if someone has a breakthrough before you. Maybe that is the GOP's secret plan to lower the trade deficit with China? 



> Yes China reduced their population and now they're going to allow for more Children in a place that has over a billion people. If we're going to worry about the environment perhaps we should fix the population problem too. That's not going to happen unless effort is put into poor Nations.


Wait...so you support the one-child policy? Who decides who can have children and who can't to save the environment? Is this a knee-jerk reaction?



> The US is rich but so is Europe, so is China, well richer than most. The US has covered the compete cost for a bunch of shit since WWII. Though if you're suggesting rich should pay then by all means have Hollywood and billionaire tech giants pay for America to transition to Green Energy, pay for Americans to get more jobs, nah they would rather bring over cheap labor. Must be good to be a virtue signaler.


I didn't think a true American would want a handout from Hollywood and billionaire tech giants. But really, American has been spending so much since WW2 to protect her own interests. Ask Russian and China what they feel about NATO or THADD.



> Story short, I want solutions, less knee jerk reactions, less bullshit from the celeb "climate experts" (Who are just climate change populists LOL POPULISM) and less junk data, you know data that's been fudged, like some that was given to the U.N? Didn't you post some screwy information before? Nah, you're informed and not going to label you and call you "un-informed". Considering I'm not conservative and rely on science but you know, not junk science, also I don't treat it as a Religion. I'm just asking everyone get their ducks in a row before wasting money and possibly cutting any jobs.


Someone's virtue signalling by implying she is not a conservative when discussing about science.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kathy Griffin






- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Pot kettle black.


Coming from you this is funny, nobody takes you seriously.



> This thinking is what kills companies that fail to adapt to technological changes. In the long run, this approach will kill more jobs than the ones that are lost currently. Same thing can happen to states that refuse to adapt. It is the difference between how Kodak and Fujifilm adapted to digital.


I don't think you read what I said, I said I support changes as long as it's not junk Science and the proof is in the pudding. Corn Fuel among other environmental projects have failed because there wasn't enough research done. This is what I'm saying we should avoid, avoid spending money on anything not proven or giving money to grifters who are out to make a quick buck off a hot button topic. I wasn't aware careful spending and not wasting money is "failing to adapt".



> Coal also poison water and the air. :shrug


And I said that there needs to be a transition to Green Energy, not just a complete shutdown without any backup or plan in place.



> You 'might' get left behind if you have to buy the green energy product other countries produces at a more efficient rate if someone has a breakthrough before you. Maybe that is the GOP's secret plan to lower the trade deficit with China?


Considering the US gets a lot of things out of the country including food, clothing, parts and products this isn't all that bad. If there is money to be made, American Industry will get on it. Even now there are already American Companies pursuing such goals. My point is that the US can make changes without being part of this accord. I don't see anyone freely sharing their information or breakthroughs freely without compensation anyways.



> Wait...so you support the one-child policy? Who decides who can have children and who can't to save the environment? Is this a knee-jerk reaction?


Overpopulation is a thing, what is the point of all this Green Energy if we cannot sustain the population, have jobs and more people just creates more pollution? I support any effort to bring poor countries up to par and also promote birth control, education, abortion and responsible policies. It cannot be knee jerk when places are already starting to become overpopulated and having issues because of it. It's only going to get worse. 



> I didn't think a true American would want a handout from Hollywood and billionaire tech giants. But really, American has been spending so much since WW2 to protect her own interests. Ask Russian and China what they feel about NATO or THADD.


I don't think you understand sarcasm. Though it would be nice to see rich people who shout out for change to actually put their money where their mouth is. I think the US pays too much for NATO and into the UN already. I'm simply asking for more balanced spending.




> Someone's virtue signalling by implying she is not a conservative when discussing about science.


Considering I'm not Conservative nor Anti-Science I fail to see how me correcting BM is "virtue signaling" it seems it's not only sarcasm you missed. The whole point is that BM labeled me something I'm not and missed some key points that I was making, which is supporting correct measures to combat any Climate Change. Not to give into populist demands from Celebs and people who have zero clue as to what they're talking about. To even out the spending the US does and to simply call a spade a spade when it comes to places like Europe who use the US as an ATM. 

I simply don't believe in unwisely spending money, nor do I think joining some coalition which may or may not get things done but will demand obscene amounts of money is a good idea. Spending money wisely and putting effort into plans that will work, key word being *work* is the best way to go about this. There needs to be more solutions, less politics that will lead to pointless spending.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> People salty about the Paris Accord because Europe and everyone else was expecting the US to foot most of the bill for it all, just like NATO and the U.N and a load of humanitarian nonsense.
> 
> I hope Europe leads the way and spends money on this instead of wasting tax payer money on economic migrants.
> 
> The Celebs losing their mind is great, hive mind of morons who want everyone to throw money in all directions regardless of if it would actually do anything.


China is the biggest contributor but don't they pay significantly less than the USA? I can't seem to find the article showing that , but if true I can see why USA would want to pull out .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Warm Climate = Good for life. Bring it on and let plants and animals both thrive. 

Climate change alarmists are nothing but just another apocalyptic cult unfortunately legitimized by the government. If official NASA is still peddling the 97% myth under the false pretext of legitimizing alarmism after nearly half a decade of it being debunked, then at this point you can question whether all that money is being put to good use or not.

The end times cult doesn't even want to listen to the arguments of people who accept that climate change is happening but want to bring more knowledge and skepticism to the debate. That sort of blind faith doomsday advocate is nothing but a religious moron.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/31/house-overwhelmingly-supports-bill-subje



> Teens who text each other explicit images could be subject to 15 years in federal prison under a new bill that just passed the House of Representatives. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, has called the measure "deadly and counterproductive."
> 
> "While the bill is well intended, it is overbroad in scope and will punish the very people it indicates it is designed to protect: our children," Lee said during a House floor debate over the bill. The bill would also raise "new constitutional concerns" and "exacerbate overwhelming concerns with the unfair and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing that contributes to the overcriminalization of juveniles and mass incarceration generally."
> 
> Introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) in March, the "Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017" passed the House by an overwhelming majority last week. Only two Republicans—Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill, along with 53 Democrats.
> 
> "The bill prohibits some conduct that the Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate, and Rep. Amash opposes the expansion of mandatory minimums and crimes that are already prosecuted at the state level," a spokesperson from Amash's office explained of his opposition.
> 
> Most of the opposition centered on the bill's effective expansion of mandatory-minimum prison sentences. One vocal critic was Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia), who called the legislation "particularly appalling" because it would "apply to people who I think we should all agree should not be subject" to long mandatory minimums. "Under this law, teenagers who engage in consensual conduct and send photos of a sexual nature to their friends or even to each other may be prosecuted and the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison," said Scott on the House floor.
> 
> What's more, "the law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply equally to an attempt or a conspiracy," Scott noted:
> 
> That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years in prison.
> 
> But Johnson, a freshman congressman (and vocal Trump supporter), dismissed opponents' concern that the measure would be used in ways he didn't intend it to be used. "In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as 'God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,'" he said in response to their floor concerns. "I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless."
> 
> Johnson has repeatedly claimed that his bill will close "loopholes" that allow child pornographers to go free. But in the only "loophole" case he has pinpointed, it's overreaching federal prosecutors who bungled bringing a bad guy to justice, not some fundamental flaw in our criminal code. In that case, 19-year-old Anthony Palomino-Coronado was accused of molesting his 7-year-old neighbor repeatedly over the course of several months. In investigating the case, police discovered one photo of the abuse that had been taken and subsequently deleted from Palomino-Coronado's phone.
> 
> Combined with the victim's testimony, the photo should have guaranteed state police little trouble in trying to prosecute Palomino-Coronado for sexual abuse of a child. But federal prosecutors preempted such a prosecution by deciding to instead try Palomino-Coronado in federal court for producing child pornography.
> 
> It was a bad call—the case "could have been brought in state court and the defendant would have been subjected to extremely long, lengthy prison time," Rep. Scott noted during floor debate. But federal law against producing child pornography requires a minor to have been recruited "for the purpose of" producing photo or video. In this case, the court concluded, the longterm pattern of abuse, combined with the fact that only one explicit image was ever taken (and subsequently deleted), meant the perpetrator's purpose was not producing child porn but, rather, his own sexual gratification. If the feds had simply let the state handle the case as one of sexual abuse, Palomino-Coronado would probably be behind bars right now; instead, they overreached with the child porn charge, and now he's free.
> 
> Rather than learn from that mistake, the Department of Justice (DOJ) pushed for federal lawmakers to amend U.S. criminal code to make their prosecutorial overreach more permissible. According to Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), the changes in Johnson's bill were "requested by the unit at the Department of Justice that enforces the laws against child pornography."
> 
> Legislators aren't supposed to be mere puppets for law enforcement agencies. Yet here we are: A bill specifically requested by DOJ was rushed through the House of Representatives with near-universal support from Republicans and also a lot of support from Democrats. Opposition to the bill from a committed group of criminal justice reformers was ignored. And amendments aimed at fixing the most problematic parts of the bill—its reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing schemes and its failure to exclude minors trading photos with other minors from child-porn prosecutions—were both voted down.
> 
> "While we all agree that no child pornography offense should go unpunished, we cannot overlook the consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing," said Conyers on the House floor. Under current U.S. law, first-time offenses for child porn are punishable by mandatory imprisonment of at least 15 years, with repeat offenders subject to 25- and 35-year minimums. "By modifying and expanding [federal law] to include several new ways in which to violate the prohibition against the production of child pornography, the bill would subject new classes of defendants to mandatory minimum sentences," he explained.
> 
> Supporters of the legislation said there's no reason to think that federal prosecutors will use the bill against teen sexters, since they have not done so in the past. But state prosecutors have. And we're also up against a new federal administration—one that has explicitly endorsed mandatory minimums and other tough-on-crime endeavors. So, no, the FBI probably isn't about to start rounding up teen sexters in mass. But what will happen the next time ICE finds a racy image on a 17-year-old Mexican immigrant's phone?
> 
> We simply "cannot rely on prospective discretion to protect juveniles under this statute," said Conyers, "given the new policy of the Attorney General. We are under a new regime here at the federal level, and I can't depend on relying on the prosecutorial discretion to protect juveniles under this statute."
> 
> Opposing lawmakers also rejected the argument that while mandatory minimum sentences might generally be bad, they were OK in this instance because of our (rightful) revulsion at people who exploit children.
> 
> "We have to recognize that mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might seem like a good idea," said Scott. "The only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in the bill and then voting for the bill anyway not only creates that new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that mandatory minimums will be included in the next crime bill."
> 
> A statement of opposition filed by Reps. Conyers, Lee, and several others stated that while "no child pornography offense should go unpunished," Johnson's bill "would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes."


Most stupid Congress bill of the week goes to....


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Kathy Griffin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


I agree she should have been fired but why is Ted Nugent allowed in the white house by Trump when he threatened to assassinate both Hillary and Obama?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> I agree she should have been fired but why is Ted Nugent allowed in the white house by Trump when he threatened to assassinate both Hillary and Obama?


What exactly were his comments?(Genuinely don't know)


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> What exactly were his comments?(Genuinely don't know)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> I agree she should have been fired


Just playing devil's advocate here. Why should she have been fired?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Warm Climate = Good for life. Bring it on and let plants and animals both thrive.
> 
> Climate change alarmists are nothing but just another apocalyptic cult unfortunately legitimized by the government. If official NASA is still peddling the 97% myth under the false pretext of legitimizing alarmism after nearly half a decade of it being debunked, then at this point you can question whether all that money is being put to good use or not.
> 
> The end times cult doesn't even want to listen to the arguments of people who accept that climate change is happening but want to bring more knowledge and skepticism to the debate. That sort of blind faith doomsday advocate is nothing but a religious moron.


Too warm is not good since it melts the ice caps which causes methane gas to be released which is not good for life, and it also causes flooded which again is not good for life.

You are just anti-science like the flat earthers and evolution deniers.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Coming from you this is funny, nobody takes you seriously.


Congratulations, you just proved my point again. Are you pot or kettle? :lol



> I don't think you read what I said, I said I support changes as long as it's not junk Science and the proof is in the pudding. Corn Fuel among other environmental projects have failed because there wasn't enough research done. This is what I'm saying we should avoid, avoid spending money on anything not proven or giving money to grifters who are out to make a quick buck off a hot button topic. I wasn't aware careful spending and not wasting money is "failing to adapt".


I don't think you understand the concept of R&D.



> And I said that there needs to be a transition to Green Energy, not just a complete shutdown without any backup or plan in place.


Who is advocating for a complete shutdown without backup or plan in place?



> Considering the US gets a lot of things out of the country including food, clothing, parts and products this isn't all that bad. If there is money to be made, American Industry will get on it. Even now there are already American Companies pursuing such goals. My point is that the US can make changes without being part of this accord. I don't see anyone freely sharing their information or breakthroughs freely without compensation anyways.


The point is you are putting yourself at an unnecessary risk of falling behind in energy by rejecting green energy projects. The accord is more symbolic than enforceable anyway. Attempting to pulling out of it is just a show for his base to rally around. Even if you think climate change is bunk, why are you against attempts at lowering air pollution in your own backyard?



> Overpopulation is a thing, what is the point of all this Green Energy if we cannot sustain the population, have jobs and more people just creates more pollution? I support any effort to bring poor countries up to par and also promote birth control, education, abortion and responsible policies. It cannot be knee jerk when places are already starting to become overpopulated and having issues because of it. It's only going to get worse.


You didn't answer the question. Do you agree with China's one child policy? Do you want your government to restrict the number of children you can bear?



> I don't think you understand sarcasm. Though it would be nice to see rich people who shout out for change to actually put their money where their mouth is. I think the US pays too much for NATO and into the UN already. I'm simply asking for more balanced spending.


Sounds like you want to spark an arms race for the military industrial complex.



> Considering I'm not Conservative nor Anti-Science I fail to see how me correcting BM is "virtue signaling" it seems it's not only sarcasm you missed. The whole point is that BM labeled me something I'm not and missed some key points that I was making, which is supporting correct measures to combat any Climate Change. Not to give into populist demands from Celebs and people who have zero clue as to what they're talking about. To even out the spending the US does and to simply call a spade a spade when it comes to places like Europe who use the US as an ATM.


Wait so it sarcasm when you say you are not conservative? Or are you saying correcting BM was sarcasm? Are you calling a spade a spade or are you being sarcastic?



> I simply don't believe in unwisely spending money, nor do I think joining some coalition which may or may not get things done but will demand obscene amounts of money is a good idea. Spending money wisely and putting effort into plans that will work, key word being *work* is the best way to go about this. There needs to be more solutions, less politics that will lead to pointless spending.


Effort seems to be lacking from all parties involved. The Paris accord was at least something to build on as inadequate as it was. Pulling out of it solves nothing but pushes the same issue back another few years.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Is your day job by chance a label maker? Because you like to label everyone and everything here things without even knowing the person or what it is being said half the time.
> 
> This isn't the night shift at your local grocery store, cannot just slap whatever labels you want on things.
> 
> As i said I want more studies, more solutions rather than just tossing money into the wind. The biggest problem with any bad situation is you always have grifters and carpet baggers trying to make money, which is why I said things need to be certain before spending money and making no difference.
> 
> Knee jerking and cutting jobs from coal and other places isn't a great solution until Green Energy becomes completely viable, I don't mean corn fuel viable or bogus nonsense that's supposed to work but doesn't. Sure Green Energy is the future but you have to build up to that future. Having no plan and fucking up jobs and the economy won't help anyone.
> 
> I don't see fracking a solution for anything but poisoning water. Plenty of natural gas vents around that can be used.
> 
> How will the US be left behind? Who is leading the way exactly? Is there a Green Energy Nation yet? Woah you're telling me there is a place with nothing but electric cars and a Nation that runs on no emissions? I got to move there! If Green Energy is the future then the US will get on board with or without the accord. It's not like any nation held onto the horse and buggy when cars became dominant and affordable.
> 
> Yes China reduced their population and now they're going to allow for more Children in a place that has over a billion people. If we're going to worry about the environment perhaps we should fix the population problem too. That's not going to happen unless effort is put into poor Nations.
> 
> The US is rich but so is Europe, so is China, well richer than most. The US has covered the compete cost for a bunch of shit since WWII. Though if you're suggesting rich should pay then by all means have Hollywood and billionaire tech giants pay for America to transition to Green Energy, pay for Americans to get more jobs, nah they would rather bring over cheap labor. Must be good to be a virtue signaler.
> 
> Story short, I want solutions, less knee jerk reactions, less bullshit from the celeb "climate experts" (Who are just climate change populists LOL POPULISM) and less junk data, you know data that's been fudged, like some that was given to the U.N? Didn't you post some screwy information before? Nah, you're informed and not going to label you and call you "un-informed". Considering I'm not conservative and rely on science but you know, not junk science, also I don't treat it as a Religion. I'm just asking everyone get their ducks in a row before wasting money and possibly cutting any jobs.



Everything you post in this thread points to you being conservative. So if you are something else you don't act like it.

I will put whatever label on you that fits. You are totally uninformed on this and it shows.

There are plenty of studies on climate change, not sure how many you want. What you really mean is you want more studies to show what you want to see not what the facts show. 

The carpet baggers trying to make money is the gas and goal people who are ruining the environment when there is a safer way to get energy that won't ruin the environment. But of course you don't seem to want that. Its also not a knee-jerk reaction, coal is dying its time to move on from that to green energy. 

How will the US be left behind? You keep proving how uninformed you if you have to ask that question. For one if the US are not making products that adhere to the France Accord regulations they won't be able to export products since they won't be up to code in other countries or they will still be allowed to export them but they will be heavily taxed because they are not up to standards. Not to mention they won't have access to the fast-growing clean energy markets like all the other countries in the accord 

You keep proving more and more you dont have a clue

You do realized how large the land mass of China is right LOL You also realize people die right? They need to keep up their population because of labor when people retire or die off they need other people to take their places. Plus they are not being forced to have two children, they are just allowed to have two if they want and a lot of them are only having one.

I think its funny how you were complaining about no one told China to limit their children but there is a limit LOL 

You keep proving how uninformed you are on all of this because you keep claiming it's some knee-jerk reaction when there is decades of evidence of this. You just choose to ignore the data.

Stop being so anti-science and wake up. Stop pretending you are not anti-science you are doing the same thing with climate change that the anti-evolution crowd does.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Too warm is not good since it melts the ice caps which causes methane gas to be released which is not good for life, and it also causes flooded which again is not good for life.
> 
> You are just anti-science like the flat earthers and evolution deniers.


What we're seeing is a polar shift where the Arctic ice melt is happening but an Antarctic ice increase is simultaneously happening. 

The amount of methane being vented by the arctic melt is not at a high enough level to pose any danger to any life. The threat is again part of the alarmist hoax based on inconclusive predictive models based on incomplete and even potentially inaccurate data. 

The evidence points that it's happening, but as usual we don't have the data or the instruments to conclusively prove that it's happening at a high enough rate or will happen at a high enough rate to threaten life. 

In fact, recent studies have shown that arctic life is growing as one would expect in a warming period. 

https://polarbearscience.com/2015/0...bout-26000-20000-32000-despite-pbsg-waffling/

You can claim to be on the side of science all you want, but there is a difference in being pro-science and being an alarmist cultist. 

Not once have I ever said that climate change isn't happening. All I've said is that it's good for life and so far all the proof is indicating that it is. More and more species are being removed from endangered lists, more and more plant/animal populations are increasing. 

Human food productivity has never been higher. Fewer people are dying of hunger. 

We're living through one of the best periods in human history and I attribute that partly to global climate warming. If prosperity and climate change are even remotely linked, bring it on baby. 

Climate change advocates know what's happening, but alarmists are morons who exclude the positives of climate change because they're just an apocalyptic cult.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> What we're seeing is a polar shift where the Arctic ice melt is happening but an Antarctic ice increase is simultaneously happening.
> 
> The amount of methane being vented by the arctic melt is not at a high enough level to pose any danger to any life. The threat is again part of the alarmist hoax based on inconclusive predictive models based on incomplete and even potentially inaccurate data.
> 
> The evidence points that it's happening, but as usual we don't have the data or the instruments to conclusively prove that it's happening at a high enough rate or will happen at a high enough rate to threaten life.
> 
> In fact, recent studies have shown that arctic life is growing as one would expect in a warming period.
> 
> https://polarbearscience.com/2015/0...bout-26000-20000-32000-despite-pbsg-waffling/
> 
> You can claim to be on the side of science all you want, but there is a difference in being pro-science and being an alarmist cultist.
> 
> Not once have I ever said that climate change isn't happening. All I've said is that it's good for life and so far all the proof is indicating that it is. More and more species are being removed from endangered lists, more and more plant/animal populations are increasing. Human food productivity has never been higher. Fewer people are dying of hunger.
> 
> We're living through one of the best periods in human history and I attribute that to global climate change.
> 
> Climate change advocates know what's happening, but alarmists are morons who exclude the positives of climate change because they're just an apocalyptic cult.


Yeah, it's not dangerous right now but the warning trend continues it will come to a point where it will be bad. That is the point. The threat is a warning to not let it get out of control which is where it's trending to.

And LOL at climate change is good for life. Fucking up the earth's ecosystem is never a good thing. There is a balance and what may be good for one will be devastating for the opposite end fo the spectrum but I don't expect someone like you to understand that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah, it's not dangerous right now but the warning trend continues it will come to a point where it will be bad. That is the point. The threat is a warning to not let it get out of control which is where it's trending to.


That's not very scientific is it? Almost all scientists agree that predictive models are so rife with human error that we might as well not listen to them - Climate alarmists are the only ones who refuse acknowledge this. 



> And LOL at climate change is good for life. Fucking up the earth's ecosystem is never a good thing. There is a balance and what may be good for one will be devastating for the opposite end fo the spectrum but I don't expect someone like you to understand that.


Thanks for the doomsday apocalyptic bullshit. The rapture isn't coming.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> That's not very scientific is it? Almost all scientists agree that predictive models are so rife with human error that we might as well not listen to them - Climate alarmists are the only ones who refuse acknowledge this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the doomsday apocalyptic bullshit. The rapture isn't coming.


it's not doomsday apocalyptic bullshit its science something you seem to ignore.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> it's not doomsday apocalyptic bullshit its science something you seem to ignore.


It's not science. It's end times, apocalypse is coming emotional rhetoric using models that only appropriated the phrase "it's science" in order to push a crackpot narrative while completely ignoring counter-data and counter analysis.

For example, if you want to prove that vaccines work, you can post a thousand medical journals complete with actual biological science. That's where actual scientific consensus exists. You don't have doctors breaking away from the medical field on account of differences in how they approach vaccines? 

And yet, all you climate change alarmists do is bully with the "denier/anti-science" bullshit. 

Where's your science?


----------



## Goku

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

stop turning "science" into a dirty word :no:

drop your pants and call it science :no:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's not science. It's end times, apocalypse is coming emotional rhetoric using models that only appropriated the phrase "it's science" in order to push a crackpot narrative while completely ignoring counter-data and counter analysis.
> 
> For example, if you want to prove that vaccines work, you can post a thousand medical journals complete with actual biological science. That's where actual scientific consensus exists. You don't have doctors breaking away from the medical field on account of differences in how they approach vaccines?
> 
> And yet, all you climate change alarmists do is bully with the "denier/anti-science" bullshit.
> 
> Where's your science?


The science is all the studies you ignore but instead just go with the very few that are against the 97% of studies that show it. You go with the 3% and say SEE.

whatever dude, you are just as bad as the flat earthers or anti-evolutionists.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Hillary embarasses Trump lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> the 97% of studies that show it. You go with the 3% and say SEE.


And there you go. That's all anyone needs to hear about just how full of shit your "science" is. 

There is absolutely no one but BM claiming that "97% of the studies that show it"

BTW, that's not how science works anyways. Even IF it was true that 97% of the studies showed the same conclusion and 3% didn't, you still don't have the truth. Scientific truth isn't based on consensus alone anways. It's based on actual replicatable fact and data - and the *only* agreement that exists amongst actual climate scientists is that *the globe is warming. *

That's it. The rest is based on _predictive_ _human-made models_ that are demonstrably inaccurate and inconclusive. 

The bully pulpit is dying just like the church died. In any case you have comprehension issues so you don't have the mental capacity to deal with people who acknowledge that warming is happening, but that it's not bringing in the apocalypse. Your ilk wasn't indoctrinated to discuss climate change with people who are anti-rapture which is why you have to revert to the "denier/anti-science" bully pulpit since you don't have the science to back up your doomsday claims.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And there you go. That's all anyone needs to hear about just how full of shit your "science" is.
> 
> There is absolutely no one but BM claiming that "97% of the studies that show it"
> 
> BTW, that's not how science works anyways. Even IF it was true that 97% of the studies showed the same conclusion and 3% didn't, you still don't have the truth. Scientific truth isn't based on consensus alone anways. It's based on actual replicatable fact and data - and the only agreement that exists amongst actual climate scientists is that the globe is warming.
> 
> That's it. The rest is based on _predictive_ _human-made models_ that are demonstrably inacurate and inconclusive.
> 
> The bully pulpit is dying just like the church died.



NASA says it.

The facts back up climate change when you look at the stats but you ignore stats. The earth set a record template for the third straight year. You can ignore them all you it won't change those facts.

So go into your little safe space with all the flat earthers and anti-evolution people.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*






:lmao.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Here are some of the claims of the Church of Climate Alarmism that were embarrassingly wrong. These were all official claims supported by alarmists and governments across the world :lmao 










https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry



> First entry:
> 
> The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
> 
> The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
> 
> The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt
> 
> The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.





> *Global Cooling?*
> 
> Americans who lived through the 1960s and ’70s may remember the dire global-cooling predictions that were hyped and given great credibility by Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now owing to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation.
> 
> “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.
> 
> In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.
> 
> To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported.
> 
> Of course, the big alleged threat hyped in recent decades has been global warming, not global cooling. But the accuracy of the climate-change predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved.
> 
> United Nations “Climate Refugees”
> 
> In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
> 
> The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.
> 
> In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.
> 
> In China, meanwhile, the top six fastest growing cities were all within the areas highlighted by the UN as likely sources of “climate refugees.” Many of the fastest-growing U.S. cities were also within or close to “climate refugee” danger zones touted by the UN
> 
> Rather than apologizing for its undisputable mistake after being first exposed by reporter Gavin Atkins at Asian Correspondent, the global body responded in typical alarmist fashion: with an Orwellian coverup seeking to erase all evidence of its ridiculous predictions. First, the UNEP took its “climate refugees” map down from the Web. That failed, of course, because the content was archived online prior to its disappearance down the UN “memory hole.
> 
> Then the UNEP tried and failed to distance itself from the outlandish claims, despite the fact that the map was created by a UNEP cartographer, released by UNEP, and repeatedly hyped by the outfit in its scaremongering campaigns. Eventually, as more and more media around the world began picking up the story, a spokesperson for the UN agency claimed the map was removed because it was “causing confusion.”
> 
> It was hardly the first time UN bureaucrats had made such dire predictions, only to be proven wrong. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
> 
> Other UN predictions were so ridiculous that they were retracted before they could even be proven wrong. Consider, as just one example, the scandal that came to be known as “Glaciergate.” In its final 2007 report, widely considered the “gospel” of “settled” climate “science,” the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it.
> 
> Pentagon Climate Forecasts
> 
> Like the UN, the Pentagon commissioned a report on “climate change” that also offered some highly alarming visions of the future under “global warming.” The 2003 document, entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” was widely cited by global-warming theorists, bureaucrats, and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom. It also served as the foundation for the claim that alleged man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern.” However, fortunately for the taxpayers forced to pay for the study, the Pentagon report turned out to be just as ridiculous as the UN “climate refugees” forecasts.
> 
> By now, according to the “not implausible” scaremongering outlined in the report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.
> 
> The Pentagon report even claimed there was “general agreement in the scientific community” that the extreme scenarios it envisioned could come to pass, and reporters treated it as if it were a prophecy delivered to climate sinners by God Himself. However, when interviewed by the Washington Times for a June 1, 2014 article, consultant and report co-author Doug Randall expressed surprise at how often the now-debunked forecasts were parroted. Yet he still defended the hysterical fear peddling. “When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,” Randall said. “But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”
> 
> The first article about the climate report appeared in early 2004, when the report was leaked to the U.K. Observer, under the sensationalistic title: “Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.” In a bullet-point summary at the top of the Observer article, journalists Mark Townsend and Paul Harris added: “Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war” and “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years.” The rest of the article was just as outlandish, going even beyond what the now-discredited Pentagon report claimed. Other reporters took their cue from the Observer article, which in retrospect would have been a hilarious piece of writing if it had not been taken so seriously at the time.
> 
> No More Snow?
> 
> For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
> 
> The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since rec.ords began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
> 
> In early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” Viner told The Guardian. Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow,” reported OnTheSnow.com on January 4, 2013. Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were “still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.”
> 
> The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.
> 
> Blame Global Warming?
> 
> After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.
> 
> The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.
> 
> That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.
> 
> Ridiculous forecasts have been made by other “climate scientists” who, like Holdren, continue to reap huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in salaries, grants, and benefits despite being consistently wrong. James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three dec.ades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world — despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades.
> 
> In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.
> 
> Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
> 
> When confronted on his failed predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as former Vice President Al Gore’s advisor, refused to apologize. “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he claimed. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.” Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.”
> 
> Arctic Ice
> 
> Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”
> 
> Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”
> 
> The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.”
> 
> Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Many experts now predict the ongoing expansion of Arctic ice to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.
> 
> Gore, though, was hardly alone in making the ridiculous and now thoroughly discredited predictions about Arctic ice. Citing climate experts, the British government-funded BBC, for example, also hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article on December 12, 2007, under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” In that piece, which was still online as of July 2014, the BBC highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Incredibly, some of the supposed “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted have “become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”
> 
> “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as a researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic] our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” (Emphasis added.) Other “experts” quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.
> 
> In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice volume at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers.
> 
> Indeed, in 2007, when Gore and others started making their predictions about imminent “ice-free” Arctic summers, the average sea-ice area extent after the summer melt for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers. By 2013, even on September 13, the minimum ice-cover day for the whole year, ice levels were way above the 2007 average for the month — by an area almost the size of California. The lowest level recorded on a single day during 2013 was 5.1 million square kilometers. By late July 2014, Arctic sea-ice extent was almost at its highest level in a decade, and scientists expect even less melting this summer than last year.
> 
> Despite parroting the wild claims five years ago, the establishment press has, unsurprisingly, refused to report that Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies from Gore have been forthcoming, either, and none of the “scientists” who made the ridiculous predictions quoted by the BBC has apologized or lost his taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the same discredited “experts” suggesting that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2016.
> 
> Antarctic Ice
> 
> Even more embarrassing for the warmists have been trends in the Southern Hemisphere. Of course, all of the “climate models” and “climate experts” and “scientists” predicted that rising CO2 emissions would increase global temperatures, which would melt the ice in Antarctica — by far the largest mass of frozen H2O on the planet. Indeed, the forecasts were crucial to many of the other predictions about surging sea levels and related gloom and doom.
> 
> The problem for global-warming theorists is that the opposite happened. Indeed, sea ice in Antarctica is off the charts, consistently smashing previous record highs on a near-daily basis. Sea-ice area in the south is now at the highest point since records began — by a lot — and the warmists are searching frantically for an explanation. Some are, incredibly, considering their past forecasts, trying to blame global warming. But the fact remains: Their predictions for Antarctica were as wrong as they possibly could be. Instead of melting as forecasted, ice levels are surging to new and unprecedented heights. As of early July, an area of the southern oceans the size of Greenland is frozen that, based on the average, should currently be open waters. If both poles are considered together, there is about one million square kilometers of frozen area above and beyond the long-term average.
> 
> Even UN warmists have been forced to concede that they do not know what is going on or why their “climate models” that predicted melting have been proven so wildly off the mark. “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to … incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change,” the IPCC admitted in its latest report. For now, the warmists have simply been trying their best to keep the public from noticing or examining the phenomenal growth in Antarctic ice.
> 
> As The New American reported earlier this year, the desperation and denial among warmists was illustrated perfectly in December. A ship full of global-warming alarmists led by a “climate scientist” went on a mission to study how “global warming” was melting Antarctic ice. Instead of completing their mission, they ended up getting their vessel trapped in record-setting levels of sea ice.
> 
> Obama Claims
> 
> In his second-term inaugural address, Obama also made some climate claims, saying: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.” Ironically, all three of the examples he provided of what he called the “threat of climate change” actually discredit his argument.
> 
> As Forbes magazine pointed out last year, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On “droughts,” a 2012 study published in the alarmist journal Nature noted that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.” The UN’s own climate alarmists were even forced to conclude last year that in many regions of the world, “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”
> 
> Regarding hurricanes and tornadoes, it probably would have been hard for Obama to choose a worse example to illustrate the alleged threat of man-made warming. Contrary to predictions by global warmists, hurricanes and tornadoes have been hitting in record-setting low numbers. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado, who last year left alarmists who had predicted more extreme weather linked to alleged global warming silent after pointing out the facts in a Senate hearing. “The five-year period ending 2013 has seen two hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900.” After adjusting the data for trends such as population growth and better reporting, it appears that 2013 also featured the lowest number of tornadoes in the long-term record.
> 
> In June 2008, Obama declared: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” He was referring, of course, to his own election, as if he were some sort of savior here to save humanity from its carbon-climate sins. In the real world, though, despite his grandiose and bombastic view of himself as global climate messiah, Obama has no more power to stop the “climate” from changing than his legions of discredited “experts” have demonstrated to successfully predict it.
> 
> Also ironically, perhaps, is that there had been no global warming since long before he took office. Worldwide, the disastrous forecasts by climate alarmists have proven to be similarly embarrassing. By now, anybody who follows “climate” news knows that “global warming” has been on what alarmists call “pause” for 18 years and counting, despite ongoing increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The stubborn refusal of temperatures to rise (and accelerate) as forecasted by all of the UN’s 73 “climate models” has discredited the models, the UN, and the alleged “science” behind the computer forecasts. Every single model predicted more warming than has occurred, an atrocious record that defies explanation. Even a monkey rolling the dice or a scam artist pretending to read the future from a crystal ball would have a better record, based only on the laws of probability.
> 
> Of course, alarmists have come up with at least a dozen excuses for the failure of temperatures to rise in accordance with their debunked models. The Obama administration’s favorite: the theory of “The Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Last year, the Associated Press, citing leaked documents, reported that the U.S. government had pressured the UN IPCC to incorporate that excuse, for which there is not a scintilla of observable evidence, into its most recent global-warming report.
> 
> A Prediction
> 
> The website Watts Up With That (WUWT), run by meteorologist and climate researcher Anthony Watts, highlighted the embarrassing record in late 2013 following a particularly devastating year for “climate” predictions. “It seems like every major CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] prediction has failed in 2013,” the article explains, citing a vast trove of scientific data debunking alarmist forecasts. “Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed. The apparent complete failure of the CAGW narrative in 2013 could make the most fundamentalist agnostic wonder if Mother Nature sometimes takes sides, aka the Gore Effect.” Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor.
> 
> Few people would make an important decision based on next week’s weather forecast. When it comes to “climate,” though, the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom based on failed models purporting to make predictions decades and even centuries in advance. Flawed predictions aside, a great deal of evidence suggests accuracy or truth was never the intent — generating fear to seize more money and power was (and is). Many top alarmists have admitted as much, with some responding to the implosion of their theories with calls for censorship or, more extreme still, the imprisonment, re-education, and even execution of “climate deniers.”
> 
> The Earth’s climate has always changed, and very likely will continue to change, regardless of what humans do. What is now clear, though, is that the establishment has no idea what those changes will be — much less what drives the changes or how to control them.


But dang it. We're right *this* time! We're SCIENTISTS! WE NEVER GET ANYTHING WRONG! LISTEN TO US. THE END OF THE WORLD IS COMING! 

:kobelol

Doomsday cults always change their predictions to suit their end of world hysteria. Always.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> :lmao.


She really needs to go away. She is just embarrassing herself at this point.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Little slow on this, so please help try to understand. Why does Trump/some of his supporters not believe in climate change? Just genuinely interested as it's something I've never fully understood, but I am willing to listen to why folk may believe it doesn't exist.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Little slow on this, so please help try to understand. Why does Trump/some of his supporters not believe in climate change? Just genuinely interested as it's something I've never fully understood, but I am willing to listen to why folk may believe it doesn't exist.


No one disputes the temperatures are rising.

What's disputed is humanity's effect on the rising temperatures.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> No one disputes the temperatures are rising.
> 
> What's disputed is humanity's effect on the rising temperatures.


How you not think humans have an effect?


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Little slow on this, so please help try to understand. Why does Trump/some of his supporters not believe in climate change? Just genuinely interested as it's something I've never fully understood, but I am willing to listen to why folk may believe it doesn't exist.


Because their predictions are constantly wrong. For so much "evidence" they are terrible at this. People cannot predict the weather correct one week from now, but I am supposed to believe they can predict the weather fifty years from now? 

The poster above laid out a pretty good article and picture for you to see.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> Because their predictions are constantly wrong. For so much "evidence" they are terrible at this. People cannot predict the weather correct one week from now, but I am supposed to believe they can predict the weather fifty years from now?
> 
> The poster above laid out a pretty good article and picture for you to see.


You need to learn the difference between weather and climate

And you don't even have to take the prediction part into it, just look at the facts and stats of month to month and how the earth set a record template for the third straight year. that is not prediction that is what happened.

And you don't think humans with all their fossil fuel use a cause of that?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Little slow on this, so please help try to understand. Why does Trump/some of his supporters not believe in climate change? Just genuinely interested as it's something I've never fully understood, but I am willing to listen to why folk may believe it doesn't exist.


I've written a LOT of extensive posts on at least my views on this subject. I also gave a complete breakdown of the varying views amongst skeptics. I'll summarise tho:

1. Almost no one disagrees with the fact that climate change is indeed happening and that it is warming. 

2. Almost no one disagrees that humans are adding to greenhouse gasses and indirectly might be adding to the warming. 

These are established facts. 

Now that I have that clear. Here are the more complex positions on the subject:

1. There needs to a clear distinction made between naturally occurring climate change and human caused climate change. The science is inclusive in this area. 

2. There is no definitive scientific model currently in existence that can accurately predict how much the climate will actually warm up. Climate Change Alarmism is based on hypothetical science, not fool proof predictive science. 

3. There is a whole community of "scientists" that are simply examining human caused climate science while ignoring other factors in their modeling which are giving us myopic scientific data on climate change

4. There is evidence to suggest that global warming is actually good for life, humanity, trees, food production, reforestation etc. This is a side of the argument that conventional climate scientists are completely ignoring

5. The climate doomsday cult (the one that has all the apocalyptic/end times theories) is based on the mainstream narratives pushed by politicians and not scientists. 

6. The politicians have historically sided with alarmist projections that were "of the worst case scenario" and flooded the mainstream with the worst case scenario. Most of these scenarios have been thoroughly proven false over time, but instead of acknowledging the mistakes, what they've done is changed the dates of the end times predictions like typical doomsday cults tend to do. 

7. There is another group that accepts that climate change is happening, but also that the government and human intervention to stop it through money and regulation is both a waste of resources and energy. This is based on the knowledge that the government has repeatedly demanded more money to end things like poverty, crime, hunger etc and has by and large been unsuccessful in doing so. So why assume that a failed institution will have any success in this arena as well? 

8. The idea that CO2 emissions are the primary driver of global warming is in and of itself a disputable fact and then adding a series of crippling regulations on top of that simply makes it a case of snake oil pseudoscience. 

There is no such thing as a climate change / science denier. This is a strawman created by the bully pulpit in order to establish control and power over a complex human issue. It's a mixture of lack of education, indoctrination and misplaced empathy which while understandable is based on a science that only agrees on the fact that the globe is warming. 

The things like _how much_ of it is caused by humans, the rate at which it's going to lead to catastrophe, the catastrophe predictions are by and large pseudo-science based on the flawed human ability to predict. 

This isn't like Einstein's theory of relativity where you had mathematical proofs. This is observational science where the science is as flawed as the human conducting the science. 

When climate science alarmists claim that it's science, they're basically using the word without realizing the core difference between science of absolute truths (cause and effect) vs pseudo-science.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No one is claiming humans are the sole cause of climate change, what they are saying is humans are causing climate to change times faster than it would normally. The last number I saw was 170 times faster.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No one is claiming humans are the sole cause of climate change, what they are saying is humans are causing climate to change times faster than it would normally. The last number I saw was 170 times faster.


Here's the actual quote from that study:

http://www.iflscience.com/environme...hundreds-of-times-faster-than-natural-forces/



> For 7,000 years, global temperatures declined at a rate of 0.1ºC (0.18ºF) per century until the start of the Industrial Revolution, note Owen Gaffney of Stockholm University and Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University in The Anthropocene Review. Over the last 45 years, however, warming has taken place at a rate of 1.7ºC (3.0ºF) per century. These figures are based on extensive previous work – Gaffney and Steffen highlighted the ratio, rather than conducting the studies.


He claims that based on data over 45 years the rate is 1.7 degrees centigrade per century (meaning that it's actually lower over the period of human interaction with the environment).

I'm reading the entire study right now (thankfully I have some experience in these matters as a result of my bullshit Sociology degree) so I can actually comment. 

Stay tuned.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Here's the actual quote from that study:
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/environme...hundreds-of-times-faster-than-natural-forces/
> 
> 
> 
> He claims that based on data over 45 years the rate is 1.7 degrees centigrade per century (meaning that it's actually lower over the period of human interaction with the environment).
> 
> I read the whole article and no where does it say except the opening blurb added by the idiot journalist who did stupid math to come up with a retarded number :lmao
> 
> The scientist who published the paper never made the claim nor gave any numbers that would allow anyone to come up with the 170 times faster number without doing troll math. The idiot journalist did a stupid calculation in his head and pulled the number out of his ass by dividing 1.7 by .01 (no idea where he even got .01) :lmao
> 
> Please stop following I fucking love science. It's trash. It turned into clickbait shit 6 years ago.



Thats not where I got the number from. They are not the ones who came up with that number. Every article that published that report used that number. 


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...-global-warming-anthropocene-equation/8265326

also

According to researchers, global temperatures decreased by 0.01C per century over the last 7,000 years—the "baseline" rate. But in the last 45 years it has increased by the equivalent of 1.7C per century, and the 12 warmest years on record have come since 1998, they said.

So humans don't have a huge impact?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


Well she is right if the DNC would have backed Sanders the Democrats would have won.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This is the original study where the 170 times figure comes from. 

Ok. Here are some legit comments on the Anthropocene Equation that BM loosely reference as a result of seeing it loosely referenced to in his 170 times faster claim. The baseline they chose was arbitrary and therefore the 170 number gives you the result you want and then you work backwards to show why. 

It's like me saying that when I was 10 I was half as old as my 20 year old cousin. And that would be perfectly right. 

However, 10 years later (when I'm 20 and she's 30), I'm not half as old as she is. I'm not wrong, but what I said is very much pointless because I created something to talk about. 

http://web.cerritos.edu/tstolze/Sit...d Will Steffen, The Anthropocene Equation.pdf

The Anthropocene Equation: 

The equation looks like this 










In this equation, I, G, A and H are all arbitrarily defined and not actually mathematically defined variables. Here are some of the considerations that have gone into defining what H is in the first place: 



> An obvious, and critical, next step is to represent H as a sub-system of the Earth System because
> it is now the prime forcing driving the rate of change of the Earth System. Although a full analysis
> of H is beyond the scope of this paper (see McNeill and Engelke, 2016, for an analysis of the Great
> Acceleration), we note one attempt at describing the system dynamics of H that is particularly
> relevant here because it attempted to describe the dynamics of the Great Acceleration (Figure 1;
> adapted after Hibbard et al., 2006).


So H is defined as a function of P (population), C (Consumption) and T (Technosphere). Pretty arbitrary again. But let's keep going. 

Breaking down the variables further: 

Technosphere = Energy, Knowledge (?) and Pe (political economy). 

(It's all actually kinda very technical and cool sounding, but it's beginning to enter more into the realm of Star Trek technobabble than actual science at this point). 

Ultimately, what we have is one of science's biggest flaws. Assumptions and working backwards. The research paper basically has an end conclusion ready and has come up with a way (by limiting variables, arbitrarily defining some, non-mathematics masquerading as mathematics) to create a model that suggests something that it suggests but doesn't really say anything about why. 

The lack of focus on the other variables (A, G, and I) throuhgout the paper is also disturbing. The fact is that the paper itself mentions that we did go through a period in earth's history where temperatures rose 4-8 degrees previously - but that happened at a time when humans did not exist. So I don't understand how that observation alone doesn't at least cause them to do a double-take on their current model. We also know that earth temperatures were higher than they are at one point. We also know that CO2 emissions were higher than they are at several points in our history. What they're trying to do is show a direct cause between humans causing it and spectacularly failing to do so. 

It's pseudoscience ultimately. They saw an effect (rate of rise but only based on a baseline they also chose randomly), found a variable that happens to exist at the same time (human activity), arbitrarily defined what that human activity is with no actual mathematical proofs backing them up and came up with a cause (humans) of that rate of change. They also acknowledge that CO2 emission levels have consistently fluctuated and there have times when they were higher and were lower, but still decided to carry on with the Anthropocene argument. 

The thing is, it's as problematic as other models. It's still filled with human flaws like arbitrary variable definitions and close to Star Trek level science (at least that's my impression based on the fact that I am fairly good at understanding what I'm reading). 

The fact is that what they concluded based on their model is right. It's just not a very good model with not so very good assumptions and arbitrarily picking and choosing baselines that give them the result they want. 

They may be right that based on their base line assumptions compared to a number they chose it's 170 times faster, but this does not say with any conclusive evidence at all that it is because of human activity. They haven't shown any causation at all. 

It's just not a very good model.

TL;DR version:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> This is the original study where the 170 times figure comes from.
> 
> Ok. Here are some legit comments on the Anthropocene Equation that BM loosely reference as a result of seeing it loosely referenced to in his 170 times faster claim:
> 
> http://web.cerritos.edu/tstolze/Sit...d Will Steffen, The Anthropocene Equation.pdf
> 
> The Anthropocene Equation:
> 
> The equation looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this equation, I, G, A and H are all arbitrarily defined and not actually mathematically defined variables. Here are some of the considerations that have gone into defining what H is in the first place:
> 
> 
> 
> So H is defined as a function of P (population), C (Consumption) and T (Technosphere). Pretty arbitrary again. But let's keep going.
> 
> Breaking down the variables further:
> 
> Technosphere = Energy, Knowledge (?) and Pe (political economy).
> 
> (It's all actually kinda very technical and cool sounding, but it's beginning to enter more into the realm of Star Trek technobabble than actual science at this point).
> 
> Ultimately, what we have is one of science's biggest flaws. Assumptions and working backwards. The research paper basically has an end conclusion ready and has come up with a way (by limiting variables, arbitrarily defining some, non-mathematics masquerading as mathematics) to create a model that suggests something that it suggests but doesn't really say anything about why.
> 
> The lack of focus on the other variables (A, G, and I) throuhgout the paper is also disturbing. The fact is that the paper itself mentions that we did go through a period in earth's history where temperatures rose 4-8 degrees previously - but that happened at a time when humans did not exist. So I don't understand how that observation alone doesn't at least cause them to do a double-take on their current model.
> 
> It's pseudoscience ultimately. They saw an effect (rate of rise), found a variable that happens to exist at the same time, arbitrarily defined factors with no actual math and came up with a rate of change. They also acknowledge that CO2 emission levels have consistently fluctuated and there have times when they were higher and were lower, but still decided to carry on with the Anthropocene argument.
> 
> The thing is, it's as inclusive as all other models. It's still filled with human flaws like arbitrary variable definitions and close to Star Trek level science (at least that's my impression based on the fact that I am fairly good at understanding what I'm reading).
> 
> The fact is that they concluded based on their model that they're right. They may be right that based on their base line assumptions compared to a number they chose it's 170 times faster, but this does not say with any conclusive evidence at all that it is because of human activity. They haven't shown any causation at all.
> 
> It's just not a very good model.


You can leave the 170 number out of it, its still much faster due to humans. Or are you going to disagree with that?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) director of data science Andrew Therriault lashed out at Hillary Clinton after Clinton blamed the DNC’s data team in large part for her loss.
> 
> Clinton said Wednesday at a tech conference that “I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”
> 
> As I first reported, the DNC was insolvent and reliant on cash from the Clinton campaign. But the DNC data operation was actually, by all accounts, top-rate, and even during the primaries the data was only available to the Clinton campaign. That’s why it became such a major civil war in December 2015 when the Bernie Sanders campaign briefly accessed some of the DNC’s data, leading to the firing of Sanders data director Josh Uretsky, a close friend of Seth Rich.
> 
> Therriault is not having it.
> 
> DNC data folks: today's accusations are fucking bullshit, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense.
> 
> — Andrew Therriault (@therriaultphd) June 1, 2017
> We will respond in due time, but for now, just realize your work was worth way more than you're being given credit for.
> 
> — Andrew Therriault (@therriaultphd) June 1, 2017
> Private mode be damned, this is too important. I'm not willing to let my people be thrown under the bus without a fight.
> 
> — Andrew Therriault (@therriaultphd) June 1, 2017
> Clinton is reportedly reeling from the private revelation that the anti-Trump “Resistance” does not want her as its leader, and from press leaks about her alleged mistreatment of campaign staff.


http://bigleaguepolitics.com/dnc-campaign-data-director-hillarys-accusations-fucking-bullshit/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Looks like its offical

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html

Trump to withdraw from Paris accord

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord Thursday, a major step that fulfills his campaign promises while seriously dampening global efforts to curb global warming.

The decision amounts to a rebuttal of the worldwide effort to pressure Trump to remain a part of the agreement, which 195 nations signed onto. Foreign leaders, business executives and Trump's own daughter lobbied heavily for him to remain a part of the deal, but ultimately lost out to conservatives who claim the plan is bad for the United States.
"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but being negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction under terms that are fair to the United States," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden. "We're getting out."
In triggering the official withdrawal procedures, Trump will spark a lengthy process that won't conclude until November 2020 -- the same month he's up for reelection, ensuring the issue becomes a major topic of debate in the next presidential contest.
The White House began informing members of Congress Thursday afternoon that Trump planned to pull out of the US from the landmark agreement, according to a congressional source.
In talking points delivered to Trump's allies, the White House characterized the Paris agreement as a job killer that placed undue burdens on American taxpayers.
"The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President's action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first," the talking points read. "The accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy."
Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were calling lawmakers, including House and Senate leaders, in the hours leading up to the announcement to get input on his climate decision, a Republican source said.
Trump and Europe don't mix, and that will have lasting consequences
Trump and Europe don't mix, and that will have lasting consequences
The President campaigned against the climate agreement last year as a candidate, and those close to him said he was insistent upon fulfilling his promises, despite urging from some members of his own administration to remain in the agreement.
A person familiar with Trump's thinking said the President was convinced he needed to withdraw from the pact, and there was little chance of talking his out of it.
Opponents of the move say it threatens to isolate the United States in a global effort to curb the warming of the planet, and leave an opening for countries like China to fill the leadership void.
The uncertainty over Trump's decision has lent the Paris announcement a reality show-like air, with Thursday's unveiling a finale to a months-long debate that has split members of the President's inner circle and led to deep consternation from global allies.
Trump, a former reality star himself, advertised the announcement in a tweet late Wednesday. Earlier in the day, he told reporters he was "hearing from a lot of people both ways."
Trump had several options for withdrawal, ultimately choosing a step that bridged a divide between remaining in the accord and a drastic, immediate withdrawal from the entire United Nations climate change treaty.


Trump expected to withdraw from Paris Accord 01:37
As news emerged Wednesday that Trump planned to quit the Paris deal, business leaders and foreign heads-of-state began castigating the decision as a woeful abandonment of US leadership. Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, said he would resign from White House business councils if Trump followed through. Apple CEO Tim Cook also urged Trump to reconsider.
Inside the West Wing, attempts to sway Trump's thinking also continued apace. Trump's daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka, has worked to ensure her father heard pro-Paris voices over the last several months, and has continued to press for a decision short of a full withdrawal.
Ivanka Trump and her allies, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Trump's chief economist Gary Cohn, have pressed Trump to alter the US commitments to the Paris agreement without fully pulling out of the accord.

But anti-Paris voices, led by chief strategist Steve Bannon and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, appeared to win out. In conversations with his advisers, Trump has cited the affect a withdrawal would have on the states where he won by the largest margins, including in the Rust Belt and the western plains.
That's a reflection of Trump's "America First" governing policy, which he's sought to bolster since taking office. Trump was pressured heavily by his foreign counterparts during last week's G7 meetings in Sicily to remain in the deal, but his advisers say he felt little obligation to concede to that point of view.
On Wednesday, global figures began reiterating their own commitment to the Paris deal as Trump prepared to withdraw. Chinese premier Li Keqiang, visiting Germany, said his country would remain committed to combating climate change, despite US moves.
And European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declared Europe was ready to act as a global climate leader in the US absence.
"The vacuum that would be created has to be filled, and Europe has aspirations for a natural leadership in this whole process," he said in Berlin.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

As I've said before, here is my whole issue with climate change/global warming. 

I'm not denying it exists. My issue comes when the government and elected officials come up with proposed solutions that strike me as being unfairly one sided. 

Why are middle and lower class people expected to stop driving their cars to help the environment? Why do they have to have more money taken from them to pay for programs that probably aren't going to have any lasting impact on fixing the problem? 

I don't know, but it bothers me when super rich people like politicians and celebrities start telling us little people that we have to live with less. Guys, you fly around in private jets (that burn way more gas than my car does) and live in mansions. Aren't you the ones that can afford to live with less for the good of the environment?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TripleG said:


> As I've said before, here is my whole issue with climate change/global warming.
> 
> I'm not denying it exists. My issue comes when the government and elected officials come up with proposed solutions that strike me as being unfairly one sided.
> 
> Why are middle and lower class people expected to stop driving their cars to help the environment? Why do they have to have more money taken from them to pay for programs that probably aren't going to have any lasting impact on fixing the problem?
> 
> I don't know, but it bothers me when super rich people like politicians and celebrities start telling us little people that we have to live with less. Guys, you fly around in private jets (that burn way more gas than my car does) and live in mansions. Aren't you the ones that can afford to live with less for the good of the environment?


No one is saying you have to stop driving your car LOL Cars would just have to meet new regulations by a certain date like 2025 or something like that. You will still be able to drive your current car. 

Its also moving to more green energy like solar and wind which is much cleaner. 

those would have huge lasting effects.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*







http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russ...ld-trumps-personal-attorney/story?id=47646601


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can leave the 170 number out of it, its still much faster due to humans. Or are you going to disagree with that?


I'm undecided. 

Convince me with proper studies. You know I'm willing to read even technical papers on the subject.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:trump just got reelected :trump3

The US has already reduced its carbon emissions by a large amount thanks to natural gas fracking and will continue to do so solely because of that for the foreseeable future. Then there will of course be other technological improvements and innovations that will continue reducing American carbon emissions. 

There is no need for the US to participate in the Paris Agreement for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions.

The real reason commies are upset is that the real point of the US adhering to the Paris Agreement is that it will greatly increase the power of the State through regulations and taxes, and will also make it easier to suck money out of the US to hand off to Third World hellholes and into the pockets of the globalist elite. 

It's so nice to have a president who acts in what is in America's interest again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well, so he announced it. 

:move 

Here come the tears. I'll be checking out of this thread for a few days :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Also: the balls on this madman :trump.

The brass balls. 

Shit like this resonates at a powerful level in the psyche of the unwashed masses.

:trump playing 88D chess yet again.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump just got reelected :trump3


gonna be tough to get re-elected when :trump got impeached 3 weeks ago.... oh oops

:move


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

And got rid of the Green Climate agreement. 2 birds 1 stone. This man is making moves. :trump2

:banderas


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Covfefe has been translated

It means "your hands aren't getting in America's ass-wallets anymore, globalists"


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Lame move but expected. Elon Musk left, why the fuck did he join when Trump made it clear he was doing this from the start. The rest of the world will continue to do its bit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If you think that the Paris Climate Accord is about saving the planet, you've already betrayed the fact that you haven't even bothered to read the accord or even a summary of it.

Obviously green energy corporatists like Musk are pissed. He may lose a huge chunk of guaranteed tax payer money he may not be receiving anymore. 

He's already getting $5 billion from tax payers. Fuck him and _his_ kind of shameless capitalist. We don't need these assholes.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Lame move but expected. Elon Musk left, why the fuck did he join when Trump made it clear he was doing this from the start. The rest of the world will continue to do its bit.


Most of the rest of the world has quite a way to go to match the 12.4% reduction in carbon emissions the US has seen since 2007, when the country's CO2 emissions peaked. According to the Department of Energy, this is more carbon emissions reduction than virtually every other country on the planet during that ten year period.

The EU just for example managed to reduce CO2 emissions 0.7% from 2014 to 2015. In that same year, American carbon emissions were reduced by 2.5%.

The rest of the world needs to get on our environmental level. And we didn't need their shitstain Kyoto Treaty or their shitriver Paris Agreement to do it either.

Why does the rest of the world hate the environment so much? Why can't they love it as much as Americans do?


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Just playing devil's advocate here. Why should she have been fired?


For instance making CNN look bad.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Reports are coming in that :trump will follow "the 4 year rule" so the US won't really have pulled out until 2020.

Which is bullshit, the Senate never ratified the Paris Agreement. It is blatantly unconstitutional to adhere to any of it. It has never legally taken effect in this country so this country can't pull out of it, it never went in. Kinda disappointed in :trump that he didn't point this out and if he does follow this "4 year rule" that would be even more disappointing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This guy gets it:


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



InUtero said:


> Little slow on this, so please help try to understand. Why does Trump/some of his supporters not believe in climate change? Just genuinely interested as it's something I've never fully understood, but I am willing to listen to why folk may believe it doesn't exist.


I'm not a Trump supporter but I will answer this from my own perspective.

I do not consider myself to be a non-believer when it comes to Climate Change, however with the most ardent of Climate Change circles I'd be considered a Climate Change skeptic because I question how much of an effect humans are having in the process and just how quickly this will effect us.

I have no problem stating that Climate Change is real and have no problem with the suggestion that humans are contributing, the evidence for that is overwhelming. What I have concern about is just how are we contributing to the speed in which Climate Change is going and just how fast is it going. This is mainly because it is extremely hard to predict and as @Iconoclast has already mentioned, there have been countless predictions which have been made which simply ended up being false. 

There is a lot of alarmist views when it comes to this subject and unfortunately I think it shuts off any sort of dialogue or debate when it comes to this subject and how best to handle it. I for one believe we are approaching this completely the wrong way (more on that later) but despite a really innocent disagreement I've had people who I've talked to about this subject become extremely hostile towards me. 

It's almost like a religion with these people, even if you agree with the premise of what they are saying if you veer even slightly off the narrative you are a problem. What gets me more than anything is when you have advocates who want us to come off fossil fuels and we should eventually because the resources for that type of energy are finite anyway and yet some of them are often the first to protest against nuclear energy, which is one of the most advanced, cheapest and efficient alternatives to fossil fuels. Now you would think they would be all for it but instead they protest it and instead want to push for energy such as solar and wind which are often very expensive to produce and sell. See what I'm getting at here? It doesn't make any sense.

Here's where I might shock and surprise you: *I actually agree with Trump's stance here.* You might think to yourself why?

The problem I find with the Paris agreement is that it achieves very little and has a staggering amount of cost behind it. Simply put, to put these agreements into effect would cost way too much to deliver really minuscule results.

A peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. His results found:

* The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be *0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.*

* Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just *0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. *

* *US climate policies*, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by *0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.*

* *EU *climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by *0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.*

* *China* climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by *0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.*

* The *rest of the world’s* climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by *0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.*

And these predictions are all from the UN's own prediction model and those are the most optimistic predictions. UN agreements through several nations often do not come to fruition anyway. Imagine having to try and get all of those nations to adhere to these rules and regulations all of the time even in times of economic turmoil or in the case of countries which are still going through their own industrial revolution, it's impossible to map out.

A good example of this is the Kyoto Protocol. It was signed in 1997, never ratified by the US, and eventually abandoned by Canada and Russia and Japan. After several renegotiations, the Kyoto Protocol had been weakened to the point that the hot air left from the collapse of the Soviet Union exceeded the entire promised reductions, leaving the treaty essentially toothless. 

The only reason Kyoto goals were almost achieved was the global 2008 recession. Moreover, emissions were shifted from one country to another. The EU, the most climate-engaged bloc, saw an increase in its emission imports from China alone equaling its entire domestic CO₂ reductions. In total, 40% of all emissions were likely shifted away from the areas that made promises.

Negotiators in Paris are trying to tackle global warming in the same way that has failed for 30 years: by making promises that are individually expensive, will have little impact even in a hundred years and that many governments will try to shirk from. 

This didn’t work in Kyoto, it didn’t work in Copenhagen, it hasn’t worked in the 18 other climate conferences or countless more international gatherings. The suggestion that it will make a large difference in Paris is wishful thinking.

But let's say if the Paris agreement carbon cuts are sustained throughout the rest of the century by all of the countries signed up to the agreement which would have been highly unlikely, the effects of Climate Change would be postponed by *less than 4 years.* The biggest problem with this is, according to the standard energy modeling forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise, the Paris Climate Pact would likely cost between *$1-$2 Trillion Dollars every year.* That is the equivalent of at least *$100 Trillion Dollars* spent by the end of the century to achieve results that don't even reduce the temperature overall by a single Fahrenheit. Is it really worth it? Or could we be using another method that is less costly and more effective? I know what my answer would be.

Even the most generous model, the Climate Action tracker only predicts a drop of around 0.9 F. by the end of the century, which is often cited by Climate Change enthusiasts. But that is based on the assumption that even stronger CC policies will be adopted, which about 98% of them would come *after* 2030 which is the deadline of the Paris Agreement. Literally only 1% of the emission reductions that would be needed to curb off the effects of Climate Change according to the UN comes within the Paris Agreement.

From a US perspective, the Paris Agreement dictates that the US needs to reduce it's carbon emission by about 20%, whilst for example China doesn't need to touch the issue for another 2 decades. It isn't exactly a balanced solution when China contributes a vast amount of Co2 as well as the US. And with the Paris solution not amounting much to anything and the unknown impact of the cost it will have to jobs in the long run, the costs are just too high versus the benefits.

Big governments and international bodies only solution this entire time has been to increase taxes on people using fossil fuel energy through the carbon tax. I am extremely skeptic of any governmental bodies whose solution to what is supposed to be a global problem is simply to tax the sources being used. It seems to me that politicians are using this partly as an excuse to make more money out of ordinary working people and rake in the profits, meanwhile not doing fuck all about the problem. 

Liberals will often argue that taxing more on let's say cigarettes or alcohol won't stop people from using those substances, and they are right, it doesn't at all. Yet they can't see the same issue with fossil fuels, the solution is always to tax oil or gas more and it doesn't work and they refuse to see it. Why doesn't it work? Because there is no other cheaper or more competitively priced alternative out there which is cleaner for the environment, so if there is no alternatives and everyone needs to use energy sources for pretty much everything in their lives, especially when it comes to heating then regardless of how much you tax it, people will still use it. It does nothing to address the issue.

What needs to be done is so common sense based and yet hardly anyone brings it up: We need to do exactly what got us to discover and efficiently use fossil fuels to begin with, which is open up the market for alternative energy and foster an environment where it is an attractive investment opportunity for private business to infuse capital into these cleaner energy sources. 

Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it. The only way you can do that is through the market, government solutions have never worked. 

For example, Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C. Germany as a real life case study, have used the government to subsidize and put forward tax credits towards greener energy, even putting some companies into public hands. This is exactly the same policy Corbyn wants to pursue. Right now, Germany has the highest energy bills in Europe and Berlin is the most expensive city in Europe to live in in terms of energy bills. Renewable energy levies went up from €14.1bn to €20.4bn alone in 2013, according to the BDEW association of energy and water industries. Simply put, it's becoming costly and unprofitable to run.

I'm all for doing something about Climate Change, but the solutions being put forward won't work and haven't been working. So I don't blame Trump for pulling out.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Most of the rest of the world has quite a way to go to match the 12.4% reduction in carbon emissions the US has seen since 2007, when the country's CO2 emissions peaked. According to the Department of Energy, this is more carbon emissions reduction than virtually every other country on the planet during that ten year period.
> 
> The EU just for example managed to reduce CO2 emissions 0.7% from 2014 to 2015. In that same year, American carbon emissions were reduced by 2.5%.
> 
> The rest of the world needs to get on our environmental level. And we didn't need their shitstain Kyoto Treaty or their shitriver Paris Agreement to do it either.
> 
> Why does the rest of the world hate the environment so much? Why can't they love it as much as Americans do?


:hmmm Maybe because the rest of the world wasn't pumping out so much Co2 in the first place (Excluding China)? The fact you still produce more than the EU even after all these reductions goes to show how much you needed to do it. 

We have twice the number of people and produce much less Co2 in the EU, so big congratulations on not being absolutely abysmal anymore! Highest carbon emissions per person in the world, USA USA!
:rileyclap


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> :hmmm Maybe because the rest of the world wasn't pumping out so much Co2 in the first place (Excluding China)? The fact you still produce more than the EU even after all these reductions goes to show how much you needed to do it.
> 
> We have twice the number of people and produce much less Co2 in the EU, so big congratulations on not being absolutely abysmal anymore!
> :rileyclap


Someone seems bitter that the US is doing the best at reducing CO2 emissions and wants to throw shade rather than congratulate and encourage the US to continue.

I thought the point was the environment, not your butthurt.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Someone seems bitter that the US is doing the best at reducing CO2 emissions and wants to throw shade rather than congratulate and encourage the US to continue.
> 
> I thought the point was the environment, not your butthurt.


You compared two different entities to make one look good and the other bad, the EU is not a mass producer of Co2 and thus its reductions will always be smaller than the US. I was correcting your flawed analysis.

If someone was 40st and lost 10st and someone was 13st and lost 1 stone ones still a big fat fatty the others not. (Unless shes a midget)

The US is absolutely doing its bit, deserves credit for its savings, but now like Syria it'll do its bit all on its own instead of working alongside the rest of the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> This guy gets it:


OH yeah he really gets it LOL

some fun facts for you so you GET IT


Global sea levels have risen 8 inches the past 100 years, the last two decades alone the sea level doubled over that same time period
16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001. 
The average temp. of the earth's surface has risen 2 degrees since the late 1800s

Trump supporters can keep being uneducated on this, all they want. It just keeps showing why Trump likes you guys.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> You compared two different entities to make one look good and the other bad, the EU is not a mass producer of Co2 and thus its reductions will always be smaller than the US. I was correcting your flawed analysis.
> 
> If someone was 40st and lost 10st and someone was 13st and lost 1 stone ones still a big fat fatty the others not. (Unless shes a midget)
> 
> The US is absolutely doing its bit, deserves credit for its savings, but now like Syria it'll do its bit all on its own instead of working alongside the rest of the world.


Your analysis is total shit. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...wering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#619e9bca5f48

The EU is a massive producer of CO2 emissions. Massive.

We're talking about billions of tons of CO2 a year. In that context the idea that the EU's reductions have to be always smaller than America's because they started out from a lower number is laughable. A 300 pound man losing 30 pounds _in no way_ prevents a 250 pound man from losing 50 pounds. 

America's way has proven superior to the EU's regulatory and tax model. 

America has already proven we don't need to "work alongside the rest of the world" to be superior to it in reducing carbon emissions. Why should America change? 

I thought the point was the environment, not "working alongside the rest of the world."



birthday_massacre said:


> OH yeah he really gets it LOL
> 
> some fun facts for you so you GET IT
> 
> 
> Global sea levels have risen 8 inches the past 100 years, the last two decades alone the sea level doubled over that same time period
> 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.
> The average temp. of the earth's surface has risen 2 degrees since the late 1800s
> 
> Trump supporters can keep being uneducated on this, all they want. It just keeps showing why Trump likes you guys.


And how does any of that prove that the US needs to join the Paris Agreement?

It doesn't prove that, of course. The US is already doing better than everyone else at reducing carbon emissions. 

Since the Agreement has been completely unnecessary for the US to reduce carbon emissions at an unmatched level, there is no reason for the US to join it.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Your analysis is total shit.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...wering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#619e9bca5f48
> 
> The EU is a massive producer of CO2 emissions. Massive.
> 
> We're talking about billions of tons of CO2 a year. In that context the idea that the EU's reductions have to be always smaller than America's because they started out from a lower number is laughable. A 300 pound man losing 30 pounds _in no way_ prevents a 250 pound man from losing 50 pounds.
> 
> America's way has proven superior to the EU's regulatory and tax model.
> 
> America has already proven we don't need to "work alongside the rest of the world" to be superior to it in reducing carbon emissions. Why should America change?
> 
> I thought the point was the environment, not "working alongside the rest of the world."
> 
> 
> 
> And how does any of that prove that the US needs to join the Paris Agreement?
> 
> It doesn't prove that, of course. The US is already doing better than everyone else at reducing carbon emissions.
> 
> Since the Agreement has been completely unnecessary for the US to reduce carbon emissions at an unmatched level, there is no reason for the US to join it.


The US is the second largest emitter of carbon emissions so of course they will have to reduce more than every other country LOL its common sense.

The US needs to join it to keep up with the rest of the world, Trump is dumb and thinks climate change is a hoax FFS. You have people in Trumps own circle like Tillerson and his daughter telling him he needs to stay in it.

Trump pulling out will also cause the rest of the world to trust the US even less because Trump can't honor things the US has agreed to in the past. 

Its sad Trump supporters dont understand this simple concepts.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870372652967505920


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The US is the second largest emitter of carbon emissions so of course they will have to reduce more than every other country LOL its common sense.
> 
> The US needs to join it to keep up with the rest of the world, Trump is dumb and thinks climate change is a hoax FFS. You have people in Trumps own circle like Tillerson and his daughter telling him he needs to stay in it.
> 
> Trump pulling out will also cause the rest of the world to trust the US even less because Trump can't honor things the US has agreed to in the past.
> 
> Its sad Trump supporters dont understand this simple concepts.


Trump supporters don't want to be a apart of the civilized world simple as that. They pretty much want to be as isolated as a country can be at this point.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

MUH CLIMATE N' SHIT.

Environmentalists right now:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump supporters don't want to be a apart of the civilized world simple as that. They pretty much want to be as isolated as a country can be at this point.


I thought the point was reducing carbon emissions.

Instead I keep reading things like this, which have nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. 

The United States will also not be isolated one bit by this. Other than being isolated from regulations and laws that are inferior at reducing carbon emissions than what the US has done. 

The rest of the world should follow American leadership, think of how much carbon emissions would have been reduced if the American way had been followed instead of the carbon tax and onerous regulations way that has been shown to be inferior.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump supporters don't want to be a apart of the civilized world simple as that. They pretty much want to be as isolated as a country can be at this point.


>Civilized

Uh-huh, and only your side dictates what that means, right?


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Sometimes a covfefe is just a covfefe


Wrong again. You merely lack the INSIGHT to see through to its true meaning


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The United States will also not be isolated one bit by this. Other than being isolated from regulations and laws that are inferior at reducing carbon emissions than what the US has done.
> 
> The rest of the world should follow American leadership, think of how much carbon emissions would have been reduced if the American way had been followed instead of the carbon tax and onerous regulations way that has been shown to be inferior.


Sure buddy, Europe and Asia can't wait for American leadership. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> >Civilized
> 
> Uh-huh, and only your side dictates what that means, right?


Basically at this point this person just called Saudi Arabia civilized because they're part of the climate change accord. 

I've only ever seen this kind of generalized intellectual suicide amongst people who belong to cults. 

The echo chamber has been exposed.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to learn the difference between weather and climate
> 
> And you don't even have to take the prediction part into it, just look at the facts and stats of month to month and how the earth set a record template for the third straight year. that is not prediction that is what happened.
> 
> And you don't think humans with all their fossil fuel use a cause of that?


You just put so many words in my mouth I am not even going to argue.... Just stating why people think that way. 

Humor me as to why you believe predictions fifty years in the future with climate and not one week into the future with weather. Both tend to exaggerate from what I have seen.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Sure buddy, Europe and Asia can't wait for American leadership. :mj4


Considering that Asia's CO2 emissions have been skyrocketing and Europe's CO2 emissions reductions are inferior to America's, they should be looking to emulate America's superiority in this area.

If reducing carbon emissions is the point.

It is apparent that reducing carbon emissions doesn't seem to be the point for you. Feeling superior to and being contemptuous of America does.

Why are your feelings and desire to shit on America more important to you than the environment?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Smarkout said:


> You just put so many words in my mouth I am not even going to argue.... Just stating why people think that way.
> 
> Humor me as to why you believe predictions fifty years in the future with climate and not one week into the future with weather. Both tend to exaggerate from what I have seen.


I will say it again. Learn the difference between climate and weather.




Beatles123 said:


> MUH CLIMATE N' SHIT.
> 
> Environmentalists right now:


And you wonder why people think people from the south are uneducated LOL

You prove it over and over again.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I will say it again. Learn the difference between climate and weather.


The lack of self-awareness is not surprising.

There hasn't been a single major weather event of the last five years that hasn't been blamed on "global warming" in some way by the climate change cult.

Perhaps they should learn the difference between climate and weather.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Basically at this point this person just called Saudi Arabia civilized because they're part of the climate change accord.
> 
> I've only ever seen this kind of generalized intellectual suicide amongst people who belong to cults.
> 
> The echo chamber has been exposed.


You think if you took America off the global scale overall and told the rest of the free world to fuck off that would make us a better country. Right or wrong? That is what I was saying.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> You think if you took America off the global scale overall and told the rest of the free world to fuck off that would make us a better country. Right or wrong? That is what I was saying.


The feelings of other countries are more important than the environment?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The lack of self-awareness is not surprising.
> 
> There hasn't been a single major weather event of the last five years that hasn't been blamed on "global warming" in some way by the climate change cult.
> 
> Perhaps they should learn the difference between climate and weather.


I know the difference unlike people like you and others in this thread against climate change.

But keep being uninformed. You just keep proving Trump right about his supporters and how he loves the uneducated.

Some of you should be embarrassed at the shit you are coming up with. You guys would fail a 5 grade science class.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I know the difference unlike people like you and others in this thread against climate change.
> 
> But keep people uninformed. You just keep proving Trump right about his supporters and how he loves the uneducated.


I don't believe I've ever made a remark either way on the topic of whether a single weather event can be explained by global warming or a lack thereof. 

So how do you know that I don't know the difference?

Are you a wizard?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> The feelings of other countries are more important than the environment?


Most of the GOP does not care for the environment it gets in the way of deal making.


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Considering that Asia's CO2 emissions have been skyrocketing and Europe's CO2 emissions reductions are inferior to America's, they should be looking to emulate America's superiority in this area.
> 
> If reducing carbon emissions is the point.
> 
> Once again we see that reducing carbon emissions doesn't seem to be the point for some of you. Feeling superior and being contemptuous does.
> 
> Why are your feelings and desire to shit on America more important to you than the environment?


Congrats to America for those reductions, but they are not because of Trump. 
This is not about the past, it's about what the future holds. If Trump did this, what other policies disregarding the CO2 emissions may he do in the future?

The diplomatic fallout of this would be big, and it's not about the climate change but rather the trust the rest of countries would still have after this. 
You may see this with different eyes from America but here in EU(excepting UK) things are clear: Trump doesn't care about his allies and can't be trusted.


----------



## nyelator

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Most of the GOP does not care for the environment it gets in the way of deal making.


It is not a major issue compared to some other things.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> You think if you took America off the global scale overall and told the rest of the free world to fuck off that would make us a better country. Right or wrong? That is what I was saying.


You choose one stupid populist document which has absolutely no actual binding clause without even reading as a metric for whether we're civilized or not. The so-called Paris accords have nothing to do with enforcing any kind of positive climate change policy anyways and you're pushing it like leaving it is some sort of apostasy. 

That's a religious attitude. It's not an educated or informed opinion at all.

The reaction of people to us leaving the church of climate change is literally the same as apostates get when they leave a religion. 

This is madness. And I see this hysteria all the time from Muslims when they find out I don't believe in Allah anymore. It's literally the same.

There's groups who don't know what's in the Quran pretending that it's the best boom. Then there's groups that think that I'm immoral and no longer a moral person. Then there are Muslims who think that their side is the most civilized one and everyone else that doesn't believe in Islam is uncivilized 

This is amazingly familiar. [emoji38]


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Congrats to America for those reductions, but they are not because of Trump.


And? No one said they were because of :trump.



> This is not about the past, it's about what the future holds. If Trump did this, what other policies disregarding the CO2 emissions may he do in the future?


Treaties, you mean? None. The US isn't party to any global warming cult treaties.

I don't think :trump is going to go against natural gas fracking or technological invention and innovation, the two biggest reasons the US has achieved great CO2 emissions reductions without being party to an international global warming cult treaty.



> The diplomatic fallout of this would be big, and it's not about the climate change but rather the trust the rest of countries would still have after this.


The same thing has been said literally dozens of times about the United States on dozens of issues where the US has differed with its allies, it hasn't come true yet. 



> You may be see this with different eyes from America but here in EU(excepting UK) things are clear: Trump doesn't care about his allies and can't be trusted.


That is a petulantly short-sighted and foolish view to take. I certainly hope that certain EU member countries don't do anything that would cause America to remind them just how much stronger and richer it is than they are. That kind of churlishness would only benefit the dictators in Moscow and Beijing. 

And when you say EU you mean Western Europe + Germany. Eastern and Southern European countries have a much less arrogant, resentful and contemptuous attitude towards the United States than Western European countries do.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



>


FAKE NEWS before it was cool. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

97% of Climate Alarmists' predictions have not come true. I bet that is closer to a real fact than any other "Facts" the pseudo-scientists peddle. 

:move

Oh wow. Look, it's actually true based on the highly selective data and twisting that is rampant amongst climate "scientists". 










Well there. It was reported on a news site, and published in a journal therefore it's true.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you wonder why people think people from the south are uneducated LOL
> 
> You prove it over and over again.


RIGHT OVER YER HEAD! :lmao

Also?

Southrephobe.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










These fucking people :lmao.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> These fucking people :lmao.


And the regressive race-obsessed Left wonders why :trump won :heston

Normal people see this kinda shit and think "Ummm what the fuck? Probably a good idea not to listen to anything these crazy people say."


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't know why people are shocked. This is a campaign promise he made one year ago. 

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I personally think being a world leader means making decisions that may not necessarily be good for you but good for everyone else 

its like not taking a pay raise so everyone else can get one


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I personally think being a world leader means making decisions that may not necessarily be good for you but good for everyone else
> 
> its like not taking a pay raise so everyone else can get one


Actually it's more like my mother in law convincing my father in law to take my money and pay for her organic, gluten-free, grass-fed, anti-biotic free oxygen but she doesn't actually have to buy the organic, gluten-free, grass-fed, anti-biotic free oxygen because I have no way to ensure that she buys the organic, gluten-free, grass-fed, anti-biotic free oxygen. 

It doesn't make me a world leader or charitable donor if I give him the money. 

It makes me a shmuck.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

New narrative in 3...2...1...



> No one noticed the collusion conspiracy theory just ‘blew up,’ says National Review editor
> 
> National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy said that although liberals and opponents of President Donald Trump were overjoyed at the implications of the Washington Post story claiming Jared Kushner asked for a Russian back-channel, they missed that it completely blew up their favorite conspiracy theory. He made the comments on Fox News’ “The Specialists” Tuesday.
> 
> “Your thoughts on all this back and forth,” host Eric Bolling asked McCarthy, “You know, you’re a prosecutor, your thought — is there any there there?”
> 
> “There’s no there there as far as the collusion conspiracy is concerned,” McCarthy answered.
> 
> “But I think the thing that happened this weekend that is really important that people missed because they’re so giddy about this story about Kushner, is that it blew up the collusion conspiracy,” he explained, “because if there had actually been a collusion conspiracy, there would already be back channels to Russia.
> 
> “There would be no reason for Kushner, in December,” he said, “weeks after the election to need to set up a back channel to Russia, had there been one during the campaign.
> 
> “I know for the moment they’re loving the story, but I think it’s kinda exploded the story that they’ve been telling us for six months,” he concluded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation offered another reason to believe there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, saying, “Actually if you look at the, in fact, the policies of the Trump administration, towards Russia, they’re significantly tougher than the ones put in place by the Obama presidency actually. And so the Russians aren’t gaining anything at all, in fact, from this Trump presidency being in place. And in fact the Trump presidency has even talked about expanding sanctions against Moscow over Ukraine, and so this is tougher language than what we saw coming out of Obama.”
> 
> Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top aide, was accused in a Washington Post report of improperly seeking a “back channel” of secret communications with the Russian government before the inauguration. The White House has not denied the allegations, but decried the anonymous sourcing of the scoop.
> 
> Opponents of the president have taken the opportunity to accuse Kushner of possibly committing espionage, while Democrats are calling for his security clearance to be removed while the investigation continues.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> These fucking people :lmao.


I don't know how people can live their lives thinking stuff like that, finding racism in just about everything. But don't worry, this isn't the first time there was that "climate change is racist to Africa" thing a while ago so its unfortunately not the first time racism and climate change have some how linked together :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Donald Trump said in his announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord on Thursday that the pact would have cost the country 6.5 million industrial jobs by 2040 and would have “vastly diminished economic production” in the United States.
> 
> “One by one we are keeping the promises I made to the American people,” he said. “I don’t want anything to get in our way.”
> 
> “This agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”
> The president cited a study by National Economic Research Associates that showed, if the U.S. remained in the agreement, as many as 2.7 million jobs lost by 2025 and a total of 6.5 million lost by 2040.
> 
> “According to the same study,” said the president, “by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper, down 12 percent; cement, down 23 percent; iron and steel, down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas, down 31 percent.”
> 
> “The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States,” the president said.
> 
> At the beginning of his speech, the president talked of bringing “jobs, plants and factories” back into the United States. “And believe me, we’ve just begun,” he said.
> 
> 00:00
> 01:09
> The Paris Agreement, said the president, blocked the development of clean coal in America, while China would have been able to expand coal mining, and India would have been able to double its coal production by 2020.
> 
> "In short, the agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States and ships them to foreign countries," he said.
> 
> "This agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States."
> 
> Former President Barack Obama signed the Paris Agreement in 2015 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.
> 
> Obama set a goal for the U.S., under the agreement, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by the year 2025. To this end, his administration drafted new regulations that restricted the use of coal, oil, and natural gas.
> 
> "In effect, the framework is a push for un-development for the industrialized world and a major obstacle for growth for the developing world," wrote the authors of a 2016 Heritage Foundation report, "Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits."
> 
> Higher energy prices would have meant higher electric and gas bills that would disproportionately "hurt the poorest Americans" who pay the highest proportion of their income for utilities, according to the report.
> 
> The economic models Heritage used were based on the tax on carbon, and showed that the average American family of four would have lost $20,000 in income by 2035 – enough for a down payment on a new house.
> 
> In his speech in the Rose Garden on Thursday, President Trump made a strong case for exiting the climate accord, based on an "America First" economic policy.
> 
> "Millions of our citizens are out of work, and yet, under the Paris accord, billions of dollars that should be spent here, will be sent to the very countries that have taken our jobs away from us," he said. "Think of that."
> 
> 
> Trump Exits Climate Pact: I Represent ‘Citizens of Pittsburgh, Not Paris’
> President withdraws from global agreement citing 'solemn duty to protect' American jobs
> He also painted a picture of a country in the midst of a turnaround.
> 
> "The mines are starting to open up," he said. "We're having a big opening in two weeks ... the big opening of a brand new mine. It's unheard of. For many, many years that hasn't happened. They asked me if I'd go, I'm gonna try."
> 
> "No responsible leader can put the workers, and the people, of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage," he said. "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."


https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-6-5-million-jobs-saved-leaving-paris-accord/?utm_content=buffer06a81&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Spoiler: large image







Even the Clinton News Network is sick of her shit :lmao


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*I gotta be fair and share this HEE HAW for Kathy Griffin. She fucked around and lost her job, and shortly her freedom, over a "joke" that wasn't funny.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870440405044559872


> Industry must now lead and not depend on government.


Why the hell is this never plan A with these wacko leftists? :lol Like when it comes to Planned Parenthood, just fucking fund it yourselves you loony tunes. The government bureaucracy is not going to fund it more efficiently than you just sending them money will. 

Since everyone cares so damn much about our impending doom from radical climate change, you'd think it wouldn't take much in the age of crowdfunding and mass communication to 1) crowd fund clean energy endeavors, 2) construct an independent investigative body that goes into these companies and checks their environment impact, and publishes the results (or a list of companies that refuse to comply, at which point everyone can conduct a massive boycott which will surely cripple them as SO MANY PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THIS), and 3) literally any better idea someone who cares more than I do and has spent more than five minutes could possibly come up with that does not require government force. 

Think outside of the gun, my liberal friends, I implore you, for the gun points toward you just as well and often as away from you.

Stay covfefe.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

See, I may be the only conservative right winger that despite acknowledging that this is shit don't think it should have lost her her jobs or contracts. I don't agree with it when liberal SJW's hound people and comedians and I don't agree with it when conservatives did the same. It was no doubt appalling etc etc. I know. I most likely wouldn't fire one of my employees over something like that. I would sit down with them and find a way to do damage control instead. It's just me. :shrug 

I get that that's how things are in a free society where these are voluntary contracts with restrictions. I don't want anyone to be forced to keep people on they don't want either. I just don't think that there is anything that is "evil" enough when it comes to political statements (not actions) that we should abhor to the point of making someone a social outcast who can't earn a living. 

It's just a very idealistic view on society that I have, I suppose.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870444198985650181
You know what. I take that back. She's a total fucking cunt who's now looking for a meaty settlement :fpalm

-----
I don't think ANYONE on the left or right of the argument (the anti-crony capitalist left i.e.) should be upset about this. 

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...isory-position-crony-capitalism-disrespected/



> *Crony Capitalist Threatens To Quit Advisory Position Because Crony Capitalism Has Been Disrespected*
> 
> Elon Musk has threatened to cease advising President Donald Trump on business issues amid reports that the United States is expected to withdraw from a major international climate pact.
> 
> The SpaceX and Tesla founder has been a longtime public advocate for the Paris agreement, an accord signed by former President Barack Obama — and almost every other major country — that seeks to reduce worldwide carbon emissions. Musk has even used his seat on one of Trump’s economic advisory councils to push Trump to stay on board with the accord.
> 
> Putting Elon Musk in a position as a business adviser was nothing but an obvious PR move. Unless the government can give itself enormous subsidies and hype the hell out of subpar performance (hey, maybe we have been using Musk’s model since the Roosevelt administration) it is difficult to see what he was going to bring to the table.
> 
> Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
> 
> “He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”
> 
> *The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.
> *
> A looming question is whether the companies are moving toward self-sufficiency — as Dolev believes — and whether they can slash development costs before the public largesse ends.
> 
> Tesla and SolarCity continue to report net losses after a decade in business, but the stocks of both companies have soared on their potential; Musk’s stake in the firms alone is worth about $10 billion. (SpaceX, a private company, does not publicly report financial performance.)
> 
> Musk and his companies’ investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost.
> Some are even less complimentary:
> 
> Background
> 
> *Tesla borrowed Venture Capital (VC) money from Elon Musk at VC rates. It borrowed VC money from taxpayers at non-VC rates
> 
> Tesla needed $500MM to get started in 2008. The US Government lent $465MM to Tesla at 3% interest under its push for Green Energy. Elon Musk lent the company $38MM at10% interest plus stock options. Here are the profits on those loans:
> 
> Elon Musk’s $38MM generates profit of $1.4BB, or 3,600% ROR- a VC payout
> Taxpayers’ $465MM- generates profits of $12MM or 2.6%ROR- not a VC Payout
> Taxpayers took VC risk without VC returns. The table is set for Elon to arbitrage the Government’s largesse much more. All in, the US Government committed about $4.9BB to finance Tesla’s operations
> *
> Musk Gets More Government Money
> 
> *Using Government loans, Elon Musk creates 2 more companies; SolarCity and SpaceX. He now controls three government sponsored clean energy companies financed by taxpayer money.
> *
> The Companies
> 
> Tesla- makes electrical cars, develops technology for same. Loses money hoping for future profits
> 
> Loans money to SolarCity via its own stock
> Borrowed $465MM from Gov’t at 3% and $38MM from Elon Musk at 10% plus stock options
> Does not make money
> SolarCity- makes and leases solar panels to homeowners. Loses money hoping for a back-end profit
> 
> Borrows money from Tesla
> Borrows Money from SpaceX
> Does not make money
> SpaceX- will provide future service related to satellite launches. It makes money via prepaying customers
> 
> Loans money to SolarCity at approx. 10%
> Borrows Money from Government at approx. 4%
> Makes money
> Elon Musk now has 2 companies that do not make money. He has 1 that makes money from prepayments for services yet to be given. All are financed by the US taxpayer at ridiculously below market rates. The table is now set for financing using inflated currency (sound familiar?) in the form of Tesla stock to get real cash in Mr. Musk’s pockets.
> The Daily Signal has an even lower opinion.
> 
> *Already grossly subsidized, Musk’s SolarCity has become an albatross of waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars. As legitimate earnings and cash become even scarcer for SolarCity, its entanglement in the Tesla empire suggests that a drastic reckoning not only is imminent, but in fact emboldening Musk to become more outlandish and reckless.
> *
> Notably, SolarCity is run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive. During his chairmanship at SolarCity, Musk’s family enterprise has taken in billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies from both the federal and local governments. But the subsidies and sweetheart deals were not enough, as losses and missed projections continued to mount.
> 
> Ultimately, rather than endure the embarrassment of collapse and further damage to the public image of Musk and Tesla, the cousins conspired to have Tesla simply purchase SolarCity this year. The conditions of the deal screamed foul play.
> 
> To say nothing of what sense it might make for an automaker to purchase a solar installation company, Tesla stockholders were being forced to absorb a failing, cash-burning company and pay top dollar to do so.
> 
> While cost cutting and corporate restructuring should have been the priority for a company swimming in debt and burning through available cash, SolarCity in fact has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support. The desperate thirst for handouts has manifested itself in some of the murkiest political waters imaginable.
> 
> *Thanks to Musk’s cozy relationship with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, the state has granted at least $750 million of its taxpayers’ money to SolarCity, building the company a factory and charging it only $1 per year in rent.
> *If Donald Trump was interested in representing Middle America and “draining the swamp” a parasite like Elon Musk should have been targeted for a federal fraud investigation rather than rewarded with a position as a White House adviser. His abrupt departure is due more to his realization that the hoped for trough of subsidies and grants from the Paris Agreement was not going to materialize than any concern about the environment.
> 
> Share On Facebook Share On Twitter


Drain the fucking swamp and get the crony capitalist to sweat tears and actually work for their money instead of continuing to operate failed corporations on government subsidies.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> See, I may be the only conservative right winger that despite acknowledging that this is shit don't think it should have lost her her jobs or contracts. I don't agree with it when liberal SJW's hound people and comedians and I don't agree with it when conservatives did the same. It was no doubt appalling etc etc. I know. I most likely wouldn't fire one of my employees over something like that. I would sit down with them and find a way to do damage control instead. It's just me. :shrug
> 
> I get that that's how things are in a free society where these are voluntary contracts with restrictions. I don't want anyone to be forced to keep people on they don't want either. I just don't think that there is anything that is "evil" enough when it comes to political statements (not actions) that we should abhor to the point of making someone a social outcast who can't earn a living.
> 
> It's just a very idealistic view on society that I have, I suppose.


I don't think she should've been fired, either.

Even though she's a hack, I side with comedians. She made a mistake and is perhaps half-retarded because she thought this would go over well, but she was trying to be funny. It bombed, but unfunny jokes come from the same place as funny jokes. 

Patrice nailed it many years ago and this vid will stand the test of time in situations just like this:






Dammit I wish Patrice had been around for the last 2 years.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hey Elon why don't you start and run a business that doesn't depend on tens of millions of dollars in goverment subsidies to be profitable. Then I'll give a fuck about how much of a genius visionary you are.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Hey Elon why don't you start and run a business that doesn't depend on tens of millions of dollars in goverment subsidies to be profitable. Then I'll give a fuck about how much of a genius visionary you are.


Oh no no. He's one of the left's favorite capitalists. We're just slandering him. 

He's also blocking people who are now calling him out on his crony capitalism on Twitter [emoji38]


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> I will say it again. Learn the difference between climate and weather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think people from the south are uneducated LOL
> 
> You prove it over and over again.


What's the difference in your eyes?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Oh no no. He's one of the left's favorite capitalists. We're just slandering him.
> 
> He's also blocking people who are now calling him out on his crony capitalism on Twitter


Of course he is


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So Cali's single-payer healthcare took another step forward and passes the Senate.
Still has a ways to go, but 400 billion and a potential 15% tax increase? good luck with that

:ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> So Cali's single-payer healthcare took another step forward and passes the Senate.
> Still has a ways to go, but 400 billion and a potential 15% tax increase? good luck with that
> 
> :ha


#usefulidiots


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> #usefulidiots


I don't want to move, but dammit I will if this shit passes and is implemented.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> #usefulidiots


Maybe conservatives have been out of power for so long that the California Democratic Party has finally felt sorry for them... and decided to shoot the party in the stomach with a shotgun over it. 

Jerry Brown is their only hope :lmao

Not just 400 billion, 400 billion a year.

Would there be any better way to show America how unaffordable "single-payer" would be in this country than for this to actually become the law in California?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't want to move, but dammit I will if this shit passes and is implemented.


I would imagine a 15% hike is going to encourage a lot of back and forth. A lot of people will leave, but a lot of people will also move in. 

The difference will be that the people who are able to make money will leave for cheaper states and the people who can't make money and want benefits will move in creating a model similar to that of Canada where people have very poor standards of living, low paying jobs, under-employment. 

In a State like California however which is not insulated from crime as Canada is, you will see a huge spike in violent crime as standards of living decline and poverty increases.

The other reason why single-payer sort of kind of works for places like Canada is that they don't have easy access to living in other countries. Migrating from a country to another is a huge ordeal, but moving from one state to another is a piece of cake. 

California is shooting itself in the foot on this one. The biggest danger being once you open this can, you can't put it back in.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everything you post in this thread points to you being conservative. So if you are something else you don't act like it.


Considering the only thing I do not support is open borders and taking away gun rights I don't see how I fall into any sort of Conservative category, I'm Libertarian through and through. So sorry you're that bad at understanding people.



> I will put whatever label on you that fits. You are totally uninformed on this and it shows.


This is why people tend to just shrug you off or ban you from threads, you don't care about understanding anything or anyone, just tossing out your views and in the end it's only about you. This is totally face palming.



> There are plenty of studies on climate change, not sure how many you want. What you really mean is you want more studies to show what you want to see not what the facts show.


No shit, but there were also studies with fudged data and studies that were wrong. My desire is for people to get on the same page, take the politics out of the Science and go by the data so we know exactly what areas need the most help and what would be the most effective. That's all I'm asking for, not to waste money and not simply to virtue signal but to make a real difference.



> The carpet baggers trying to make money is the gas and goal people who are ruining the environment when there is a safer way to get energy that won't ruin the environment. But of course you don't seem to want that. Its also not a knee-jerk reaction, coal is dying its time to move on from that to green energy.


Carpet baggers come in all shapes and forms, you have people trying to say climate change is somehow racial. You have a lot of nuts asking for money and tossing shade. It tends to be these people, the people who actually don't know what they're doing who get money. I want to be sure only people who know what they're doing and can get results get money. Not give money to grifters and cultists looking to make a buck.



> How will the US be left behind? You keep proving how uninformed you if you have to ask that question. For one if the US are not making products that adhere to the France Accord regulations they won't be able to export products since they won't be up to code in other countries or they will still be allowed to export them but they will be heavily taxed because they are not up to standards. Not to mention they won't have access to the fast-growing clean energy markets like all the other countries in the accord


Again this doesn't really answer much, the American Industry has always responded to what will make them money so there isn't really a worry here. They'll change to whatever will net them the most cash. America is a rich country, anyone with Green Energy will sell the tech, it's not like these people are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, America is one of the biggest consumers in the world. People would be happy to corner the Green Energy market in the US.



> You keep proving more and more you dont have a clue


Yawn.


> You do realized how large the land mass of China is right LOL You also realize people die right? They need to keep up their population because of labor when people retire or die off they need other people to take their places. Plus they are not being forced to have two children, they are just allowed to have two if they want and a lot of them are only having one.


It's a big landmass, India and Africa have large lands but still overpopulation is terrible. How can you be such a Science advocate but not understand this? Most places have more people then they know what to with. China's child limit was a great idea but now they're changing that when they have over a billion people already. We don't need anymore humans on the earth and it's not just them.



> I think its funny how you were complaining about no one told China to limit their children but there is a limit LOL


Pretty sure I never said this. I'm against them trying to grow in size just like I'm against poor nations having tons of children with no way to educate, feed or house them. Population decline is needed as automation and new tech comes about.



> You keep proving how uninformed you are on all of this because you keep claiming it's some knee-jerk reaction when there is decades of evidence of this. You just choose to ignore the data.


Actually some people want to do the knee jerking and just halt everything. I'm saying we should avoid any knee jerk reactions and transition into a phase where people just don't lose their jobs or we don't waste money on projects that will not help anyone or anything. We need a plan and know what exactly to do and how to implement it so we get the best results.




> Stop being so anti-science and wake up. Stop pretending you are not anti-science you are doing the same thing with climate change that the anti-evolution crowd does.


Stop being a Religious Zealot and worshiping any Science that comes out without ensuring it's correct first. Science corrects itself all the time. Sorry you think that wise spending, transitioning and letting the EU and other nations raid our coffers for money for this accord is anti-science. Considering how I want to use the best Data and to have a proper plan put into place to ensure the best results I fail to see how this is anti-science. More like common sense. Tossing money in all directions and not making any difference would be a huge mistake. This is why we need a well thought out *plan*. That's all I'm asking.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I would imagine a 15% hike is going to encourage a lot of back and forth. A lot of people will leave, but a lot of people will also move in.
> 
> The difference will be that the people who are able to make money will leave for cheaper states and the people who can't make money and want benefits will move in creating a model similar to that of Canada where people have very poor standards of living, low paying jobs, under-employment.
> 
> In a State like California however which is not insulated from crime as Canada is, you will see a huge spike in violent crime as standards of living decline and poverty increases.
> 
> The other reason why single-payer sort of kind of works for places like Canada is that they don't have easy access to living in other countries. Migrating from a country to another is a huge ordeal, but moving from one state to another is a piece of cake.
> 
> California is shooting itself in the foot on this one. The biggest danger being once you open this can, you can't put it back in.


Dangit! How much love do I have to spread to up your reputation?!?!?! I've been spreading out rep like hotcakes!


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Your analysis is total shit.


Oh dear.

EU has 7% of the population of the world and produces 10% of the CO2 emissions, The US has 5% of the worlds population and produces 16% of the worlds Co2 emissions.

Its simple maths (To us, not you of course)

I'm not entirely sure what your Forbes link is about, we already know America has done well at reducing emissions from horrendous amounts, because, well it would be hard not to.

The EU had 4 years of emission reductions of 3.1% a year between 2011-2014 a massive 12%, then hit a brick wall.

Your 300lb and 250lb comparisons are again flawed like the rest of your posts, you're asking for a similar reduction in Co2 emissions from two entirely different starting points, we don't NEED to match the US.



> In 2014, greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28 were down by 22.9 % compared with 1990 levels, representing an absolute reduction of 1 136 million tonnes of CO2-equivalents, putting the EU on track to surpass its 2020 target, which is to reduce GHG emissions by 20 % by 2020 and by 40 % by 2030 compared with 1990.


We're not far off our targets, because our targets were far far lower than the US in the first place, because...maths.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

In case anyone still wants to argue Obamacare was a success....

http://watchdog.org/293462/fed-report-obamacare-exchange-insurance-costs-double-past-four-years/



> *Fed report: Obamacare exchange insurance costs double in past four years*
> 
> The latest look at Obamacare prices show insurance through the marketplace costs more than twice as much now as it did in 2013.
> 
> New numbers from the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show health insurance in Illinois that cost $248 a month in 2013, now costs $517 dollars. That’s a 108 percent increase.
> 
> Trouble is, State Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, said, most insurance through the Obamacare exchange costs a lot more than $517.
> 
> “We warned that this was going to happen,” Syverson said. “When you have a small pool of people, you’re going to have adverse selections and you’re going to have losses that are far worse than Washington projected.”
> 
> A number of health insurance companies have said they’ve lost millions of dollars on the plans offered on the exchange. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Kansas City left Missouri’s Obamacare exchange last week after company executives said they lost $100 million.
> 
> Syverson said it will be a bit before Illinois insurers make the same kind of choices. When they do, thousand of people could lose access to care.
> 
> But Syverson said many Illinoisans who have Obamacare insurance already have lost access.
> 
> “In DeKalb County, there is not one provider that is in the Obamacare network. No one,” Syverson said. “In Rockford, third largest city in Illinois, one hospital and only about 10 percent of providers are willing to see Obamacare patients.”
> 
> The HHS numbers put Illinois in the middle of the rate hike pack. New Jersey saw a 12 percent price spike over the last four years, while Alabama saw a 222 percent increase.












Fucking Cruz is a savage :lmao.

The alarmist reaction from people I've seen over Facebook concerning Trump pulling out of a agreement that is both non-binding so it's likely countries won't follow it and will achieve very little for an extortionate cost is hilarious.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> In case anyone still wants to argue Obamacare was a success....
> 
> http://watchdog.org/293462/fed-report-obamacare-exchange-insurance-costs-double-past-four-years/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking Cruz is a savage :lmao.
> 
> The alarmist reaction from people I've seen over Facebook concerning Trump pulling out of a agreement that is both non-binding so it's likely countries won't follow it and will achieve very little for an extortionate cost is hilarious.


The accord is pointless, Europe just trying to reach into the pockets of the US. The whole thing is nothing but a virtue signalling scam. No real change will come from it, it's just to placate the masses.

This is why I support the US doing its own thing, eventually in 5 or so years celebs won't care about this so nobody else will. Goes to show you these rich people don't care, they're not paying for shit or willing to make any real change.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That Cruz tweet. :banderas He's had a lot of good moments ever since he bent the knee.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

People think the Paris climate agreement was anti-US, you could decide what you wanted, no one forced the US in to anything, you literally set your own targets ffs, you could fo nothing, so many idiots believing the bullshit Trump spouts.



> Trump said the U.S. would be exposed to “massive legal liability if we stay in” the Paris Agreement. But there is no liability mechanism in the Paris Agreement. International environmental law experts tell us that pulling out of the agreement won’t reduce U.S. exposure to liability claims and, in fact, may increase it.
> 
> Trump called China and India the “world’s leading polluters,” referring to carbon emissions. That’s not accurate. China and the U.S. were the top emitters per kiloton in 2015.
> 
> Trump falsely claimed the “United States has already handed over $1 billion” to the Green Climate Fund. The U.S. has contributed $500 million to the fund so far.
> 
> The president also falsely said “nobody even knows where the money [in the Green Climate Fund] is going to.” The fund’s website outlines all of the projects that have been funded.
> 
> Trump said the agreement would cost “close to $3 trillion in lost GDP.” That’s one estimate from a report for a business-funded group that found a much smaller impact under a different scenario. Yet another analysis said the impact of meeting the emissions targets would be “modest.”
> 
> Trump again took credit for job gains, saying the economy has added more than a million private sector jobs since his election. That’s true, but only 493,000 of them were added since he took office.


Trumps a buffoon and his reasoning for bailing are factually incorrect.  I've always enjoyed him for the laughs, this is potentially reckless.


That Ted Cruz comment is pure gold though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> People think the Paris climate agreement was anti-US,


Strawman. The real issue is that it is non-binding but forces a socialist form of redistribution of wealth to shitholes who weren't legally bound or accountable to use any of the money for clean energy anyways. 



> you could decide what you wanted, no one forced the US in to anything,


So then why is it "reckless" to leave it if it was non-binding anyways? 



> you literally set your own targets ffs,


Which the US already has and achieved. Why is the agreement needed? 



> you could fo nothing,


And we did. So why are you upset? 



> so many idiots believing the bullshit Trump spouts.


So salty



> Trumps a buffoon and his reasoning for bailing are factually incorrect.  I've always enjoyed him for the laughs, this is potentially reckless.


I'm afraid, very, very afraid that I'm gonna wake up one day and be swept away by a flash flood of libtard tears. 

That's the real apocalyptic threat. Now I need a #ParisAgreement where I get money for doing nothing.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We're almost 2 years into the Trump era of American politics and people are still citing fact checks on Trump like they matter. :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> We're almost 2 years into the Trump era of American politics and people are still citing fact checks on Trump like they matter. :lmao


Oh Lookie. Buried in the article where they claim that Trump didn't add a million jobs, they actually admit that a million jobs have been added since the Nov election, but technically he can't claim them because Obama was president but he was a lame duck president :lmao 



> It’s true the U.S. has added just over a million private sector jobs since November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But Barack Obama was the president — albeit a lame-duck president — until Jan. 20.


daykorinee continuing the WF liberal tradition of not even reading what he's sharing on this site :lmao

PS. I don't think that a President generally can add or remove jobs from an economy but speculation around a pro-business President can have an indirect impact on company's plans of expansion - so Trump can definitely take some of the credit for the million jobs added.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> We're almost 2 years into the Trump era of American politics and people are still citing fact checks on Trump like they matter. :lmao


Lol, thats actually a good point.

ositivity


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Strawman. The real issue is that it is non-binding but forces a socialist form of redistribution of wealth to shitholes who weren't legally bound or accountable to use any of the money for clean energy anyways.


You do know what a strawman is right? I mean if people hadn't actually said this was a EU ploy to grab US money you'd have a point, but they did so you don't.



> So then why is it "reckless" to leave it if it was non-binding anyways?


I prefer the term I used, potentially reckless, ones a definitive point the other isn't and makes an entirely different argument.



> Which the US already has and achieved. Why is the agreement needed?


Unilateral working seems like a great way to reduce global emissions? Seems pretty obvious.



> And we did. So why are you upset?


America standing alongside the rest of the world helped, funnily I thought them leaving would be a negative for the agreement, but in hindsight it brought everyone closer together on it with a bit middle finger to Trump so thats cool.



> So salty


That doesn't rebut that what Trump said is factually incorrect. That's an ad hominem (I use the internet fad term correctly unlike yourself.)



> I'm afraid, very, very afraid that I'm gonna wake up one day and be swept away by a flash flood of libtard tears.
> 
> That's the real apocalyptic threat. Now I need a #ParisAgreement where I get money for doing nothing.


I'm pretty sure we've ascertained by my stance on islam and terrorists that I'm not a libtard.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> People think the Paris climate agreement was anti-US, you could decide what you wanted, no one forced the US in to anything, you literally set your own targets ffs, you could fo nothing, so many idiots believing the bullshit Trump spouts.
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps a buffoon and his reasoning for bailing are factually incorrect.  I've always enjoyed him for the laughs, this is potentially reckless.
> 
> 
> That Ted Cruz comment is pure gold though.


Calls trump a buffoon, then makes wild claim leaving paris is potentially reckless

Trump is leading, its just shocking because its so rare, and hes doing what he thinks is right for america, its so evil to be patriotic


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Calls trump a buffoon, then makes wild claim leaving paris is potentially reckless
> 
> Trump is leading, its just shocking because its so rare, and hes doing what he thinks is right for america, its so evil to be patriotic


Is there something wild about calling something potentially reckless? Seems a really low bar to set for wild by seeing the potential for harm from something, the rest of the world went batshit crazy, and I'm the wild one? Good one.

:xavier


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> You do know what a strawman is right? I mean if people hadn't actually said this was a EU ploy to grab US money you'd have a point, but they did so you don't.


It's a strawman when you present it in such a way as to make it seem like it's the generalized opinion of all Trump supporters. You can't claim nuance after making a generalization which was a strawman. 



> I prefer the term I used, potentially reckless, ones a definitive point the other isn't and makes an entirely different argument.


It's not even potentially reckless. 



> Unilateral working seems like a great way to reduce global emissions? Seems pretty obvious.


How do you achieve this in a non-binding supposedly voluntary agreement with no accountability? 



> America standing alongside the rest of the world helped, funnily I thought them leaving would be a negative for the agreement, but in hindsight it brought everyone closer together on it with a bit middle finger to Trump so thats cool.


How did "help"? But if you're saying that it made people more "united" and "helped" that way, then your hystrionics are moot, pointless and just as I pointed out, meaningless tears. 



> That doesn't rebut that what Trump said is factually incorrect. That's an ad hominem (I use the internet fad term correctly unlike yourself.)


Well at least you're intelligent enough to spot a thinly veiled ad hominem. I've never pretended that that's not part of my argumentational style. 

I don't care if what Trump said had factual errors. He doesn't need to be 100% factually correct. Wow. Politicians lie. What a great revelation. 

I'm more concerned by 40 years of factually incorrect pseudo-scientific propaganda where thousands of "scientists" have consistently made wrong predictions forcing all kinds of public policy (where the majority of public policy is fleecing the pockets of politicians and crony capitalists through tax payer money) about the supposed doom of Climate Change which has created an apocalyptic cult, than a president that says stupid things. 

It's more important that he listened to his advisors on this Agreement than the end times cult. I don't see this as potentially reckless, or even the slightest bit reckless at all. 



> I'm pretty sure we've ascertained by my stance on islam and terrorists that I'm not a libtard.


If the shoe fits. Your views on climate change are libtarded.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's a strawman when you present it in such a way as to make it seem like it's the generalized opinion of all Trump supporters. You can't claim nuance after making a generalization which was a strawman.


I said people not even Trump supporters nice try, there are many opponents of the climate change and not even all of them Trump supporters.. I mean one of those people was Trump so I can see your tenuous link that I meant all or most trump supporters...If I squint really really hard at it.



> It's not even potentially reckless.


Yeah, this is how opinion differs, you're not right, I'm not wrong because we can't see the future.




> I don't care if what Trump said had factual errors. He doesn't need to be 100% factually correct. Wow. Politicians lie. What a great revelation.


Fine. Lets be clear though lies are different than factual inaccuracies. 



> If the shoe fits. Your views on climate change are libtarded.


It fits the scientific consensus, but then I guess science is full of libtards so you may right.

Apart from the glaringly obvious attack on Trump I did try to word it in a way that didn't go with the 'ah mergerd Trump is going to destroy the world vibe' I guess even thats not enough for Trumpers because I criticized the benevolent ruler of the free world.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> It fits the scientific consensus, but then I guess science is full of libtards so you may right.


Calling something a "scientific consensus" doesn't make it one. 

There is obviously consensus within the doomsday cult, just as there is consensus about the rapture in Christianity and the coming of Dajjal amongst the ISIS - but there is no actual scientific consensus over any new doomsday prediction the doomsday cult comes up with in order to force public policy. 

The doomsday predictions are all within the realm of pseudo-science and 50 years of being wrong still hasn't changed the attitudes of morons towards climate "science". Following a doomsday cult that has been consistently wrong about every single prediction doesn't make you or anyone scientifically literate.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> ShareFacebookTwitterGoogle+StumbleUponRedditEmail
> 
> Tucker Carlson exposed Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine on his show Thursday night by simply asking him to explain the details of the Paris Accord.
> 
> "I'm just wondering how this specific agreement sending three billion dollars a year to countries like India and China, who don't have to lower their emissions rates, is going to fix the global warming problem in Miami Beach?" Tucker asked.
> 
> Levine couldn't answer. Instead, he chose to ramble about "flooding" in Miami and said we "have to listen" to the "smartest minds in the world" warning us about climate change.
> 
> Rather than let him dodge the question, Tucker asked him again... and again.
> 
> After hearing the same scripted platitudes over and over, Tucker just started laughing at him and exclaimed: "Is there a single person watching the show stupid enough to be convinced by what you are saying?"


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56828


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56828


You see this right here in this thread. The same bullshit keeps getting repeated over and over and yet not one person has any actual science or hard data (that can't be easily refuted by even the likes of me who's just an MBA with a couple of degrees) to prove any of their end times apocalyptic predictions.

It's not about climate change anymore. It's about proving the end times prophecies which they all claim to force public policy in insane directions with no real goals and objectives in mind, but can't prove and 50 years of being wrong hasn't made them question this "science".

You want to spend a billion dollars on giving people free vaccines --- go right ahead. There's hard science and historical data which both prove without a shadow of a doubt that that's real science and it works. You want a billion dollars to give women breast cancer surgery, go right ahead. We all know through hard evidence that cutting out cancers and chemotherapy works. 

But when it comes to the Climate Rapture, all they have is fear-mongering and changing of dates forwarding the end times prediction by a few years or decades just like religious leaders.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> I said people not even Trump supporters nice try, there are many opponents of the climate change and not even all of them Trump supporters.. I mean one of those people was Trump so I can see your tenuous link that I meant all or most trump supporters...If I squint really really hard at it.


The problem is that it's a ploy to get money, sure it's non-binding and it's all just for show but if a Nation doesn't want to pay regardless if they don't have to, that Nation will be browbeaten for not doing enough. Anything involving Climate Change is an avenue to get money and has been made completely political.



> Yeah, this is how opinion differs, you're not right, I'm not wrong because we can't see the future.


Tomorrow the Sun might blow up! Never know, it's the future! Still a silly thing to say. As you made it sound like it could be a disaster, well "potential". 


You mentioned that this group will work together as a middle finger to Trump? So what? What will it accomplish? Germany not so long ago was trying to divert money to pay for the migrant crisis they brought upon themselves. 

This group couldn't put together a ham sammich because it's all non-binding so the whole thing is moot.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> This group couldn't put together a ham sammich because it's all non-binding so the whole thing is moot.


I think it's a waste of time. He's probably off muttering to himself about evil climate science denying Trump supporters bringing doom upon us all :lmao

At most you can get them to bargain a little (like BM did for a brief moment yesterday when I destroyed his 170 times figure), but then given enough time, they revert to their original line of thinking. 

It is very dogmatic and I've seen this with Muslims. My dad will listen to me, even agree with me, but one trip to the mosque and he's back to his old self.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I think it's a waste of time. He's probably off muttering to himself about evil climate science denying Trump supporters bringing doom upon us all :lmao
> 
> At most you can get them to bargain a little (like BM did for a brief moment yesterday when I destroyed his 170 times figure), but then given enough time, they revert to their original line of thinking.
> 
> It is very dogmatic and I've seen this with Muslims. My dad will listen to me, even agree with me, but one trip to the mosque and he's back to his old self.


All that's missing is a Holy Book, well does old faulty data count as a Holy Book?

I laughed when I was called "Anti-Science" and "Climate Change Denier" when I ask for Data that's not faulty or fudged, Data from non-Political sources and that all Data be considered and anything false tossed out.

To not toss money in every direction to give off the impression "I'm helping!" but to spend money if needed on things that will *WORK*.

That this accord is a scam that won't change anything, they even admit it's near pointless because it's non-binding but come hell or high water it's the end if the US don't join a group that has zero accountability. 

But I'm the one that's anti-science for simply asking we have a plan, take steps and ensure we don't waste time or money. Like we did with corn fuel. Funny, environmentalists were singing it's praises until it was found out to be completely fucking worthless. 

Yuppers though, give into the populist Climate Change mob who don't have a plan but scream for something to be done, fuck, nobody knows exactly what but something needs to be done!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> All that's missing is a Holy Book, well does old faulty data count as a Holy Book?


Some cults don't have holy books. Scientology is a religion but it has no holy book. 



> I laughed when I was called "Anti-Science" and "Climate Change Denier" when I ask for Data that's not faulty or fudged, Data from non-Political sources and that all Data be considered and anything false tossed out.


Yeah, the majority of libtards in here have the same old playbook. They don't even argue anymore and instead try to do as much damage to a person's character as possible because they've conflated disagreement with immorality. They see themselves as moral and their position as moral and therefore anyone that disagrees with them has to be immoral. 



> To not toss money in every direction to give off the impression "I'm helping!" but to spend money if needed on things that will *WORK*.


Pakistan has received 4-10 billion dollars of American tax payer money and my parents are currently fasting in 90 degree weather with no electricity. 

Giving third world shitholes money is the stupidest idea bleeding heart libtards have ever come up with and this is really all they're supporting with the Paris agreement. It's not about climate change at all. It's about "encouraging someone to do something about the environment with money but just kidding ha ha". 



> Yuppers though, give into the populist Climate Change mob who don't have a plan but scream for something to be done, fuck, nobody knows exactly what but something needs to be done!


You can demand science from them all you want. But all they ever do is give you religious doctrine. They don't know shit.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Tomorrow the Sun might blow up! Never know, it's the future! Still a silly thing to say. As you made it sound like it could be a disaster, well "potential".


Now this is a strawman, I simply said a potentially reckless decision, it may even be a potentially fantastic decision. The idea that you see my attempts to remain on the (very low scale negative) side of neutral instead of going full blown end of humanity which a large number of people are doing is a great commentary on confirmation bias. 

Its no more stupid than saying what a great decision this is for the US, which seems to be the given position in this thread. We have no idea how it will benefit/harm the US. You guys who take the overtly positive are doing EXACTLY the same as I did except you're actually being more dogmatic about it. I would suggest you guys are the ones who need the Holy Book, as preached by the great Donald Trump.

I mean I can see that reaper has now descending in to full strawman, I guess the echo chamber continues lol.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Now this is a strawman, I simply said a potentially reckless decision, it may even be a potentially fantastic decision. The idea that you see my attempts to remain on the (very low scale negative) side of neutral instead of going full blown end of humanity which a large number of people are doing is a great commentary on confirmation bias.


Or basically realizing that when you say that leaving an agreement is potentially reckless without qualifiers for that statement essentially means that you consider the agreement potentially beneficial. Your comment otherwise makes no logical sense because if you really thought that it wasn't beneficial then you wouldn't need to say that it was reckless leaving it. Your current agnosticism (that it's neither good nor bad, or could be good or bad) is a direct contradiction of your original statement. 



> Its no more stupid than saying what a great decision this is for the US, which seems to be the given position in this thread. We have no idea how it will benefit/harm the US. You guys who take the overtly positive are doing EXACTLY the same as I did except you're actually being more dogmatic about it. I would suggest you guys are the ones who need the Holy Book, as preached by the great Donald Trump.


The default position that it's good is because it's good. Keeping money in the local economy is good for the local economy. Now you can argue that that money can be misappropriated by the government still, but in principle if you keep your wealth you tend to be better off with it rather than just giving it away. If I had 100 dollars for food, but I gave away 50 dollars to someone else, I have less money to food for myself. It's simple logic. In theory leaving a costly agreement that creates a web of anti-development regulations is good for the USA. 

Here are all the reasons why it was a no-brainer and a net positive for leaving: 



> THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT IS BASED ON ACTIVISTS PREDICTIONS, NOT SCIENTIFIC MODELS
> 
> By Will Ricciardella
> 
> There has been much confusion surrounding the Paris climate agreement, what it accomplishes, and who actually benefits, if anyone.
> The agreement is predicated largely on the wishes of climate alarmists and activists that set a target goal of not allowing warming to exceed 2 degrees C by the end of the century, but that number is not based on any scientific modeling, rather political modeling, as the media ironically frame Trump's decision to back out as merely a "political" win, yet a loss for the planet.
> 
> As Joseph Bast, a former guest on UA Live discussing this very topic, points out "There is no scientific evidence suggesting a warming of 1.9 degrees C is safe while 2.1 degrees C is not safe."
> 
> Climate models have greatly overestimated warming over the past two decades, not matching observed data of Earth's global temperature, leaving no reason to accept climate models predicting temperatures in 100 years as something to build a sound policy agenda on.
> 
> Moreover, no matter how many ways you cut it CO2 is not a pollutant, and there have been times in the past when CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher than today, along with a lower global temperature. Joseph Bast explains:
> 
> "More CO2 leads to faster, more robust plant growth, including staple food crops. Moderate warming, should it occur, would have a positive effect on humanity, since lower temperatures kill far more people than do warmer temperatures, and warming historically has been associated with economic growth, global peace, and prosperity."
> Despite claims that global warming is creating more global conflict, there just doesn't exist any data to back that up. In fact, more data exists to the contrary.
> China as part of the agreement and the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, agreed to reach peak carbon production in 2030 and by one estimate, that's when it was going to peak anyway.
> 
> Moreover, the liberal publication Vox described one of the deals parameters as setting "a non-binding agreement for countries to reach peak greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible."
> 
> The deal is at its core is entirely voluntary, and did little to reach the goal of emitting less CO2 in the next century. Even John Kerry, a huge proponent of the deal, was forced to admit that it doesn’t have mandatory targets for [temperature] reduction and it doesn’t have an enforcement, compliance mechanism.”
> Why risk American jobs, and our anemic economic growth rate that has plagued us over the last 8 years, in part due to regulations predicated on alarmism as opposed to rationalism and scientific inquiry?
> 
> The agreement also asks richer countries to invest in "green technologies" in poorer countries without any reassurance that the money won't be used to merely fund third world dictators. At a time when the U.S. is 20 trillion dollars in a hole, is it at all prudent to send money to places where the rule of law is tenuous at best, in order for them to maybe invest in green technology?
> 
> If this green technology was economically viable and possessed the ability to increase the standard of living as claimed, investors would with far more oversight as to where it's used would be shelling out cash in droves in order to make profits.
> 
> In a world were media narratives prevail, the truth is often overlooked. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to reduce certain pollutants and strive for "cleaner" energy, but why assume such high costs without any notable benefits?
> 
> Backing out was a no brainer.


Now in an argument, your side needs to present the counter-arguments to why it's reckless to leave. 



> I mean I can see that reaper has now descending in to full strawman, I guess the echo chamber continues lol.


Considering that the majority of people actually disagree with my harsher stance on climate change and they seem willing to buy into at least some of the propaganda - whereas I have rejected almost all of it (probably most radical in this thread), and claim that warming is beneficial for the globe, I'm likely a one man "echo chamber." :lol

And I've noticed that the accusations of echo chamber usually come from people who are struggling with their cognitive dissonance after not being able to justify claims or statements. 

Note: You never once actually justified why you believe that it's potentially reckless. I'm interested in hearing it because I find it unlikely that it doesn't come from the default position that climate change and not working to prevent it would result in some form of apocalypse. Maybe not to the extent that some people believe, but still it would be part of it. 

I for one hold a position that climate change will result in net positive gains for humanity and life on earth and I have time and again provided supporting evidence for that claim.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Now this is a strawman, I simply said a potentially reckless decision, it may even be a potentially fantastic decision. The idea that you see my attempts to remain on the (very low scale negative) side of neutral instead of going full blown end of humanity which a large number of people are doing is a great commentary on confirmation bias.
> 
> Its no more stupid than saying what a great decision this is for the US, which seems to be the given position in this thread. We have no idea how it will benefit/harm the US. You guys who take the overtly positive are doing EXACTLY the same as I did except you're actually being more dogmatic about it. I would suggest you guys are the ones who need the Holy Book, as preached by the great Donald Trump.
> 
> I mean I can see that reaper has now descending in to full strawman, I guess the echo chamber continues lol.


I wasn't being fully serious so not to worry! I don't think it's good nor bad, I think it's good that we avoided a potential money trap and that anything that comes from this accord will benefit the US regardless if the US is part of it or not. 

I really cannot say for sure what will happen but if it's non-binding then I'm going to go with a more positive side as this entire accord was just a song and dance for the masses. 

I don't agree with Trump on everything he does, not many in here do. Though Trump is great for memes and for some of the silly stuff he does.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Sacramento plans in addition to a new 15% payroll tax, an increase in the state sales tax from 8.44% to 10.74%, and a new 2.3% GROSS RECEIPT TAX to pay for cali commie care. Not a new 2.3% tax on profits. A 2.3% tax on their total revenue. Which will completely wipe out the profits of businesses with margins lower than 2.3%... like many gas stations, corner stores and other small businesses.

For the love of God California, please please please do this. Beat the Big One to the punch and destroy your state first. A new 15% payroll tax? On top of federal and already existing state payroll taxes? If you live in california, enjoy having the amount of every paycheck you fork over to the government upped to 30-35% to pay for your "free" healthcare.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Sacramento plans in addition to a new 15% payroll tax, an increase in the state sales tax from 8.44% to 10.74%, and a new 2.3% GROSS RECEIPT TAX to pay for cali commie care. Not a new 2.3% tax on profits. A 2.3% tax on their total revenue. Which will completely wipe out the profits of businesses with margins lower than 2.3%... like many gas stations, corner stores and other small businesses.
> 
> For the love of God California, please please please do this.


I'm hoping they do, these rich people who been trumpeting for single payer paying high taxes for something they won't even use is yummy. 

If Red states were smart they'd pass laws to be sure fleeing Democrats cannot buy homes in their areas, lest they turn the new places into hell holes like the one they left.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Sacramento plans in addition to a new 15% payroll tax, an increase in the state sales tax from 8.44% to 10.74%, and a new 2.3% GROSS RECEIPT TAX to pay for cali commie care. Not a new 2.3% tax on profits. A 2.3% tax on their total revenue. Which will completely wipe out the profits of businesses with margins lower than 2.3%... like many gas stations, corner stores and other small businesses.
> 
> For the love of God California, please please please do this. Beat the Big One to the punch and destroy your state first. A new 15% payroll tax? On top of federal and already existing state payroll taxes? If you live in california, enjoy having the amount of every paycheck you fork over to the government upped to 30-35% to pay for your "free" healthcare.


Could you link where you read that please? I live in California, so as expected, I'm very interested in hearing more about this.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Could you link where you read that please? I live in California, so as expected, I'm very interested in hearing more about this.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-single-payer-explainer-20170601-htmlstory.html

Of course you have dipshits claiming that single payer will reduce healthcare costs.

Just like Obamacare did. Wait no it didn't. 

Just like Medicare did. Wait no it didn't. 

Just like Medicaid did. Wait no it didn't.

Just like no welfare program ever has done. It is axiomatic that the injection of government increases costs. It never reduces them. 

Every single time these dipshits propose some massive new entitlement program, they bleat about how it will reduce costs. It never does. Ever.


----------



## downnice

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm hoping they do, these rich people who been trumpeting for single payer paying high taxes for something they won't even use is yummy.
> 
> If Red states were smart they'd pass laws to be sure fleeing Democrats cannot buy homes in their areas, lest they turn the new places into hell holes like the one they left.


too bad that is unconstitutional genius!


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://uproxx.com/news/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-press-conference/

Slightly off topic, but if Trump had any hand in ending what little career this aging gargoyle had left, then kudos to him. That "press conference" is one of the funniest things I've seen this week.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't hope they do. This will disrupt the economies of several states actually as the Californians flood everywhere like fleeing cockroaches and bring their cancerous communism with them.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ted Cruz made me laugh. Fuck.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Ted Cruz made me laugh. Fuck.


Resistance is futile, you like everyone else will eventually come around to the realization that ted cruz is fucking awesome

He will break you, that nose of his can cut diamond

You don't stand a chance


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Ted Cruz is alright. Just not presidential material imo. 

He seems to have found his voice after Trump emboldened him. The vast majority of Teds platform is the same as trumps and yet no one really knows this since he has the charisma of a dead donkey.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-single-payer-explainer-20170601-htmlstory.html


Thanks :smile2:


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Kerry: 'Kids Will Have Worse Asthma' Thanks to Trump Ditching Paris Climate Deal
> 
> "He is not helping the forgotten American ... their kids will have worse asthma in the summer," Kerry said on MSNBC Thursday.


:vincecry

Think of the children, Trump! Think of the children! Your withdrawal from non-binding agreement will have a tremendous impact on children's health in less than one month! You monster!

Seriously, do these people even know what the fuck they're talking about? Are they really gonna sit there and say this agreement was going to lead to immediate change? Like, if there's someone on the fence about this whole thing, and they read that quote, how can they not think this entire movement is one large fucking con-job?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> :vincecry
> 
> Think of the children, Trump! Think of the children! Your withdrawal from non-binding agreement will have a tremendous impact on children's health in less than one month! You monster!
> 
> Seriously, do these people even know what the fuck they're talking about? Are they really gonna sit there and say this agreement was going to lead to immediate change? Like, if there's someone on the fence about this whole thing, and they read that quote, how can they not think this entire movement is one large fucking con-job?


The agreement was suppose to be a start.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> The agreement was suppose to be a start.


Then why is :trump leaving it the end of the world, if it is only supposed to be a start.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> :vincecry
> 
> Think of the children, Trump! Think of the children! Your withdrawal from non-binding agreement will have a tremendous impact on children's health in less than one month! You monster!
> 
> Seriously, do these people even know what the fuck they're talking about? Are they really gonna sit there and say this agreement was going to lead to immediate change? Like, if there's someone on the fence about this whole thing, and they read that quote, how can they not think this entire movement is one large fucking con-job?


He *is* thinking of the children. Just not the Chinese ones that have to wear surgical masks 24/7 just to survive in their hazy smoke bomb of a country, or the Indian ones that inadvertently inhale methane much more often than not due to their country's designated shitting streets. 8*D

And no, modern day liberals don't know what the hell they're talking about because they're blinded by a lethal cocktail of white guilt and virtue signalling.


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> :vincecry
> 
> Think of the children, Trump! Think of the children! Your withdrawal from non-binding agreement will have a tremendous impact on children's health in less than one month! You monster!
> 
> Seriously, do these people even know what the fuck they're talking about? Are they really gonna sit there and say this agreement was going to lead to immediate change? Like, if there's someone on the fence about this whole thing, and they read that quote, how can they not think this entire movement is one large fucking con-job?


Kerry was so idiotic with this statement, he sounds so desperate.

But you are such a drama queen. You keep saying you are neutral and yet you misinterpret his words conveniently like he was referring to this summer. "in the summer" means any summer not necessarily this one. No one in their right minds would believe the agreement has immediate affects


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> The agreement was suppose to be a start.


And the effects of that start were going to be felt as soon as this summer? Cause apparently, to Kerry, kids are now going to have worse asthma...THIS SUMMER. So, if the US had stayed in the Accord kids would have had better asthma?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Kerry was so idiotic with this statement, he sounds so desperate.
> 
> But you are such a drama queen. You keep saying you are neutral and yet you misinterpret his words conveniently like he was referring to this summer. "in the summer" means any summer not necessarily this one. No one in their right minds would believe the agreement has immediate affects


Nobody in their right mind would think this agreement would have any prominent affects at all.

And I am neutral on a lot of things, not everything. Never said I was neutral on everything.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The message I have entered is too short. Please lengthen my message to at least 1 characters.

Now that I have fulfilled my commitment...



> EXCELLENT TRUMP: 5 Reasons Trump Is Right To Pull Out Of The Paris Accord
> 
> On Thursday, President Trump made the first major move of his administration since the appointment of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court: he withdrew from the Paris Accord, a non-treaty entered into by President Obama that committed the United States to serious economic deprivation in order to accomplish nearly nothing in terms of climate change. It’s true that Trump laid all that out in a well-written, fact-laden speech. The Left predictably went nuts — they’ve been lighting up buildings green (wasting energy) and quitting his economic council (who cares) and tweeting incessantly about the end of the world all day.
> 
> But Trump is right.
> 
> Here are five reasons why.
> 
> 1. The Accord Was A Treaty, And President Obama Refused To Treat It Like One. President Obama joined the Paris Accord shortly before leaving office, but never sent the agreement to the Senate for ratification. There was good reason for that: it wouldn’t have been ratified. Instead, Obama simply assumed that America would now be bound by requirements to tamp down carbon emissions in serious ways. In his statement ripping Trump for pulling out of the agreement, for example, Obama stated, “the world came together in Paris around the first-ever global agreement to set the world on a low-carbon course and protect the world we leave to our children.” But none of that was true. Which meant that the accord was essentially symbolic, but would create a bevy of headlines about America abandoning global leadership every time we didn’t meet an arbitrary line not approved by the American people.
> 
> 2. There Were Legal Implementation Problems With The Paris Accord. Donald McGahn, the White House counsel, spelled out that courts could theoretically use the Paris Accord to strike down Trump’s attempted rollback of carbon emissions regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Left claimed that this was empty talk — no enabling legislation regarding the Paris Accord had been signed, so it was symbolic. But these are the same people who now say the world will burn up because we’ve pulled out of the accord, and the same people who think the courts should ignore law in order to strike down executive orders they don’t like.
> 
> 3. It Would Have Had No Impact. Obama himself says, “The private sector already chose a low-carbon future.” So if that was true, what’s the need for governmental cram-downs, exactly? Beyond that, Trump is correct that MIT has estimated that even if the Paris Accord were implemented with current commitments by the various countries, the global climate would be lowered by a grand total of 0.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Meanwhile, we’d put crippling regulations on our economy. MIT and the Left insist that other steps would follow the Paris Accord — but there’s no evidence of that.
> 
> 4. It Let Other Countries Free-Ride. Obama said in his petulant statement, “It was bold American ambition that encouraged dozens of other nations to set their sights higher as well.” This is absolute nonsense. One of the reasons to be skeptical of the Paris Accord is that it asked nations for non-binding commitments on climate change. Non-binding. As Oren Cass pointed out at Commentary:
> 
> China committed to begin reducing emissions by 2030, roughly when its economic development would have caused this to happen regardless. India made no emissions commitment, pledging only to make progress on efficiency—at half the rate it had progressed in recent years. Pakistan outdid the rest, submitting a single page that offered to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” This is a definition of the word “peak,” not a commitment. ... An April report by Transport Environment found only three European countries pursuing policies in line with their Paris commitments and one of those, Germany, has now seen two straight years of emissions increases. The Philippines has outright renounced its commitment. A study published by the American Geophysical Union warns that India’s planned coal-plant construction is incompatible with its own targets. All this behavior is socially acceptable amongst the climate crowd. Only Trump’s presumption that the agreement means something, and that countries should be forthright about their commitments, is beyond the pale.
> 
> 5. It Put America Last. Obama and the Left have claimed for years that “green jobs” will be produced by government. There is no evidence of that happening. It’s a chimera. Van Jones, Obama’s “green jobs czar,” couldn’t point to any job creation for which he was responsible. We do know that additional regulations would cripple key industries in the United States without making up for them with these magical new “investments.” The private sector, as Obama recognizes, is already moving toward more efficient energy solutions. But this agreement wasn’t about forwarding that. It was about creating public pressure for the US government to intervene in its own economy, without requiring anything of those with whom we compete.
> 
> Good for Trump. The Paris Accord was a meaningless sham, designed mainly to shame the United States into harming its own economy for the vicarious pleasure of others.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.jta.org/2017/06/02/news-...al&utm_source=jtafacebook&utm_campaign=social

There you go. This is what we've been saying all along. SPEND PRIVATE FUCKING MONEY ON YOUR PRIVATE FUCKING PET PROJECTS! 

Elon Musk if he actually cared about the agreement and the climate would have done the same. But he really looking for more tax payer money for his green energy.



> *How Michael Bloomberg is defying Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accords*
> 
> NEW YORK (JTA) — Following the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, Michael Bloomberg is coordinating a group of American governors, mayors, universities and businesses that remain committed to fulfilling the United States’ obligations under the deal.
> 
> The media mogul and former New York City mayor also pledged 15 million to the United Nations’ efforts against climate change on Thursday.
> 
> President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the U.S. will withdraw from the landmark 2015 agreement to fight climate change, signed by every country except Syria and Nicaragua. Trump said the U.S.’s obligations under the accord hurt American business, and that it is “very unfair at the highest level to the United States.”
> 
> Bloomberg’s donation will make up for the U.S.’s contribution to the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat, which aids countries in implementing the agreement. Bloomberg — who is the world’s 10th-richest person — serves as the U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, and he has long advocated aggressive climate measures.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*





Is this going to be a thing with leftist now: Fuck up and blame someone else


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That's the MO of the delusional. It's the patriarchy. It's white supremacists. It's the Russians. The Devil made me do it. It's not new.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870612484058750977

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870683584792739841


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> Ted Cruz made me laugh. Fuck.


*The Murder Lizard :done*


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Irritated Democrats say Hillary Clinton is wrong to cast blame on the national party for her loss to Donald Trump.
> 
> Allies of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in particular were incensed by Clinton’s criticism of the party apparatus, saying she mischaracterized the committee’s work while needlessly stoking internal divisions.
> 
> “This is all about the last campaign. And really, what Democrats should be focusing on, and what I think Hillary Clinton should be figuring out, is how do we empower the DNC to have the best data resources to win races this year, in 2018 and 2020,” a former DNC aide said.
> 
> “Having hard feelings about the data that you may or may not have received in 2016 ultimately is not the reason why we lost.”
> Clinton surprised Democrats on Wednesday when she complained that she inherited "nothing" from a "bankrupt" DNC after becoming the nominee.
> 
> She faulted the committee, which some saw as favoring her during the tough primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as having “mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong” data operation. The remarks were also seen as a rebuke of President Obama, who chose the leaders of the DNC during his tenure.
> 
> Andrew Therriault, who served as the DNC's director of data science until last June, said Clinton’s claims were “f---ing bulls---” in a series of tweets that have since been deleted.
> 
> Therriault accused Clinton’s team of ignoring DNC data that warned of a close race in the three states that, by narrow margins, ultimately handed Trump his Electoral College victory: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
> 
> “All that said, irony of her bashing DNC data: *our* models never had mi/wi/pa looking even close to safe. Her team thought they knew better,” Therriault wrote.
> 
> Clinton made several appearances in Pennsylvania in the final months of the campaign, including on the eve of the election. But she spent little time campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which flipped to the GOP column for the first time in decades.
> 
> A source close to the Clinton campaign downplayed Therriault’s knowledge of DNC data on the three key states given his departure prior to the general election season, but said Clinton and her aides shouldn’t have relied so much on data in the first place.
> 
> "The campaign should look internally at its own data problems. It's one of the reasons she lost. They were over-reliant on data analytics,” the source said.
> 
> John Hagner, a Democratic consultant who tapped the same DNC database while working on congressional and gubernatorial races last cycle, said Clinton misfired in criticizing the data in lieu of the campaign operatives entrusted to use it effectively.
> 
> The data are merely the “raw ingredients,” he said, while the targeting operation is “the chef that decides what to do with them.” The chef, in this case, was Clinton’s campaign team.
> 
> "Roy Cooper used the same data in North Carolina and won,” Hagner said Thursday by phone, referring to the state’s newly elected Democratic governor. “So it’s not that the data didn’t work, it’s that you have to make different decisions with it.
> 
> "Singling out the DNC, which does the best that they can do with a system that’s hard to work with, blaming them and not the decisions that got made with that data — which is definitely her campaign’s responsibility — just seemed really off-key.”
> 
> Hagner, a partner at Clarity Campaign and a strong Clinton supporter, said the comments about the DNC don’t help the political fortunes of the Democrats, who are hoping their opposition to the Trump White House will deliver victories at the polls in 2018.
> 
> "It’s for the good of the party that we all turn the page and focus on the future,” he said.
> 
> Tom Bonier, the CEO of TargetSmart, a data firm that works with many Democratic clients, defended the DNC’s 2016 efforts as “the most robust data operation the DNC has ever seen.”
> 
> Bonier also noted in a series of tweets that, “the Clinton team was using DNC data throughout the primary. If it was that bad, they knew that for 2 yrs but did nothing.”
> 
> Clinton has previously cited factors such as former FBI Director James Comey’s late-October letter to Congress about the investigation of her use of a private email server while secretary of State and prevailing sexism as reasons that contributed to her loss. But Wednesday was the first time she publicly castigated the DNC.
> 
> "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said. "It was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. I had to inject money into it — the DNC — to keep it going."
> 
> Clinton said Trump had better resources from the DNC’s equivalent, the Republican National Committee.
> 
> "So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation," Clinton said.
> 
> The RNC quickly sought to capitalize on the Democratic rift. Its communications team fired off three press releases to reporters highlighting Clinton’s comments, with subject lines like “We Finally Agree With Hillary” and “After Yesterday, Dems Must Want Hillary To Go Back To The Woods.”
> 
> RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel appeared on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning to tout the RNC’s infrastructure.
> 
> "We see it. We see it every day. We are on the ground in all these states. The RNC is far superior in terms of data and ground game. We retooled after 2012 and we’re going to continue to do that,” McDaniel said.
> 
> The DNC, for its part, tried not to pick a fight with Clinton or her sympathizers.
> 
> The committee cited recently elected Chairman Tom Perez’s efforts to revitalize the DNC’s organizational infrastructure, including installing a new chief technology officer and a chief information security officer.
> 
> “Tom has said before that the DNC was not firing on all cylinders, and that’s why he did a top-to-bottom review that included technology,” DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said.
> 
> “Tom is already deeply engaged with the outpouring of support from Democrats across the country, from Silicon Valley to suburban Georgia, who want to help improve the data and tech, get it in the hands of more organizers everywhere, and build the grassroots funding stream required to support those efforts.”
> 
> Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who chaired the DNC until she resigned last summer, did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
> 
> Wasserman Schultz has generally refrained from commenting on anything related to the DNC since her resignation, which came in the wake of leaked emails that showed her and top aides disparaging Sanders’s campaign during the Democratic primary.
> 
> Clinton has been making a series of public appearances in recent weeks, including Wednesday’s event and a commencement address last week at her alma mater, Wellesley College.
> 
> But some Democrats wonder how helpful it is for Clinton to keep grabbing the spotlight and relitigating the election as the party looks for new leadership.
> 
> “It’s always healthy whether you win or lose to do some introspection on what went right and what went wrong. That’s fine,” the former DNC aide said. “It may be cathartic. But it doesn’t help the party win races.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336001-dnc-allies-incensed-by-clinton-criticism
Looks like even the DNC is getting tired of her bullshit



> Veteran troll and independent journalist Jack Posobiec planned a flash mob for the ages as a response to the power meeting of the Bilderberg Group.
> 
> 
> June 3 at 12:00 noon at the Chantilly, Virginia Marriott a flash mob will occur wherein supporters of POTUS and the American way of life will confront the elites that think they can dictate the way we live our lives.
> 
> 
> Follow
> Jack Posobiec ?? ✔ @JackPosobiec
> ANNOUNCING: Trump Flash Mob at Bildeberg Conference!
> 
> Saturday June 3
> 
> Marriott Hotel Chantilly, VA
> 1:39 PM - 2 Jun 2017 · Chantilly, VA
> 743 743 Retweets 1,133 1,133 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Jack Posobiec commented:
> 
> “Trump supporters are going to come out here to tell the globalist elite to their faces that America is not taking their orders anymore. We are reasserting our sovereignty over our own country and we are taking back control of America’s destiny!”
> 
> Follow
> Jack Posobiec ?? ✔ @JackPosobiec
> Annoucement: Trump Flash Mob Tomorrow at Bildeberg in VA! https://www.pscp.tv/w/bABhyjF4ZUtXe...4Vq-u4422EeIemJlTmVTLQh5LuJqAd28R3ksN64n3wSac …
> 2:26 PM - 2 Jun 2017
> 
> JackPosobiec @JackPosobiec
> Annoucement: Trump Flash Mob Tomorrow at Bildeberg in VA! — Chantilly, VA, United States


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/pro-potus-flashmob-planned-saturday-bilderberg-group-conference/


----------



## Headliner

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Is this going to be a thing with leftist now: Fuck up and blame someone else


Just like Trump has done nothing but blame Obama for his problems then take credit for his job reports and unemployment rates? Yes, these are still his numbers.

Ya'll do too much.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870645622810058752I thought it was funny


----------



## MickDX

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/pro-potus-flashmob-planned-saturday-bilderberg-group-conference/


Veteran troll Posobiec. :banderas



virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870645622810058752I thought it was funny


Well Trump is even older than her so he probably remembers how good and warm was before the last ice age.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MickDX said:


> Veteran troll Posobiec. :banderas
> 
> 
> 
> Well Trump is even older than her so he probably remembers how good and warm was before the last ice age.


Ok now I have an image of Trump riding Smilodons and fighting Dire Wolves


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


>


He actually raised a lot of good points about the agreement as a whole, although I think he downplayed their long term goal of decreasing the world temperature by -0.3F. Considering the overall temperature has gone up around 1.50F over the past century (https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years), a _decrease_ over the next 100 years would be pretty significant. I also wasn't a fan of his really arrogant and smug tone at times, it was a turn off when actually trying to listen to him.

That being said, really like the point he made about 3rd world manufacturing, because he's completely right in that regard. Obviously the level of environmental protection and regulation upon all these larger factories in countries like Honduras for example (nations like China seem to be finally waking up as of recently).

Realistically though, while I do like what the agreement was trying to do, the scope of it is incredibly large and there seems to me to be a lack of enforcement of any kind that would be put on the countries in the deal. I mean, if the United States said they would decrease their overall emissions by say 10% by whatever year, and it turns out they actually didn't, what happens? Seems like nothing would happen, and there's nobody who is going to police this, so in essence it feels like a bunch of really bright ideas that won't do much in the long run, much less guarantee anything. 

Now I have no idea what Trump's whole view on climate change is as a whole, but if I were him, maybe I'd actually draft and create my own policy regarding emissions that is much more realistic, and actually has the chance of working rather than just being some nice environmental friendly ideas. Do something better than everybody else, and make the deal look bad in the process (which sounds like something he'd be a fan of in that regard).


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So if Trump is pulling out of Paris, does he have a plan to tackle climate change, improve the environment etc?

Or is it all just bullshit to him? I think overall if it's not made of gold and says TRUMP it just doesn't register with him.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Ok now I have an image of Trump riding Smilodons and fighting Dire Wolves


And grabbing neandeethall pussy


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The Trump administration announced that is has approved a “new questionnaire for U.S. visa applicants” that will ask for social media accounts and handles that were used over the “last five years” as well as travel history, including the source of funding related to their travel.
> 
> The State Department asked for “expedited consideration and ‘emergency review’ from the Office of Management and Budget on May 5” for the new protocol. Fox News confirms that OMB approved the new measures.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News reports:
> 
> The State Department proposed new measures for U.S. visa applicants worldwide in order to “more rigorously” evaluate applicants for terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.
> 
> “Collecting additional information from visa applicants whose circumstances suggest a need for further scrutiny will strengthen our process for vetting these applicants and confirming their identity,” a State Department official told Fox News. “We estimate these changes would affect only a fraction of one percent of the more than 13 million annual visa applicants worldwide.”
> 
> In addition to social media accounts requested from flagged applicants, the State Department will continue to request phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years, address and employment history during the last 15 years, and names and dates of birth for all children, current and former spouses or partners, and siblings, along with all former and current passport numbers and country of issuance.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security told Fox News that the questionnaire would help to provide the “best information possible.”


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/report-trump-administration-begin-social-media-vetting-visa-applicants/



> Kathy Griffin's offensive against Donald Trump Friday apparently fell on deaf ears ... because the only remaining venue that would allow her to perform has just pulled the plug.
> We've learned Kathy's concert at the Uptown Theatre in Napa scheduled for June 17 has been canceled. This follows 6 other cancelations, including bergenPAC in New Jersey which canceled hours before Kathy's news conference.
> The Uptown Theatre cancelation is especially significant because the decision was apparently made after she took the mic with her lawyer. The Uptown folks said on Wednesday the show would go on, but they clearly had a change of heart.


http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-concert-canceled-trump/










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870764291158421507


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



yeahbaby! said:


> So if Trump is pulling out of Paris, does he have a plan to tackle climate change, improve the environment etc?
> 
> Or is it all just bullshit to him? I think overall if it's not made of gold and says TRUMP it just doesn't register with him.


The United States has done more to fight global warmens in the last ten years than any country on the planet and the United States did it without a plan from the gubmint*

:trump doesn't have to do a single thing, just keep on keepin on the course the United States is already following thanks to the superior environmental acumen of the free market**

* **which is the real reason retard Obama is so butthurt, he knows nobody needed his dumb ass to do it and he just can't handle that


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Now I have no idea what Trump's whole view on climate change is as a whole, but if I were him, maybe I'd actually draft and create my own policy regarding emissions that is much more realistic, and actually has the chance of working rather than just being some nice environmental friendly ideas. Do something better than everybody else, and make the deal look bad in the process (which sounds like something he'd be a fan of in that regard).


If I would venture to guess, it would actually be closer to this: 










Than this: 










But it is entirely possible to hold both opinions as they're not necessarily contradictory - nor actually damaging because his personal views on climate change have less bearing on how capitalists conduct business. The informed consumer is the crony capitalist's biggest controller. 

A lot of us are for good/clean air. Capitalism has evolved to realize that their means of production have to include environmental considerations to a certain degree (more work definitely needs to be done by the consumers as that's what really drives change and not policy). 

Consumers underestimate their power to vote with their wallets which is why they run into the arms of governments - who then exploit consumers even more by demanding more money. 

It's kind of a weird mess. People don't want money to go to the capitalist and punish them, so instead of actually punish the capitalist by not buying his product, they give their money to someone else to control the capitalist for them, but that person is more likely to support greed than support the consumer.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> If I would venture to guess, it would actually be closer to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is entirely possible to hold both opinions as they're not necessarily contradictory - nor actually damaging because his personal views on climate change have less bearing on how capitalists conduct business. The informed consumer is the crony capitalist's biggest controller.
> 
> A lot of us are for good/clean air. Capitalism has evolved to realize that their means of production have to include environmental considerations to a certain degree (more work definitely needs to be done by the consumers as that's what really drives change and not policy).
> 
> Consumers underestimate their power to vote with their wallets which is why they run into the arms of governments - who then exploit consumers even more by demanding more money.
> 
> It's kind of a weird mess. People don't want money to go to the capitalist and punish them, so instead of actually punish the capitalist by not buying his product, they give their money to someone else to control the capitalist for them, but that person is more likely to support greed than support the consumer.


Yeah I see that a lot. I just try to by less stuff in general, it's part of the combination of me trying to save money for the future for when I got back to school. But I know that I don't need to buy a ton of junk food, or a lot of objects that are seemingly unneeded, like 10 different pairs of shoes, a giant SUV with pretty poor MPG, or even little things like plastic cutlery and paper plates. If people cut a lot of the excess they don't need (a big one too is even if everybody just didn't eat meat for a day), that alone would help a ton environmentally in just about every single way.

I mean I'm always going lean towards the environmentalists side, but I do try to be a realist about some of it, which is why I was willing to actually watch that video before. At this point though, it's clear people and their communities should begin to take their concerns for the environment as a whole into their own hands.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> I mean I'm always going lean towards the environmentalists side, but I do try to be a realist about some of it, which is why I was willing to actually watch that video before. At this point though, it's clear people and their communities should begin to take their concerns for the environment as a whole into their own hands.


I don't think the majority really believes in the climate change apocalyptic doomsday anyways just like they don't really believe that Trump is Hitler - because if they really believed then they would really live like the climate change alarmists want them to live. They don't. I wouldn't go so far as call them hypocrites because that's not what they are. What they really are is a bunch of people who have an end times apocalyptic prophecy that's pseudo-religious, but they feel like they don't have to abide by it and that everyone else should do it. I see this behaviour in organized religions all the time. 

How many evangalists go on air and preach about humility but live in million dollar mansions? Probably as many as global warming cultists that own private jets, multiple mansions and preach. I really don't see the difference between both groups anymore. Their behavior is too similar. I left one religion and for me climate change advocacy is just another. The reactions I get to my skepticism are even the same as the reactions I get to apostasy. 

If the environmentalists actually had the science to back up their claims, they wouldn't also need shaming tactics just like the religious use.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I don't think the majority really believes in the climate change apocalyptic doomsday anyways just like they don't really believe that Trump is Hitler - because if they really believed then they would really live like the climate change alarmists want them to live. They don't. I wouldn't go so far as call them hypocrites because that's not what they are. What they really are is a bunch of people who have an end times apocalyptic prophecy that's pseudo-religious, but they feel like they don't have to abide by it and that everyone else should do it. I see this behaviour in organized religions all the time.
> 
> How many evangalists go on air and preach about humility but live in million dollar mansions? Probably as many as global warming cultists that own private jets, multiple mansions and preach. I really don't see the difference between both groups anymore. Their behavior is too similar. I left one religion and for me climate change advocacy is just another. The reactions I get to my skepticism are even the same as the reactions I get to apostasy.
> 
> If the environmentalists actually had the science to back up their claims, they wouldn't also need shaming tactics just like the religious use.


That's a really interesting comparison between those television evangelists and the more extreme environmentalists who are the ones that preach that sort of doomsday scenario. It's like the idea of somebody preaching a message but doing nothing about it just jumped into a different generation with a different medium. 

That sort of shaming is something I even feel sometimes, like when I've went out to a steakhouse and got one of those big dry aged steaks, and then later on I read an article about emissions from factory farms (this actually is an example where the information actually isn't far-fetched but pretty and sadly true), or when I use a car to go someplace only a mile away from my home when I could just walk. And in reality, you shouldn't have to shame people to get a message across. I shouldn't have to feel bad in order to care about the environment, I should care about the environment because I feel like it's the right and best thing to do. 

I feel like the alarmist agenda is sadly something that is extremely popular with all media, and it gets attention to have headlines say "90% Of All Polar Bears Will Be Dead By 2050 Due to Ice Loss," than simply having some scientific studies that say perhaps the ice loss could negatively impact some of the current Polar Bear population, something less alarmist in nature.

Thankfully for a positive note, I had a lot of acquaintances in college who were Environmental Science majors (my geography department was in the same area) and thus environmentalists, and I rarely saw the alarmist type in any of them. They were taught to really research and look into the science on both sides before coming up with ideas, and I think a lot of them also believe in the community aspect I mentioned, and how it would make more sense right now to start from the small scale where a single person can have a increasingly significant impact.


----------



## SureUmm

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> That's a really interesting comparison between those television evangelists and the more extreme environmentalists who are the ones that preach that sort of doomsday scenario. It's like the idea of somebody preaching a message but doing nothing about it just jumped into a different generation with a different medium.
> 
> That sort of shaming is something I even feel sometimes, like when I've went out to a steakhouse and got one of those big dry aged steaks, and then later on I read an article about emissions from factory farms (this actually is an example where the information actually isn't far-fetched but pretty and sadly true), or when I use a car to go someplace only a mile away from my home when I could just walk. And in reality, you shouldn't have to shame people to get a message across. I shouldn't have to feel bad in order to care about the environment, I should care about the environment because I feel like it's the right and best thing to do.
> 
> I feel like the alarmist agenda is sadly something that is extremely popular with all media, and it gets attention to have headlines say "90% Of All Polar Bears Will Be Dead By 2050 Due to Ice Loss," than simply having some scientific studies that say perhaps the ice loss could negatively impact some of the current Polar Bear population, something less alarmist in nature.
> 
> Thankfully for a positive note, I had a lot of acquaintances in college who were Environmental Science majors (my geography department was in the same area) and thus environmentalists, and I rarely saw the alarmist type in any of them. They were taught to really research and look into the science on both sides before coming up with ideas, and I think a lot of them also believe in the community aspect I mentioned, and how it would make more sense right now to start from the small scale where a single person can have a increasingly significant impact.


I like reading this, because I'm strongly considering Environmental Science but I'm weary of getting into something so heavily politicized.

Really, I just want to work at a wildlife refuge....though part of me is beginning to realize that what I really want is to be rich so I can create my OWN wildlife refuge like Angelina Jolie did. :hmmm But, I hate myself too much for being a privileged white male to fully admit that I want to make a lot of money. :hmmm :hmmm :hmmm So I'll just be honorably destitute the rest of my life.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> I like reading this, because I'm strongly considering Environmental Science but I'm weary of getting into something so heavily politicized.
> 
> Really, I just want to work at a wildlife refuge....though part of me is beginning to realize that what I really want is to be rich so I can create my OWN wildlife refuge like Angelina Jolie did. :hmmm *But, I hate myself too much for being a privileged white male to fully admit that I want to make a lot of money.* *So I'll just be honorably destitute the rest of my life.*












:troll


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Considering that the majority of people actually disagree with my harsher stance on climate change and they seem willing to buy into at least some of the propaganda - whereas I have rejected almost all of it (probably most radical in this thread), and claim that warming is beneficial for the globe, I'm likely a one man "echo chamber." :lol


rules for radicals bruh

make em adhere to their own dumbass rules 

they wanna bitch about globul WARMUNS, well shit get on MURICA'S level at reducing CO2 emissions then since nobody in the world is as good at it as MURICA 






for some reason the treehuggers have got really butthurt over it


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Now I have no idea what Trump's whole view on climate change is as a whole, but if I were him,


Well in 2009 he signed a petition for Obama to act on climate change and then in 2012 he said it was a chinese conspiracy. I doubt even Donald knows what he thinks about climate change.

Either way the US is by far one of the worse polluters per capita (although still a long way of Qatar), per person it pollutes more than China and India combined, so it has a shit ton of work to do before it gets anywhere near the rest of the world.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> rules for radicals bruh
> 
> make em adhere to their own dumbass rules
> 
> they wanna bitch about globul WARMUNS, well shit get on MURICA'S level at reducing CO2 emissions then since nobody in the world is as good at it as MURICA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for some reason the treehuggers have got really butthurt over it


:hmmm Was watching Logan today (which is really just an allegory for a white man sacrificing himself for a bunch of anchor babies that he literally has to escort from the border to the eden in the North) and there was a scene in there of a bunch of white frat boys driving by the border yelling USA at illegals.. As though that's a bad thing.

Leftists hate nothing more than someone who claims that America is great or the best at something so your approach has its own merits.


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Kathy Griffin's interview/apology thing is friggin' weird. Starts off with "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump" and then less than 1 minute later she says Trump and his family are trying to ruin her life forever. She follows that up with "he broke me" and then starts crying. She talks about getting "detailed" and "specific" death threats..when the photo was very obviously very detailed and specific murder. I didn't find the actual pic personally super offensive or anything, I don't think she should be fired from anything, threatened (obv), etc. But I wouldn't have known it was even supposed to be a joke of any kind if I didn't know the person in the photo was a comedian. She has a completely expressionless face in the photo, there's no context, I don't know where the comedy is supposed to come from. Like if the gag was that Trump was beheaded and still making excuses/smiling after being praised/yelling at people/whatever people don't like about him, then I'd get the joke even if I didn't happen to care for it. If she came out and said "I fuckin' hate Trump so here is his head" then it would at least have reason (even if the morality of it is questionable at best). She didn't though, she said "some people want a joke that's a little out there, a little crazy." What joke? How is that humourous, even if you hate Trump and aren't offended by the photo? Dark/edgy humour is usually a play on words at the very least.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Yeah1993 said:


> Kathy Griffin's interview/apology thing is friggin' weird. Starts off with "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump" and then less than 1 minute later she says Trump and his family are trying to ruin her life forever. She follows that up with "he broke me" and then starts crying. She talks about getting "detailed" and "specific" death threats..when the photo was very obviously very detailed and specific murder. I didn't find the actual pic personally super offensive or anything, I don't think she should be fired from anything, threatened (obv), etc. But I wouldn't have known it was even supposed to be a joke of any kind if I didn't know the person in the photo was a comedian. She has a completely expressionless face in the photo, there's no context, I don't know where the comedy is supposed to come from. Like if the gag was that Trump was beheaded and still making excuses/smiling after being praised/yelling at people/whatever people don't like about him, then I'd get the joke even if I didn't happen to care for it. If she came out and said "I fuckin' hate Trump so here is his head" then it would at least have reason (even if the morality of it is questionable at best). She didn't though, she said "some people want a joke that's a little out there, a little crazy." What joke? How is that humourous, even if you hate Trump and aren't offended by the photo? Dark/edgy humour is usually a play on words at the very least.


like too many comedians her schtick is "oh my isn't it funny to be an asshole like it's 10th grade, I'm the cool kid and I'm shitting on the loser geek in the cafeteria while the entire student body (except the loser geek of course) licks my butthole and applauds"

FUNNY


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Yeah1993 said:


> Kathy Griffin's interview/apology thing is friggin' weird. Starts off with "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump" and then less than 1 minute later she says Trump and his family are trying to ruin her life forever. She follows that up with "he broke me" and then starts crying. She talks about getting "detailed" and "specific" death threats..when the photo was very obviously very detailed and specific murder. I didn't find the actual pic personally super offensive or anything, I don't think she should be fired from anything, threatened (obv), etc. But I wouldn't have known it was even supposed to be a joke of any kind if I didn't know the person in the photo was a comedian. She has a completely expressionless face in the photo, there's no context, I don't know where the comedy is supposed to come from. Like if the gag was that Trump was beheaded and still making excuses/smiling after being praised/yelling at people/whatever people don't like about him, then I'd get the joke even if I didn't happen to care for it. If she came out and said "I fuckin' hate Trump so here is his head" then it would at least have reason (even if the morality of it is questionable at best). She didn't though, she said "some people want a joke that's a little out there, a little crazy." What joke? How is that humourous, even if you hate Trump and aren't offended by the photo? Dark/edgy humour is usually a play on words at the very least.


It strikes me as one of those typical non-apology apologies you see celebrities read when they get busted for something. They're not sorry for doing it, they're sorry for getting caught. In this case, she is sorry that she is losing some money for doing this in regards to her gig on CNN and some stand-up appearances. Her talking about being a victim and then saying she's not going to stop means she wants the President to come after her. Any tweets from the POTUS and his family will buy into this narrative. The idea is that the POTUS and family will use their pulpit to silence any dissent. 

Another case in point...Ken Jennings (all-time winningest Jeopardy champion) made a comment on Twitter about the photo and how it broke Barron's heart. A response came from Donald Trump Jr and it turned into a short Twitter exchange between the two. Was the comment by Jennings out of line...I would say it was not cool but I don't condone going after children. However, when Trump Jr started responding, it once again pulls the Trump family into doing exactly what people want. In the eyes of many, Trump's children and other family are going out of their way to silence any critics by bullying them . They want a response, and even a measured response now is something that sends people flying off the handle. 

I keep stating that this is going to continue to be a problem unless Trump and family put the Twitter accounts away. Yes, it was only one comment, but when one tweet comes out it feeds the beast that is, "This man wants to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with him." It keeps building to the point where anything that Trump does gets lost in the shuffle. He needs to ignore them, just put his head down and get shit done. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said...I have some hot takes on what has been going on since I last graced this forum as I sit here with my morning cup of freshly ground covfefe. 

The more I think about the arms deal with Saudi Arabia, I am very troubled especially in the aftermath of going to NATO and lecturing them about now living up to their obligations and not paying their fair share. It is not wrong to wonder why our other European allies aren't pulling their full weight regarding their own security. Yet, his comments (and pulling out of the Paris Accord) create further concerns and tensions especially in the light of when the Obama administration spent 8 years shunning our allies while extending love to our enemies. Keep in mind, America First doesn't mean America Alone. While we need to focus on our own problems, our allies should know that we are there for them if the shit hits the fan. We have stretched out our military to the point we can't handle shit alone. Rest assured, ISIS and company knows this, that's why they are now going after targets in Europe and the Middle East. With tensions further fraying our relationships worldwide, they hope that the governments worldwide will abandon any fight against ISIS. They were hoping for the reset when Trump became President, but now it has become more obvious they feel we are fully abandoning them. Again, I fully want the United States to look after itself first, but to completely isolate ourselves from the rest of the world is an unrealistic stance. 

Meanwhile, 15 of the 19 9/11 Islamists were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis openly condemn radical Islam, but secretly support the Wahabbist groups within its homeland. So, they sign an arms deal with the Saudis, followed by a donation of $100 million by the Saudi and UAE governments to a World Bank fund created by Ivanka Trump. So, you are providing arms to a nation that sponsors terrorists, then after all these years of hammering on the Clinton Foundation and their lack of ethics you put yourself in a compromising situation with an Ivanka-inspired foundation. This isn't the concept of "we are doing it so it's OK". 

The whole Russia situation I don't have really much to say here on it. I still stand by my position that Russia is not our friend and does not share our interests so it benefits them to have our government in upheaval on whether or not they interfered in the election. However, Trump could get ahead of this and change the narrative if he wanted. It's coming out that Kushner was looking for backroom channels of communication between us and Moscow. It might make for some awkward moments at family dinners moving forward, but I would eject Kushner as an advisor and do it immediately. It sends the message that this type of behavior will not be acceptable, plus gets rid of the progressive influence that he and Ivanka have on Trump. Much like the Syria missile attack showed Trump was no lapdog to the Kremlin, sacking your son-in-law sends the message that no one is immune from losing their job if they aren't doing what they are supposed to do. Liberal heads will explode. 

Now, this has all meant that Bannon is maybe starting to gain influence again in the WH, which leads to the Paris Accord. Let me state for the record first that I don't argue that our climate might be changing as it has for millions of years. It's a natural thing, I just don't believe that humanity has anything to do (or very little to do) with it directly. At one time, Trump believed in climate change, then it was a hoax started by China. So, who knows what he really believes. Meanwhile, our country encourages the development of green technology, and we have the means and ability to create this because of the freedom of our free market. Myself, most know on here that I am an avid outdoorsman and I donate to environmental causes on my own and the money that comes from my fees I pay for my hunting and fishing licenses. It is important to make sure the Earth is a good place to live, I will do it on my own rather than have someone from Paris or elsewhere tell me what I have to do. 

I know a lot of people cheered it, it was a huge campaign promise of his. However, the reality is that it really was not that big of a deal. The Paris Accord is non-binding, that means it lays out what nations should do in regards to clean energy and so on but is not obligated to do so. It does help the smaller businesses that couldn't afford the technology that would be required of it, the larger businesses don't care really as they could afford it. However, if Trump's intention is to renegotiate the accord to make it more beneficial to America, exiting it fully takes away all the leverage. It would have been better to stay with it and then have room to negotiate. Or, if he has no intention of doing so, just be honest and say we're done with it and that's the end of it. 

The truth is, the first few months there have been some accomplishments but for the most part not a lot is getting done. There is no excuse for it, Trump has the majority in both the House and Senate. And Congress is to blame a lot for this as they are sitting on their ass and not doing anything but collect their paychecks. However, some of this blame needs to be put on Donald J Trump, POTUS as well. He seems to be sitting back and delegating stuff, he needs to be more involved and hands-on. Not to mention he keeps poking with his comments against the media and those who want him to fail. He needs to ignore those people and work with those who do want to work with him. Develop relationships with them, all Presidents have had to roll up their shirt sleeves and work with Congress and other people to get things done. 

He seems to get by right now with just the bare minimum. When shit is really bad, and he has had a rough time of it as the investigations are underway and nothing is getting done in Congress, he manages to throw out a bone to his base and keep them going. It's rather Pavlovian. This week, it was pulling out of the Paris Accord, while it was ignored as a result that he signed a six-month waiver (as all Presidents since Clinton have done for the last 20 years) to keep the US Embassy in Tel Aviv and not move it Jerusalem. He has kept some promises, but there are so many he hasn't kept to this point. I understand all Presidents do that, but he was talking about changing that. 

Is there hatred in the mainstream media for him? Yes. Are there people out in the country and within the government who want this man to fail...absolutely. The bottom line though comes down to this...if Donald J Trump doesn't do the job that the American people voted for him to do, it will ultimately be on him. It will be up to him whether he succeeds or fails, and he won't be able to blame anyone but himself.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So, we've already established what COVFEFE is, right?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> So, we've already established what COVFEFE is, right?


The more important question is why anyone would drink decaf covfefe.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*






I said it before and I'll say it again. Vladimir Putin was innoncent the whole time!




> Just like Trump has done nothing but blame Obama for his problems


Obama didn't have a problem doing it to Bush Jr.

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Yeah1993 said:


> Kathy Griffin's interview/apology thing is friggin' weird. Starts off with "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump" and then less than 1 minute later she says Trump and his family are trying to ruin her life forever. *She follows that up with "he broke me" and then starts crying.* She talks about getting "detailed" and "specific" death threats..when the photo was very obviously very detailed and specific murder. I didn't find the actual pic personally super offensive or anything, I don't think she should be fired from anything, threatened (obv), etc. But I wouldn't have known it was even supposed to be a joke of any kind if I didn't know the person in the photo was a comedian. She has a completely expressionless face in the photo, there's no context, I don't know where the comedy is supposed to come from. Like if the gag was that Trump was beheaded and still making excuses/smiling after being praised/yelling at people/whatever people don't like about him, then I'd get the joke even if I didn't happen to care for it. If she came out and said "I fuckin' hate Trump so here is his head" then it would at least have reason (even if the morality of it is questionable at best). She didn't though, she said "some people want a joke that's a little out there, a little crazy." What joke? How is that humourous, even if you hate Trump and aren't offended by the photo? Dark/edgy humour is usually a play on words at the very least.


It wasn't a joke and that homely cunt knows it. She wanted to send a message that consisted of both her honest opinion of Trump *and* throwing her weight in regarding to showing battle-hardened shitposters just how edgy the left can be.

I'd say shame on those for sending her death threats, but considering this is Kathy Griffin we're talking about, I'm definitely gonna look the other way.

:kobe9

And in regard to the bolded part:










:yoshi


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bl...e/news-story/5442fc5bc76e07b8f1c0712f16c9c08b

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of why sane, normal people don't believe anything the globul warmun cult says.

50 million climate refugees by 2010! - "experts," 2005

50 million climate refugees by 2020! - "experts," 2011

Have none of these cultists ever been told about the boy who cried wolf?

Probably not, they were being told stories of how the wolf starved because globul warmuns and how the boy had to flee in terror to the Himalayas after sea levels rose 5000 feet in two months.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Politically this seemed to be Trump's best week in a long time. 1. Paris Accord; 2. Coming back home after establishing the parameters of certain dynamics between the U.S. and the U.S.'s allies; 3. The Russia probe resulting in several high-ranking Democrats facing indictments related to the "unmasking" saga; 4. Kathy Griffin; 5. Pushing to have the "travel ban" looked over by the Supreme Court... I'm probably missing a few more minor items but good stuff this week. Sacking that old communications director was clearly the right move. :banderas :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Supreme court has expedited its review of the travel ban.

Which indicates that there is a majority in favor of overturning the appeals courts' decisions. Not guaranteed but the court first of all rarely takes up cases where the appeals courts agree (as the 4th and 9th did) and it rarely expedites reviews unless it feels a decision needs to be handed down asap. There is no reason to expedite a review if they're going to uphold the injunctions, ie if nothing is going to change.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Supreme court has expedited its review of the travel ban.
> 
> Which indicates that there is a majority in favor of overturning the appeals courts' decisions. Not guaranteed but the court first of all rarely takes up cases where the appeals courts agree (as the 4th and 9th did) and it rarely expedites reviews unless it feels a decision needs to be handed down asap. There is no reason to expedite a review if they're going to uphold the injunctions, ie if nothing is going to change.


What they are actually doing right now is reviewing to determine whether or not the travel ban can still be in effect while it is being dealt with through the courts. Normally, those actions are stopped while it works its way through the appeals court on the way up to SCOTUS but based on what happened in Manchester the Trump administration and the State Department felt the need to say this can be in effect while waiting for SCOTUS to actually hear the case itself (most likely this fall). 

While the nations involved in the ban were previously pointed out for other action by Obama, the one thing that could come back to bite Trump and this ban is the fact that during the campaign he called for a full halt to Muslim immigration until we could properly vet those coming in. No alternative facts, in fact it was a commercial that Trump's campaign endorsed. Granted, other Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia aren't on the list, but it will boil down to intent. The Trump administration says it's not a full Muslim ban, but the words he used during the campaign are going to be taken into full consideration here.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


----------



## Goku

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

the rest of the planet is so envious of you guys, and you guys don't even appreciate your leader like you should. It's heartbreaking.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


how many divisions does your laughter command again

how much economic might does your laughter command again

none?

and none?

what a shame

oooh boy i bet big things are gonna be accomplished by your laughter. any day now.

any. day. now.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump believes in man affected climate change, at least he has some intellect.

:trump

Go trump, even he knows the science adds up.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> how many divisions does your laughter command again
> 
> how much economic might does your laughter command again
> 
> none?
> 
> and none?
> 
> what a shame
> 
> oooh boy i bet big things are gonna be accomplished by your laughter. any day now.
> 
> any. day. now.


It's not my laughter that matters. It's the world leaders. The heads of state that no longer take you guys seriously.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> It's not my laughter that matters. It's the world leaders. The heads of state that no longer take you guys seriously.


and just who are these heads of state who no longer take the united states seriously

all of them most definitely do

they take the US so not seriously they just lost their collective shit over the US withdrawing from the paris agreement. a country you dont take seriously doing such a thing wouldnt garner such a response

they take the US so not seriously that every country in east asia not named china or north korea is sidling up to us for stronger ties because theyre wary of china

they take the US so not seriously that every country in europe west of belarus is sidling up to us for stronger ties because theyre wary of russia

they take the US so not seriously that every country in east africa not named the sudan is sidling up to us for stronger ties because they want our help fighting the shabaab and al-qaeda

they take the US so not seriously in the middle east that israel, egypt, jordan, saudi arabia and the other gulf states have made it clear they want to remain close to the US because they're dependent on our money and military technology and they're wary of iran 

canada and mexico take the US so not seriously that both of them are pissing their pants at the thought of :trump following through on his nafta threats, to the point where they're falling over themselves to say oh yes we'd be willing to renegotiate nafta to make the US happy

the indian subcontinent? they take the US so not seriously in pakistan and india that pakistan dances to our tune whenever we feel like playing, and india has been getting closer and closer to the US over the last 15 years because they're wary of china's ambitions in central asia and the indian ocean 

russia and china take the US so not seriously that every foreign policy they execute has the aim of weakening american power

just where is it that they don't take the US seriously? south america? sub saharan africa? the two most geopolitically unimportant regions on the face of the planet? 

or do you really think that angela merkel and macron are about to precipitate a big breakup with washington? please. merkel and macron can snort and stamp the ground all they want, they both know very well that without the american alliance germany and france's ability to have a vigorous foreign policy vis-a-vis russia and the middle east would be significantly degraded. we provide the financial and military muscle backing up their mouths. they know it, we know it, everybody knows it. it is too valuable to them. they aren't going to toss it away, sorry.

ive been reading this kind of nonsense for 15 years now, and the US is still the most important country to every other geopolitically important country on the planet. whether we are their friend or rival or foe. 

realpolitik beats feelings every time


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:Rollins:bryanlol:beckylol:maury

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Democrats say they’d like Hillary Clinton to take a cue from former President Obama and step out of the spotlight.
> 
> They say her string of remarks explaining her stunning loss in November coupled with the public remarks blaming the Democratic National Committee for the defeat — which many took as also critical of Obama — are hurting the party and making the 2016 candidate look bitter.
> 
> The Hill interviewed more a dozen Democrats about Clinton’s remarks, including many staunch Clinton supporters and former aides.
> 
> They said they understood the need for Clinton to explain what happened in the election, and many also empathized with Clinton’s anger over former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of a probe into her private email server.
> 
> But they also unanimously said Clinton needs to rethink her public blaming tour.
> “Good God, what is she doing?” one longtime aide wondered after watching Clinton at the Recode conference in California on Wednesday. “She's apparently still really, really angry. I mean, we all are. The election was stolen from her, and that's how she feels.
> 
> “But to go out there publicly again and again and talk about it? And then blame the DNC?” the aide wondered. "It's not helpful to Democrats. It's not helpful to the country, and I don't think it's helpful to her.”
> 
> Former Obama aides are among those scratching their heads over Clinton’s strategy.
> 
> At the Recode conference, she said she had inherited nothing from a “bankrupt” Democratic Party led by Obama for eight years.
> 
> “If she is trying to come across as the leader of the angry movement of what happened in 2016, then she's achieving it,” said one former senior aide to Obama. “But part of the problem she had was she didn't have a vision for the Democratic Party, and she needs to now take a break and let others come to the forefront.”
> 
> Clinton’s remarks come at a point in time where the Democratic Party feels somewhat leaderless after the eight years of Obama and the surprise Clinton defeat.
> 
> Obama has largely gone out of public view, though he reappeared with a statement this week blasting President Trump for pulling the United States from the Paris climate deal.
> 
> Advisers to Obama have said he wants to give a new generation of leaders room to grow.
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is perhaps the leading figure on the left after he gave Clinton a run for her money in the 2016 primary. Yet he is not even a member of the Democratic Party.
> 
> Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is still adjusting to his leadership position after winning his post in a contest with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). The two have worked hard to forge a united front since the election.
> 
> The former Obama aide said Clinton’s criticisms of the DNC can make it tougher for new leaders to come forward.
> 
> “It's hard to do that when you have the former nominee out there in a newsy, aggressive manner,” the former Obama aide said.
> 
> While Obama has made public appearances since leaving office, he has generally refrained from talking about Trump. Instead, he has held events focused on getting young adults active in civic engagement, as he did in April.
> 
> That puts Obama in the tradition of other past presidents who have generally sought to avoid public criticisms of their immediate successors.
> 
> Whether Obama sticks to that role consistently going forward is unclear.
> 
> Clinton, of course, is not a former president.
> 
> Longtime aides and advisers say she will not run for public office again, and that she feels liberated to finally speak her mind. They anticipate that Clinton will keep discussing the election, particularly to promote her upcoming book, which is expected to be published this fall.
> 
> “She's saying the same stuff she would say on a phone call with me,” said one former aide, who worked on the 2016 campaign. “And I think she'll continue to have a national dialogue on what needs to be fixed.”
> 
> Some Democrats say Clinton is better off laying low.
> 
> “I'm not sure there is a political strategy here,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “It sounds to me like more of a personal strategy.
> 
> “Complaining about an outcome and blaming everyone else is not a good political strategy,” Bannon added.
> 
> Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, acknowledged some frustration among Democrats over Clinton’s remarks.
> 
> “Some people I know are just frustrated that it's happening,” he said. “She is a national hero and a great public servant and has the right to be upset."
> 
> But Simmons added that if she's going to discuss the loss, “it would be nice to hear a little more about the things she did wrong, which I believe mattered more than what she has discussed.”
> 
> Simmons, who worked for Al Gore's presidential campaign, said he is “intimately familiar” with the mourning that takes place after a narrow loss — particularly one that was decided on so-called hanging chads.
> 
> “When Al Gore lost the election, he went to Europe, gained weight and grew a beard,” Simmons said. “He walked away. And there's something to that.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/336172-dems-want-hillary-clinton-to-leave-spotlight


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> :Rollins:bryanlol:beckylol:maury
> 
> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure


devastating rebuttal you got there 

how can the united states ever recover from this collapse of security and intelligence cooperation and trade

vietnam just announced that it is no longer interested in closer ties with the united states, reversing the last 5 years of its foreign policy 

global trade with the united states has instantaneously dropped to $5 worth a year

modi has just sent out a press release that he's decided he doesn't want india to get closer with the US

germany and france just left NATO 5 seconds ago

japan just kicked the 7th fleet out of okinawa

al-sisi and king hussein have announced a new alliance between egypt, jordan and iran

oh wait none of that happened and you're as ignorant of geopolitical reality as can be


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> It's not my laughter that matters. It's the world leaders. The heads of state that no longer take you guys seriously.


They can laugh all they want.

When trump summons them, theyll kiss his ring.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871490252765921280
:mj


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/336172-dems-want-hillary-clinton-to-leave-spotlight


For someone who has been a national figure for 25-26 years and been involved in politics most of her adult life, it's astonishing how incredibly awful her political instincts are.

I get the feeling if she ran for Mayor of New York she could find a way to lose a write in vote to Bill Cosby or Robert Durst.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> What they are actually doing right now is reviewing to determine whether or not the travel ban can still be in effect while it is being dealt with through the courts. Normally, those actions are stopped while it works its way through the appeals court on the way up to SCOTUS but based on what happened in Manchester the Trump administration and the State Department felt the need to say this can be in effect while waiting for SCOTUS to actually hear the case itself (most likely this fall).
> 
> While the nations involved in the ban were previously pointed out for other action by Obama, the one thing that could come back to bite Trump and this ban is the fact that during the campaign he called for a full halt to Muslim immigration until we could properly vet those coming in. No alternative facts, in fact it was a commercial that Trump's campaign endorsed. Granted, other Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia aren't on the list, but it will boil down to intent. The Trump administration says it's not a full Muslim ban, but the words he used during the campaign are going to be taken into full consideration here.


The thing is the president has full power to establish immigration policy. The courts cynically blocked him because theyre judicial activists, then tried to establish a veneer of respectability about it.

If trump wanted to, he could hslt ALL IMMIGRATION, not just muslims.

If the sc upholds the lower court it would be as bad as establishing obamacare because it was a tax


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> The thing is the president has full power to establish immigration policy. The courts cynically blocked him because theyre judicial activists, then tried to establish a veneer of respectability about it.
> 
> If trump wanted to, he could hslt ALL IMMIGRATION, not just muslims.
> 
> If the sc upholds the lower court it would be as bad as establishing obamacare because it was a tax


Its been over 90 days since Trump first tried to implement this ban. Trump said it would take 90 days to figure this out, what exactly has Trump done in those 90 days? NOTHING. 

Oh wait he thought by calling ISIS LOSERS that will stop them LMFAO and people in this thread think that is going to work.


Also how many fatal terrorist attacks have happened from those countries on the US the past 90 days. ZERO.

But there have been terrorist attacks by US citizens in the US but of course, Trump does not give a shit about those nor do his supporters on this forum.

Just look at how the terrorist attack by that white Christian in Portland was barely even mentioned in this thread because he was a white Christian and not a Muslim. 

But the right always ignore those kind of attacks.








nucklehead88 said:


> The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


Exactly, this thread has gone off the trails with the Trump supporters thinking he is doing a great job lol

It just shows you uninformed and delusional Trump supporters are.

This thread is a clown car


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> What they are actually doing right now is reviewing to determine whether or not the travel ban can still be in effect while it is being dealt with through the courts. Normally, those actions are stopped while it works its way through the appeals court on the way up to SCOTUS but based on what happened in Manchester the Trump administration and the State Department felt the need to say this can be in effect while waiting for SCOTUS to actually hear the case itself (most likely this fall).
> 
> While the nations involved in the ban were previously pointed out for other action by Obama, the one thing that could come back to bite Trump and this ban is the fact that during the campaign he called for a full halt to Muslim immigration until we could properly vet those coming in. No alternative facts, in fact it was a commercial that Trump's campaign endorsed. Granted, other Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia aren't on the list, but it will boil down to intent. The Trump administration says it's not a full Muslim ban, but the words he used during the campaign are going to be taken into full consideration here.


Even their ruling on that will be telling. And they usually keep the lower court's ruling in effect until they make their own. At the very least if they rule that it can be in effect until they make a ruling on the issue itself, the Democrats and the media will freak out. 

As long as diligent efforts (at a bare minimum) were made to implement a serious and fair vetting system, I am of the mind that the president could ban immigration from all Muslim-majority countries for reasons of national security until such a system was in operation. Or all Christian-majority countries. Or from any single country or grouping of countries that the president pleases. As long as it wasn't indefinite, and a compelling interest could be demonstrated that could not be achieved by less strict and drastic means. It was only one long lifetime ago that the president and the congress could ban immigration from wherever they felt like, for any reason or no reason at all. But doing so truly for bigoted reasons goes against the strongly expressed spirit, if not precisely the letter, of several parts of the constitution. And the spirit of the constitution is still the political spirit of the nation.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


Canadians have no room to talk about joke rulers or legislation.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> They can laugh all they want.
> 
> When trump summons them, theyll kiss his ring.


To live but a day in your shoes...


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> To live but a day in your shoes...


Dude every time he makes some rude-ass tweet or comment or speech and the British government or the French government or the German government or the whoever government just sits there and take it, which has happened at least a couple dozen times since January 20th, what are they doing?

Kissing his ring.

Kissing the United States' ring, really. 

But :trump is the one wearing it right now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


We'll see who's laughing when the planet is dead. :trump

And on that note...


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Canadians have no room to talk about joke rulers or legislation.


But Trudeau has such neat sweaters.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When they have to decide between kissing the ring of the tyrant next to them or the tyrant far away, guess which side will they be siding on in a dispute between the two tyrants?

Not that it matters anyway. The US is by far the strongest country in the world. Nobody could tell you what to do. Well except if Trump continues to cripple the US government from within to the point that it can't perform its basic functions.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Dude every time he makes some rude-ass tweet or comment or speech and the British government or the French government or the German government or the whoever government just sits there and take it, which has happened at least a couple dozen times since January 20th, what are they doing?
> 
> Kissing his ring.
> 
> Kissing the United States' ring, really.
> 
> But :trump is the one wearing it right now.


Not indulging his tantrums = kissing the ring. Alright, bet. It makes perfect sense now.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*









Seems like leaders were laughing with Trump and having a grand time when the big dog was holding court at the G7.

Poor Justin from Canada, tho. Seems nobody wanted to talk with him


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

At least Canada's money smells like maple syrup.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Poor Justin from Canada, tho. Seems nobody wanted to talk with him


I think he misses the "remarkable" and "larger than life leader who served his people" Fidel Castro. Weighs heavily on his mind. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Europe did more than than kiss the ring when Trump was debating about NATO, they were on their knees calling him daddy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:sodone 

Canadians and their inferiority complex exemplified in one GIF. Dude is supposed to have this larger than life personality and he's hovering around the leaders like a little nerd :lmao 

Oh and here's another one from when Harper was Prime Minister. My sister the SJW complained about how the press even had the audacity to release this picture :kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Poor Justin from Canada, tho. Seems nobody wanted to talk with him


He didn't have common folk around to take selfies with.

- Vic


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love that the Canadian PM is the only one who actually called Trump on cellphone after Trump gave other world leaders his number.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I think he misses the "remarkable" and "larger than life leader who served his people" Fidel Castro. Weighs heavily on his mind. :mj


Pretty harsh to attack the man for saying some kind words about his father after his death.






Trump Thug Life videos will never not be funny. :lol


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...-blue-state-model-crashes-and-burns/#comments



> As I've written here before, the small state of Connecticut is about to go belly-up after years of Democrat golden-goose misrule. And now, it looks like the state's malevolent stewards have run out of geese to kill:
> 
> Gov. Malloy has spent two terms treating business as a bottomless well of cash to redistribute to public unions. Now that his state is losing millionaires and businesses, he has seen the light. But the price of his dereliction will be steep.
> 
> Last month the state Office of Fiscal Analysis *reduced its two-year revenue forecast by $1.46 billion.* Since January the agency has downgraded income-tax revenue for *2017 and 2018 by $1.1 billion (6%). Sales- and corporate-tax revenue are projected to fall by $385 million (9%) and $67 million (7%), respectively, this year. Pension contributions, which have doubled since 2010, will increase by a third over the next two years. The result: a $5.1 billion deficit and three recent credit downgrades.*
> 
> According to the fiscal analyst, income-tax collections declined this year for the first time since the recession due to lower earnings at the top. *Many wealthy residents decamped for lower-tax states after Mr. Malloy and his Republican predecessor Jodi Rell raised the top individual rate on more than $500,000 of income to 6.99% from 5%. In the past five years 27,400 Connecticut residents, including Ms. Rell, have moved to no-income-tax Florida, and seven of the state’s eight counties have lost population since 2010. Population flight has depressed economic growth—Connecticut’s real GDP has shrunk by 0.1% since 2010—as well as home values and sales-tax revenues.*
> *
> Tough Times in the Nutmeg State*
> 
> Include me in on the "home value" list, so I do in fact have a dog in this fight. Malloy, whose election was very likely stolen by the Democrat machines in the bankrupt sewers of Hartford and Bridgeport (where ballots miraculously fall off trucks), has picked up where the RINO (when not actually convicted and imprisoned) Republicans left off. They ought to be indicted for the willful murder of one of the few nice places to live in the northeast United States.
> 
> Mr. Malloy is also seeking *$1.6 billion in concessions from unions, which would be easier to achieve if collective bargaining weren’t mandated by law.* He’s suggested increasing municipal pension contributions and cutting state-revenue sharing, both of which could drive up property taxes and imperil insolvent cities like Hartford. Mr. Malloy’s budget includes a $50 million bailout for Hartford to prevent bankruptcy, which might occur in any case if Aetna—its fourth largest taxpayer—leaves.
> The state treasurer has advocated “credit bonds” securitized by income-tax revenues to reduce the state’s borrowing costs. Investors beware: Puerto Rico tried something similar with its sales tax, and bondholders might not get back a penny. Maybe Democrats should follow Jerry Seinfeld’s advice to George Costanza and do the opposite of the instinct that has brought the state so low: Cut taxes.
> 
> The answer to the state's woes is obvious: break the public unions, repeal the state personal income tax, stop nickel-and-diming the residents to death, cut "services," thus encouraging the export of freeloaders and illegal immigrants, and close up as many sinecure departments in Hartford (pop. 125,000 -- yes, you read that right) and create a far more business-friendly climate.
> 
> Speaking of climates, the Nutmeg State's can't rival California's, where prosperous folks essentially pay for the weather as compensation for being fleeced and tortured. What made Connecticut boom in the 1970s and '80s was its status as a strategically located no-income-tax state whose southwesternmost seaside towns lie just a few miles from Manhattan, whose New England villages near the Berkshires beckoned refugees from New York and Massachusetts, and whose northeastern towns are within an easy drive of Fenway Park and Foxborough.
> 
> A "moderate" Republican, Lowell Weicker, fired the first shot with a "temporary" income tax, but it's been left to the Democrats --many of whom were those tax refugees from several decades ago -- to throttle not only the geese but the goslings as well. Maybe the voters should think about throttling the Democrats next time.


Connecticut has gone to complete shit with total Democrat control. Less revenue, several businessmen moving to other states, complete union control which has led to $5.1 billion deficit and three recent credit downgrades. Raising taxes have depressed revenues and has dis-encouraged investment and growth which has put the state in a lot of financial trouble. This is what happens when you have the state in complete Democratic lockdown.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



nucklehead88 said:


> The rest of the planet is laughing at you guys, and you guys think he's going a great job. It's hilarious.


I would agree you except you guys are stuck with Justin Trudeau who's playing to political correctness. He's a liberal Canadian version of W.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Speaking if Justin from Canada



> A group of up to 5,000 Canadian citizens marched on Canada’s capital on Saturday in support of U.S. President Donald Trump’s conservative agenda and against the liberal agenda of their own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.
> The marchers gathered to protest the country’s spiraling tax rate, its recent attacks on free speech, and the government’s wild over-spending, Daily Caller reported.
> 
> Event organizer Mike Waine, who called his march the “Million Deplorable March” in emulation of the name Hillary Clinton made up for Donald Trump’s supporters, said he is annoyed that PM Trudeau gets a free pass from the Canadian media.
> 
> Waine said:
> 
> Nothing was being done about this corrupt government… Trudeau stepped out-of-bounds with waving the pot leaf in front of the nose of the tokers and his nice friendly-looking smile won him the housewives. So now we’re in a situation where we have a complete moron at the helm and he’s spending more than we can afford. He’s destroying our country with carbon taxes, he’s destroying small business.
> 
> Waine praised President Trump for taking the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord and slammed the Canadian media for refusing to report accurately how badly Trudeau’s liberal policies are working.
> 
> Other marchers were protesting the impending passage of M-103, a new law that would make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in Canada.
> 
> M-103 states that the government must “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” It would levy criminal sentences on those who criticize Islam.
> 
> Canada’s Conservative Party generally stands against M-103. Maxime Bernier, a conservative with libertarian free market leanings, recently said he voted against the bill, tweeting: “Free speech is the most fundamental right we have. I am opposed to #m103. Canadians should be treated equally regardless of religion.”
> 
> But the self-proclaimed “feminist” Prime Minister slammed opposition to the speech code-style bill:
> 
> Diversity is a source of strength, not just a source of weakness, and as I look at this beautiful room — sisters upstairs — everyone here, (I see) the diversity we have just within this mosque, within the Islamic community, within the Muslim community in Canada.
> 
> Marcher Rod Noble agreed with the conservative position saying, “We already have extensive protection for all groups and this is really special treatment and it’s part of a cookie cutter policy that is happening all across the western world…it’s part of the deliberate Islamization of the West…coordinated by George Soros and we have to stop this.”
> 
> The march began on Parliament Hill in the Canadian capital of Ottawa and will continue through Sunday afternoon, ending with a rally on Parliament Hill.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/03/5000-canadians-march-in-support-of-trump-against-liberal-trudeau-administration/


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...-blue-state-model-crashes-and-burns/#comments
> 
> 
> 
> Connecticut has gone to complete shit with total Democrat control. Less revenue, several businessmen moving to other states, complete union control which has led to $5.1 billion deficit and three recent credit downgrades. Raising taxes have depressed revenues and has dis-encouraged investment and growth which has put the state in a lot of financial trouble. This is what happens when you have the state in complete Democratic lockdown.


As a Californian the present situation forlornly unfolding in Connecticut is all-too-familiar with of course some considerable variables thrown in. Nevertheless, it is sad to see Connecticut experience this altogether predictable cycle. The discouragement in investment is said to be nearly incalculable according to a gentleman I know from the Constitution State, leaving major question marks over where the state goes from here following the enactment of so many plainly self-immolating financial decisions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*






fpalm


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> fpalm


:maisielol

I love it when she says what 'what a wonderful scene'


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty harsh to attack the man for saying some kind words about his father after his death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Thug Life videos will never not be funny. :lol


Of all the thug life ones this is probably one of the unfunniest, I mean, he's lying throughout which makes it hard to laugh when you know someones talking utter bullshit.

The cleanest country in the world with the cleanest air...come on Trumpo even you don't believe that hyperbole.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FOX NEWS said:


> *Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system*


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/05/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system.html

Well, this is an interesting development. What do you guys think of this?

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/05/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system.html
> 
> Well, this is an interesting development. What do you guys think of this?
> 
> - Vic


Trump destroying the US from within one dept/agency at a time


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> Seems like leaders were laughing with Trump and having a grand time when the big dog was holding court at the G7.
> 
> Poor Justin from Canada, tho. Seems nobody wanted to talk with him


Take notes, Vinnie Mac: THAT is a what Big Dog that runs his yard looks like. :trump3

And :lol at Trudeau being the reversal of the whole "too pretty to hang with the average looking people" trope. Serves him right, considering he turned Canada into Cuckada.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



L-DOPA said:


> https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...-blue-state-model-crashes-and-burns/#comments
> 
> 
> 
> Connecticut has gone to complete shit with total Democrat control. Less revenue, several businessmen moving to other states, complete union control which has led to $5.1 billion deficit and three recent credit downgrades. Raising taxes have depressed revenues and has dis-encouraged investment and growth which has put the state in a lot of financial trouble. This is what happens when you have the state in complete Democratic lockdown.


At least they still have the WWE headquarters. :kappa


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> At least they still have the WWE headquarters. :kappa


Yeah, but we all know that Florida is the real home of wrestling :woo


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, but we all know that Florida is the real home of wrestling sports entertainment :woo


FTFY, DAMN IT! :vince5


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, but we all know that Florida is the real home of wrestling :woo


And has been since at least 1974 when the American Dream first turned babyface.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871835328553787392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871814783301021696


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A rat has been found



> Federal Government Contractor in Georgia Charged With Removing and Mailing Classified Materials to a News Outlet
> 
> A criminal complaint was filed in the Southern District of Georgia today charging Reality Leigh Winner, 25, a federal contractor from Augusta, Georgia, with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e).
> 
> Winner was arrested by the FBI at her home on Saturday, June 3, and appeared in federal court in Augusta this afternoon.
> 
> “Exceptional law enforcement efforts allowed us quickly to identify and arrest the defendant,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. “Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government. People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.”
> 
> According to the allegations contained in the criminal complaint:
> 
> Winner is a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation assigned to a U.S. government agency facility in Georgia. She has been employed at the facility since on or about February 13, and has held a Top Secret clearance during that time. On or about May 9, Winner printed and improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information from an intelligence community agency, and unlawfully retained it. Approximately a few days later, Winner unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet.
> 
> Once investigative efforts identified Winner as a suspect, the FBI obtained and executed a search warrant at her residence. According to the complaint, Winner agreed to talk with agents during the execution of the warrant. During that conversation, Winner admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a "need to know," and with knowledge that the intelligence reporting was classified. Winner further admitted removing the classified intelligence reporting from her office space, retaining it, and mailing it from Augusta, Georgia, to the news outlet, which she knew was not authorized to receive or possess the documents.
> 
> An individual charged by criminal complaint is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.
> 
> The prosecution is being handled by Trial Attorney Julie A. Edelstein of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia. The investigation is being conducted by the FBI.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news

Reality Leigh Winner. Didn't know the NXT name generator was around in 1992.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Canadians have no room to talk about joke rulers or legislation.


Why? None of our leaders are currently under investigation :TayL


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/05/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system.html
> 
> Well, this is an interesting development. What do you guys think of this?
> 
> - Vic





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump destroying the US from within one dept/agency at a time


Now now, BM, this is actually a good move, even if Trump is the one proposing it. :lol

Canada, the UK, and Germany privatized air traffic control and now they are technologically way ahead of us. I don't think they have any problems with airliners crashing into each other because of it. :lol Plus, we'll be saving several billion dollars. It's a win-win. 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/05/trump-proposes-major-overhaul-of-outdate


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Now now, BM, this is actually a good move, even if Trump is the one proposing it. :lol
> 
> Canada, the UK, and Germany privatized air traffic control and now they are technologically way ahead of us. I don't think they have any problems with airliners crashing into each other because of it. :lol Plus, we'll be saving several billion dollars. It's a win-win.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/05/trump-proposes-major-overhaul-of-outdate


I'd be down with this. I'd love if he also privatized airport security as well, I'm just about done with the TSA as a whole.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


>


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


>


The 1950s called and they're very confused because apparently it's the Republicans that are the secret commie pinko fellow travelers trying to bring down America now :heston


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The found a leaker according to the DOJ


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/05/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system.html
> 
> Well, this is an interesting development. What do you guys think of this?
> 
> - Vic


Left: It's evil because it's Trump
Right: It's great because it's Trump
Me: The impact will be so minuscule that we'll never actually feel it.

I've traveled 40k miles across 4 different continents on at least 20 different airlines and the only airline that has ever stood out as amazing is Emirates Air. The rest are all essentially the same with a few minor differences here and there and I doubt that there's much they can do to improve connect times etc because that's all entirely dependent on an individuals' itinerary. I highly doubt that there will be any deflation in what consumers are currently paying as this is one of those industries that's already very competitive with no clear monopoly. 

It's imo a bit of a nothingburger other than it's something that the government really has no business being in anyways :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



AryaDark said:


>


I love that picture, Antifa should be on board since they fly the hammer and sickle flag constantly.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

BTW, heads up as the Federal Contractor that was arrested will eventually be compared to the likes of Assange and Snowden (who were actual whistleblowers). 

Apparently, this woman who was caught leaking was a total SJW so really deserves no mercy at all imo. She's no "whistleblower". 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...r-called-potus-trump-piece-sht-facebook-post/


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> BTW, heads up as the Federal Contractor that was arrested will eventually be compared to the likes of Assange and Snowden (who were actual whistleblowers).
> 
> Apparently, this woman who was caught leaking was a total SJW so really deserves no mercy at all imo. She's no "whistleblower".
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...r-called-potus-trump-piece-sht-facebook-post/


I actually love that a few on social media are acting like this is bad for DRUMPF and acting like this is the smoking gun. They just read the headline, and not the report. 

She's going to jail for a very long time, gave up her freedom and became a disgrace to our country by leaking info that really wasn't all that loaded and didn't draw any new conclusions. 

It's like you decide to commit armed robbery, think the risk is worth it and you'll get millions out of it, and you only managed to walk away with $5, and you end up getting caught and charged all the same lel

Worst spy ever and I cannot believe she actually admitted to everything when interrogated. Godsmacked she didn't remain silent.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> BTW, heads up as the Federal Contractor that was arrested will eventually be compared to the likes of Assange and Snowden (who were actual whistleblowers).
> 
> Apparently, this woman who was caught leaking was a total SJW so really deserves no mercy at all imo. She's no "whistleblower".
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...r-called-potus-trump-piece-sht-facebook-post/


You're saying that she doesn't deserve to be applauded because of her political views? I don't think that's fair. Though this is the first I'm hearing of her at all.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> You're saying that she doesn't deserve to be applauded because of her political views? I don't think that's fair. Though this is the first I'm hearing of her at all.


Obviously because it calls into question her motives. Assange and Snowden did what they did because they thought it would be good for the people. She clearly did what she did because she hated the president. I think motives matter as much if not more than the outcome. Also, her leaks if you read them literally revealed nothing at all of any consequence.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> You're saying that she doesn't deserve to be applauded because of her political views? I don't think that's fair. Though this is the first I'm hearing of her at all.


TBF she would be applauded if she truly leaked something meaningful.
Instead, she's a fool who'll now probably spend the next 10-20 in prison. That's the risk when you try to be an hero, I guess.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Obviously because it calls into question her motives. Assange and Snowden did what they did because they thought it would be good for the people. She clearly did what she did because she hated the president. I think motives matter as much if not more than the outcome.


Well if you hate the president, you'd believe his removal is good for the people. I'd be with you if she was some kind of senior official that had access to a significant amount of information, but in a role as limited as hers you can't really say she should have also leaked stuff about the DNC, for example.

This was also news to me. I had no idea that the NSA had concrete evidence of a Russian hacking campaign on American voting machines! How is this insignificant?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Just to be clear, I would defend any leaker if they betray their employer for valid reasons ... Not all leaks are valid and not all leakers are noble. Intentions and the character of the person involved matters.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> I had no idea that the NSA had concrete evidence of a Russian hacking campaign on American voting machines! How is this insignificant?


It just corroborates and adds a lil more detail to Obama's Russian election report he released in January.

here's the report.

Here's the definitive quote from it:



> The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments


If there was something significant, trust that MSM would be all over it and then some. They will move on from this as soon as tomorrow, and no later than Thursday.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



samizayn said:


> Well if you hate the president, you'd believe his removal is good for the people. I'd be with you if she was some kind of senior official that had access to a significant amount of information, but in a role as limited as hers you can't really say she should have also leaked stuff about the DNC, for example.
> 
> This was also news to me. I had no idea that the NSA had concrete evidence of a Russian hacking campaign on American voting machines! How is this insignificant?


But the partisan nature of her politics pretty much guarantees that she would have sat on similar information if it involved the other party. It's her nature that I'm concerned about specifically. It's clear that the information itself was secondary so she likely fished for something she could find to leak. 

And no, the info she leaked was part of the news cycle several months ago well before he even became president. It was that shit show information that was determined to be downright trash and didn't actually give us anything at all.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> It just corroborates and adds a lil more detail to Obama's Russian election report he released in January.
> 
> If there was something significant, trust that MSM would be all over it and then some. They will move on from this as soon as tomorrow, and no later than Thursday.


Ten years of prison for this... 

That actually pains me physically. Some people need saving from themselves.


Iconoclast said:


> But the partisan nature of her politics pretty much guarantees that she would have sat on similar information if it involved the other party. It's her nature that I'm concerned about specifically. It's clear that the information itself was secondary so she likely fished for something she could find to leak.
> 
> And no, the info she leaked was part of the news cycle several months ago well before he even became president. It was that shit show information that was determined to be downright trash and didn't actually give us anything at all.


Ok. To be clear, I disagree. I think the fact of something being true is enough to justify it getting out by any means, whoever and however that may be.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-light-on-the-future-of-a-key-antarctic-glacier

NASA starting to revise their hysterical claims :lmao 



> *New Light on the Future of a Key Antarctic Glacier
> *
> 
> *Study Shows Thwaites Glacier's Ice Loss May Not Progress as Quickly as Thought*
> 
> The melt rate of West Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier is an important concern, because this glacier alone is currently responsible for about 1 percent of global sea level rise. A new NASA study finds that Thwaites' ice loss will continue, but not quite as rapidly as previous studies have estimated.
> 
> The new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds that numerical models used in previous studies have overestimated how rapidly ocean water is able to melt the glacier from below, leading them to overestimate the glacier's total ice loss over the next 50 years by about 7 percent.
> 
> Thwaites Glacier covers an area nearly as large as the state of Washington (70,000 square miles, or 182,000 square kilometers). Satellite measurements show that its rate of ice loss has doubled since the 1990s. The glacier has the potential to add several inches to global sea levels.
> 
> Map of Thwaites Glacier
> Ice velocities (meters per year) of Thwaites Glacier (approximate location outlined with dashed line)and neighboring glaciers in West Antarctica; inset map shows location. The ocean bottom temperature appears as shades of red (degrees Celsius). Ocean areas shown in gray are too shallow to affect the glacial undersides.
> Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech
> The new study is led by Helene Seroussi, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It is the first to combine two computer models, one of the Antarctic ice sheet and one of the Southern Ocean, in such a way that the models interact and evolve together throughout an experiment -- creating what scientists call a coupled model.
> 
> Previous modeling studies of the glacier used only an ice sheet model, with the effects of the ocean specified beforehand and unchanging.
> 
> Seroussi and colleagues at JPL and the University of California at Irvine (UCI) used an ocean model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge with an ice sheet model developed at JPL and UCI. They used data from NASA's Operation Icebridge and other airborne and satellite observations, both to set up the numerical model simulations and to check how well the models reproduced observed changes.
> 
> Glaciers have beds just as rivers do, and most glacier beds slope downhill in the same direction the glacier is flowing, as a riverbed does. Thwaites Glacier's bed does the opposite: it slopes uphill in the direction of flow. The bedrock under the glacier's ocean front is higher than bedrock farther inland, which has been pushed down over the millennia by its heavy burden of ice.
> 
> Thwaites has lost so much ice that it floats where it used to be attached to bedrock. That has opened a passageway underneath the glacier where ocean water can seep in.
> 
> In this part of Antarctica, the warm, salty, deep ocean current that circles the continent comes near land, and warm water can flow onto the continental shelf. This warm seawater now seeps beneath Thwaites Glacier, melting it from below.
> 
> As the glacier continues to melt, grow thinner and float off bedrock farther and farther inland, new cavities will continue to open up. Because the bedrock slopes downhill, there's no natural barrier to stop this process. Earlier modeling studies assumed that water in the new cavities would continue to melt the glacial underside at the same rate that it's melting now.
> 
> Seroussi's coupled model found that water circulation is more restricted in these narrow spaces, and as a result, the water will melt the ice more slowly than previously thought.
> 
> Seroussi noted that critical factors affecting Thwaites, such as how nearby ocean temperatures will change, are still unknown and represented by different scenarios in different studies. However, "Our results shift the estimates for sea level rise to smaller numbers regardless of the scenario," she said.
> 
> The study is titled "Continued retreat of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, controlled by bed topography and ocean circulation."
> 
> Alan Buis
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
> 818-354-0474
> [email protected]
> 
> Written by Carol Rasmussen
> NASA's Earth Science News Team
> 
> 2017-156


No fucking shit. People have been claiming that the climate models are horrendously bad for decades. 

:move


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-light-on-the-future-of-a-key-antarctic-glacier
> 
> NASA starting to revise their hysterical claims :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> :move


First companies are forced to do their own environmental policies and now this.
:vince8


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Every single day I feel myself more and more justified for supporting Trump :move


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

You guys will feel real bad when sea levels rise 7 miles in 3 days next week!

The scientific consensus told me it's gonna happen, y'all need to get outta the stone age!


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Overestimate by 7 percent...7 percent and people are seeing that as some kind of victory. Desperate times I guess.

I don't know why everyone glossed over Emperor Trump saying he believes in mans effect on climate change, guess the narrative wasn't right.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Overestimate by 7 percent...7 percent and people are seeing that as some kind of victory. Desperate times I guess.
> 
> I don't know why everyone glossed over Emperor Trump saying he believes in mans effect on climate change, guess the narrative wasn't right.


First they said god lived in caves. Then they said that god lived on top of the mountain. Then they said that god lived in the clouds, then they said that god is invisible. But god's existence is unquestionable. 

First they said that we will be in an ice age by 2000. Then they said that cooling will cause a war by 2000. Then they said that all rain forests will disappear by 1990. Then they said that there will be absolutely no ice in the arctic by 2013. But I guess the "science is settled". 

So religious.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Overestimate by 7 percent...7 percent and people are seeing that as some kind of victory. Desperate times I guess.


Do you even science?



> I don't know why everyone glossed over Emperor Trump saying he believes in mans effect on climate change, guess the narrative wasn't right.


You need better bait obv


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



draykorinee said:


> Overestimate by 7 percent...7 percent and people are seeing that as some kind of victory. Desperate times I guess.
> 
> I don't know why everyone glossed over Emperor Trump saying he believes in mans effect on climate change, guess the narrative wasn't right.


While on my way to St. Ives I saw a man with 7 wives. Each wife had 7 sacks. Each sack had 7 cats. Each cat had 7 kittens. Kittens, cats, sacks, wives: How many were going to St. Ives?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Do you even science?
> 
> 
> 
> You need better bait obv


The first bit is just memes and can be ignored, the second part where you say a fact is bait is confusing, you basically still haven't addressed the issue that Trump does believe in man affected climate change.



Miss Sally said:


> While on my way to St. Ives I saw a man with 7 wives. Each wife had 7 sacks. Each sack had 7 cats. Each cat had 7 kittens. Kittens, cats, sacks, wives: How many were going to St. Ives?


Interesting conundrum.



> 1 man, 7 wives, 49 sacks, 343 cats, and 2401 kits, plus the narrator.


 Wikipedia.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871934403383054339

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871958320227201024
Reality Winner.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871934403383054339
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871958320227201024
> Reality Winner.


They don't realize at all that this kind of shit is eventually going to have an equally ridiculous and dangerous reaction, do they? Or, are these twats actually trying to push people farther to the extreme?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Cool. Considering that she's white (though I wonder what self-hating cunts like her actually see when they look in the mirror), they can add terrorism to her list of charges as per her own admission and send her to Guantanamo Bay :woo

On a personal note, I made a wise-crack (kind of racist comment) about whites in front of my wife and she tossed the knife she was holding into the sink and got all pissy. I was actually baiting to her to get her response and she made me proud. Self-respect is such a huge turn on :banderas 

Also, I'm never pissing her off when she's holding a knife again :kobelol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:lol @Iconoclast. A Southern lady will always defend herself and her people. 

:lmao Adding "terrorism" to the charges. Yes! :mark: :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol @Iconoclast. A Southern lady will always defend herself and her people.


And she's irish to boot so there's actual meat to her threats. I don't remember what I did once and she swung around and whacked me right in the chest and I was like shocked at first but watching her melt into a mess of apologies was so endearing :lmao 

The make-up make out sessions are really why I piss her off tho :evil


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> And she's irish to boot so there's actual meat to her threats. I don't remember what I did once and she swung around and whacked me right in the chest and I was like shocked at first but watching her melt into a mess of apologies was so endearing :lmao
> 
> The make-up make out sessions are really why I piss her off tho :evil


Just don't let her cook in that Florida sun as you have discussed before. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Reality Winner is a Bernie and Black Lives Matter supporter. Shocking. :lol

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Her name is Reality Winner?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Her name is Reality Winner?


Yeah. With that name, is it any wonder she turned out the way she did. Her parents had to be hipster, hippie dumb asses


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

So there is no Comey memo. 

Turned out to be 100% FAKE NEWS just as I claimed literally moments after the published the news. So far, I am batting a 1.000 with regards to calling out what is and isn't fake news. 

:move


----------



## samizayn

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump's take on Qatar is hilarious considering he's buddies with Saudi Arabia, whose consideration of terrorism BTW is:



> Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law and a series of related royal decrees create a legal framework that appears to criminalize virtually all dissident thought or expression as terrorism. The sweeping provisions in the measures, all issued since January 2014, threaten to close down altogether Saudi Arabia’s already extremely restricted space for free expression.


https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/20/saudi-arabia-new-terrorism-regulations-assault-rights

We'll get rid of terrorism alright! If by terrorism we mean free speech, same difference anyway!


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So there is no Comey memo.
> 
> Turned out to be 100% FAKE NEWS just as I claimed literally moments after the published the news. So far, I am batting a 1.000 with regards to calling out what is and isn't fake news.
> 
> :move


My favorite part is how CNN doubled down on this. Added a countdown to Comey clock and stated earlier today "James Comey hearing is Washington's Super Bowl."

It's like they didn't watch what happened in the last Super Bowl because, few hours later, MSM sources strike again and come out stating Comey will not say President Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Total bummer, dudes.

Right now the stop watch reads 13m 59s and that means James Comey has just about 1 minute of his fame.

:move


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> *It's like they didn't watch what happened in the last Super Bowl because, few hours later, MSM sources strike again and come out stating Comey will not say President Trump attempted to obstruct justice
> *


Obviously, they have to prepare their audience for the eventual extreme disappointment of an inconsequential hearing where a whole bunch of nothing is going to be said.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

They need to check these contractors better, everything about this girl screams "Warning! Warning!"

People should be allowed their personal views but then you have the extreme which should disqualify them.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Right now Anderson Cooper is holding what he believed to be the James Comey memo. 

"What is it, Andy?" asks Jake Tapper.

"The stuff that dreams are made of..."

_/HARD SMASH CLOSE-UP on REALITY WINNING, her countenance partially blocked from sight by the elevator bars foreshadowing her destiny as a prisoner for a long, long time to come.

Cue melancholic-yet-finally-soaring music as Cooper leaves the vicinity.

THE END_


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Right now Anderson Cooper is holding what he believed to be the James Comey memo.
> 
> "What is it, Andy?" asks Jake Tapper.
> 
> "The stuff that dreams are made of..."
> 
> _/HARD SMASH CLOSE-UP on REALITY WINNING, her countenance partially blocked from sight by the elevator bars foreshadowing her destiny as a prisoner for a long, long time to come.
> 
> Cue melancholic-yet-finally-soaring music as Cooper leaves the vicinity.
> 
> THE END_


Where's he going, DR!?!?!?! Tell us more!!!!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> They need to check these contractors better, everything about this girl screams "Warning! Warning!"
> 
> People should be allowed their personal views but then you have the extreme which should disqualify them.


Governments actually hiring competent people?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Where's he going, DR!?!?!?! Tell us more!!!!!


As a film noir enthusiast --- http://www.wrestlingforum.com/enter...film-noir-more-than-welcome.html#post29082977 --- I will simply say that you should watch the 1941 John Huston-directed noir masterpiece _The Maltese Falcon_. :lol  

The idea of the "McGuffin" to use an Alfred Hitchcock term (and it doesn't exactly apply to _The Maltese Falcon_ but that's for another examination of cinema) not actually... Well... I saw the comparison with the James Comey memo... Err... 

He's going to make World War II propaganda movies for a few more years!


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wheres it reported comey doesnt have a memo?

He can just scribble it on a notepad on the elevator heading for the hearing


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Wheres it reported comey doesnt have a memo?
> 
> He can just scribble it on a notepad on the elevator heading for the hearing


Found it!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Donald Trump using ketchup on a steak was a nearly Hillary Clinton-scale war crime, to be fair.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Donald Trump using ketchup on a steak was a nearly Hillary Clinton-scale war crime, to be fair.


No doubt. But, I don't have to like him, he just has to be better than Hillary. Not exactly a high bar.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


>



A signed copy of that will be worth big bucks in 50 years


----------



## Warlock

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Maybe I'm just not in on the joke.. But that memo feels fake. The "help me's" sound more like internal monologue than actual note taking.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

- Neil Cavuto is a cuck due to his ratings being in the slump.

- I love how the new Forbes hit piece accuses Trump's organization of doing everything the Clinton Foundation did, :lol

- Give Reality Winner 10 years in prison since liberals love to scream "TREASON!" these days.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.mynews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2017/06/02/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

The Comey opening statement. 

Just one giant nothingburger. 

Nothing of any material consequence as I already predicted. In fact, he cleared up the fact that Trump was never under FBI investigation for anything related to Russia. He just for some reason only known to him didn't want to clarify that to the media which I interpret as him trying to hold power over the executive office. But that's just my interpretation.

HEre's what he had to say on the Flynn "request". 



> When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, "I want to talk about Mike Flynn." Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.
> 
> The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.
> 
> The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."
> 
> The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.
> 
> I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.
> 
> The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account.


Obviously he didn't think it was obstruction of justice or anything at all. What a waste of everyone's time. 

As it was already confirmed by ABC yesterday. Nothingburger after Nothingburger after Nothingburger :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE MADE SECRET EFFORTS TO REMOVE RUSSIA SANCTIONS

President Donald Trump’s administration moved quickly to try and lift economic sanctions on Russia and other punishments former President Barack Obama had put in place as soon as it took office in January, according to multiple sources who have spoken with Yahoo News.

“There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” according to Dan Fried, who retired in February as Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the State Department.

Fried told veteran investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, a former national investigative correspondent for NBC News and Newsweek alumnus, that in the early weeks of the administration he got several “panicky” calls from U.S. officials. They asked: “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?”


The White House, Donald Trump
Former officials say that the Trump administration moved quickly in January to develop plans to lift sanctions on Russia.
JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS

The sanctions in question included those imposed by Obama for Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and others inflicted late last year to punish Moscow for its suspected efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The plans Trump’s administration considered early on included returning diplomatic compounds seized from Russia in late 2016—recent reports say Trump is currently working to put this plan into action.

Lifting the sanctions “would have been a win-win for Moscow,” according to Tom Malinowski who served as assistant secretary of state for democracy until inauguration day. Malinowski told Yahoo News that he heard the administration was working on a “grand bargain” with Russia.

Read more: Russians claimed financial dirt leverage on Trump team, says report

In April, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said clearly that the U.S. would not lift sanctions on Russia until President Vladimir Putin hands Crimea back to Ukraine.

But Fried and Malinowski heard differently at the beginning of the administration. Both joined efforts to lobby Congress to bring in bipartisan legislation to prevent the rollback of sanctions.

At the beginning of this year senators Ben Cardin, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, moved to table legislation which would codify the sanctions and give Congress control of rescinding them. That bill stalled in early May after Republican Senator Bob Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, opposed it.

This week the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Banking Committee proposed their own bill to increase sanctions on Russia, hitting the country’s mining and railway industries.

In its early days, the Trump administration sought to strike a deal with Russia by seeking cooperation against the Islamic State militant group in Syria in return, two former officials said. This came in the form of a “tasking” order at the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs within the State Department. The order asked officials to draw up a list of options, including sanctions relief and the return of the seized diplomatic buildings in Maryland and New York.

The Washington Post reported on May 26 that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and then chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, met with Russia’s ambassador to Washington during the presidency’s transition period. Kushner reportedly attempted to set up a communications back channel with Moscow from Russian diplomatic facilities. The plan was rejected, but picked up by American intelligence in communications between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and his superiors.

According to leaked intelligence reports, Flynn reportedly indicated to Kislyak during a phone call during the transition that Russia could expect a review of the sanctions under the Trump administration.

“We’ve been reviewing all the sanctions—and this is not exclusive to Russia,” a senior White House official told Yahoo News. “All the sanctions regimes have mechanisms built in to alleviate them.” they said, adding they hoped “the Russians would take advantage of that” by returning Crimea to Ukraine.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love how CNN are still trying to will this Comey thing to actually be something :lmao

It's gonna be a looooooooong 4-years for them. 

I just wonder how long the lemmings will continue to follow after being led down a road of disappointment time, after time, after time. How many times are we gonna have to see the mob get their lil hopes up and then read/hear the line "it feels just like election night all over again :cry"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> I love how CNN are still trying to will this Comey thing to actually be something :lmao
> 
> It's gonna be a looooooooong 4-years for them.
> 
> I just wonder how long the lemmings will continue to follow after being led down a road of disappointment time, after time, after time. How many times are we gonna have to see the mob get their lil hopes up and then read/hear the line "it feels just like election night all over again :cry"


Based on what I read in this opening statement at all, all Comey really did was tell us that Trump is clean and was never even under investigation. That there is an investigation but Trump is not part of it.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Yet Al Green is threatening to draft articles of impeachment for Comey's firing. Only 2 Presidents have been impeached (Both Democrats by the way) and neither were removed from office, but hey, good luck with that!

- Vic


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't find much use for Shapiro outside of watching him debate dumb college SJWs, but he's nailed it here. 

Comey's statement is an absolute disaster for the Democratic narrative. It's probably only gonna fall apart more when GOP get their chance question him tomorrow.

If I'm being honest, I was fully expecting them to at least catch Trump on the "he told me 3 times I wasn't under investigation" line. However, sho'nuff, Comey told him 3 times he was not under investigation ayy lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Vic Capri said:


> Yet Al Green is threatening to draft articles of impeachment for Comey's firing. Only 2 Presidents have been impeached (Both Democrats by the way) and neither were removed from office, but hey, good luck with that!
> 
> - Vic


Richard Nixon was removed from office, he resigned because if he didn't he would have been impeached. So nice try. Typical semantics


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872529936346734594
Let's see how their cognitive dissonance adapts to the new reality. :ha


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump is not getting impeached and pretty much everyone who can't live with him being President might want to give up their citizenship or go out the way Chris Cornell did. 

Pretty much is the Trump/GOP way or the highway in this country anymore. You can't or won't live that way well you are going to suffer have your spirit broken. be pressured to move or have to die. I say that as someone who can't stand Trump or GOP.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump is not getting impeached and pretty much everyone who can't live with him being President might want to give up their citizenship or go out the way Chris Cornell did.
> 
> Pretty much is the Trump/GOP way or the highway in this country anymore. You can't or won't live that way well you are going to suffer have your spirit broken. be pressured to move or have to die. I say that as someone who can't stand Trump or GOP.


yeah have to die because of what Trump is doing with healthcare you got that right.

Liberals shouldnt want Trump to be impeached. Trump is an idiot, and is easy to rally against. He also shoots himself in the foot over and over with his tweets. Pence is 100x worse than Trump.

Trump constantly contradicts himself and the WH so you can see through their lies where as Pence and the WH would be on the same page and would do everything Trump does in the open in the shadows.

The last thing dems should want is Trump being impeached. Not to mention he is incompetent.

BTW your Chris Cornell comment is in poor taste


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> *yeah have to die because of what Trump is doing with healthcare you got that right.*
> 
> Liberals shouldnt want Trump to be impeached. Trump is an idiot, and is easy to rally against. He also shoots himself in the foot over and over with his tweets. Pence is 100x worse than Trump.
> 
> Trump constantly contradicts himself and the WH so you can see through their lies where as Pence and the WH would be on the same page and would do everything Trump does in the open in the shadows.
> 
> The last thing dems should want is Trump being impeached. Not to mention he is incompetent.


You're so over dramatic :lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah have to die because of what Trump is doing with healthcare you got that right.
> 
> Liberals shouldnt want Trump to be impeached. Trump is an idiot, and is easy to rally against. He also shoots himself in the foot over and over with his tweets. Pence is 100x worse than Trump.
> 
> Trump constantly contradicts himself and the WH so you can see through their lies where as Pence and the WH would be on the same page and would do everything Trump does in the open in the shadows.
> 
> The last thing dems should want is Trump being impeached. Not to mention he is incompetent.


There is no room is this country for people like you or myself for that matter. Most people loathe the word Liberal and would have no problem with it and everyone attached to it go away.

My Chris Cornell comment is pretty much true about anyone cannot or refuses to live under rules created by Trump and the GOP. They have to give up their right to live here or they have to think about ending their life.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> You're so over dramatic :lol


yeah if Trumpcare goes through 17,000 people could die in 2018. Yeah that is so overdramatic.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah if Trumpcare goes through 17,000 people could die in 2018. Yeah that is so overdramatic.


In their eyes anyone on Obamacare was leaching off the government and lost there right to live on that front alone. If they don't support Trump that is just a cherry on top.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah if Trumpcare goes through 17,000 people *could* die in 2018. Yeah that is so overdramatic.


Yes, you're being purposely over dramatic because free healthcare is something you adamantly believe in and therefore you accuse others of killing people if they oppose, which is hilarious coming from you who's pro abortion. The whole sky is falling, everyone is going to die and Trump kills children is a hilarious way to shame people into "falling in line". Even you state yourself "could" and not would for a reason. There's not even proper estimate as to how many people could die as there have been several numbers floating around. All you're doing is trying to regurgitate what you heard on your favorite leftist station 

And before you state it, I'm neither for or against Trumpcare or Obamacare



The Hardcore Show said:


> In their eyes anyone on Obamacare was leaching off the government and lost there right to live on that front alone. If they don't support Trump that is just a cherry on top.


...I live in Canada :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The real reason why sea levels are rising is because of liberal tears. SO I guess this is me admitting that anthropomorphic climate change is devastating. 

:move


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"I hope you can let this go" is the same as me saying "boy I hope work isn't busy tomorrow"


All these panel discussions and interrogations are a waste of tax payer money which is the norm for Congress.



Let the man who's boosting the economy work :trump2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The real reason why sea levels are rising is because of liberal tears. SO I guess this is me admitting that anthropomorphic climate change is devastating.
> 
> :move


Nothing Liberal about the Left these days, just tears from virtue signaling geeks and the religious followers of the cult of Climate Change. 

Liberals are like the Zoroastrian Religion after the Islamic conquest of Persia, the new "Left" basically converted them, chased them out or outright destroyed them by ignoring them or ruining their credibility. There's a few Liberals left but only a hand full.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The real reason why sea levels are rising is because of liberal tears. SO I guess this is me admitting that anthropomorphic climate change is devastating.
> 
> :move


LOL at your fox news science denying logic.

Just like fox news logic, on tides go in, the tides go out, you can't explain it LOL

You are the same guy who thinks creationism should be taught in science class. 




Miss Sally said:


> Nothing Liberal about the Left these days, just tears from virtue signaling geeks and the religious followers of the cult of Climate Change.
> 
> Liberals are like the Zoroastrian Religion after the Islamic conquest of Persia, the new "Left" basically converted them, chased them out or outright destroyed them by ignoring them or ruining their credibility. There's a few Liberals left but only a hand full.


Just like the cult of evolution right, that is what the right says about that LOL

I just love the science deniers on this forum


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872552525328785409
:mj4


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Nothing Liberal about the Left these days, just tears from virtue signaling geeks and the religious followers of the cult of Climate Change.
> 
> Liberals are like the Zoroastrian Religion after the Islamic conquest of Persia, the new "Left" basically converted them, chased them out or outright destroyed them by ignoring them or ruining their credibility. There's a few Liberals left but only a hand full.


Liberalism is the gateway drug to leftism however. It's kinda like saying that the person who robs a store is a criminal, but the person who drove him there isn't (even though we know they're both criminals). 

A liberal is still more likely to vote for the same policies that a leftist would so at the end of the day given the left/right schism despite all the nuance, by and large liberals and leftists vote together so to me they're nearly the same. 

I know, I used to be one. I know exactly what all these words mean and who they refer to. I use them colloquially rather than literally. I can be literary and academically inclined if I so choose to be, but sometimes I don't because it doesn't detract from what I'm actually saying.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love how they have nothing to spin out of the Comey statement :lol 










Checkmate.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


>


Wtf is a social entrepreneur?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Interested in checking in on how the movies playing in my anti-Trump friends' heads will adapt to the big nothing that was Comey's testimony, which had been severely overhyped by the left-wing media?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...50d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.03a152fb9a85



> Alone in the White House in recent days,* President Trump — frustrated and defiant — has been spoiling for a fight*, according to his confidants and associates.
> 
> Glued even more than usual to the cable news shows that blare from the televisions in his private living quarters, or from the 60-inch flat screen he had installed in his cramped study off the Oval Office, he has fumed about “fake news.” Trump has seethed as his agenda has stalled in Congress and the courts. He has chafed against the pleas for caution from his lawyers and political advisers, tweeting whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
> 
> And on Thursday, the president will come screen-to-screen with the FBI director he fired, James B. Comey,* thoughts of whom have consumed, haunted and antagonized Trump* since Comey launched an expanding Russia investigation that the president slammed as a “witch hunt.”
> 
> *Comey’s testimony is a political Super Bowl* — with television networks interrupting regular programming to air it, and some Washington offices and bars making plans for special viewings.
> 
> Trump is keen to be a participant rather than just another viewer, two senior White House officials said, including the possibility of taking to Twitter to offer acerbic commentary during the hearing.


:lol This is not journalism. This is political fiction writing.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Interested in checking in on how the movies playing in my anti-Trump friends' heads will adapt to the big nothing that was Comey's testimony, which had been severely overhyped by the left-wing media?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...50d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.03a152fb9a85
> 
> :lol This is not journalism. This is political fiction writing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

They forgot to add in 

"Checking the TV while standing on top of a weighing scale scarfing down a steak with ketchup and having three scoops of ice cream."


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Cant wait for this testimony. It will show once again the left has nothing on Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> Cant wait for this testimony. It will show once again the left has nothing on Trump.


It already has. 

I recommend reading Ben Shapiro's take on this.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It already has.
> 
> I recommend reading Ben Shapiro's take on this.


link to what he said?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> link to what he said?


http://www.dailywire.com/news/17270/democrat-narrative-destroyed-comey-opening-ben-shapiro


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/17270/democrat-narrative-destroyed-comey-opening-ben-shapiro


Very interesting read. Yea the left has nothing


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Another FAIL for the Fake News Network! :lol

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Seems to me the testimony suggests attempts at obstruction of justice for his friend Flynn but not on himself. That narrative isn't juicy enough for both the left and the right though so nobody wants to talk about that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FriedTofu said:


> Seems to me the testimony suggests attempts at obstruction of justice for his friend Flynn but not on himself. That narrative isn't juicy enough for both the left and the right though so nobody wants to talk about that.


Going to be a tough case to make that the president expressing optimism about an investigation into a friend qualifies as "obstruction".

Not sure where you get the idea people aren't talking about it though. I found multiple articles on the subject dated for today on all the big media outlets. Search "Flynn obstruction" on Twitter and there'll be countless results.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Going to be a tough case to make that the president expressing optimism about an investigation into a friend qualifies as "obstruction".
> 
> Not sure where you get the idea people aren't talking about it though. I found multiple articles on the subject dated for today on all the big media outlets. Search "Flynn obstruction" on Twitter and there'll be countless results.


Agreed that it is a tough case to present it as obstruction of justice. Maybe that's why there is not much focus on it.

Most are talking about it in terms of how it shows democrats are hopeless or Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia because that is the narrative.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> Interested in checking in on how the movies playing in my anti-Trump friends' heads will adapt to the big nothing that was Comey's testimony, which had been severely overhyped by the left-wing media?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...50d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.03a152fb9a85
> 
> :lol This is not journalism. This is political fiction writing.


This reads better than most Steven King novels.

"Left" media has a future in fiction writing, specially in the post-apoc genre.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Before I went out, the CNN front page was covered all in red BREAKING NEWS and they were marking out huge:

"COMEY DROPS BOMB ON TRUMP"
"COMEY JUST WENT NUCLEAR ON TRUMP"
"OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!"
"IF THIS ISN'T OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEN WHAT IS!"

Get home, and well, well, well:









Life comes at you fast, CNN.



FriedTofu said:


> Seems to me the testimony suggests attempts at obstruction of justice for his friend Flynn but not on himself. That narrative isn't juicy enough for both the left and the right though so nobody wants to talk about that.


Nah, it's not nearly enough to satisfy proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was attempt at obstructing justice.

This is evident by there being a split opinion on it. Half of the legal experts think it's obstruction, the other half are laughing because they've known since the memo was leaked that this was nothing.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and there are tremendous amounts of doubt. Good luck to Al Green and his other crony if they wish to pursue impeachment over this lel. He's a powerless man in a minority party. It would just be another defeat in a list of many for Democrats; helpless cries to a disinterested god.

In order for Democrats and MSM to get the smoking gun they were so very eager to find, they really needed Comey to flat out say he felt Trump obstructed justice... and that just didn't happen.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Even if Comey had said it. It would still be meaningless because they were private exchanges. 

What Comey writes on a piece of paper has no legal standing. There is such a thing as evidence and Comeys memos would have counted as assertions and allegations not evidence. 

Certain standards have to be met even if the left no longer knows what they are.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Even if Comey had said it. It would still be meaningless because they were private exchanges.
> 
> What Comey writes on a piece of paper has no legal standing. There is such a thing as evidence and Comeys memos would have counted as assertions and allegations not evidence.
> 
> Certain standards have to be met even if the left no longer knows what they are.


Yup. Im just saying for the left to get back on their horse and push MUH IMPEACHMENT, they really needed him to flat out say it. 

Fact of the matter is, even if Comey had flat out said Trump tried to obstruct justice, Comey would've incriminated himself bigly because, as FBI Director, he was legally obligated to immediately report any attempt of obstruction to the DoJ. Him not immediately reporting it compromises any integrity into the allegation and the tables would've turned on Comey.

That's why the memo was always flimsy. If Comey would have followed protocol and actually reported it to the DoJ on Feb 14/15, then it would have at least had a lil bit of weight to it. But he didn't, and it never got passed he said/she said which isn't remotely close to good enough.

MSM are so used to getting away with not having to provide proof or evidence in their court of public opinion. Unfortunately for them, our country has an actual standard.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872638276712235008
CNN's repeated embarrassments continue to be a wellspring of entertainment. :lol Who can really dispute Trump's labeling of them as fake news at this point?


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> This reads better than most Steven King novels.
> 
> "Left" media has a future in fiction writing, specially in the post-apoc genre.


Well the entertainment industry _is_ nothing but liberals. And they've already ruined post-apoc/wrol genre, just watch FtWD.

Buncha dicks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










THEM SOURCES

Obama said it best :lol: 







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872530062947606528
This is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, outright misquoting the President and James Comey to support his view that Trump obstructed the Flynn investigation. This guy graduated from Harvard Law School and is either this delusional, or this dishonest. Sad!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The crumbling of this kabuki theater is going to be the most epic political collapse since - well, since Hillary Clinton's.

It is going to leave the Democratic Party with literally nothing. They have put all their eggs in the impeachment basket. A basket with no bottom. They have no eggs, and they know it, and the press knows it, which is why you have things happen like the WaPo publishing stories based on an anonymous letter - _literally_ anonymous, the WaPo has no idea who wrote it - accusing :trump of impeachable offenses. We are in the throw everything against the wall and see how much will stick phase. The point is no longer to prove :trump worked with the Russians, or that :trump obstructed justice. The point is to smear him with innuendo and rumors and conjecture so often that the _impression_ he did something wrong is strong enough to destroy him. 

Which is not going to work, but bless their hearts, it's all the Democrats and the media got.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Here's Alan Dershowitz detroying CNN's narrative on CNN and giving Jeffrey Toobin a free lecture.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872615089001684993
Priceless. You can hear the air being let out of the MUH OBSTRUCTION balloon at 4:35 lel

Dershowitz slices and dices this poor guy who thinks he has a clue. Have to imagine Dershowitz' appearances on CNN will become few and far between seeing as this is like the fourth time this month he has just absolutely destroyed CNN's agenda with actual case precedent and con law understanding.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Huh. Seems like I missed absolutely nothing with the testimony :lol

Seems like it's too much to ask to have the democratic party actually focusing on you know, trying to get some shit done with Trump instead of circlejerking about impeachment.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Dr. Middy said:


> Huh. Seems like I missed absolutely nothing with the testimony :lol
> 
> Seems like it's too much to ask to have the democratic party actually focusing on you know, trying to get some shit done with Trump instead of circlejerking about impeachment.


Mr. Comey's prepared testimony doesn't mean much. Too much of it goes against the narrative.

What will matter is what questions Mr. Comey is asked by the Senators and what his answers are to those questions.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Mr. Comey's prepared testimony doesn't mean much. Too much of it goes against the narrative.
> 
> What will matter is what questions Mr. Comey is asked by the Senators and what his answers are to those questions.


We'll just have to see. It's interesting, I imagine that in a few generations we'll see all this stuff in textbooks for American history and all that. Wonder how that'll read.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










At this point if they ever find anything on Trump it won't matter because nobody will care. The MSM has fallen on it's own sword which is hilarious.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Has anyone mentioned Jeff Sessions putting an end to the DoJ being used to funnel monies to special interest groups, as was done regularly during the Obama administration?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...money-n2337667

This has been known about for some time now.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...mocrat-groups/


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Even if Comey had said it. It would still be meaningless because they were private exchanges.
> 
> What Comey writes on a piece of paper has no legal standing. There is such a thing as evidence and Comeys memos would have counted as assertions and allegations not evidence.
> 
> Certain standards have to be met even if the left no longer knows what they are.


Not true re the legal standing. 

Contemporaneous file notes/memos from lawyers are taken as evidence by courts to have legal standing. 

I'm a lawyer and I make memos of every convo I have as part of my work for this very reason, all lawyers do, its why we bother making memos.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...il-cavutot-tells-trump-hes-problem/378730001/
Fox News host Neil Cavuto gave President Trump some tough love on Tuesday, criticizing Trump’s use of social media and accusing him of alienating members of his own party.

“Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you,” said Cavuto, who has been with Fox since the early days of the network in 1996. "It's not just your tweeting, it's your scapegoating. It's your refusal to see that sometimes you're the one who's feeding your own beast.”
This week alone, Trump has used Twitter to go after everyone from the “fake news” media, a favorite target, to the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Don't expect him to stop anytime soon.

The host laid into Trump for creating division within his own administration, warning that “if he keeps doing what he’s doing, they’re all going to be politically puking next year.”
Cavuto tried to give Trump a little “common sense” saying, "Mr. President, they didn't tweet disparaging comments about a London mayor in the middle of a murder spree — you did. They didn't turn on a travel ban that you signed — you did. You're right to say a lot of people are out to get you ... but ... the buck stops with you, Mr. President."
He urged Trump to treat the critique coming from “usually friendly and supportive allies as sort of like an intervention … because firing off these angry missives and tweets risk your political destruction.”
Cavuto isn't the only person to criticize the president's tweets this week. George Conway, husband of presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, also called the president out for tweeting about his proposed travel ban.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...il-cavutot-tells-trump-hes-problem/378730001/
> Fox News host Neil Cavuto gave President Trump some tough love on Tuesday, criticizing Trump’s use of social media and accusing him of alienating members of his own party.
> 
> “Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you,” said Cavuto, who has been with Fox since the early days of the network in 1996. "It's not just your tweeting, it's your scapegoating. It's your refusal to see that sometimes you're the one who's feeding your own beast.”
> This week alone, Trump has used Twitter to go after everyone from the “fake news” media, a favorite target, to the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Don't expect him to stop anytime soon.
> 
> The host laid into Trump for creating division within his own administration, warning that “if he keeps doing what he’s doing, they’re all going to be politically puking next year.”
> Cavuto tried to give Trump a little “common sense” saying, "Mr. President, they didn't tweet disparaging comments about a London mayor in the middle of a murder spree — you did. They didn't turn on a travel ban that you signed — you did. You're right to say a lot of people are out to get you ... but ... the buck stops with you, Mr. President."
> He urged Trump to treat the critique coming from “usually friendly and supportive allies as sort of like an intervention … because firing off these angry missives and tweets risk your political destruction.”
> Cavuto isn't the only person to criticize the president's tweets this week. George Conway, husband of presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, also called the president out for tweeting about his proposed travel ban.







And I find hilarious that people are already starting to trash Cavuto as a liberal and Communist...when in fact Cavuto is definitely far-right, especially when it comes to fiscal matters. And he's 100% correct. Trump does this to purposely throw people who hate him into a frenzy, he keeps them off their game. Meanwhile, his agenda gets lost in the shuffle as well as shoots himself in the foot. 

I can't stress this enough...if he fails, it will be because he didn't stick to his agenda. Problem is, he's not going to change.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> And I find hilarious that people are already starting to trash Cavuto as a liberal and Communist...when in fact Cavuto is definitely far-right, especially when it comes to fiscal matters. And he's 100% correct. Trump does this to purposely throw people who hate him into a frenzy, he keeps them off their game. Meanwhile, his agenda gets lost in the shuffle as well as shoots himself in the foot.
> 
> I can't stress this enough...if he fails, it will be because he didn't stick to his agenda. Problem is, he's not going to change.



Trump has been falsely accused of many things. However, I don't think any reasonable person can honestly disagree that he is a braggart, a blowhard, and an egomaniac that can't keep his piehole shut.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> Trump has been falsely accused of many things. However, I don't think any reasonable person can honestly disagree that he is a braggart, a blowhard, and an egomaniac that can't keep his piehole shut.


I hope Trump heeds the warnings...I was extremely critical of him during the election campaign (even though I come from the far right) but want him to succeed. The economy is getting back to firmer footing but that depends on tax reform and how that will put more money into our pockets and create jobs. He has an opportunity but he is pissing it away on poking people who hate him. Meanwhile his agenda gets lost in the shuffle but it is everyone's fault but his.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Not true re the legal standing.
> 
> Contemporaneous file notes/memos from lawyers are taken as evidence by courts to have legal standing.
> 
> I'm a lawyer and I make memos of every convo I have as part of my work for this very reason, all lawyers do, its why we bother making memos.


Fair enough but in his capacity as head of the FBI he's not exactly working as a lawyer.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Live Stream for those interested. 






Unbiased Cliffnotes: 



> COMEY TESTIMONY LIVE THREAD - REFRESH FOR UPDATES
> by Kevin Ryan
> I'll be live blogging right here during James Comey's Senate testimony. It's scheduled to begin at 10am et. Join in the discussion in the comment section of this post.
> 11:25am - Comey just admitted he leaked his own notes on the Trump meetings to the press via a friend in the hopes that it would lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor.
> 11:24am - Good point made by Center-Right Libetarian in the comment section: "That was a great question from Marco Rubio about how the only thing not leaked was that Trump wasn't personally under investigation. You can tell he got under Comey's skin a bit with that one."
> 11:20am - Comey just verified that the president was not under investigation for any reason at the time of his dismissal on May 9th, and he told the president so on 3 occasions.
> 11:19am - MSNBC's banner's are all negative too. "Comey: Trump lied" etc.
> 11:15am - CNN's banner is all negative. "Comey: Trump lied about me and FBI"; "Comey: I took Trump's words as direction"
> 11:12am - The stock markets have turned positive.
> 11:05am - My take on the hearing so far - It's been politically damaging for President Trump, but not legally damaging.
> 11:03am - Comey says he didn't tell his superiors about the Trump conversation
> 11:00am - The markets are flat right now. Nothing said so far is causing fear on Wall Street that Comey's statements so far will endanger the Trump presidency.
> 10:53am - TRUMP DID NOT ORDER ME TO END THE FLYNN INVESTIGATION; I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE EVER CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION FOR SAYING WHAT TRUMP SAID TO ME
> 10:52am - Anyone else get the sense that Comey is baiting Trump to start tweeting? He's called him a liar, said he didn't feel the need to take notes during meetings with Bush, etc.
> 10:45am - "My common sense told me what [was] going on [during my dinner meeting with President Trump] is that he’s trying to get something here for granting me the chance to stay in my job."
> 10:42am - Comey just called Trump a liar. He says he took notes after his meetings with Trump because "I was honestly concerned that he would lie about the nature of our meetings".
> 10:35am - Comey just pushed his former boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under the bus, saying the reason he announced the Clinton email decision (she was the one who should have made that announcement) was because 1. She had met with Bill Clinton on the plane; and 2. She had asked him to stop referring to the email investigation as an investigation, and instead as a "matter", which he found bizarre. He felt compelled to take over, essentially, because the Clinton email investigation had become tainted.
> 10:33am - Interesting to note that Comey has now said Trump firing him was perfectly within his rights. "A president can fire the FBI director for any, or no, reason whatsoever".
> 10:29am - "It's normal for foreign governments to reach out to candidates and incoming officials"... "collusion exists when coercion, employment, [bribery] exists."
> 10:25am - FIRST BIG DEVELOPMENT - "TRUMP DID NOT ASK ME TO END THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION"
> 10:21am - Comey starts off defensive and combative about the fact that he was fired. Not good news for the Trump admin...
> 10:19am - I'll be watching the PredictIt odds that Trump will be impeached in 2017. Currently they're down 10%.
> 10:15am - Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) sets the tone for the Democrats - this is about conspiracy, obstruction, collusion, the sky falling, etc.
> 10:09am - Chairman Burr is broadening the scope of this hearing to include Comey's decisions on the Clinton email investigation and other non-Trump/Comey topics.
> 10:05am - Richard Burr (R-NC), the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is presiding.
> 10:02am - All 3 major networks are now covering this live.
> 9:56am - CNN has rolled out Carl Bernstein, the reporter who, along with Bob Woodward, brought down Nixon with their reporting on the Watergate scandal. CNN's coverage of the Russia investigation has been comically biased.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...il-cavutot-tells-trump-hes-problem/378730001/
> Fox News host Neil Cavuto gave President Trump some tough love on Tuesday, criticizing Trump’s use of social media and accusing him of alienating members of his own party.
> 
> “Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you,” said Cavuto, who has been with Fox since the early days of the network in 1996. "It's not just your tweeting, it's your scapegoating. It's your refusal to see that sometimes you're the one who's feeding your own beast.”
> This week alone, Trump has used Twitter to go after everyone from the “fake news” media, a favorite target, to the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Don't expect him to stop anytime soon.
> 
> The host laid into Trump for creating division within his own administration, warning that “if he keeps doing what he’s doing, they’re all going to be politically puking next year.”
> Cavuto tried to give Trump a little “common sense” saying, "Mr. President, they didn't tweet disparaging comments about a London mayor in the middle of a murder spree — you did. They didn't turn on a travel ban that you signed — you did. You're right to say a lot of people are out to get you ... but ... the buck stops with you, Mr. President."
> He urged Trump to treat the critique coming from “usually friendly and supportive allies as sort of like an intervention … because firing off these angry missives and tweets risk your political destruction.”
> Cavuto isn't the only person to criticize the president's tweets this week. George Conway, husband of presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, also called the president out for tweeting about his proposed travel ban.



Basically this was his polite way of saying " I WANT MY DAMN MILLIONARE UPPER TAX BRACKET CUTS DON'T FUCK THIS UP YOU ADD MANCHILD"


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey's a leaker? :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> Comey's a leaker? :lmao


Apparently so. Incredibly scummy.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love all these Republicans saying why didn't you stand up to Trump who was his boss. Like really STFU Marco,you let him call you a MicroPeni in the debates.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

What a waste of time and energy. I love it.

:lmao


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

This witch hunt is comical. 

There is no case on :trump2


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> I love all these Republicans saying why didn't you stand up to Trump who was his boss.


Yeah it's not like Comey has a history of taking a moral stand on an issue. 
It's not like he threatened to resign when he was deputy attorney general in objection to Bush's Warrantless Surveillance.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> This witch hunt is comical.
> 
> There is no case on :trump2


They got fucking zilch, zero, nada.

Its incredible the democrats are betting 2018 on this. Even their brain dead constituents will catch on thats this is noth8ng by the election. 

Special shout out to the spineless, corrupt, pitiful republicans. They should be before every camera, microphone and op ed piece denouncing this sham. But alas, theyre afraid to do so in case they catch a low level operative on a trum0 upped charge, and also cause they want trump gone.

Fuck those fucks


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

They literally have NOTHING. :lmao

What a humungous L for Democrats everywhere. WOW.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Hands up, Don't Hope!


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

McCain seems out of it a bit. I wish all the guys who've been there that long would retire.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

AHAHA, I just checked up on everything. SO COMEY IS THE LEAKER?! :lol

Let me get this straight: NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT HAVE ANYTHING ON HIM, BUT *THEY OUSTED THE ONE THING THEY HAD GOING AGAINST HIM IN THE COMEY SAGA!* :ha Next stop: The Russia probe! :ha

Trump WINS! :trump3

He must be watching all of this like :homer4

:sodone A lot of bars must be packed right now in DC! :lol


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Loretta Lynch took the biggest L today

:ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Updated Cliff notes of the entire thing for those who missed it: 



> COMEY TESTIMONY LIVE THREAD - REFRESH FOR UPDATES
> by Kevin Ryan
> I'll be live blogging right here during James Comey's Senate testimony. It's scheduled to begin at 10am et. Join in the discussion in the comment section of this post.
> 
> 12:43pm - HEARING ADJOURNED- I'll be posting a summary shortly
> 
> 12:36pm - White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders just tweeted that "the country will hear from Trump momentarily."
> 
> 12:28pm - CNBC headline: "Dow rises 80 points to record high as traders see no 'smoking gun' from Comey yet"
> 
> 12:27pm - Stock have now turned sharply higher.
> 
> 12:22pm - Comey: Don't know whether it's legally required for FBI director to report a crime, but it's moral imperative.
> 
> 12:21pm - Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) asking questions about meetings between Trump officials and Russians that Comey can’t answer are clearly meant to make the public suspicious. This is politics at it's basest.
> 
> 12:14pm - Columbia law professor Daniel Richman has confirmed to Huffington Post reporter Michael Calderone that he was the Comey "close friend" who shared contents of memo with reporter.
> 
> 12:06pm - The betting markets on whether Trump will be impeached in 2017 are now down sharply, down 4¢ per share, or 19%.
> 
> 12:04pm - "Hillary might have fired me if she had become president."
> 
> 12:01pm - "I DON'T KNOW IF THIS RISES TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THAT'S [SPECIAL PROSECUTOR] BOB MUELLER'S JOB [TO DETERMINE]"
> 
> 11:58 - Sen. Manchin (D-WV) is going kinda easy on Trump. He's obviously from a purple state and doesn't want to piss off his Republican constituents.
> 
> 11:55am COMEY: ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH ORDERED HIM TO ALIGN HIS LANGUAGE ON THE CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION WITH THAT OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. "SHE ORDERED ME TO CALL IT A MATTER, NOT AN INVESTIGATION".
> 
> 11:53am - Wow. Comey just said he was amazed by how many media stories on the Russia investigation are just flat wrong.
> 
> 11:51am - Comey said Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. that met with several members of the Trump (and Clinton, for that matter) campaign is not a spy, going against the MSM media that he's a spy.
> 
> 11:35am - Fox News's banners are, unsurprisingly, more balanced about how the hearings are going for Trump right now. The other networks are uncompromisingly negative. But the markets are ho-hum right now. The reality is, this is a great soap opera, but so far nothing said by Comey is worthy of impeachment or prosecution of President Trump.
> 
> 11:30am - PredictIt's betting odds that Trump will be impeached in 2017 are now down to 18%, after opening the day at 21%.
> 
> 11:25am - COMEY JUST ADMITTED HE LEAKED HIS OWN NOTES ON THE TRUMP MEETINGS TO THE PRESS VIA A FRIEND AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE HOPES THAT IT WOULD LEAD TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
> 
> 11:24am - Good point made by Center-Right Libetarian in the comment section: "That was a great question from Marco Rubio about how the only thing not leaked was that Trump wasn't personally under investigation. You can tell he got under Comey's skin a bit with that one."
> 
> 11:20am - Comey just verified that the president was not under investigation for any reason at the time of his dismissal on May 9th, and he told the president so on 3 occasions.
> 
> 11:19am - MSNBC's banner's are all negative too. "Comey: Trump lied" etc.
> 
> 11:15am - CNN's banner is all negative. "Comey: Trump lied about me and FBI"; "Comey: I took Trump's words as direction"
> 
> 11:12am - The stock markets have turned positive.
> 
> 11:05am - My take on the hearing so far - It's been politically damaging for President Trump, but not legally damaging.
> 
> 11:03am - Comey says he didn't tell his superiors about the Trump conversation
> 
> 11:00am - The markets are flat right now. Nothing said so far is causing fear on Wall Street that Comey's statements so far will endanger the Trump presidency.
> 
> 10:53am - TRUMP DID NOT ORDER ME TO END THE FLYNN INVESTIGATION; I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE EVER CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION FOR SAYING WHAT TRUMP SAID TO ME (Note: later in his testimony, Comey said that, while Trump's wording was not an order, he took it as an order)
> 
> 10:52am - Anyone else get the sense that Comey is baiting Trump to start tweeting? He's called him a liar, said he didn't feel the need to take notes during meetings with Bush, etc.
> 
> 10:45am - "My common sense told me what [was] going on [during my dinner meeting with President Trump] is that he’s trying to get something here for granting me the chance to stay in my job."
> 
> 10:42am - Comey just called Trump a liar. He says he took notes after his meetings with Trump because "I was honestly concerned that he would lie about the nature of our meetings".
> 
> 10:35am - Comey just pushed his former boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under the bus, saying the reason he announced the Clinton email decision (she was the one who should have made that announcement) was because 1. She had met with Bill Clinton on the plane; and 2. She had asked him to stop referring to the email investigation as an investigation, and instead as a "matter", which he found bizarre. He felt compelled to take over, essentially, because the Clinton email investigation had become tainted.
> 
> 10:33am - Interesting to note that Comey has now said Trump firing him was perfectly within his rights. "A president can fire the FBI director for any, or no, reason whatsoever".
> 
> 10:29am - "It's normal for foreign governments to reach out to candidates and incoming officials"... "collusion exists when coercion, employment, [bribery] exists."
> 
> 10:25am - FIRST BIG DEVELOPMENT - "TRUMP DID NOT ASK ME TO END THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION"
> 
> 10:21am - Comey starts off defensive and combative about the fact that he was fired. Not good news for the Trump admin...
> 
> 10:19am - I'll be watching the PredictIt odds that Trump will be impeached in 2017. Currently they're down 10%.
> 
> 10:15am - Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) sets the tone for the Democrats - this is about conspiracy, obstruction, collusion, the sky falling, etc.
> 
> 10:09am - Chairman Burr is broadening the scope of this hearing to include Comey's decisions on the Clinton email investigation and other non-Trump/Comey topics.
> 
> 10:05am - Richard Burr (R-NC), the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is presiding.
> 
> 10:02am - All 3 major networks are now covering this live.
> 
> 9:56am - CNN has rolled out Carl Bernstein, the reporter who, along with Bob Woodward, brought down Nixon with their reporting on the Watergate scandal. CNN's coverage of the Russia investigation has been comically biased.


Pretty much destroys most of the democrats' narratives. 

The stock market has responded positively. 

Impeachment odds are down. 

'Twas a good day. 

:move


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Not true re the legal standing.
> 
> Contemporaneous file notes/memos from lawyers are taken as evidence by courts to have legal standing.
> 
> I'm a lawyer and I make memos of every convo I have as part of my work for this very reason, all lawyers do, its why we bother making memos.


You have to get a judge to believe that they are actually contemporaneous though.

Unless the lawyer(s) on the other side are completely incompetent and don't challenge the provenance.

After today's performance, Comey's word should not be taken on anything. I'm not sure I believe him on the stuff he said that starves the Democrat-media narrative, much less the stuff that feeds it. 

Just about the only hope the Democrats have is that Mueller pulls a Fitzgerald and drags the investigation out for months on end while simultaneously grandstanding constantly to the media. Comey put a torpedo in their bow but the ship might just survive. If Mueller puts another in amidships... might as well just declare :trump winner in 2020 three years early. If Mueller doesn't deliver the goods for the Democrats, :trump voters are gonna be so pissed off that I don't see how the Democrats are gonna be able to retake any of the "blue wall" states :trump smashed through.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Talking on his agenda @BruiserKC, Today is evidence Trump needn't do a damn thing about his mouth. He was right and was proven right. If anything BECAUSE he was so adamant about it, now he has more room to push his agenda than ever.

Now, you always say i never critique Trump, but I'll say this: He needs ro stop listening to god damned globalists and stick to the promises he made (Which he's gotten back on with NATO at least, thank god)

I want my damned *WALL!* :gtfo


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

and just like that, Comey's 15 minutes of fame have expired.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS THIS?!?!?!










:taker
:booklel
:vince4
:cena4
:done

WHACK THAT WEASEL, KURT!!! :trips2 










:ha :ha :ha


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Dow just hit an all time high today.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

We're still waiting Donald


----------



## Goku

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/161585486426/the-comey-fog



> Comey reports that Trump asked him during a private meeting for “loyalty.” Comey promised “honesty” instead. When Trump pressed the point a second time, Comey said he would give “honest loyalty.” Trump agreed that “honest loyalty” is what he wanted. The way you interpret this conversation depends on whether you think Trump or his associates are guilty of anything. *If you think Trump is guilty of a crime, the conversation sounds like a Mafia-style threat. But if you believe Trump and his associates are innocent of any crimes, you probably see honesty and loyalty as the same thing in this situation*. Innocent people want law enforcement to be honest. For the FBI to act otherwise would be disloyal to both the Constitution and any citizens involved in the investigation. In the context of an investigation of an innocent citizen, honesty and loyalty from law enforcement are the same thing.


----------



## MOXL3Y

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> McCain seems out of it a bit. I wish all the guys who've been there that long would retire.


He needed to step away 10 years ago... not like he needs the money either.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trump JR mocking Comey, Democrats crying about it.

This is hilarious, so many mad people!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

*KURT, STOP! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!* :taker










WE ARE WITNESSING A MAN COMMIT CAREER SENPUKU, LADS! :cry


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I don't get how Trump can handle all this winning. 

That's all he does is win win win no matter what.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Imagine the stank in that room! :ha


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

lmfao that Comey leaked stuff


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> I want my damned *WALL!* :gtfo


When you realize you're not getting it will you admit you've been made a fool of?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Beatles123 said:


> Talking on his agenda @BruiserKC, Today is evidence Trump needn't do a damn thing about his mouth. He was right and was proven right. If anything BECAUSE he was so adamant about it, now he has more room to push his agenda than ever.
> 
> Now, you always say i never critique Trump, but I'll say this: He needs ro stop listening to god damned globalists and stick to the promises he made (Which he's gotten back on with NATO at least, thank god)
> 
> I want my damned *WALL!* :gtfo


Well now he can close his mouth, lower his head and get to work. Congress is to blame too because they are sitting on their asses and doing nothing. Ignore the haters and do his job and I will be satisfied. But he needs to stop shooting himself in the foot and keep the Tweets to a minimum.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> Donald Trump using ketchup on a steak was a nearly Hillary Clinton-scale war crime, to be fair.


They are all war criminals. Trump has ramped up drone strikes CONSIDERABLY from Obama, whose use of it was already despicable.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> They are all war criminals. Trump has ramped up drone strikes CONSIDERABLY from Obama, whose use of it was already despicable.


How is using a form of bombing that kills less civilians than any other form of bombing despicable?

Using cruise missiles or bombs and missiles from planes kills far more civilians than a drone strike. 

Replace all the drone strikes since 2001 with cruise missiles or warplane bombings and there'd be at least ten thousand more civilian deaths than have happened.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> Well now he can close his mouth, lower his head and get to work. Congress is to blame too because they are sitting on their asses and doing nothing. Ignore the haters and do his job and I will be satisfied. But he needs to stop shooting himself in the foot and keep the Tweets to a minimum.


He is doing his job. Media is caught up in a circus of their own creation. 



> TODAY'S EVENTS
> 
> 12:00 PM: Press Gaggle with Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
> 
> 12:20 PM: Vice President Pence joins Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney for an Infrastructure Summit Working Luncheon
> 
> 12:35 PM: President Trump gives remarks at Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference - Watch
> 
> 2:00 PM: Vice President Pence participates in a bilateral meeting with President Nicos Anastasiades of Cyprus
> 
> 3:30 PM: President Trump hosts an Infrastructure Summit with Governors and Mayors
> 
> From yesterday:
> 
> President Donald J. Trump announces his infrastructure initiative | June 7, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
> 
> President Trump announced he will nominate Christopher Asher Wray as the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
> 
> Yesterday, President Trump sent twelve additional nominations to the Senate.


Also, it's pretty certain to me by now that 20-30% of Republican members of Congress are anti-Trump and block him at every step. 

Lastly, I believe that the recent narrative around him "not being able to do his job and learning to be a politician" is blatantly false or a misguided attempt at trying to make him seem more favorable to establishment politics than he is. 

He's chugging along with his agenda and we're already seeing net gains imo. 

- Stock market is responding positively
- Illegal immigration is down
- Criminal immigrant arrests are up
- The national conversation about climate change alarmism has taken a turn towards a less globalist agenda
- The Russian conspiracy narrative is destroyed

Obviously there's a lot more to be done, but all in all for his first 100+ days in office I'm beginning to see bigger and bigger gains politically - i.e. if you can cut through the media narratives and democrat distractions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Transcript of Trump's personal lawyer's press conference: 



> (K.R) BREAKING NEWS - PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER RELEASES STATEMENT
> "Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today's hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part Of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result Of any Russian interference.
> 
> Mr Comey's testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey "it would be good to find out" in that investigation if there were "some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong."
> And he did not exclude anyone from that statement.
> 
> Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey "let Flynn go." As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, "General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot" and also "asked how is General Flynn is doing." Admiral Rogers testified that the President never "directed [him] to do anything illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate" and never "pressured [him] to do so." Director Coates said the same thing.
> The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey.
> 
> The President also never told Mr. Comey, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty" in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks Of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.
> 
> Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos Of these privileged conversations, one Of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to "prompt the appointment of a special counsel." Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated..
> 
> In sum, it is now established that there the President was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events."


Interesting. There's some direct refutations of certain things Comey said therefore this is de-evolving into a He said, She said scenario. 

Not sure what to make of this at this point, but I wasn't expecting Trump to come out with such a terse statement immediately after and that too through a personal lawyer.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Anyone who thinks Comey didn't leak as payback is a dummy.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> How is using a form of bombing that kills less civilians than any other form of bombing despicable?
> 
> Using cruise missiles or bombs and missiles from planes kills far more civilians than a drone strike.
> 
> Replace all the drone strikes since 2001 with cruise missiles or warplane bombings and there'd be at least ten thousand more civilian deaths than have happened.


Missiles and bombs are meant to wipe out certain areas. Often, the goal is to devastate infrastructure more than to end lives. 

A droning is a targeted effort to assassinate individuals believed to be involved in terrorism operations and have been proven to be imprecise. Leaked military documents, for example, revealed that Operation Haymaker killed over 200 people with drones over five months and only 35 of them were the intended targets. Most operations kill as many or more innocent civilians than targets.

Who the targets are brings up a lot of issues as it relates to both the U.S. Constitution and international law. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American-born citizen killed - intentionally - by a drone. How could he have surrendered to that drone? How could he get his day in court with a chance to refute whatever findings led to the strike? He couldn't, and that's a blatant discarding of habeas corpus. Drone strikes also pose significant problems to the rules of engagement as they occur outside a declaration of war and the War Powers Resolution that requires the president to inform Congress 48 hours before committing armed forces.

In short, drones are a vehicle to shred up very useful guidelines and create a slippery slope that could lead to some very ugly shit. Without rules, all is lost. Drones were the U.S.'s way of saying they don't care about rules anymore.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> I don't get how Trump can handle all this winning.
> 
> That's all he does is win win win no matter what.


His half-assed travel ban was blocked by the judicial branch.

His Obamacare replacement bill is unpopular with about 3/4 of the population, is unlikely to get through the Senate and is a huge about-face from Trump's rhetoric on healthcare from the primaries.

The Wall is never happening, let alone happening on Mexico's dime.

Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to think he is winning?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> His half-assed travel ban was blocked by the judicial branch.
> 
> His Obamacare replacement bill is unpopular with about 3/4 of the population, is unlikely to get through the Senate and is a huge about-face from Trump's rhetoric on healthcare from the primaries.
> 
> The Wall is never happening, let alone happening on Mexico's dime.
> 
> Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to think he is winning?


This whole forum is full of delusional Trump supporters LOL

They live in bizarro world.

Let's not forget Trump's abysmal approval rating.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

But let us really not forget how the stock market has soared, unemployment has lowered and we've made billion dollar deals with foreign allies. 

:move


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> But let us really not forget how the stock market has soared, unemployment has lowered and we've made billion dollar deals with foreign allies.
> 
> :move


Yeah with Saudi Arabia , you know a huge terrorist country.

And unemployment was already lowering under Obama.

Not to mention Trumps huge Carrier failure, so much for him saving those jobs, they are laying off 600 plus employees by the end of the year.


----------



## wwe9391

Laser Rey said:


> His half-assed travel ban was blocked by the judicial branch.
> 
> His Obamacare replacement bill is unpopular with about 3/4 of the population, is unlikely to get through the Senate and is a huge about-face from Trump's rhetoric on healthcare from the primaries.
> 
> Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to think he is winning?


In the end all that will go his way. Just takes time. 


I'm talking about he is winning more in the sense of everytime the left thinks they have something on Trump to get him impeached it shot right back in their face. 

Some including leftists on here just have to accept Trump is our president until at least 2021


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> CHARLOTTE, NC (FOX 46) - A group says ‘Charlotte Pride’ is pushing them out of the Gay Pride Parade because they support President Trump.
> 
> "I’m very proud of my country, proud of my president, and was once proud of my community," said Brian Talbert, who said he’s proud to be gay and proud to be a Trump supporter.
> 
> His truck has a Trump-Pence bumper sticker and 'Not a liberal' sign on the back window.
> 
> photo
> "I’m very proud of my vote. I don't regret my vote. I will vote for Donald Trump again. I'm proud of my president. I don't think I should be vilified because I’m proud of a U.S. president as an American."
> 
> Talbert, a member of "Gays for Trump, which is not affiliated with the "Gays for Trump" based in Greensboro, NC, said he and a fellow gay Trump supporter sent in an application to Charlotte Pride so they could have a float in this year's Charlotte Pride Parade.
> 
> "It was going to be fun. We wanted to be energetic. We wanted to show that we weren't the racist, bigot, misogynistic…We wanted to show that we are Americans, love our country and our president. We wanted to be there to celebrate gay pride. Everything fell into place except being able to celebrate who I am," he said.
> 
> Talbert said Charlotte Pride sent him an email denying his application for a float.
> 
> Related Headlines
> Trump look-alike stabbed in Central Park play
> Amazon offers Prime discount to EBT card holders
> Medical pot dispensary selling marijuana pizza
> Deputies: Man called 911 to get ride to Hooters
> "For a group of people to claim to want tolerance, acceptance, and give it to every single person you can imagine to give it to, for them to sit back and judge me for exercising my right as an American to choose my leader without judgment is hypocritical," Talbert said.
> 
> A spokesperson for the organization said in written statement, "Charlotte Pride reserves the right to decline participation at our events to groups or organizations which do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization, as is acknowledged in our parade rules and regulations by all groups at the time of their parade application. In the past, we have made similar decisions to decline participation from other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances.
> 
> Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice.
> 
> Charlotte Pride invites all individuals, groups, organizations and causes which share our values to join our community's celebration of the LGBTQ community, history, arts and culture during the Charlotte Pride Festival and Parade, Aug. 26-27, 2017.”
> 
> Talbert said, "I don't judge them for how they vote. I believe men and women died to give us that right to choose our own leader. They don't extend the same courtesy to me being a gay Republican."
> 
> Talbert said he plans to file a lawsuit against Charlotte Pride for discrimination. Here’s the link to his ‘Deplorable Pride’ website: deplorablepride.org where he’s raising money for lawyer’s fees.


http://www.fox5ny.com/news/259656209-story


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah with Saudi Arabia , you know a huge terrorist country.


hey now, you know many of us were not fond of that Saudi deal

:cudi


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The day has come where I say "Please, Mr. President, I can't take any more of this winning! We win too much! Enough with all the winning!" and the president says to me, "TOO BAD, WE'RE GONNA WIN, WE'RE GONNA WIN, WE'RE GONNA WIN." :lol Truly remarkable day. Total victory for Trump. Several months work of work and hysteria on the part of his enemies has blown up in their faces, and he walks away from the wreckage completely clean. Given the level of undue scrutiny and allegations, it is safe to say that Donald J Trump is the cleanest, least corrupt politician we've ever had. 

What a man, and what a time to be alive. :trump It's a good timeline, my friends.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> He is doing his job. Media is caught up in a circus of their own creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's pretty certain to me by now that 20-30% of Republican members of Congress are anti-Trump and block him at every step.
> 
> Lastly, I believe that the recent narrative around him "not being able to do his job and learning to be a politician" is blatantly false or a misguided attempt at trying to make him seem more favorable to establishment politics than he is.
> 
> He's chugging along with his agenda and we're already seeing net gains imo.
> 
> - Stock market is responding positively
> - Illegal immigration is down
> - Criminal immigrant arrests are up
> - The national conversation about climate change alarmism has taken a turn towards a less globalist agenda
> - The Russian conspiracy narrative is destroyed
> 
> Obviously there's a lot more to be done, but all in all for his first 100+ days in office I'm beginning to see bigger and bigger gains politically - i.e. if you can cut through the media narratives and democrat distractions.


And he is not helping by poking and tweeting. It's by design and he does it on purpose to set his enemies off. When folks like Cavuto (who may actually be to the right of me if that is possible) are saying knock the shit off that should be a wake up call. Is the media after him...yes. Are there people who hate him and want him to fall...absolutely. But he needs to show real results and get Congress to start passing legislation. It is all on him ultimately if he fails.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah with Saudi Arabia , you know a huge terrorist country.
> .


False news, the fact you're spreading it is Sad!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey caught lying under oath:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872904607374213120


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> hey now, you know many of us were not fond of that Saudi deal
> 
> :cudi


Oh I know but its not a win for Trump, that was my point. He is funding terrorism in SA.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



BruiserKC said:


> And he is not helping by poking and tweeting. It's by design and he does it on purpose to set his enemies off. When folks like Cavuto (who may actually be to the right of me if that is possible) are saying knock the shit off that should be a wake up call. Is the media after him...yes. Are there people who hate him and want him to fall...absolutely. But he needs to show real results and get Congress to start passing legislation. It is all on him ultimately if he fails.


I see it like I see terrorists. This idea that terrorism will stop when you leave them alone has an eerie similarity here. The people that are going after him won't magically stop if he stops tweeting or expressing his mind. The people who want him to fail are essentially ideological terrorists and they won't stop at anything because ultimately they're an amalgamation of communists, big government statists, establishment politicians and just full on ideologically challenged retards. 

Trump can stop tweeting, he can keep giving them victories (which he did with his budget) and they still want blood.

The fact hat the FBI director turned out to be a leaker just because he was hassled by having to DO HIS FUCKING JOB to tell the nation that the President was never under investigation should tell you a lot about the state of the country at the moment.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



wwe9391 said:


> In the end all that will go his way. Just takes time.
> 
> 
> I'm talking about he is winning more in the sense of everytime the left thinks they have something on Trump to get him impeached it shot right back in their face.
> 
> Some including leftists on here just have to accept Trump is our president until at least 2021


Is your salary in the top 1/10 of income earners? If not, you probably shouldn't be rooting for his healthcare bill to work out.

The people trying to get Trump impeached for Russian ties are not "the left." Democratic politicians, corporate media - these are members of the establishment (Trump, by virtue of his wealth and privilege, is also a member - but that seems to be lost on his ignorant supporters). The establishment wants you to think about Russia because they don't want you thinking about an equality gap that is growing by the day in terms of wealth. There is a reason that Bernie Sanders, an actual leftist, doesn't talk a whole lot about Russia.

I'm an actual leftist too and I don't want Trump impeached. I'd much rather have this incompetent buffoon as head of state than Christian supremacist Mike Pence pushing an agenda that the batshit Republican Congress would feel less conflicted about supporting.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love how Rubio who was so against Trump in the election stood up for him today. It was nice to see him call out the leaker on the fact he never leaked that Trump wasn't being investigated.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I see it like I see terrorists. This idea that terrorism will stop when you leave them alone has an eerie similarity here. The people that are going after him won't magically stop if he stops tweeting or expressing his mind. The people who want him to fail are essentially ideological terrorists and they won't stop at anything because ultimately they're an amalgamation of communists, big government statists, establishment politicians and just full on ideologically challenged retards.
> 
> Trump can stop tweeting, he can keep giving them victories (which he did with his budget) and they still want blood.
> 
> *The fact hat the FBI director turned out to be a leaker should tell you a lot about the state of the country at the moment*.


The president is a leaker FFS but of course, you guys are ok with that because its Trump. Other countries dont even want to share intel with the US because Trump keeps leaking things.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The president is a leaker FFS but of course, you guys are ok with that because its Trump. Other countries dont even want to share intel with the US because Trump keeps leaking things.


The President doesn't LEAK intel. He SHARES it with whomever he pleases as part of his job which he is constitutionally and legally allowed to do and is elected to do.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The president is a leaker FFS but of course, you guys are ok with that because its Trump


What did Trump leak?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> The President doesn't LEAK intel. He SHARES it with whomever he pleases as part of his job which he is constitutionally and legally allowed to do and is elected to do.


LOL He leaked information he was not supposed to share. You are such a fraud and keep proving my point with Trump supporters


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The president is a leaker FFS but of course, you guys are ok with that because its Trump. Other countries dont even want to share intel with the US because Trump keeps leaking things.


The former Director did exactly the opposite of what his job entailed him doing his entire career, keep investigative information behind closed doors until things were over. He went rogue on the Clinton investigation and then leaked information about our wonderful President but yet conveniently left out leaking that the President wasn't under investigation. Comey disgraced himself after today.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I assume by your negative reputation that you are triggered by the fact that you're belief in false news was exposed today, please sit back and watch :trump2 help make America great again with strong partnership with our Middle East allies and beyond


:move


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL He leaked information he was not supposed to share. You are such a fraud and keep proving my point with Trump supporters


There is no such thing as information that the president can't share. 

The President is the highest office in the land. He is legally authorized to share whatever he wants with whomever he wants.

This has nothing to do with being a Trump supporter. This has everything to do with learning about the powers of the man who has the power to exert his power. 

You're so bad at this that even other leftists don't want to associate with you :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Other countries don't want to share intel with Trump anymore because of all his leaking of sensitive intel but in Trumpets world it's not a big deal right.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No buys. Declassifying is not the same as leaking.

Like it or not, Commander in Chief has *ultimate declassification authority.* He can declassify his intelligence to whomever he wants, however he wants, and whenever he wants without legal consequence.

Should he have done it? That's another topic.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Other countries don't want to share intel with Trump anymore because of all his leaking of sensitive intel but in Trumpets world it's not a big deal right.


#fakenews :lmao 

Israel came out in support of Trump. England came out in support of Trump. 

These are the top two intel gathering countries in the world. The rest provide pretty much shit to the international community anyways considering that the top three intel gathering and sharing nations are US, England and Israel. Not a single country came out and said anything even remotely indicating that they won't share intel with America :lmao 

All of your narratives are completely busted. All of them.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Again, President Trump is doing what is within his power as Commander in Chief. There is no law that he broke by sharing information as he saw fit and you can't hold that against him. Comey had no right to leak information as he did.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Trump can stop tweeting, he can keep giving them victories (which he did with his budget) and they still want blood.


Obama was the biggest pussy ever when it came to taking on Republicans. He had a super-majority his first two years and didn't slaughter a single sacred cow on the GOP platform by doing something like increasing the minimum wage (he conveniently waited until he didn't have the votes for that before he publicly supported it). His great "legacy," Obamacare, is based on an old Republican idea designed to delay the inevitability of single-payer. Obama, by his own admission, would have been a Republican back in the 1980s. For all this, he was still denounced as a Marxist and branded a radical. Did you recognize what was happening there? Did you call it out then? 

What you see with the anti-Trump movement is not some phenomenon exclusive to today's "libtards" or "SJWs". This is 21st Century American politics. The media have sold the idiots on this idea that the parties hate each other because they have discovered that it sells. The politicians provide fodder for these media narratives because that's the easiest way to retain support from their idiotic constituents. Until this paradigm explodes, controlled opposition will cry wolf on everyone who occupies the Oval Office.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> No buys. Declassifying is not the same as leaking.
> 
> Like it or not, Commander in Chief has *ultimate declassification authority.* He can declassify his intelligence to whomever he wants, however he wants, and whenever he wants without legal consequence.
> 
> Should he have done it? That's another topic.


And because of him doing it, some countries may not give the US intel. That is a huge deal because Trump is leaking info that is going to get people killed because he is incompetent and does not know to keep his mouth shut. 

He is leaking info he should not be. You can call it declassifying all you want, its semantics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> Again, President Trump is doing what is within his power as Commander in Chief. There is no law that he broke by sharing information as he saw fit and you can't hold that against him. Comey had no right to leak information as he did.


The countries that gave him that intel he was not supposed to share are holding it against him and because of it they may not give him intel anymore. 

If you dont see this as a problem then LOL


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> No buys. Declassifying is not the same as leaking.
> 
> Like it or not, Commander in Chief has *ultimate declassification authority.* He can declassify his intelligence to whomever he wants, however he wants, and whenever he wants without legal consequence.
> 
> Should he have done it? That's another topic.


If your Israel,India do you want the intelligence community of countries xyz who hates you to end up finding info since Chatty Donald might tell some PM who tells his intelligence people who relay to an enemy country. He doesn't seem to get some countries Us are on good terms our other allies might not be. His behaivor absolutely puts us all at risk in the Us.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The countries that gave him that intel he was not supposed to share are holding it against him and because of it they may not give him intel anymore.
> 
> If you dont see this as a problem then LOL


Show me where what he did was illegal, i'll wait.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> The countries that gave him that intel he was not supposed to share are holding it against him and because of it they may not give him intel anymore.
> 
> If you dont see this as a problem then LOL


#fakenews 

Israel gave him the intel and I busted this narrative of yours months ago. But it's clear that you don't read. 

Israel came out and openly supported Trump in sharing intel with the Russians. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-seeks-contain-fallout-trump-intel-sharing-081931247.html



> Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman lauded defence ties between the United States and his country, saying it would continue to be "unprecedented" in scope.
> 
> But he made no mention of Trump divulging intelligence to Russia that a US administration official said had originally come from Israel.
> 
> *"The security relationship between Israel & our greatest ally the United States, is deep, significant & unprecedented in volume," Lieberman wrote in English on his Twitter account.
> 
> "This relationship w/ the US is unprecedented in its contribution to our strength. This is how it has been & how it will continue to be."
> 
> "Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump," said Israel's ambassador to the US Ron Dermer.*


And here's the British supporting him as well: 

http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/05/17/politics/british-pm-trump-can-share-intel-whomever-pleases/



> *“Decisions about what President Trump discusses with anybody that he has in the White House is a matter for President Trump,” May said during a press conference in London on Wednesday. “We continue to work with the United States and we continue to share intelligence with the United States, as we do with others around the world.
> 
> The prime minister went on to stress the great strategic value of the alliance between the U.S. and the U.K., calling it “the most important defense and security relationship we have around the world” and adding: “We have confidence in that relationship and the United States, that it helps to keep us all safer.”*


You are a liar. A purveyor of fake news. The legit worst poster on this site. Now stop lying and making up shit after your lies have been completely and utterly exposed time and time again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> Show me where what he did was illegal, i'll wait.


You can give it what ever name you want and say Trump can leak (or as you call it declassify Intel without asking anyone) but he is giving away super sensitive info that can get people killed and its pissing off US allies.

You don't see an issue with this?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Who are these countries that don't want to share intel with the US?

Can BM provide some statements from these countries to that effect.

UK did not stop intelligence sharing.

It stopped sharing intelligence about the Manchester bomber for 48 hours. :trump then assured May that he was cracking down on leaks and intelligence sharing on that subject resumed.

The UK did not stop intelligence sharing altogether.

Israel did not stop intelligence sharing with the US and the idea that it will is a joke. Netanyahu and the right-wing establishment in Israel LOOOOOOVE :trump

With the exception of Israel, all these Western countries that share intelligence with the US depend more on the US sharing intelligence with them than vice versa. Not a single one has stopped all intelligence sharing or threatened to. Only the UK did, about one limited subject, for 48 hours. Then it resumed.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And because of him doing it, some countries may not give the US intel. That is a huge deal because Trump is leaking info that is going to get people killed because he is incompetent and does not know to keep his mouth shut.
> 
> He is leaking info he should not be. You can call it declassifying all you want, its semantics.


It's not semantics at all. One is a crime, the other is a constitutional right guaranteed to our Commander in Chief.

Not gonna disagree that him declassifying intel will maybe cost us a lil down the road. That's not the issue I'm taking up.

The issue is you called the President a leaker, which is erroneous and shows lack of understanding of the law.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> If your Israel,India do you want the intelligence community of countries xyz who hates you to end up finding info since Chatty Donald might tell some PM who tells his intelligence people who relay to an enemy country. He doesn't seem to get some countries Us are on good terms our other allies might not be. His behaivor absolutely puts us all at risk in the Us.


#fakenarrative 

Israel supported Trump's decision. They even came out and said openly that they will continue their intelligence sharing relationship with America after the so-called "leak". As did the British PM. 

India and America are not that much on an intelligence sharing relationship but given how badly the indians want American cocks up their ass, they'll be willing to bend over backwards no matter what Trump does. The Indians have been sucking up to American presidents for decades. That's not going to change any time soon no matter how badly Americans treat them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> #fakenews
> 
> Israel gave him the intel and I busted this narrative of yours months ago. But it's clear that you don't read.
> 
> Israel came out and openly supported Trump in sharing intel with the Russians.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-seeks-contain-fallout-trump-intel-sharing-081931247.html
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the British supporting him as well:
> 
> http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/05/17/politics/british-pm-trump-can-share-intel-whomever-pleases/
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. A purveyor of fake news. The legit worst poster on this site. Now stop lying and making up shit after your lies have been completely and utterly exposed time and time again.



Right lol

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/israel-trump-intelligence/index.html

Israel may have to withhold intelligence from US, ex-Mossad boss warns

Reaction and analysis following former FBI chief James Comey's testimony. Watch CNN
45
CONGRESS
SECURITY
THE NINE
TRUMPMERICA
STATE
Israel may have to withhold intelligence from US, ex-Mossad boss warns
CNN Digital Rebranding 2015 Oren Liebermann Photo: Jeremy Freeman 
By Oren Liebermann, CNN
Updated 10:47 AM ET, Wed May 17, 2017
Why Trump's intel reveal could be dangerous

Play
Current Time 0:05
Duration Time 2:03
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:05Fullscreen
Configuration
Subtitles
Now Playing Why Trump's intel reveal...
Source: CNN

Why Trump's intel reveal could be dangerous 02:03
Story highlights
Ex-Mossad chief says revelations could impact US-Israeli intel sharing
Other Israeli officials say US-Israel relationship is too robust to be undone by controversy
Jerusalem (CNN)As politicians in Israel raced to alleviate concerns over US President Donald Trump's alleged disclosure of classified Israeli information to the Russians, the country's former top spy has warned of the damage the episode could do to US-Israeli intelligence sharing and to Israel's ability to gather information on ISIS.

Israeli intelligence was a source for some of the highly sensitive information about the terror group's bomb-making capabilities that the President discussed with Russian diplomats at the Oval Office last week, US and diplomatic officials told CNN on Tuesday.
Danny Yatom, who led Israel's secretive Mossad agency from 1996-1998, warned of a "very bad development" and a possible "catastrophe" if Trump compromised an Israeli source during the White House meeting.
Putin offers transcript of Trump meeting with Lavrov
Putin offers transcript of Trump meeting with Lavrov
"If we will assess that our sources of intelligence are in danger due to the way it will be handled by the United States, then we will have to keep the very sensitive information close to our chests," Yatom told CNN.
The revelation may be a significant blow to Israel's ability to collect intelligence about ISIS, Yatom warned.
"I hate to reiterate it, but it might cause a dramatic change to our capabilities to continue and to collect vital information on ISIS," he said. "The enemy can very easily identify and recognize where the information came from and start searching for collaborators."
Israel and the US would not publicly comment on claims Israel was the source of the intel. But the White House has insisted that Trump did not risk national security by sharing information with top Russian officials and revealed that the President did not even know the source of the intelligence he divulged.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hats-really-dangerous/?utm_term=.3f8ed30bafab

Trump’s Russia leak has countries scared to share intel. That’s really dangerous.

The news that President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister has America’s allies reeling — and asking whether it’s still safe to share their secrets with the United States.

The information Trump spilled during his meeting with Russian officials last week came not from American intelligence services but from an ally — reportedly Israel. That added another damaging layer to the president’s action.

While not confirming it was the source of the intelligence, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman tweeted Wednesday that the two countries' security cooperation was deep and meaningful, and would always be. But other allies might not be so understanding.

“It’s a big deal,” a senior European diplomat told CNN. “We want to make sure sensitive information is handled properly.” A German lawmaker suggested that sharing information with Trump might be dangerous, telling the Associated Press that if the American president “passes this information to other governments at will, then Trump becomes a security risk for the entire Western world.”

Today's WorldView
What's most important from where the world meets Washington
Sign up
If that happens, it would be a catastrophe for national security. The intelligence community maintains “robust” relationships with countries around the world. Members of the “Five Eyes” community (the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) share nearly everything, and the United States also works closely with countries like France, Germany, Japan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

As intelligence experts Eric Rosenbach and Aki Peritz explained in 2009, “other nations often have access to intelligence and can implement direct action that the U.S. requires to pursue its national security interests.”

Those advantages come in many forms. Other countries might have better connections on the ground (particularly in countries hostile to the U.S.) or a stronger cultural understanding of the country in question. Close cooperation between the United States and Britain allowed the countries to thwart a plan to blow up a plane in 2006. In 2003, America and Pakistan worked together to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11.

Of course, one leak — particularly one committed by accident — probably won’t undo decades of cooperation. And most countries need American intelligence as much, or more, than we need theirs. But top experts say there’s reason to worry.

Jim Jeffrey, deputy national security adviser under George W. Bush, cautioned this incident “could restrict future reporting.” And Jeremy Bash, the Obama-era Pentagon chief of staff, told the Wall Street Journal that, “giving the Russians intelligence that our counterterrorism partners have asked us to protect ... will ensure that those partners don't share with us the information we need to protect ourselves.”


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's amazing how democrats lie so much. It's pretty pathological at this point. Dangerously so.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right lol
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/israel-trump-intelligence/index.html
> 
> Israel may have to withhold intelligence from US, ex-Mossad boss warns


EX. Means someone who is not in power or authority. The person in power said that he'll continue.



> *Other Israeli officials say US-Israel relationship is too robust to be undone by controversy*


From the same article. They basically refute themselves and just feed democrats like you the narrative you want to read :lmao


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Laughing my ass off at ICONOCLAST's pimping of Israeli support for Trump. Not sure what's funnier, that he takes Israel's publicly stated view on a new American president at face value (for context, what brand new presidents have they ever denounced?) or that praise from this blatantly rogue state is some great feather in Trump's cap.

Better sit down for this one, guys . . . the U.S., Great Britain and Israel are publicly ON THE SAME PAGE. I know, who ever thought we'd see the day? Look out the window for a flying pig.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> It's amazing how democrats lie so much. It's pretty pathological at this point. Dangerously so.


Trump is the biggest liar in politics. He does not even come close to Democrats. 

You are not a serious person


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can give it what ever name you want and say Trump can leak (or as you call it declassify Intel without asking anyone) but he is giving away super sensitive info that can get people killed and its pissing off US allies.
> 
> You don't see an issue with this?


:mj4 

You should do some reading.. It wasn't leaking, the President has the authority to declassify information at anytime he sees fit. Which means that anytime he releases information/intel he is fully within his rights and power as President of the United States of America to do so. I work around classified information, I know how it works and I know what he can and can't do. 


He's fine and you can't hold it against him at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> :mj4
> 
> You should do some reading.. It wasn't leaking, the President has the authority to declassify information at anytime he sees fit. Which means that anytime he releases information/intel he is fully within his rights and power as President of the United States of America to do so. I work around classified information, I know how it works and I know what he can and can't do.
> 
> 
> He's fine and you can't hold it against him at all.


Yes you can hold it against him when he should not be sharing that intel. But be happy Trump can legally leak top secret intel.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> Missiles and bombs are meant to wipe out certain areas. Often, the goal is to devastate infrastructure more than to end lives.


That's a meaningless distinction.



> A droning is a targeted effort to assassinate individuals believed to be involved in terrorism operations and have been proven to be imprecise. Leaked military documents, for example, revealed that Operation Haymaker killed over 200 people with drones over five months and only 35 of them were the intended targets. Most operations kill as many or more innocent civilians than targets.


Citation needed.

How many of those 165 other deaths were civilians?



> Who the targets are brings up a lot of issues as it relates to both the U.S. Constitution and international law. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American-born citizen killed - intentionally - by a drone. How could he have surrendered to that drone? How could he get his day in court with a chance to refute whatever findings led to the strike? He couldn't, and that's a blatant discarding of habeas corpus. Drone strikes also pose significant problems to the rules of engagement as they occur outside a declaration of war and the War Powers Resolution that requires the president to inform Congress 48 hours before committing armed forces.


Every US president since the passage of the War Powers Act has held the position that it is unconstitutional. They have adhered to it because they didn't want to provoke a constitutional crisis. 

No one can surrender to a missile or a bomb launched from a helicopter or a warplane or a warship or a mobile missile launcher or a missile silo either. 

Anwar al-Awlaki was illegally participating in a war against the United States. War is not court. Habeas corpus does not exist in military operations against an enemy that is waging war. Habeas corpus exists when captured. And even then it shouldn't because captured terrorists are war criminals who under the laws of war have no legal rights. The US did not ratify the Geneva I protocol precisely because it gave those who did not follow the laws of war the same legal rights as those who did. Under Geneva I there is no penalty for fighting out of uniform, or as part of an illegal organization, or for fighting from amongst civilians. It gives terrorists who dress as civilians, fight among civilians, and hide among civilians the same rights as soldiers who are part of a legal army who wear uniforms and do not use civilians as cover. 

Drone strikes are covered under the 2001 AUMF. 

Literally everything you are saying is an anti-war whine, not a serious legal argument.



> In short, drones are a vehicle to shred up very useful guidelines and create a slippery slope that could lead to some very ugly shit. Without rules, all is lost. Drones were the U.S.'s way of saying they don't care about rules anymore.


Utter and complete bullshit. Drones are a far more precise way to carry out a bombing campaign, that causes far less civilian casualties than conventional bombing. It is not possible to "assassinate" those who are participating in a war.



Laser Rey said:


> Laughing my ass off at ICONOCLAST's pimping of Israeli support for Trump. Not sure what's funnier, that he takes Israel's publicly stated view on a new American president at face value (for context, what brand new presidents have they ever denounced?) or that praise from this blatantly rogue state is some great feather in Trump's cap.
> 
> Better sit down for this one, guys . . . the U.S., Great Britain and Israel are publicly ON THE SAME PAGE. I know, who ever thought we'd see the day? Look out the window for a flying pig.


The only rogue states participating in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the states that support the genocidal, Nazi society that is the Palestinians.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> Laughing my ass off at Iconoclast's pimping of Israel's support of Trump. Not sure what's funnier, that he takes Israel's publicly stated view on a new American president at face value (for context, what brand new presidents have they ever denounced?) or that praise from this blatantly rogue state is some great feather in Trump's cap.
> 
> Better sit down for this one, guys . . . the U.S., Great Britain and Israel are publicly ON THE SAME PAGE. I know, it's stunning. Look out the window for a flying pig.


Actually, the person here completely missing context as is typical of leftists (and now you're going to claim you're not a leftist) is that this is not about whether I consider the praise part of the quote important. 

The important part here is the publicly stated position that they are perfectly ok with Trump sharing intel and that it has no impact on their relationship. 

But context isn't something you guys were paying attention to when they were explaining it to you in yoru schools. Or you do understand context but ignore it intentionally because you feel like it gives you winning arguments. 

Take your pick. 

The fact is that this narrative that anyone was concerned by Trump sharing intel will the Russians other than rabid democrat russophobes is nothing but a mass hysterical delusion created by the left.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I love how both sides are celebrating victory when this testimony puts pressure on both of them 

His "I don't think Trumped worked for Russia but they are manipulating things" is somehow a "win"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> I love how both sides are celebrating victory when this testimony puts pressure on both of them
> 
> His "*I don't think Trumped worked for Russia but they are manipulating things*" is somehow a "win"


Well, considering you're relatively Russophobic  , I can understand why you'd think that the last part of that statement has any worth or value but in the real scheme of things that is a statement that exists despite the fact that Comey also contradicted it by very heavily asserting (and I paraphrase) that there no evidence of anything that they were successfully able to manipulate at all. There was no vote manipulation. So what are they manipulating and how when there is no evidence of manipulation?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Well, considering you're relatively Russophobic  , I can understand why you'd think that the last statement has any worth or value but in the real scheme of things that is a statement that exists despite the fact that Comey also claimed that there is no evidence of anything that they were successfully able to manipulate at all.


seriously though fuck those potato-liquor swilling beet chomping russkis.

they aren't our friends, haven't been our friends since the civil war, and don't want to be our friends.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes you can hold it against him when he *should not* be sharing that intel..


There it is!
If it were a leak, it would be CANNOT.... not SHOULD NOT, because CANNOT implies broken law/criminal wrongdoing.

The difference between declassifying/leaking is the difference between legal/illegal. You wrote leaking/declassifying are the same thing... surely you are not suggesting legal/illegal mean practically the same thing and are just semantics?



stevefox1200 said:


> I love how both sides are celebrating victory when this testimony puts pressure on both of them
> 
> His "I don't think Trumped worked for Russia but they are manipulating things" is somehow a "win"


Russia attempting to manipulate things does not incriminate Trump in the least.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> seriously though fuck those potato-liquor swilling beet chomping russkis.
> 
> they aren't our friends, haven't been our friends since the civil war, and don't want to be our friends.


Immaterial and unimportant to today's testimony and state of affairs. 

At this point Russia and America can and should be allies in the war against radical Islam and they can be allies without fucking each other in the ass. 

A healthy amount of skepticism and separation between the two is reasonable and acceptable, but we've crossed that into mass public hysteria which is unnecessary. Obama and Putin were very chummy till Obama decided that he doesn't like Assad anymore. So at this point who are the aggressors in a relationship that was smooth until America decided to fuck around with a fourth Middle Eastern country in less than 12 years?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Well, considering you're relatively Russophobic  , I can understand why you'd think that the last statement has any worth or value but in the real scheme of things that is a statement that exists despite the fact that Comey also claimed that there is no evidence of anything that they were successfully able to manipulate at all.


My point is not Russia but that this testimony just gave both sides more ammunition to keep at their current conflict till the next bombshell

"CLINTON IS CORRUPT"

"TRUMP USED PRESSURE TO KEEP INVESTIGATIONS OFF HIM"

"TRUMP IS NOT CONNECTED WITH RUSSIA"

"RUSSIA TRIED TO SABOTAGE THE DEMOCRATS"

all of that was backed up by the testimony, it was so non-partisan that it didn't solve anything

All it really showed was that the democrats have their hands in many pockets and Trumps is an asshole who doesn't know his limits which are two things even members of their parties know


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



stevefox1200 said:


> My point is not Russia but that this testimony just gave both sides more ammunition to keep at their current conflict till the next bombshell
> 
> "CLINTON IS CORRUPT"
> 
> "TRUMP USED PRESSURE TO KEEP INVESTIGATIONS OFF HIM"
> 
> "TRUMP IS NOT CONNECTED WITH RUSSIA"
> 
> "RUSSIA TRIED TO SABOTAGE THE DEMOCRATS"
> 
> all of that was backed up by the testimony, it was so non-partisan that it didn't solve anything
> 
> All it really showed was that the democrats have their hands in many pockets and Trumps is an asshole who doesn't know his limits which are two things even members of their parties know


So actually a zero-sum game in your opinion then. I actually think it helped Trump more with his supporters ... so the ideal for us is to grow his electorate. He didn't lose his support today at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



El Dandy said:


> There it is!
> If it were a leak, it would be CANNOT.... not SHOULD NOT, because CANNOT implies broken law/criminal wrongdoing.
> 
> The difference between declassifying/leaking is the difference between legal/illegal. You wrote leaking/declassifying are the same thing... surely you are not suggesting legal/illegal mean practically the same thing and are just semantics?
> 
> 
> Russia attempting to manipulate things does not incriminate Trump in the least.



No what I meant just because Trump can legally leak something (and claim he declassified it before running it by anyone) that does not mean he should be sharing it since no one else can share that info unless it's declassified because if they shared it, it would be an illegal leak.

When I say leak i am talking about sharing intel that should not be shared not cant be.


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Actually, the person here completely missing context as is typical of leftists (and now you're going to claim you're not a leftist) is that this is not about whether I consider the praise part of the quote important.
> 
> The important part here is the publicly stated position that they are perfectly ok with Trump sharing intel and that it has no impact on their relationship.
> 
> But context isn't something you guys were paying attention to when they were explaining it to you in yoru schools. Or you do understand context but ignore it intentionally because you feel like it gives you winning arguments.
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> The fact is that this narrative that anyone was concerned by Trump sharing intel will the Russians other than rabid democrat russophobes is nothing but a mass hysterical delusion created by the left.


You don't know jack-shit about the modern history of U.S. relations with Britain and Israel. Britain is a lapdog. Israel is treated like the 51st state. They are not going to show our ass in public. That IS the context, which I made very clear in the post. You are treating the public face those states put on as authentic revelations, which. . .LOL.

I even said in this thread that I am a leftist, so nice try there. I don't consider it an insult. And I fucking pity the ignorance of people who let jokes like Ben Shapiro define for you what "the left" actually is. The real left has very scant representation in today's Democratic Party. You have a lot of reading to do before you will be able to understand this. Start with Howard Zinn.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> No what I meant just because Trump can legally leak something (and claim he declassified it before running it by anyone) that does not mean he should be sharing it since no one else can share that info unless it's declassified because if they shared it, it would be an illegal leak.


"Legally leak" is an oxymoron, because a leak, in itself, is illegal.

Saying declassify=leak is like saying manslaughter=murder. They're not the same thing at all.

I agree that just because a President CAN declassify something, doesn't mean he SHOULD.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> You don't know jack-shit about the modern history of U.S. relations with Britain and Israel. Britain is a lapdog. Israel is treated like the 51st state. They are not going to show our ass in public. That IS the context, which I made very clear in the post. You are treating the public face those states put on as authentic revelations, which. . .LOL.


The one claiming that Israel and Britain aren't sovereign states capable of making their own decisions is a favorite conspiracy theory of leftist statists. The history of the Israeli state is extremely distorted amongst your ilk based on extreme socialist propaganda that I can't even begin to unwind for you and won't bother because it's not worth the effort. 

Yeah. I don't believe in conspiracy theories so for me the public face combined with the record of how they treat their own citizens is how I judge the worth of a nation. So Israel has a tremendously good record of how they treat their citizens (muslim and jew alike) therefore I respect their leaders. Both Brits and Israel have incredibly competent public policies that by and large allow their citizens lavish freedoms - of both lifestyle and opportunity. Which is far more important than giving into the communist propaganda about deep conspiracies. 



> I even said in this thread that I am a leftist, so nice try there. I don't consider it an insult. And I fucking pity the ignorance of people who let jokes like Ben Shapiro define for you what "the left" actually is. The real left has very scant representation in today's Democratic Party. You have a lot of reading to do before you will be able to understand this. Start with Howard Zinn.


Howard Zinn :lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I see it like I see terrorists. This idea that terrorism will stop when you leave them alone has an eerie similarity here. The people that are going after him won't magically stop if he stops tweeting or expressing his mind. The people who want him to fail are essentially ideological terrorists and they won't stop at anything because ultimately they're an amalgamation of communists, big government statists, establishment politicians and just full on ideologically challenged retards.
> 
> Trump can stop tweeting, he can keep giving them victories (which he did with his budget) and they still want blood.
> 
> The fact hat the FBI director turned out to be a leaker just because he was hassled by having to DO HIS FUCKING JOB to tell the nation that the President was never under investigation should tell you a lot about the state of the country at the moment.


I didn't say give them victories, I said he just needs to do his job. Don't give them an inch and never even think they are getting to him. Just go about his day to day work and shut out the haters. Don't even give them the time of day. Let them know if they want to adult and work with him the door is open. Then don't do a damn thing to help them. Let the work do the talking and that's all he has to do. 

Meanwhile you need to stay on our leadership because his successes are when he goes the way of the right. Since there is no guarantee he will go there all the time you have to be uncompromising in making sure he stays there. Too many conservatives go the way of the left and if the stakes are high now we need to keep him on task. 

I know how the game works and it needs to be played for keeps.


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So actually a zero-sum game in your opinion then. I actually think it helped Trump more with his supporters ... so the ideal for us is to grow his electorate. He didn't lose his support today at all.


I can't speak for everyone else outside the firm I work in, but for the most part this whole thing seemed to make the people who supported him here lose respect and support for him entirely.

Those calling this a win for Trump in my opinion are reaching a bit with this. I think we need to see where this goes first before making conclusions on anything (but that also goes for the people I work with who are losing their faith in him, out of fairness).


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

CNN is so biased. Their only headlines out of this whole deal has been "TRUMP LIED" "I HOPE THERES TAPES" why not any headline about the other things :draper2


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> So Israel has a tremendously good record of how they treat their citizens (*muslim* and jew alike) therefore I respect their leaders.


Comments don't come much more discrediting than this. Pretty startling when people this ignorant feel emboldened to pontificate on international affairs. 

And name a historian who has shaped your worldview. Can't wait to hear that.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Within the last week we've seen Ted and Rubio get some shine in.

When will JEB get his chance at redemption? Slow and steady.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> Comments don't come much more discrediting than this. Pretty startling when people this ignorant feel emboldened to pontificate on international affairs.
> 
> And name a historian who has shaped your worldview. Can't wait to hear that.


Israel treats the Israeli Arabs far better than the Nazi Palestinians have ever treated Jews. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> Comments don't come much more discrediting than this. Pretty startling when people this ignorant feel emboldened to pontificate on international affairs.


What you don't know is that there is a thriving and growing population of Muslims in Israel that have all the same freedoms Israeli Jews do. So there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with my original statement. 

I bet you don't even know they exist which is why you think that there is anything wrong with my statement. Your mind has been trained to conflate Israeli expansion as specifically Muslim hating without the realization that "Palestinian" Muslims are essentially a rag-tag group of thugs that refused the citizenships of surrounding countries and instead took up arms were funded by Muslim nations and continue to be supported by terrorists and your mind is simply unaware of the existence of more than a million Muslims in Israel who don't face any religious discrimination - have representation in government and hold high corporate and public positions. 

Israel is more egalitarian towards Muslims than is widely known. 



> And name a historian who has shaped your worldview. Can't wait to hear that.


I don't need one. I'm intelligent enough to have a mind of my own unfiltered from the viles of commie propagandists who you really only know about because the populist nature of leftist schools indoctrinate you into worshiping "historians" like Howard Zinn :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



NotGuilty said:


> CNN is so biased. Their only headlines out of this whole deal has been "TRUMP LIED" "I HOPE THERES TAPES" why not any headline about the other things :draper2


CNN is biased to the left just like Fox News is biased to the right. Why do you acted surprised


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> seriously though fuck those potato-liquor swilling beet chomping russkis.
> 
> they aren't our friends, haven't been our friends since the civil war, and don't want to be our friends.


I like beets.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> I like beets.


yeah well


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Israel treats the Israeli Arabs far better than the Nazi Palestinians have ever treated Jews.
> 
> Deal with it.


Hey, I don't really blame him. He probably doesn't even know that there are Muslims in Israel. 

I was raised in his leftist commie traditions in Canada combined with my Islamist indoctrination and I didn't know this till a few weeks ago.

Anti-american communists have done more damage to our youth than any religion ever could have.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> CNN is biased to the left just like Fox News is biased to the right. Why do you acted surprised




Youre not keeping up on current events.

Maddow is no 1 and its not because oreillys gone.

fox is dropping because theyre losing their bias thanks to the murdoch boys


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

"They chose to defame me."

Yeah, well you propped yourself up as a joke by doing a limp-wristed wag of the finger toward Hilldog instead of taking her ass to task in the legal system when she was actually revealed to be doing unnervingly shady shit.

Then you confirmed that you're a joke by hyping up your fifteenth minute of fame by having one of your friends give the failing MSM a leak of your thoughts regarding a real alpha male.

In summation:










and


----------



## Laser Rey

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I am way, way too smart for this place. Trump's approval rating on this forum is - what - looks to be hovering around 80 percent? Bunch of white trash, uneducated, gullible wastes of plankton. I'm not going to dignify some loser who, with no supporting evidence, makes posts as if I unaware of the existence of Muslims in Israel. 

Good riddance, ignorant filth.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

People arguing for pages with BM and having to explain the same thing over and over. :banderas 

The dude linked CNN (demonstrably FAKE NEWS) to support his erroneous position. I think it's time to stop entertaining him. :lol


Laser Rey said:


> I am way, way too smart for this place. Trump's approval rating on this forum is - what - looks to be hovering around 80 percent? Bunch of white trash, uneducated, gullible wastes of plankton.


I am *not* gullible you son of a


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Laser Rey said:


> I am way, way too smart for this place. Trump's approval rating on this forum is - what - looks to be hovering around 80 percent? Bunch of white trash, uneducated, gullible wastes of plankton. I'm not going to dignify some loser who, with no supporting evidence, makes posts as if I unaware of the existence of Muslims in Israel.
> 
> Good riddance, ignorant filth.


another leftie's tendies :triggered


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'm a literary authority because I know what #covfefe means. I don't need no more edumacashun.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

James Comey was supposed to be Donald Trump's _bête-noire_ but became his star witness.

Loretta Lynch being buried like she was Diamond Dallas Page in the summer of 2001 was priceless. Comey established, under oath, that the former Attorney General of the United States committed obstruction of justice on behalf of Hillary Clinton. 

Comey did not write down what Lynch actually said to him, instructing him to lie, but he did write down what Trump said because he was afraid Trump might tell him to lie for him. :lmao 

A catastrophic day for the Democrats' impeachment efforts.
@CamillePunk's right, this is a thoroughly fun timeline. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I'm a literary authority because I know what #covfefe means. I don't need no more edumacashun.


Anyone who wants to MAGA knows what covfefe means...

In their hearts :brock


----------



## MrMister

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I'd have just warned good ol' Laser Rey but he had some previous bannings rip.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> James Comey was supposed to be Donald Trump's _bête-noire_ but became his star witness.
> 
> Loretta Lynch being buried like she was Diamond Dallas Page in the summer of 2001 was priceless. Comey established, under oath, that the former Attorney General of the United States committed obstruction of justice on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Comey did not write down what Lynch actually said to him, instructing him to lie, but he did write down what Trump said because he was afraid Trump might tell him to lie for him. :lmao
> 
> A catastrophic day for the Democrats' impeachment efforts.
> @CamillePunk's right, this is a thoroughly fun timeline. :trump


It's the best timeline of all the timelines. 

Except for the one where Raptor Jesus is president.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Poor guy. To think he only came here to discuss rasslin and wasn't expecting us *white *Trump supporters  

So can I finally claim to be trans-white or am I appropriating your culture by being a Trump supporter? :hmmm


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> It's the best timeline of all the timelines.
> 
> Except for the one where Raptor Jesus is president.


:lol
@Iconoclast shamelessly appropriating American white trash values. :hogan


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



MrMister said:


> I'd have just warned good ol' Laser Rey but he had some previous bannings rip.


He was way, way too smart for this place anyway.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> @Iconoclast shamelessly appropriating American white trash values. :hogan


Maybe I need to brown up my speech a little bit so I sound less white online?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Maybe I need to brown up my speech a little bit so I sound less white online?


:lol 

"One of us, one of us, one of us!"


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

DTJ mocking Comey on Twitter and people losing their minds was hilarious.

I wish he was the favorite because he'd be an entertaining President.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> DTJ mocking Comey on Twitter and people losing their minds was hilarious.
> 
> I wish he was the favorite because he'd be an entertaining President.


you are aware of course that the :trump dynasty is only beginning

after :trump will be :trump jr

then eric :trump

then ivanka :trump

and then, finally, space computer-wizard barron :trump will become president and take the world to the singularity


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

No way in hell am I ever even remotely ever going to even being to even consider thinking about supporting Ivanka.

She's a fucking NY socialist to the core. She can fuck right off.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> No way in hell am I ever even remotely ever going to even being to even consider thinking about supporting Ivanka.
> 
> She's a fucking NY socialist to the core. She can fuck right off.


It's a shame really, she seems genuine but I don't trust that shady husband of hers and she's overly emotional. I still think DTJ will run eventually, I liked his speeches, comes off as a regular person.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> It's a shame really, she seems genuine but I don't trust that shady husband of hers and she's overly emotional. I still think DTJ will run eventually, I liked his speeches, comes off as a regular person.


She's a wonderful lady, I have no reason to think otherwise. But her politics are cancerous. 

I also don't think that Kushner is a bad guy. I think he's just a media target. There's been no evidence presented for any of the claims made about him. None at all. And that includes the stuff about his participation in foreign policy.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> No way in hell am I ever even remotely ever going to even being to even consider thinking about supporting Ivanka.
> 
> She's a fucking NY socialist to the core. She can fuck right off.


she won't be president until 2040, daddy has many years to teach her what MAGA means


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> she won't be president until 2040, daddy has many years to teach her what MAGA means


Well. I'll be too old by then to care so I suppose it'll do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Reality Leigh Winner is apparently completely fucking bananas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-is-indicted-for-disclosing-classified-report

1. How did this nutter get a security clearance
2. Please keep her institutionalized for a long time as she's clearly a nutter


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

From the article: 



> She allegedly expressed support in her writings for Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden as well as proclaiming she wanted to burn down the White House. “She seems to have a fascination with the Middle East and Islamic terrorism," Epps said. He quoted her as having written: “It’s a Christlike vision to have a fundamentalist Islamic state.”


:woah

And to think there are people on this very site defending this lunatic without even knowing the facts. I'm now starting to think that this could potentially have also been an ISIS recruit and I don't actually even want to entertain that thought. Comparing and contrasting and creating a similarity between Islam and Christianity and what Islam has to say about Christianity (only the positive things) is an old disarming tactic used by Muslims in order to make Islam more appealing to Christians. I'm not saying she could be a recruit, but that it's a very real possibility. 

Even I, who's somewhat sympathetic to individuals who whistleblow can see that this person didn't even just have an anti-Trump agenda, but she had an anti-west, anti-american agenda. 

This is what real treason is ladies and gentlemen ...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> She's a fucking NY socialist to the core. She can fuck right off.


I've been unable to find much concrete information about Ivanka's political views. Care to share where you learned that she was socialist to the core?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> I've been unable to find much concrete information about Ivanka's political views. Care to share where you learned that she was socialist to the core?


I'm admittedly being hyperbolic. 

I don't really think she's socialist _to the core_, I just don't like the few social welfare policies she's championing and that combined with her near feminist rhetoric on the gender pay gap, I've completed the rest of the picture in my head as being mostly socialist and what her other politics might be.

You might find this revealing if you haven't already kept up with Ivanka's policy pushes. 

http://libertynation.com/22149-2/


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Reality Leigh Winner is apparently completely fucking bananas.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-is-indicted-for-disclosing-classified-report
> 
> 1. How did this nutter get a security clearance
> 2. Please keep her institutionalized for a long time as she's clearly a nutter


Being pretty and white will go a long way for her in prison I'm sure.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Comey such a pathetic cuck. I dont want a FBI Director that is scared to speak up to anyone and wishes he was braver. Did he think the same about Lynch as well? I mean he gave in right and called the investigation a "matter". and completely let hillary off the hook.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol
> 
> "One of us, one of us, one of us!"


gooble gabble...gooble gabble...one of us...we accept you...we accept you. :wink2:
@Iconoclast

Gotta EDIT just to say that I thoroughly enjoyed today's proceedings. Too many thoughts to list them all out right now, maybe if I get around to it I will. Either way, the Democrats look like the nut jobs they are, Loretta Lynch actually did commit obstruction, Comey is the cuck of cucks, and Trump wanted the FBI to investigate the Russians and was looking forward to what they'd find.

Oh, and, @birthday_massacre, where do you stand now on the Russian/Trump collusion narrative you've been spinning the last 7 months?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873032303420751872
Ann Coulter's burns are the best.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Trumps giving a press conference today.

Hes still must see tv. Its gonna be interesting


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873120139222306817
WOW, the guy the president just fired also happened to be a leaker. :lol Imagine that. 

Anyone still critical of his decision to fire Comey, or the manner of it? Seems to me he is completely _vindicated_ by Comey's own testimony. It's all just another lucky coincidence for Trump the buffoon though, I'm sure. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872959170139389952


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> *Sanders Viciously Attacks Trump Nominee's Devout Christian Faith*
> 
> On Wednesday, questioning the potential deputy White House budget director Russell Vought, who is an evangelical Christian, Senator Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish by birth but is non-practicing and acts like a self-hating Jew, virulently attacked Vought’s Christian faith. The brutal exchange went like this:
> 
> *Sanders*: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?
> 
> *Vought*: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and ...
> 
> *Sanders*: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?
> 
> *Vought*: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.
> 
> *Sanders*: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
> 
> *Vought*: Senator, I’m a Christian ...
> 
> *Sanders*: I understand you are a Christian! But this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?
> 
> *Vought*: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals ...
> 
> *Sanders*: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?
> 
> *Vought*: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.
> 
> *Sanders*: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.
> 
> *As Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition points out, “Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids what Bernie Sanders is doing, declaring that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’”*
> 
> Senator Sanders’ spokesman stated, “In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry — condemning an entire group of people because of their faith — cannot be part of any public policy.”
> 
> But as Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, counterposed:
> 
> Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant — both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
> 
> Cory Gardner, (R-CO) slammed Sanders, saying, “I hope that we are not questioning the faith of others, and how they interpret their faith to themselves.”
> 
> As David French of National Review summed up:
> 
> If there was any evidence at all that Vought had ever violated the legal rights of Muslims, that would certainly be relevant to his confirmation. His Christian faith is not. Increasingly, the battle between Democrats and many Evangelicals is becoming a struggle against leftist efforts to treat orthodox Christians as second-class citizens. I can think of few better examples than the exchange above. Christians can and do believe that Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” while also defending the fundamental freedoms of all their fellow citizens. That’s how our constitutional republic works. Bernie Sanders would do well to brush up on his civic education and remember that religious freedom belongs even to citizens (and nominees) he doesn’t like.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/17326/sanders-viciously-attacks-trump-nominees-devout-hank-berrien

I guess bigotry against religion is only acceptable when aimed in the right direction for democrats


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/17326/sanders-viciously-attacks-trump-nominees-devout-hank-berrien
> 
> I guess bigotry against religion is only acceptable when aimed in the right direction for democrats


if i was vought i would have told sanders to shut the fuck up or i'd shut him the fuck up with the back of my hand. teach that disgusting little trollman some manners. what a complete fucking ignorant bigoted asshole. 

not believing in jesus precluding a person's eternal soul from salvation does not mean christians should treat that person like shit. it is the duty of the christian to show the charity and love of jesus to such people, to try to bring them to jesus. and if they can't or won't be brought to jesus, you show them charity and love anyway. because that's what jesus told people to do. punishing them is God's job. AFTER THEY DIE. not before. 

anyone who has spent 30 minutes in a theologically mainstream sunday school learns this.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> The network said Friday that it has "decided to not move forward with production" on Aslan's "Believer" series.
> Season one of "Believer" premiered in March. Season two was announced at an event for advertisers in mid-May. Aslan's production company had already started working on the new episodes.
> But the network decided to break off the production relationship after Aslan called President Trump a piece of excrement, using an expletive, last Saturday.
> CNN's decision came about a week after it split with Kathy Griffin, the comedian who has co-hosted the network's New Year's Eve show for the past decade. Griffin was shown in photos holding up a bloodied head depicting the president. First she defended it as artistic, then she issued an apology. CNN fired her the next day.
> Aslan has been a virulent critic of Trump for some time, but this particular tweet crossed a line in the minds of some media critics. Prominent conservatives weighed in and said they wanted Aslan to be fired.
> Aslan posted the tweet in reaction to Trump's promotion of a "travel ban" in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack in London.
> "I lost my cool and responded to him in a derogatory fashion. That's not like me," Aslan said in a statement the next day. "I should have used better language to express my shock and frustration at the president's lack of decorum and sympathy for the victims of London. I apologize for my choice of words."
> CNN responded in a statement: "We are pleased that he has apologized for his tweets. That kind of discourse is never appropriate."
> The network's statement also pointed out that Aslan is not a CNN employee. Unwinding the contractual relationship with Aslan's production company apparently took several days.
> CNN's Friday statement about the cancellation of "Believer" said, "We wish Reza and his production team all the best."
> Aslan responded to the cancellation in a statement. He said he recognized that CNN "needs to protect its brand."
> "Obviously I am very disappointed in this decision. Believer means a great deal to me and to the countless viewers it's reached," Aslan said. "Its message of religious tolerance and exploration is extremely important right now. I am deeply grateful to CNN for giving me the opportunity to launch the show and to amplify my voice on their network. I am especially grateful to the legion of people within the Turner organization who worked so hard to make the show a hit series. However, in these politically charged times, the tenor of our nation's discourse has become complicated, and I recognize that CNN needs to protect its brand as an unbiased news outlet. Similarly, I need to honor my voice. I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar. And so I agree with CNN that it is best that we part ways. I look forward to partnering with another platform in the future to continue to spread my message. I wish CNN all the best."


http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/09/media/cnn-reza-aslan-decision/index.html
Would the term "Reap what you sow" be appropriate?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873120139222306817
> WOW, the guy the president just fired also happened to be a leaker. :lol Imagine that.
> 
> Anyone still critical of his decision to fire Comey, or the manner of it? Seems to me he is completely _vindicated_ by Comey's own testimony. It's all just another lucky coincidence for Trump the buffoon though, I'm sure. :lol


LOL at the delusional Trump supporters on this forum. How can you not be critical of Trump firing the guy who was investigating him and even admitted he fired him over the Russia investigation. Only in Trump bizarro world


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the delusional Trump supporters on this forum. How can you not be critical of Trump firing the guy who was investigating him and even admitted he fired him over the Russia investigation. Only in Trump bizarro world


Where do you stand on Trump colluding with the Russians to fix the election?


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> A “Shakespeare in the Park” production of Julius Caesar by the Public Theater features a mock assassination of a President Donald Trump lookalike. Public Theater is sponsored by none other than The New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> The play, a contemporary update on the original, does not refer to the president by name — but their Caesar character holds a striking resemblance to Trump and his wife to the First Lady.
> 
> “Shakespeare’s political masterpiece has never felt more contemporary,” the Public Theatre wrote of the play on their website. They describe the updated Caesar character as a “magnetic, populist, irreverent,” who “seems bent on absolute power.”
> 
> During the play, the Caesar character appears on stage fully nude — as well as tweeting from a bathtub — before being stabbed to death by senators as an American Flag stands beside them.
> 
> Who do theater-goers have to thank for this Trump-centric work? Here’s a passage from the “Corporate Partners” page on the Public Theater website (emphasis added):
> 
> “The Public Theater has cultivated successful ongoing partnerships with several leading corporations including Bank of America, Delta Air Lines, The New York Times, American Express, and others. We offer sponsorship opportunities which enhance awareness and visibility of your brand, targeted activations, and provide opportunities for client entertainment, unique experiences and exciting benefits for employees. Year-round, season, or program-specific sponsorships can include a multitude of customizable benefits based on a corporation’s needs and initiatives. Whether it’s entertaining clients at Free Shakespeare in the Park…”
> 
> The New York Times did not return a request for comment for this report as of press time.
> 
> “I always go to Shakespeare in the park, but I wasn’t expecting to see this,” Laura Sheaffer, who saw the play on Saturday, told Mediaite. “To be honest I thought it was shocking and distasteful. If this had happened to any other president — even as recently as Barack Obama or George W. Bush — it would not have flown. People would have been horrified.”
> 
> “I mean it was the on-stage murder of the president of the United States,” Sheaffer said.
> 
> The play, which opened on May 23, was directed by Oskar Eustis and features stage actor John Douglas Thompson and House of Cards actor Corey Stoll.
> 
> “Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means,” Eustis wrote in a statement featured on the Public Theater’s website. “To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him.”
> 
> The New York Times has had an extremely contentious relationship with President Trump, who refers to the newspaper as the “failing New York Times.”
> 
> On Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey confirmed that they had published fake news about the president while claiming to have information from an anonymous source regarding contact between members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials. “In the main, it was not true,” Comey said of their report.


http://bigleaguepolitics.com/trump-assassination-play-sponsored-new-york-times/


Also


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873252080273817600


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Where do you stand on Trump colluding with the Russians to fix the election?


Still waiting for all the info. Trump has ties to Russia that is a given, especially with people he surrounded himself with, as for fixing the election that remains to be seen. Doubt that will ever find anything where Trump asked Russia to hacking the election. Russia put out propaganda to help him for that is for sure but the DNC did the same for Hillary especailly in the primary.

If anyone hacked an election it was the DNC in the primary against Bernie

I don't think they will even find anything about Trump and Russia hacking the election, at worst it will be Russia lending Trump money and Trump doing favors for them if he won which he did

The left needs to stop with the hacking of election thing until there is proof of it especially like I said the shit they pulled in the primary. That should be looked into first before Trump





virus21 said:


> http://bigleaguepolitics.com/trump-assassination-play-sponsored-new-york-times/
> 
> 
> Also
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873252080273817600


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the delusional Trump supporters on this forum. How can you not be critical of Trump firing* the guy who was investigating him* and even admitted he fired him over the Russia investigation. Only in Trump bizarro world


:lol This is why I don't get caught up in debates with BM, and I advise others not to as well. His movie doesn't even _try_ to adjust to base reality.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> :lol This is why I don't get caught up in debates with BM, and I advise others not to as well. His movie doesn't even _try_ to adjust to base reality.


LOL Trump base is so far from reality it's pathetic. 

But keep living in Trump world. But Trump loves the uneducated and uninformed that is why he loves you guys.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> But keep living in Trump world.


We're all living in Trump's world. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> We're all living in Trump's world. :trump


And the rest of the world is laughing at the US.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And the rest of the world is laughing at the US.


They're living in Trump's world too. :trump


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Still waiting for all the info. Trump has ties to Russia that is a given, especially with people he surrounded himself with, as for fixing the election that remains to be seen. Doubt that will ever find anything where Trump asked Russia to hacking the election. Russia put out propaganda to help him for that is for sure but the DNC did the same for Hillary especailly in the primary.
> 
> If anyone hacked an election it was the DNC in the primary against Bernie
> 
> I don't think they will even find anything about Trump and Russia hacking the election, at worst it will be Russia lending Trump money and Trump doing favors for them if he won which he did
> 
> The left needs to stop with the hacking of election thing until there is proof of it especially like I said the shit they pulled in the primary. That should be looked into first before Trump


Bernie was never beating Trump. Sorry to many people in this country hate with a passion everything he stands for. Once Trump would of started comparing Bernie's views to Hugo or Castro he would of been dead in the water. There is too much hated in this country for non Trump minded people to win anything meaningful for a long, long time. 

I don't think you really understand how much lack of compassion and hatred people here have anymore. Everything is broken down to I'm right, your wrong and you are a winner or a loser. Everything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Bernie was never beating Trump. Sorry to many people in this country hate with a passion everything he stands for. Once Trump would of started comparing Bernie's views to Hugo or Castro he would of been dead in the water. There is too much hated in this country for non Trump minded people to win anything meaningful for a long, long time.
> 
> I don't think you really understand how much lack of compassion and hatred people here have anymore. Everything is broken down to I'm right, your wrong and you are a winner or a loser. Everything.


Yes Bernie was beating Trump. Bernie is still the most popular politician in the country. Most of the country agrees with his policies. 

Bernie would have destroyed Trump. Trump and Hillary were the two most hated politicians in our lifetime. Bernie was one of the most popular.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes Bernie was beating Trump. Bernie is still the most popular politician in the country. Most of the country agrees with his policies.
> 
> Bernie would have destroyed Trump. Trump and Hillary were the two most hated politicians in our lifetime. Bernie was one of the most popular.


I liked Bernie Sanders and support his views on pretty much everything but I could not see him beating Trump in this era of America. Not with so many people who can be tricked into thinking Bernie was best friends with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and if you hated Obama you will despise Bernie.

Liked I said before I don't think you understand how many people hate pretty much anything blue. They have a very Darwinist view on many things.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Time for another BernieBro fantasy hour.

Same as all the other BernieBro fantasy hours!

One thing about socialism, at least its consistent.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I liked Bernie Sanders and support his views on pretty much everything but I could not see him beating Trump in this era of America. Not with so many people who can be tricked into thinking Bernie was best friends with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and if you hated Obama you will despise Bernie.
> 
> Liked I said before I don't think you understand how many people hate pretty much anything blue. They have a very Darwinist view on many things.


Bernie would have gotten more young people out to vote. A lot of dems that would have voted for Hillary either did not vote or some voted 3rd party and some even for Trump.

Bernie had more people at his rallies than Trump did. Sanders would have easily beaten Trump. The only person less popular than Trump was Hillary.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bernie is such a popular politician he couldn't beat the most unpopular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.

Hillary literally stole 3 million votes from Bernie, didn't you know?

But somebody did beat Hillary...

Somebody...

Somebody...

:trump3

Bernie couldn't even beat Hillary but he was going to dominate :trump 

:heston

Let's face it, in the first debate of a :trump vs. Old Man Who Yells At Clouds campaign, :trump would have either given Bernie a stroke, or he would have lost his shit, rushed :trump flailing his arms wildly, and the God-Emperor would have dropped his crusty old socialist ass with one punch, or broken him in half over his knee. Regardless, :trump still wins.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Bernie is such a popular politician he couldn't beat the most unpopular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Hillary literally stole 3 million votes from Bernie, didn't you know?
> 
> But somebody did beat Hillary...
> 
> Somebody...
> 
> Somebody...
> 
> :trump3


The DNC had to cheat to beat Sanders but you already know this.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Bernie is such a popular politician he couldn't beat the most unpopular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Hillary literally stole 3 million votes from Bernie, didn't you know?
> 
> But somebody did beat Hillary...
> 
> Somebody...
> 
> Somebody...
> 
> :trump3


Bernie lost because the DNC screwed him, not because of Bernie himself


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Bernie lost because the DNC screwed him, not because of Bernie himself


The DNC even admitted it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> Bernie lost because the DNC screwed him, not because of Bernie himself


Bernie lost because he couldn't get enough people to vote for him in the right primary elections. 

Not because the DNC screwed him.

The DNC tried to screw Obama but guess what Obama got enough people to vote for him in the right states that it didn't matter. Obama grabbed the momentum and never let it go. Bernie wasn't good enough to do that. Obama got fewer votes overall than Hillary and still won the primaries! Because he ran a competent campaign that targeted the right states. 

Bernie just wasn't good enough to do that. Which BernieBros will never acknowledge. A good candidate can overcome being screwed - by his party, by the media, by whoever. Like Obama in the 2008 primaries, or :trump in the 2016 primaries AND general. The media and the RNC tried to screw :trump at every turn. He still won. Because he put in the work and wasn't an incompetent. 

Bernie was not a good candidate. He didn't run a good enough campaign. He should have been building a political operation that would have won him the nomination. A good operation turns momentum into victory. Bernie had momentum and an amateurish operation. He lost the momentum and the nomination because he and his supporters are incompetent. 

He yelled at clouds while his supporters threw tantrums (and still are throwing tantrums because their emotional maturation stopped at age 15, just like Bernie's did) instead of doing the necessary work. Thus they failed. And if that isn't a metaphor for socialism, I don't know what is.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

It's fair to say that the DNC screwed Bernie and that a better candidate would have been able to overcome it by simply getting more votes, i.e Donald J Trump.

I try not to push back too much against the Bernie supporters who claim, based on head-to-head polling involving one candidate who actually made it to the general and thus had all the intense scrutiny and negative ad campaigning done against him and one candidate who never made it to that stage - which is an absurdly uneven comparison - that Bernie would've beaten Trump. Bernie supporters had a tough year last year. Their guy wasn't a winner. I just let them have their political fan fiction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



CamillePunk said:


> It's fair to say that the DNC screwed Bernie and that a better candidate would have been able to overcome it by simply getting more votes, i.e Donald J Trump.
> 
> I try not to push back too much against the Bernie supporters who claim, based on head-to-head polling involving one candidate who actually made it to the general and thus had all the intense scrutiny and negative ad campaigning done against him and one candidate who never made it to that stage - which is an absurdly uneven comparison - that Bernie would've beaten Trump. Bernie supporters had a tough year last year. Their guy wasn't a winner. I just let them have their political fan fiction.


Trump may be president but he is not a winner, he is failing over and over again and has one of the lowest approval ratings ever for a president at this point in their presidency.

Trump can't keep losing. 

Lets also not forget his failed promises










when Trump and his supporters say winning it really means golfing.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

All they try to do is absolve Bernie and themselves of all responsibility for his loss. It's not that Bernie had a far inferior organization on the ground than Hillary. It's not that Bernie had limited appeal outside of college towns and never seriously tried to expand his appeal. It's not that he didn't seize the moment when he had momentum. It's not that he didn't go around the media and the DNC, directly to the people. The way :trump and Reagan did with the media and the RNC. Reagan wasn't the favorite of the Republican establishment. They thought he was gonna be another Goldwater who Carter would embarrass. Reagan went around them right to the people. 

To BernieBros it's all that Bernie was screwed by forces more powerful than he was. It's all somebody else's fault.

Which isn't surprising, no failure ever being their fault is another character trait of socialists. 

Who would want a president who can't find a way to overcome difficulties and win? Bernie is a weak man who ran a weak operation. Nobody wants a weak president who yells at clouds and loses. They want a winner.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> All they try to do is absolve Bernie and themselves of all responsibility for his loss. It's not that Bernie had a far inferior organization on the ground than Hillary. It's not that Bernie had limited appeal outside of college towns and never seriously tried to expand his appeal. It's not that he didn't seize the moment when he had momentum. It's not that he didn't go around the media and the DNC, directly to the people. The way :trump and Reagan did. It's that he was screwed by forces more powerful than he was. It's all somebody else's fault.
> 
> Which isn't surprising, no failure ever being their fault is another character trait of socialists.
> 
> Who would want a president who can't find a way to overcome difficulties and win? Bernie is a weak man who ran a weak operation. Nobody wants a weak president who yells at clouds and loses. They want a winner.


Trump is the biggest snowflake we have ever seen for a president, he bitches and moans all the time on twitter anytime anyone is against him.

Trump does not have appeal, he has a terrible approval rating. More than half the country is against him

Trump is a laughing stock to the rest of the world


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The regressive left and their lunge for relevance :bryanlol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> All they try to do is absolve Bernie and themselves of all responsibility for his loss. It's not that Bernie had a far inferior organization on the ground than Hillary. It's not that Bernie had limited appeal outside of college towns and never seriously tried to expand his appeal. It's not that he didn't seize the moment when he had momentum. It's not that he didn't go around the media and the DNC, directly to the people. The way :trump and Reagan did with the media and the RNC. Reagan wasn't the favorite of the Republican establishment. They thought he was gonna be another Goldwater who Carter would embarrass. Reagan went around them right to the people.
> 
> To BernieBros it's all that Bernie was screwed by forces more powerful than he was. It's all somebody else's fault.
> 
> Which isn't surprising, no failure ever being their fault is another character trait of socialists.
> 
> Who would want a president who can't find a way to overcome difficulties and win? Bernie is a weak man who ran a weak operation. Nobody wants a weak president who yells at clouds and loses. They want a winner.


Bernie Sanders is like that elementary school class president who promises free ice cream and longer recess to get people to vote for them. He came across like a rambling old man the more he spoke and he was the one who was supposed to "speak" to the young kids? When I first started taking note of the election I thought he was interested, then he started talking more and well...that was the end of that :lol

He had no chance to win, no matter how hard people like to pretend he'd "destroy" Trump. He looked lost several times when debating Ted Cruz for crying out loud


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*










Just how many people will he break? Like so many.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Just how many people will he break? Like so many.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Bernie's campaign death was when he let BLM hijack his rally, even his supporters hated that. It made him look weak as fuck.

I think he lost a lot of support because of it, if he cowed before a few black women who didn't know dick about what they were talking about, how would he handle Politicians?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie Sanders is like that elementary school class president who promises free ice cream and longer recess to get people to vote for them. He came across like a rambling old man the more he spoke and he was the one who was supposed to "speak" to the young kids? When I first started taking note of the election I thought he was interested, then he started talking more and well...that was the end of that :lol
> 
> He had no chance to win, no matter how hard people like to pretend he'd "destroy" Trump. He looked lost several times when debating Ted Cruz for crying out loud


And Trump lies and fucks over his own supporters and they are so dumb they still support him and take it up the ass and like it.

And Bernie embarrassed Ted Cruz LOL You truly are clueless


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Bernie's campaign death was when he let BLM hijack his rally, even his supporters hated that. It made him look weak as fuck.
> 
> I think he lost a lot of support because of it, if he cowed before a few black women who didn't know dick about what they were talking about, how would he handle Politicians?


He also constantly insulted white people as well. How he thought he'd get tons support from doing that, I'll never know


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Well in the midst of all this BernieBro speculation, we can be sure of one thing:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will never be President of the United States :heyman6 :banderas


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> He also constantly insulted white people as well. How he thought he'd get tons support from doing that, I'll never know


Because that's what the left, MSM, and pop culture do with a great deal of success? It's been open season on white, heterosexual, Christian males for some time now. We're the last pinata it's ok to take a stick to, and that was only exacerbated by king Hussein's 8 years in office. It's to be expected that Bernie was out of touch with real Americans, living in his insular commie bubble for as long as he has.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> Because that's what the left, MSM, and pop culture do with a great deal of success? It's been open season on white, heterosexual, Christian males for some time now. We're the last pinata it's ok to take a stick to, and that was only exacerbated by king Hussein's 8 years in office. It's to be expected that Bernie was out of touch with real Americans, living in his insular commie bubble for as long as he has.


It's really weird and its not something I understand. Hillary did the same


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's really weird and its not something I understand. Hillary did the same


I believe that the democrats have a long-term plan in place. They don't care about losing the next 8 or maybe even 12 years. The idea is to associate all forms of white pride with cancerous nationalism because whites are the only known major global "collective" that still adheres to fiscal responsibility and small government as a large voting bloc. Every single minority bloc I know already comes pre-programmed with not even knowing that there is such a thing as small government. 

The only true way to destroy or at least mitigate future globalist plans is for white conservatives to have a fuck ton of babies and limit immigration of brownies (and even globalist europeans) to a bare minimum.

Of course, infiltrate liberal indoctrination centers like schools and colleges as well. Convert them into an ideological battleground and not let the left run away with brainwashing our youth.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

LOL Trump supporters have jumped the shark big time.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

When is :trump going to lose his shit and demand the FBI finish its investigations or he's gonna fire Mueller and direct the FBI to fuck off and give it up.

Which is completely within his presidential rights and powers, there is no such thing legally as an independent counsel. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is also fully within the rights and powers of the president to tell the FBI to fuck off and stop an investigation.

We are now going on 12 months since the FBI started investigating MUH RUSSIA

No charges.

No evidence.

No nothing.

AFTER 12 MONTHS. How long is this going to go? The entirety of the :trump presidency? That is clearly their goal. 

At this point the "investigations" into MUH RUSSIA are nothing more than a slow-motion coup attempt by the Democratic party, the media, and powerful forces within the government bureaucracy. Drag it out so the media can blast false headlines daily to cripple the president. It is a disgusting subversion of the American law enforcement and intelligence systems to erase the result of a free and fair presidential election. 

They all need to be told to fuck off, it's over, deal with it. They have nothing. They're not going to get anything. There's nothing to get.

_Their refusal to accept the result of the 2016 election is precisely the threat to democracy that Hillary Clinton was talking about._



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump supporters have jumped the shark big time.


Bernie Sanders will still never be President of the United States.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> When is :trump going to lose his shit and demand the FBI finish its investigations or he's gonna fire Mueller and direct the FBI to fuck off and give it up.
> 
> Which is completely within his presidential rights and powers, there is no such thing legally as an independent counsel. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is also fully within the rights and powers of the president to tell the FBI to fuck off and stop an investigation.
> 
> We are now going on 12 months since the FBI started investigating MUH RUSSIA
> 
> No charges.
> 
> No evidence.
> 
> No nothing.
> 
> AFTER 12 MONTHS. How long is this going to go? The entirety of the :trump presidency? That is clearly their goal.
> 
> At this point the "investigations" into MUH RUSSIA are nothing more than a slow-motion coup attempt by the Democratic party, the media, and powerful forces within the government bureaucracy. Drag it out so the media can blast false headlines daily to cripple the president. It is a disgusting subversion of the American law enforcement and intelligence systems to erase the result of a free and fair presidential election.
> 
> They all need to be told to fuck off, it's over, deal with it. They have nothing. They're not going to get anything. There's nothing to get.
> 
> _Their refusal to accept the result of the 2016 election is precisely the threat to democracy that Hillary Clinton was talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders will still never be President of the United States.


Well since I don't support Trump and that puts me on the wrong side of history I don't mind this continuing because all Trump and his fans want at this point is rid the country of anyone who can't live or won't live under the rules he wants to create.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Well since I don't support Trump and that puts me on the wrong side of history I don't mind this continuing because all Trump and his fans want at this point is rid the country of anyone who can't live or won't live under the rules he wants to create.


Rid the country? How? 

What are you talking about?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Rid the country? How?
> 
> What are you talking about?


Maybe I am wrong on this but most Trump supporters do not like anyone who didn't build their life up with their own bare hands or pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. 

They hate pretty much all forms of Government don't believe in anyone or anything helping them and went hard for Trump because they want him to pretty much restart this country from scratch.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Maybe I am wrong on this but most Trump supporters do not like anyone who didn't build their life up with their own bare hands or pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
> 
> They hate pretty much all forms of Government and went hard for Trump because they want him to pretty much restart this country from scratch.


Even if all that of were true, how does that translate to ridding the country of people who disagree with :trump

How would such a thing be accomplished? What do you mean? Is :trump going to open death camps? Declare martial law and start expelling tens of millions of citizens to Canada and Mexico?

I would also remind you that until :trump won, the political Left in this country, for the last 10 years, openly and publicly fantasized about and proclaimed the inevitability of the United States turning into a quasi-one-party state, where the Democratic Party would hold the White House, majorities in the federal congress, most governorships and majorities in most state legislatures _indefinitely_ because changing demographics would simply hand them an indefinite string of electoral victories.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

:lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Still waiting for all the info. Trump has ties to Russia that is a given, especially with people he surrounded himself with, as for fixing the election that remains to be seen. Doubt that will ever find anything where Trump asked Russia to hacking the election. Russia put out propaganda to help him for that is for sure but the DNC did the same for Hillary especailly in the primary.
> *
> I don't think they will even find anything about Trump and Russia hacking the election, at worst it will be Russia lending Trump money and Trump doing favors for them if he won which he did*
> 
> The left needs to stop with the hacking of election thing until there is proof of it especially like I said the shit they pulled in the primary. That should be looked into first before Trump


What!?!?!?! Now you're just making things up. The Russians gave him money? That doesn't even make any sense and you can't even back that up with even a sliver of evidence. That's the purest definition of grasping at straws that I've ever seen.

Second, as Comey stated, the Russians did not hack a single vote, so the hacking narrative doesn't exist anymore. You can sit there and claim that they had an effect on the election by the claim that they hacked Hillary's emails, which there is still no evidence proving so, but that's part and parcel of all world powers. The Russians have been trying to influence elections since the Cold War. Obama tried to influence elections in the Ukraine and Israel. It's what wold powers do.

And please don't sit there and say what you think the left needs to do regarding the hacking of the election when you banged that drum for the last 7 months. Just admit you fell for the narrative and the narrative has now exploded in your face.

The fact is now known, Trump had nothing to do with hacking the election. He did not collude with the Russians. Now you know all the arguments you got in, all the times you derided others for not believing you, it was all for nothing. Your cognitive dissonance made you fall for a con job. Learn the lesson, BM, learn the lesson. Don't be like all the leftists in the MSM now switching over to the "obstruction" story. Wait for the truth and then form an opinion. Don't let others form it for you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873281074729590784
:lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Even if all that of were true, how does that translate to ridding the country of people who disagree with :trump
> 
> How would such a thing be accomplished? What do you mean? Is :trump going to open death camps? Declare martial law and start expelling tens of millions of citizens to Canada and Mexico?


Simple by breaking their spirit and making them feel hopeless they move out of the country or as messed up as this sounds they kill themselves. 

A lot of GOP/Trump supporters in my eyes want to live in their own utopia.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's really weird and its not something I understand. Hillary did the same


For someone reputed to be a seasoned and savvy political operative she's as dumb as a wet sack of hammers sometimes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Simple by breaking their spirit and making them feel hopeless they move out of the country or as messed up as this sounds they kill themselves.
> 
> A lot of GOP/Trump supporters in my eyes want to live in their own utopia.


You need to get some counseling. I'm not a psychologist, but having worked with a lot of trouble youth in the past I can sometimes tell that someone is struggling in their personal lives when they get this morbid. 

As far as Trump destroying America is concerned, it's all completely drummed up hysteria of narcissists. There is still the same levels of charity work happening in the country, the economic situation for all is still very good (and expected to continue to improve as America is experiencing an oil boom), the people dependent on government money are still getting that money and Trump has made no move to put an end to it. In fact, he's adding a significant amount of middle-class tax reforms as well as more government assistance for mothers and families. An incoming Dodd-Frank "repeal" is going to bring back smaller banks into play which means that local areas will get their needs met with regards to better financing and loan deals. 

If this hysteria is making you depressed, you need to tune out and seek some help. I'm not being sarcastic or mean even if I sound like it. I just think that this stuff is affecting you personally and you're letting a bunch of extreme lies get to you.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Simple by breaking their spirit and making them feel hopeless they move out of the country or as messed up as this sounds they kill themselves.
> 
> A lot of GOP/Trump supporters in my eyes want to live in their own utopia.


Is that kinda like the political Left talking endlessly about how old white Christians are going to die soon so then the political Left can take over forever? Talking about it endlessly with hungry glee?

I've never heard a GOP/:trump supporter talking about making tens of millions of citizens want to move out of the country or making them kill themselves.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

All these goddamn liberals keep talking about leaving the country and yet they never do. Liars.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Simple by breaking their spirit and making them feel hopeless they move out of the country or as messed up as this sounds they kill themselves.
> 
> A lot of GOP/Trump supporters in my eyes want to live in their own utopia.


Most people who come here legally build their lives from scratch and are some of the hardest working people around. 

If your spirit is broken by Trump than you're weak as fuck and nobody should give a damn about you. Life isn't based around who is President and Politics, people need to stop making things seem bigger than they are. Life is what you make it, there are no Death Squads, there is no mass rape epidemic and the US isn't a failed country like some that are completely falling apart. Stop expecting everyone, including your Government to do everything for you.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Is that kinda like the political Left talking endlessly about how old white Christians are going to die soon so then the political Left can take over forever? Talking about it endlessly with hungry glee?
> 
> I've never heard a GOP/:trump supporter talking about making tens of millions of citizens want to move out of the country or making them kill themselves.


Then why make living here harder for people that don't agree with the GOP or Trump vision?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Then why make living here harder for people that don't agree with the GOP or Trump vision?


That would be official oppression or discrimination based on political viewpoint if it were true and being done by the government, which is 100% very illegal, so yeah, that's not happening.

Go out and win the next election is my advice to you.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


>







:mase at her being lighter than Dolezal, though.

Maybe a little spritz of acid in the face will make her sing a different tune? Especially if it burns off her lips. :kappa


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


>


Oh fuck them. How about _they_ pay for the rest of the world to have actual safe spaces _from_ Muslims?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


>


She said she's black first. Not American, not Muslim, Black. Identity politics, everyone!!!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> Just how many people will he break? Like so many.


As many as it takes, fam. And it won't simply be of their bodies, as they can be healed with a capable heath care plan. Rather, it will be of their souls. >













And :mase at someone saying that they've been broken not because they ate human brains on a live TV show, but because they lost said TV show due to their butthurt drastically overriding any sense of professionalism.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/09/kellyanne-conway-reveals-biggest-misconception-trump-white-house/



> White House counselor Kellyanne Conway was ready to bust some myths about the Trump White House in remarks Friday at the Road to Majority Conference.
> 
> “What is [President Donald Trump] like in private?” asked Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, addressing Conway.
> 
> “Does he listen to advice?” he added.
> 
> “The biggest misconception … is that Donald Trump doesn’t have anyone around him that will tell him ‘no,’” responded Conway.
> 
> Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>
> 
> Rather, she added, Trump listens so intently that “he remembers everything,“ even to the point that “it always comes back” to get you. She commented on how, just as many within Trump Tower have reported, Trump is a “fully aware, gracious, [and] understanding boss.”
> 
> Conway mentioned that Trump would, during both the campaign and now in the White House, remain focused on issues relevant to “forgotten men and women.” She cited illegal immigration as one such issue, saying, “For so long the previous administration asked, ‘What is fair to the illegal immigrant?’”
> 
> “What is fair to the American worker competing with the illegal immigrant?” asked Conway.
> 
> Conway, who also served as Trump’s campaign manager, talked about the challenges of running against “feminist icon” Hillary Clinton, dubbing it a “double or triple challenge.”
> 
> Conway said that Clinton’s campaign did what she believes was a “great disservice” by emphasizing women’s health by focusing only on abortion, and not the other aspects of women’s health.
> 
> *Conway said she took a different approach, focusing on what women cared about most, what they do on a day-by-day basis, instead of concentrating on one aspect. One theme she saw as important to women was fairness. “Fairness is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome,” she said.
> *
> She also spoke about her personal faith, saying, “I believe that all things come from God.”
> 
> Being a mother to four children was “the blessing of my life,” she said. Conway also recalled her own childhood, where she grew up with four Catholic women and was raised “with faith as our center, as our gravity, as our anchor.”
> 
> “I don’t recall a single political conversation in my entire childhood … but I was raised to be conservative based on principles and faith.”
> 
> “We were taught that family comes first—God, country, family, and faith,” she added. And for Conway, the first female campaign manager to lead a winning presidential campaign, this perspective played a major role in the success of the Trump campaign.
> 
> “We pray for you too, and it is not lost on me the sacrifice you have made,” she said to attendees.
> 
> Conway also encouraged those in attendance to “go tell your faith journey” when opportunities arise. “Whether you are asked or not … have a seven second, 70 second, and a seven minute version” about your faith journey, of why you are a conservative, why you are involved.
> 
> The Road to Majority Conference is hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington, D.C.


Not that I'm promoting the idea that religiousity and "family values through faith" was the driving force behind many women voting for Trump but Kelly happened upon a core female need in her campaign and that is the intersection of faith, family and opportunity. Women value security and financial security so they want what's best for their families and by proxy that is a man who is capable of earning and providing (if they themselves cannot). 

The working class woman doesn't care about abortion rights. It is an extremely low priority issue. Working class women don't want to be CEO's. Everyone knows that there can only be a handful of CEO's and the work required to be one requires a tremendous amount of sacrifice at home and most women voluntarily choose careers where they can juggle both. 

To most of America that is a non-issue as Kelly very rightly pointed out. Most women will never need an abortion nor want to be scientists nor want to be CEO's. But most women need husbands who have job security and opportunities close to home for themselves. I can bet that most women voted for Trump for their husbands, not for themselves. 

The liberal ideal of what women want is based on fulfilling the dreams of the few, not the many (hehe I love drawing the parallel with commie propaganda here :woo).

Until and unless they start focusing on what women really need in life (husbands who have jobs, secure incomes to provide for their children, good schools and safe neighborhoods) they'll keep losing voters. Half of the democratic platform is focused on forcing women into education programs they don't like, abortion and pushing issues like "not enough CEO's" and that's why they're constantly losing. 

Of course, it goes without saying that most women are more religious than men therefore an overly secularized political agenda also hurts the democrats.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie would have gotten more young people out to vote. A lot of dems that would have voted for Hillary either did not vote or some voted 3rd party and some even for Trump.
> 
> Bernie had more people at his rallies than Trump did. Sanders would have easily beaten Trump. The only person less popular than Trump was Hillary.



Young people, especially bernie supporters live in cities. The cities went to hiliary anyway.

Trump wouldve made bernie look like the old fool he is in the debates. He wouldve pointed out his weaknesses. They wouldve made a campaign commercial showing him give up control of his rally to two lunatics.

Youre wrong on so many things, you actually believe in the russia fairy tale.

No wonder you believe in bernie.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Iconoclast said:


> I believe that the democrats have a long-term plan in place. They don't care about losing the next 8 or maybe even 12 years. The idea is to associate all forms of white pride with cancerous nationalism because whites are the only known major global "collective" that still adheres to fiscal responsibility and small government as a large voting bloc. Every single minority bloc I know already comes pre-programmed with not even knowing that there is such a thing as small government.
> 
> The only true way to destroy or at least mitigate future globalist plans is for white conservatives to have a fuck ton of babies and limit immigration of brownies (and even globalist europeans) to a bare minimum.
> 
> Of course, infiltrate liberal indoctrination centers like schools and colleges as well. Convert them into an ideological battleground and not let the left run away with brainwashing our youth.


They'll never limit immigration. People complain about the country being over populated but want to bring in as many people as humanly possible. 

It does seem that conservatives or at least independents are pushing back against liberal schools and the way they treat anyone who's even remotely leaning right , so their strategy might be backfiring on them, even if it is a little. Schools should encourage political discussion, but to actively tell students how they should feel politically, is just crazy to me. I can't comprehend how thats allowed and even encouraged by staff


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> They'll never limit immigration. People complain about the country being over populated but want to bring in as many people as humanly possible.
> 
> It does seem that conservatives or at least independents are pushing back against liberal schools and the way they treat anyone who's even remotely leaning right , so their strategy might be backfiring on them, even if it is a little. Schools should encourage political discussion, but to actively tell students how they should feel politically, is just crazy to me. I can't comprehend how thats allowed and even encouraged by staff


It's not enough imo. The problem is that conservatives have closed up their own communities, but haven't yet caught on to how bad the situation in colleges really is because they're insulated from them themselves. The counter to liberal indoctrination is living by example and showing kids that there's nothing wrong with conservative values growing up.

I'm probably mostly libertarian now because my parents had a live and let live philosophy when raising me. At this point in this generation and climate we need to do more by making sure kids grow up associating their own values with the best fit in terms of government policy so that they can't be led astray by indoctrination and vote for people based only on whatever resonates with them or is forced upon them by college professors. To beat the game, you need to understand the game and play by their rules unfortunately.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> ShareFacebookTwitterGoogle+StumbleUponRedditEmail
> 
> A new poll from IBD/TIPP found the overwhelmingly majority of young Americans believe "the media has prematurely declared President Trump and his allies guilty of collusion with Russia" despite a lack of evidence.
> 
> From Investor's Business Daily:
> Americans overwhelmingly blame the media for the hoopla surrounding the Russian investigation, with 57% agreeing that "the media has prematurely declared President Trump and his allies guilty of collusion with Russia" despite a lack of evidence. Just 39% disagreed.
> 
> And once again, the partisan split was notable, with 83% of Republicans agreeing that the media had displayed bias, but just 32% of Democrats saying the same. Some 62% of independents saw media bias in the coverage of the Russia investigation.
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, the age group that saw the greatest media effect was the youngest — the 18-to-24 year-old age group, with 72% agreeing that the media had essentially treated Trump and his campaign officials as guilty in covering the Russia issue without providing evidence. All of the other age groups were in the 53% to 59% range.
> Their poll also found most Americans do not believe Russia influenced the outcome of the election:
> Despite the media's saturation coverage, some 52% of respondents said the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was "not influenced" by Russia, while just 39% said it was.
> 
> The responses split along predictable party lines, with 77% of Democrats saying Russians influenced the election, but just 6% of Republicans in agreement. Among independents, only 31% saw a Russian influence on the election outcome.
> Almost half of Americans said the Russia investigation is a full-on "witch hunt":
> Meanwhile, some 47% agreed with the statement that "the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is a political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached." But 48% disagreed.
> 
> Even so, 21% of Democrats agreed that the investigation was a witch hunt, along with 75% of Republicans and 51% of independents.
> The poll also found 65% of Americans say it's "premature" to talk about impeachment while only 32% say it's "appropriate."
> 
> The poll was taken May 30 to June 6, before former FBI Director James Comey's testimony which largely blew the "Russkie conspiracy" narrative out of the water.
> 
> 
> 
> The fake news media's hysterical propaganda is failing. If the Republican party would stop being such cowards and actually work to force through Trump's agenda they could actually win in 2018.


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56861


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

The Trump / Russia narrative is officially dead. 

:woo


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Young people, especially bernie supporters live in cities. The cities went to hiliary anyway.
> 
> Trump wouldve made bernie look like the old fool he is in the debates. He wouldve pointed out his weaknesses. They wouldve made a campaign commercial showing him give up control of his rally to two lunatics.
> 
> Youre wrong on so many things, you actually believe in the russia fairy tale.
> 
> No wonder you believe in bernie.


Trump could have asked Bernie during a debate if Bernie would allow some black Trump supporters to come up to Bernie's podium and say a few things.

That would have been the end of Bernie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump could have asked Bernie during a debate if Bernie would allow some black Trump supporters to come up to Bernie's podium and say a few things.
> 
> That would have been the end of Bernie.


LOL its things like this that show how delusional Trump supporters really are

We also know what happened when someone rushed the stage on Trump, he cowered like a pussy lol

All Bernie would have to do is this








And that would be the end of Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

That was such a badass moment in the campaign. :lol Trump was ready to beat the shit out of whoever was coming at him. 

Meanwhile, the Charlotte, North Carolina LGBT pride parade shows its bigotry and hypocrisy by refusing to allow a gay Trump supporter to enter a float showing his support for the first president to be openly pro-LGBT upon entering office. 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/09/lgbt-pride-parade-turns-away-gay-trump-s


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL its things like this that show how delusional Trump supporters really are
> 
> We also know what happened when someone rushed the stage on Trump, he cowered like a pussy lol
> 
> All Bernie would have to do is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be the end of Trump


Who cares


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873370166066896896
Poland march against mass immigration is a sight to see :wow

The passion in that woman's voice and the look of determination :banderas


----------



## FITZ

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

I didn't take that campaign moment as Trump cowering. I took it as the opposite. I was left with the impression that he would have fought someone if he had to.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL its things like this that show how delusional Trump supporters really are
> 
> We also know what happened when someone rushed the stage on Trump, he cowered like a pussy lol
> 
> All Bernie would have to do is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be the end of Trump


Cowered, he looked ready to deck someone.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Young people, especially bernie supporters live in cities. The cities went to hiliary anyway.
> 
> Trump wouldve made bernie look like the old fool he is in the debates. He wouldve pointed out his weaknesses. They wouldve made a campaign commercial showing him give up control of his rally to two lunatics.
> 
> Youre wrong on so many things, you actually believe in the russia fairy tale.
> 
> No wonder you believe in bernie.


You Trump people don't realize how much Bernie would have destroyed him had it not been for the DNC robbing him.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> You Trump people don't realize how much Bernie would have destroyed him had it not been for the DNC robbing him.


I disagree, its just not that simple to say Bernie would hvae won had he not been "robbed". The electoral map really wouldn't have changed, regardless of how you perceive how popular he was. What Bernie supporters failed to acknowledge is that Hillary could have been the first female president . That alone was reason for a lot of people to vote in her favor, that's something Bernie didn't have going for him. People wanted to see history, she nearly had 66 million votes in her favor which was almost as much as Obama had in 2012. Sorry but there's no way Bernie was going to get more than Obama .


----------



## SureUmm

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> All these goddamn liberals keep talking about leaving the country and yet they never do. Liars.


If I could just convince Canada that my band is totally gonna make it (which it IS), I'd already be in Toronto by now. Rocking in the free world, indeed.


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



SureUmm said:


> If I could just convince Canada that my band is totally gonna make it (which it IS), I'd already be in Toronto by now. Rocking in the free world, indeed.


Just tell 'em your Muslim. Trudeau will let you in.


----------



## SureUmm

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> Just tell 'em your Muslim. Trudeau will let you in.


Tbh musicians should automatically acquire refugee status.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> And that would be the end of Trump


Perfect example of cognitive dissonance. You see, BM, thinks Trump is a terrible human being because he bought into all the false narratives and conflation by the Democrats and the MSM over the last year or so. So, now, anything and everything he sees or hears about Trump he concludes something negative. He can't help it, he's been indoctrinated. The movie in his head sees himself as the hero, that's the narrative the Democrats and the MSM have constructed against Trump and for anyone who doesn't like him. BM doesn't have the capacity to think fairly, to be open-minded. We see a President who was ready to fight whatever it was that spooked him. It's plainly obvious when he moves forward at the end. BM sees a coward. BM is lost and he may never find his way back.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

To be fair, whilst Hillary had the whole "woman" thing going on, Bernie would have done a lot better. He actually had a message that was anti-establishment and resonated with people. This coming from someone who did not like Bernie's policies at all. Hillary turned off a lot of loyal Democrats and young people who either didn't vote, went 3rd party or even switched to Trump.

Who would have won? Who really knows at this point, we all make predictions and end up being wrong. Most people with the exception of @CamillePunk got the US election prediction totally wrong so there we are :lol .

I know CP already linked and messaged this but I think it's worth quoting the article: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/09/lgbt-pride-parade-turns-away-gay-trump-s



> Gay pride parades are generally celebratory affairs, but they've also almost always had a political side too. "I'm here and want to have fun!" had an inherent political edge to it when the right to be openly gay or transgender was still being litigated in courts of both law and public opinion.
> 
> The right to be gay is all but settled as a legal matter these days, and transgender acceptance has been dramatically increasing. One might expect, then, that the pride parades of summer might start to grow less political and more like other cultural celebrations.
> 
> Apparently not. LGBT leaders' opposition to President Donald Trump has made the parades more political. In at least one case, parade organizers have rejected a float. Even though Brian Talbert is gay, the organizers of Charlotte, North Carolina's pride event have told him he can't participate with a float touting his support for Trump.
> 
> Talbert's story is picking up national attention. From The Washington Post:
> 
> Reached by email, Charlotte Pride released a statement saying the organization "reserves the right to decline participation" at events to groups that do not reflect the mission and values of the organization.
> 
> The statement said that policy is acknowledged in its parade rules and regulations, and noted that in the past, organizers have made "similar decisions" to decline participation from "other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances."
> 
> "Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected, and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice," the statement added.
> 
> But Trump has notably not espoused antigay policy stances and has, in fact, resisted efforts to do so within his administration. So far, Trump is probably the most LGBT-friendly Republican president we've had.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Trump supports the same policies that progressive LGBT leaders would like. That's really the crux of the problem: Trump's administration doesn't want to use the federal government to advance anti-discrimination policies that cover LGBT people. His Department of Justice has withdrawn federal guidance ordering public schools to accommodate transgender students' gender choices for bathrooms and other facilities.
> 
> Put in historical context, that's a relatively mild decision, though it must feel awful for transgender students who are affected (and ultimately it may be decided by the courts, not Trump's administration, anyway). Despite LGBT activists' fears, the administration is not scaling back executive orders forbidding government contractors from engaging in LGBT discrimination. Life is still improving for LGBT people.
> 
> The Los Angeles pride parade and festival is this weekend, but apparently it's no longer the same pride parade people are used to. It's been transformed into an anti-Trump "resistance" march, under the odd and incorrect assumption that being part of the LGBT community inherently requires you to embrace of a host of political positions. New York, Austin, Seattle, and D.C. are joining them. L.A. Weekly quotes one of the march organizers:
> 
> "#ResistMarch was built around the concept of standing in solidarity for all human rights," explains Brian Pendleton, a CSW board member. "The march is meant to be a celebration of humanity that is all part and parcel of the LGBTQ community. We are immigrants, we are women, we are seniors, we are communities of color, and on and on. Very few communities encompass so many different types of Americans."
> 
> That's true. But it also means the community encompasses Trump voters and other types of conservatives. Even here in the extremely liberal city of Los Angeles, I know at least one gay Trump supporter. What Pendleton is promoting isn't a celebration of humanity. It's a policing of political values. It's remarkable that parades that have revolved around an insistence that LGBT people should be allowed to participate in society and be public about who they are wants to excluding participant for their political affiliations.
> 
> This isn't ultimately about Trump himself; it's about the inability or unwillingness of people with highly different political interests to engage with each other. It's easier to cast gay Trump voters out of the movement than to engage with them over the fundamental philosophical differences that divide them. (My Trump-supporting gay acquaintance moved to L.A. from a Rust Belt state, and that no doubt influenced his vote.) There's nothing about being gay or transgender that requires support of unrelated policy positions on everything from immigration to abortion, and I say this as somebody who identifies more frequently with the left on those two issues. Making the parades into anti-Trump rallies tells tens of thousands of LGBT people that this festival that's supposed to be about them is actually deliberately excluding and opposing them.
> 
> Talbert has said he's going to sue Charlotte Pride for discrimination, which is also a terrible response. Charlotte Pride should be allowed to include or exclude any participants it wants. It's their parade. And there's already a Supreme Court decision that affirms that parade organizers have the right to exclude participants with messages they do not support.
> 
> But Charlotte Pride's organizers should remember something. That Supreme Court case was about a very long fight by LGBT groups to be included in St. Patrick's Day parades. And they're only just now, in this decade, convincing the Catholic organizers of those events to allow them in. To turn around and treat another group of gay people the same way is pretty terrible. Let them into the parade. Let the audience boo them, support them, or ignore them, and then move on. It shouldn't be a big deal.


This display of outward hostility towards LGBT people who happen to support Trump by banning them from a gay pride march tells what a lot of us already knew: That leftists will only be allies of LGBT people and be supportive and tolerant towards them so long as they hold the same opinions. Once again, the most important diversity, that being of thought is being openly challenged and repressed for the maintaining of a political hivemind.

Again, much of the left only sees the LGBT community as a group to put under their regressive left umbrella. Anyone who deviates from the narrative is ostracized and cast out. It is very cult like when you dig deeper into it.



Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873370166066896896
> Poland march against mass immigration is a sight to see :wow
> 
> The passion in that woman's voice and the look of determination :banderas


This fucking video :banderas.

That woman is so based with the speech she came out with and the fire she showed in defending her country from the EU's tyranny trying to force through migrants at the expense of other countries is seriously admirable.

Poland standing up to the EU roud.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

If Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, the main talking point against :trump, that he was an unstable crazy man, would have been unavailable.

Since, you know, Bernie looks like an unstable crazy man every time he opens his mouth and starts yelling at clouds and getting red in the face.

But keep telling yourselves that Bernie wouldn't have been absolutely savaged by :trump the way Hillary was BernieBros. Whatever makes you feel better. Bernie Sanders will never be President of the United States.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> You Trump people don't realize how much Bernie would have destroyed him had it not been for the DNC robbing him.


Bernie has no charisma. 

His appeal was 'im going to give you free shit'

Hed win the cities, but so did hilary. 

More young, less minorities and rural voters = trump win


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



amhlilhaus said:


> Bernie has no charisma.
> 
> His appeal was 'im going to give you free shit'
> 
> Hed win the cities, but so did hilary.
> 
> More young, less minorities and rural voters = trump win


He would easily have won PA Ohio and Wisconsin. There's a reason why he is the most popular politician in the US right now. But keep telling yourself lies Trumpkin.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

People who support Bernie always like to point out that the millennials would have come out and voted for him, and they didn't for Hillary. It's a fair point, but what they seem to not understand is that while Bernie would have gotten the millennials to come out and vote, he would have alienated a lot of Democrats, just like Hillary did. He would have played identity politics, just like Hillary did. He would have had no solution for how to combat job loss in middle America except to say he'd give them free shit, it wouldn't have resonated. He, just like most Dems, live in this bubble where they think just giving out free shit will satisfy people. There is a large population of people, Republican and Democrat, that take pride in a day's work. Trump knew that and had a solution and a message for those people, and it resonated. In then end, Bernie would have lost just the same.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> A collection of TV creators say worries about Donald Trump’s presidency is making their jobs to create entertainment much more challenging.
> 
> A panel at the ATX Television Festival in Austin, Texas, on Friday, titled “Trumped Up TV,” was assembled to analyze the impact of the president on the industry. The consensus of the group is that Trump has been rather distracting, to say the least.
> 
> “How can I possibly focus?” said Javier Grillo-Marxuach (Lost). “There’s a lot of stress eating involved … more than anything else, the torrent of news and information is about the stuff you do to mitigate your stress to be effective.”
> 
> Royal Pains producer Michael Rauch agreed, noting he has a rule that no computers or cell phones are allowed in his writers’ room while the team is working. But the moment there’s a break “the next hour all we’re talking about is how horrendous and depressing it is, then we’re back to work trying to be funny.”
> 
> The Vampire Diaries showrunner Julie Plec said the election brought about “absolute sorrow, horror, depression” behind the scenes of the show. Plec noted that she feels a responsibility to “double down on making it okay to be inclusive and not okay to be a bigot” in her storytelling given the current culture.
> 
> Beau Willimon (the creator of House of Cards) advocated balancing political activism fighting against the current administration’s policies with making entertainment. “I knew this was catastrophic … it felt like the whole country was slapped across the face with a two-by-four,” he said. “It’s become a negation to balance ones time to what you can do in any moment, hour, second. Whether you support Trump or not, it’s still at a traumatic event for the country, one way or another, in terms of the schism and polarization.”
> 
> 
> Moderator Michael Schneider of Indiewire asked the panel about the common conservative charge that Hollywood creatives are living in an insular bubble that keeps them out of touch.
> 
> “In the show I’m doing now we have the first gay lead character in any network hour-long show,” said Rauch, who has a new drama on CBS next season titled Instinct starring Alan Cumming. “In the [focus group] testing for the pilot, the second his husband came on screen the dials plummeted…this happened the two times the husband was in the scene … it was a moment like when Trump won when you realize that we’ve made a ton of progress in this country but there’s still a ton of latent hatred … it helps us frame good vs. evil.”
> 
> Rauch said the testing resulted in the producers deciding to introduce certain elements in the series more slowly. “What it did for us was to make us realize to slow it down a little bit … we may have to introduce a storyline over more episodes.”
> 
> While Willimon countered that Trump is the epitome of somebody who lives in a bubble. “We have a president who has never known what it means to hold a real job and to struggle … I think some stereotypes are true — Hollywood does lean left — but ask yourself why it does … artists are people who read a lot … who are curious about the world and when you write you’re imagining what the world could be, for better or worse…and that’s what being ‘in touch’ is all about … the only way our president attempts to do that is at 140 characters or less.”
> 
> And Paul Garnes (Queen Sugar) pointed out the struggle of female directors to get hired in TV, and noted, “Hollywood’s not [progressive] by nature, it’s a business by nature, and we’re fighting every day to make it that.”
> 
> 
> Of course, these are writers of scripted shows. Trump has been a godsend for writers of late-night comedy shows, which has seen shows like Saturday Night Live and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert surge in the ratings.
> 
> Concluded the panelists:
> 
> “The resistance is strong,” Willimon said. “We’re seeing that every day, and I maintain hope.”
> 
> “There’s a strong possibility that great art can come out of this and we can all be okay,” Grillo-Marxuach said. “The only way we survive is being the most honest version of ourselves and tell the world to go f— itself if they don’t like it.”


http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/09/tv-writers-trump/
Oh boo hoo. And I find it funny that this says that Trump lives in a bubble when most of these Hollywood writers don't know what goes on beyond Los Angeles



> INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Twelve employees of a Democrat-linked group focused on mobilizing black voters in Indiana are accused of submitting fake or fraudulent voter registration applications ahead of last year’s general election in order to meet quotas, according to charging documents filed Friday.
> 
> Prosecutors allege that 11 temporary workers employed by the Indiana Voter Registration Project created and submitted an unknown number of falsified applications. According to a probable cause affidavit, a supervisor for those canvassers, Holiday Burke, was also charged, as was the group.
> 
> Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said State Police found no evidence of voter fraud or voter suppression and that the charges against the workers arose from “a very bad, ill-advised business practice” of setting canvassers what appears to be a daily quota.
> 
> The Indiana Voter Registration Project’s effort to register primarily black voters was overseen by Patriot Majority USA, which has ties to the Democratic Party, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and former President Bill Clinton.
> 
> Patriot Majority has denied any wrongdoing. Spokesman Bill Buck on Friday declined to comment.
> 
> State Police began investigating the group in August after a clerk in Hendricks County near Indianapolis flagged about a dozen registration forms that had missing or suspicious information. That investigation expanded to 56 counties where Patriot Majority said it had collected about 45,000 voter registration applications before last November’s election.
> 
> All 12 defendants face one count each of procuring or submitting voter registration applications known to be false, fictitious or fraudulent. Eleven of them face one perjury count each, while the 12th — their supervisor — faces one count of counterfeiting.
> 
> If convicted on all the charges each defendant faces up to 2 ½ years in prison.
> 
> The Indiana Voter Registration Project faces the same charges as the supervisor. If convicted, the group could face a fine of $10,000.
> 
> During the campaign, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, raised the possibility of a “rigged” election. They offered no proof. Patriot Majority meanwhile asked the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights division to determine whether the police investigation was an attempt to suppress black voters.
> 
> In October, Curry, a Democrat, urged all sides to tone down the rhetoric.
> 
> The investigation found workers had submitted bogus applications on behalf of nonexistent residents, submitted new applications for people who were already registered, and at least one application was submitted on behalf of a minor, he said.
> 
> A search warrant unsealed on Nov. 14 says some workers admitted to falsifying registrations, saying they faced the possibility of losing their temporary job if they didn’t register at least 10 new voters a day.
> 
> The probable cause affidavit says supervisors told canvassers “to obtain their quota by any means necessary.” Canvassers were paid $10 an hour and worked five-hour shifts.
> 
> “By giving someone a financial motive to (meet a quota) is what caused these canvassers to cut corners and do things that not only undermined the goal of having legitimate registered voters but led to a situation where we allege it bled over into criminal conduct,” Curry said.
> 
> Patriot Majority President Craig Varoga said last year that canvassers weren’t paid according to a quota system and had been instructed that it is illegal to provide false information on voter registration forms.
> 
> The search warrant indicates that Patriot Majority submitted several hundred voter registration applications that included false, incomplete or fraudulent information. The warrant’s contents allowed State Police to raid the Indianapolis offices of Patriot Majority USA in October.
> 
> Curry said it’s unclear how many problematic applications were submitted, but that it was “a relatively small number.”


 https://apnews.com/6b71a926cb624a209851b41ac616b184?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> People who support Bernie always like to point out that the millennials would have come out and voted for him, and they didn't for Hillary. It's a fair point, but what they seem to not understand is that while Bernie would have gotten the millennials to come out and vote, he would have alienated a lot of Democrats, just like Hillary did. He would have played identity politics, just like Hillary did. He would have had no solution for how to combat job loss in middle America except to say he'd give them free shit, it wouldn't have resonated. He, just like most Dems, live in this bubble where they think just giving out free shit will satisfy people. There is a large population of people, Republican and Democrat, that take pride in a day's work. Trump knew that and had a solution and a message for those people, and it resonated. In then end, Bernie would have lost just the same.


Hillary talking shit to the Bernie supporters is what turned them off to to her. That's why they didn't vote for her.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



FITZ said:


> I didn't take that campaign moment as Trump cowering. I took it as the opposite. I was left with the impression that he would have fought someone if he had to.






Genking48 said:


> Cowered, he looked ready to deck someone.


LOL this forum gets funnier and funnier with how delusional some people are
he looked like he was going to shit his pants not deck someone




TheNightmanCometh said:


> Perfect example of cognitive dissonance. You see, BM, thinks Trump is a terrible human being because he bought into all the false narratives and conflation by the Democrats and the MSM over the last year or so. So, now, anything and everything he sees or hears about Trump he concludes something negative. He can't help it, he's been indoctrinated. The movie in his head sees himself as the hero, that's the narrative the Democrats and the MSM have constructed against Trump and for anyone who doesn't like him. BM doesn't have the capacity to think fairly, to be open-minded. We see a President who was ready to fight whatever it was that spooked him. It's plainly obvious when he moves forward at the end. BM sees a coward. BM is lost and he may never find his way back.


LOL yet Trump supporters make fun of Bernie for not attacking BLM back LOL and again Trump wasa going to shit his pants not fight back. stop being delusional. 

This forum has gone off the deep end


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Covfefe covfefe I'll show you around

Covfefe covfefe I'll show you the town

:trump2


----------



## Jay Valero

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

As a lifelong conservative I will say that Bernie got screwed by his own party. His supporters _should_ be furious with the DNC and the Clinton political machine.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> He would easily have won PA Ohio and Wisconsin. There's a reason why he is the most popular politician in the US right now. But keep telling yourself lies Trumpkin.


Yes, he gets nothing but positive press coverage and zero scrutiny. It's easy to be popular when that happens.

The instant he got even a little negative coverage and scrutiny he cratered. He couldn't handle the pressure of being a serious candidate. But sure, he would have "easily" beaten :trump when he folded like a cheap suit the instant he was taken seriously.

Bernie does much better than expected in early primaries vs Hillary
Bernie gets momentum from this success
Bernie starts getting treated like a real candidate (i.e., he starts getting real scrutiny and starts getting serious negative campaign ads run against him by Hillary)
Bernie proceeds to crash and burn

He would have "easily" won PA, Ohio and Wisconsin. Uh-huh. Why don't you own Monaco and Vegas with your crystal ball?

He couldn't hang for two months under the pressure of being a serious candidate. But he _was_ going to be able to handle 8 months of the pressure of being a serious candidate.

Whatever makes you feel better about Bernie Sanders never being the President of the United States, BernieBros. :trump would have literally killed poor old Bernie. He would have been yelling at the clouds at a campaign rally or yelling at :trump in a debate and his heart or a major blood vessel in his brain would have exploded. RIP Bernie.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL this forum gets funnier and funnier with how delusional some people are
> he looked like he was going to shit his pants not deck someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL yet Trump supporters make fun of Bernie for not attacking BLM back LOL and again Trump wasa going to shit his pants not fight back. stop being delusional.
> 
> This forum has gone off the deep end


The fact that they think beating Hillary Clinton is something to brag about is hilarious. She lost to an unknown Barack Obama in 08. Then DNC had to cheat Bernie out of a win just so she could run for president.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL its things like this that show how delusional Trump supporters really are
> 
> We also know what happened when someone rushed the stage on Trump, he cowered like a pussy lol
> 
> All Bernie would have to do is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be the end of Trump


I'm not really being serious about that, I doubt it would be that easy. Just pointing out how Bernie cowered before a few black women who spouted off nonsense and hijacked his rally, it was pathetic.

I'm simply just mocking Bernie.

Trump cowered? Dunno, he looked surprised but didn't run away, just stood his ground and waited to see what was going to happen. If he had left the stage or sat down and let the person start talking about things, well then he'd be a coward.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> The fact that they think beating Hillary Clinton is something to brag about is hilarious. She lost to an unknown Barack Obama in 08. Then DNC had to cheat Bernie out of a win just so she could run for president.


Which states would Bernie have won if the DNC hadn't cheated?

Remember, Hillary beat Bernie by 3.7 million total votes in the primaries. She won California, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, New York, and the entire rest of the South. 

Which of those large, delegate-heavy states would Bernie have won? I know you BernieBros like to throw tantrums about New York, but she won New York over BernieOld by *16%.* By 313,000 votes. BernieBros cry about 125,000 voters being purged from the rolls in Brooklyn, but for some reason they don't mention that in the same time period 63,000 voters were _added_ to the rolls, and they definitely don't mention that *Hillary Clinton won Kings County (Brooklyn) 59.07% to 39.84% over BernieOld.*


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stephen90 said:


> Hillary talking shit to the Bernie supporters is what turned them off to to her. That's why they didn't vote for her.


Let's not forget that even before going into the election she was considered untrustworthy and a dirty politician, even among her fellow Democrats.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Yes, he gets nothing but positive press coverage and zero scrutiny. It's easy to be popular when that happens.
> 
> The instant he got even a little negative coverage and scrutiny he cratered. He couldn't handle the pressure of being a serious candidate. But sure, he would have "easily" beaten :trump when he folded like a cheap suit the instant he was taken seriously.
> 
> Bernie does much better than expected in early primaries vs Hillary
> Bernie gets momentum from this success
> Bernie starts getting treated like a real candidate (i.e., he starts getting real scrutiny and starts getting serious negative campaign ads run against him by Hillary)
> Bernie proceeds to crash and burn
> 
> He would have "easily" won PA, Ohio and Wisconsin. Uh-huh. Why don't you own Monaco and Vegas with your crystal ball?
> 
> He couldn't hang for two months under the pressure of being a serious candidate. But he _was_ going to be able to handle 8 months of the pressure of being a serious candidate.
> 
> Whatever makes you feel better about Bernie Sanders never being the President of the United States, BernieBros. :trump would have literally killed poor old Bernie. He would have been yelling at the clouds at a campaign rally or yelling at :trump in a debate and his heart or a major blood vessel in his brain would have exploded. RIP Bernie.


He also got robbed by the DNC so Hillary could run for president.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yet Trump supporters make fun of Bernie for not attacking BLM back LOL and again Trump wasa going to shit his pants not fight back. stop being delusional.


Brother, let me tell you something, you can call me delusional all you want, but the fact remains that you have a long history of being wrong on multiple issues. I've seen you turn out to be wrong on things that you proclaim to be facts multiple times. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't automatically trust your perception of things.

Plus, you know, there's the whole end of that video where Trump moves towards whatever it was that spooked him, only to be held back by Secret Service. That's not what a coward does. But don't let that little fact get in the way of your cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> Which states would Bernie have won if the DNC hadn't cheated?
> 
> Remember, Hillary beat Bernie by 3.7 million total votes in the primaries. She won California, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, New York, and the entire rest of the South.
> 
> Which of those large, delegate-heavy states would Bernie have won? I know you BernieBros like to throw tantrums about New York, but she won New York over BernieOld by *16%.* By 313,000 votes. BernieBros cry about 125,000 voters being purged from the rolls in Brooklyn, but for some reason they don't mention that in the same time period 63,000 voters were _added_ to the rolls, and they definitely don't mention that *Hillary Clinton won Kings County (Brooklyn) 59.07% to 39.84% over BernieOld.*


Remember when Bernie lost parts of the South due to the black voters voting for Hillary and then some the Berniebros went on racist tirades about black people?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> As a lifelong conservative I will say that Bernie got screwed by his own party. His supporters _should_ be furious with the DNC and the Clinton political machine.


Not only did Bernie get screwed by the DNC, he got screwed in favor of the most untrustworthy and unlikable person in politics. If that isn't a textbook example of cronyism, I don't know what is. They basically said, "Hey, you people that support us. Fuck you. We're gonna nominate who WE want, not who YOU want. But don't worry, we'll spend little time trying to make you like her. We'll just cram her down your throats and tell you that you have to vote for her. Look, we'll even bring out that old windbag you like and he'll vouch for her. See, you do what we say cause we know better than you."


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Not only did Bernie get screwed by the DNC, he got screwed in favor of the most untrustworthy and unlikable person in politics. If that isn't a textbook example of cronyism, I don't know what is. They basically said, "Hey, you people that support us. Fuck you. We're gonna nominate who WE want, not who YOU want. But don't worry, we'll spend little time trying to make you like her. We'll just cram her down your throats and tell you that you have to vote for her. Look, we'll even bring out that old windbag you like and he'll vouch for her. See, you do what we say cause we know better than you."


So the Democrats are secretly ran by Vince McMahon?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Miss Sally said:


> Remember when Bernie lost parts of the South due to the black voters voting for Hillary and then some the Berniebros went on racist tirades about black people?


No! Some quotes would be spectacular.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

A socialist would never win in America no matter how much free stuff he promises because self-respecting individuals especially in the blue collar areas tend to prefer to work than to depend on welfare. People completely forget that the capitalist work ethic is omni-present amongst Americans more so than social welfare states. The rust belt voted for jobs and the guy that promised them jobs instead of welfare relief. They didn't vote for welfare and wouldn't have even if by some miracle Bernie had won. There was no promise of wealth and job creation in Bernie's platform. It was simply "tax the rich" - and most people here know that taxing the rich simply means that the burden of keeping the rich still rich is simply transferred over to the poor creating even more poverty. 

America's anti-communist past was an ideological stance based on a deep understanding of the failure of Keynesian economics and not simply a hysterical and irrational "red scare".

On an interesting side note: The 1 trillion infrastructure program is Bernie's ... and guess who's opposing it. Even if Bernie had won, his job creation program would still have been blocked just as Trump is getting serious opposition - but infrastructure was Bernie's entire plan for job creation. Trump at least has interesting ideas on tax reform which should sustain job growth, but at this point it remains to be seen and the Rust Belt could swing again if the economy of those states does not improve over the next 4 years.

I'm not a huge fan of government funded infrastructure development to be honest with you because while some of it may be needed, the way the contracts work is that it's inefficient and may even be unnecessary and costly. It also reminds me too much of communist countries as they put up infrastructure development mainly for pomp and show rather than absolute necessity. For example, if you watch North Korea propaganda films, they love to roll out the "great" infrastructure of Pyongyang and the amusement parks Kim is building.

Develop as per needed. Allow private companies an easy path to funding their own infrastructure needs and that also drives job growth and imo does a much better job at it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



virus21 said:


> So the Democrats are secretly ran by Vince McMahon?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*






Trump broke her so bad that this is the second time she's refered to him as Bush :lmao :lmao 

Oh the DNC is well and totally fucked.


----------



## virus21

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



> Emails also show Abedin providing government plane and hotel reservations to Chelsea Clinton for trip to Germany while employed at Clinton Foundation
> 
> Abedin tells Band that she has ‘hooked up’ people from the Russian American Foundation with ‘the right people’ at the State Department
> 
> (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 2,078 pages of documents revealing more instances of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information via an unsecured email server. They also show Clinton’s daughter Chelsea and others involved with the Clinton Foundation receiving special favors from Huma Abedin, the former secretary’s deputy chief of staff.
> 
> The records were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”
> 
> The new documents included 115 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 432 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.
> 
> On December 6, 2010, Secretary Clinton shared classified information with non-U.S. government employees Justin Cooper, then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation director Doug Band (neither of whom held security clearances). The email instructs her aide Oscar Flores to “print for Bill” (presumably Bill Clinton). The email exchange, which involved allegations of the theft of foreign aid by Bangladeshi banker and major Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, started with an email from an unidentified person to State Department official Melanne Verveer, who forwarded her exchange on to Hillary Clinton, who then sent it on to Flores, Cooper and Band.
> 
> Yunus was accused of embezzling $100 million from the Grameen Bank he founded and was removed from it, although the charges were never proven, and Yunus reportedly returned the money. Subsequently, Clinton’s State Department was accused of threatening IRS action against the Bangladesh prime minister’s son in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of Yunus.
> 
> In a similar instance on March 14, 2011, State Department official Maria Otero emailed Clinton information about the Grameen Bank/Foundation that was again deemed classified as Confidential by the State Department and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton then responds to Otero using her [email protected] account and copies Abedin on Abedin’s unsecure email account, [email protected].
> 
> In May 2010, Ben Ringel, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation Judicial Watch previously documented, asked Abedin to intervene in an employment dispute on behalf of a USAID employee. Abedin agreed, telling Ringel to forward the woman’s documents to her official State Department email account.
> 
> In a May 21, 2011, email exchange sent to Abedin’s unsecure account, then- Ambassador Princeton Lyman sent information relating to his conversation with South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit that is also redacted and classified as “Confidential.”
> 
> On July 17, 2012, Abedin forwarded to her private email account for printing a call briefing sheet for Clinton’s upcoming call with Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan, which was classified Confidential and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D).
> 
> The new Abedin emails also reveal additional instances in which Clinton’s then- scheduler Lona Valmoro forwarded the former secretary of state’s detailed daily schedule to top Clinton Foundation officials.
> 
> The new emails also reveal a number of favors that were requested and carried out.
> 
> In May 2010, Abedin tells Band that she has “hooked up” people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department after Abedin received a request from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner, forwarded by Clinton Foundation donor Eddie Trump (no relation to President Trump).
> 
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Huma Abedin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rina – wanted to connect on meeting at state department. Eddie trump passed on your email. Will be in touch soon
> 
> From: Rina Kirshner
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:29 AM
> 
> To: Huma Abedin
> 
> Subject: Re: Eddie Trump/Doug Band
> 
> Ms. Abedin,
> 
> Just wanted to follow up and express our gratitude. I was contacted today by Ms. Christina Miner who invited us to be part of the US-Russia Cultural Sub-Working Group meeting next week. Thank you very much for all your assistance – if there is any way we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Rina Kirshner
> 
> From: Huma Abedin [[email protected]]
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:19:12
> 
> To: Doug Band
> 
> Subject: FW: Eddie Trump/Doug Band
> 
> fyi – we hooked her up with the right people here
> 
> The Russia-American Foundation was staffed by Clinton political supporters and operatives, received over $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the Clinton State Department, and its leadership was supportive of Obama’s Russia policies.
> 
> In July 2011, when Chelsea Clinton, using the alias Diane Reynolds and the email address [email protected], was planning to fly to Germany to see the U.S. women’s soccer team play, her travel agent asked Abedin to confirm that Chelsea’s travel costs could be placed on her parents’ credit card. In response, Abedin tells the agent that she can “stand down” from making arrangements to get Chelsea to Germany, as Chelsea and Bari Luri, Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation chief of staff, would be made part of the “official delegation” going to the match and she would “fly on official govt plane both ways and they will take care of hotels and all transportation.” Chelsea was a fully employed Clinton Foundation executive at this time.
> 
> In July 2011, Clinton tells Abedin that she doesn’t wish to fly on the same airplane with Michelle Obama on their way to Betty Ford’s funeral: “I’d be honored to speak. Is it ok that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?”
> 
> A December 15, 2012, email chain shows that a committee of Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, was required to draft a “doctors statement” as to why Hillary supposedly fainted due to “dehydration,” causing her supposedly to hit her head and suffer a “concussion” in December 2012. The same committee then prepared a “discharge statement” when Hillary was released from the hospital.
> 
> “These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The casual violation of laws concerning classified material and noxious influence peddling show the Clinton State Department was ‘corruption central’ in the Obama administration. No wonder Clinton’s allies in the State and Justice Departments had been slow-walking and hiding these emails.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-newly-released-emails-reveal-classified-information-transmitted-hillary-clinton-unsecure-server-clinton-foundation-employees/


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

https://www.city-journal.org/html/hard-realities-hard-time-15248.html

interesting article the BTFOs many of the myths about incarceration in america


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Stinger Fan said:


> I disagree, its just not that simple to say Bernie would hvae won had he not been "robbed". The electoral map really wouldn't have changed, regardless of how you perceive how popular he was. What Bernie supporters failed to acknowledge is that Hillary could have been the first female president . That alone was reason for a lot of people to vote in her favor, that's something Bernie didn't have going for him. People wanted to see history, she nearly had 66 million votes in her favor which was almost as much as Obama had in 2012. Sorry but there's no way Bernie was going to get more than Obama .


yes the map would have changed. Hillary lost the election by about 114,000 votes over 4 states. Those 4 states Obama carried in. Bernie would have easily gotten those votes. Bernie had a huge favorable and Trump still had a low favorable during the election. Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump.

Bernie would have gotten more people out to vote than Hillary could.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



deepelemblues said:


> https://www.city-journal.org/html/hard-realities-hard-time-15248.html
> 
> interesting article the BTFOs many of the myths about incarceration in america


It's a good article. But one thing that no one can really analyze is the impact of drug incarcerations on creating fatherless sons and how that contributes to the next generation of violent criminals and crime waves. We all know that not having fathers is one of the secondary causes of youth being more vulnerable to gang recruitment and therefore becoming violent. How do you however even begin to calculate something like this? Does criminality run in families (not as a genetic component but as a component of circumstance)? How do we determine that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL this forum gets funnier and funnier with how delusional some people are
> he looked like he was going to shit his pants not deck someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL yet Trump supporters make fun of Bernie for not attacking BLM back LOL and again Trump wasa going to shit his pants not fight back. stop being delusional.
> 
> This forum has gone off the deep end


As convinced as i am tha5 conservatism is the right form of government, i still try to keep an open mind. Those who dont try to learn from other points of view miss out on personal growth. That said, i wish something similar happens to a democrat candidate so i can see how id respond.

Trump was about to shit his pants?

Trump reacts to whats happening behind him, startling him in mid thought and he instinctually crouches down grabbing the podium and moving to his left, away from the sound to gain distance. Then he turns, snd stands up to his full height. His body language is not one of flight, but fight and before the clip stops he starts to move forward. 

Something tells me that theres not a lot of experience with physical confrontations working here. That, along with pre concieved notions and prejudices led to this seriously flawed and incorrect analysis.


----------



## deepelemblues

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been declared dead (again) by Syrian State TV, allegedly thanks to a massive US airstrike on Raqqa.

Can it please be true just so I can drop some dank Mattis memes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Jay Valero said:


> As a lifelong conservative I will say that Bernie got screwed by his own party. His supporters _should_ be furious with the DNC and the Clinton political machine.


They are that is why justice democrats party was formed.






amhlilhaus said:


> As convinced as i am tha5 conservatism is the right form of government, i still try to keep an open mind. Those who dont try to learn from other points of view miss out on personal growth. That said, i wish something similar happens to a democrat candidate so i can see how id respond.
> 
> Trump was about to shit his pants?
> 
> Trump reacts to whats happening behind him, startling him in mid thought and he instinctually crouches down grabbing the podium and moving to his left, away from the sound to gain distance. Then he turns, snd stands up to his full height. His body language is not one of flight, but fight and before the clip stops he starts to move forward.
> 
> Something tells me that theres not a lot of experience with physical confrontations working here. That, along with pre concieved notions and prejudices led to this seriously flawed and incorrect analysis.


conservatism isn't the right form of government it kills the country. Just look at recent history for example. You really think the country was better under the two Bush's than under Clinton and Obama? 

LOL Trump was trying to get close to the SS because he was scared. 

His body language was he was a scared pussy. But live in fantasy land and pretend Trump looked strong LOL


----------



## Beatles123

BM, how much longer till you accept that you're not the smartest person in the thread? 

Would it kill you to show some class at all?


----------



## virus21




----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are that is why justice democrats party was formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatism isn't the right form of government it kills the country. Just look at recent history for example. You really think the country was better under the two Bush's than under Clinton and Obama?
> 
> LOL Trump was trying to get close to the SS because he was scared.
> 
> His body language was he was a scared pussy. But live in fantasy land and pretend Trump looked strong LOL


again its amazing how people can have opposite thoughts on a brief clip. Alas we must disagree.

And seriously a shout out lol if you consider either bush a conservative. Claiming this shows youre either trolling or you are seriously uninformed on conservatism. Reagan was the last conservative president, and while no one is perfect, he kicked serious ass.

Awaiting your heartfelt, pseudo analytical response as to how the 80s were a disaster, and jimmy carter was the reason for any sucess in that decade


----------



## amhlilhaus

Beatles123 said:


> BM, how much longer till you accept that you're not the smartest person in the thread?
> 
> Would it kill you to show some class at all?


I will support him on this, he is the smartest person here.

He proved it by considering both bushes to be conservatives>


----------



## deepelemblues

cmon guys george w bush said he was a compassionate conservative aka rockefeller republican aka not a conservative really


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

amhlilhaus said:


> I will support him on this, he is the smartest person here.
> 
> He proved it by considering both bushes to be conservatives>


Don't forget, he proved how smart he is by saying that he knows for a fact that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the election, and when asked how he knows it's a fact his response was, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Because I know." Then when pressed further he insults you. If that isn't a sign of the smartest person on the board, then I don't know what is!


----------



## Reaper

I've never heard a conservative call Bush a conservative. Only liberals. And for liberals someone who spends 19.99 trillion instead of 20 trillion is a conservative.

And someone who spends 19.8 trillion wants to starve everyone to death and kill the planet. :kobelol

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-conservative-is-president-bush

CATO institute on Bush in 2002 claimed that he's less fiscally conservative than Clinton was. 



> How Conservative Is President Bush?
> 
> By Veronique de Rugy
> August 3, 2002
> President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, the White House has veered to the left. President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.
> 
> It makes little sense to discourage one’s core supporters prior to a mid-term election. Yet that is the result when a Republican president expands government, which Bush is doing. Also, academic research on voting patterns shows that a president is most likely to get re-elected if voters are enjoying an increase in disposable income. Yet making government bigger is not a recipe for economic growth. After all, there is a reason why Hong Kong grows so fast and France is an economic basket case. But you can’t tell that to the Bush administration.
> 
> Administration officials privately admit that much of the legislation moving through Congress represents bad public policy. Yet they argue either that everything must take a back seat to the war on terror (much as the first Bush administration treated the war against Iraq) or that compromises are necessary to neutralize issues such as education. But motives and rationalizations do not repeal the laws of economics.
> 
> In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:
> 
> The education bill expands federal involvement in education. The administration originally argued that the new spending was a necessary price to get vouchers and other reforms. Yet the final bill boosted spending and was stripped of almost all reform initiatives. And there is every reason to believe that this new spending will be counter-productive, like most other federal money spent on education in the past 40 years. Children and taxpayers are the big losers.
> 
> 
> The farm bill is best characterized as a bipartisan orgy of special interest politics. Making a mockery of the Freedom to Farm Act, the new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. Old subsidies have been increased and new subsidies created. Perhaps worst of all, the administration no longer has the moral credibility to pressure the European Union to reform its socialized agricultural policies. Taxpayers and consumers are the big losers.
> 
> 
> The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports make free traders wish Bill Clinton were still president. These restrictions on world commerce have undermined the productivity of U.S. manufacturers by boosting input prices and creating massive ill will in the international community. American products already have been targeted for reciprocal treatment. Consumers and manufacturers are the big losers.
> 
> 
> The campaign finance law is an effort to protect the interests of incumbent politicians by limiting free speech rights during elections. The administration openly acknowledged that the legislation is unconstitutional, yet was unwilling to make a principled argument for the Bill of Rights and fair elections. Voters and the Constitution are the big losers.
> 
> 
> New health care entitlements are akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Medicare and Medicaid already are consuming enormous resources, and the burden of these programs will become even larger when the baby boom generation retires. Adding a new prescription drug benefit will probably boost spending by $1 trillion over 10 years. A mandate for mental health coverage will drive up medical costs, making insurance too expensive for many more families.
> Those policy decisions make government bigger and more expensive. They also slow the economy and hurt financial markets — read the headlines lately? For all his flaws, President Clinton’s major policy mistake was the 1993 tax increase. Other changes, such as the welfare reform bill, NAFTA, GATT, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial services deregulation, moved policy in a market-oriented direction.
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, there was a substantial reduction in federal spending as a share of gross domestic product during the Clinton years. Using the growth of domestic spending as a benchmark, Clinton was the second most conservative president of the post-World War II era, trailing only Ronald Reagan.
> 
> To be sure, much of the credit for Clinton’s good policy probably belongs to the Republican Congress, but that is not an excuse for bad policy today. And on one positive note, President Bush has “promised” to fight for partial privatization of Social Security. Yet, so far, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. Needless to say, this means it will be rather difficult to blame “big-spending” Democrats if the economy continues to sputter.


This article is so prophetic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> BM, how much longer till you accept that you're not the smartest person in the thread?
> 
> Would it kill you to show some class at all?


LOL that is hilarious coming from you and from a Trump supporter. 

This thread is so full of comedic gold from the Trump crew.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Keep on topic, please. I know you guys can't resist a good shit flinging, but you've had your fun now. Let it go.


----------



## Goku

Beatles123 said:


> BM, how much longer till you accept that you're not the smartest person in the thread?


what a silly question. bm is obviously the smartest person in this thread.

and the world.

:Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Iconoclast said:


> I've never heard a conservative call Bush a conservative. Only liberals. And for liberals someone who spends 19.99 trillion instead of 20 trillion is a conservative.
> 
> And someone who spends 19.8 trillion wants to starve everyone to death and kill the planet. :kobelol
> 
> https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-conservative-is-president-bush
> 
> CATO institute on Bush in 2002 claimed that he's less fiscally conservative than Clinton was.
> 
> 
> 
> This article is so prophetic.


The national debt rose by 186% under Regan, guess he was not a conservative then.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> This thread is so full of comedic gold from the Trump crew.


On this we can agree. :trump Trump supporters are way funnier and having way more fun than the other side.


----------



## blackholeson

*Regan the last conservative? I have heard plenty on the left say Clinton was hardly a liberal. Nixon was more liberal than Bush Sr. and Jr. This happens all the time in politics. Here's how you end the argument. It's Republicans vs Democrats and only one can win the Presidency.

No President can be one vs the other once in office. You have to be bi-partisan. Look also at the House and Senate, who controls what during the President you claim change political affiliations with. Some of you are downright foolish regarding this topic. The audacity of the some of you to even suggest such nonsense. Not surprised, that's how Trump supporters do things. *


----------



## virus21

> In an attempt to make a dramatic statement, Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called for President Donald Trump to deport him at a New York City rally Wednesday.
> 
> “Start with me. I’m an immigrant,” Cuomo said regarding Trump’s immigration policies. Cuomo told the crowd that President Trump’s administration had broken New York’s “cardinal rule.” “They forgot who they are,” Cuomo said.
> 
> Unless you are Native American, “we are all immigrants,” Cuomo said.
> 
> WATCH:
> 
> 
> However, Cuomo failed to point out that Trump has only ever called for the deportation of illegal immigrants during his presidency, not all immigrants.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/new-york-gov-cuomo-to-trump-deport-me-video/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> "An excerpt from Hillary Clinton’s famous 1996 book “It Takes A Village” has been circulating online and courting controversy for its depiction of prison inmates working at the Arkansas governor’s mansion. Posted by activist Jeanette Jing, the first-person passage describes how Clinton “enforced rules strictly and sent back to prison any inmate who broke a rule.” The inmates, who Clinton said were typically “African American men in their thirties who had already served twelve to eighteen years of their sentences,” worked on the grounds without compensation. The Internet is admittedly not impressed. The comments are indicative of Clinton’s tumultuous relationship with the African-African community and rhetoric that’s come across to many as racist. This past election, the former presidential candidate came under fire by Black Lives Matter protesters for previously alluding to black youth as “superpredators” while advocating for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Bill, which is considered to have exacerbated mass incarceration by creating harsher prison sentencing."]An excerpt from Hillary Clinton’s famous 1996 book “It Takes A Village” has been circulating online and courting controversy for its depiction of prison inmates working at the Arkansas governor’s mansion. Posted by activist Jeanette Jing, the first-person passage describes how Clinton “enforced rules strictly and sent back to prison any inmate who broke a rule.” The inmates, who Clinton said were typically “African American men in their thirties who had already served twelve to eighteen years of their sentences,” worked on the grounds without compensation. The Internet is admittedly not impressed. The comments are indicative of Clinton’s tumultuous relationship with the African-African community and rhetoric that’s come across to many as racist. This past election, the former presidential candidate came under fire by Black Lives Matter protesters for previously alluding to black youth as “superpredators” while advocating for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Bill, which is considered to have exacerbated mass incarceration by creating harsher prison sentencing.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/the-internet-is-losing-it-over-a-passage-from-hillary-clintons-book-evoking-slavery-imagery/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social


----------



## deepelemblues

Fuck off Cuomo, I was born in the United States. I'm not an immigrant.

Not much pisses me off more than when some Democrat asshole tosses out that bitch line and denies me my country, because my ancestors came to it 190 years ago. Guess what dumb fuck, the ancestors of "Native Americans" came from Asia. They're immigrants too under your fucktard logic. Everybody but Africans living in Africa are immigrants under your fucktard logic. Fuck off.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> On this we can agree. :trump Trump supporters are way funnier and having way more fun than the other side.


Democrats dont understand whats going on. They claim that trumps a failure and hasnt done anything hes promised.

The reality is hes fulfilled everything he could via eo and its not his fault hes still learning how petty the establishment can be.

The big thing flying under the radar is his appointments of federal judges every judge he appoints whos not a judicial activist is a huge win for republicans, and he got a constitutionalist on the supreme court.

His first year has been incredible for a guy holding public office for the first time with the wind blowing so strongly against him.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> Fuck off Cuomo, I was born in the United States. I'm not an immigrant.
> 
> Not much pisses me off more than when some Democrat asshole tosses out that bitch line and denies me my country, because my ancestors came to it 190 years ago. Guess what dumb fuck, the ancestors of "Native Americans" came from Asia. They're immigrants too under your fucktard logic. Everybody but Africans living in Africa are immigrants under your fucktard logic. Fuck off.


100% agree.


----------



## CamillePunk

Milo is having a Q&A session on /r/The_Donald (which I was recently unbanned from, huzzah!): 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ium=hot&utm_name=The_Donald&utm_source=reddit


----------



## Reaper

@L-DOPA - you might be interested in reading about Puerto Rico with regards to the whole #usefulidiots thing. 

They're trying to get US statehood status now after fucking up their economy after decades of poor fiscal planning. 

Currently the Territory sits in a situation where they're bankrupt and "owe" about $123 billion, have lost about 20% of their jobs and 10% of their total population to mainland America - but they still have public subsidized housing, free schools and social welfare for needy families - but no real responsibility when it comes to wealth and job creation. 

They've been run by social welfare statists for decades who've still managed to crash their economy despite receiving $6-8 billion in aid from the US despite never having to actually pay federal taxes.

Of course, it's likely that the US will refuse Statehood once again.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

> Wants statehood into the greatest country to ever exist
> Had a terrorist organization commit numerous crimes against said country, some of which killed and/or maimed innocent people

Yeahhh...no. Eat shit and die in a fire, Puerto Rico. :suckit


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

I'm half Puerto Rican and even I don't want 'em attaining statehood.









Many Puerto Ricans leave Puerto Rico for a reason. Many Puerto Ricans I know acknowledge that it's a shit run country and that's why their parents and/or grandparents left to the United States.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874101704685346816





THE EXPERT HAS ARRIVED. :sodone


----------



## Goku

the expert :sodone


----------



## Reaper

That shirt :lol 

I like it. Shows a lot of alpha self-confidence :woo


----------



## Jay Valero

That kid is going to be an insufferable twat if he isn't already.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874101704685346816
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE EXPERT HAS ARRIVED. :sodone


with space computer wizard barron's move into the white house, chinese hacking of the US government has halted instantaneously

the DNC is still wide open to anyone who can compose a semi-literate phishing email tho


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

CamillePunk said:


> THE EXPERT HAS ARRIVED. :sodone


Goddamn fidget spinners! I hate those goddamn things! Only teachers will understand this.


----------



## Reaper

Crony Capitalism at its finest (and the REAL reason why FElon Musk was so "upset" over America leaving the climate accords: 



> *It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode*
> 
> According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Bloomberg writes, and as Elon Musk knows all too well, the results confirm that "clean-energy vehicles aren’t attractive enough to compete without some form of taxpayer-backed subsidy."
> 
> The Denmark case study is emblematic of where the tech/cost curve for clean energy vehicles currently stands, and why for "green" pioneers the continued generosity of governments around the globe is of absolutely critical importance, and also why Trump's recent withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty is nothing short of a business model death threat.
> 
> To be sure, Denmark's infatuation with green cars is well-known: the country's bicycle-loving people bought 5,298 of them in 2015, more than double the amount sold that year in Italy, which has a population more than 10 times the size of Denmark's. However, those phenomenal sales figures had as much to do with price and convenience as with environmental concerns: electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
> 
> Then, in the fall of 2015, everything changed: that's when the government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced the progressive phasing out of tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field. In retrospect the "leveling" effectively nuked the market: the chart below shows the total collapse in sales following the elimination of subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: the company, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with CEO Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit. It wasn't clear if the warning was targeting the government, the people of Denmark, or his own bank account and shareholders, but he was absolutely correct: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units.
> 
> The new tax regime "completely killed the market," Laerke Flader, head of the Danish Electric Car Alliance, told Bloomberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punchline: "price really matters." And, by extension, taxpayer subsidies.
> 
> "It’s no secret electrical vehicle sales have been below what we expected a year and a half ago," Tax Minister Karsten Lauritzen said in a statement. "The agreed phase-in has turned out to be hard and that likely halted sales."
> 
> The new rules mean the transition to a post-subsidy era has been postponed until at least 5,000 new electric cars are sold over the 2016-2018 period. Tax breaks will in any case be progressively eliminated as of 2019, regardless of sales numbers. The plan envisages a 40 percent registration tax minus a 10,000 kroner ($1,500) deduction in 2019, with the tax rising to 65 percent in 2021, 90 percent in 2021 and 100 percent in 2022.
> 
> What happened next is probably obvious. As Bloomberg explains, while the government’s original plans anticipated to phase out tax breaks from 2016 to 2020, when they would be treated in the same way as fossil fuel-powered cars, on April 18, having taken note of the drop in sales, the government decided to change the rules.
> 
> It was unclear if Musk lobbying was behind the parial U-turn, however any hopes for a prompt rebound in sales appear to have been chilled by the Danish government's decision which has "caused confusion, prompting many potential customers to either postpone or desist from their purchases." Meanwhile in generous next door neighbor, Sweden, sales of low or zero emission cars continue to boom thanks to a wide range of subsidies, including a five-year tax break and a 40,000 kronor ($4,600) purchase premium.
> 
> According to Flader of the Danish Electric Car Alliance, the Danish electric car industry "doesn't want to invest in a market that may not be there next year. They'd rather invest where conditions are better and predictable long-term." And that means lots and lots of guaranteed taxpayer subsidies. While Flader anticipates a rebound in sales as soon as dealerships are allowed to advertise tax-free prices again, this time the country's raging enthusiasm for all things "green" may be far more muted.
> 
> As for Tesla, and its all time high price, what the Danish case study showed just how much of that market cap, which on Friday surpassed BMW, is thanks to government generosity. Take the subsidies away, and sales crash by over 90%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the rest of the world follow in Denmark's example, the same thing would happen to Tesla's market cap, which at last check amount to just over $800,000 per car sold.


One of the greatest financial bastardizations of the modern era is this idea of taking people's money and putting it into something they would not spend it on and pretending that it's now "cheaper" or "free" thereby "encouraging" to become consumers of something they would not buy or at least force the price to be set at real levels which could be even lower in a free market scenario. 

No one actually benefits from this - least of all the very people who buy a product thinking it's "cheap" without realizing that the real reason it's cheap or "free" is because they've already paid for it :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

I wouldn't care, I get 'free' healthcare but I actually paid for it. Couldn't care less if I got a cheaper car after paying a bit for it already.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> I wouldn't care, I get 'free' healthcare but I actually paid for it. Couldn't care less if I got a cheaper car after paying a bit for it already.


You could at least be consistent in rationalizing greed...


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Delta Airlines, Bank of America End Sponsorship Of Trump Assassination Play — Many Companies Stand Firm*
> 
> Every night, between May 23 and June 18, The Public Theater proudly presents a Shakespeare In the Park production of Julius Caesar, which depicts the ghoulish and bloody assassination of President Donald J. Trump. Yes, that is correct, in a world where an obscure rodeo clown is personally and professionally destroyed for wearing an Obama mask, every night in New York's Central Park, this happens …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it happens in large part thanks to corporate sponsorship.
> 
> No joke, some of America's largest corporations fund the nightly assassination of the American president. In a couple of instances, I should use the past tense "funded," because in apparent disgust over having no idea that this production of Julius Caesar was really a production of Death Wish for Sore Loser Progressives, Bank of America and Delta Airlines have finally announced the end of their sponsorship:
> 
> And it happens in large part thanks to corporate sponsorship.
> 
> No joke, some of America's largest corporations fund the nightly assassination of the American president. In a couple of instances, I should use the past tense "funded," because in apparent disgust over having no idea that this production of Julius Caesar was really a production of Death Wish for Sore Loser Progressives, Bank of America and Delta Airlines have finally announced the end of their sponsorship:
> 
> And yet, days and days and days after the news publicly broke about the objectively despicable contents of this production, a whole lot of corporate sponsors are standing firm, this includes Time-Warner (parent company of CNN), New York Magazine, and, well, look for yourself:


http://www.dailywire.com/news/17416...utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#

What in the actual fuck is going on?


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://rare.us/rare-news/a-source-c...r&tse_id=INF_6348e3b04f8711e7914c7bbd6ac2df54

A guest claims they caught a White House leaker in the act at a party — and the suspect is a familiar face

A guest at a party on the night of Friday, June 9, claims to have seen and heard White House Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway spilling information to members of the press, including reporters for the Washington Post.

RELATED: President Trump speaks out after allegations that he leaked classified intel to the Russians light up Washington D.C.

That person, who has not given their name, created a Twitter account to share what they saw and heard.





She also reportedly told stories about other White House staffers, including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus (“He should just be honest: ‘I’m upset because there’s someone working on a story who pronounces it RAYNSE instead of REINCE'”); White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short (“Honestly, what the fuck does Marc Short do all day?”); and another unnamed staffer who reportedly “says ‘dude’ a lot.”




The unnamed party guest writes that Conway was likely talking to Washington Post reporters “off-the-record,” meaning that if the details of the conversation were reported, her name would not be used.

AD BY HULU
Bustle Review: Learn Why 'Harlots' Is The Punk, Feminist Costume Drama Of Your Dreams
Watch Harlots only on Hulu. Start your free trial today.


“If 45 [Trump, who is the 45th president] wonders who the leakers are,” they close:


----------



## Warlock

^ would be pretty big news if true. Though I am finding it harder and harder to believe anyone who is fully anonymous(ie - even the news people don't know who it is) reporting on stuff they saw/heard. Filing this under fake news until its substantiated in any way.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> You could at least be consistent in rationalizing greed...


That makes zero sense, I'm willing to pay for something but I'm greedy, okay.
:aries2


----------



## Mra22

Gas is the lowest it's been at this time of the year since 2005. You can thank Trump. MAGA


----------



## virus21

> The President may not be anticipating a full moon for his state visit to the UK, but he may get one anyway. A few, actually.
> 
> Donald Trump is scheduled to make a state visit to Britain later this year, but preparations are already underway for a massive campaign designed to embarrass the American President by inundating him with naked rear ends everywhere he goes.
> 
> “Show your rump to Trump,” was born on social media, but the idea has quickly caught on.
> 
> 
> 
> Word spread quickly, and soon, dropping your pants to reveal your bare bottom to President Trump was not simply fun extracurricular activity, but a patriotic duty.
> 
> 
> 
> Londonites are especially angry at Trump this week, after he picked a fight with London Mayor Sadiq Khan in the wake of last week’s London terror attacks. The two politicians snarked back and forth for days, leading some Londoners (including the mayor himself) to call upon their national government to rescind Trump’s invitation.
> 
> The UK’s national government is unlikely to make such a bold political statement. So London’s residents may make one of their own.
> 
> Weirdly, this is not the first time Trump has encountered a wave of bare bottoms in protest of his policies. The unsuspecting residents of Chicago’s Trump Tower got an eyeful in March, when the local anti-Trump resistance orchestrated a “mass mooning” of the luxury hotel and condo building to promote awareness of Trump’s “dangerous agenda.”
> 
> 
> CHICAGO, IL – FEBRUARY 12: (EDITORS NOTE: Image contains nudity.) Activists pull down their pants and moon Trump Tower on February 12, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois. The event was staged to protest the policies of President Donald Trump and to demand that he release his tax information. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
> Trump was, oddly, unfazed—but he was also absent. Unlike Chicago’s, London’s mass mooning is being configured for maximum impact.


Do these idiots ever think that king of crap ever actually does anything?


----------



## Beatles123

^ If there's one thing the Libs across the pond know how to do, its showing their ass! :booklel


----------



## MrMister

UK media is run by homosexual men so of course they want guys getting their asses out. Kinda srs and kinda serious here.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Well this is officially the weirdest bit of news I've ever read.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Jeff Sessions is requesting that congress undo medical marijuana protections so he can prosecute distributors in medically legal states. Did a pot plant fuck his mom and beat the shit out of his dad when he was a kid?


















That part in there about the rising drug epidemic is such bullshit. OPIATES motherfucker, is that term familiar at all? Also, if it weren't for people like you making it hard, there would be more legitimate legal marijuana growers in the market instead of criminal organizations.


----------



## MrMister

Iconoclast said:


> Well this is officially the weirdest bit of news I've ever read.


It is weird, but also seems exactly what should happen given how weird NK is.

Dennis Rodman is Kim Jong Un's buddy. He's been there before and Dennis said he befriended the NK dictator. It would be 100% par for this timeline if Rodman is instrumental in NK chilling the fuck out.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Tater @Iconoclast






Incredibly important video to watch.

Every country needs a Rand Paul in it's political makeup.


----------



## Reaper

Apparently, the North Koreans did something to the college student as they released him while he's still in a coma and apparently has been on something that has had him in a coma for a year. At least that's what they're saying.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Iconoclast said:


> Apparently, the North Koreans did something to the college student as they released him while he's still in a coma and apparently has been on something that has had him in a coma for a year. At least that's what they're saying.


CNN



> In that meeting about a week ago, Yun was told that Warmbier had contracted botulism a year ago and went into a coma after taking a sleeping pill. US officials then urged those with the ability to persuade Pyongyang to ratchet up the pressure to get him released, said the source, who is familiar with the government's efforts.
> 
> A second senior State Department official said the US has not yet accepted the North Korean version of events in terms of the timing and cause of how Otto went into a coma.
> 
> "All we know so far is what they have told us," the official said. "This is the North Korean version of events. We won't know anything for sure until doctors are able to fully evaluate Otto's condition."


Wouldn't believe anything NK said about his coma.


----------



## Reaper

> THE MISLEADING NARRATIVE: Kansas repealed tax cuts passed by a deeply conservative governor! This proves trickle-down economics don't work!
> 
> THE REALITY: Kansas is - and has been - doing fairly well.
> 
> First, note that "trickle-down economics" isn't an actual philosophy found within the economics discipline but merely a political pejorative used within punditry. Next, let's review the situation in Kansas.
> 
> From an economic perspective, Kansas has been doing fairly well, and continued to do so after implementing tax cuts. One of the key economic indicators to consider is the unemployment rate.
> 
> In December 2010, Kansas had an average unemployment rate of 6.8%. [a] In December 2014, after the 2012-13 Brownback tax cuts were passed, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. * As of April 2017, the state's unemployment rate is 3.7%. [c]
> 
> Per the Federal Reserve, the natural unemployment rate ranges from about 4.5 to 6%. [d] As we've noted, Kansas has generally stayed in or around this area. So the fact that they've fallen below 4.5% means they're out performing ordinary expectations.
> 
> Next, examine new business formations. As of 2016, every year since the implementation of the tax cuts, Kansas has surpassed the state record. This is especially noteworthy given that this rate - on a national level - has declined since the 2008 recession. Kansas has bucked the trend. [e]
> 
> Despite the fact that Kansas has performed well, critics of the Kansas model are correct on a key point: the state passed tax cuts, mistakenly expecting the cuts to pay for themselves. They failed to broaden the tax base and compensate by eliminating deductions and such. While true that tax cuts can counterintuitively INCREASE revenue by incentivizing economic growth, this is not always the case. It depends if the additional economic transactions add enough to offset the rate reductions. That being the case, tax cuts don't necessarily offset budget deficits if governments fail to tame expenditures. Kansas attempted to cut spending to adjust for the revenue loss, but they didn't cut enough. This does not mean they "failed." The primary goal of tax reduction is to spur economic growth by reducing the burden on consumers and/or entrepreneurs. Hoping tax cuts ALSO accompany a balanced budget is merely a secondary goal which may or may not happen, but is often dependent on spending circumstances. The fact remains, the Kansas economy improved. The cuts, therefore, accomplished their primary objective.
> 
> Left wing critics are utilizing Kansas' budget deficit to argue for tax increases or against tax cuts, but economic research still suggests they're wrong to do so. For example, economists David and Christina Romer conducted research showing that a tax increase of 1% reduces GDP by approximately 3%. [f] Additionally, research by Mertens and Ravn found that higher income/corporate taxes reduce economic growth and increase unemployment. [g] Put into action in the Reagan administration, statistics from the St. Louis Fed confirm that the civilian employment-to-population ratio increased dramatically after the Reagan tax cuts, meaning a wider availability of jobs. [h]
> 
> For a more recent example, we can look at the state of North Carolina. North Carolina's policy was to cut corporate and personal income taxes while eliminating deductions and other exemptions. They also broadened the sales tax base by removing exemptions. In addition, the state also kept a tight rein on spending, maintained its status as a right-to-work state, and worked to decrease the regulatory burden on business. The results were quite positive. GDP growth from 2013 to 2015 was No.1 in the country and the state was projected to add 90,000 jobs in 2016.  In addition, despite some similar sounding claims about tax cuts, North Carolina defied the expectations, as the state took in a $445 million surplus in fiscal year ending 2015. [j]. In year ending 2016, that number was $430 million, and $552 million in year ending 2017. [k] [l]
> 
> To be fair, economists have cautioned against attributing the entirety of the state's positive growth to the policies of former Governor Pat McCrory and the legislature, but North Carolina never-the-less serves as a modern example, especially when examined in light of the previously mentioned studies, that tax cuts can be done without accompanying negatives.
> 
> In conclusion, the Kansas tax cuts were not the wasteland-causing policies its detractors claim, and the state continued to do fairly well economically. While one can acknowledge that the tax cuts should have been passed with fiscal prudence in mind, Kansas is NOT "proof" that conservative policies are ineffective. *


*

Source*


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told senators on Tuesday that the Palestinian Authority has changed its policy and intends to stop paying the families of terrorists jailed for attacking or killing Israelis.
> 
> Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
> and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP!
> 
> “They have changed that policy and their intent is to cease the payments to the families of those who have committed murder or violence against others,” Tillerson said. “We have been very clear with them that this [practice of paying terrorists] is simply not acceptable to us.”
> 
> Tillerson’s comments were made during a public hearing on Capitol Hill with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the US State Department’s budget. US President Donald Trump has proposed cutting the State Department funding levels by 28.7 percent.
> 
> Asked about US foreign policy going forward, specifically pertaining to the Palestinian Authority’s policy of paying terrorists, Tillerson said that both he and Trump discussed the issue with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during their recent meetings in Washington and Bethlehem.
> 
> “The president raised it, and I had a bilateral meeting with [Abbas] later and I told him: You absolutely have to stop this,” Tillerson said.
> 
> When Trump met with Abbas in Washington on May 3, the White House said the US president brought up the issue with the Palestinian leader.
> 
> US President Donald Trump, left, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas shake hands during a joint press conference at the presidential palace in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on May 23, 2017. (AFP/MANDEL NGAN)
> US President Donald Trump, left, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas shake hands during a joint press conference at the presidential palace in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on May 23, 2017. (AFP/MANDEL NGAN)
> 
> “President Trump raised his concerns about payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have committed terrorist acts, and to their families, and emphasized the need to resolve this issue,” the White House said at the time.
> 
> Many GOP leaders on Capitol Hill urged the US president to push Abbas on this practice before that meeting.
> 
> Trump met a second time with Abbas, in Bethlehem, on May 23, and told him: “Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded or rewarded.”
> 
> In February, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) introduced the Taylor Force Act, which would cut US funding to the Palestinian Authority if it continues to provide monetary support to the families of those who commit acts of terror against Israelis and others.
> 
> The legislation is named after former US army officer Taylor Force, who was stabbed to death in March 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Tel Aviv. Force was a graduate student at Vanderbilt University and was traveling with other students on a program studying global entrepreneurship.
> 
> Since then, Republicans have voiced strong desire to see that policy changed in Ramallah.
> 
> The PA has paid out some NIS 4 billion — or $1.12 billion — over the past four years to terrorists and their families, a former director general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and ex-head of the army’s intelligence and research division told a top Knesset panel late last month.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/tillerson-pa-has-changed-policy-on-paying-terrorists-families/



> A restructuring is set to take place in the White House briefing room. The Gateway Pundit has recently learned from someone with very close ties to the Administration that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is slated to take over for current White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Our exclusive source declined a further request for additional information regarding Sean Spicer’s future role in the White House Administration.
> 
> The staffing change is purported to have come directly from Sean Spicer who notified our source of the shift.
> 
> Sarah Huckabee Sanders, daughter of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, will be taking over for current White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, a source close to Spicer confirmed to the Gateway Pundit recently.
> 
> Spicer, a Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve, is reported to be up for a promotion to a different communications role within the White House once Sanders fills his slot. The change in roles for Spicer comes at a time when internal leaks have reached a peak.
> 
> Sarah Sanders is an apropos pick for the Trump administration to fill the role of Press Secretary given her tact and ability to remain calm under pressure.
> 
> Sanders also covered the firing of James Comey during a press briefing, which you can watch a full video of below:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/exclusive-breaking-report-sarah-huckabee-sanders-replace-sean-spicer-wh-press-secretary/



> Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation Monday to classify presidential social media posts — including President Trump's much-discussed tweets — as presidential records.
> 
> The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, which has the same acronym as an infamous Trump Twitter typo last month, would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media."
> 
> Presidential records must be preserved, according to the Presidential Records Act, which would make it potentially illegal for the president to delete tweets.
> 
> "President Trump’s frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented. If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference. Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post," said Quigley in a statement.
> Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally.
> 
> "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
> 
> In January, National Archives spokesperson Miriam Kleiman told the Associated Press that social media posts would qualify as presidential records, but that statement is not explicitly spelled out in the law.
> 
> The White House, Trump surrogates and GOP congressmen have issued differing opinions on how seriously the president's tweets should be taken. But the White House recently clarified that social media should be taken as official communication from the president.
> 
> Last week, Spicer confirmed they should be taken as official presidential statements.
> 
> "The president is president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States,” he said.
> 
> COVFEFE marks Quigley's second use of an acronym to jab at President Trump. His Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness (MAR-A-LAGO) Act would force the president to make the White House visitor logs, as well as the visitor logs at Trump's resorts, public.


http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/337416-covefe-act-would-make-social-media-a-presidential-record


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Fuck North Korea. That American kid has been comatose for fifteen months, supposedly from botulism. Don't believe that and the great statesman, Dennis Rodman, needs to come home.


----------



## DOPA

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/news/economy/puerto-rico-wants-to-file-for-bankruptcy/index.html



> *Puerto Rico has filed for bankruptcy.*
> 
> It's the biggest municipal bankruptcy filing ever in the US. Puerto Rico currently owes its creditors a whopping $70 billion, far higher than Detroit's $18 billion bankruptcy in 2013.
> "Given the deficit that we have inherited, it is my responsibility to guarantee the best interests of the Puerto Rican people," Governor Ricardo Rosselló said Wednesday.
> Bankruptcy won't be an easy process. A judge still has to approve it. Many prominent Wall Street firms own Puerto Rico's bonds. They are angry about the bankruptcy filing because they fear now they won't get paid back all the money they are owed.
> 
> Puerto Rico's situation is ugly. The island has been in an economic recession for about a decade and the unemployment rate is 11.5%.
> 
> The island's financial crisis is so bad that Congress installed a Fiscal Oversight Board to call the shots last year. The board stopped trying to negotiate with creditors this week and filed for bankruptcy.
> 
> "Make no mistake: The board has chosen to turn Puerto Rico into the next Argentina," says Andrew Rosenberg, a lawyer at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, who is advising some of Puerto Rico's bondholders.
> Related: Puerto Rico's crisis: How did it get so bad?
> 
> *Trump says no bailout*
> 
> On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said he would not "bail out" Puerto Rico. He repeated that again in a recent tweet.
> Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, said Wednesday that the White House pushed hard to ensure no federal dollars would go toward paying the island's debts in the latest Congressional budget deal.
> 
> People are literally fleeing Puerto Rico to go and live in the mainland US, especially Florida. The island's population has declined by 350,000 in the past 10 years. Even worse, CNNMoney found that a doctor a day has left Puerto Rico, causing a severe shortage of medical help as the island was fighting the Zika crisis.
> As businesses and people say goodbye to Puerto Rico, there's even less money to pay back creditors. The island's latest budget plan includes only $800 million a year to pay back creditors. That's a mere 20% of what the island had been paying creditors in the past.
> 
> The bankruptcy process is a "positive step," says Ted Hampton, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service.
> "Although a court proceeding will take considerable time and likely involve losses for all Puerto Rico bondholders, it will be an orderly process," Hampton says.
> Last year, Congress approved a bill called PROMESA (Spanish for "promise") to try to help Puerto Rico. It created the oversight board and a special Title III process that is similar to the Chapter 9 bankruptcy provision that cities like Detroit have used in the past. Chapter 9 isn't an option for Puerto Rico since it is a US territory.


Damn, I knew Puerto Rico's situation was bad but not like this. $70 Billion?! And now they want the Federal government to bail them out for their fiscal irresponsibility.

I feel sorry for the people who live there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Iconoclast said:


> Source


https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...omic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds




























Here's a brief economic history of the last quarter-century in taxes and growth.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.

Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.

But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth.

That was the conclusion from David Leonhardt's new column today for The New York Times, and it was precisely the finding of a new study from the Congressional Research Service, "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945." 

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.

Here are two graphs of the top 0.1% and 0.01%. The first shows average tax rates since 1945 -- down, down, down. The second shows share of total income since 1945 -- up, up, up.

Screen Shot 2012-09-16 at 11.14.55 AM.png

Screen Shot 2012-09-16 at 11.12.11 AM.png

In short, the study found that top tax rates don't appear to determine the size of the economic pie but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households.

The paper is a good reminder to be humble about taxes as a tool for growing the economy. They remain, above all, a tool for collecting revenue and tweaking incentives for specific economic behavior. Congress has cut tax rates repeatedly over the last 60 years, while the country and the global economy have undergone considerable changes that probably had a greater effect on growth. For years after World War II, the U.S. was a singular economic powerhouse with an enormous manufacturing base that employed nearly 40% of the economy. For the last decade-plus, the economy has grown at a considerably slower pace and the gains have accrued to a smaller and more elite share of the economy.



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-17/tax-cuts-don-t-work-the-way-free-marketers-expect


Tax Cuts Don't Work the Way Free Marketers Expect
Lower rates do more to stimulate growth when given to the poor and middle class than to the rich.


Economists who lean toward the free-market side of the ideological spectrum often say that tax cuts help the U.S. economy by encouraging people to work more. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist who earns a very high income from his famous textbooks, has repeatedly claimed that higher taxes will discourage him from working more. The supposed mechanism is simple -- tax cuts raise the amount of money you receive for an hour of labor, making people want to put in more hours.

Others are more skeptical. They point out that the top marginal federal income tax rate has fallen from more than 90 percent in the 1950s and ’60s to less than 40 percent today, but instead of rising, the hours worked by employed people has actually fallen:

Less Time in the Salt Mines
Average annual number of hours worked per person*

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
* Data series discontinued
Of course, it might have fallen even more if tax cuts hadn’t encouraged people to keep working. But careful research by economists has shown that taxes tend to have little effect on labor supply. One reason is that as taxes go down, people feel wealthier, and so don’t feel as much pressure to work. By the same token, when taxes go up, people feel they need to put in more hours to make ends meet. These are what economists call income effects. A second reason taxes might have little impact is that most people don’t get to choose how many hours they work -- their boss chooses for them.

So it looks as if Mankiw and others exaggerate the effects of tax cuts. But new research is finding that there’s a big, important exception. When taxes go down for the poor, they really do work more.

A recent paper by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business professor Owen Zidar demonstrates the differences between cutting taxes for the well-off and cutting them for those of modest means. He writes:

Tax cuts that go to high-income taxpayers generate less growth than…cuts for low and moderate income taxpayers. In fact, the positive [overall] relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and the effect of tax cuts for the top 10%...is small.

Zidar looked at what happened to different states when federal taxes went up or down. Some states, such as Connecticut, have a lot of rich people, while others, like Mississippi, have a lot of poor people. Also, some federal tax cuts are weighted more toward the poor than others. Zidar found that tax cuts boosted employment in poorer states more than in richer ones, and the effect on those states was greater when those tax cuts favored the poor more.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.
Share the View
Sign Up
Why do tax cuts for the poor help more than cuts for the rich? One reason is that rich people just aren’t that likely to change how much they work in response to changes in tax rates. Most high earners receive a salary rather than getting paid by the hour, so they can’t adjust how much they work. Nor are most executives, doctors, lawyers and financiers going to quit working because taxes went up. On top of that, it’s possible that many top earners work because they like it, or because work itself brings them status, or because they need to maintain a wealthy lifestyle for social reasons. Middle-class people, on the other hand, are more likely to work because they need to buy things for their families -- tax cuts help them buy more necessities per hour worked, giving them reason to work more. And for poor people, a tax cut might make the difference in their decision whether to get a job or go on welfare, sponge off family or sell drugs.

A second reason is that tax cuts have an effect on aggregate demand. Rich people save most of their money, so when you cut their taxes they tend to stick the extra money in the bank. But if you give poor or middle-class people a tax cut, they tend to go out and spend it, which increases demand via a multiplier effect. That tends to raise employment.

So if you want to boost the economy through tax cuts, give them to the middle class and the poor rather than the rich. That raises an interesting question -- how do you cut taxes for the poor? Low earners pay little if any income tax, but they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes.

A large portion of payroll taxes in the U.S. go to pay for Medicare. The U.S. could cut payroll taxes and shift Medicare funding toward income taxes. At the state level, shifting from sales taxes to income taxes could have similar effects.

Another way to cut taxes for the poor is to raise the level at which welfare benefits are phased out, or make phase-outs more gradual. When benefits disappear as income rises, it acts like a tax, because it effectively takes away some of each additional dollar earned. Raising the income cap for government benefits, or making the benefits disappear more slowly, acts like a tax cut for the poor.

Higher earners certainly are not going to like the idea of shifting more of the tax burden onto their shoulders. But it’s probably good for the economy, and for keeping the working class working.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

virus21 said:


>


There was great tension and conflict between the Party apparatchiks and the Red Guards too.

It's a characteristic of Marxism, the never-ending internecine struggle to be on top by proclaiming one's self and one's friends and allies to be the true followers of true Marxism and one's rivals and enemies to be deviationists and wreckers.


----------



## El Dandy

Happy Birthday to God Emperor
:hb:dance:cheer:woo:cheer:dance:hb​


----------



## MrMister

You mean hillary actually tweeted a picture of herself saying Happy Birthday to herself while also claiming victory?

:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

MrMister said:


> You mean hillary actually tweeted a picture of herself saying Happy Birthday to herself while also claiming victory?
> 
> :lmao







https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15753510/kansas-brownback-tax-reform



> Republican lawmakers in Kansas put an end to the state’s failed tax reform experiment on Tuesday, overriding the governor’s veto after three attempts to pass a tax-hiking bill this year.
> 
> The new law raises income and business taxes closer to pre-reform levels — a move Republicans had been resisting for years. But pressure had been mounting to do something. The drastic tax cuts enacted five years ago left the state in a fiscal mess, unable to balance its budget and properly fund its public schools.
> 
> Gov. Sam Brownback’s signature tax reform closely mirrors the tax plan that President Donald Trump is trying to get through Congress. In fact, they were designed by the same supply-side economists.
> 
> While the new Kansas law doesn’t roll back all the elements of the tax plan, it eliminates most of them, including the most controversial one: the zero tax rate for owner-operated businesses. The change was intended to spur business investment and expansion, but instead,* it created massive tax avoidance*, according to researchers.





> How did this happen? According to economists, one major factor was that Brownback’s plan eliminated taxes on owner-operated businesses, known as pass-throughs. Brownback promised this would kick-start economic growth by encouraging business owners to reinvest the extra money and expand their businesses.
> 
> Instead — according to new research from economists at the University of South Carolina, Indiana University, and the US Treasury Department — it led to serious tax avoidance.
> 
> The researchers analyzed federal tax returns for more than 1 million taxpayers in Kansas and four bordering states — Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska — in the two years before the tax reform went into effect in 2013, and two years after.
> 
> If Brownback’s theory had been right, the tax returns would have shown that business in Kansas was booming.
> 
> “The initial expectation was that lowering the tax rate would increase business activity,” says Jason DeBacker, an economics professor at the University of South Carolina and the lead author of the study. “You might see people earning more income or businesses expanding in employment or investment. But there was little or nothing of that going on.”
> 
> The analysis showed that while reported business income did go up, it was mostly from people who previously earned wages from an employer (in a W-2 tax form), and later reported earnings from the same employer as contract business income (in a 1099 tax form).
> 
> In other words, people were gaming a particular aspect of the new system. Owner-operated businesses are treated differently by the tax code than other businesses. Instead of the business paying corporate taxes on the profits, the owners pay individual income taxes on them. (Income you make as profit from a business you own is known as “pass-through income.”)
> 
> But Brownback got rid of the tax on pass-through income. *So there was suddenly a big incentive for people to find a way to reclassify their income as business income. If you were an engineer working for a company, you’d pay individual income taxes on the money you made. But if you were a self-employed freelance engineer — a one-person business — who contracted with the company instead, you’d pay zero income taxes.
> 
> And that’s exactly what happened. Businesses did not expand and invest more as a result of the tax savings, the report says, though it was linked to a slight increase in wages. Instead, the research suggests it just led to widespread tax avoidance. People found ways to get paid for the same jobs they were already doing but paid much less in taxes.*
> 
> The consequences were big. Economists believe tax avoidance was responsible for about 1.7 percentage points of the 8 percent drop in revenue for the state the year after the reform was enacted.


I personally believe lower taxes is better, but Kansas failed not because the tax cuts weren't higher or expenditures weren't cut or tax cuts is bad inherently, but the policy makers' failure to anticipate people gaming the system that resulted in the huge deficit. Well maybe there won't be a deficit if they went all-in crazy and allow the slightly higher wages to offset all the benefits the state provides in a GOP utopia. :shrug


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

El Dandy said:


> Happy Birthday to God Emperor
> :hb:dance:cheer:woo:cheer:dance:hb​












Same goes for this nugget:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796542313786998785
WEW LAD :done


----------



## amhlilhaus

2 Ton 21 said:


> Jeff Sessions is requesting that congress undo medical marijuana protections so he can prosecute distributors in medically legal states. Did a pot plant fuck his mom and beat the shit out of his dad when he was a kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That part in there about the rising drug epidemic is such bullshit. OPIATES motherfucker, is that term familiar at all? Also, if it weren't for people like you making it hard, there would be more legitimate legal marijuana growers in the market instead of criminal organizations.


I usually agree with sessions, but hes wrong here. Marijuana isnt the problem. In ohio, its heroin laced with ELEPHANT TRANQUILIZER thats the problem.


----------



## amhlilhaus

El Dandy said:


> Happy Birthday to God Emperor
> :hb:dance:cheer:woo:cheer:dance:hb​



whats the story with this? Last year, this year?

Either way, lol


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874840739041214464


----------



## Art Vandaley

> President Trump has given the Pentagon new authority to decide the troop levels in Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Tuesday. The move could lead to a deployment of thousands more troops as commanders decide the way forward in the 15-year-old war.
> 
> The U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly, said the move is similar to the April decision that gave the Pentagon more authority to set troop levels in Iraq and Syria. The change, the Pentagon said, was so units could deploy at their proper strength to better maintain unit cohesion.
> 
> With the new authority, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis could authorize deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan, something commanders on the ground have been requesting for months. Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and his direct superior, U.S. Central Command head Gen. Joseph Votel, have both made cases for sending a “few thousand” more troops. If sent, the forces would help the fledgling Afghan military regain portions of the country that have fallen to the Taliban since U.S. forces ended their combat mission there in 2014.
> 
> 
> The decision from the White House comes the same day Mattis told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee that “we are not winning” in Afghanistan. Mattis said the Taliban was surging throughout the country and that he planned to present lawmakers with a strategy for the United States’ longest-running war by mid-July.
> 
> Incensed, the chairman of the committee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said Congress couldn’t pass a budget without a strategy.
> 
> “We can’t keep going like this,” McCain said. “We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don’t lose. That hasn’t worked.”
> *
> When asked what “winning looks like,” Mattis replied that it would mean a long-term U.S. presence and Afghan security forces that were capable enough to control violence at local levels.*
> 
> “It’s going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it’s going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we’re to get it to that position,” Mattis said.
> 
> In the short term, Mattis and the chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., said additional U.S. troops sent to the country would provide more fire and air support to the Afghans. Airstrikes and artillery, they reasoned, would give the Afghan forces breathing room to build a more effective force.
> 
> In the first eight months of 2016, Afghan forces suffered 15,000 casualties, including more than 5,000 killed. Recruiting efforts have barely been able to keep the Afghan security forces from maintaining their current ranks, let alone growing to a size large and capable enough to project security in the country.
> 
> 
> The Taliban “had a good year last year,” Mattis said.
> 
> With an air force that is in its infancy and corruption rampant in the ranks, some experts think it could take years for the Afghan forces to mature enough to lessen the U.S. role in the country.
> 
> There are about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and about 5,000 additional NATO forces in the country. The U.S. contingent is split between conducting counterterrorism operations alongside Afghan commandos and providing assistance to the Afghan military.
> 
> More than 2,000 U.S. troops have died there since the war began in 2001. Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed, as well. More than 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed in 2016, making it the deadliest year for civilians in the country since the U.N. mission there began tracking casualty numbers in 2009.
> 
> On Saturday, three U.S. soldiers were killed in an apparent insider attack in Afghanistan’s restive east where U.S. Special Operations forces are battling the Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate.


Source is the Washington Post.


----------



## Reaper

Apparently a 66 year old Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican congressman's baseball practice. 

From his facebook page. 



















Well, considering how noramlized violence and abuse has been by the press and amongst the leftists, someone was bound to be driven to indulge in a mass shooting.


----------



## samizayn

I wish it was illegal to post these people's names.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> I wish it was illegal to post these people's names.


I wish it was illegal to cover up the faces of terror.

Also, that's what you're worried about after a politically motivated mass shooting?


----------



## samizayn

Iconoclast said:


> I wish it was illegal to cover up the faces of terror.
> 
> Also, that's what you're worried about after a politically motivated mass shooting?


It's probably unfortunate that I'm not surprised at all, but yeah. I just don't believe terrorists deserve the glory or the platform for whatever their motive is. There were what, 5 people shot in this incident and the first name I learned was the important republican that got shot in the hip. Then the gunman's. Still don't know who else was shot, and I doubt they will be mentioned. Yet the headlines are screaming the gunman's name, but to what end?


----------



## Jay Valero

The left finally snapped.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> It's probably unfortunate that I'm not surprised at all, but yeah. I just don't believe terrorists deserve the glory or the platform for whatever their motive is. There were what, 5 people shot in this incident and the first name I learned was the important republican that got shot in the hip. Then the gunman's. Still don't know who else was shot, and I doubt they will be mentioned. Yet the headlines are screaming the gunman's name, but to what end?


Well, this is highly sheltered view based on not realizing what it takes to be a journalist reporting on the events. You report on what you know and the shooter's identity is always put out by the law enforcement themselves so the media reports what they find out. 

As a former journalist you have to get out the news that is most readily available to you. The victims are not easily identifiable nor accessible and some victims prefer privacy and they have a greater right to their privacy than the terrorist. 

Not wanting or caring about the killer's motives may be fine for some people. But for you to want to make it illegal to identify a criminal is kind of batshit and unjustifiable. 

I have respect for your views, but be careful how you craft your ideologies on what's legal or illegal here. The legality of a public release of a perpetrator is unquestionable as long as the person is an adult. 

I'm ok with sheltering the identities of _suspects _in crimes. Not those who have been caught red handed in the act. Their identity and motives are fair game to be reported and analysed by anyone who wants to analyse them in any way they wish. It's ok to indulge in a back and forth because that's how we get to the truth. And yes, in this case (like in other cases of right wing terrorism as well) knowing the motive, ideology and societal situation that led to the heinous act is completely fair game to discuss. 

The names of the victims will eventually be released too. But in the chaos it's not readily available. I would know, I've reported on such events.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The shooter is dead as per Trump's statement. Time to dial down the unhinged rhetoric since Trump's election.


----------



## samizayn

Iconoclast said:


> Well, this is highly sheltered view based on not realizing what it takes to be a journalist reporting on the events. You report on what you know and the shooter's identity is always put out by the law enforcement themselves so the media reports what they find out.
> 
> As a former journalist you have to get out the news that is most readily available to you. The victims are not easily identifiable nor accessible and some victims prefer privacy and they have a greater right to their privacy than the terrorist.
> 
> Not wanting or caring about the killer's motives may be fine for some people. But for you to want to make it illegal to identify a criminal is kind of batshit and unjustifiable.
> 
> I have respect for your views, but be careful how you craft your ideologies on what's legal or illegal here. The legality of a public release of a perpetrator is unquestionable as long as the person is an adult.
> 
> I'm ok with sheltering the identities of suspects in crimes. Not those who have been caught red handed in the act. Their identity and motives are fair game.
> 
> The names of the victims will eventually be released too. But in the chaos it's not readily available. I would know, I've reported on such events.


But to what end? That's what I'm trying to get at. I understand the logistics of identifying victims is not going to be as easy and that's fair enough. But what does releasing the name do for anybody except the media?

If it was up to me there would at least be some sort of delay. Transparency is important with cases of govt and law enforcement but I don't know, something has made me find this practice really offputting as of late and I wonder if there's not a better way to handle it. 

It is far more sinister when they withhold this sort of information though so it's probably not something I'd like seeing the implementation of.



THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> The shooter is dead as per Trump's statement. Time to dial down the unhinged rhetoric since Trump's election.


I thought he was in custody.

And that's the thing. There's no dialing anything down. I wonder if it's possible for a country to talk itself into madness.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

samizayn said:


> But to what end? That's what I'm trying to get at. I understand the logistics of identifying victims is not going to be as easy and that's fair enough. But what does releasing the name do for anybody except the media?
> 
> If it was up to me there would at least be some sort of delay. Transparency is important with cases of govt and law enforcement but I don't know, something has made me find this practice really offputting as of late and I wonder if there's not a better way to handle it.
> 
> It is far more sinister when they withhold this sort of information though so it's probably not something I'd like seeing the implementation of.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he was in custody.
> 
> And that's the thing. There's no dialing anything down. I wonder if it's possible for a country to talk itself into madness.



Trump just gave a televised statement confirming the death. Really fortunate that there weren't mass deaths.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> It is far more sinister when they withhold this sort of information though so it's probably not something I'd like seeing the implementation of.


I can see that by the end of your post, you're starting to argue with yourself about your earlier position --- so in the case of our conversation, I'd say that that is part of the objective of these conversations.


----------



## deepelemblues

Waiting for the inevitable :trump shit-tweet deluge

Over/under 24 hours on :trump going bananas on twitter blasting the Democrats and media


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875139542629535744
Macy's taking a nose-dive after they went political.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875139542629535744
> Macy's taking a nose-dive after they went political.


As it should be, but hey, now they can all virtue signal in the board room instead of making money.


----------



## deepelemblues

Businesses need to realize political boycotts are a real thing now and adjust accordingly. Unless you think you can prevail via people on the other political side rallying to support your business like what happened with Chick-Fil-A, the best policy is to keep your head down and not get into the political shit.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Businesses need to realize political boycotts are a real thing now and adjust accordingly. Unless you think you can prevail via people on the other political side rallying to support your business like what happened with Chick-Fil-A, the best policy is to keep your head down and not get into the political shit.


I don't think there was a conscious boycott against Macy's (though it's possible). Macy's political act against Trump may have actually been an attempt to get more liberals into the store and that obviously backfired because liberals are generally poor. Macy's is an upper middle class/upper class outlet from what I've seen. 

Macy's really failed imo because they're outdated and still rely on malls - which are dying across america. 

Though the timing of the pulling Trump stock and decline seems incredibly coincidental ...


----------



## Alco

Iconoclast said:


> I don't think there was a conscious boycott against Macy's (though it's possible). Macy's political act against Trump may have actually been an attempt to get more liberals into the store and that obviously backfired because liberals are generally poor. Macy's is an upper middle class/upper class outlet from what I've seen.
> 
> *Macy's really failed imo because they're outdated and still rely on malls - which are dying across america.*
> 
> Though the timing of the pulling Trump stock and decline seems incredibly coincidental ...


Yeah you have to wonder about cause and effect here and what is the real cause of the drop. Of course, judging from the graphic, they really made a poor decision there.

Though in general it's really silly for companies, especially retailers, to act politically. Why alienate parts of your customer base?


----------



## Reaper

Considering so much is made about "nepotism" in the Trump family, here's some well buried news about nepotism within the Sanders family.

https://heatst.com/politics/former-...dent-accuses-bernie-sanders-wife-of-nepotism/



> *Former Burlington College President Accuses Bernie Sanders’ Wife of Nepotism*
> 
> Just over a year ago, Burlington College announced its closure, undone by “the crushing weight of debt” incurred by its former president, Jane O’Meara Sanders. Now, the college’s final president has spoken out, accusing Sanders of nepotism.
> 
> *From 2009 to 2011—all years when Sanders was Burlington’s president—the college spent more than $500,000 at Vermont Woodworking School. Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ daughter said she co-founded the business in 2007 with a $20,000 loan from Bernie Sanders; she is listed on corporate records as the woodworking school’s president.
> *
> *“This is a sweetheart deal for Carina Driscoll, Jane Sanders,” Carol Moore, the final president of Burlington College, told the news website VTDigger. She added that the woodworking school was financially “gouging the college.”
> *
> A second, unnamed administrator also told VTDigger that “we shouldn’t have been paying this amount of money” for the services provided by Vermont Woodworking School.
> 
> *Under Sanders’ tenure as president, Burlington College had no official written agreement with Vermont Woodworking School, instead operating on a “verbal agreement” that caught the attention of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
> *
> The independent evaluator said that without a written contract, Burlington College risked “conflicts of interest pertaining to the personal relationship between campus leaders,” also raising other concerns.
> 
> After Sanders resigned in 2011, taking with her a $200,000 severance, the struggling college no longer had to detail its business transactions with Vermont Woodworking School on its annual financial disclosures.
> 
> But VTDigger obtained internal documents from Burlington showing that the woodworking school remained among the college’s costliest programs, consuming nearly half of students’ tuition.
> 
> During the 2015-2016 academic year, Vermont Woodworking School received $228,225 from Burlington College, which also paid more than $143,000 to the woodworking program’s faculty.
> 
> And the 2016-2017 draft budget designated $400,000 in expenses related to the woodworking program, roughly 13 percent of Burlington College’s total budget.
> 
> Carina Driscoll
> Driscoll told VTDigger that allegations of nepotism were unfounded, adding that the woodworking school’s official written contract with Burlington College was negotiated after her mother’s resignation.
> 
> Driscoll said that Moore, the college’s last president, brought up Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as Burlington College and Vermont Woodworking School renegotiated their contract. VTDigger said Driscoll felt the mentions amounted to “veiled threats,” adding that other administrators were also discomfited when Moore brought up the campaign.
> 
> *In a November 2015 email regarding the negotiations, Moore told Driscoll: “Knowing your mother’s commitment to the woodworking school as its potential to support the mission and finances of [Burlington College], I am sure the agreement was signed without benefit of working through the specifics of the finances. Given the values expressed by your family, including Senator Sanders, I am confident no one saw the disadvantage at which the agreement put BC.”
> *
> Moore added the longtime agreement “places the college at a distinct financial disadvantage,” adding that “I am sure that was never the intent of [Jane O’Meara] Sanders.”
> 
> *Burlington College announced its closure in May 2016, citing massive debt. Under Sanders’ leadership, the college took out $10 million in loans, which it used to buy 32 acres of property from the Roman Catholic Diocese.
> *
> View of The Old Mill building, prominently located on the University of Vermont campus in Burlington. iStock/Getty Images
> *To secure the financing for the land, Sanders repeatedly claimed in paperwork that the college had more than $2 million in fundraising commitments. But only about one-fifth of that money ever materialized.
> *
> That discrepancy apparently caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which began a probe into “some aspects of the College’s dealings,” according to a 2016 email from a Burlington College lawyer.
> 
> Brady Toensing, the vice chair of the Vermont Republican Party, has urged the federal government to investigate Sanders for federal bank fraud.
> 
> One Burlington College donor who has been interviewed by federal investigators told VTDigger that Sanders mischaracterized her commitment to the university. Two Burlington College staffers also told the publication that the probe involves the diocese property deal and Sanders’ claims in the college’s loan agreement with People’s United Bank.
> 
> Moore told VTDigger that when the FBI interviewed her about the college’s property acquisition, agents did not ask questions about the contract with Driscoll’s woodworking school; Driscoll said the FBI has not contacted her or her staff.
> 
> — Jillian Kay Melchior writes for Heat Street and is a fellow for the Steamboat Institute.


You mean to tell me that a socialist's wife also incurred massive debt that sank a college? Oh wow. I didn't think that real socialist economics worked that way :mj


----------



## Stinger Fan

Iconoclast said:


> Considering so much is made about "nepotism" in the Trump family, here's some well buried news about nepotism within the Sanders family.
> 
> https://heatst.com/politics/former-...dent-accuses-bernie-sanders-wife-of-nepotism/
> 
> 
> 
> You mean to tell me that a socialist's wife also incurred massive debt that sank a college? Oh wow. I didn't think that real socialist economics worked that way :mj


When socialism fails...its not real socialism. You should know this by now!


----------



## Alco

Iconoclast said:


> Considering so much is made about "nepotism" in the Trump family, here's some well buried news about nepotism within the Sanders family.
> 
> https://heatst.com/politics/former-...dent-accuses-bernie-sanders-wife-of-nepotism/
> 
> 
> 
> You mean to tell me that a socialist's wife also incurred massive debt that sank a college? Oh wow. I didn't think that real socialist economics worked that way :mj


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/...atest&contentPlacement=12&pgtype=sectionfront

Nepotism, corruption, socialism. Notice how those words fit perfectly in one and the same sentence. 

To give a little context to the above article : the mayor of Brussels(a socialist) resigned after a scandal broke out that he got exorbitant amounts of money for presiding an organization for the homeless (some may ironically argue he was almost literally stealing from the homeless). He got money for meetings that in some cases never even took place.

Then he appoints the husband of his party's president as his lawyer and this dude is trying everything he can to a) keep him in office and b) bury the scandal. All this while the president herself is calling for "maximum transparency" :lmao

Pressure from the public ultimately gets too high and the mayor resigns. One day later, news breaks that the socialist party's president's daughter also worked in the homeless organization. Insiders talk about a "fictitious job". :lmao

Ah socialists.


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Ah socialists.


Oh yeah. Sanders' family (while being on a failed college + senator income) has a vacation home, a home in DC (where property values are around 750k average) and Bernie and his wife have a combined net worth of approximately max 1.7 million currently in assets alone (which is fine by me, just counter to their politics however) :mj

Also, it's reported that Bernie made 1 million in 2016 and considering approximately only 240k Americans make 1 million bucks in a year putting Bernie The Socialist well within the 1% he wants everyone to hate. 

Yeah. Socialists :aj3

I don't hate capitalists. I personally appreciate them to no end. But people like Bernie are cancerous tumors feasting upon the ignorance of their electorate.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## virus21

> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
> 
> The latest figures for Trump include 30% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. (see trends).
> 
> Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily email update).
> 
> A sizable number of voters, including most Republicans, believe former FBI Director James Comey should be punished for leaking to the media.
> 
> Following Comey’s public testimony before a Senate panel last week, voters tend to believe that President Trump tried to interfere with the Russia probe. But as usual, party affiliation makes a big difference.
> 
> Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters think Congress should investigate whether Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s Attorney General, sought to influence the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s handling of top secret information in her e-mails.
> 
> A gunman with a reported history of posting anti-Trump and anti-Republican messages on social media opened fire on Republican members of Congress during baseball practice yesterday in Virginia. Rasmussen Reports is asking voters whether or not they think the shooting represents a growing trend toward political violence in this country and will release those results tomorrow.
> 
> Trump has placed high importance on bringing back America’s coal jobs, but what do voters think about the industry? Find out at 10:30 EST.
> 
> (More below)
> 
> 20-Jan-17
> 08-Feb-17
> 27-Feb-17
> 16-Mar-17
> 04-Apr-17
> 21-Apr-17
> 10-May-17
> 29-May-17
> 15-Jun-17
> 30%
> 40%
> 50%
> 60%
> 70%
> www.RasmussenReports.com
> Total Approve
> Unemployment has reached a 10-year low, but nonetheless, jobs are still seemingly few and far between for Americans, and they don’t see young people faring much better for summer jobs.
> 
> Optimism among voters that the U.S. economy is fair has soared to new highs.
> 
> Most Americans plan to take a summer vacation this year.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jun15


----------



## deepelemblues

CNN Fake News reporter Fake Jim Acosta tweeted that :trump never actually went to Scalise's room in the hospital and never actually saw him... a few hours later, in a new tweet, Acosta retracted his fake news and reported that :trump actually did go to Scalise's room and saw him.

You know reporters get wrong information all the time, that's nothing new... but what they do now is instead of verifying information they just report it and don't care about doing the necessary work to make sure it's true. Oh I got some new info that makes :trump look bad? GET THAT SHIT OUT RIGHT NOW. Oh, 3 hours later I find out it was not true? Well whatever, sure I'll report that too but I don't care that I never should have put the first item out without verifying it first...


----------



## virus21

> Last week, James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that during his time as FBI director—which ended abruptly on May 9—President Donald Trump was never personally under investigation as part of the FBI’s Russia probe. According to the Washington Post, that has changed. In what the paper calls a “major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation,” Trump is now being investigated for possible obstruction of justice, and has been since “days after” Comey was fired by Trump.
> The investigation—which began as an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s possible involvement in those efforts—is being led by former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, who was named as special counsel overseeing the Russia probe by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about a month ago. According to the Post, Mueller and his team “have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates.”
> Citing five sources, the Post further reports that Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, National Security Agency head Adm. Mike Rogers, and Rogers’ former deputy Richard Ledgett have all “agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week.” The Post previously reported that Trump had called Coats and Rogers and asked them to publicly deny there was any evidence linking the Trump campaign to Russia’s meddling in the election. Both men refused to do so.
> The White House had no response to the news, as it has been referring all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz. Kasowitz’s spokesman, seizing on the most important aspect of this development, told the Post that it was “outrageous, inexcusable, and illegal” that anyone was leaking “information regarding the president.”
> It is not all that surprising to learn that Trump is now under investigation for obstruction, given what we learned from Comey last week about his interactions with the president as well as Trump’s own public admission that “this Russia thing” was on his mind when he made the decision to fire Comey. Nevertheless, the Post story is a blockbuster, if only because it should silence the Trump camp’s long-held insistence that the president has never been personally under investigation for wrongdoing. The story is also significant in that it comes amid reports that Trump has considered trying to fire Mueller, a step his advisers have apparently talked him out of for the time being.


https://archive.fo/KA4zz#selection-425.0-505.1


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

deepelemblues said:


> CNN Fake News reporter Fake Jim Acosta tweeted that :trump never actually went to Scalise's room in the hospital and never actually saw him... a few hours later, in a new tweet, Acosta retracted his fake news and reported that :trump actually did go to Scalise's room and saw him.
> 
> You know reporters get wrong information all the time, that's nothing new... but what they do now is instead of verifying information they just report it and don't care about doing the necessary work to make sure it's true. Oh I got some new info that makes :trump look bad? GET THAT SHIT OUT RIGHT NOW. Oh, 3 hours later I find out it was not true? Well whatever, sure I'll report that too but I don't care that I never should have put the first item out without verifying it first...


That dishonest shitstain is just butthurt that he lost the "real beauty" status that Teflon Don bestowed upon him.

:trump3


----------



## virus21

> Former FBI Director and confirmed leaker James Comey appears to be following the Washington Post reporter who broke the “Russian hacking” story. She also reported Wednesday’s allegation that Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.
> 
> View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
> Follow
> Rep. Steven Smith @RepStevenSmith
> WaPo journalist who broke the DNC "Russian hackers" story and now the #ObstructionOfJustice story is followed on Twitter by Comey's account
> 8:36 PM - 14 Jun 2017
> 1,187 1,187 Retweets 953 953 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> On Wednesday evening, the Washington Post published a story alleging that a special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice — citing unnamed sources. One of four reporters who worked on the story was Ellen Nakashima — whose recent reporting for the publication has a sharp focus on Comey.
> 
> The story claims that “Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.”
> 
> The article relies entirely on leaked information from anonymous sources.
> 
> In March, Comey revealed that he has secret Twitter and Instagram accounts — which he stated both have very few followers.
> 
> Within hours, Gizmodo journalist Ashley Feinberg had tracked down accounts that appeared to belong to Comey — using the name Reinhold Niebuhr.
> 
> When it was discovered by Feinberg, the Twitter account, @projectexile7, was following 27 people, and followed by just one person — Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare, who happens to be a personal friend of Comey. The account did not have any identifying information, and was simply an egg account without a photo.
> 
> Following Gizmodo’s explosive report, the account’s followers boomed to over 7,000 before the account was set to private and locked down from public viewing.
> 
> As Feinberg reported, Comey was following several journalists who were aggressively covering the FBI’s work on the Democrats’ Trump-Russia witch hunt. Among them were the Washington Post’s Nakashima and David Ignatius, as well as Adam Goldman and David Sanger of the New York Times.
> 
> But Nakashima is the one who broke the “Russia hacking” story, and now the new “obstruction of justice” story.
> 
> 
> Facebook
> 
> Nakashima was the one who first reported that “Russian hackers” broke into the Democratic National Committee servers to steal their Trump opposition files, a Twitter user who goes by “@GOPPollAnalyst” noted.
> 
> In the article, Nakashima cited anonymous “US officials” who had informed her that “networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies.”
> 
> “Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump,” Nakashima wrote on June 14, 2016.
> 
> Interestingly, the possible Comey account also liked a tweet from the New York Times about General Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner meeting a Russian envoy. The report cited anonymous “current and former American officials” who claimed that Flynn “had contacts with Mr. Kislyak during the campaign.”
> 
> During Comey’s much anticipated hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former FBI Director admitted to giving his memo about his meeting with the president to a friend so that they could leak the information to the press. He claimed that he did so in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel to investigate links between the administration and Russia.
> 
> In response to Comey’s shocking admission, Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz released a statement saying that the former FBI Director was trying to “undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.”
> 
> We reached out to Nakashima for comment, but did not receive a response by time of publishing.


http://bigleaguepolitics.com/james-comey-follows-reporter-behind-wapos-obstruction-investigation-story-secret-twitter-account/


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> Oh yeah. Sanders' family (while being on a failed college + senator income) has a vacation home, a home in DC (where property values are around 750k average) and Bernie and his wife have a combined net worth of approximately max 1.7 million currently in assets alone (which is fine by me, just counter to their politics however) :mj
> 
> Also, it's reported that Bernie made 1 million in 2016 and considering approximately only 240k Americans make 1 million bucks in a year putting Bernie The Socialist well within the 1% he wants everyone to hate.
> 
> Yeah. Socialists :aj3
> 
> I don't hate capitalists. I personally appreciate them to no end. But people like Bernie are cancerous tumors feasting upon the ignorance of their electorate.


And if socialists get the country, only the party leaders will be rich.

Cause we all got to share in the revolution


----------



## CamillePunk

Stefan Molyneux to Republicans - Play to win or go away:


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


That's right it's all Matt Damon's fault lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

Several shots fired at truck flying ‘Make America Great Again’ flag on I-465

Praying for my fellow centipedes out there during this dark period of violent persecution. :sad:


----------



## virus21

> California Democrat Abuses GAY VOLUNTEERS: “Which One of You A**holes is Gay?” (VIDEO)
> 
> Cristina Laila Jun 15th, 2017 6:07 pm 16 Comments
> 
> Local Orange County, CA Democrat, Jeff LeTourneau was caught on camera verbally abusing gay volunteers on pride weekend.
> 
> LeTourneau accosted gay volunteers saying, “Which one of you a**holes is gay?” Then added, “You are a f***ing disgrace to any gay person I know, you piece of sh*t.”
> 
> 
> Fox News reports:
> 
> The exchange occurred in the parking lot of a Fullerton, Calif., Walmart where LeTourneau, a Vice-Chair with the Democratic Party of Orange County who is gay, discovered that gay volunteers were helping a grassroots group collect signatures to unseat Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman. The effort is in response to a gas tax hike that recently passed the Legislature along party lines.
> 
> “LeTourneau clearly thinks that if you are gay, you can only be a Democrat which is both arrogant and highly offensive,” said Carl DeMaio, a gay former San Diego city councilmember and former GOP congressional candidate who can be heard on the video trying to calm down LeTourneau. “The idea that Californians are sick of paying higher taxes cuts across party lines and sexual orientation.”
> 
> LeTourneau acted like a typical leftist. He is openly gay, but according to him, you have to be a liberal if you are gay:
> 
> “I’m here as an openly gay person on Pride weekend seeing these two people disgracing my community and letting them know I don’t care about them. They’re liars! They’re liars!” LeTourneau said.
> 
> He added: “You do not belong to our community. You also do not belong to the LGBTQ community either.”
> 
> I wonder if LeTourneau is this passionate with people in his party who support Sharia law which calls for the death penalty for homosexuals. I guess free thinking conservatives are more dangerous than Sharia law loving liberals.
> 
> 
> Follow
> Josh Caplan @joshdcaplan
> California Democrat official caught on camera verbally abusing gay volunteer on Pride weekend.
> 5:35 PM - 15 Jun 2017
> 296 296 Retweets 239 239 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/california-democrat-caught-verbally-abusing-gay-volunteers-one-aholes-gay-video/


> Pro-LGBT legal advocacy group Lambda Legal announced Thursday it plans to spend $25 million on its Washington, D.C. office’s opposition to President Donald Trump.
> 
> The office is already open, and former Department of Justice attorney Sharon McGowan was selected to head the location. Lambda Legal announced it plans to spend the $25 million over the course of the next four years, according to a Thursday report from Politico.
> 
> “We are there to make sure that while all these other fires are burning, they’re not coming for us,” McGowan told Politico. “While they’re not setting our house on fire, they’re poisoning our pool.”
> 
> “Wherever we can sue,” McGowan said, “we certainly will.”
> 
> Although the Trump administration has so far been kind towards the LGBT community, the group plans to vehemently oppose Trump appointments to federal courts nationwide who they believe will hurt LGBT advocacy.
> 
> “This is what the beginning of the end of the courts look like – if we don’t plant the flag and make clear that nominees like this are beyond the pale, then we’re going to see more of the same,” McGowan said.’
> 
> The group currently has offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
> 
> The D.C. office recently challenged Trump’s appointment of Valerie Huber to the position of chief of staff to the assistant secretary for Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last Thursday.
> 
> Lambda Legal argued that Huber’s background is in “harmful” abstinence-only education.
> 
> “Valerie Huber is a dangerous choice for such an important job within the Department of Health and Human Services, a department dedicated to the health and well-being of the public. Her history of pushing anti-LGBTQ propaganda in schools is despicable and disqualifying,” McGowan said in an official statement at the time.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/15/anti-trump-legal-group-spends-25-million-opening-dc-office/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> The Obama administration had a “back channel” to communicate with Russian officials, according to a new report detailing Moscow’s efforts to delegitimize the U.S. presidential election results.
> 
> The news comes after Trump White House aide Jared Kushner was criticized for allegedly trying to open a back channel line of communications with Russian officials during the transition last year.
> 
> Former intelligence officials called Kushner’s alleged back channel “dangerous,” but now Bloomberg reports the Obama administration had its own back channel to Moscow.
> 
> The White House contacted the Kremlin on what Bloomberg described as a “modern-day red phone” after Russian operatives tried to infiltrate software and databases used by state election officials.
> 
> Bloomberg reports (bold is my own):
> 
> The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step — complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.
> The “red phone” wasn’t literally a phone, but a secure messaging channel for ” urgent messages and documents,” according to Bloomberg. NBC News first reported on the red phone in December, noting the red phone has existed in various forms for the last 50 years or so.
> 
> In fact, the Obama administration said the red phone communications must have worked to keep Moscow from launching cyber attacks against election systems.
> 
> “Look at the results,” one Obama administration official told NBC in December. “There was nothing done on Election Day, so it must have worked.”
> 
> But that may have not been the case.
> 
> Bloomberg reported:
> 
> The White House provided evidence gathered on Russia’s hacking efforts and reasons why the U.S. considered it dangerously aggressive. Russia responded by asking for more information and providing assurances that it would look into the matter even as the hacking continued, according to the two people familiar with the response. “Last year, as we detected intrusions into websites managed by election officials around the country, the administration worked relentlessly to protect our election infrastructure,” said Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former President Barack Obama. “Given that our election systems are so decentralized, that effort meant working with Democratic and Republican election administrators from all across the country to bolster their cyber defenses.”
> Bloomberg reported the cyber attacks “paint a worrisome picture for future elections” since the “newest portrayal of potentially deep vulnerabilities in the U.S.’s patchwork of voting technologies comes less than a week after former FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that Moscow isn’t done meddling.”
> 
> “They’re coming after America,” Comey recently told congressional investigators. “They will be back.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/13/confirmed-obama-had-his-own-back-channel-to-moscow/


----------



## virus21

What the hell?



> Three high profile attorneys have been found dead in Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Florida district in the last two weeks, prompting the plaintiff in the massive DNC fraud lawsuit being held in Florida to request protection from the court for the plaintiffs, their witnesses and their families.
> 
> While the DNC fraud lawsuit has been hit with a mainstream media blackout, the case continues to unravel the corruption at the heart of the Democratic National Committee, and with the discovery phase still to come, the skeletons in the DNC’s closet have never been closer to receiving a disinfecting dose of sunlight.
> 
> Jared Beck, attorney for the plaintiffs in the DNC fraud lawsuit taking place in Miami, uploaded a video Tuesday in which he thanked supporters for offering their “concerns, prayers and support” in the wake of recent disturbing murders.
> 
> “After much consideration and deliberation we have decided it is time to bring these concerns to the court’s attention. Today we filed a motion to judge William Zloch, to issue an order providing for the protection of the plaintiffs and their families, as well as all potential witnesses in the DNC fraud lawsuit.”
> 
> “In support of this motion we have cited the following events: the untimely death of our process server, Shawn Lucas; the unsolved murder of DNC employee, Seth Rich. We believe Mr Rich might have been a potential witness in this case. We have also cited the recent untimely death of federal prosecutor Beranton Whisenant in South Florida. Also recent bizarre and disturbing conduct, including threats, that has been directed at plaintiffs, their counsel, and employees. And we have also cited an offer to provide security by the Oathkeepers, and its president Stuart Rose.“
> 
> 
> 
> The motion published on the Beck’s website JamPAC included the declaration of a plaintiff in the suit, describing allegations that her laptop had been tampered with, allegedly by an individual who had illegally entered her home.
> 
> The huge class-action fraud lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee keeps getting weirder and it now involves the Capitol Police.
> 
> Today’s announcement comes after the Becks had reported receiving a creepy anonymous phone call from somebody using a voice changer. After a Google search the Becks found the caller ID number matched that of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office.
> 
> According to attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck: “At 4:54 p.m. today [June 1], an individual called our law office from ‘305-936-5724.'” That number is the contact phone number for Wasserman Schultz’s Aventura office in Florida.
> 
> “My secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a voice changer, because the voice sounded robotic and genderless — along the lines of the voice changers used when television show interviews are kept anonymous,” Beck continued. “The caller concluded with ‘Okey dokey,’ after my secretary gave the caller public information about the case. After the call ended, a simple Google search of the phone number ‘305-936-5724′ shows that it is the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office … What just occurred is highly irregular and we will be filing the instant e-mail with the court forthwith.“


http://yournewswire.com/attorneys-dead-wasserman-schultz/


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875532944303173634
:trump3 :clap


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Sad news about the North Korean prisoner that was recently released. With a coma that long it's not unexpected, but still it's a terrible thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/otto-warmbier-north-korea/index.html



> *Doctors: Ex-North Korea detainee Otto Warmbier has severe brain injury*
> 
> (CNN) Doctors caring for released North Korea detainee Otto Warmbier said he has not spoken or moved on his own since he arrived in the United States on Tuesday, a condition they described as "unresponsive wakefulness" or persistent vegetative state.
> 
> The 22-year-old has suffered extensive loss of brain tissue in all regions of the brain, doctors at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center said in a news conference Thursday.
> 
> Also known as persistent vegetative state, the syndrome's symptoms include no voluntary movement or awareness of surroundings. Warmbier opens his eyes and blinks spontaneously but shows no signs of understanding language or responding to verbal commands, said Dr. Daniel Kanter, professor of neurology and director of the Neurocritical Care Program.
> 
> The news shed light on the Warmbier family's statement that their son suffered severe brain damage at some point in his 17 months of detention.
> 
> His parents said they learned of their son's condition -- what North Korea called a coma -- only last week. Earlier Thursday, Fred Warmbier said he rejected the regime's explanation that his son fell into a coma after contracting botulism and taking a sleeping pill in March 2016 after his trial for trying to steal a political banner.
> 
> The doctors said they had no information about the care he received in North Korea. Though they could not say with certainty what caused his injuries, they found no evidence to support the botulism claim. But an analysis of images from North Korea of Warmbier's brain dated April 2016 suggests the injury occurred in the preceding weeks.
> 
> "We have no certifiable knowledge of the cause or circumstances of his neurological injuries," Kanter said.
> 
> "This pattern of brain injury is usually seen as result of cardiopulmonary arrest where blood supply to (the) brain is inadequate for a period of time, resulting in the death of brain tissue."
> 
> *Conviction and release*
> 
> Otto Warmbier was a University of Virginia student when he was detained in January 2016 at Pyongyang airport on his way home. He had been on a tour of the reclusive country, his parents said.
> 
> North Korean authorities claimed they had security footage of him trying to steal a banner containing a political slogan that was hanging from a wall of his Pyongyang hotel.
> 
> That was used as evidence in his hour long trial. He was found guilty of committing a "hostile act" against the country and sentenced in March 2016 to 15 years of hard labor. It was the last time he was seen publicly before this week.
> 
> "Even if you believe their explanation of botulism and a sleeping pill causing a coma -- and we don't -- there is no excuse for any civilized nation to have kept his condition a secret and denied him top-notch medical care for so long," said Fred Warmbier in a 23-minute news conference at his son's alma mater, Wyoming High School, north of Cincinnati.
> 
> The father saluted his son as a brilliant, adventurous and courageous man who did what he could to endure brutality and terror.
> 
> The father, wearing the cream sport coat his son wore during his televised trial in North Korea, stopped short of saying how he believed his son was injured.
> 
> "We're going to leave that to the doctors today," he said.
> 
> Though they could not provide a specific cause, the doctors said Warmbier showed spastic, profound weakness and contractions in his muscles and legs. Beyond minor skin blemishes consistent with medical care they found no evidence of fractures or trauma to his body.
> 
> Nor did they find evidence of botulism, a toxin that causes nerve injury, Dr. Brandon Foreman said. Because it does not stay in the body for long doctors looked for signs of chronic denervation, which is loss of nerve supply, he said. "We did not find any evidence of that."
> *
> Critical of Obama administration*
> 
> Fred Warmbier appeared critical of the Obama administration's handling of Otto's detention, saying the family heeded the US government's initial advice to take a low profile "without result."
> 
> They kept quiet "on the false premise that (North Korea) would treat Otto fairly and let him go," he said.
> He said he and his wife, Cindy, decided this year that the "time for strategic patience was over," and so they did media interviews and traveled to Washington to meet the State Department's special representative for North Korean policy, Joseph Yun.
> 
> Yun met in May with North Korean representatives in Norway, and the North Koreans agreed that Swedish representatives would be allowed to visit Otto Warmbier and three other US detainees, a senior State Department official said on condition of anonymity this week.
> 
> After the Swedes visited one detainee, North Korea representatives sought another meeting with Yun, and it was at that June 6 meeting in New York that North Korea's UN ambassador told Yun that Warmbier was in a coma, the official said.
> 
> North Korea released Warmbier six days later.
> 
> Fred Warmbier praised the Trump administration's efforts: "They have our thanks for bringing Otto home."
> 
> When asked whether then-President Barack Obama could have done more, Warmbier replied, "I think the results speak for themselves."
> 
> *Three other US detainees*
> 
> Warmbier's release coincided with basketball star Dennis Rodman's latest visit to North Korea, though US national security spokesman Michael Anton said there is no connection between the two.
> 
> Fred Warmbier said the same Thursday.
> 
> "Dennis Rodman had nothing to do with Otto," he said.
> 
> Rodman was asked by reporters Tuesday if he would bring up the cases of Warmbier and three other Americans detained in North Korea. "That's not my purpose right now," he said. "My purpose is to go over there and try to see if I can keep bringing sports to North Korea."
> 
> The other Americans held by Pyongyang are Kim Sang Duk and Kim Hak-song, academics who worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, and a businessman named Kim Dong Chul.
> 
> Fred Warmbier called on North Korea to release other American detainees.
> 
> "There's no excuse for the way the North Koreans treated our son. And no excuse for the way they've treated so many others," he said. "No other family should have to endure what the Warmbiers have."


----------



## Jay Valero

CamillePunk said:


> Stefan Molyneux to Republicans - Play to win or go away:



No.


----------



## Vic Capri

> What the hell?


Shawn Lucas dead. Seth Rich dead. Beranton Whisenant Jr. dead.

I'm noticing a pattern here involving the Democratic Party.





> Praying for my fellow centipedes out there during this dark period of violent persecution.


Liberalism is terrorism.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

I've generally been very impressed (and surprised) by how well Trump has been handling North Korea.

Gotta give the devil their due.


----------



## Reaper

Sarah Palin may have a libel case against NYT and it seems that she's ready to pursue it. I've never been a fan of Palin, but NYT's hit piece against her after the GOP shooting was pretty intentionally misleading and with intent to divert from the GOP tragedy to convert a non-political shooting into a political one. 



> NYT Says Palin Is Responsible For Giffords Shooting. Palin DESTROYS Them. NYT Issues Correction.
> 
> The day after The New York Times ran with one of the most sickening editorials in recent memory – a repulsive stew of lies directed at former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin – Palin fired back on Facebook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palin may actually have a case for libel against The New York Times. The standard for libel is quite high in the United States – the plaintiff must prove actual malice if she is a public figure – but Palin might be able to reach it. That’s because the Times outright lied about her, blaming her for the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords. The Times even suggested that there was stronger evidence linking Palin to assassin Jared Lee Loughner than there was evidence of leftist incitement leading to the attempted Congressional assassination.
> 
> This isn’t the first time the Times has attempted to misdirect to supposed right-wing incitement in the face of all the evidence. In 2016, the Times wrote an entire editorial blaming Christians for a radical Muslim shooting up a gay nightclub in Orlando:
> 
> While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of insanity must stop. And if it takes a well-aimed lawsuit from Palin to do it, she should – particularly since the Times issued a correction this morning acknowledging they have no proof linking Palin to Giffords.


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/california-democrat-caught-verbally-abusing-gay-volunteers-one-aholes-gay-video/
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/15/anti-trump-legal-group-spends-25-million-opening-dc-office/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
> 
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/13/confirmed-obama-had-his-own-back-channel-to-moscow/


If you are part of the democrat coalition, women, gays, minorities and union members, you are particularly hated if you dont follow the party line. 

I got my popcorn ready for how the democrats newest base-muslims, play with the long time coalition member homosexuals. The first time a muslim group does something to gay people, it will be fascinating to see how liberals explain that one away.


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> I got my popcorn ready for how the democrats newest base-muslims, play with the long time coalition member homosexuals. The first time a muslim group does something to gay people, it will be fascinating to see how liberals explain that one away.


They pretend that it doesn't happen. Muslims attack gays in America very regularly and it doesn't make the news. The Orlando shooter was EVERYTHING but a Muslim as per the leftist narrative - and tbh, I don't see many rightwingers that upset about it either (except a handful of libertarians here and there). 

It's kinda scary actually because you have elements on the right that hate gays and elements on the left that love muslims so it makes gays voiceless when they're attacked. 

We should never forget that it was conservatives and leftists both that brought down Milo.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Shawn Lucas dead. Seth Rich dead. Beranton Whisenant Jr. dead.
> 
> I'm noticing a pattern here involving the Democratic Party.


That the democrats have adopted Stalinist policies


----------



## Jay Valero

virus21 said:


> That the democrats have adopted Stalinist policies


A long time ago. Just look at all the bodies that follow the Clintons around.


----------



## virus21

> A wave of liberal rage has marked the last 11 months since the rise and subsequent election of President Donald Trump.
> 
> Antifa protestors clad in black masks shut down college campuses, destroy property and indiscriminately attack those they disagree with, whether women or the elderly. Meanwhile, CNN fires Kathy Griffin for taking photos with a bloody replica of the president’s decapitated head.
> 
> Amid this backdrop, The Huffington Post publishes an article calling for the execution of Trump and “everyone assisting his agenda.”
> 
> Then, shots ring out as a man gorged on media hysteria attempts to slaughter Republican congressmen while they practice for a charity baseball game.
> 
> The aggression since Trump’s nomination is difficult to enumerate, but nevertheless, The Daily Caller News Foundation poured over media reports to compile a close but non-exhaustive list of violent acts against conservatives in months following the Republican National Convention.
> 
> In creating the list, TheDCNF reviewed numerous articles detailing attacks against conservatives and Trump supporters. Only incidences of violence and threats of violence where the perpetrators were clear are included in the report, excluded are events where the instigator was difficult to discern.
> 
> Attacks Over Time:
> 
> 
> July 2016:
> 
> -A Hillary Clinton supporter lights a flag on fire and attacks a Trump supporter in Pittsburgh.
> 
> -Trump supporters sue San Jose after protesters jumped on cars, stole hats, fought and threw eggs at them.
> 
> August 2016:
> 
> -Anti-Trump protesters attacked Trump supporters in Minneapolis, Minn., and beat an elderly man. Protesters also attacked Trump’s motorcade.
> 
> –A Tennessee man was assaulted at a garage sale for being a Trump supporter.
> 
> -A Trump supporter in New Jersey was attacked with a crowbar on the street.
> 
> September 2016:
> 
> -Protesters in El Cajon, Calif., chased and beat up a Trump supporter.
> 
> October 2016:
> 
> -A GOP office in North Carolina was firebombed and spray painted with “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else.”
> 
> November 2016:
> 
> -A high school student was attacked after she wrote that she supported Trump on social media. The perpetrator ripped her glasses off and punched her in the face.
> 
> -The president of Cornell University’s College Republicans was assaulted the night after Trump won the election.
> 
> -Students protesting Trump punched and kicked a Maryland high school student wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
> 
> -A high school student was arrested in Florida after he punched a classmate for carrying a Trump sign at school.
> 
> -A 24-year-old was reportedly attacked on a New York subway for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.
> 
> -A group of black men in Chicago attacked a white man while raging against Trump.
> 
> -High school students in Rockville, Md., physically assailed another student for supporting Trump, kicking him while he was on the ground.
> 
> -At a California high school, a student yelled to a Trump-supporting student, “You support Trump. You hate Mexicans” before beating the girl.
> 
> -An anti-bullying ambassador who supported Black Lives Matter was arrested after shoving a 65-year-old man to the ground.
> 
> -A Texas elementary school student was beaten by his classmates for voting for Trump in a mock election.
> 
> -Two men punched and kicked a Connecticut man who was standing with an American flag and a Trump sign.
> 
> -A high school student in Florida punched another student who was holding a Trump sign.
> 
> -A man was murdered in Georgia after an argument about whether Trump would deport a Hispanic man.
> 
> December 2016:
> 
> -A Trump supporter was beaten and dragged by a car.
> 
> -Trump supporters were attacked at a rally in Richmond, Va.
> 
> January 2017:
> 
> -A Trump supporter was knocked unconscious after airport protesters repeatedly beat him on the head.
> 
> -A Trump supporter was attacked after putting out a fire started by anti-Trump protesters.
> 
> -Trump supporters were beaten in Oregon.
> 
> February 2017:
> 
> -California GOP Rep. Tom McClintock had to be escorted to his car after a town hall. At least four tires were slashed outside the town hall.
> 
> -Protestors knocked a 71-year-old female staffer for California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher unconscious during a protest outside the representative’s office.
> 
> –Milo Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California-Berkeley was cancelled after rioters set the campus on fire and threw rocks through windows. They also attacked those who came to the event.
> 
> March 2017:
> 
> -Angry protestor at Middlebury College rushed AEI scholar and political scientist Charles Murray and professor Allison Stranger. Stranger was grabbed by the hair and shoved, sustaining injuries.
> 
> April 2017:
> 
> -A parade in Portland, Ore.,was canceled after threats of violence were made against a Republican organization.
> 
> -Protesters shut down Ann Coulter’s UC Berkeley speech over safety fears.
> 
> May 2017:
> 
> – Republican Rep. Tom Garrett’s, his family and his dog were targeted by repeated death threats.
> 
> -FBI agents arrested a person for threatening to shoot Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally.
> 
> -Police in Tennessee charged a woman for allegedly trying to run GOP Congressman David Kustoff off the road.
> 
> -Police in North Dakota ejected a man after he became physical with GOP Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall.
> 
> June 2017:
> 
> -James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.
> 
> -New York GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email threat that read, “One down, 216 to go,” shortly after the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice.
> 
> -A man driving a white Malibu reportedly fired several shots at a man driving a truck displaying a “Make America Great Again” flag in Indiana.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875695690499985409


----------



## Stephen90

virus21 said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875695690499985409


Drudge has is fucking conservative bias this is fake news.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Drudge has is fucking conservative bias this is fake news.


Drudge doesn't report news, you know that right?


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> Drudge doesn't report news, you know that right?


Matt Drudge is total conservative everyone knows that.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Matt Drudge is total conservative everyone knows that.


How is that evidence of bias?

And how is a Rassmussen poll in reference "Fake News". 

Can you guys stop gettting :triggered at names of outlets before you even read the articles? I mean, you're calling a news curator who simply links to other news sites which get their news from somewhere else "fake news" here :lmao


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> How is that evidence of bias?
> 
> And how is a Rassmussen poll in reference "Fake News".
> 
> Can you guys stop gettting triggered at names of outlets before you even read the articles? I mean, you're calling a news curator who simply links to other news sites which get their news from somewhere else "fake news" here :lmao


Trump has a 38 percent everyone knows that.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Trump has a 38 percent everyone knows that.


:lmao 

Wow. That is the aggregate polling that includes multiple polls, _one _of which is Rassmussen _which _polled him at a 50% approval. 

Again, how is this fake news? 

C'mon dude. Show some intelligence. This knee-jerking is making you look pretty bad. At least click on the links and read shit before making statements :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> :lmao
> 
> Wow. That is the aggregate polling that includes multiple polls, _one _of which is Rassmussen _which _polled him at a 50% approval.
> 
> Again, how is this fake news?
> 
> C'mon dude. Show some intelligence. This knee-jerking is making you look pretty bad. At least click on the links and read shit before making statements :lol


http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...sinks-support-republicans-whites-drops-626096


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...sinks-support-republicans-whites-drops-626096


You're a total a train wreck :lol 

You don't even seem know that there are multiple pollsters - each of whom receive a different results ... none of which is "fake news". 

What a waste of my brain cells.


----------



## Warlock

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

I don't know what the adjusted means, but the pure results of several sites are shown.


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> You're a total a train wreck :lol
> 
> You don't even seem know that there are multiple pollsters - each of whom receive a different results ... none of which is "fake news".
> 
> What a waste of my brain cells.


And you're not bias?


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
> 
> I don't know what the adjusted means, but the pure results of several sites are shown.


Adjusted basically means that they take out the outliers and re-calculate using regression analysis.

I learnt how to do this shit in my MBA but now the knowledge is long gone :lol



Stephen90 said:


> And you're not bias?


I very very bias. I so bias. Much Very so.


----------



## Reaper

The boy was tortured. I was afraid that they were going to confirm it because it was much too obvious to me but I didn't want to post my fears. 

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/652321184953880


> DOCTORS: U.S. STUDENT RELEASED FROM N.KOREA IS IN A VEGETATIVE STATE
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> Doctors at the hospital in Cincinnati where Otto Warmbier is being treated revealed he is suffering from severe injuries to his brain and extensive loss of tissue in all regions of the brain consistent with asphyxiation. He has shown no sign of awareness of his environment and has not spoken or moved since he arrived in the U.S. on June 13, a condition they described as “unresponsive wakefulness” or persistent vegetative state.
> 
> They found no evidence to support North Korea's claim that Warbier fell into a coma because he contracted botulism. An analysis of images from North Korea of Warmbier’s brain dated April 2016 suggests the injury occurred shortly after his sentencing. A senior American official said intelligence reports indicate Mr. Warmbier had been repeatedly tortured while in North Korean custody, though doctors have found no evidence of fractures or trauma to his body.
> 
> Warmbier was found guilty of committing a “hostile act” against the country and sentenced in March 2016 to 15 years of hard labor. He allegedly tried to steal a banner containing a political slogan that was hanging from a wall of his Pyongyang hotel, though his roommate at the hotel disputes the claim.
> 
> Danny Gratton, the last Westerner to see Warmbier before his arrest, was his roommate at the Pyongyang hotel where he stayed, was with him the night of the alleged attempt to steal a sign, and was with him when he was arrested at the airport. He said he was “stunned” that nobody from the U.S. government ever tried to contact him to ask him if he had any information about what happened.
> 
> Wambier's parents have been very critical of the Obama administration in media interviews since their son was released. “The question is, ‘Do I think the past administration could have done more?’ ” Fred Warmbier, Otto Warmbier’s dad, said at a press conference in Ohio on Thursday. “I think the results speak for themselves.”
> 
> At the time of Otto's arrest, his family appealed to the Obama administration, including to former Secretary of State John Kerry, but was told to stay quiet so as not to “upset” the North Koreans.
> But the family decided earlier this year that the “time for strategic patience was over,” and met with Trump administration officials, including the State Department’s special representative for North Korean policy, Joseph Yun.
> 
> Yun then met in May with North Korean representatives in Norway, and the North Koreans agreed that Swedish representatives would be allowed to visit Otto Warmbier. However, on June 6, North Korea’s UN ambassador told Yun that Warmbier was in a coma. North Korea released Warmbier six days later.
> 
> Fred Warmbier praised the Trump administration’s efforts: “They have our thanks for bringing Otto home.” He noted that President Trump called him this week and said, “I’m sorry about the outcome.”


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> And you're not bias?


Iconoclast is biased and he will always admit to being so, but his bias isn't more important than facts, and he'll admit to that.

Rasmussen has a poll that has Trump at a 50% approval rating. That isn't fake news, that's actual news. Now, if you wanna talk about how Rasmussen got that number and if you wanna try to prove that Rasmussen is biased, then go ahead, but none of this makes Drudge the purveyor of fake news.


----------



## deepelemblues

Newsweek, that old dinosaur is still around? Lol


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Iconoclast is bias and he will always admit to being so, but his bias isn't more important than facts.


But if the facts suggest what those ignorant of those facts would _consider _bias, is it really _bias_ or just the truth that others haven't arrived at yet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Iconoclast is biased and he will always admit to being so, but his bias isn't more important than facts, and he'll admit to that.
> 
> Rasmussen has a poll that has Trump at a 50% approval rating. That isn't fake news, that's actual news. Now, if you wanna talk about how Rasmussen got that number and if you wanna try to prove that Rasmussen is biased, then go ahead, but none of this makes Drudge the purveyor of fake news.


The problem is pretty much every poll but that one poll puts Trump in the 30% and being a record low, yet Drudge takes one poll, the outlier and pretends that is the real poll just because its at 50%. All the polls are dropping but one and the conservatives websites are framing it like his approval rating is going up which its not.

HIs approval rating is 7% down across the board, its not rising.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> But if the facts suggest what those ignorant of those facts would _consider _bias, is it really _bias_ or just the truth that others haven't arrived at yet.


It's the kind of truth they'll always consider bias, no matter how true it is, because they cannot accept the truth as true.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's the kind of truth they'll always consider bias, no matter how true it is, because they cannot accept the truth as true.


The funny thing is, in that whole back and forth with the Stephen guy, I actually never once said that Trump's aggregate approval is 50% --- He really had no clue at all what the discussion even was it was so far over his head :lol That's why I thought it turned into a complete train wreck :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> The problem is pretty much every poll but that one poll puts Trump in the 30% and being a record low, yet Drudge takes one poll, the outlier and pretends that is the real poll just because its at 50%. All the polls are dropping but one and the conservatives websites are framing it like his approval rating is going up which its not.
> 
> HIs approval rating is 7% down across the board, its not rising.


Rasmussen was the most accurate poll leading up to the 2016 election, so it is fair to say that Rasmussen may be a better poll to look at post-election. A lot of polls failed to account for the silent Trump voter. Rasmussen, somehow, found a way to account for them. In today's vitriolic world, it's quite possible that the silent Trump voters, pre-election, are still silent today. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Rasmussen's poll could be accurate. More accurate than other polls. You can think that's wrong, that's fine, but if you're objective and you're trying to find out what the country is thinking, Rasmussen might very well be a good poll to look at.

I don't know, polls suck anyways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Rasmussen was the most accurate poll leading up to the 2016 election, so it is fair to say that Rasmussen may be a better poll to look at post-election. A lot of polls failed to account for the silent Trump voter. Rasmussen, somehow, found a way to account for them. In today's vitriolic world, it's quite possible that the silent Trump voters, pre-election, are still silent today. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Rasmussen's poll could be accurate. More accurate than other polls. You can think that's wrong, that's fine, but if you're objective and you're trying to find out what the country is thinking, Rasmussen might very well be a good poll to look at.
> 
> I don't know, polls suck anyways.


Hillary won popular vote by 3 million votes, teh polls were accurate. She just lost by 17,000 votes cross 3 or 4 states. 

All you have to do is look at the country, most people are against Trump. I don't see much of anyone on social media defending Trump, pretty much everyone is against him.


----------



## Vic Capri

Fleccas is a great man and a great American.

- Vic


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary won popular vote by 3 million votes, teh polls were accurate. She just lost by 17,000 votes cross 3 or 4 states.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the country, most people are against Trump. I don't see much of anyone on social media defending Trump, pretty much everyone is against him.


You need to go back and look at the polls. Most polls had Clinton as a 3 to 4 point favorite. She won the popular vote be 2%, which is exactly what Rasmussen had on the day of the election. I didn't say that the silent Trump supporter was a majority, I said that they were unaccounted for in a lot of polls. Rasmussen clearly had the numbers right, so they should get credit for that, and when looking at polls today, it's quite possible that their polling could be more accurate, they have the legitimacy at this point when it comes to polling Trump supporters. I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying that I could see how someone could think they're right. You can't deny that.

And to be honest, I'm not interested in hearing your anecdotes regarding people supporting Trump online, nor am I interested on how you were able to prove to yourself that, "All you have to do is look at the country, most people are against Trump" is true.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You need to go back and look at the polls. Most polls had Clinton as a 3 to 4 point favorite. She won the popular vote be 2%, which is exactly what Rasmussen had on the day of the election. I didn't say that the silent Trump supporter was a majority, I said that they were unaccounted for in a lot of polls. Rasmussen clearly had the numbers right, so they should get credit for that, and when looking at polls today, it's quite possible that their polling could be more accurate, they have the legitimacy at this point when it comes to polling Trump supporters. I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying that I could see how someone could think they're right. You can't deny that.
> 
> And to be honest, I'm not interested in hearing your anecdotes regarding people supporting Trump online, nor am I interested on how you were able to prove to yourself that, "All you have to do is look at the country, most people are against Trump" is true.


You do know what margin of error is right?


LOL Right so if all you see is mostly the country being anti-Trump using your eyes lets ignore that and just go by one poll that shows the opposite of your eyes and all the other polls. 

Keep clinging to that. Just go with the one outlier poll that confirms your biases and ignore everything else.

This one poll is way off, it would be one if all the other polls were at like 48 or 46% and this was at 50% but there is a %15 or so gap.

Trump is the most unpopular president ever at this point. But if one outlier poll makes you feel better, sure go with that one when everything else shows the opposite


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know what margin of error is right?
> 
> LOL Right so if all you see is mostly the country being anti-Trump using your eyes lets ignore that and just go by one poll that shows the opposite of your eyes and all the other polls.
> 
> Keep clinging to that. Just go with the one outlier poll that confirms your biases and ignore everything else.
> 
> This one poll is way off, it would be one if all the other polls were at like 48 or 46% and this was at 50% but there is a %15 or so gap.
> 
> Trump is the most unpopular president ever at this point. But if one outlier poll makes you feel better, sure go with that one when everything else shows the opposite


Ya, they all have a margin of error. Margins of error are +/-, so if Rasmussen says +/- 2.5% then it can go EITHER WAY off their 2%. All polls have a margin of error that's +/-, just because a poll says 4% with a +/- 2% doesn't mean they nailed it. Rasmussen nailed it.

Again, I don't want to get into an anecdotal argument with you. I don't see most of the country against Trump. I see a vocal media, hollywood, and anti-Trump groups, which are given ample time on media outlets to voice their displeasure. 

And your reading comprehension needs work. Show me where I said that Rasmussen was the only poll to follow? Show me.

No, I said that it can be argued that their poll is correct. I even stated that they may not be right. See, this is why I loathe to debate with you. You aren't honest. You like to twist things around to make your point correct. Going so far as to proscribe beliefs to me that I outright stated I didn't necessarily believe. If you have to make assumptions to make your point then you're wrong, plain and simple BM.

Trump is the most unpopular President at this point? Based on what metric? What did the MSNBC poll say about William Henry Harrison at this point into his Presidency? LOL.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, they all have a margin of error. Margins of error are +/-, so if Rasmussen says +/- 2.5% then it can go EITHER WAY off their 2%. All polls have a margin of error that's +/-, just because a poll says 4% with a +/- 2% doesn't mean they nailed it. Rasmussen nailed it.
> 
> Again, I don't want to get into an anecdotal argument with you. I don't see most of the country against Trump. I see a vocal media, hollywood, and anti-Trump groups, which are given ample time on media outlets to voice their displeasure.
> 
> And your reading comprehension needs work. Show me where I said that Rasmussen was the only poll to follow? Show me.
> 
> No, I said that it can be argued that their poll is correct. I even stated that they may not be right. See, this is why I loathe to debate with you. You aren't honest. You like to twist things around to make your point correct. Going so far as to proscribe beliefs to me that I outright stated I didn't necessarily believe. If you have to make assumptions to make your point then you're wrong, plain and simple BM.
> 
> Trump is the most unpopular President at this point? Based on what metric? What did the MSNBC poll say about William Henry Harrison at this point into his Presidency? LOL.


Most unpopular in modern day history based on the facts. As for the Rasmussen poll dont they keep polling the same people over and over again to see how their opinions change or was that just for the election?

And yes you loathe debating me because I show why I am correct. At least you can admit that


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Most unpopular in modern day history based on the facts. *As for the Rasmussen poll dont they keep polling the same people over and over again to see how their opinions change or was that just for the election?*
> 
> And yes you loathe debating me because I show why I am correct. At least you can admit that


That would be incorrect.



> Data for Rasmussen Reports survey research is collected using an automated polling methodology.
> Generally speaking, the automated survey process is identical to that of traditional, operator-assisted research firms such as Gallup, Harris, and Roper. However, automated polling systems use a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview while traditional firms rely on phone banks, boiler rooms, and operator-assisted technology.
> For tracking surveys such as the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, the automated technology ensures that every respondent hears exactly the same question, from the exact same voice, asked with the exact same inflection every single time.
> All Rasmussen Reports' survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. *Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that ensures appropriate geographic representation.* Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.
> To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.
> After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to ensure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.
> For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.
> For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.
> Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.


I'm not concerned about the fickleness of the American public 6 months into his Presidency. You can care about it, but I won't. When I choose to judge his Presidency it'll be after he's done being President. Until then, it's a waste of time.

You think you're correct? Of course you do! I doubt a day goes by where you think you're wrong.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump reversing obamas retarded Cuba policy :banderas

It's nice to have a president who tells shit governments that hate the US and put a boot on the neck of their country's people where to head in instead of being a total pussy bitch to them

:trump3


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> :trump reversing obamas retarded Cuba policy :banderas
> 
> It's nice to have a president who tells shit governments that hate the US and put a boot on the neck of their country's people where to head in instead of being a total pussy bitch to them
> 
> :trump3


Unlike that godless commie Hussein Obama, Trump is a real American.


----------



## deepelemblues

I think you mean






I don't know whether to cringe or :mark: :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

The left creates an environment where it's physically unsafe to voice your support of Donald Trump and then points to the lack of vocal support as evidence that people don't support him. :lol Hilariously twisted.

Reminds me of a CNN headline I saw the other day about how Trump's presidency has been "defined by controversy". Well no shit CNN, you and your colleagues are the ones manufacturing controversy after controversy. Way to pat yourselves on the back there.

Senator Marco Rubio shames Obama, praises Trump regarding change of Cuban policy:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Tucker Carlson is out for awhile with an attack of appendicitis. Dana Perino is subbing tonight after Ed Henry did last night. Have a speedy recovery, Tucker.


----------



## deepelemblues

YOU CANT APPENDICUCK THE TUCK

Or can you?


----------



## virus21

THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> Tucker Carlson is out for awhile with an attack of appendicitis. Dana Perino is subbing tonight after Ed Henry did last night. Have a speedy recovery, Tucker.


On that note


----------



## Reaper

NVM.


----------



## virus21

> PROTESTER INTERRUPTS TRUMP ASSASSINATION PLAY IN CENTRAL PARK!
> SCREAMING “STOP LIBERAL VIOLENCE!”
> 
> THEN SHE IS ARRESTED!… FOR INTERRUPTING SICK ASSASSINATION FETISH PLAY!
> 
> The Shakespeare in the Park rendition of Julius Caesar is still scheduled to play this weekend in Central Park after the shooting of GOP Rep. Scalise by a devout Bernie Sanders supporter.
> 
> This year’s play “Julius Caesar” depicts President Donald Trump’s assassination.
> 
> Laura Loomer from Rebel Media was interrupted the Trump assassination play.
> 
> 
> Here is video of the female protester getting arrested:
> 
> Follow
> Jack Posobiec ?? ✔ @JackPosobiec
> Patriots Shut Down Julius Ceasar Yelling "You Are Goebbels" https://www.pscp.tv/w/bBMpgTF4ZUtXe...HbeOMaw9a3l2zEM8simPL0iLLAx2zurerWn5duWXscTuC …
> 8:18 PM - 16 Jun 2017
> 
> JackPosobiec @JackPosobiec
> Patriots Shut Down Julius Ceasar Yelling "You Are Goebbels" — Manhattan, NY, United States
> pscp.tv
> 1,515 1,515 Retweets 2,276 2,276 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Video of protesters shutting down the Trump assassination play:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow
> Jack Posobiec ?? ✔ @JackPosobiec
> BREAKING: Julius Ceasar Gets SHUTDOWN
> 8:13 PM - 16 Jun 2017 · Shakespeare in the park
> 3,956 3,956 Retweets 6,462 6,462 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Follow
> Alex Jones ✔ @RealAlexJones
> Woman protesting public murder of Trump is arrested by police at Julius Ceacar in the park! https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/875884114280423428 …
> 8:24 PM - 16 Jun 2017
> 539 539 Retweets 830 830 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Follow
> Stefan Molyneux ✔ @StefanMolyneux
> [email protected] has been arrested by NYPD for peacefully protesting the mock assassination of President Donald Trump. #FreeLaura https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/875888448363651072 …
> 8:37 PM - 16 Jun 2017
> 889 889 Retweets 926 926 likes


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/woman-protesting-public-murder-trump-arrested-ruining-assassination-fetish-sick-crowd-video/


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875884869233987584
"The party that couldn't shoot straight". :done


----------



## Jay Valero

THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> Tucker Carlson is out for awhile with an attack of appendicitis. Dana Perino is subbing tonight after Ed Henry did last night. Have a speedy recovery, Tucker.


She's hot.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

deepelemblues said:


> :trump reversing obamas retarded Cuba policy :banderas
> 
> It's nice to have a president who tells shit governments that hate the US and put a boot on the neck of their country's people where to head in instead of being a total pussy bitch to them
> 
> :trump3


Ummmmmmmmmmmm I don't see him doing that to Communist China
I don't see him saying diddly to the biggest funder of terrorism and Anti American Prooganda Saudi Arabia

:hmmm Could it be this almost 60 year long Embargo is entirely politcal once the Cold War ended,because a significant swath of voters in 1 particular swing state are Cuban-American and it's politically advantageous to flex your muscles at The Castro Regime. Don't think Republicans would be Travel Ban to Cuba Grrrrrrrrr if Cuban Americans were in NY or Mississippi.


----------



## virus21

> MSNBC host Rachel Maddow acknowledged that President Trump's campaign may have had no knowledge of Russia's efforts to meddle in the 2016 election.
> Asked in a Rolling Stone interview if she thought it is possible that the Trump campaign was clueless about Russian hacking during the campaign, Maddow said it was "absolutely" possible.
> "I mean, Russia clearly did this attack, and there's lots of circumstantial evidence that points at lots of unexplained and surreptitious contact between Trump people and Russian people at the time that was happening," she said. "But circumstantial evidence is circumstantial evidence. This is a serious thing that needs to be chased down to the end."
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Maddow has covered the controversies surrounding federal investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia more than any other cable news host and has dedicated 53 percent of her show's coverage to Russia-related topics, according to an April analysis by The Intercept.
> But Maddow told Rolling Stone that she was "not keeping it alive for its own sake," saying that the potential severity of the case presented the potential for a real "national crisis."
> "If this presidency is knowingly the product of a foreign intelligence operation, that's not [Health and Human Services Secretary] Tom Price trading stocks that he was also affecting the price of as a public official, you know?" she said. "That is a full-stop national crisis."


https://archive.is/Y1LEw#selection-1601.0-1643.122


----------



## AlternateDemise

Iconoclast said:


> But if the facts suggest what those ignorant of those facts would _consider _bias, is it really _bias_ or just the truth that others haven't arrived at yet.


As far as I'm concerned as long as your "bias" isn't causing you to spout bullshit, I don't see any issue with it :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Ummmmmmmmmmmm I don't see him doing that to Communist China
> I don't see him saying diddly to the biggest funder of terrorism and Anti American Prooganda Saudi Arabia
> 
> :hmmm Could it be this almost 60 year long Embargo is entirely politcal once the Cold War ended,because a significant swath of voters in 1 particular swing state are Cuban-American and it's politically advantageous to flex your muscles at The Castro Regime. Don't think Republicans would be Travel Ban to Cuba Grrrrrrrrr if Cuban Americans were in NY or Mississippi.


Whataboutism! Don't care, sorry. Cuba doesn't deserve a pass because China gets one.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

> OFFICIAL WARNS ILLINOIS FINANCES IN 'MASSIVE CRISIS MODE'
> BY SARA BURNETT
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> CHICAGO (AP) -- The Illinois official responsible for paying the state's bills is warning that new court orders mean her office must pay out more each month than Illinois receives in revenue.
> 
> Comptroller Susana Mendoza must prioritize what gets paid as Illinois nears its third year without a state budget.
> 
> A mix of state law, court orders and pressure from credit rating agencies requires some items be paid first. Those include debt and pension payments, state worker paychecks and some school funding.
> 
> Mendoza says a recent court order regarding money owed for Medicaid bills means mandated payments will eat up 100 percent of Illinois' monthly revenue.
> 
> There would be no money left for so-called "discretionary" spending - a category that in Illinois includes school buses, domestic violence shelters and some ambulance services.


Ever wonder what Democratic leadership is good at? Here you go. California's next.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ever wonder what Democratic leadership is good at? Here you go. California's next.


How many times did Trump file for bankruptcy?


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ever wonder what Democratic leadership is good at? Here you go. California's next.


Republican leadership is good just look at Mississippi and West Virginia. Totally broke and known Republican state's.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Republican leadership is good just look at Mississippi and West Virginia. Totally broke and known Republican state's.


Mississippi and West Virginia have always been economic backwaters, nice try

There's a reason the Republican Sun Belt, Texas, and Middle South are taking population from the Democratic West Coast and Northeast...


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> Mississippi and West Virginia have always been economic backwaters, nice try
> Texas is becoming a swing state
> 
> There's a reason the Republican Sun Belt, Texas, and Middle South are taking population from the Democratic West Coast and Northeast...


Texas – the toss up.
It's a thought that may have sounded outrageous just four years ago, but now analysts are beginning to pay closer attention to.
That point was echoed during a speech earlier this month at the Scoot Inn in Austin by Congressman Joaquin Castro.
"I say in 2020, they treat Texas like a swing state," he explained, in response to a question from the audience about an apparent lack of DNC financial support in Texas during the 2016 race.
↓ Advertisement ↓

While President Trump carried the state, the relatively close margin was seen as a success for Democrats.
Compared to 2012, Democrats narrowed the gap from 16% to 9%, the closest they've been in 20 years.
But was the 2016 race an anomaly – or a harbinger of things to come?
"I think quite frankly whether it's 2020 or 2022, Texas will enter purple status," explained GOP Strategist John Weaver.
Weaver was most recently the Chief Strategist of John Kasich's presidential campaign and has worked a variety of high-profile races throughout his career.
He says the numbers and trends spell trouble for the future of Republicans in the state.
"Millenial voters, in fact, young voters under 35, are not with Republicans on any of these issues perhaps other than the economy. You couple with that a growing Latino population, not just here in Texas, but nationally, and margins with the African-American community are high as ever," said Weaver.
In Texas, there are more Hispanic school children than white school children, and the Hispanic birth rate continues to outpace the white birth rate.
"I am worried that the party could become more and more identified with one race, and one gender, and one age group. Old white men. And we won't survive that," Weaver explained.
State exit polls, compiled by CNN, back up Weaver.
In Texas, Trump lost the female vote, the under 30 vote, the non-white vote, and amongst voters who consider themselves ideologically moderate.
Early actions taken by the Trump administration have already drawn the ire of the Hispanic community.
State Representative Carol Alvarado, a Democrat who represents Harris County, was blunt in her assessment of Trump's victory.
"I think it was a slap in the face to (the Hispanic community), because of the type and the depth of the rhetoric," Alvarado explained.
She pointed to massive gains Democrats made in Harris County as a sign that the tide could be changing across the state.
In 2012, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were separated by fewer than 1,000 votes in the county.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in the county by more than 160,000 votes.
"I think we’re on the crest of becoming a purple state. We have a very diverse state. We have people moving here by the thousands on a daily basis. They see Texas as a place of opportunity, a place that they can come and get an education, have a career, provide for their family. And as we see more and more different ethnic groups moving in, I think that’s encouraging for the Democratic party here in Texas," said Alvarado.
Much of the argument amongst Texas eventually becoming a toss-up revolves around shifting demographics. But is the argument that simple?
Chuck DeVore, the Vice President of National Initiatives for the Texas Policy Foundation believes there's more to the story.
"There are four majority-majority states - California, Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii. If demographics is destiny, then Texas should have voted more for Hillary Clinton than did California," said Devore, who previously served in the California State Assembly before moving to Texas.
Of those four states – Texas was the lone to vote Republican in any of the last three presidential races.
He believes the argument of Hispanics as a monolithic voting bloc is flawed.
"Texas does perhaps a better job at assimilation than do other states, where you find large numbers of immigrants to Texas consider themselves either American or Texans. You don't see that in other states," he explained.
Even Texas' economic policies play a role. Texas, unlike California, is a right-to-work state. Because of that, organized labor does not wield the same voting power here as they do elsewhere.
And while many Texans point to a large influx of Californians into impacting races, DeVore believes their influence is overstated and often oversimplified.
"Well the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune did a poll a couple years ago polling political attitudes of Californians moving to Texas, and they found that by a little more than 2-1 they were conservative, not liberal. So you have to look at the reason why people are moving from places like California or Illinois to Texas. Usually, it’s for jobs. Usually, it’s for entrepreneurial opportunity. Those individuals are not going to be big fans of large government, heavy taxes, and the regulatory state. As far as our inner cities, they’ve been trending blue for quite some time. And I think you can’t blame the political trends in our cities on people moving here from Illinois or from California," explained DeVore.
Travis County GOP Executive Vice Chair Matt Mackowiak doesn't foresee Texas becoming a swing state in the near future - but won't discount an eventual battle.
"I do think that in 20 or 30 years, as the demographics continue to change, that there is a threat to the Republican party holding the state unless we find a way to start winning Hispanic votes to a much greater extent," explained Mackowiak.
He mentioned Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Cornyn, and George P. Bush as Republicans who have been successful in breaking through to Hispanic voters.
DeVore mentioned Governor Abbott's strong performance amongst Hispanic voters, and the respective popularity of individual Republican lawmakers in Texas as barriers to success for Democrats.
While Mackowiak acknowledged Democratic gains in 2016 - he believes they still have several shortcomings to competitively challenge Republicans.
"Democratic infrastructure in Texas is extremely weak. They have a very weak base. All they're really able to do is win urban elections," said Mackowiak.
Texas has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter in 1976. The last time the state voted for a Democratic governor was Anne Richards in 1990. Both the state Senate and House are Republican-controlled.
Both DeVore and Mackowiak asserted the difficulty of making predictions concerning 2020, pointing to undetermined factors surrounding the state of the country and Trump's presidential record as that respective election draws closer.
Weaver said that the Republicans victory in November may obscure warning signs and troubling trends.
"We did break through as a party in the Industrial Midwest. But you can’t count on that again, number 1. And number 2, the Hispanic population is growing quickly in North Carolina, in Georgia, obviously here in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado is seemingly out of reach for us, and I won’t even talk about California," said Weaver.
Regardless of how you read the numbers, none of the shifting demographics matter if Hispanics don't vote.
In 2012, Pew Research reports only 48 percent of eligible Hispanic voters cast ballots – compared to 64 percent of eligible white voters.
Last week, we got our first look at how Texans have graded Trump so far.
According to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, 81 percent of Republicans approve of Trump's job performance so far, and his favorability rating has increased 21 percent since October. However, that split severely tightened once Democrats and Independents are factored in. In total, 46 percent of Texans approve of the job Trump has done - while 44 percent disapprove.


----------



## virus21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> . California's next.


Good


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Texas – the toss up.
> It's a thought that may have sounded outrageous just four years ago, but now analysts are beginning to pay closer attention to.
> That point was echoed during a speech earlier this month at the Scoot Inn in Austin by Congressman Joaquin Castro.
> "I say in 2020, they treat Texas like a swing state," he explained, in response to a question from the audience about an apparent lack of DNC financial support in Texas during the 2016 race.
> ↓ Advertisement ↓
> 
> While President Trump carried the state, the relatively close margin was seen as a success for Democrats.
> Compared to 2012, Democrats narrowed the gap from 16% to 9%, the closest they've been in 20 years.
> But was the 2016 race an anomaly – or a harbinger of things to come?
> "I think quite frankly whether it's 2020 or 2022, Texas will enter purple status," explained GOP Strategist John Weaver.
> Weaver was most recently the Chief Strategist of John Kasich's presidential campaign and has worked a variety of high-profile races throughout his career.
> He says the numbers and trends spell trouble for the future of Republicans in the state.
> "Millenial voters, in fact, young voters under 35, are not with Republicans on any of these issues perhaps other than the economy. You couple with that a growing Latino population, not just here in Texas, but nationally, and margins with the African-American community are high as ever," said Weaver.
> In Texas, there are more Hispanic school children than white school children, and the Hispanic birth rate continues to outpace the white birth rate.
> "I am worried that the party could become more and more identified with one race, and one gender, and one age group. Old white men. And we won't survive that," Weaver explained.
> State exit polls, compiled by CNN, back up Weaver.
> In Texas, Trump lost the female vote, the under 30 vote, the non-white vote, and amongst voters who consider themselves ideologically moderate.
> Early actions taken by the Trump administration have already drawn the ire of the Hispanic community.
> State Representative Carol Alvarado, a Democrat who represents Harris County, was blunt in her assessment of Trump's victory.
> "I think it was a slap in the face to (the Hispanic community), because of the type and the depth of the rhetoric," Alvarado explained.
> She pointed to massive gains Democrats made in Harris County as a sign that the tide could be changing across the state.
> In 2012, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were separated by fewer than 1,000 votes in the county.
> In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in the county by more than 160,000 votes.
> "I think we’re on the crest of becoming a purple state. We have a very diverse state. We have people moving here by the thousands on a daily basis. They see Texas as a place of opportunity, a place that they can come and get an education, have a career, provide for their family. And as we see more and more different ethnic groups moving in, I think that’s encouraging for the Democratic party here in Texas," said Alvarado.
> Much of the argument amongst Texas eventually becoming a toss-up revolves around shifting demographics. But is the argument that simple?
> Chuck DeVore, the Vice President of National Initiatives for the Texas Policy Foundation believes there's more to the story.
> "There are four majority-majority states - California, Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii. If demographics is destiny, then Texas should have voted more for Hillary Clinton than did California," said Devore, who previously served in the California State Assembly before moving to Texas.
> Of those four states – Texas was the lone to vote Republican in any of the last three presidential races.
> He believes the argument of Hispanics as a monolithic voting bloc is flawed.
> "Texas does perhaps a better job at assimilation than do other states, where you find large numbers of immigrants to Texas consider themselves either American or Texans. You don't see that in other states," he explained.
> Even Texas' economic policies play a role. Texas, unlike California, is a right-to-work state. Because of that, organized labor does not wield the same voting power here as they do elsewhere.
> And while many Texans point to a large influx of Californians into impacting races, DeVore believes their influence is overstated and often oversimplified.
> "Well the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune did a poll a couple years ago polling political attitudes of Californians moving to Texas, and they found that by a little more than 2-1 they were conservative, not liberal. So you have to look at the reason why people are moving from places like California or Illinois to Texas. Usually, it’s for jobs. Usually, it’s for entrepreneurial opportunity. Those individuals are not going to be big fans of large government, heavy taxes, and the regulatory state. As far as our inner cities, they’ve been trending blue for quite some time. And I think you can’t blame the political trends in our cities on people moving here from Illinois or from California," explained DeVore.
> Travis County GOP Executive Vice Chair Matt Mackowiak doesn't foresee Texas becoming a swing state in the near future - but won't discount an eventual battle.
> "I do think that in 20 or 30 years, as the demographics continue to change, that there is a threat to the Republican party holding the state unless we find a way to start winning Hispanic votes to a much greater extent," explained Mackowiak.
> He mentioned Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Cornyn, and George P. Bush as Republicans who have been successful in breaking through to Hispanic voters.
> DeVore mentioned Governor Abbott's strong performance amongst Hispanic voters, and the respective popularity of individual Republican lawmakers in Texas as barriers to success for Democrats.
> While Mackowiak acknowledged Democratic gains in 2016 - he believes they still have several shortcomings to competitively challenge Republicans.
> "Democratic infrastructure in Texas is extremely weak. They have a very weak base. All they're really able to do is win urban elections," said Mackowiak.
> Texas has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter in 1976. The last time the state voted for a Democratic governor was Anne Richards in 1990. Both the state Senate and House are Republican-controlled.
> Both DeVore and Mackowiak asserted the difficulty of making predictions concerning 2020, pointing to undetermined factors surrounding the state of the country and Trump's presidential record as that respective election draws closer.
> Weaver said that the Republicans victory in November may obscure warning signs and troubling trends.
> "We did break through as a party in the Industrial Midwest. But you can’t count on that again, number 1. And number 2, the Hispanic population is growing quickly in North Carolina, in Georgia, obviously here in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado is seemingly out of reach for us, and I won’t even talk about California," said Weaver.
> Regardless of how you read the numbers, none of the shifting demographics matter if Hispanics don't vote.
> In 2012, Pew Research reports only 48 percent of eligible Hispanic voters cast ballots – compared to 64 percent of eligible white voters.
> Last week, we got our first look at how Texans have graded Trump so far.
> According to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, 81 percent of Republicans approve of Trump's job performance so far, and his favorability rating has increased 21 percent since October. However, that split severely tightened once Democrats and Independents are factored in. In total, 46 percent of Texans approve of the job Trump has done - while 44 percent disapprove.


:heston

Only in left-wing minds does losing by 9% mean that victory is right around the corner.

I remember when Barack Obama beat John McCain by 7% and that was just a sign that the Republican Party was finished...

Delusions of grandeur are a serious problem for left-wingers.

20 or 30 years for Texas to become a competitive state sounds about right. That's 5 to 7 presidential elections from now. I'm sure Republicans are quaking in their boots at the prospect that in 20 or 30 years Texas will be a competitive state. 

Of course this all depends on non-whites remaining slaves to the Democratic Party. Better hope in 20 or 30 years that's still the case... because if it isn't, the Republican Party will be the one that never loses. Whites aren't going to leave the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is too full of white-hating racists. Everything Democrats say about Republicans and non-whites is actually a spot-on description of the Democratic Party and whites. Better hope those non-whites remain mostly poor and without property... or you're donezo.


----------



## DesolationRow

The best bet Republicans have in states like Arizona and Texas is that Hispanics newly eligible to vote choose to not do so. Otherwise, yes, those states will be quite purple, and likely leaning toward blue, by 2024, no doubt about it. And those states probably have the greatest concentrations of "right-wing Hispanic voters," too. Along with Florida.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

virus21 said:


> Good


Well, I live in California, so hopefully there's enough warning. LOL

Also, kudos for the Tool reference. Love that song!


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> How many times did Trump file for bankruptcy?


LOL, at your comparison of a person and a state filing for bankruptcy. It's as if you have no clue on economics at all.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Republican leadership is good just look at Mississippi and West Virginia. Totally broke and known Republican state's.


Did Mississippi or West Virginia have their AAA rating downgraded? Nope, Miss. AA, WV AA-. Illinois? BBB-. That's through the S&P. 31 states have a revenue shortfall, that's nothing new, but to have your bond rating downgraded, horrific.



> Illinois’ Credit Rating Downgrades
> 04/24/2017 02:21 pm ET
> Justin Leventhal contributed to this article.
> 
> Illinois is quickly proving itself a case study in how not to manage a state’s finances. Its credit rating has been sliding since 2009. In the past two years alone it has seen downgrades from all three major credit agencies. Fitch and S&P currently have Illinois one spot above “speculative” or “junk” status (a ‘BBB’) while Moody’s holds the state’s credit rating two spots above junk (at ‘Baa2’). Each of these ratings firms also have Illinois at a negative outlook.
> 
> S&P now says Illinois’ rating could be cut by two more levels if solutions experience continued delays, putting it well into junk status. Some local government debt already qualifies as “junk,” including Chicago Public Schools (CPS).
> 
> These downgrades stemming from fiscal mismanagement increase the cost of borrowing money. What went so wrong with Illinois’ finances? And, what can be done to resolve the problem?
> 
> The ratings agencies’ statements provide vital information on how Illinois reached this point. S&P cited “long-term irresponsible deficits, growing pension costs and a lack of reforms” as reasons for its downgrade. Fitch cited “the unprecedented failure” of not having a budget for two years and the effects of “spending far in excess of available revenue.” Moody’s reasons are similar for both the state of Illinois and for CPS, namely a “deepening structural deficit.” Ultimately these criticisms can be boiled down to the state having no budget—when it did, that budget was unbalanced for nearly a decade and a half—and pension costs growing unsustainably. Meaningful solutions to Illinois’ financial woes cannot be enacted quickly. According to S&P, if Illinois boosted revenues and ended the two year budget impasse, it would still not see a credit rating upgrade for another two years.
> 
> Some continue to blame the state’s credit slide on a lack of tax revenue, but this ignores the fact credit ratings continued to freefall even after increasing the state’s income tax. Legislators continually refuse to align budget priorities with the needs of its citizens. Instead, the legislature too often seeks to fulfill the agenda of public sector union special interests, particularly the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). While numerous other unions have agreed to the need for pension reform, AFSCME has refused. This lack of compromise is threatening insolvency. For perspective, from 2000 to 2015, legislators increased spending on pensions by nearly 586 percent (an increase unseen in any other portion of its spending) and cut higher education funding by 8 percent.
> 
> The state is not short on the funds it needs, it is long on promises. First year pension payouts for many state employees exceed career contributions; the average state employee receives $1.6 million over their retirement. And Cadillac health insurance plans for these state employees are often paid completely by the state. Current state workers have enjoyed a 40 percent increase in their salaries from 2005 to 2014. While the rest of the state’s take home pay has remained flat, AFSCME members in Illinois became the highest paid state workers in the nation, when adjusted for cost of living.


----------



## Reaper

Trump's Approval Rating: 










I'd say this is closer to reality considering that it's truly anon and on Twitter - which we all know is quite heavily populated by leftists :draper2


----------



## Sensei Utero

To be fair to Trump, he has surprised me a few times in a good way. I do hope he proves me wrong, and all that stuff. Not sure about the whole Paris Agreement stuff still, and I have no clue on what to make on the whole Russia/FBI shite, but eh, overall - he could be doing a lot worse. I'll give it a lot more time obviously, and this is coming from someone who likes Bernie, but kudos where it's due, and I hope he continues to do good things.


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> Trump's Approval Rating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say this is closer to reality considering that it's truly anon and on Twitter - which we all know is quite heavily populated by leftists :draper2


Yes let's not judge the fact that Trump is getting destroyed on his Twitter. It's gotten so bad that Trump is using a blockbot. So Trump is now in the same category as Francesca Ramsey.
A coward who can't take criticism.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> To be fair to Trump, he has surprised me a few times in a good way. I do hope he proves me wrong, and all that stuff. Not sure about the whole Paris Agreement stuff still, and I have no clue on what to make on the whole Russia/FBI shite, but eh, overall - he could be doing a lot worse. I'll give it a lot more time obviously, and this is coming from someone who likes Bernie, but kudos where it's due, and I hope he continues to do good things.


Once you recover from the mentally crippling brainwashing of the climate alarmist cult, you'll start realizing that leaving the Paris agreement was a great step as well. In fact, you don't even need to reject climate alarmism to realize why leaving the Paris accords was a great idea. :trump3 

The Russia/FBI BS isn't going to go anywhere and it's not slowing Trump down. The congress is actually moving forward at a decent enough pace. The press just isn't reporting it. 

The US economy is chugging along with no signs of slowing down.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Did Mississippi or West Virginia have their AAA rating downgraded? Nope, Miss. AA, WV AA-. Illinois? BBB-. That's through the S&P. 31 states have a revenue shortfall, that's nothing new, but to have your bond rating downgraded, horrific.


You're saying that West Virginia or Mississippi were always shitholes got it.


----------



## Oxidamus

Iconoclast said:


> Trump's Approval Rating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say this is closer to reality considering that it's truly anon and on Twitter - which we all know is quite heavily populated by leftists :draper2


No Twitter poll is representative of the public at large. No anonymous internet poll really is or can be. They're too easy to dupe, even with 100,000 votes.


----------



## Reaper

This guy needs to be put on the terror watch list. 

Another Bernie bro that's potentially going to attack someone. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/876282025040265216
Socialism simply cannot exist without violence from its supporters. I think it's time to bring back the communist trials. The "rich vs poor" rhetoric ALWAYS leads to political assassinations.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> You're saying that West Virginia or Mississippi were always shitholes got it.


:maisielol

Go do some research and come back when you're ready to talk with the adults.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Socialism simply cannot exist without violence from its supporters. I think it's time to bring back the communist trials. The "rich vs poor" rhetoric ALWAYS leads to political assassinations.


I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders. Some of his supporters are fucking lunatics!



> A coward who can't take criticism.


Or maybe he's just sick and tired of liberals who have nothing better to do with their time, but harass him every day on Twitter? Shocking concept to grasp I know.



> How many times did Trump file for bankruptcy?


0. 

*#FactsMatter*

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

TheNightmanCometh said:


> LOL, at your comparison of a person and a state filing for bankruptcy. It's as if you have no clue on economics at all.


He supports Bernie Sanders...I think its safe to say he has no clue about economics


----------



## Reaper

Looks like another anti-Trump narrative is about to bite the dust. 

That said, it worries me that a teacher is more proud of his sexuality than the fact that he's a teacher. 

I'm bisexual and I like to talk about it, but it's not _all _who I am. I'm much more than my sexuality. But that's not true for most gay/bisexual people anymore. They've gotten so used to being given an elevated position in society just because they're gay that many of them have forgotten how to be anything more.


----------



## Jay Valero

Iconoclast said:


> This guy needs to be put on the terror watch list.
> 
> Another Bernie bro that's potentially going to attack someone.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/876282025040265216
> Socialism simply cannot exist without violence from its supporters. I think it's time to bring back the communist trials. .


People shouldn't think this is a joke. I sincerely hope he gets a visit from the feds and is thoroughly looked into by them. Frankly this type of rhetoric sounds eerily familiar:

"We practice selective annihilation of mayors and govt officials, for example, and create a vacuum. Then we fill that vacuum. As the popular war advances, peace is closer."


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders. Some of his supporters are fucking lunatics!


I don't. While I admit that his willful ignorance of the link between socialism and left-wing terrorism absolves him of the responsibility of creating a potential new wave of left-wing terrorism, but at the same time when he brands pretty much everything as violence against the people was he really expecting that his rhetoric wouldn't be weaponized in response? Is he really that ignorant that a "people's revolution" doesn't mean a call to violent response against all this perceived violence against the people he prattles on about? 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Read his manifesto. Everything on here is listed as "violence". 



Jay Valero said:


> People shouldn't think this is a joke. I sincerely hope he gets a visit from the feds and is thoroughly looked into by them. Frankly this type of rhetoric sounds eerily familiar:
> 
> "We practice selective annihilation of mayors and govt officials, for example, and create a vacuum. Then we fill that vacuum. As the popular war advances, peace is closer."


Watch this documentary on South Africa. 

We're nowhere near that level of political violence thankfully ... but a huge chunk of the electorate is ignorant enough to perpetrate acts of terror on a small scale. 






A people's revolution (and these are words used by Bernie) is never nothing but violent and using political violence to raise fascists into positions of power.

Western social welfare in European countries in recent years is more positive as they used Keynesian model as opposed to Marxist class warfare and has used less violent propaganda in order to get social welfare policies in place. I may not agree with social welfare, but at least those countries implemented it without a violent revolution ... 

But Bernie's socialism is still steeped in a much darker tone and rhetoric encouraging the extreme left to weaponize their hatred of the rich - something he seems to be woefully unaware of. On the other side of the Atlantic, you have Corbyn and now his electorate is also starting to riot against May. It's not a coincidence. Violence ALWAYS follows a socialist.


----------



## Vic Capri

Fair enough.

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

Iconoclast said:


> I don't. While I admit that his willful ignorance of the link between socialism and left-wing terrorism absolves him of the responsibility of creating a potential new wave of left-wing terrorism, but at the same time when he brands pretty much everything as violence against the people was he really expecting that his rhetoric wouldn't be weaponized in response? Is he really that ignorant that a "people's revolution" doesn't mean a call to violent response against all this perceived violence against the people he prattles on about?
> 
> https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
> 
> Read his manifesto. Everything on here is listed as "violence".
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this documentary on South Africa.
> 
> We're nowhere near that level of political violence thankfully ... but a huge chunk of the electorate is ignorant enough to perpetrate acts of terror on a small scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A people's revolution (and these are words used by Bernie) is never nothing but violent and using political violence to raise fascists into positions of power.
> 
> Western social welfare in European countries in recent years is more positive as they used Keynesian model as opposed to Marxist class warfare and has used less violent propaganda in order to get social welfare policies in place. I may not agree with social welfare, but at least those countries implemented it without a violent revolution ...
> 
> But Bernie's socialism is still steeped in a much darker tone and rhetoric encouraging the extreme left to weaponize their hatred of the rich - something he seems to be woefully unaware of. On the other side of the Atlantic, you have Corbyn and now his electorate is also starting to riot against May. It's not a coincidence. Violence ALWAYS follows a socialist.


My quote (paraphrased admittedly due to poor memory) was from a Peruvian Maoist guerrilla officer in the late 80s. It's in the following article, which I think you and others will find of interest.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0889_1_abimael-guzman-shining-path-guerrillas


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> My quote (paraphrased admittedly due to poor memory) was from a Peruvian Maoist guerrilla officer in the late 80s. It's in the following article.
> 
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0889_1_abimael-guzman-shining-path-guerrillas


Yah. I looked it up, but at the same time, your quote reminded me of the SA madness in the early 90's. Also basically a socialist people's revolution. 

We've had so many, you'd think that socialists would have learnt by now.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

I thought this thread couldn't get any more desperate but using a twitter poll and trying to make it out as accurate? 

Its 24 hours and is heavily influenced by those sharing it, if more right wing people share it it will get more attention from right wingers etc. Twitter polls are quite possibly the least accurate way of polling...ever.

Its almost impossible to gauge what demographics you're hitting.

Plus we all know the Russian Mafia are bot spamming any polls online.

Its interesting to check the first sort of 20 or so retweeters and its mostly Trumpers and the odd random foreigner that I can't tell what allegiance they have. It would be intriguing to go through all of the retweeters but at the end of the day confirmation bias would still just mean the poll would be taken as gospel by Trumpers and shat on by leftists.


----------



## Reaper

I don't think there are people ITT that have the IQ required to truly understand the high level of my satire in this thread. I think CP is probably the only person who has come close to understanding it. 

But it is encouraging that leftists do eventually start using their brains when it's something that is the exact same thing they should be criticizing polls that give them the results they follow and worship. In essence, when it comes to polling and sampling errors, there is very little to prevent errors when it comes to these supposedly "scientific" polls pollsters conduct as well - but those errors are dismissed because it gives the lefties the results they want - just like you see them worshiping so-called "scientific data" when it comes to climate alarmism. There is no reason to believe any phone interviews either because there is no reason to believe that someone would lie on the internet and then not lie on the phone. Nor is there any reason to believe that the sampling contains no errors. Nor is there any reason to believe that pollsters are unbiased. 

In fact, many polls were deconstructed repeatedly over 2016 and all of their flaws were laid out for everyone in the previous Trump threads. Something like 100% of the polls had Trump losing the election, losing the swing states, losing counties that he won etc etc. So knowing that I don't rely on so-called polls, why would I really believe that a twitter poll is actually real :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Fair do's I have to be honest I thought the post was weird because I may not agree with 90% of what you say but I didn't put you down as stupid and putting any stock on Twitter polls is stupid. So I'll admit your satire went over my head this time.


----------



## Reaper

The greatest leftist argument I've ever heard. 

TBH, I'm actually thoroughly convinced. 

He starts off a little angry with some insults, but eventually starts speaking for all leftists and I actually started getting convinced towards the end. Disagreed with the Twitter accounts' assessment here. Once you really start listening, you'll understand the nuance behind his arguments. There's another woman in there who gave us some great words to live by as well. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/876533716964737024
I guess I'll stop supporting Trump now.


----------



## MrMister

Creepy staring woman is like something out of a David Lynch nightmare.

"Fuck you" guy kinda is a Lynch character as well.

:lmao losing it over here


----------



## deepelemblues

Judging by the old man - woman? Alien? - in the Earth Camp shirt, there is a reason antifa covers their faces with bandanas. A very, very good reason.


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> Judging by the old man - woman? Alien? - in the Earth Camp shirt, there is a reason antifa covers their faces with bandanas. A very, very good reason.


Yep


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> Once you recover from the mentally crippling brainwashing of the climate alarmist cult, you'll start realizing that leaving the Paris agreement was a great step as well. In fact, you don't even need to reject climate alarmism to realize why leaving the Paris accords was a great idea. :trump3
> 
> The Russia/FBI BS isn't going to go anywhere and it's not slowing Trump down. The congress is actually moving forward at a decent enough pace. The press just isn't reporting it.
> 
> The US economy is chugging along with no signs of slowing down.


No way! Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot. He stole the election and fellates putin, even though putins said hes never met hom and theres absolut3ly no evidence of collusion.

i know this because anonymous sources said so


----------



## CamillePunk

:done


----------



## deepelemblues

amhlilhaus said:


> No way! Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot. He stole the election and fellates putin, even though putins said hes never met hom and theres absolut3ly no evidence of collusion.
> 
> i know this because anonymous sources said so


Putin was the cameraman in the hotel room where :trump ordered those Russki prostitutes to piss on the bed the Obamas had slept in :cena5

Vladimir has many contacts in the world of amateur porn. Anonymous sources have told the Washington Post that Putin is the one who suggested Brad Maddox film Paige fucking Xavier Woods. "This be your big break Mr. Maddox. Do this, I introduce you _king_ of amateur porn Mr. Donald :trump"

The rest, as they say, is the money shot :focus


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northkorea-detainee-idUSKBN19A2TW



> *U.S. student who was returned from North Korea in coma has died*
> 
> U.S. student Otto Warmbier, who was imprisoned in North Korea for 17 months before being returned home in a coma less than a week ago, has died in a Cincinnati hospital, his family said in a statement on Monday.
> 
> "Unfortunately, the awful torturous mistreatment our son received at the hands of the North Koreans ensured that no other outcome was possible beyond the sad one we experienced today," the family said in a statement following Warmbier's death at 2:20 p.m. EDT (1820 GMT) at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
> 
> His family has said that Warmbier, 22, had lapsed into a coma in March 2016, shortly after he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in North Korea.
> 
> He was arrested, according to North Korean media, for trying to steal an item bearing a propaganda slogan.
> North Korea released Warmbier last week, saying he was being freed "on humanitarian grounds."
> 
> The University of Virginia student's father, Fred Warmbier, said last week that his son had been "brutalized and terrorized by the Pyongyang government and that the family disbelieved North Korea's story that his son had fallen into a coma after contracting botulism and being given a sleeping pill.
> 
> Doctors who examined Otto Warmbier after his release said there was no sign of botulism in his system.
> Warmbier was freed after the U.S. State Department's special envoy on North Korea, Joseph Yun, traveled to Pyongyang and demanded the student's release on humanitarian grounds, capping a flurry of secret diplomatic contacts, a U.S. official said last week.
> 
> Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been heightened by dozens of North Korean missile launches and two nuclear bomb tests since the beginning of last year. Pyongyang has also vowed to develop a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.
> 
> Susan Thornton, the U.S. acting assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said earlier on Monday that the United States was concerned for the welfare of the three other U.S. citizens still held in North Korea - Korean-Americans Tony Kim, Kim Dong Chul and Kim Hak Song.


----------



## Reaper

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/t...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push



> *JUST IN — Trump responds to Otto Warmbier’s death — Read his entire statement…*
> 
> President Donald Trump expressed his condolences to the family of Otto Warmbier after the American college student passed away Monday following his detention in North Korea.
> 
> “Melania and I offer our deepest condolences to the family of Otto Warmbier on his untimely passing. There is nothing more tragic for a parent than to lose a child in the prime of life,” Trump said in an official statement. “Our thoughts and prayers are with Otto’s family and friends, and all who loved him.”
> 
> Warmbier, 22, was arrested and imprisoned in North Korea after being found guilty of stealing a propaganda poster. He was released last week while in a coma for which the exact causes remain unknown.
> 
> Doctors who were treating him in Cincinnati said that Warmbier suffered a catastrophic brain injury shortly after his conviction around April 2016. He was detained in North Korea for 17 months.
> 
> Trump said in his statement: “Otto’s fate deepens my Administration’s determination to prevent such tragedies from befalling innocent people at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency. The United States once again condemns the brutality of the North Korean regime as we mourn its latest victim.”


The boy is dead. Tortured. Abandoned by Obama's government. And finally dead. 

At least he got to come home and be buried where he was born. 

I'm sadder at this than I am at most deaths because it speaks volumes about an entire culture that encourages liberal minded children to give up all sense of self-preservation and visit shitholes they have no business of going to.


----------



## CamillePunk

Terribly sad news. At least he got to come home before his passing.


----------



## stevefox1200

Iconoclast said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/t...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push
> 
> 
> 
> The boy is dead. Tortured. Abandoned by Obama's government. And finally dead.
> 
> At least he got to come home and be buried where he was born.
> 
> I'm sadder at this than I am at most deaths because it speaks volumes about an entire culture that encourages liberal minded children to give up all sense of self-preservation and visit shitholes they have no business of going to.


A few years ago I remember people on this forum praising North Korea for "not listing to the globalist elites" and how it was just "western propaganda"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Iconoclast said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/t...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push
> 
> 
> 
> The boy is dead. Tortured. Abandoned by Obama's government. And finally dead.
> 
> At least he got to come home and be buried where he was born.
> 
> I'm sadder at this than I am at most deaths because it speaks volumes about an entire culture that encourages liberal minded children to give up all sense of self-preservation and visit shitholes they have no business of going to.


It's not just the liberal minded, TBF. There's also the religious groups that encourage them to go "spread the word.
*
Why US Christians Risk Their Lives to Teach in North Korea *


----------



## deepelemblues

The latest poll out of GA06, by the Trafalgar Group (no idea who that is), has Handel (R) up 1.97% over Ossoff (D-Carpetbagger) with a 2.9% margin of error.

Gonna be a close one tomorrow night


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> A few years ago I remember people on this forum praising North Korea for "not listing to the globalist elites" and how it was just "western propaganda"


Yeah, I've seen a growing wave of sympathy towards shitholes like NK with plenty of people making very pro-NK documentaries lately. 

On a personal note, despite the fact that my parents are in Pakistan, I've told them that I'm not going to bring my very blonde and very blue-eyed wife on a visit under any circumstances. There's really nothing these places have on offer for westerners because their tourism is based on presenting a western experience to westerners ironically but with added dangers of political upheaval and crime. We went on a Cruise in 2013 which meant visiting places in the Caribbean ... The minute I hit land, I was like "but this is like everything else, what's so special about this?" 

There's 100's of wonderful places and sights to see in America which is an entire continent on its own. I've been living near Orlando for 3 years and I still haven't even been able to go to Disney. 



2 Ton 21 said:


> It's not just the liberal minded, TBF. There's also the religious groups that encourage them to go "spread the word.
> *
> Why US Christians Risk Their Lives to Teach in North Korea *


By liberal minded I wasn't referring to liberalism in the political sense, but I get your point.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, I've seen a growing wave of sympathy towards shitholes like NK with plenty of people making very pro-NK documentaries lately.
> 
> On a personal note, despite the fact that my parents are in Pakistan, I've told them that I'm not going to bring my very blonde and very blue-eyed wife on a visit under any circumstances. There's really nothing these places have on offer for westerners because their tourism is based on presenting a western experience to westerners ironically but with added dangers of political upheaval and crime. We went on a Cruise in 2013 which meant visiting places in the Caribbean ... The minute I hit land, I was like "but this is like everything else, what's so special about this?"
> 
> There's 100's of wonderful places and sights to see in America which is an entire continent on its own. I've been living near Orlando for 3 years and I still haven't even been able to go to Disney.
> 
> 
> 
> By liberal minded I wasn't referring to liberalism in the political sense, but I get your point.


I just can't get my head around people that go to places where the risk is so high for them. Sure nothing may happen, but why chance it.

It's funny how the same people don't go to the more dangerous parts of this country. You never see anyone decide to backpack through the south side of Chicago during summer break or hear about mission trips to West Baltimore.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> A few years ago I remember people on this forum praising North Korea for "not listing to the globalist elites" and how it was just "western propaganda"


What? :lol I don't remember this. I recall saying we shouldn't go to war with North Korea when tensions were high, and I know you've never seen a US military intervention you didn't like, but that's clearly not the same thing as praising the North Korean regime. I hope you aren't conflating the two.


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> What? :lol I don't remember this. I recall saying we shouldn't go to war with North Korea when tensions were high, and I know you've never seen a US military intervention you didn't like, but that's clearly not the same thing as praising the North Korean regime. I hope you aren't conflating the two.


Ehh your right

after looking it up it was mostly batko and that guy who had that North Korean gimmick and called all his favorite wrestlers with a "comrade" prefix (ex: Comrade Baily)


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> Putin was the cameraman in the hotel room where :trump ordered those Russki prostitutes to piss on the bed the Obamas had slept in :cena5
> 
> Vladimir has many contacts in the world of amateur porn. Anonymous sources have told the Washington Post that Putin is the one who suggested Brad Maddox film Paige fucking Xavier Woods. "This be your big break Mr. Maddox. Do this, I introduce you _king_ of amateur porn Mr. Donald :trump"
> 
> The rest, as they say, is the money shot :focus


Brad maddox with that stellar camera work

Wonder if hes been promoted to 'fluffer' yet?


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> It's funny how the same people don't go to the more dangerous parts of this country. You never see anyone decide to backpack through the south side of Chicago during summer break or hear about mission trips to West Baltimore.


I'm one of those people who has come to the conclusion that tourism (not the kind of tourism where people simply go to see the world and its landmarks) is a form of racism. 

A form of Western tourism where people specifically leave their country to experience an "adventure" in a "different" culture is _innately_ racist because the primary driver behind that need is the belief that what's foreign (especially what's eastern) is _innately_ exotic and must be experienced _personally_ in order to be immersed in it. 

However, there is absolutely no sense of awareness of the _actual _society because they then insulate themselves in westernized hotels, eat at westernized restaurants, visit westernized beaches and visit westernized theme parks inside a bubble of artificial security and safety. 

All the while believing that those who are paid to _serve _them hand and foot are providing them with some enriching cultural experience simply by existing in their narcissistic and glorious space. 

The sheer arrogance and ignorance on display in that kind of "tourism" is lost upon them. 

Of course, those who realize this and actually immerse themselves in the actual culture usually end up in hot water .. either kidnapped, beaten, mugged, raped, jailed or worse killed. 

I like to experience different cultures, but I do it from the comfort of my home by engaging people on the internet .. It's cheap and it's safe. I've seen more than enough of this world to know that it's not a safe place and most of the east wants to kill you in a million different ways.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

All is quite on the Trump news front. It's an odd feeling.


----------



## Reaper

Trump has started to look more and more like a national hero. I can't even imagine a way they can spin anything against him after Otto's return - and I'm guessing not many can.

The kind of praise he's receiving from within his supporters is now starting to turn into a form of genuine admiration and loyalty that I didn't see even in the past 8 months based on my twitter feed. He may have had a lot of support, but he didn't have love. Now that's evolving as well. 

It's a fascinating time to be alive.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Iconoclast said:


> I'm one of those people who has come to the conclusion that tourism (not the kind of tourism where people simply go to see the world and its landmarks) is a form of racism.
> 
> A form of Western tourism where people specifically leave their country to experience an "adventure" in a "different" culture is _innately_ racist because the primary driver behind that need is the belief that what's foreign (especially what's eastern) is _innately_ exotic and must be experienced _personally_ in order to be immersed in it.
> 
> However, there is absolutely no sense of awareness of the _actual _society because they then insulate themselves in westernized hotels, eat at westernized restaurants, visit westernized beaches and visit westernized theme parks inside a bubble of artificial security and safety.
> 
> All the while believing that those who are paid to _serve _them hand and foot are providing them with some enriching cultural experience simply by existing in their narcissistic and glorious space.
> 
> The sheer arrogance and ignorance on display in that kind of "tourism" is lost upon them.
> 
> Of course, those who realize this and actually immerse themselves in the actual culture usually end up in hot water .. either kidnapped, beaten, mugged, raped, jailed or worse killed.
> 
> I like to experience different cultures, but I do it from the comfort of my home by engaging people on the internet .. It's cheap and it's safe. I've seen more than enough of this world to know that it's not a safe place and most of the east wants to kill you in a million different ways.


I don't really agree with that being one of the main negatives on tourism, it doesn't just work on both of those extremes all the time

Being a geographer and all, I just like experiencing and learning other cultures, whether that be tasting their food, watching street performers, going to markets, experiencing night life etc. I think the type of tourism you seem to be referring to is the big resort type of tourism, which I can understand (and I've been to some of those myself. However, me and my family know that we're not really there to experience the actual culture when we go to a beach resort in say the Dominican Republic or something. We're aware that we're simply there for the beach and the resort itself as a getaway trip, and will treat everybody with respect, especially the workers (a majority of them being native Dominicans). 

I've been to places like Guatemala (for a study abroad) and really went more authentic as we ate more local food, and generally learned about their environment, water quality, and culture and how all of those comes together. We also generally stayed in hostels and a large house that was done for volunteers of the area. I think it was the intention of the trip to not be stuck experiencing western ideals in a different country, and they did a good job in making sure of that. 

But I do understand where you're coming from. I've seen American tourists in places where it seems embarrassing watching them go somewhere only to be baffled to not have all the amenities they have in the comfort of their own home. 

In my eyes, as long as the country is okay with tourism and welcomes it, and the people who come as tourists remain respectful towards its citizens and its culture, I don't really have much of a problem with tourism at all, and rather would encourage people to explore the world and their fellow humankind.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I don't really agree with that being one of the main negatives on tourism, it doesn't just work on both of those extremes all the time


You're disagreeing with something I never said :lol 



> Being a geographer and all, I just like experiencing and learning other cultures, whether that be tasting their food, watching street performers, going to markets, experiencing night life etc.


Well, I wasn't making that point initially, but I don't think just wanting to see with your own eyes isn't what makes it racist --- but leaving talk about racism aside, it's still not a real experience of culture. It's an experience limted to performing arts and cuisine. It would be like my mom coming to America and eating at McDonald's and watching a movie in a theatre and feeling like she's experience American "culture". 

I didn't know what American culture was till I actually experienced it with my wife over a period of 3 years. Now I know and I have a completely different view of what Southern American culture is like in Florida than I did before I moved here. I still have no clue what culture is like in different parts of the US since it's all so huge. 



> I've been to places like Guatemala (for a study abroad) and really went more authentic as we ate more local food, and generally learned about their environment, water quality, and culture and how all of those comes together. We also generally stayed in hostels and a large house that was done for volunteers of the area. I think it was the intention of the trip to not be stuck experiencing western ideals in a different country, and they did a good job in making sure of that.


That's not tourism, but it's still experiencing a country in a bubble. 

Not to sound like an elitist but personally i don't think you experience a culture truly till you work for a living and build a life in that society. There's a lot of nuance that can go missing. 

I say this because when I was a Canadian Migrant going to a Canadian University, because of my cultural roots having been established in Canada at a young age, I had a very different lifestyle than foreign kids who just came over for a degree. They missed the subtle nuances no matter how much they tried to immerse themselves. 

However, I think I have a different view because this is my 4th major migration. 



> But I do understand where you're coming from. I've seen American tourists in places where it seems embarrassing watching them go somewhere only to be baffled to not have all the amenities they have in the comfort of their own home.


It's really not about them being embarrassing as much as it is about their pompous attitude after they come back. But that's mostly the hippies that go there specifically to experience a different culture and come back with fabrics and clothes and spices believing that that's culture :lol 



> In my eyes, as long as the country is okay with tourism and welcomes it, and the people who come as tourists remain respectful towards its citizens and its culture, I don't really have much of a problem with tourism at all, and rather would encourage people to explore the world and their fellow humankind.


I have a different view. The thing is that like any industry, tourism is just that - an industry. The tourists come with a certain expectation and demands and are just generally rude even if they don't think they are. I get this now because I'm now living in a tourist State. I see the lack of respect Euro cunts and South Americans show locals when they come here. Maybe it's different cultures clashing, or maybe it's just the tourists coming in with the expecation that "locals" would gladly move aside to let their asses through ... But generally that's what I've experienced at theme parks that I've visited in Florida and you can ALWAYS tell who's a euro cunt and who's a south/central american tourist just by how they walk past you. (of course they're not all like that, but most of them are ... The Brits are mostly cool though ... easy to spot because they're pale af :lmao)

I don't mind tourists, but most of them are fucking cunts and generally locals hate them. It's of course those who stand to make money off of tourists that show them a good time because their livelihood depends on it. Most of the rest of us would rather they keep to their own countries - and I feel that that would be the same for locals around the world. :Shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obama-nsc-advisor-susan-rices-unmasking-material-obama-library/

Out of the White House and the bastard's corruption is still going!

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

TheNightmanCometh said:


> All is quite on the Trump news front. It's an odd feeling.


There's the RUMBLE IN GA-06 today.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> Trump has started to look more and more like a national hero. I can't even imagine a way they can spin anything against him after Otto's return - and I'm guessing not many can.
> 
> The kind of praise he's receiving from within his supporters is now starting to turn into a form of genuine admiration and loyalty that I didn't see even in the past 8 months based on my twitter feed. He may have had a lot of support, but he didn't have love. Now that's evolving as well.
> 
> It's a fascinating time to be alive.


Theyd spin it by griping 'whyd it take so long? If trump really wanted to, he could have got him home sooner, and he wouldnt have died. This bloods on HIS hands'


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> There's the RUMBLE IN GA-06 today.


If the democrats lose after POURING $$$$ into that race, im going to need a dr to remov3 the smile from my face


----------



## Reaper

Stay safe my fellow Trumpers - especially those of you that are in California. You're under siege and our thoughts are with you. 

http://theredelephants.com/breaking-trump-activist-stabbed-9-times/



> *BREAKING: PRO TRUMP ACTIVIST STABBED 9 TIMES*
> 
> “You’re Getting The Shank White Boy”
> 
> LOS ANGELES – An avid Trump supporter and a man that has been vocal and active in the conservative movement was stabbed nine times near a Santa Monica bar Saturday night following a Trump rally.
> 
> Antonio Foreman, who is best known for providing security detail to well known political reactionary Tim Treadstone, AKA Baked Alaska, is in the ICU at Ronald Reagan UCLA medical center suffering from multiple stab wounds including a slash across the face and neck.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/876947153897144320
> On Saturday, Foreman attended a free speech rally hosted by a media company called ‘Based in LA.’ Following the gathering Foreman and Kyle Chapman, who is better known as ‘Based Stick Man,’ visited a local Santa Monica bar together. Upon leaving the bar, the two parted ways toward their own vehicles. As Tony approached his vehicle, another car rammed through the parking gate vehicle barrier into the lot, directly smashing into Tony’s car. Foreman got out of his truck to exchange insurance information when the attack occurred.
> 
> According to Formeman who is in stable condition currently, as soon as he exited his vehicle two Armenian men involved in the collision met him angrily and commenced to shout racial slurs at him. Foreman says that the last thing he heard before blacking out was “you’re getting the shank white boy.” Foremen also says that they called him a “cracker” multiple times before the attack.
> 
> On the back bumper of Forman’s truck there is a ‘Molon Labe’ sticker which means ‘come and take it’ in Greek, along with a multitude of other patriotic emblems. Foreman believes the collision was intentional.
> 
> 
> 
> Foreman sustained a total of nine knife wounds, four on right his flank, one on chest, two on left side, one across his face and one on his neck. Several of them penetrated deeply, putting his life in immediate danger and warranted an emergency twelve hour surgery, which he has undergone already. The doctors say that he may require one more additional surgery before leaving.
> 
> Treadstone and David Feiner of The Red Elephants are with him currently bedside at the hospital. Treadstone has been in direct contact with the LAPD detective on the case and has told The Red Elephants police have already detained the two assailants who are being held on a one million dollar bond. Police do not believe the attack was politically connected at this time, however does it appears to be certainly racially motivated.


No confirmation from any of the MSM outlets, but so far they haven't reported most incidents of left-wing terrorism so this is likely true.


----------



## deepelemblues

Since she can't beat out 60 Minutes and America's Funniest Home Videos re-runs, NBC is rumored to be trying to shop Me-Again Kelly around. Allegedly they even tried to offer Fox a very nice buyout offer (for Fox) on her so new it's still shiny NBC contract. Fox said haha go fuck yourselves. Nobody wants her, NBC is stuck with this narcissistic bitch.

Poor Me-Again, she really thought she was a star. Hope she enjoys her mid-afternoon MSNBC slot because that's where she's gonna be in 6 months. Maybe sooner.


----------



## Reaper

Kelly's been a dumpster fire since Trump broke her during the campaign trail. 

----

Meanwhile NYT:


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Oh boy, Democrats are gonna go ballistic. There's a rumor that Justice Kennedy is going to retire next week. We're going to war!


----------



## deepelemblues

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Oh boy, Democrats are gonna go ballistic. There's a rumor that Justice Kennedy is going to retire next week. We're going to war!


Just wait until Ginsburg and Breyer die or retire in the next two years


----------



## virus21

> A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
> As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
> The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.
> Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
> Just Facts’ conclusions confront both sides in the illegal voting debate: those who say it happens a lot and those who say the problem nonexistent.
> In one camp, there are groundbreaking studies by professors at Old Dominion University in Virginia who attempted to compile scientifically derived illegal voting numbers using the Harvard data, called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
> 
> SPONSORED CONTENT
> This Unexpected Idea is Disrupting a $200 Billion Industry
> This Unexpected Idea is Disrupting a $200 Billion Industry
> EverQuote
> How To Pay Off Your House At A Furious Pace If You Owe Less Than $300k
> How To Pay Off Your House At A Furious Pace If You Owe Less Than $300k
> LowerMyBills.com
> If You Own A Home, You Are Entitled To A $4,264 Tax Rebate! Must Claim Before September 30th.
> If You Own A Home, You Are Entitled To A $4,264 Tax Rebate! Must Claim Before September 30th.
> The Better Finance
> Recommended by
> On the other side are the professors who conducted the study and contended that “zero” noncitizens of about 18 million adults in the U.S. voted. The liberal mainstream media adopted this position and proclaimed the Old Dominion work was “debunked.”
> The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.
> Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted.
> These numbers are more in line with the unverified estimates given by President Trump, who said the number of ballots cast by noncitizens was the reason he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.
> Last month, the president signed an executive order setting up a commission to try to find on-the-ground truth in illegal voting. Headed by Vice President Mike Pence, the panel also will look at outdated voter lists across the nation with names of dead people and multiple registrants.
> For 2012, Just Facts said, 3.2 million to 5.6 million noncitizens were registered to vote and 1.2 million to 3.6 million of them voted.
> Mr. Agresti lays out his reasoning in a series of complicated calculations, which he compares to U.S. Census Bureau figures for noncitizen residents. Polls show noncitizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
> “The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.
> He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.
> “This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.
> He cites government audits that show large numbers of noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.
> Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.
> “This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally,” he said.
> Some of the polled noncitizens denied they were registered to vote when publicly available databases show that they were, he said.
> This conclusion, he said, is backed by the Harvard/YouGov study’s findings of consumer and vote data matches for 90 percent of participants but only 41 percent of noncitizen respondents.
> As to why his numbers are higher than the besieged ODU professors’ study, Mr. Agresti said: “I calculated the margin of sampling error in a more cautious way to ensure greater confidence in the results, and I used a slightly different methodology that I think is more accurate.”
> There is hard evidence outside of polling that noncitizens do vote. Conservative activists have conducted limited investigations in Maryland and Virginia that found thousands of aliens were registered.
> These inquiries, such as comparing noncitizen jury pool rejections to voter rolls, captured just a snapshot. But conservatives say they show there is a much broader problem that a comprehensive probe by the Pence commission could uncover.
> The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which fights voter fraud, released one of its most comprehensive reports last month.
> Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

virus21 said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/


Read that this morning. I'm sure there will be holes poked in it like the OD study. Waiting to here the response.


----------



## Draykorinee

There's only one hole to poke and that is that he's just taken a load of numbers, crunched them and came up with another one. It's based on nothing. It's so devoid of any reliability that it's easy to dismiss without a second thought.
There may well be a massive problem but I would suggest waiting for Pence' report and ignore made up hyperbole,


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> There's only one hole to poke and that is that he's just taken a load of numbers, crunched them and came up with another one. It's based on nothing. It's so devoid of any reliability that it's easy to dismiss without a second thought.
> There may well be a massive problem but I would suggest waiting for Pence' report and ignore made up hyperbole,


Did you read the study?

EDIT: This is not the study. Still working to find it.



> Substantial Numbers of Non-Citizens Vote Illegally in U.S. Elections
> By James D. Agresti
> December 15, 2016
> 
> The issue of voter fraud was one of the most heated sources of controversy during the 2016 presidential election, and it continues to be so.
> 
> After Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it was supporting recounts in several states won by Donald Trump, Trump responded with a series of Twitter posts accusing Clinton of hypocrisy for refusing to accept the results of the election after she insisted that he “must.” He then tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
> 
> Several major media outlets pounced on Trump’s comment. The New York Times, for example, reported that “virtually no evidence of such improprieties has been discovered.” The Times editorial board then called Trump’s statement “a lie,” and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared “this is a bogus claim with no documented proof.”
> 
> These media reports and Trump’s comment are all misleading. There is material evidence of substantial vote fraud, though it does not prove that Trump would have won the popular vote if such fraud were prevented. It only shows that this is a possibility.
> 
> This evidence is documented in a 2014 paper published by the journal Electoral Studies. Based on survey data and election records, the authors of this paper found that the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”
> 
> As detailed below, this paper has uncertainties that the authors readily acknowledge, but attempts to dismiss it have been flawed and deceitful. Moreover, there are several reasons why significantly more non-citizens may have voted in the 2016 presidential election than in the 2008 election.
> 
> The Electoral Studies Paper
> 
> In 2014, the academic journal Electoral Studies published a paper by three scholars who analyzed the results of a large survey conducted by a group at Harvard University. This study also made use of polling data from YouGov and voter registration and turnout data from Catalist, a firm that equips “progressive organizations” with data to help them “persuade and mobilize” people.
> 
> In this 2008 survey of 32,800 respondents, 339 identified themselves as non-citizens, and 38 of these non-citizens checked a box that said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. At face value, this means that 11.2% (38/339) of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.
> 
> Applying this 11.2% figure to the Census Bureau’s estimate of 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the U.S., this amounts to 2.2 million non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a maximum of 2.8 million non-citizens voted in 2008.
> 
> On the low side, the authors noted that only five non-citizens who said they voted were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. If these were the only people who voted, it would mean that 1.5% (5/339) of non-citizens voted. Applied to 19.4 million adult non-citizens, this amounts to 290,000 votes. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a bare minimum of 38,000 non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.
> 
> Using other data from the survey, the authors refined their high and low estimates to produce a “best guess” that 6.4% or 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008. The survey also showed that 81.8% of non-citizen voters reported that they voted for Obama.
> 
> As the authors explain, these figures are “quite substantial” and “large enough to change meaningful election outcomes, including Electoral College votes and Congressional elections.” More specifically, they noted that “non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare. This is because Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota captured this 60th seat:
> 
> with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
> 
> In the 2016 election for North Carolina’s governor, the current Republican governor recently conceded defeat based on a shortfall of about 10,000 votes. The Census Bureau’s estimate for the adult non-citizen population of North Carolina is 479,000 people. Hence, if 2.1% of them cast added votes for the Democrat, this supplied the margin of victory.
> 
> Trump currently trails in the popular vote by about 2.6 million. Hence, in order for his statement to be true, 12.6% of the 21 million non-citizen adults in the U.S. recorded by the Census Bureau would have had to cast added votes for Clinton. This is within the realm of possibility given that the study also found that “roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote” in 2008 and 2010.
> 
> Flawed Critiques
> 
> Before the 2014 paper was officially published, two of its authors wrote an overview of it for the Washington Post. Criticism was swift and intense, and the Post placed links to four critiques of this article over the top of it, along with the authors’ reply to three of them.
> 
> Most of these criticisms were formalized in a paper published by Electoral Studies in 2015, which accused the authors of the original paper of “cherry-picking.” In the context of public policy, cherry picking means to selectively choose only the data that supports a certain conclusion while ignoring any data that does not. It is the equivalent of lying by omission.
> 
> This 2015 paper was written by three scholars, two of whom are managers of the Harvard survey cited in the study, and the third a manager with YouGov.
> 
> The central argument of their two-page paper is that all of the people in the survey who identified themselves as non-citizen voters either did not vote or were actually citizens. This argument rests on two flawed assumptions.
> 
> First, the critics assume that people who stated “I definitely voted” and specifically identified a choice of candidate did not vote—unless Catalist verified that they voted. This is illogical, because Catalist is unlikely to verify respondents who use fraudulent identities, and millions of non-citizens use them.
> 
> This is shown in a 2013 investigation by the U.S. Social Security Administration, which found that about 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 by using a Social Security number “that did not match their name.” Furthermore, the study found that another 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 with Social Security numbers that they obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.” Notably, a Social Security number is a common requirement for voter registration.
> 
> The Harvard survey and Catalist data evince such identity fraud, because 90% of all survey respondents were matched by Catalist, while most non-citizen respondents were not. In the 2008 and 2012 surveys, only 41% and 43% of non-citizens were matched by Catalist respectively. These low match rates are revealing given that the Catalist database contains reams of data on “more than 240 million unique voting-age individuals.” This amounts to 98% of the 245 million adults who live in the U.S.
> 
> Hence, to ignore all votes not matched by Catalist will ensure that most non-citizens are excluded. This is especially true of those who fraudulently use a Social Security number, who are the very same people who have an open door to voting.
> 
> Their second irrational assumption is that some citizens in the Harvard survey misidentify themselves as non-citizens, but non-citizens never misidentify themselves as citizens. Hence, they dismiss all votes by people who don’t claim to be non-citizens in two separate surveys. This has the effect of narrowing the field of non-citizens to only those who took the survey in both 2008 and 2010. It also excludes anyone who stated on one survey that they are a non-citizen and stated on another that they are a citizen.
> 
> The critics make a legitimate point that random errors by survey respondents will overcount non-citizens. This is because far more citizens were sampled in this survey. For instance, if a survey sampled 100,000 citizens and 100 non-citizens, and 1% of them misidentified themselves, this would mean 1,000 citizens called themselves non-citizens, but only one non-citizen said he was a citizen.
> 
> Such logic makes sense in a vacuum where all other evidence is ignored, but the reality is that misidentification of citizenship is not just a random phenomenon. This is because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally.
> 
> This is proven by a 2013 study published in the journal Demographic Research, which compared Census Bureau survey data on citizenship to the number of naturalized citizens recorded by the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics. The study found that certain major groups of immigrants—including Mexican men of all ages, Mexican women aged 40 and older, and immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years—frequently misrepresent themselves as citizens.
> 
> As a worst-case example, the study found that “the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher” in the Census data than the number recorded by the Office of Immigration Statistics. In other words, only about 4% of Mexican men who claim to be citizens and have been in the United States for less than five years are actually citizens.
> 
> Now watch how the critics employ their flawed assumptions to claim that “the rate of non-citizen voting in the United States is likely 0.” Again, 38 respondents in the 2008 Harvard survey said they were non-citizens who “definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. Yet:
> 
> instead of examining the 2008 presidential election, the critics focus on the 2010 mid-term election when the presidency was not at stake, and turnout was lower. In 2010, 489 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 13 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. This cuts the number of voters from 38 to 13.
> then they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2012 survey, which narrows the pool of non-citizens from 489 to 105, or by 79%.
> then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This further narrows the pool of non-citizens from 105 to 85, leaving only 6 voters.
> then they dismiss anyone who did not appear in the Catalist database as voting, which cuts the number of voters in 2010 from 6 to 0.
> The critics do this without spelling out the implications of their assumptions, without providing a comprehensive and transparent accounting of these numbers, and without mentioning that this was a mid-term election.
> 
> They also analyze the 2012 presidential election, and their methods are even more problematic. In this case, 695 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 61 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. Yet:
> 
> they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2010 survey, which narrows the field of non-citizens from 695 to 105, or by 85%.
> then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This reduces the number of non-citizens from 105 to 85. Note that the survey only asked 15 of these non-citizens if they voted in 2012, and 10 of them said they did.
> then they dismiss all 10 of these people, because they do not appear in the Catalist database as voting. Moreover, they do this while failing to reveal that all of these people specifically identified their choice for president—nine for Obama and one for Romney.
> then, buried in a footnote, they mention that one person who identified herself as a non-citizen in both the 2010 and 2012 surveys was matched by Catalist as voting in 2012. They say that this “appears to be the result of a false positive match with Catalist,” because the person “stated in both the 2010 and 2012 survey that she was not registered to vote.” This argument is based on the unspoken assumption that non-citizens would never lie about voting, even though such an admission could expose them to criminal penalties.
> Throughout the body of their paper, the critics consider Catalist to be the only valid measure of voting, but when this does not serve their purpose, they dismiss Catalist in a footnote. Such duplicity pervades their analysis. They level the charge of cherry picking even as they engage in it.
> 
> Beyond all of the evidence above, the authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper have written a working paper that debunks their critics with many more facts.
> 
> Legitimate Caveats
> 
> The authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper repeatedly explain that there is room for uncertainty in their results. To that end, they provide a wide-ranging estimate for the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election.
> 
> However, one major aspect of their analysis does not quantify margins of error, even though it could be a large source of inaccuracy. This is the fact that the Harvard survey does not provide a truly random sample of the American public.
> 
> The Harvard survey uses data from an internet poll conducted by YouGov. The weakness of internet polls is that they are extremely vulnerable to selection bias or non-response bias. This occurs because certain people are far more likely to participate in these polls.
> 
> As explained in the textbook Mind on Statistics, “Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands.” In other words, such polls are not based on random samples of people, and they can be misleading.
> 
> The Harvard survey attempts to correct for this flaw by using a process called “matching.” This entails selecting a portion of the survey respondents that “mimics the characteristics” of the target population. These characteristics include “age, race, gender, education, marital status, number of children under 18, family income, employment status, citizenship, state, and metropolitan area … religion, church attendance, born again or evangelical status, news interest, party identification and ideology.”
> 
> Matching is a common and generally accepted procedure for turning non-random samples into random ones. However, as the Harvard survey points out, matching relies on the “assumption” that there is “no difference” in how people would answer the survey if they have the same characteristics (like race, age, and news interest). This assumption may be false in some cases, because people can differ in ways that transcend such characteristics.
> 
> The authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper acknowledge this limitation by writing that their conclusions apply “if” the weighted survey data “is fully representative of the non-citizen population.” This is a big “if” given that the underlying data comes from an internet poll, even though it has been matched.
> 
> Another source of uncertainty is the fact that the study uses survey data from the Census Bureau to measure the number of non-citizens in the United States. As detailed above, this will produce an undercount of non-citizens, because many illegal immigrants conceal the fact that they are non-citizens. In the words of the Congressional Budget Office, figures for the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. “are subject to considerable uncertainty.”
> 
> Along the same lines, the Harvard survey may undercount the number of non-citizen voters, because it effectively asks them to admit in writing to a federal crime. Per the authors:
> 
> Non-citizen voters have incentives to misrepresent either their citizenship status or their voting status. After all, claiming to be both a non-citizen and a voter is confessing to vote fraud, and the Federal Voter Registration Application specifically threatens non-citizens who register with a series of consequences. … This possible penalty would tend to reduce the proportion of non-citizen voters who would report having voted.
> 
> The 2016 Election
> 
> The number of non-citizens who voted in the 2016 election may be significantly higher than in 2008, because:
> 
> Trump campaigned on a promise to crack down on illegal immigration, and this may have driven non-citizens to vote against him.
> the number of adult non-citizens in the U.S. recorded by the Census Bureau has risen from 19.4 million in 2008 to 21.0 million in 2016.
> shortly before the election, Obama publicly stated that election records are not cross-checked against immigration databases and “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.” This let non-citizens know that they stand little chance of being caught if they vote.
> Likewise, early in 2016, the Obama administration supported a court injunction to prevent Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia from requiring people to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
> 
> So-Called Fact Checks
> 
> Some of the nation’s most prominent fact checkers have scoffed at Trump’s assertion that he won the popular vote if illegal votes are deducted.
> 
> The Washington Post’s Fact Checker dismissed Trump’s claim as “bogus” and attributed it to “a self-described conservative voter fraud specialist” who has “declined to provide any evidence to back it up, even though reporters have asked.”
> 
> The Post’s analysis, written by Glenn Kessler, completely ignored the fact that Trump’s statement is supported to a degree by the 2014 Electoral Studies paper. Kessler is clearly aware of this study, because he quotes its lead author and links to an earlier Post fact check that cites the study. Yet, Kessler doesn’t even hint at what the study shows. Instead, he provides a link that says “we’ve previously given Trump four Pinocchios for making a number of bogus claims about alleged voter fraud.”
> 
> Worse still, in both of these fact checks, the Post declares that Trump took the study “out of context.” This is a blatant falsehood, but Kessler says it is so because the lead author of the study wrote that “almost all elections in the US are not determined by non-citizen participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions.” This does not in any way contradict Trump, who quoted the authors of the study word-for-word as follows:
> 
> Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and many other reforms, and other Obama administration priorities. … It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina.
> 
> Kessler and his fellow Post reporter had good reason to know that these words are accurate and in-context, for the authors of the study wrote them in the Post, and the Fact Checker linked to their article.
> 
> PolitiFact, another popular fact checking organization, also published a misleading analysis of this issue. This pertains to the number of non-citizens who are registered to vote, which is another finding from the 2014 Electoral Studies paper. PolitiFact says that “Trump accurately cites the study” but is still wrong, because the study was “rebutted multiple times for the methodology it uses.”
> 
> PolitiFact then gives the distinct impression that the people who conducted the study are nobodies who merely wrote an article for the “Monkey Cage” blog of the Washington Post. PolitiFact does this by failing to mention that the study was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and by failing to cite any credentials of the study or its authors, even though two of them, Jesse Richman and David Earnest, are university professors.
> 
> In stark contrast, PolitiFact touts the study’s critics with phrases like “three experts,” “peer-reviewed article,” “a political science professor,” “an election expert,” “an associate policy analyst,” and “experts who actually gathered the underlying data.”
> 
> PolitiFact’s analysis provides no indication that anyone in this organization read the body of the original paper, read the authors’ replies to their critics, or judiciously examined any of the attacks on the paper. It simply portrays the authors as unaccomplished and their critics as reliable.
> 
> This appeal to authority is especially deceitful given that two of the three “experts who actually gathered the underlying data” have made donations to left-leaning political causes. These are Brian Schaffner and Samantha Luks, who are among the three scholars who wrote the 2015 paper in Electoral Studies that criticized the original paper.
> 
> In 2004, Schaffner donated to America Coming Together, a liberal organization “heavily funded by billionaire George Soros” that was “on the cutting edge of national politics.” In 2016, Schaffner gave $250 to Hillary Clinton, and Luks donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
> 
> Incidentally, the same federal records show no political donations for the three authors of the original study.
> 
> In sum, PolitiFact neglects the actual facts of this complex issue and makes it seem as if this is a case of “the experts” versus people with no credibility. That is not fact-checking but shilling for a particular point of view.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Contrary to the claims of certain major media outlets and fact checkers, a comprehensive analysis of this issue shows that substantial numbers of non-citizens vote illegally in U.S. elections. However, contrary to Trump, the data does not prove that he would have won the popular vote if this fraud did not take place. Instead, it only shows that this is a reasonable possibility.


----------



## virus21

> Breaking news out of Washington, D.C. where The Profiling Project — an “all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors” has just released a report on the murder of Seth Rich. Here’s the executive summary with the bombshell suggestion that a “hired killer” was possibly behind the crime:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Full document here.
> 
> Live news conference here:
> 
> Follow
> Scott Taylor ABC 7 ✔ @ScottTaylorTV
> Watch on #Periscope: Profiling Project Report news conference on #SethRich murder case. @ABC 7 News https://www.pscp.tv/w/bBfmpDIxOTk4MDl8MWpNS2dvUVZXTXFLTO2x_KL1KW1NJiONo31UngfK1KpoIDpipCcnejOY4PDo …
> 10:40 AM - 20 Jun 2017
> 
> Scott Taylor @ScottTaylorTV
> Profiling Project Report on #SethRich murder case is about to start @ABC 7 News
> pscp.tv
> 147 147 Retweets 132 132 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> trending
> BOMBSHELL: New independent report suggests murder of Seth Rich not random or a robbery, possible 'hired killer'
> Thought police? Man ARRESTED over tweet (yes, a TWEET) after Finsbury Park attack
> According to this report, the Rich family was briefed on these finding before they were made public:
> 
> Follow
> Scott Taylor ABC 7 ✔ @ScottTaylorTV
> Family of #SethRich did receive an advanced copy of Profiling Project Report on murder investigation.


http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/06/20/bombshell-new-independent-report-suggests-murder-of-seth-rich-not-random-or-a-robbery-possible-hired-killer/


----------



## CamillePunk

Rand Paul pens a piece for Reason magazine criticizing Trump's Cuban policy reversal:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/20/capitalism-should-be-our-weapon-of-choic



> Capitalism Should Be Our Weapon of Choice in Cuba
> 
> Engagement or embargo? That is the question not just in Cuba but also in places like Iran, Russia, and China. Should we trade, or should we withhold our trade in hopes of changing the behavior of other nations? Which will have more impact?
> 
> For over half a century, we have had an embargo with Cuba. Not only did the Castros survive it, but they milked it for everything it was worth. As the only source of information on the island for decades, they stoked the nationalism of those Cubans who remained in Cuba to blame America for any of their shortages, instead of the true culprit: socialism.
> 
> The embargo did nothing to defeat Castro—absolutely nothing. It is possible it kept him in power longer because of the ability the embargo gave him to further control his people.
> 
> President Obama and I agreed on very little, but his slight opening with Cuba was one of those areas. Since his decision to allow more travel and commerce with Cuba, Americans are visiting in record numbers and on their trips they are displaying the greatness of American capitalism: wealth. Every dollar left in the hands of cab drivers, hotel workers, waitresses, and valets is a show of what awaits Cubans if they reject socialism.
> 
> We can't spread democracy through force, as we have shown time and again in our recent foreign policy. But we can model capitalism to the world, export it through our people and goods, and win the debate without one bullet being fired.
> 
> When I was a kid, my family was virulently anti-communist. We still are. We were opposed to the opening of "Red" China and all that entailed. We were wrong. China may still have aspects of socialism, but no one can argue it isn't more capitalist and freer than before we opened diplomatic relations and trade.
> 
> Instead of hiding our capitalism behind a failed embargo, we should tear down the walls of trade restriction and open up travel and trade even more. Instead of allowing the socialists to continue their propaganda unopposed, we should have sufficient confidence in capitalism to let them go head to head.
> 
> Let's see what Cubans will choose when they come face to face with iPhones, modern cars, and tourists with fistfuls of dollars buying Cuban services and goods.
> 
> I don't fear the government of Cuba. I don't fear competition between capitalism and socialism. End the embargo now and capitalism, like the endless waves that lap the Cuban shore, will erode the weak grasp of socialism, day by day, until freedom comes to Cuba - not with a beach landing of troops, but in the realization that poverty and socialism are, in fact, synonyms.


----------



## Jay Valero

Oh shut up Rand.


----------



## deepelemblues

Just like capitalism eroded tyranny in China.

Wait no it didn't.

Shut up Rand.

Spreading democracy through force has a better track record than doing it through commerce. 

Shut up Rand's daddy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Has Kim Jong-Un gone into hiding, fearing an assassination by the US?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...by-western-decapitation-team-says-report.html



> Kim Jong Un lives in fear of assassination by western 'decapitation' team, says report
> 
> North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is reportedly so terrified of being targeted for assassination that he travels incognito inside the Hermit Kingdom, and there’s growing evidence his paranoia may be well-founded.
> 
> The 33-year-old, third-generation ruler is “extremely nervous” about a clandestine plot to take him out, according to a key South Korean lawmaker who spoke to The Korea Herald. Rep. Lee Cheol-woo, chairman of the South Korean parliament's intelligence committee, made the claim based on reports from South Korea's intelligence agency.
> 
> “Kim is engrossed with collecting information about the ‘decapitation operation’ through his intelligence agencies,” Lee said following a briefing last week.
> 
> The rumored “decapitation plan” to target Kim and key deputies in the event fighting broke out on the peninsula first surfaced in late 2015, when the U.S. and South Korea signed “Operation Plan 5015,” a joint strategy for possible war scenarios with North Korea. According to the Brookings Institute, the plan "envisions limited warfare with an emphasis on preemptive strikes on strategic targets in North Korea and “decapitation raids” to exterminate North Korean leaders."
> 
> Something about the term “decapitation” seems to have gotten the attention of the gout-addled, unpredictable and violent dictator. According to Lee, Kim’s is so frightened that he now disguises his movements, travels primarily at dawn and in the cars of his henchmen. Public appearances and jaunts in his prized Mercedes Benz 600 have been curtailed.
> 
> North Korea’s United Nations representative referenced the “beheading operation” in a sternly worded, 2016 letter to the body’s Security Council, suggesting that the joint military operations regularly conducted by the U.S. and South Korea “constitute a grave threat to [North Korea] as well as international peace and security.”
> 
> By January of this year, there were reports that South Korea was speeding up the creation of a specialized unit designed for this mission, initially slated to be ready by 2019.
> 
> During this year's Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises with South Korea, one of the largest annual military exercises in the world, members of U.S. Navy SEAL teams reportedly participated in decapitation drills with our South Korean counterparts for the first time. Naval officials denied reports that members of SEAL Team 6, the group that took out Usama Bin Laden, took part.
> 
> Shortly after those war games, however, the USS Michigan, a submarine that is sometimes used to move U.S. Special Forces, took a position just off of North Korea’s coast.
> 
> While there are concerns that taking out North Korea’s leader might not be enough, a White House review revealed earlier this year that the U.S. strategy on North Korea does include the possibility of regime change.
> 
> Kim has become a major problem regionally and for the U.S. as well. Pyongyang has repeatedly tested missiles potentially capable of delivering nuclear warheads and Kim’s threats against South Korea, Japan and the U.S. have grown increasingly bellicose. Last week, North Korea returned American college student Otto Warmbier after holding him for 17 months on a dubious charge. Doctors say Warmbier underwent devastating brain injuries while in North Korean custody and is now in an unresponsive state. Three other U.S. citizens remain locked up in the reclusive nation’s infamous gulags.
> 
> But while taking out Kim may be a possibility, experts say it would be much more complicated that the 2011 raid in Pakistan in which CIA operatives and SEALs took out Bin Laden.
> 
> "A U.S. special operations strike against Kim Jong Un in today’s conditions would make the bin Laden raid look easy," said Mark Sauter, a former U.S. Army and special forces officer who operated in the Korean de-militarized zone during the Cold War and now blogs about the decades-long effort to defend South Korea at www.dmzwar.com.
> 
> The daring, night-time raid on the Abbottabad compound went off nearly flawlessly. But U.S. forces would face much more deadly opposition in an assault on the North Korean capital.
> 
> "Pyongyang is surrounded by antiaircraft weapons, and while the corpulent Kim presents a large and sluggish target, he’s kept on the move, always surrounded by fanatical guards and often near or in complex underground compounds," Sauter said.
> 
> Despite those potential challenges, Sauter suggests the North Korean leader "does need to worry about strikes by precision-guided missiles and bunker-buster bombs in the early stages of a preemptive allied attack, and if a conflict continues, everything from (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to special operators will be on his tracks."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877234140483121152


----------



## Jay Valero

I might be in favor of assassinating him. Is the guy who would take over just as crazy, more crazy, or less crazy?


----------



## deepelemblues

Republican is going to win the special election in SC-05.

Betting money has abandoned Ossoff as it looks like Handel is going to win GA-06.

Democrats BTFO again :lmao

By the end of tonight they'll be 0-5 in special congressional elections in the GOD-EMPEROR ERA.

Losers.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

All they are are feel good talking points. Bullshit virtue signalers. 



> Sanders Continues to Not Pay His Interns a Living Wage
> BY: Andrew Kugle
> June 20, 2017 11:51 am
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has been a vocal advocate for the United States raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, but he is unwilling to pay his interns the same amount.
> 
> Back in April, Democrats united behind Sanders' legislation that would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15 per hour. On his campaign website, *Sanders claims too many Americans are being paid "inadequate" wages.*
> 
> "Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty," Sanders' website reads. "The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years."
> 
> *It appears that Sanders does not practice what he preaches.*
> 
> In a Tuesday tweet, Sanders promoted his Senate office's internship program.
> 
> *Sanders' office describes its interns as an "integral" part of the office.
> *
> Interns are an integral part of our Senate operation and contribute greatly to the senator's work on behalf of Vermont and the nation. Senate interns have the unique privilege of gaining an insider's perspective on the legislative and representative process. Our Washington and Burlington offices offer paid full- and part-time internships tailored for recent graduates and current students at the undergraduate or graduate level.
> 
> *Interns for Sanders could work 40 hours a week and still be "living in poverty," only earning $12 per hour. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders chided Hillary Clinton for her plan to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour.*
> 
> "You have no disposable income when you are making 10, 12 bucks an hour," Sanders said in a debate with Clinton.
> 
> This is not the first time Sanders has refused to pay interns a "living wage." *The Washington Free Beacon reported back in June 2016 that Sanders paid his interns less than $15 per hour.*


----------



## deepelemblues

I had plenty of disposable income when I was making 10, 12 bucks an hour.

But I'm not an idiot socialist so I knew how to BUDGET.


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> I had plenty of disposable income when I was making 10, 12 bucks an hour.
> 
> But I'm not an idiot socialist so I knew how to BUDGET.


I make 14 an hour and am doing fine. So yeah, Sanders is full of it


----------



## Reaper

> THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM IN THE WORLD
> by Kevin Ryan
> According to fiscal liberals and socialists, the following should be a recipe for disaster:
> A country with the lowest level of business regulations in the world, the freest trade in the world, one of the smallest governments in the world, and:
> ► No inheritance tax.
> ► No sales tax.
> ► No Value Added Tax (VAT)
> ► No property tax (unless you receive rental income).
> ► No capital gains tax.
> ► No dividend tax.
> ► No interest tax.
> ► A maximum 15% income tax.
> ► A maximum 16.5% corporate tax.
> In other words, the closest thing to free market capitalism that exists in the world.
> Instead of the disaster some say these policies would produce, the resulting system has been called "the most successful the world has ever seen." It's Hong Kong, and it has:
> • Twelfth highest GDP per capita.
> • Longest life expectancy in the world.
> • Highest average IQs in the world.
> • Second highest scores in science.
> • Second highest scores in reading.
> • Third highest scores in reading.
> • Third highest scores in math.
> • Eleventh best tourism index.
> • Sixth lowest crime rates.
> • Fifth best safety and security.
> • Number 1 most liveable city in the world.
> • World's fifth best airport.
> • Best port system in the world.
> • Third best rail infrastructure.
> • Fastest internet in the world
> • Best information and communication technology.
> • Ranked third in the world in Government Effectiveness.
> • Second best country for Regulatory Quality in the world.
> • Best Net International Investment.
> • Best business environment
> • Fourth best labor freedom.
> • Highest rate of capital attraction.
> • Seventh best in global competitiveness.
> • Thirteenth lowest corruption.
> • Sixth best in innovation.
> • Highest Economic Freedom Index score.
> • Despite a population of only 7 million, Hong Kong's currency is the 8th most traded in the world.
> • It is in the top 20 for quality of life, health care, Human Development Index, Prosperity Index, and median household income.
> • Top 10 in property rights, legal system, technology.
> SOURCES: CHECK THE COMMENT SECTION FOR SOURCES TO EACH STATISTIC


https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/654315584754440


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I wonder if they'll blame the Russians.



> Live Election Results and Estimates: Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District
> Karen Handel has won the election, according to A.P.


----------



## Neuron

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877348172175167488
I wonder if the dems are going to continue grooming this Ossoff guy. 



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I wonder if they'll blame the Russians.


They were already bitching about "voter suppression" before the election. I assume that will be the continued narrative for however long this election stays within the media's consciousness. It should stay in the airwaves for a week at least, and you'll probably see an occasional reference to it whenever a dem loses another election.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Has Kim Jong-Un gone into hiding, fearing an assassination by the US?
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...by-western-decapitation-team-says-report.html
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877234140483121152


This tweet is ominous


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> I make 14 an hour and am doing fine. So yeah, Sanders is full of it


I had 60k before College, spent a bunch on school etc and then blew 25K in a year on stupid shit etc. It's really about budgeting and making sure you only use credit for some stuff. 

I work with a woman who makes 37 dollars an hour, 50+ hours a week if not more and most of her check seems to go to taxes and she's in major debt. Really wish responsible spending was taught as a course in schools.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Neuron said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877348172175167488
> I wonder if the dems are going to continue grooming this Ossoff guy.
> 
> 
> 
> They were already bitching about "voter suppression" before the election. I assume that will be the continued narrative for however long this election stays within the media's consciousness. It should stay in the airwaves for a week at least, and you'll probably see an occasional reference to it whenever a dem loses another election.


Those are the faces of misery.

Biased ass fuckers


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> I had 60k before College, spent a bunch on school etc and then blew 25K in a year on stupid shit etc. It's really about budgeting and making sure you only use credit for some stuff.
> 
> I work with a woman who makes 37 dollars an hour, 50+ hours a week if not more and most of her check seems to go to taxes and she's in major debt. Really wish responsible spending was taught as a course in schools.


They dont want you to be responsible, especially with your money.

If you handle your business, you dont need the government.

Cant have too many people thinking like that


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877352768255733761
Also THIS time Democrats support a cis het white male against a woman and supposedly mysoginist deplorables elected a female. 

Oops. Fucking Democrats proving just how intellectually inept they are.

I really hope this signals the complete and utter end of the Democrats for at least the next 8-10 years.


----------



## wwe9391

:ha

another BIG loss for the democrats


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I had 60k before College, spent a bunch on school etc and then blew 25K in a year on stupid shit etc. It's really about budgeting and making sure you only use credit for some stuff.
> 
> I work with a woman who makes 37 dollars an hour, 50+ hours a week if not more and most of her check seems to go to taxes and she's in major debt. Really wish responsible spending was taught as a course in schools.


:wow

I came to America with 8k in 2014, then my parents gave me another 10k over the net 3 years. My wife makes less than 35k annually and I contribute 300-400 bucks a month when business is good.

Currently we have 9k in savings and only $600 in debt excluding my wife's student loans. 

School can't teach you to save. You have to learn fiscal responsibility yourself. 

The reason why most people are poor is because they don't know how to tell themselves they can't or shouldn't have something because they dont earn enough to have it 

People want to live above their means.


----------



## Warlock

Unsure i would call not upsetting the heavy favorite a big loss. They did prove that throwing a lot of money (i think i read 7x what his opponent spent) at the campaign didn't really do much. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## amhlilhaus

Sweenz said:


> Unsure i would call not upsetting the heavy favorite a big loss. They did prove that throwing a lot of money (i think i read 7x what his opponent spent) at the campaign didn't really do much.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


They were positive they could flip it. They failed.

The guy in montana beat down a reporter, and still won.

Feel that anti trump ground swell


----------



## Warlock

I think hopeful would be a better word. They knew they had a tough climb, thus the money they spent. Didn't move the needle much, if at all.

You will also find party lines will hold despite who the candidate is. Rather vote someone who holds the same policies as you (even if they might be removed from office and force a new election) than someone that is against the policies you want that will stay in office the full term.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> I think hopeful would be a better word. They knew they had a tough climb, thus the money they spent. Didn't move the needle much, if at all.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


BTW it's not entirely true that Handel had significantly less financial support than Ossof. Once Republicans realized that it was turning into a tight race, they held fundraisers, the president himself got involved and she got money directly from the party. The money difference was brought down significantly. 

The thing is that it has allowed Democrats to taste blood in another major Republican stronghold and that means Republicans simply cannot get complacent... Which they currently are. Very much so.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> BTW it's not entirely true that Handel had significantly less financial support than Ossof. Once Republicans realized that it was turning into a tight race, they held fundraisers, the president himself got involved and she got money directly from the party. The money difference was brought down significantly.
> 
> The thing is that it has allowed Democrats to taste blood in another major Republican stronghold and that means Republicans simply cannot get complacent... Which they currently are. Very much so.


Republican establishment is complacent like it always is.

At the state and local level they're a bunch of hungry motherfuckers who keep kicking ass and eating donkeyburgers.

This is mostly because while the Tea Party failed at taking over the national Republican Party, it was very successful at filling the party apparatus at the county and state level with Tea Partiers.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Republican establishment is complacent like it always is.
> 
> At the state and local level they're a bunch of hungry motherfuckers who keep kicking ass and eating donkeyburgers.
> 
> This is mostly because while the Tea Party failed at taking over the national Republican Party, it was very successful at filling the party apparatus at the county and state level with Tea Partiers.


Pretty sure Handel is establishment based on the fact that she has Paul Ryan's stamp of approval but I'm not certain.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Hate to say it but if you can't live in a GOP control country get the fuck out there is no place for you right now.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> *Also THIS time Democrats support a cis het white male against a woman* and supposedly mysoginist deplorables elected a female.
> 
> Oops. Fucking Democrats proving just how intellectually inept they are.
> 
> I really hope this signals the complete and utter end of the Democrats for at least the next 8-10 years.


Dems should be reminded of this DAILY.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> :wow
> 
> I came to America with 8k in 2014, then my parents gave me another 10k over the net 3 years. My wife makes less than 35k annually and I contribute 300-400 bucks a month when business is good.
> 
> Currently we have 9k in savings and only $600 in debt excluding my wife's student loans.
> 
> School can't teach you to save. *You have to learn fiscal responsibility yourself. *
> 
> The reason why most people are poor is because they don't know how to tell themselves they can't or shouldn't have something because they dont earn enough to have it
> 
> People want to live above their means.


That's what your parents are supposed to teach you.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

Iconoclast said:


> The reason why most people are poor is because they don't know how to tell themselves they can't or shouldn't have something because they dont earn enough to have it
> 
> People want to live above their means.



Some people are poor because wages have not kept up with the cost of living and been stagnant for 30+ years. Not to mention housing has skyrocketed at a rate wages have not kept up with. Other just got dealt a shitty hand in life. It's not cause people in poor area's are going around living extravigant lifestyles of eating lobster,wearing Rolex's and taking vacations to the Bahamas they can't afford.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Some people are poor because wages have not kept up with the cost of living and been stagnant for 30+ years. Not to mention housing has skyrocketed at a rate wages have not kept up with. Other just got dealt a shitty hand in life. It's not cause people in poor area's are going around living extravigant lifestyles of eating lobster,wearing Rolex's and taking vacations to the Bahamas they can't afford.


Or you live in California, like me. :lauren


----------



## Cabanarama

GA-6 was straight up wishful thinking for the Dems. This was a seat that hasn't been won by a Dem in over 40 years, have only come within 20 percentage points once since 1992 (and that was Newt Gingrich had massive unpopularity when he shut down congress in 1995 and still won in 1995) and in multiple elections back in the 80's and 90's was the only seat in Georgia the Republicans won.
It is interesting to look at the swing for these house seats from last November:
GA-6: 
2016: R+23.4
2017: R+3.8

KS-4
2016: R+31.1
2017: R+6.8

MT-AL
2016: R+15.6
2017: R+6.1

SC-5
2016: R+42.5
2017: R+3.2

Take from these numbers what you will. The Democrats need 24 seats to take the house, and there are way, way more than two dozens Republican representatives in districts far more favorable to Democrats than these four that if they swing similarly, they'll swing blue. However, the special elections typically aren't much of an indicator of the following midterms (hell, the Democrats did very well in the house special elections in 2009 and 2010 prior to the tea party bloodbath midterms in 2010, even taking a seat from the Republicans and retaining another seat in a district that was won by McCain in 2008) but if we were to see these kinds of swings all over the country, the Dems would take back the house easily.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that while these special elections haven't really been much of a "win" for Republicans, they're also not something for the Democrats to be too optimistic about either.


----------



## Vic Capri

Ossoff couldn't even vote for himself. I haven't seen CNN this depressed since Election Night! :lol

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Meanwhile...in a special election that got far less notice...the GOP holds Mick Mulvaney's old seat. Ralph Norman wins the SC-5 seat and he was aligned with Trump.


----------



## Reaper

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Some people are poor because wages have not kept up with the cost of living and been stagnant for 30+ years. Not to mention housing has skyrocketed at a rate wages have not kept up with. Other just got dealt a shitty hand in life. It's not cause people in poor area's are going around living extravigant lifestyles of eating lobster,wearing Rolex's and taking vacations to the Bahamas they can't afford.


Most of them are.

Ive seen plenty of poor people do this shit to have no sympathy for them.

I've seen welfare queens spend money on rolexes and Nike shoes and I've seen people who live in trailers driving audis. I drive around the local ghettos and I see people owning better cars than I do and I'm like these people are fucking retarded. 

Poor people are idiots and the vast majority of them are poor because of their choices.

Just so you know, I've tasted poverty as well and I found ways to beat it. I have a knee disability where I live with daily pain and I have done jobs like TV producer, marketing and B2B commission based sales for 9 years all the while having 4 knee surgeries and working with crutches and no concept of worker's comp. I did work regularly - sometimes 24-72 hours without rest just so I could buy food for myself and my ex who didn't use to earn a dime.

As has my wife (who was nearly homeless at one point and offering her services as a babysitter and house cleaner at one point just so she could eat a decent meal). It was all hard work and no play. We made our own luck. We didn't pop out a couple of babies on a McDonald's salary unlike some people. Something my sister did and she has a worse lifestyle than we do.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> Most of them are.
> 
> Ive seen plenty of poor people do this shit to have no sympathy for them.
> 
> I've seen welfare queens spend money on rolexes and Nike shoes and I've seen people who live in trailers driving audis. I drive around the local ghettos and I see people owning better cars than I do and I'm like these people are fucking retarded.
> 
> Poor people are idiots and the vast majority of them are poor because of their choices.
> 
> Just so you know, I've tasted poverty as well and I found ways to beat it. As did my wife (who was nearly homeless at one point and offering her services as a babysitter and house cleaner at one point just so she could eat a decent meal).
> 
> It was all hard work and no play. We made our own luck. We didn't pop out a couple of babies on a McDonald's salary unlike some people. Something my sister did and she has a worse lifestyle than we do.


And for poor whites, they slather themselves with tattoos and piercings.


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> And for poor whites, they slather themselves with tattoos and piercings.


EXACTLY. I live in a white trash area where I see this all the time. At first I thought tattoos were cheap - like 25 bucks a pop or something and then I realized that a tiny tattoo starts at around 100 and then I see people with full sleeves while smoking a pack a day whinging about how poor they are and I have NO reason at ALL to respect them or accept that they're actually poor. There's so many people I know that are like that that at this point it's just getting to the point of sheer collective madness and makes no sense to me at all. I have a friend who keeps her AC on 68 throughout summer and pays $300 or more and then whines about how poor she is (and yeah, she has full body tats as well) ... And I'm like ... :lol 

Poverty appears to be a consequence of terrible _lifestyle choices_. It's _not_ a state of _being_. The mischaracterization of the poor being "luckless" seem less and less true the more you actually see the lifestyles of the poor. For example, my wife recently is training a girl at her work who is from a self-proclaimed "poor" family, but then buys only cage free eggs (they are 4 times more expensive than the eggs we buy), buys only organic veggies and orders lunch every day. Meanwhile I make my wife lunch and we buy 60-80c / walmart brand jumbo eggs, meat only on sale and depend on buy one get one at Publix, often buying stuff only because its cheap and not because we really want it but need it.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877367423816663040
538 with ANOTHER HUGE L :lmao Usually when people fail this much and fail this hard so consistently, they SHOULD disappear out of SHAME if not fired for incompetence :lmao :lmao :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/875112655836643328


----------



## Vic Capri

> Also THIS time Democrats support a cis het white male against a woman and supposedly mysoginist deplorables elected a female.


*#ShePersisted*

:sleep

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Vic Capri

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40353408



> Teachers are being trained to carry guns in classrooms in Colorado in order to protect children as part of a scheme motivated by a school massacre in 2012.
> The three-day course, which consists of firearms and medical training, was launched on Tuesday in Weld County.
> Seventeen members of staff who "would like to be considered armed first responders" have so far taken part.
> 
> The pilot programme will allow volunteers to enter schools with guns under US "concealed carry" laws.
> 
> Teachers were taken to a shooting range in Weld County, near Denver, where they were tested on their abilities with weapons.
> The course, provided by the Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response group (Faster), was set up by parents, law enforcement officers and medical experts who believe that US schools are a "soft target" for violence. The group refers to schools as "victim zones".
> 
> Faster's aim, it says, is not to replace police or security services, but to "allow teachers, administrators, and other personnel to stop school violence rapidly" and to "administer medical aid where necessary".
> 
> The group was set up following the Sandy Hook shooting massacre in December 2012, in which a rifle-wielding man killed 26 people, mostly young children, at a Connecticut primary school.
> 
> But the move has angered campaign groups such as Safe Campus Colorado, which encourages its supporters to petition local authorities to help keep guns out of school.
> "We believe concealed guns on Colorado's great university, college and community college campuses threaten the safety of students, faculty, staff and administrators," the group says on its website.
> 
> Safe Campus Colorado was set up by political activist Ken Toltz, who said in a statement to Colorado's 9 News channel that the move to train staff in the use of guns on campus was detrimental to the safety of both students and teachers.
> "The dangers of adding guns to a school environment are dramatically increased by allowing loaded lethal weapons into a school environment on a daily basis," he said.
> 
> *How does Faster work?*
> 
> A selected school will ask staff to volunteer for training "in armed response" and "crisis management".
> The school will then apply for training with Faster, a non-profit group that relies on charitable contributions, which will provide tuition for free.
> Those chosen to participate attend an intensive course over three days with law enforcement personnel experienced in "active shooter situations". They will also be "tested physically and mentally".
> The course not only teaches those enrolled to use firearms effectively against any threat, but also how to respond to injuries and provide medical assistance while awaiting emergency services.
> An Ohio law issued in 2013 permits schools in the US state to arm employees "if that teacher is required to, in essence, become a security guard".


Well done Colorado! :clap :clap :clap :clap

Nice to see that responsible adults are going to be able to protect their students in the event of a potential mass shooting instead of being handicapped by gun free zones. This is an extremely positive move!


----------



## virus21

wwe9391 said:


> :ha
> 
> another BIG loss for the democrats


Mid-terms are going to be funny as hell


----------



## Miss Sally

Iconoclast said:


> :wow
> 
> I came to America with 8k in 2014, then my parents gave me another 10k over the net 3 years. My wife makes less than 35k annually and I contribute 300-400 bucks a month when business is good.
> 
> Currently we have 9k in savings and only $600 in debt excluding my wife's student loans.
> 
> School can't teach you to save. You have to learn fiscal responsibility yourself.
> 
> The reason why most people are poor is because they don't know how to tell themselves they can't or shouldn't have something because they dont earn enough to have it
> 
> People want to live above their means.


I think common sense should be taught in schools as well. Sad thing is most kids in the US (Especially those who come from rich/middle class) don't get taught enough of the basics.

I was raised by parents who were terrible with money, I would have loved a class that taught the basics of standard living, think that's a major issue now. Lots of people with high education but no street smarts or common sense.


----------



## Reaper

Democrats' message is clear. 

"We're going to spend 40 million on a rich white male just so he can be elected just so he can take care of the poor after we just spent 40 million on him so that he can be elected to take care of the poor but we're not going to give the 40 million to the poor." 

You wanna run a great campaign. Promise to and actually donate dollar for dollar to the masses where the results are actually evident that you spend on your fucking pussy pajama boys. 

Yeah, and then they wonder why the working class is abandoning them :lmao

Democrats are not the party of the poor. They're the party of exploiting the state of mind that comes with perceived poverty and lack of consequences.

@Miss Sally 


> I think common sense should be taught in schools as well. Sad thing is most kids in the US (Especially those who come from rich/middle class) don't get taught enough of the basics.
> 
> I was raised by parents who were terrible with money, I would have loved a class that taught the basics of standard living, think that's a major issue now. Lots of people with high education but no street smarts or common sense.


If they started teaching fiscal responsibility at schools, who would ever vote for democrats and how will they ever install socialist / social welfare policies in America? If they have a vast majority of fiscally responsible tweens, how would they ever be able to sell the bullshit Bernie and other democrats sell them? 

Of course, they should teach it in schools, but they're never going to because fiscal responsibility is the anti-thesis of liberal values and in America directly associated with the republicans. The fact is that most of the teachers themselves are not fiscally responsible and are in unions that keep begging the government for more money and also fighting against privatization of schools. The teachers are part of the system. Why would they teach anyone to fight it?


----------



## TripleG

Honestly, this is going to sound dumb, but I learned a lot of fiscal responsibility from watching Duck Tales. I mean if the richest duck in the world can penny pinch, learn to save a dime here or there, and convey the importance of working for your money, then I can do those things too. 

Perfect example, in college, I had part time jobs, and some help from the folks, but I never had the newest phone that was available. Simply put, why get the newest phone when my old one still works? 

The benefit, I never had to struggle to get school books every semester. I saw students beg other students for used books or beg their parents for money or really dig into their small savings account for a few extra bucks. Me? All I had to do was pay for them, because I prioritized where my money would be spent. I didn't have the brand spanking new phone I didn't need anyway, but I never had to worry about my schoolbooks which for a college student, are a necessity.


----------



## Reaper

TripleG said:


> Honestly, this is going to sound dumb, but I learned a lot of fiscal responsibility from watching Duck Tales. I mean if the richest duck in the world can penny pinch, learn to save a dime here or there, and convey the importance of working for your money, then I can do those things too.


That's awesome :lmao 

For me it was my parents. They were just the perfect match. 

My dad is a self-made man who came from very humble beginnings so he understood the value of money, but he also never made us _feel _like we were poor. Him and my mom combined were just incredibly smart with their money. My dad had a rule. 75% of what he earned he gave to my mom. My mom had another rule. 40% of everything my dad gave her was saved. This led to them having a lot of money to invest which led to some big pay offs over the last 10 years or so. My dad had to wait till after he turned 62 before he made it really big financially. It was a slow crawl to get to that point. 

But growing up, this meant 1 toy a month for me (sometimes less), Birthday celebrations only once every 5 years, 1 rental movie a week for the whole family. No cable. Only one shared TV in the house. Only one shared Air Conditioner. Ate out only once a week. Went on vacations every 3-5 years. New clothes were bought only on Eid. All gifts in the family were limited to $10 per person. We were encouraged to give thoughtful gifts and my mom was happiest when we made her something instead of buying it. Going to used book stores was a family event where my mom would hand us 10 bucks and reward us (with lots of love and hugs and kisses lol) for buying the most books in that money - so we learnt the value of maximizing the dollar. 

Buying "big" things in the family (like a computer, a stereo, a new fridge, a VCR, going to watch a movie in the theater) .. all of it was treated like a _huge_ occasion. I didn't have my first game console till my teenage. I never needed it. I never was exposed to the idea that I should have it. And here I watch people who complain about being poor all the fucking time take their kids to Disney every other year, upgrade their phones every 2 years, pay for cable and netflix at the same time and I'm like ... Are you sure ya'all actually poor and not just lying pieces of shit? 

We never felt entitled to any of it, but my dad stayed on top of providing us exactly what was needed when it was needed. 

And we were happy .. very happy. We didn't _feel _poor even though we lived a lower-middle class lifestyle.

The lifestyle I decribed above is close to how my wife and I live. Not as frugal, but still frugal and still very, very happy.

---
On other note: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877364218827350016
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/planned-parenthood-dumped-730k-ossoffs-campaign-oops



> *Planned Parenthood Dumped $730K Into Ossoff's Campaign. Oops.
> *
> Abortion giant Planned Parenthood dumped a whopping $730,000 into the congressional race for Georgia’s 6th District, an election that ended last night with Republican candidate Karen Handel beating out Democrat Jon Ossoff in what the left had hoped would be a swing victory in a historically red locale.
> 
> It wasn’t. And I’ll give you one guess which proverbial horse Planned Parenthood had backed.
> 
> Hint: it wasn’t the woman.
> 
> It turns out Planned Parenthood, and a slew of other groups who ended up pouring a collective $30 million into Ossoff's campaign coffers, may as well have piled all their cash in a dumpster and lit in on fire, for all the good it did. Handel emerged the victor on Tuesday night with 52 percent of the vote, compared to Ossoff's 48 percent, putting an end to what ended up being the most expensive U.S. House race in history.
> 
> Planned Parenthood's contributions aren't necessarily surprising -- they've got a history of donating buckets of cash for pro-choice Democratic candidates like Ossoff. But they’re also pretty consistent when it comes to whining about how defunding their operation (you know, as a result of their sidelining as a fetal chop shop, for example) would deprive millions of poor women from receiving essential health care.
> 
> So considering they just dumped nearly three quarters of a million into a single failed congressional campaign, someone please remind me why we’re stroking them a check for more than $550 million in taxpayer cash every single year. Because clearly, the financial belt isn't nearly as tight as they claim.


https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/19/democrat-outperforms-expectations-georgia-runoff-election/



> Deirdre Schifeling, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said, “Georgians sent a message: they want reproductive health care champions, like Jon Ossoff, in Washington, DC. Women marched to the polls to elect a candidate who will make protecting women’s programs and access to healthcare a top priority.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood Action Fund invested in a six-figure campaign supporting Ossoff, according to a press release. That money funded digital ads, a door-to-door ground effort reaching more than 15,000 people, and a mail campaign reaching more than 70,000 people.
> 
> Trump tweeted Wednesday that Georgia’s election results were a “BIG ‘R’ win,” and congratulated himself for getting involved in the race. He recorded a robocall attacking Ossoff before the special election.
> 
> The state’s primary battle was a hotbed for political spending from outside groups. Analysis from the Center for Public Integrity found that “when the candidates’ own campaign money is excluded, the Georgia 6th special election has attracted about one Georgia penny for every $10 in national cash.”
> 
> Ossoff’s campaign site lists “women’s health care and Planned Parenthood” as one of the candidate’s ten priorities.


Of course, the baby-killing factory has the money to spend on campaign donations and they fucking turn around and bitch about losing federal money. These fucking inhumane cunts and I believe anyone that supports them is also just as inhumane now. 

I have literally no respect left for pro-abortionists anymore. 

None. I'm starting to become strictly anti-abortion to the point where the only _two _cases where I feel like it should be allowed is when the woman has been raped, or when the baby is threatening the life of the mother. 

This whole industry is scum-infested and needs to fucking die.


----------



## deepelemblues

HOME EC IS FOR MAKING GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICHES AND "LEARNING" HOW TO "SEW"

IT IS NOT FOR LEARNING HOW TO BUDGET AND SAVE MONEY YOU PATRIARCHAL CAPITALIST PIGDOG


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Harvard Study: Minimum Wage Hikes Killing Businesses*
> 
> A new Harvard Business School study found that minimum wage hikes lead to closures of small businesses. "We find suggestive evidence that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall increase in the rate of exit," the researchers conclude.
> 
> The study, titled Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit, looks at "the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay Area" from 2008-2016.
> 
> Researchers Dara Lee Luca and Michael Luca chose the Bay Area due to their frequent minimum wage hikes in recent years. "In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, there have been twenty-one local minimum wage changes over the past decade," they write.
> 
> The Lucas found that lower-quality restaurants (indicated by Yelp scores) were disproportionately affected by wage hikes, increasing their likelihood of closure relative to higher-quality, established restaurants.
> 
> "The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage," says the study. "Our point estimates suggest that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale)."
> 
> While "firm exit" was the focus of the study, the researchers also noted that there are often other consequences from wage hikes, such as worker layoffs, increased pricing and hour-cuts for existing workers:
> 
> _While some studies find no detrimental effects on employment (Card and Krueger 1994, 1998; Dube, Lester & Reich, 2010), others show that higher minimum wage reduces employment, especially among low-skilled workers (see Neumark & Wascher, 2007 for a review). However, even studies that identify negative impacts find fairly modest effects overall, suggesting that firms adjust to higher labor costs in other ways. For example, several studies have documented price increases as a response to the minimum wage hikes (Aaronson, 2001; Aaronson, French, & MacDonald, 2008; Allegretto & Reich, 2016). Horton (2017) find that firms reduce employment at the intensive margin rather than on the extensive margin, choosing to cut employees hours rather than counts._
> 
> Such findings were backed up by Garret/Galland Research's Stephen McBride, who highlighted in March the "minimum wage massacre."
> 
> "Currently, rising labor costs are causing margins in the sector to plummet. Those with the ability to automate like McDonalds are doing so… and those who don’t are closing their doors. In September 2016, one-quarter of restaurant closures in the California Bay Area cited rising labor costs as one of the reasons for closing," McBride wrote in Forbes.
> 
> "While wage increases put more money in the pocket of some, others are bearing the costs by having their hours reduced and being made part-time," he added.
> 
> As noted by Red Alert Politics, the Bay Area is headed for a $15 minimum wage in July of 2018, though they've already seen over 60 restaurants close since September.


www.dailywire.com/news/17758/harvar...utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#


----------



## Reaper

This has got to be the most savage tweet I've ever seen. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877524061437530112


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> This has got to be the most savage tweet I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877524061437530112


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

That tweet is so spicy I may need my stomach pumped

Preliminary readings suggest 88 trillion scoville units


----------



## Jay Valero

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Vic Capri
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40353408
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Colorado! :clap :clap :clap :clap
> 
> Nice to see that responsible adults are going to be able to protect their students in the event of a potential mass shooting instead of being handicapped by gun free zones. This is an extremely positive move!


That isn't going to last. From what I understand, Colorado has just become a Mid-America outpost for Kalifornia.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I'd wish Democrats luck getting off the anti-Trump platform, but I don't want to wish Democrats luck on anything.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877549298170421248


----------



## deepelemblues

When your main line of attack is "the other guy is gonna destroy your lives wait and see" you aren't in a good position.

Republicans learned that with Obama, Democrats need to learn it with :trump if they hope to ever win while he's president. 

The Republicans did manage to make it work with Obama in mid-term elections but it didn't work in 2012. But Obama also pushed policies that were less in tune with American political culture (aka Obamacare) than :trump is. 

Democrats can't bank on Americans having the same reaction to :trump policies as they did with Obama policies.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Just wanted to pop in and say I was wrong. Back during the first election for Georgia's 6th district in April I said I doubted Handel could win considering her low popularity here in Georgia and losing her last two elections in the state. I was wrong. I still think both sides were insane to put this much emphasis, money, and time on one house seat that is going to be up for grabs again in November of next year. I'm just glad it's over. So sick of their shitty ads.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> This has got to be the most savage tweet I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877524061437530112


Can confirm:










Don Jr. also spit some sweet, sweet ether in light of the Georgia race:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877349578923802625

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877503602612457472
:trump2


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Just wanted to pop in and say I was wrong. Back during the first election for Georgia's 6th district in April I said I doubted Handel could win considering her low popularity here in Georgia and losing her last two elections in the state. I was wrong. I still think both sides were insane to put this much emphasis, money, and time on one house seat that is going to be up for grabs again in November of next year. I'm just glad it's over. So sick of their shitty ads.


You need to follow more Republican news and tweeters, brother. The minute the Ossoff campaign got close the Republicans rallied like they did for Trump. It never seemed doubtful once the rally started.

Republicans are at this point working like a surprising well oiled machine. They've figured out the Internet and the Democrats have no clue how to reach their audience at all.

Of course, now they're busy blaming poor ossof claiming that he isn't far left enough and centrism is what killed him :lmao

The Democrat party is sinking fast.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Iconoclast said:


> You need to follow more Republican news and tweeters, brother. The minute the Ossoff campaign got close the Republicans rallied like they did for Trump. It never seemed doubtful once the rally started.
> 
> Republicans are at this point working like a surprising well oiled machine. They've figured out the Internet and the Democrats have no clue how to reach their audience at all.
> 
> Of course, now they're busy blaming poor ossof claiming that he isn't far left enough and centrism is what killed him :lmao
> 
> The Democrat party is sinking fast.


One thing Democrats could do is finally dump Pelosi. I swear that was almost every Handel ad, "Osoff love Pelosi." She is a weight around the Dems' necks and they can't feel it for some reason.

Osoff actually did very well for a first time campaign. only lost by 3.4%. Price won the seat in November by 21 points I think.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> One thing Democrats could do is finally dump Pelosi. I swear that was almost every Handel ad, "Osoff love Pelosi." She is a weight around the Dems' necks and they can't feel it for some reason.


Yeah. Dumping shitocrats like Hillary, Pelosi, Podesta and even Bernie and Warren wouldn't just be good for the DNC but for America's future overall as that would make the two party system somewhat functional once again.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

2 Ton 21 said:


> One thing Democrats could do is finally dump Pelosi. I swear that was almost every Handel ad, "Osoff love Pelosi." She is a weight around the Dems' necks and they can't feel it for some reason.
> 
> *Osoff actually did very well for a first time campaign. only lost by 3.4%. Price won the seat in November by 21 points I think*.


I don't think anybody could think he'd do similarly without all the money that was shoveled into his campaign. Democrats can't spend $30 million for every House seat. IMO, the only reason he did as well as he did was because Democrats said it was important and some of their followers, who normally wouldn't care, went out and voted. I'd bet when this seat comes up next year the difference won't be nearly as close.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah. Dumping shitocrats like Hillary, Pelosi, Podesta and even Bernie and Warren wouldn't just be good for the DNC but for America's future overall as that would make the two party system somewhat functional once again.


People are just sick of the same faces. Same thing happened to the Republicans. John Boehner for example. People just get tired of the same voice saying the same shit for 3 fucking decades.

Bernie never really had the Democrat power base behind him so he'll go back to doing what he did before. Warren I think will continue what she does in the senate. I don't see her running for the nom in 2020.

The Dems need new blood. That's what Obama should have been for them, but they surrounded him with the Clintons and kept the Clinton power base for the DNC. I mean think about who's in the Dem powerbase right now. Not many Obama people, are there.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't think anybody could think he'd do similarly without all the money that was shoveled into his campaign. Democrats can't spend $30 million for every House seat. IMO, the only reason he did as well as he did was because Democrats said it was important and some of their followers, who normally wouldn't care, went out and voted. I'd bet when this seat comes up next year the difference won't be nearly as close.


The money was a big factor no doubt, but I'll still give him some credit. Like I said before though, it is insane to me that either side put this much time, money, effort, and emphasis on one house seat that isn't even going to have a two year term. It was like in a movie/show when two people at an auction try to outbid each other over a piece of junk just because they don't want to lose to the other.


----------



## deepelemblues

At the end of the day the lesson of GA06 is this:

Voters are not going to cross party lines in a Congressional race.

Democrat voters are not going to vote in such fashion as to give more power to Republicans.

Republican voters are not going to vote in such a fashion as to give more power to Democrats.

No matter how centrist and moderate and bipartisan a candidate presents himself or herself. 

If you are a Democrat running for Congress, trying to get Republicans to vote for you is 99 times out of 100 a tilting at windmills type situation. And vice versa. 

Barack Obama got some Republicans to vote for him because of the allure of voting for the first serious black presidential candidate. Plus lots of Republican voters stayed home in 2008 and 2012 and some smaller number crossed over because of their dissatisfaction with the Republican candidate(s) and Republican Party.

:trump got some Democrats to vote for him because of the allure of his working-class rhetoric. Plus lots of Democratic voters stayed home in 2016 and some smaller number crossed over because of their dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidate and Democratic Party.

In a presidential campaign, the power of personality and rhetoric and the allure of doing something 'historic' can cause a decent amount of crossover votes to come your way.

In a congressional campaign, no. Congressional campaigns are turnout battles. Get more of your voters to the polling place than the other side does their voters. Hoping for significant amounts of voters to cross party lines is a foolish hope. Dissatisfaction with a president in office isn't enough to move the needle to "I'm a Democrat but I'm gonna vote Republican this time" or vice versa when it comes to Congressional elections. Dissatisfaction can get people to not vote. It doesn't get them to vote for the other side. 

Despite all the noise about the weakness and out of touch-ness of the parties, to the individual voter, party loyalty still means more than anything. Or if not precisely "party loyalty," antipathy towards the other party. Democrats don't want Republicans winning, Republicans don't want Democrats winning, even if they dislike what their own side is doing (or not doing). 

I think Paul Ryan is a fucking joke who should be run out of town on a rail, but I'd rather he or any Republican no matter how RINO-ish be Speaker of the House than Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat be Speaker of the House. BernieBros think the Clintonite establishment is the devil, but they'd rather have that establishment running Congress than the Republicans.


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Barack Obama got some Republicans to vote for him because of the allure of voting for the first serious black presidential candidate. Plus lots of Republican voters stayed home in 2008 and 2012 and some smaller number crossed over because of their dissatisfaction with the Republican candidate(s) and Republican Party.
> 
> :trump got some Democrats to vote for him because of the allure of his working-class rhetoric. Plus lots of Democratic voters stayed home in 2016 and some smaller number crossed over because of their dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidate and Democratic Party.


I wanted to respond to these two quotes because I find them interesting. I think the allure of voting for the first serious black candidate is what made people vote because if you look at the previous election, and the one after there's a distinct lack of a few million voters that weren't there before and disappeared after. I wouldn't necessarily say that people just didn't go out to vote on either side, because the numbers don't exactly show that. 


*2004*
Bush 62 million
Kerry 59 million

=121 million voters

*2008*
Obama 69.5 million
McCain 59.9 million

= 129.4 million voters

*2012*
Obama 65.9 million
Romney 60.1 million

=126 million voters

*2016*
Trump 62.9 million
Clinton 65.8 million

=128.7 million voters

Obviously with the electoral college it isn't about how many votes you get, but it does show something interesting. Trump was able to flip Michigan and Wisconsin and it seems like the Democrats may be losing their voter base a little bit. There was recently a study showing that there was roughly over 5 million illegal registered voters during the time of Obama's election, so that's pretty interesting and maybe could account for why the Democrats lost about 4 million voters.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877619919474577408As expected of them


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Vic Capri
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40353408
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Colorado! :clap :clap :clap :clap
> 
> Nice to see that responsible adults are going to be able to protect their students in the event of a potential mass shooting instead of being handicapped by gun free zones. This is an extremely positive move!


If you armed every teacher with a gun in USA,way more students would die from a cray teacher going postal then mass shootings being prevented.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

deepelemblues said:


> The Republicans did manage to make it work with Obama in mid-term elections but it didn't work in 2012. But Obama also pushed policies that were less in tune with American political culture (aka Obamacare) than :trump is.


The actual way it was rolled out and how it's implemented may be flawed but since when is Healthcare for all citizens some radical out of mainstream idea. Every western 1st world national on earth has some form of "Obamacare" and usually the rest of the word look's at Obamacare as not nearly going far enough.


----------



## Reaper

So the guy spending 40 million is bitching about campaign financing. 

And then they wonder why the pussy cuckboy lost because of course, you go in assuming that the republican voter is just a ******* hillbilly who's too stupid to spot a blatant piece of shit prop and not a serious person :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@Stephen90

Do you know of any West Virginians or Mississippians writing Op-Eds like this?

From the Chicago Tribune no less!



> What to do with a broken Illinois: Dissolve the Land of Lincoln
> 
> *Illinois is like Venezuela now, a fiscally broken state that has lost its will to live, although for the moment, we still have enough toilet paper.*
> 
> But before we run out of the essentials, *let's finally admit that after decade upon decade of taxing and spending and borrowing, Illinois has finally run out of other people's money.*
> 
> *Those "other people" include taxpayers who've abandoned the state. *And now Illinois faces doomsday.
> 
> So as the politicians meet in Springfield this week for another round of posturing and gesturing and blaming, we need a plan.
> 
> And here it is:
> 
> *Dissolve Illinois. Decommission the state, tear up the charter, whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo, just end the whole dang thing.*
> 
> We just disappear. With no pain. That's right. You heard me.
> 
> The best thing to do is to break Illinois into pieces right now. Just wipe us off the map. Cut us out of America's heartland and let neighboring states carve us up and take the best chunks for themselves.
> 
> *The group that will scream the loudest is the state's political class, who did this to us, and the big bond creditors, who are whispering talk of bankruptcy and asset forfeiture to save their own skins.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But our beloved Illinois has proved that it just doesn't deserve to survive.
> *
> So why not let our friendly neighbors like Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky just take the parts they want?
> 
> As you can see by the excellent "Kevorkian Illinois" map that accompanies this column, this plan is visionary.
> 
> *The alternative is hell. Illinois hasn't had a state budget for years. The state continues to spend money it doesn't have, and the state's credit ratings have dropped, increasing the cost of borrowing more money we don't have to keep the rotten shebang going.*
> 
> *Bills pile up; Moody's Investor Service says taxpayers are on the hook for $251 billion in unfunded public union pension liabilities.*
> 
> *Boss Mike Madigan, king of the Democrats who control things, wants tax increases* but no real structural reform to bring stability to The Venezuela of the Midwest.
> 
> And the *whispers of bankruptcy* won't help the average (remaining) taxpaying chumbolones like you and me who don't want to leave our homes but who'll get stuck with the bills.
> 
> Since our neighboring states are doing better, taking Illinois jobs and businesses and Illinois workers and taxpaying families, they might as well just take the rest of Illinois, too, dammit.
> 
> Wisconsin can have Chicago and begin calling it "South Milwaukee."
> 
> Naturally, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel will fight this. He needs a job. And he'll most likely beg his friends at The New York Times and the Washington Post to write angry editorials to save him. And these will be full of concern for the republic and those dispossessed Midwestern salt-of-the-earth taxpaying Americans, as if.
> 
> Sadly, Wisconsin probably won't want Rahm, either. So to spare hurt feelings, I propose carving out 40 acres around the mayor's home so Rahm might be prince of his own country:
> 
> Rahmonia.
> 
> And Cook County Board President Toni "Taxwinkle" Preckwinkle will fight it, too, so she needs something to soothe her ambitions:
> 
> A grant of land as large as a case of the soda pop she taxes, so that she might stand on it and proclaim herself Queen of Taxwinkletopia.
> 
> If there are portions of Illinois that the other states don't want, they may be left as federal territory, a wilderness where only the strong survive and peasants and friendly propagandists kneel and beg for crumbs. You already know the name of this wasteland:
> 
> Madiganistan.
> 
> And in return for taking care of our politicians, Wisconsin will probably demand assets. Like the Milwaukee Cubs. The Beloit Blackhawks. The Sheboygan Bulls and the Fond du Lac Bears.
> 
> Indiana may want a large curvy slice of the former Illinois, so the state will be shaped more like a basketball. This will please Hoosiers to no end.
> 
> And Indiana also gets the Indianapolis White Sox and the hottest soccer team in America, the Indianapolis Fire.
> 
> Why not? Indiana is a great state, with friendly people and Mitch Daniels and Kilroy's in Bloomington.
> 
> Iowa can have part of the west. Missouri may also get a small piece. Kentucky can take southern Illinois, considering many on both sides of the border share Kentucky DNA, as did Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> A colleague told me he had reservations about sharing Illinois with the Bluegrass State.
> 
> "I wouldn't give Kentucky anything because A) it's the South and the former Illinois needs to stay in the Midwest, and B) their state government is a mess, too, with a governor who refuses to talk to certain reporters."
> 
> But beggars can't be choosers. If Illinois is dissolved as planned, we won't have a say in anything.
> 
> And though some in Kentucky might not respect "the media," the state does have excellent bourbon. I would allow Kentucky to send me countless barrels of its fine sipping spirit so that I might hold it in escrow, to make sure everything goes as planned.
> 
> I promise to sip their bourbon and light a cigar, and hum a few sad bars from that song of the former Illinois that no one sings anymore:
> 
> By thy rivers gently flowing, Illinois, Illinois
> 
> O'er thy prairies verdant growing, Illinois, Illinois
> 
> Comes an echo on the breeze, rustling through the leafy trees, Boss Madigan has us on our knees, Illinois, Illinois
> 
> Boss Madigan has us on our knees, Illinois.


From 2013 and it hasn't gotten better...



> Democrats have ruined Illinois
> June 04, 2013|Dennis Byrne
> 
> *Democrats are poisoning Illinois and Chicago.
> *
> Maybe it's too obvious to state, but it isn't said often enough. Or barely at all.
> 
> *Democrats have locked up the city and the state. They have supermajorities in both houses of the Illinois legislature. The governor is a Democrat. Democrats run two of the four major administrative branches of state government. The Chicago mayor's office, the City Council, Cook County and major "independent" agencies such as the CTA and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation Districts all are run by Democrats.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame is rightfully directed at the egos of House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton for the utter failure in the legislative session ending last week to pass pension and other reforms necessary to keep the state from going under. *But it's not coincidental that the current failures just happened to occur when Democrats are in charge.*
> 
> And those failures almost are too many to list. Unfunded pension obligations due public employees approaching $100 billion (according to conservative estimates), overdue bills to outfits (including social service providers) that do business with the state approaching $10 billion, poor-performing Chicago schools, debt piled deep, *the nation's worst state credit rating*, violence in the streets, high state unemployment, the "outmigration" of people and jobs, budgets that "balance" only through thinly disguised legerdemain, a heritage of corruption and so on and so on.
> 
> *Chicago and Illinois Democrats have demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of governing well.*
> *
> I'm not arguing that Republicans necessarily could do a better job.* Or that Republicans haven't helped create this situation. Readers of John Kass' excellent columns are well-acquainted with how the GOP abets the various acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance committed as part of the dark partnership with Democrats that Kass calls the "Combine." Thanks to that villainous alliance, Illinois Republicans, in and out of elective office, once knifed one of their own, U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, because he was too honest and too loyal to his constituents (i.e. he kept his promises). It's what happens in this state when you don't go along to get along. Maybe it's just chance that the state GOP's skid into irrelevance happened after that betrayal.
> 
> *But now Democrats wear the collar all by themselves.* That seems to be a point missed by so much of the news media. The one thing that the screw-ups and scoundrels who run Chicago and Illinois government have in common is their Democratic fidelity.
> 
> *Rack it up to greed if you want — so many owe their jobs and livelihoods to the patronage system that so effectively helps the party dominate Chicago and Cook County and, hence, state elections. Rack it up to blind ideology and the financial support that the political arms of radical left-wing groups like Personal PAC Inc. and Planned Parenthood of Illinois give to Democrats who dare not deviate from their extreme social agenda. Or rack it up to the long-standing, unholy alliance between organized labor — particularly those representing public employee unions — and their bought flunkies in government.*
> 
> Here, I must note some deviations from the general rule. Mayor Rahm Emanuel admirably has challenged the death grip that the Chicago Teachers Union has on the city's public schools. Emanuel was left a sinking ship of a city by former Mayor Richard Daley and a subservient City Council that, for example, burdened Chicago with the a steal-of-the-century parking meter deal that won't expire until ... 2083. I give credit to Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, and the people who worked with her to negotiate a respectable pension reform package. There are Democrats independent enough (or secure enough in their jobs) who bravely resist or try hard. I'm not sure I can name them; I can only suspect they exist.
> 
> But blaming party leaders who stand atop the fetid dung heap known as Chicago and Illinois government/politics doesn't sell. They're just a part of the pyramid of corruption, greed, narrow self-interest, power lust, self-absorption and loony ideology that constitutes the state and local Democratic Party, all the way from the top to the voters at the bottom.
> 
> To paraphrase Walt Kelly, creator of Pogo and his Okefenokee Swamp people, *we won't see change until Democrats — voters, pols and loyal hacks all — meet the enemy and realize that they are them.*


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Iconoclast said:


> So the guy spending 40 million is bitching about campaign financing.
> 
> And then they wonder why the pussy cuckboy lost because of course, you go in assuming that the republican voter is just a ******* hillbilly who's too stupid to spot a blatant piece of shit prop and not a serious person :lmao


_*
I can just smell the hypocrisy from that man. :lmao He has no right to complain. :lol*_


----------



## CamillePunk

Why the New Healthcare Bill Will Be a Loser by Scott Adams



> People accuse me of imagining that everything President Trump does is brilliant (persuasion-wise) no matter what he does. But I expect the next version of the Republican healthcare bill to be a complete failure. That’s because Republicans seem deeply committed to a losing path, thanks to what might be called the Contrast Problem.
> 
> Contrast is the driving principle behind all decisions. You have to know how your options differ, and by how much, or else you have no basis for a decision. President Obama solved for the contrast problem by designing Obamacare to cover more people than before. The rest of the details – especially the costs – were hard to predict, so our brains flushed that noise and focused on the greater number of people covered.
> 
> Everyone knew Obamacare would need future tuning to get it right. That gave us mental permission to focus on the good parts we understood – the greater coverage – and hope the other details would get worked out later. President Obama nailed the Contrast Problem like the Master Persuader he is.
> 
> That was then.
> 
> Now, President Trump and the Republicans have the “going second” problem. The public will compare their proposed bill with Obamacare and conclude that the one metric they understand – the number of people covered – does not compare favorably with Obamacare. The contrast is fatal.
> 
> We know Paul Ryan will do his wonkish best to tell us about all the amazing advantages of this new bill. And we know the public won’t understand any of it. But they sure will know it doesn’t cover as many people. Done. Bury it.
> 
> During the campaign, candidate Trump made some references to taking care of everyone. It sounded like universal coverage, but no one thought he meant it.
> 
> He did mean it.
> 
> He meant it because he understands the contrast problem. Any Obamacare replacement needs to cover more people than Obamacare, or else it is dead on arrival. Any skilled persuader would see that.
> 
> Paul Ryan doesn’t see the Contrast Problem as important, evidently.
> 
> I think most trained persuaders would agree that the one-and-only path to a successful replacement of Obamacare should include AT A MINIMUM a plan to reach greater coverage. And the only way to get there is by goosing innovation in the healthcare field. We can’t tax our way to full healthcare coverage. We need to lower the costs. And President Trump also needs to solve the Contrast Problem.
> 
> To that end, I suggest creating a special low-cost (or free) plan for low income people who are willing to accept a bit more risk. If the plan is robust enough, it could provide a path to greater patient coverage compared to Obamacare and solve the contrast problem. As a mental exercise only, the plan might have the following elements:
> 
> 1. Online doctors for 90% of routine cases.
> 
> 2. Require big pharma to provide free meds for people in this plan as a condition of selling in the United States. The low-income people covered would be the ones who would not otherwise buy these drugs, so the companies would only lose the cost of the materials themselves, which is trivial.
> 
> 3. Recruit and approve special doctors for this plan who are by law exempt from any malpractice suits so long as they provide reasons for their decisions. This would allow them to avoid some red tape and also use new and inexpensive medical technology before full FDA approval – but only for the new stuff that common sense tells the doctors would not be especially dangerous. I’m not talking about pills and internal medicine. I’m talking about medical devices, mostly. It would be up to the doctor to decide when it was safe to risk using the new methods.
> 
> 4. Patients agree to wear health monitors – the newest prototypes – and to share their medical information (anonymously) for the greater benefit of society. This would allow early detection and treatment. Perhaps the low-cost insurance could be free to those who walk 10,000 steps a day, or something of that nature.
> 
> 5. Shine a government light on any medical technology or systems improvements that would lower cost, to guarantee that the good ones are known to doctors and investors. (Then stay out of the way.)
> 
> This is just a starter concept for what a special low-cost plan (with slightly higher risks) might look like. The main point is that you could cobble together a low-cost plan if you had some government muscle behind it to clear out the useless regulations and to focus energy in the right places.
> 
> If President Trump presents us with a healthcare plan that doesn’t cover as many people as Obamacare, but will cover more people eventually, that’s a winning contrast.
> 
> Otherwise, the bill will die on the Contrast hill. And that’s the direction we’re heading.
> 
> As I’ve said before, America can’t make a strong claim to greatness if we can’t do healthcare right. So let’s do it right. Or at least have a plan to get there.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> Why the New Healthcare Bill Will Be a Loser by Scott Adams


Interesting article, 3. is kinda horrifying, but otherwise his plan isn't the worst idea I've ever heard. 

Also he's right re the contrast problem and Trumps best way out.

Obama's great political triumph wasn't Obamacare it was convincing people that healthcare reform was needed.


----------



## Reaper

A lot has been made of Jared Kushner based on a bunch of pics and heresay about his role in the white house. 

Apparently, Kushner's only role in the administration is to help update the federal government's technology which according to him is 50-60 years old in some cases. 

The only reason why he's involved in security briefings and working with the military is so that he can make observations about how they do things and then recommend ways to improve / upgrade them. 

Total and utter mischaracterization of his role has occurred making even Trumpers hate him. Why am I not surprised.


----------



## virus21

> According to a new Gallup poll, more Americans dislike Hillary Clinton now than did on Election Day.
> 
> While the failed presidential candidate has had time to improve her image and seek out only positive public appearances, it doesn’t seem to have mattered.
> 
> Gallup finds only 41% of Americans currently view Clinton favorably, while 57% view her unfavorably.
> 
> That compares to 43% who saw her positively in November, while 55% disapproved of her.
> 
> The findings show Clinton stands out among failed presidential candidates.
> 
> “Over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election—some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed,” Gallup wrote Wednesday.
> 
> 
> Gallup published this graphic to denote the stark difference:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier this week, President Trump brought attention to a Rasmussen poll showing his job approval rating at 50%, despite a daily battering from the mainstream media.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> Great news! #MAGA
> 10:12 AM - 16 Jun 2017
> 18,115 18,115 Retweets 72,289 72,289 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> USA Today reports:
> 
> According to Rasmussen, this is the first time Trump’s approval rating has hit 50% since late April. The highest it has been was 59% in January, shortly after his inauguration.
> 
> The lowest it has been was 42% in late April.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-favorability-since-election-declines/







> The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who critically injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last week, saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the shooting, reports AP.
> 
> According to the bureau, 66-year old James Hodgkinson acted alone in the mass assassination attempt, in what the FBI is describing as a “spontaneous” incident. After he was shot and killed by local police, law enforcement found a note in Hodgkinson’s pocket with the names of six members of congress written on it.
> 
> The suspect spent three months before the attack living in a van just outside the Washington metro area, running out of money, and visiting tourist attractions in and around the nation’s capital.
> 
> Prior to the mass shooting, Hodgkinson visited the senate office of democrat Bernie Sanders, whose failed presidential campaign the gunman had volunteered for. The FBI also said the shooter had been in contact with the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.
> 
> In the immediate aftermath of the “assault,” Sanders issued a public statement denouncing his volunteer.
> 
> "I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign," Sanders said in the statement. "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.


http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/fbi-virginia-gunman-visited-bernie-sanders-15930568/


----------



## Reaper

This is a really random thought so take it for what it is. Over the years before coming to America and getting involved in reading and learning about local politics here, there was a "dumb blonde" trope that was incredibly pervasive but obviously just a silly stereotype. 

At the same time, recently I've come to realize that hair color amongst American women is split along partisan lines. I almost never see a democrat chick with blonde hair (they tend to go brunette, blue, red, pink and shades of puke) and almost all conservatives are blonde bombshells. 

I'm beginning to think that the dumb blonde stereotype was intentionally created by the MSM to discredit conservatism :Shrug

Or it could be that conservatives decided to own the hair color in order to subvert the stereotype :hmmm


----------



## Jay Valero

Nobody wants Chicago. If we're going to build a wall, build it around Chicago and let the animals kill each other off. Then in a few decades maybe we can resettle the land and put it to use. It's not like you can't make deep dish pizza elsewhere.


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> Nobody wants Chicago. If we're going to build a wall, build it around Chicago and let the animals kill each other off. Then in a few decades maybe we can resettle the land and put it to use. It's not like you can't make deep dish pizza elsewhere.


They don't need to end the state for the people to abandon it for surrounding states as poverty increases. A few months ago I posted about a near perfect correlation between democrat counties losing money to surrounding republican ones. 

Republicans aren't as dumb as they're made out to be. While Democrats flood their counties with poor voters who vote for handouts, Republicans flood theirs with people looking to make money which they end up getting from the surrounding fiscally irresponsible democrats. For every irresponsible democrat official, there's a businessman leeching off their shitanomical policies. 

It's a parasitical relationship. One I am inclined to think (when I go down my flights of conspiratorial thinking) may be some sort of a master plan of collusion between both parties at a deep state level.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @Stephen90
> 
> Do you know of any West Virginians or Mississippians writing Op-Eds like this?
> 
> From the Chicago Tribune no less!
> 
> 
> 
> From 2013 and it hasn't gotten better...


http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/09/17/mississippi-is-americas-poorest-state/[/url[


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/0...er picture of states’ fiscal health.
> [/quote]


----------



## Reaper

Looking at Florida's solvency and the fact that it doesn't even have a State Tax is all you need to know about the success of capitalistic freedom.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Looking at Florida's solvency and the fact that it doesn't even have a State Tax is all you need to know about the success of capitalistic freedom.


It should also be noted that the three states ranked lower than Illinois are New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts; which are also heavily controlled Democratically and have been for some time.

Coincidence?


----------



## CamillePunk

"Far right" white nationalist Richard Spencer calls for single-payer healthcare. :mj

https://altright.com/2017/03/23/why-trump-must-champion-universal-healthcare/



> It won’t be the Russia conspiracy or the “Deep State.” It won’t be Olbermann, Maddow, and “The Resistance.” It won’t even be the bugbear of “racism.” No, the most likely thing that will bring down the presidency of Donald J. Trump is healthcare. Yes, healthcare. And the people to blame will be the “mainstream” Republicans who laid the trap.
> 
> The fact that Trump allowed himself to be tricked into supporting the current healthcare proposal reveals his own naiveté and reminds us, once again, that the Beltway advisors who have surrounded him are objectively bad at politics. Rather than focus on immigration—the issue that defined his candidacy—Trump got sucked into a whirlpool of regulations, arcane policies, climate-change debates, and taxes. This is a shocking waste of political capital, and it is not why his supporters put him in office.
> 
> Looking beyond the hysteria of the past two months, if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had won the presidency instead Trump, each wouldn’t have acted much differently in terms of policy, aside from the “Muslim bans,” which weren’t actually Muslim bans and have been tossed out anyway. Trump’s fights with the media are hilarious—and serve the strategic purpose of delegitimizing these old-line institutions and the Left as a whole—but they do little in terms of concrete change.
> 
> More important, the substance of Trump’s healthcare plan is a fucking joke. What Trump partisans call “Ryancare” or “Obamacare 2.0”—but which everyone else calls “Trumpcare”—will increase costs on Trump’s core constituency of White working-class voters, as even Breitbart points out.
> 
> The tedious goober Jason Chaffetz—who won’t defend the president when it comes to the synthetic Russia scandals but is fully aligned with Trump on this stupid bill—has given the Democrats every campaign ad it will ever need when he said people will need to choose between their iPhone and their healthcare.
> 
> So let’s call it what it is and not redirect the blame. Trumpcare is exactly the kind of Conservatism, Inc. idiocy we’ve seen year in, year out, where the most loyal constituents of the American Right are given the shaft, while those who despise Republican voters are rewarded.
> 
> The spectacle of Paul Ryan giggling with Rich Lowry about how he has been dreaming of cutting Medicare “since you and I were drinking out of kegs” is nothing short of nauseating. Who could relate to such people?
> 
> Worse, Trumpcare violates what Trump himself clearly stated. The President promised “insurance for everybody” in his Obamacare replacement plan. Trumpcare accomplishes nothing of the sort. The fundamental flaws in the old plan are preserved, and Ryan’s bill cuts benefits to Trump’s voters in order to keep the system going.
> 
> Lindsey Graham has suggested that, rather than put forth a new bill, we should just let Obamacare collapse and foist the blame onto the Democrats. Perhaps this is a better strategy than what is being pursued . . . but it is based on the faulty conservative premise that “Obama’s socialism” is set for an imminent and precipitous breakdown. The far more likely scenario is that Obamacare—much like Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of the “socialism” in Washington—will limp along for decades, maybe even a century, on borrowed money.
> 
> As mentioned, the fundament flaw of Trumpcare is the same as Obamacare: they are insurance schemes and not healthcare programs.
> 
> Taking a step back, what we call “health insurance” today is not truly insurance in the proper sense of the word. Essential to the concept of insurance is that no one expects to use it. For the holder, insurance is a hedge against unforeseen, rare, and catastrophic outcomes. For the lender, insurance is a bet that the holder won’t call in the liability. The classic insurance scenario, which dates back to the age of Hammurabi, is when merchants take out loans contingent on a vessel’s safe return from a voyage; if the ship were to sink at sea, the loan would not have to be repaid.
> 
> Today, what is called “health insurance” is better understood as a pre-payment or installment program. Everyone expects to use their “insurance” many time a year. Both Trumpcare and Obamacare seek to lower these installment payments by creating mandates and incentives that pool the healthy and the sick, the young and old, as a way of averaging out costs. Fiddling with this absurd model is much like trying to repair a car’s engine by giving it a new paint job.
> 
> Moreover, the fact that America has decided to socialize the insurance market, as opposed to socializing healthcare providers, reveals something important about our collective psyche and delusions.
> 
> The U.S. is one of the only industrialized nations that has never offered a universal healthcare system, despite the fact that the government spends hundreds of billions in the healthcare market every year. In the American psyche, “socialized medicine” is for whimpy Europeans and the working class. America doesn’t have a proletariate, or rather it has one that thinks of itself as “middle class.” Thus, Americans like talking about “health insurance,” a product for rich people, as opposed to talking about the government simply providing care for people who can’t afford it. A similar situation occurs in the “food stamp” program. Americans are provided with EBT cards (electronic benefit transfer) that act like fancy credit cards. As opposed simply to providing basic foodstuffs for the poor—yes, literally government cheese—Americans like to pretend that we’re all wealthy consumerists out shopping.
> 
> If there are two things—two root concepts—that define the Alt Right, they are identity and the red pill, that is, the concept of race and belonging and the ethic of seeing through the pretty lies of our time.
> 
> Identity means that we are part of a family, and that we have responsibilities to our people. Unlike Paul Ryan and Rich Lowry, who masturbated to Atlas Shrugged in their college dorms and have no loyalty to their race, Donald Trump is a nationalist. He is a man whose miraculous candidacy was based on promising his lower- and middle-class supporters that he would be their champion—that he understands the system and will make it work form them. If Trump actually believes his own words—and if he recognizes the reality that conservatives like Ryan never liked him, never really supported him, and don’t have his back—then why is he adopting their policies? Why not “rig the system” on his people’s behalf?
> 
> Taking the red pill on healthcare also means recognizing that the system was hardly a free-market paradise before Obama: prices were always set through Medicare. Moreover, Obamacare itself wasn’t really “socialism” at all: it was the fake socialism of an insurance scheme. (And let’s not forget that Obamacare’s “individual mandate” ultimately originated in the conservative movement of the late ‘80s.)
> 
> The red pill on healthcare also means recognizing the implications of human nature. Libertarians are probably right that a true, unfettered free market would provide “universal” healthcare, much like the markets for vacuum cleaners, hamburgers, and smartphones. But this is ultimately irrelevant. People can’t deal with the notion of rich “fat cats” buying up all the care and poor people getting kicked to the curb. Senator Bill Cassidy was right when he said recently, “There’s a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care.”
> 
> What is most frustrating is that Trump doesn’t even seem to believe in the lame ideas at the heart of Trumpcare. In Trump’s mind, the healthcare bill just seems to be something he wants to “get done” so he can credibly say he fulfilled his promise to repeal Obamacare. Or worse, he has adopted Ryan’s bill like a product he’s “branding,” à la “Trump steaks” or “Trump wine.” Worse still, there is reason to believe Trump favors a single payer solution in his heart of hearts. He cryptically commented during the first GOP debate that a single payer solution “could have worked in a different age. . . .” And Trump seems to understand, or at least did at one time, that healthcare is not like other goods. It is something at some point everyone needs.
> 
> Indeed, Trump gestured towards such ideas in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve (and was predictably slammed for it by the likes of über-cuck Erick Erickson). Said Trump:
> 
> I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by health care expenses. We must not allow citizens with medical problems to go untreated because of financial problems or red tape.
> 
> One can expect Trump’s opponents simply to use his own words against him when the time comes, especially as the Democrats (with an assist from the media) are now trying to present themselves as the champions of middle class, who will fight against the plutocrats and libertarians in the GOP. Bernie Sanders, selling universal healthcare to a receptive White crowd in West Virginia a short time ago, is a classic example. (Naturally, he was being disingenuous with this sudden concern for coal miners. During the campaign, Bernie confidently informed us, “When you’re White, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”)
> 
> And we can’t ignore the politics of this. If Trumpcare passes, leftists can credibly claim that Trump has betrayed his populist vision. They will recycle the hoary script about nationalism and “scapegoating” immigrants as a means of pushing through a draconian agenda. And they’ll have a point! This is the script they’ve used for decades, and it’s astonishing how the House Republicans seem determined to fit the caricature.
> 
> Like the Satsuma Rebellion, it’s time for supporters of the Emperor to rise against him in his name. And it is time for the Alt-Right to push for a “public option”—the single-payer system that Obama’s didn’t have the balls to implement.
> 
> Yes, of course, we don’t live in Sweden circa 1960; and a single-payer system would be mired by the contradictions of multiculturalism and open borders—but so is the system we have now. We are past the point of trying to impose a rational policy in what is already an irrational situation.
> 
> And in any given environment, we have to consider what policy option or political choice will further the strategic objective of moving toward racial consciousness. Universal healthcare accomplishes this in several ways.
> 
> Firstly—and most importantly, politically—we must accept that healthcare is an issue we cannot rationally address until we have a European nation. The best we can do is support the most plausible solution that would serve our constituency. The system we have now is essentially the worst of both the free market and socialist options, as the government tries to manipulate prices in order to preserve a nominally “capitalist” system. By doing this, it destroys the pricing mechanism, which is the one critical advantage capitalism has. The result is a bureaucratic nightmare. Universal healthcare is less confusing and nonsensical (and probably cheaper) than what White people have to deal with now.
> 
> Secondly, we underestimate the rise of neo-social democracy at our peril. Even as the “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela descends into chaos, socialism is growing more popular in the United States, and easily the most beloved politician is Bernie Sanders. As Dave Weigel observed, only half jokingly, single-payer is really the only way Trump can keep many of his working-class voters on board. It’s hard to believe the Democrats in 2020, under huge pressure from the Left, would nominate another corporate liberal like Hillary Clinton. In the current climate, the group that is most opposed to the Establishment wins. And the implementation of Trumpcare would make it far easier for Trump to be cast as a tool of the ruling class.
> 
> Third, we need to think about what single-payer would do for the Alt-Right movement. So many writers, activists, and content creators on our side shy away from becoming more involved, not just out of fear of social punishment, but out of fear of being fired and losing their health insurance. As many wags noted of Breaking Bad, the crippling fear of being sick and being unable to pay for it is one of the defining elements of American life. Single-payer would enable more political soldiers to step forward.
> 
> Fourth, it moves the territory away from abstractions about “limited government” and towards issues where we have something to say. When single-payer healthcare is implemented, issues like food safety, nutrition, and obesity become matters of public concern. It will draw more attention to the alternative we are presenting to America’s current lowest-common-denominator society. Contra Jeffrey Tucker, mankind’s highest aspirations are not to be found in a Taco Bell. Not even an American’s highest aspirations.
> 
> Finally, along with the looming issue of basic income, once automation really gets going—when those Uber drivers, waiters, and machinists are replaced by software—getting past the healthcare debate means moving to a political battleground where we have the strategic advantage. In one of the many videos now circulating, Marine Le Pen rails against those who are “threatening the survival of the French social model.” As even Paul Krugman once admitted, if you are going to try to guarantee healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global. But the Left today is defined by the effort to make each Western nation a microcosm of the non-White world. Indeed, as the fanatically anti-white (even by liberal Jewish standards) Zack Beauchamp observes, a strong social model in many ways enables the growth of the nationalist Right, as cultural and racial issues move to the front of politics.
> 
> Of course, the more libertarian elements of the Alt-Right may simply want Trump to pull a Pinochet and defend the free market through outright repression. But in healthcare, there is no free market now nor would there be one under Trumpcare. The incentive structure has been so totally screwed up that nothing short of absolute collapse can restore anything approaching a rational model. And Trump is already showing signs of weakness. He won’t even end DACA, let alone go full Pinochet.
> 
> Given these realities, we need to look first at the political situation. If Donald Trump actually signs this horrible bill, he may be ending his term even before it really begins. If the GOP loses the House majority in 2018, he’ll be impeached. And if they don’t, we’ll be looking at President Elizabeth Warren or someone similar in 2020.
> 
> Donald Trump became president by ignoring Republican orthodoxy. He’s only going to stay president by continuing to shun it. And we can only hope that Donald Trump, if only for selfish reasons, is not going to sacrifice himself for someone as despicable as Paul Ryan.


----------



## deepelemblues

Who is going to vote for 32 trillion in additional spending over 10 years to pay for socialist healthcare? These people are so, so dumb.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> Who is going to vote for 32 trillion in additional spending over 10 years to pay for socialist healthcare? These people are so, so dumb.


No problem. The govt will just ask elon musk to figure out how to capture an asteroid. After we mine it we can pay the bill off, or if you prefer, ship all the people on pensions to mars


----------



## deepelemblues

amhlilhaus said:


> No problem. The govt will just ask elon musk to figure out how to capture an asteroid. After we mine it we can pay the bill off, or if you prefer, ship all the people on pensions to mars


Only problem with that plan is Musk will them he can't do it without being given 50 trillion dollars in government subsidies :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

> 1.4 million illegals working under stolen Social Security numbers: Audit
> 
> *Most illegal immigrants who pay taxes have stolen someone else’s legal identity, and the IRS doesn’t do a very good job of letting those American citizens and illegal immigrants know they’re being impersonated, the tax agency’s inspector general said in a new report released Thursday.*
> 
> The theft creates major problems for the American citizens and legal foreign workers whose identities are stolen, and who have to deal with explaining money they never earned.
> 
> *But the IRS only manages to identify half of the potentially 1.4 million people likely affected by the fraud in 2015*, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said in its report.
> 
> “Cases of employment identity theft can cause significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them,” said J. Russell George, the inspector general.
> 
> *It’s long been a conundrum in the federal government.
> *
> *The IRS knows of 2.4 million people a year who file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which is generally given out to immigrants who aren’t authorized to work. But the IRS is not allowed to talk with Homeland Security to help agents identify who and where those taxpayers are.
> *
> 
> *The migrants file their forms with their ITINs, but the W-2 forms they submit show valid Social Security numbers that they fraudulently gave to their employer to clear an initial work authorization check.*
> 
> *A staggering 87 percent of forms filed online using ITINs showed income credited to a Social Security number. More than half of forms filed by paper also showed that same fraudulent behavior.*
> 
> The IRS tries to mark the files of the fraud victims when electronic filings are used. But the tax agency misses about half of the victims, the inspector general said.
> 
> For paper forms, the IRS did even worse, the audit found.
> 
> The tax agency, in its official reply to the report, insisted it takes identity theft “very seriously.”
> 
> Kenneth C. Corbin, commissioner of the IRS’s wage and investment division, said it has just completed a pilot program to figure out how to notify taxpayers they’re the victims of fraud.
> 
> But he said in most of the cases they’re missing right now, the Social Security number given is for someone who doesn’t have a tax account on their system. He said they can’t create a notification for someone who’s not in their files, and said because of privacy concerns they won’t just send a notification to the addresses listed.
> 
> *He also said there are cases where someone knowingly loaned out their Social Security to an unauthorized worker, and thus wasn’t properly a victim but a conspirator.*
> 
> The IRS agreed to some of the inspector general’s recommendations but refused others. Mr. Corbin said the IRS would do what it could, but pleaded poverty, saying the agency has “limited resources.”
> 
> “We cannot commit to additional actions that would require significant resources to accomplish,” he wrote.


Pres. Trump, it's your move. :nod


----------



## DOPA




----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


>


Nobody will believe that. The people that post in this thread believe this country should be run a certain way and pretty much you will not get them to change that thought. Hell the people that post here are tame compared to other sites like Yahoo who pretty much wish death on anybody who is not a hardcore conservative.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Hardcore Show said:


> Nobody will believe that. The people that post in this thread believe this country should be run a certain way and pretty much you will not get them to change that thought. Hell the people that post here are tame compared to other sites like Yahoo who pretty much wish death on anybody who is not a hardcore conservative.


Of course Trump supporters wont believe that because they ignore any evidence against Trump. 

Its tame here because if you wish death on people or name call too much you get the ban hammer lol


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878002965755383808


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course Trump supporters wont believe that because they ignore any evidence against Trump.
> 
> Its tame here because if you wish death on people or name call too much you get the ban hammer lol


Confirmed!
@birthday_massacre wants to wish death on people

:wow


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Confirmed!
> 
> @birthday_massacre wants to wish death on people
> 
> :wow


No that would be Trump supporters that are for Trumpcare.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I'll take "The last thing she expected" for $1000, Alex.



> Group of Democrats meet behind closed doors to consider ousting Pelosi
> 
> Around the same time House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was declaring she had broad support to remain the top Democratic leader and jabbing back at her critics, *a group of her colleagues met privately to brainstorm on whether there was a way to force her out.*
> 
> New York Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice, one of a small group who has gone public with the message that Pelosi should go, hosted a dozen Democrats in her office Thursday for an hour-long strategy session.
> 
> Rep. Cedric Richmond, the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, who many have touted as a rising star in the party, attended the session, according to three Democrats who also attended. The CBC includes roughly 40 House Democrats, many in senior leadership and committee positions, including Pelosi allies.
> 
> In an interview on CNN before the meeting, *Rice admitted that the problem facing the party now is that no one has emerged as an alternative.*
> 
> *When pressed to give a name of who might fill that void, Rice said, "I look to a lot of my colleagues now. We have a lot of talent in the Democratic Party," but she pointed out that "we don't have an infrastructure in our caucus allowing more voices to be heard, and that's the problem."*
> 
> "Obviously people are very concerned about where we are and they want to have a conversation about where we need to be," Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio told reporters about why the group got together. *Ryan made it clear after his failed bid to oust Pelosi in the fall that he wasn't planning to challenge her again* and was just supporting the effort.
> 
> Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, another outspoken critic, also attended, according to sources -- and some in the group continue to point to the Iraq war veteran as a young member who could be cultivated to run.
> Another Democrat who has been pushing for leadership changes, Rep. Filemon Vela of Texas, told CNN the group didn't make any decisions at Thursday's meeting, but those who participated believe there is growing unrest among House Democrats about the direction of the current leadership team.
> 
> "I think there was consensus within the room that there are other members within the caucus who feel just like we do," Vela told CNN. *He emphasized that the group "was a diverse group from an ideological, geographic and ethnic standpoint."*
> 
> *(Because of course they had to point that out. LOL)
> *
> *Pelosi* insisted that the current leadership structure already gives opportunities to younger members, telling reporters, "I have always featured the young 30-somethings ... and they are so impressive. So, we are paving a way for a new generation of leadership."
> 
> But she made it clear that while she heard the pushback from the small group, she was looking to the broader caucus to back her up.
> 
> *"I respect any opinion that my members have but my decision about how long I stay is not up to them."*
> 
> *(Meaning, "Shut up, I'm in charge!")
> *
> Pelosi didn't give names when she referred to those who want her to step aside, but she called out those chose to go on television to criticize her, saying "have your fun."
> 
> *Ryan*, who has appeared on multiple networks to complain about the current direction, *shot back, "this isn't fun for any of us."*
> 
> Vela said he believes if the party sticks with the Pelosi in the top slot, it will hurt the efforts in the kinds of districts they need to flip to win back control of the House in 2018.
> 
> *"As long as Leader Pelosi is perceived as the leader of the House Democratic Caucus Republicans are going to continue to spend millions and millions of dollars in those swing districts to convince those swing voters, those independent voters, those Republican voters who might go our way, not to vote for our Democratic candidate because of Leader Pelosi," Vela said.*
> 
> The group who met Thursday decided to get together again soon, according to attendees.


The idea that Pelosi could be ousted before Trump... :banderas


----------



## virus21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'll take "The last thing she expected" for $1000, Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that Pelosi could be ousted before Trump... :banderas


Should have been done long ago


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> No that would be Trump supporters that are for Trumpcare.


Ridiculous hyperbole. :CITO


----------



## deepelemblues

Pelosi will be ousted and retire after the Dems fail to take the House and lose 7 seats in the Senate in 2018


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878069167424888832

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878038226245607424
He seems to be out of his... Depp...? :mj


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878069167424888832
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878038226245607424
> He seems to be out of his... Depp...? :mj


When are famous people going to realize they just need to shut the fuck up? Their self-righteous virtue signaling is pissing off more people than they even recognize or even care to recognize.

Just shut the hell up and do your jobs.


----------



## Vic Capri

Johnny Depp has always been an Anti-American sack of sh**!

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Johnny Depp has always been an Anti-American sack of sh**!
> 
> - Vic


Have you ever said one bad thing about Trump? Seems like if the whole country was took up his agenda we would be 1000X better off then we are right now right? 

Do you feel anything for any person who cannot live under the rules the GOP/Trump want to pass or are they regardless of race or creed just the dead weight albatross on the back of the country?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

> Texas, three more states on California’s banned travel list
> 
> California is restricting publicly funded travel to four more states because of recent laws that leaders here view as discriminatory against gay and transgender people.
> 
> All totaled, California now bans most state-funded travel to eight states.
> 
> The new additions to California’s restricted travel list are Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota.
> 
> They join Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee as states already subjected to the ban.
> 
> California Attorney Xavier Becerra announced the new states at a Thursday press conference, where he was joined by representatives from ACLU Northern California and Equality California.
> 
> “We will not spend taxpayer dollars in states that discriminate,” Becerra said.
> 
> California’s Legislature last year voted to restrict state-funded travel to states with laws that allow businesses to deny services to gay and transgender people.
> 
> California’s law gained attention after North Carolina enacted its so-called “bathroom bill,” which prevented local governments from adopting anti-discrimination ordinances and required that people using bathrooms in public buildings choose the restroom that corresponds to their gender at birth.
> 
> Texas Gov. Greg Abbott this month signed a law that allows child welfare providers to deny services because of “sincerely held religious beliefs,” a provision that critics interpreted as permitting adoption agencies to deny services to gay families.
> 
> Alabama and South Dakota were added to California’s listed of banned states because of similar adoption-related laws. The California Department of Justice said Kentucky’s Senate Bill 17 allows student-run organizations in schools to discriminate against classmates.
> 
> The California law includes exemptions for law enforcement officers, tax auditors and training events that are required for grants. California’s tax-collecting Board of Equalization has an office in Houston.












...but public funding used for travel to China, that's okay. kay


----------



## deepelemblues

The Hardcore Show said:


> Have you ever said one bad thing about Trump? Seems like if the whole country was took up his agenda we would be 1000X better off then we are right now right?
> 
> Do you feel anything for any person who cannot live under the rules the GOP/Trump want to pass or are they regardless of race or creed just the dead weight albatross on the back of the country?


The vigor of the fatherland must be renewed with the salty tears of the albatross.

Direct quote from Mussolini I believe.


----------



## Miss Sally

The Hardcore Show said:


> Have you ever said one bad thing about Trump? Seems like if the whole country was took up his agenda we would be 1000X better off then we are right now right?
> 
> Do you feel anything for any person who cannot live under the rules the GOP/Trump want to pass or are they regardless of race or creed just the dead weight albatross on the back of the country?


People lived under Bush and Obama just fine. This chicken little mentality is annoying and over the top. Americans don't know what real oppression is, trying to imply that this Government is so terrible that people cannot live under it makes me laugh.

Canada is right above us, South America is below, take your pick and go your merry way. Go apply for citizenship. If not then stop crying, maybe if people actually were concerned with real issues you wouldn't feel this way. This is why we have voting so people can decide what issues they want solved.

People who cry and do nothing when there are loads of options for living are dead weight. Nobody is forcing you to stay here, nobody has taken away your rights.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> Do you feel anything for any person who cannot live under the rules the GOP/Trump want to pass or are they regardless of race or creed just the dead weight albatross on the back of the country?


Which people and which rules can they not live under? If this is about people who want the government to force me to pay for their healthcare then no, I don't care about them. Anyone who desires force to be used against me is not someone I have any empathy for.


----------



## Vic Capri

Hannity trolls Morning Joe

:lol

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> No that would be Trump supporters that are for Trumpcare.


I've literally seen no people on this thread, either left or right who are for Trumpcare. Maybe I've missed a couple of people that are but I've seen nothing but criticism.

You already know I've been one of the biggest critics of the bill anyway for various reasons :lol.


----------



## Beatles123

God damn I love being Right wing :tommy


----------



## Reaper

Depp is a loser who thinks that this is going to keep him relevant since his movies aren't and he's a dying brand with no money so he's lashing out instead of self-reflecting. Like we've seen from the vast majority of anti-Trumpers (not just limited to celebrities). Most people who hate Trump have depressing, horrible lives and it seems to be a common thread. 

Quote directly from Johnny Depp as he's currently embroiled in a suit/counter-suit after throwing away all his money and trying to sue his financial managers for stealing money: 



> “But, regarding the plane situation… I don’t have all that many options at the moment,” he wrote. “A commercial flight with paparazzis in tow would be a f--king nightmare of monumental proportions.”
> 
> Depp then pleaded, “What else can I do??? You want me to sell [some] art??? I will. You want me to sell something else??? Sure…what???... Other than that, I got bikes, cars, property, books, paintings, and some semblance of a soul left, where would you like me to start???”


:lol

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpres...position-to-motion-to-quash-with-exhibits.pdf

^^For those interested in why Depp's attitude has gone down the shitter, this is a must read.


----------



## Vic Capri

Depp's just bitter he's a Hollywood failure now that a lot of people have stopped caring about him.



> The Tourist? Critically panned.
> 
> The Rum Diary? Flop.
> 
> The Lone Ranger? Barely made a profit.
> 
> Transcendence? Barely broke even.
> 
> Mortdecai? Flop.
> 
> Yoga Hosers? Flop.
> 
> Alice Through the Looking Glass? Critically panned and HUGE underwhelming compared to the first movie's grossing.
> 
> Dead Man Tell No Tales? Underwhelming compared to On Stranger Tides's grossing.


He needs to accept the fact he's not The Man anymore. 

- Vic


----------



## virus21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> ...but public funding used for travel to China, that's okay. kay


Forget Mexico, build the wall around California. Fuckers want to be isolated anyway


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Doesn't Depp have a private island? He could just live there. :mj


----------



## Reaper

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Doesn't Depp have a private island? He could just live there. :mj


Man, you should read the emails exchanged between him and his financial company. Depp is a financial disaster basically living off of millions of dollars worth of debt ... 

or in his case Deppt ... 

From 2009



> c....
> know how crazed things are end have been, I am fearful of The Bank's reaction to still not having received
> back signed loan documents. We are almost $4,000,000. overdrawn. They are not likely to extend credit
> beyond The $6,000,000 they have agreed to lend and may threaten to withhold much beyond the current $4,000,000
> overdraft any day without signed documents. How can i help?
> joel...


2011



> - Disney came backto us at the end of the week (MLS and i...Tracy does not know this yet) with revised
> cash flow projections for Alice/P2-P3 for 2011. Reduced again. No panic but any cushion we may have had
> is gone. Need to communicate appropriately. We'll discuss.
> Have a great weekend...
> joel....


2012



> -I'm holding signed loan dox per your request. Bank has been anxious to receive
> but likely to become more so today/tomorrow as our collective overdrafts exceed $1.OM


2014



> Shorter answer, as you know we are pledging our primary Disney profit participations. These monies will be
> required to pay back the loan and will be unavailable to us for a number of years (likely next 4.5 years ). These
> monies have been a significant source of our income, and have sustained us during the periods between new
> work. Without access to these monies, even greater reductions in spending will be necessary.





> Joel,
> As per our telephone conversation yesterday, attached are the
> documents to renew your client's term loan in the amount of
> $1,988M until February 28, 2015. Please obtain his signature
> where indicated and return the completed documents to me no
> later than Monday, September 29~_ If necessary I will also
> take a faxed signature, on a temporary basis, in order to board


So basically this fool has been essentially blowing money all over the place, in debt, a fiscal fool (very typical democrat behavior to drive up debt) ... And talking about assassinating the president ... Cancerous individuals that are nothing but a scourge on society. Taking millions and millions of dollars in loans when there are homeless people on the streets. 

And then these people have the gall to lecture humanity on giving money to the poor :aj3

Democrats are filth. It's the real party of the rich.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> And then these people have the gall to lecture humanity on giving money to the poor :aj3


or anything


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

I don't really take what celebrities say about "giving to the poor" seriously, especially if they're over here buying private islands. I know some rally around healthcare for all; they could easily all pool their millions and create hospitals and so on to take care of those who don't have the means. I'm only speaking of the celebrities who run their mouth and do nothing about it. I know there are a few who don't speak of it openly but they do help people while not flaunting their "altruism". Then, there are the celebrities that don't give a shit and don't claim to, living the high life without a care in the world (and to me, there's nothing wrong with that).

I actually respect the celebrities that don't say shit and don't give a shit (and never claim that they do) more than I do the celebrities who talk shit about saving the world and do nothing about it. Don't claim to want to solve the world's problems and do jack shit about it.


----------



## Reaper

If you have government (or lack of government), you can have real charity. I've seen it in action in Pakistan. 

For example, in Pakistan

- Poor people can get free cancer treatment
- Poor people can get free transplants through an NGO called SIUT
- There is another network of Agha Khan hospitals that provide the poor with free treatment as long as the poor can prove that they can't pay (and that's not difficult). The fund this through over-charging the rich who want better and faster treatment. 
- There are 1000's of ambulances, helicopters and free clinics all over the country
- Celebrities actually run private funded schools (Look up Shahzad Roy's Zindagi Trust where Children are actually paid to go to school and the money is funded entirely through private donations)
- There are dozens of NGO's that have built schools in remote parts of the country and are also following the model of paying children to go to school so they can help their families all funded through private donations. 

The government is a scam in order to get people to think that they're funding all of these things. If there is no government, it does motivate altruists to do what they can. Basically, it has to be about core personal values of altruism and when people see actual suffering, it motivates them to do what they can to end that suffering. The thing is that there is no real suffering in America. It's artificially created through a web of lies and deceit about how much poverty actually exists in order to fund big government projects that do nothing to end poverty.

Ultimately though I will admit that overall I've seen more greed in America and Canada than I witnessed in Pakistan. There's a lot less empathy and desire to give money away - but I can totally understand why. People are demotivated to help when they feel like their tax dollars should be funding their charity. However, facts prove without a shadow of a doubt that tax dollars are not being put to good use. This is why private charity is the only real solution to helping people because there you can be sure that most of it will be put to good use as the people who raise funds for poverty actually donate them. 

Unfortunately though, the west's response isn't to privatise charity but to fund government - despite knowing that the government is always corrupt and does not use money for what it's supposed to. At the same time governments and even partisan electorates are completely opposed to innovation even in philanthropic non-profits because for some reason they want everything to be done through government. It makes little to no sense to me at all.

Personally, when I wasn't paying tax in Pakistan, I was funding 3 children and a driver on a starting MBA salary because I knew no one else would - so it was my charge. I would do the same here if my wife wasn't paying a big chunk of her pay in taxes. It demotivates me to be charitable and it's actually causing me a significant amount of stress to not be able to do so.


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> I've literally seen no people on this thread, either left or right who are for Trumpcare. Maybe I've missed a couple of people that are but I've seen nothing but criticism.
> 
> You already know I've been one of the biggest critics of the bill anyway for various reasons :lol.


For some reason anyone who voted for Trump is considered part of a hive mind and we all like and do the same stuff. Yet if someone on the "Left" does something well that's just them and not anything else.


----------



## Jay Valero

Miss Sally said:


> For some reason anyone who voted for Trump is considered part of a hive mind and we all like and do the same stuff. Yet if someone on the "Left" does something well that's just them and not anything else.


From my perspective, that's probably because a lot of Trump supporters I've seen are like a lot of Obama supporters I've seen. A collection of drooling retards that would cheer the guy on if he came to their house and took a dump right in the middle of their living room.


----------



## Miss Sally

Jay Valero said:


> From my perspective, that's probably because a lot of Trump supporters I've seen are like a lot of Obama supporters I've seen. A collection of drooling retards that would cheer the guy on if he came to their house and took a dump right in the middle of their living room.


They've also taken up the "Birther" mantle with this Russia nonsense, going on about conspiracies and whatnot. The lack of self-awareness is astounding as they don't see how they're exactly like the racist dingbats who thought Obama was a sekret Muslim. 

If they took a look in the mirror, re-read what they've wrote and stopped listening to the media propaganda they could actually get things done. 

Though I do wonder wonder how people react if celebs like Depp and others calling for the assassination of Trump or talking about how the US was ruined because a black guy was in charge. The reaction to Baldwin dressing up as Obama would be golden, not to mention if most of the media was bringing up the secret Muslim stuff nonstop on CNN etc... Makes me wonder how all of that would be taken! :hmmm


----------



## deepelemblues

I would be thrilled if :trump came to my house and took a dump on my living room floor.

Vladimir Pootin pays big money for shit like that from what I hear... :cena5


----------



## Vic Capri

Johnny Depp's rep at CAA (the talent agency) is Christian Carino. 424-288-2000 (public number). Have fun!

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

Vic Capri said:


> Johnny Depp's rep at CAA (the talent agency) is Christian Carino. 424-288-2000 (public number). Have fun!
> 
> - Vic


Why? What's going on?


----------



## MrMister

Jay Valero said:


> Why? What's going on?


The dumbass said some shit about assassinating Trump. He's always been a total narcissistic moron.


----------



## Jay Valero

MrMister said:


> The dumbass said some shit about assassinating Trump. He's always been a total narcissistic moron.


fpalm


----------



## virus21

> The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.
> In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”
> Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.
> Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.


https://archive.fo/LiqHG#selection-4451.0-4505.11


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878339388907728896


----------



## Slickback

Just another dumbass trying to be edgy and pander to libtards. Fuck off Johnny


----------



## Dr. Middy

It's Johnny Depp. 

Dude hasn't been relevant in like 10 years now, he's mostly put in movies that end up flopping.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878386918622244864

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878370268233773057


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump signed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act into law! Another campaign promise fulfilled. 

*Re: Depp's apology*

The Secret Service must have paid a visit.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878430669101203460


----------



## Jay Valero

Pelosi is such a horrible, evil creature but she's soooo bad at her job I almost don't want her banished from public and political life. Almost.


----------



## Vic Capri

Pelosi is so hated, even some of her constituents want her to step down!






I'm so glad Jones recorded their phone calls. What a two faced bitch!

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Megyn Kelly is damaged goods now. It's a shame because she is a solid reporter who is not afraid to look at both sides. Problem is the libs don't trust her and the Trump supporters hate her guts because she asked a few tough questions. 

I will have my thoughts on the Senate's version of the AHCA once I read it and will share here...right now starting to review it. Unlike Congress, I read it before I comment. 

As for Russia and Obama's not saying anything. He was really in a no-win situation especially considering Trump was already talking about how the contest was rigged. If he had said something then, Trump would have screamed at the top of his lungs that Obama was trying to influence the election in favor of HRC. It is guaranteed he would have played that card. Not saying anything now draws the wrath of everyone. Personally, I would have said we have evidence that the election is being influenced by outside foreign powers and taken steps to prevent it. I would have taken the bullet. But then again, Obama's refusal to act bites him in the ass again and shows his incompetence.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys, amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.
> 
> Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.
> 
> According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.
> 
> Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.
> 
> Ms. Sanders' push for the liberal arts college's costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016.
> 
> Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state.
> 
> Sanders criticizes inequality, corruption in commencement speech
> Play VIDEO
> Sanders criticizes inequality, corruption in commencement speech
> "I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."
> 
> "My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.
> 
> Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false."
> 
> And as for the claim that Ms. Sanders manipulated the loan application, Weaver said, "The loan was approved by the financial board at the college."
> 
> Sen. Sanders, formerly mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, regards the claims as a political game levied against him after his run for president in the 2016 primary election, a platform which has transformed the small-state senator into an influential voice in American liberal politics.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/



> Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it asked a federal court to order the State Department to end its “slow dragging strategy” in producing documents regarding the handling of requests about the false talking points used by then-Ambassador Susan Rice to talk about the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch vs. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-00205)).
> 
> Rice, in the wake of the attacks in which four Americans were killed, was dispatched to five Sunday news programs to falsely claim the Benghazi attack was the result of a “spontaneous” protest against an “anti-Islamic” internet video. Separate Judicial Watch litigation into the Benghazi talking-points scandal led to the discovery of the Hillary Clinton email issue and to the creation of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
> 
> On May 26, the State Department informed Judicial Watch that the department’s “searches have uncovered in excess of 3,100 potentially responsive documents.” On June 1, the State Department disclosed that the documents consist of approximately 51,329 potentially responsive pages.
> 
> The State Department initially proposed a production schedule that Judicial Watch argued would “carry out the rolling production of responsive documents by more than 30 months (to December 2019).” The State Department then amended the proposal to extend its production to October 2018.
> 
> Judicial Watch asked the court to order the State Department to produce all “non-exempt responsive records” in three monthly productions, with a final production on or before September 30, 2017.
> 
> On March 15 the State Department was ordered to produce documents. Judicial Watch argued in its filing that:
> 
> The State Department’s two productions included a total of 22 documents released in full. During the course of approximately 10 weeks, [the State Department] processed and reviewed only 108 documents in response to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request (as 86 documents were withheld in full) – an average of 10 documents per week or 4 documents per business day.
> 
> “The Trump administration needs to put its foot down and stop the Deep State from protecting Hillary Clinton and the Obama gang,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “It is disheartening to see the Trump administration stall the release of documents about the Benghazi cover-up. President Trump needs to take direct action to ensure the truth come out about the Benghazi scandal.”
> 
> The suit was filed after the State Department failed to respond to a December 2, 2016, FOIA request seeking:
> 
> All records related to the processing of the FOIA request served on the State Department by Judicial Watch, Inc. on May 13, 2014. All tasking, tracking, and reporting records for searches conducted in response to the request should be considered responsive. Forms DS-1748 and any “search slips,” “search tasker,” and “search details,” also should be considered responsive.
> All internal State Department communications that relate to the processing of or search for records responsive to the FOIA request, including any guidance about how and where to conduct the searches, whether and how to search the emails of then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and any issues, problems, or questions regarding the searches and/or search results.
> All records that relate to the State Department’s discovery, prior to February 2, 2015, that additional searches for record responsive to the FOIA request were necessary. In this regard, the State Department represented in a February 2, 2015 status report filed in litigation regarding the FOIA request that:
> In the course of preparing additional information to provide to [Judicial Watch] for purposes of settlement discussions, [the State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA [request] must be conducted.
> 
> All records that identify the location(s) or source(s) of potentially responsive records that necessitated the “additional searches …”
> Previously, Judicial Watch filed a June 21, 2013, FOIA lawsuit about the Benghazi talking points that produced a declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)).


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-court-order-state-department-end-slow-dragging-benghazi-cover-documents/


----------



## DOPA

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-...bi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/



> Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.
> 
> Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders' top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.
> 
> According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.
> 
> Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.
> 
> Ms. Sanders' push for the liberal arts college's costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016.
> 
> Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state.
> 
> "I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."
> 
> "My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.
> 
> Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false."
> 
> And as for the claim that Ms. Sanders manipulated the loan application, Weaver said, "The loan was approved by the financial board at the college."
> 
> Sen. Sanders, formerly mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, regards the claims as a political game levied against him after his run for president in the 2016 primary election, a platform which has transformed the small-state senator into an influential voice in American liberal politics.


What an interesting turn of events considering Sanders rhetoric.


----------



## deepelemblues

What don't you people understand about the HEROES OF THE REVOLUTION deserving reward for their service to the proletariat?


----------



## Reaper

You mean to tell me that socialists are corrupt. Mind = blown ! 

-


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878323064403972097


----------



## deepelemblues

Space computer wizard Barron built John Titor's time machine


----------



## Reaper

Only even switched the R's with N's in an obvious attempt to give us a clue.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/680151602825568256
Pretty much. 730k of PP money went to Ossoff's campaign.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html



> *‘Woefully incomplete’ universal health bill dead for the year in California*
> 
> Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon put the brakes on a sweeping plan to overhaul the health care market in California Friday, calling the bill “woefully incomplete.”
> 
> Rendon announced plans to park the bill to create a government-run universal health care system in Assembly Rules Committee “until further notice” and give senators time to fill in holes that the bill does not currently address.
> 
> “Even senators who voted for Senate Bill 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation,” Rendon said.
> 
> Democratic Sens. Ricardo Lara and Toni Atkins, who introduced the proposal, acknowledged the bill was dead for the year. Lara and Atkins had described the bill as a work in progress when it passed the Senate earlier this month without a funding plan. A legislative analysis pegged the cost at $400 billion.
> 
> The abrupt announcement shields members of the Assembly from having to take a difficult vote that could be used against them by critics or supporters of the policy.
> 
> The decision serves a major blow to the California Nurses Association, a vocal supporter of the legislation, and is unlikely to endear Rendon to newly energized activists within his Democratic Party, who greeted him with loud boos at the state convention last month.
> 
> RoseAnn DeMoro, the outspoken leader of the nurses union, has pressed for the legislation to become a litmus test of sorts in next year’s elections, even threatening incumbent lawmakers with primary challenges if they refused to give their support.
> 
> The activists, led by the nurses union, have held large rallies outside the state Capitol where speakers took aim at recalcitrant Democrats, including Gov. Jerry Brown who earlier this year questioned how the state could afford to pay for the legislation.
> 
> Their calls have gone national. At a speech in Los Angeles earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who plans to introduce similar legislation at the federal level, issued a message of his own to the Democratic-controlled Legislature: “Please lead the country and pass the single-payer bill.”
> 
> Deborah Burger, the nurses’ association co-president, said the late announcement was “a cowardly act, developed in secret without engaging the thousands of Californians who have rallied to enact real health care reform.”
> 
> “The California Nurses Association condemns the decision by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon to destroy the aspirations of millions of Californians for guaranteed health care without being bankrupted or forced to skip needed care,” Burger added. “The people of California are counting on the Legislature to protect them now, not sometime next year, and as polls have shown, Californians support this proposal by a wide majority.”
> 
> Rendon said he was encouraged by conversations the bill started.
> 
> “Because this is the first year of a two-year session, this action does not mean SB 562 is dead,” Rendon said. “In fact, it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed.”
> 
> The goal of Senate Bill 562 is to provide care to every Californian, regardless of residency status or income. The bill wipes out the current health insurance market and authorizes the government to negotiate prices for services with doctors, hospitals and other providers.
> 
> Before the Senate vote, Lara and Atkins acknowledged that the bill lacked critical language describing how the state would come up with the money. At the time, they said the bill would be amended to include a funding plan before an Assembly floor vote and return to the Senate before it reached the governor’s desk.
> 
> “We are disappointed that the robust debate about health care for all that started in the California Senate will not continue in the Assembly this year,” Lara and Atkins said in a statement. “This issue is not going away, and millions of Californians are counting on their elected leaders to protect the health of their families and communities.”
> 
> Rendon said the effort to create a universal health care system is moving on other fronts, and that supporters had talked about possibly crafting an initiative for the 2018 ballot. In response, the nurses said they will work to revive the bill in the Legislature and declined to discuss options for an initiative.
> 
> The health care debate also has flared up in the governor’s race. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa compared unfunded health care promises to “snake oil,” a not-so-veiled blow at rival Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has pledged to support a universal health system if elected governor.


:wow 

There actually still some smart democrats left. Who knew.


----------



## DOPA

deepelemblues said:


> Space computer wizard Barron built John Titor's time machine












:mark:


----------



## Jay Valero

Of course Trump is going to drag his feet on Benghazi. He's been a Clinton lackey for decades.

lol at Bernie and his supporters. Sanctimonious twatwaffles.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Skip this post.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

BruiserKC said:


> As for Russia and Obama's not saying anything. He was really in a no-win situation especially considering Trump was already talking about how the contest was rigged. If he had said something then, Trump would have screamed at the top of his lungs that Obama was trying to influence the election in favor of HRC. It is guaranteed he would have played that card. Not saying anything now draws the wrath of everyone. Personally, I would have said we have evidence that the election is being influenced by outside foreign powers and taken steps to prevent it. I would have taken the bullet. But then again, Obama's refusal to act bites him in the ass again and shows his incompetence.


At what point did Trump start talking about the election possibly being rigged? I can't seem to remember.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

TheNightmanCometh said:


> At what point did Trump start talking about the election possibly being rigged? I can't seem to remember.


I believe October was when he started say that right in the home stretch.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html
> 
> 
> 
> :wow
> 
> There actually still some smart democrats left. Who knew.


:banderas

Thank god! Hopefully this is just a small step towards permanent death.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

The Hardcore Show said:


> I believe October was when he started say that right in the home stretch.


Was this before or after the news started circulating about the Russian hacking?


----------



## Reaper

Worth watching.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Was this before or after the news started circulating about the Russian hacking?


I believe it was after because that news became public the same time the tape of him talking on Access Hollywood came out and no one cared.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Worth watching.


That first quote is disturbing and Trinity College is an f'n joke.

"If a few old ass black liberals have to die in order to get progressive activism issue discussed then I'm willing to take that risk."

I wonder if that'll fly well. LOL


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

The Hardcore Show said:


> I believe it was after because that news became public the same time the tape of him talking on Access Hollywood came out and no one cared.


So it's fair to say that the Trump administration saw what was going on and used the platform of "the election is going to be rigged" in order to put Obama in a tough position.


----------



## glenwo2

meanwhile in other news, Trump is still President and "evidence" of Russia tampering with the elections are still non-existent. 

Business as usual.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Tucker Carlson does a great job of showing how the far left are bunch of wackos. I'd like to see him put on some far right guests and do the same thing.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Tucker Carlson does a great job of showing how the far left are bunch of wackos. I'd like to see him put on some far right guests and do the same thing.


He comes at it from the point of view of remembering history and luckily he's one of the few people in the MSM that realizes the link between the far left and violent overthrows. 

Sure it will never come to that in America. But reminders of its potential to exist are part of mitigating it's potential dangers if left unopposed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> So it's fair to say that the Trump administration saw what was going on and used the platform of "the election is going to be rigged" in order to put Obama in a tough position.


Except Trump admits on Twitter to Russia meddling in the election lol

And Trump and everyone connected to him including his own lawyer is lawyering up lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Except Trump admits on Twitter to Russia meddling in the election lol
> 
> And Trump and everyone connected to him including his own lawyer is lawyering up lol


And still no evidence of trump colluding lol

Bernie sanders wife lawyered up lol


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Except Trump admits on Twitter to Russia meddling in the election lol
> 
> And Trump and everyone connected to him including his own lawyer is lawyering up lol


Will this be the end of Drumpf???


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Except Trump admits on Twitter to Russia meddling in the election lol
> 
> *And Trump and everyone connected to him including his own lawyer is lawyering up lol*


You're telling me that if you were accused of something you didn't do and they won't stop accusing you, you wouldn't lawyer up either? Give me a break.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> He comes at it from the point of view of remembering history and luckily he's one of the few people in the MSM that realizes the link between the far left and violent overthrows.
> 
> Sure it will never come to that in America. But reminders of its potential to exist are part of mitigating it's potential dangers if left unopposed.


I agree completely. I just think having that contrast would go along way towards giving those who oppose him less to whine about.


----------



## Jay Valero

Of course there will never be a violent overthrow by the left in this country, at least not a successful one. We have more guns and actually know how to use them.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Continuing my run of proving that @Stephen90 doesn't know what he's talking about...



> Illinois could be 1st state with 'junk' credit due to budget
> 
> 
> CHICAGO (AP) — *Illinois is on track to become the first U.S. state to have its credit rating downgraded to "junk" status, which would deepen its multibillion-dollar deficit and cost taxpayers more for years to come.*
> 
> *S&P Global Ratings has warned the agency will likely lower Illinois' creditworthiness to below investment grade if feuding lawmakers fail to agree on a state budget for a third straight year*, increasing the amount the state will have to pay to borrow money for things such as building roads or refinancing existing debt.
> 
> *The outlook for a deal wasn't good Saturday*, as lawmakers meeting in Springfield for a special legislative session remained deadlocked with the July 1 start of the new fiscal year approaching.
> 
> That should alarm everyone, not just those at the Capitol, said Brian Battle, director at Performance Trust Capital Partners, a Chicago-based investment firm.
> 
> *"It isn't a political show," he said. "Everyone in Illinois has a stake in what's happening here. One day everybody will wake up and say 'What happened? Why are my taxes going up so much?'"*
> 
> Here's a look at what's happening and what a junk rating could mean:
> 
> WHY NOW?
> 
> Ratings agencies have been downgrading Illinois' credit rating for years, though they've accelerated the process as the stalemate has dragged on between Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Democrats who control the General Assembly.
> 
> *The agencies are concerned about Illinois' massive pension debt, as well as a $15 billion backlog of unpaid bills and the drop in revenue that occurred when lawmakers in 2015 allowed a temporary income tax increase to expire.*
> 
> "In our view, the unrelenting political brinkmanship now poses a threat to the timely payment of the state's core priority payments," S&P stated when it dropped Illinois' rating to one level above junk, which was just after lawmakers adjourned their regular session on May 31 without a deal.
> 
> *Moody's did the same, stating: "As the regular legislative session elapsed, political barriers to progress appeared to harden*, indicating both the severity of the state's challenges and the political difficulty of advocating their solutions."
> 
> WHAT IS A 'JUNK' RATING?
> 
> Think of it as a credit score, but for a state (or city or county) instead of a person.
> 
> When Illinois wants to borrow money, it issues bonds. Investors base their decision on whether to buy Illinois bonds on what level of risk they're willing to take, informed greatly by the rating that agencies like Moody's assign.
> 
> A junk rating means the state is at a higher risk of repaying its debt. At that point, many mutual funds and individual investors — who make up more than half the buyers in the bond market — won't buy. Those willing to take a chance, such as distressed debt investors, will only do so if they are getting a higher interest rate.
> 
> *While no other state has been placed at junk, counties and cities such as Chicago, Atlantic City and Detroit have.* Detroit saw its rating increased back to investment grade in 2015 as it emerged from bankruptcy — an option that by law, states don't have.
> 
> WHAT WILL IT COST?
> 
> *Battle says the cost to taxpayers in additional interest the next time Illinois sells bonds, which it inevitably will need to do in the long-term, could be in the "tens of millions" of dollars or more.*
> 
> The more money the state has to pay on interest, the less that's available for things such as schools, state parks, social services and fixing roads.
> 
> *"For the taxpayer, it will cost more to get a lower level of service," Battle said.*
> 
> Comptroller Susana Mendoza, who controls the state checkbook, agreed.
> "It's going to cost people more every day," she said. "*Our reputation really can't get much worse*, but our state finances can."
> 
> OTHER IMPACTS?
> 
> Because the state has historically been a significant funding source to other entities, such as local government and universities, many of them are feeling the impact of Illinois' worsening creditworthiness already.
> 
> S&P already moved bonds held by the Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority and the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority — the entities that run Navy Pier, McCormick Place, and U.S. Cellular Field — to junk.
> 
> *Five universities also have the rating: Eastern Illinois University, Governors State University, Northeastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University and Southern Illinois University.*





> Rauner says final budget package must have sufficient 'structural change' to gain his support
> 
> Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner said Wednesday that he will offer state lawmakers this month a budget proposal in the same format that the Democratic-led General Assembly rejected last year — *either work with him on crafting a balanced spending plan or give him more power to make cuts on his own.*
> 
> Appearing before the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, Rauner said he was "heartened" by recent efforts in the state Senate to reach a compromise to end Illinois' historic budget stalemate and address some governmental and pro-business changes he has sought. *But he also acknowledged he might find any final package insufficient in making "structural change" to gain his support.*
> 
> Additionally, the governor said he had no involvement in the strategy of the state Republican Party — which he heavily subsidizes — to try to demonize his chief political nemesis, Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan. While Madigan's support is seen as a necessary ingredient for achieving a compromise to end the stalemate, Rauner called the political attacks on the Democrat "irrelevant" to governing.
> 
> Rauner's hourlong appearance ended shortly before Fitch Ratings issued another downgrade of state borrowing to BBB — two notches above "junk" status. *Fitch cited "the unprecedented failure of the state to enact a full budget for two consecutive years and the financial implications of spending far in excess of available revenues."*
> 
> *Rauner's decision last year to present a spending plan that included the option of letting lawmakers give him the power to make massive cuts was never really considered by Democrats in the General Assembly.* They said Rauner needed to specify where he intended to cut spending.
> 
> *"Either the General Assembly authorizes me to make cuts, not my first choice but I'll do that, or let's work together to do a balanced budget with cuts and, what I prefer is, a balance of cuts, some revenues and major structural change. The real important thing is the structural change," Rauner said.*
> 
> *"Structural change" is how Rauner has described his agenda, which includes changes to the state workers' compensation system, union collective bargaining rights and public worker pensions — issues affecting Democratic allies such as civil attorneys and unions.* *Rauner also is seeking a property-tax freeze, term limits for elected officials and a plan to remove much of the politics out of the every-decade redrawing of legislative district boundaries.*
> 
> Madigan has not embraced much of Rauner's agenda over the first two years of his term, and the two haven't agreed to a full state budget in that time.
> 
> *"What's going to be different (this year), I hope, is that the process for the General Assembly will actually, for the first time, be collaborative and we'll together get a balanced budget, together get structural change," Rauner said.*
> 
> *Democratic Senate President John Cullerton and Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno have been collaborating on a sweeping package of proposals to address some of Rauner's agenda items. It also includes a state income tax increase and a trade-off on business taxation as a foundation for a spending plan for the end of this budget year and all of the next one.*
> 
> *(Funny, Republican wants to cut and Democrats want to raise taxes. How interesting!)*
> 
> *Rauner said he wants "structural change that actually moves the needle. We in Illinois have a habit of reforming things or changing things, but in headline only, not in reality. We've got to do it in reality."*
> 
> But Rauner said he is purposely staying out of the Senate negotiations and not offering individual lawmakers advice on portions of the package he supports or disagrees with.
> 
> "I think a deal is more likely to happen if it's organic, coming from the rank-and-file members of the General Assembly, and the important thing is to get a good compromise. I've been very clear. I mean, the good news and bad news is nobody's wondering what I think is the right thing to do," he said.
> 
> *But the Senate package continues to evolve, with members of the chamber's Republican minority concerned it doesn't do enough to help businesses.* There are questions among them whether Rauner would support a final product if they vote for it.
> 
> *Asked if it was possible that a Senate proposal might lack the significant trade-offs needed to balance his agenda and funding needs through higher taxes, Rauner said "it's possible."*
> 
> "I don't want to weigh in on specific content of bills and I have not done that," Rauner said. Instead, he has told lawmakers "think about it from a job creator's point of view. Make it really matter. This has really got to matter."
> 
> *"Psychologically it's a cultural shift in the General Assembly. It's monumental," Rauner said of seeking a balanced budget, something he said the state has lacked for "decades."*
> 
> *"Folks are not used to two principles that I stated when I came into office — that I was not going to sign unbalanced budgets and that if new tax revenue was to be part of the budget creation that we (also) would need structural change to grow," he said.*
> 
> Throughout his appearance, Rauner declined to offer many specifics on several issues. He promised that a task force looking for "innovative" approaches to dealing with Chicago's violence problem would be "coming with some pretty big things" soon. He also said the state was "woeful" in its number of technology companies and would roll out a tech recruitment plan.
> 
> He said he has not been involved in the strategy behind efforts by the state Republican Party and Republican legislative campaigns that began in earnest last year to attack Madigan, who has served as speaker for all but two years since 1983.
> 
> Rauner, a wealthy former equity investor, last year gave $21 million from his campaign fund to the state GOP and another $12 million personally and in campaign funds to House Republican leader Jim Durkin, of Western Springs.
> 
> Even after the election, the GOP has kept up its efforts to focus on Madigan, unsuccessfully urging Democrats not to back him for a 17th term as speaker and more recently trying to tie him to potential 2018 challengers to Rauner.
> 
> "I literally don't get involved in that. I don't coach it. I don't recommend," the governor said.
> 
> "I believe in a two-party system and I have supported the party that was virtually nonexistent. Beyond financial support, I literally don't have the time or frankly the interest," he said.
> 
> Asked whether the attacks on Madigan could undercut efforts to reach a compromise to end the stalemate, Rauner said, "I don't think it matters one way or the other."
> 
> "This is the life we've chosen. We all live in a world — I take incoming every day. … I couldn't care less. Say what you want," he said.
> 
> "That's one of the best advices Rich Daley ever gave me: He said, 'Don't read any press about you and don't watch any of the ads' and I never have, I never have. And you know what? Life is good. Just spell my name right. I don't really care. And anybody on the other side thinks, 'Oh, I'm a politician but you can't say anything mean about me otherwise I won't negotiate?' Oh come on. Grow up. I mean, we're not in third grade," he said.
> 
> With the budget stalemate continuing, Attorney General Lisa Madigan went to court last week to lift an order that has kept state workers paid even though Illinois has no spending plan in place. Rauner criticized that move, and Democratic lawmakers in the House are weighing the possibility of pushing legislation to keep paychecks flowing if the order is lifted.
> 
> Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, said that while the attorney general's legal reasoning may be sound, lawmakers "want state employees to be paid." While the legislation has yet to be drafted, Lang said the idea behind the one-time funding agreement is to keep paychecks flowing through July 1, when the current budget year ends.
> 
> Lang said it was of particular importance to provide some stability for workers "at a time when there is a significant amount of friction between the governor" and the state's largest employee union. Members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 are in the process of voting on whether to strike amid stalled contract talks with Rauner's office.
> 
> "I think it's important we establish that we support state employees," Lang said.
> 
> Last year, Illinois spent roughly $3.2 billion on employee salary and related benefits, according to figures from the comptroller's office.
> 
> *Republicans are pushing an alternative plan that would change state law to reclassify salaries to ensure money would go out the door automatically regardless of whether a budget is in place. Sponsoring Rep. Avery Bourne, R-Raymond, argues the measure is a long-term solution versus a temporary fix that allows worker pay to be used "as a political pawn."*


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You're telling me that if you were accused of something you didn't do and they won't stop accusing you, you wouldn't lawyer up either? Give me a break.


In the fantasies of the left, getting a lawyer in this situation implies guilt.

My prediction is the democrats run in 2018 on trumps 'corruption'. No way they can keep it going until 2020. Then, they will go with 'we know he did it, he just covered his tracks too well', obviously ignoring their hes a incompetent idiot narrative


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow; @CamillePunk; @Iconoclast; @Miss Sally; @AryaDark; @MrMister; 


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-ang...for-care/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8a&linkId=39052106



> *Nearly 100 patients died waiting for care from Los Angeles VA*
> 
> LOS ANGELES -- President Trump signed a bill today giving top-ranking officials at the department of Veterans Affairs more power to fire incompetent workers and protect whistle-blowers. The agency has struggled to provide health care and other services to military veterans.
> 
> The legislation was prompted by a 2014 scandal at the Phoenix VA medical center, where many veterans died while waiting months to see a doctor.
> 
> The problem was even worse at the Los Angeles VA hospital, CBS News correspondent Melissa Villarreal reports.
> 
> *A new report by the VA inspector general shows 43 percent of the 225 patients who died between October 2014 and August 2015 at the Los Angeles VA were waiting for appointments or needed tests they never got. However, the report does not conclude these patients "died as a result of delayed consults." *
> 
> Susan and Allen Hoffman were happily married for 43 years -- but Allen, a U.S. Navy veteran, was living in pain.
> 
> "He had an enlarged prostate and they just kept saying it's not a problem you know, whatever, and then, it started to get worse," Susan says.
> 
> He was scheduled to see a specialist in May 2013, but she says that didn't happen.
> 
> "She said, 'No, you're here just for a consult. You have to understand people have cancer and he doesn't,'" Susan Hoffman says. "I think we were there for 15 minutes."
> 
> Four months later, Hoffman was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer.
> 
> Dr. Christian Head is a surgeon at the Los Angeles VA. He says 140,000 patient consults were deliberately deleted.
> 
> "The number of patients waiting for care, the deletion of consults, and the wait list were much more significant here than at Phoenix," Head says.
> 
> "I first noticed an unusual number of patients who are presenting with delay in diagnosis, meaning that they present into the system, they disappeared for a number of years and then they presented late with advanced cancers. Those consults were being deleted, literally removed from the system," Head says.
> 
> Allen Hoffman died a year and a half after he was diagnosed. The VA has settled out of court with his widow.
> 
> "Was there any doubt in your mind that they were responsible for your husband's death?" Villarreal asked.
> 
> "Definitely they were," Susan Hoffman says.
> 
> The VA would not comment about Hoffman's case or Head's allegations, but Los Angeles' hospital director admits the problems in the report are serious.
> 
> To fix them, they've hired new leadership, are retraining employees and now posting wait times on-line.


The reports that have come out of the VA shows the problem with fully state controlled government healthcare and rationing. A significant amount of patients being killed who are enrolled for the VA as they are waiting for care to be provided through this one outlet. Terrifying.


http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig



> When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don't necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.
> 
> The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court.
> 
> Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment's Takings Clause.
> 
> "Put simply, today's decision knocks the definition of 'private property' loose from its foundation on stable state law rules," Roberts wrote. The ruling "compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest."
> 
> Donna Murr, in a statement provided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian law firm that represented the family in the case, said her family was disappointed by the result.
> 
> "It is our hope that property owners across the country will learn from our experience and not take their property rights for granted," Murr said. "Although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we believe our case will demonstrate the importance of taking a stand and protecting property rights through the court system when necessary."
> 
> In 2004, Murr and her siblings sought to sell one of two parcels of land that had been in the family for decades. Murr's parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment.
> 
> The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots.
> 
> Those regulations effectively gutted the value of the Murrs' property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.
> 
> The Murrs filed a lawsuit against the state and county, arguing that they should be compensated for the lost value of the property, arguing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees governments must compensate property owners when land is seized or otherwise made un-useful for public purposes.
> 
> To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. This meant that even though the two pieces of land were separate and the Murr family paid taxes on them separately, the family would be unable to make a takings claim for one of the two parcels.
> 
> In short, they could sell both lots together, but not one or the other.
> 
> Lower courts agreed with the government interpretation and the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the court rulings.
> 
> "Treating the lot in question as a single parcel is legitimate for purposes of this takings inquiry, and this supports the conclusion that no regulatory taking occurred here," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "They have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property."
> 
> Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion, while conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent. The Supreme Court's newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not participate in the case.
> 
> The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin.
> 
> Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs' ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands.
> 
> Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn't have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states.
> 
> Writing Friday at The Washington Post about the ruling, Somin said it is "likely to create confusion and uncertainty going forward."
> 
> "In at least some cases, today's indeed ruling allows the government to avoid compensating property owners for the taking of their land, merely because they also own the lot next door," he writes. "But the vague nature of the test established by the Court makes it very hard to figure out exactly when that might happen."
> 
> With Friday being the 12th anniversary of the infamous decision in Kelo v. New London (in which the Supreme Court upheld an objectionable use of eminent domain), Somin jokes that maybe property rights advocates should hope the court doesn't release any more rulings on June 23.
> 
> Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, stressed that the court's ruling in Murr could allow for "ad hoc, case-specific consideration" of takings claims, thus undermining constitutional protections that should be consistent and predictable for property owners. Meaning more leeway for governments to do what Wisconsin did to the Murrs.
> 
> "The result is that the government's goals shape the playing field," Roberts wrote, "even before the contest over whether the challenged regulation goes 'too far' even gets underway."


A huge potential undermining of the 5th amendment and property rights with the ruling of this fascinating case. Very scary times in terms of it's constitutional implications. Been focusing so much on the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments that sometimes you don't take notice of other cases where the rest of the bill of rights is being undermined.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## DOPA




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

amhlilhaus said:


> In the fantasies of the left, getting a lawyer in this situation implies guilt.
> 
> My prediction is the democrats run in 2018 on trumps 'corruption'. No way they can keep it going until 2020. Then, they will go with 'we know he did it, he just covered his tracks too well', obviously ignoring their hes a incompetent idiot narrative


It's called "cognitive dissonance" and the left is rife with it. They can't help it at this point because Trump triggered them so hard during the election.

The reality of the situation is that the DNC wanted to pin the hacking on the Trump administration and their sheep bought every single thing they said. Since they've bought into it so hard they see themselves as the good guys and all the news pointing to him not being involved, over the last 6 months, is ignored and every little assumption/innuendo/hyperbole has been bought into hook, line, and sinker.

BM is a shining example of this.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

L-DOPA said:


>


Bernie Sanders was the virtue signalers choice for President. I wonder how they'll feel when it comes to light how unvirtuous their leader is, or will they sweep it under the rug in the name of "virtue"? History has shown it to be the latter.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Sounds like the exact thing someone full of shit would do...



> Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators
> 
> *A secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald Trump is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections to the Democratic Party.*
> 
> *The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier*, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.
> 
> *What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” But congressional sources say it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda.*
> 
> “These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,” a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. “These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.”
> 
> *Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump.* In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
> 
> *More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.*
> 
> *In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, *Federal Election Commission data show. *His wife also donated money to Hillary’s campaign.*
> 
> Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million.
> 
> Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm’s work is confidential.
> 
> Sources say Fusion GPS had its own interest, beyond those of its clients, in promulgating negative gossip about Trump.
> 
> Intel officials say Trump wanted them to deny Russia collusion claims
> Fritsch, who served as the Journal’s bureau chief in Mexico City and has lectured at the liberal Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, married into a family with Mexican business interests. His wife, Beatriz Garcia, formerly worked as an executive at Grupo Dina, a manufacturer of trucks and buses in Mexico City that benefits from NAFTA, which Trump opposes.
> 
> Fritsch’s Fusion GPS partner Thomas Catan, who grew up in Britain, once edited a business magazine in Mexico, moreover. A third founding partner, Glenn Simpson, is reported to have shared dark views of both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. Before joining Fusion GPS, Simpson did opposition research for a former Clinton White House operative.
> 
> *The Senate Judiciary Committee is also investigating whether the FBI has wrongly relied on the anti-Trump dossier and its author*, Christopher Steele — the old spy who was hired by Fusion GPS to build a Russia file on Trump — to aid its ongoing espionage investigation into the Trump campaign and its possible ties to Moscow.
> 
> The FBI received a copy of the Democrat-funded dossier in August, during the heat of the campaign, and is said to have contracted in October to pay Steele $50,000 to help corroborate the dirt on Trump — a relationship that “raises substantial questions about the independence” of the bureau in investigating Trump, warned Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
> 
> *Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife*. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele.
> 
> *Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents.*
> 
> *Steele contracted with Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia starting in June 2016, whereupon he outlandishly claimed that Hillary campaign hackers were “paid by both Trump’s team and the Kremlin” and that the operation was run out of Putin’s office.* He also fed Fusion GPS and its Hillary-allied clients incredulous gossip about Trump hating the Obamas so much that he hired hookers to urinate on a bed they slept in at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, and that Russian intelligence recorded the pee party in case they needed to blackmail Trump.
> 
> *Never mind that none of the rumors were backed by evidence or even credible sourcing* (don’t bother trying to confirm his bed-wetting yarn, Steele advised, as “all direct witnesses have been silenced”). Steele reinforced his paying customers’ worst fears about Trump, and they rewarded him for it with a whopping $250,000 in payments.
> 
> *But it’s now clear his “intelligence reports,” which together run more than 35-pages long, were for the most part worthless.* And the clients who paid Fusion GPS (which claims to go “beyond standard due diligence”) for them got taken to the cleaners.
> *
> Steele’s most sensational allegations remain unconfirmed.* For instance, his claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen held a “clandestine meeting” on the alleged hacking scheme in Prague with “Kremlin officials” in August 2016 unraveled when Cohen denied ever visiting Prague, his passport showed no stamps showing he left or entered the US at the time, witnesses accounted for his presence here, and Czech authorities found no evidence Cohen went to Prague.
> 
> *Steele hadn’t worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn’t actually travel there to gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand “friend of friend” sourcing. In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but “in confidence to a trusted compatriot” who, in turn, spoke to Steele — and always anonymously.*
> 
> *But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as “intelligence” was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted — replete with errors — from Wikipedia.*
> 
> In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote his monthly reports.
> 
> *In the same August report, for example, Steele connected a Moscow trip taken by then-Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn to “the Russian operation” to hack the election. But there was nothing secret about the trip, which had taken place months earlier and had been widely reported.
> *
> And there was nothing untoward about it. It was a dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of Russian TV network RT, and Flynn sat at the same table with Putin as US Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.
> 
> *The real question is why anyone would take anything in the sketchy report seriously.*
> 
> *(Ya, @birthday_massacre. Why would you take it seriously????)
> *
> But even the CIA gave it credence. *The dossier ended up attached to a Top Secret intelligence briefing on Russia for President Obama, even though his intelligence czar last month testified “We couldn’t corroborate the sourcing.”* The FBI, moreover, has been using it for investigative leads on Trump associates like Carter Page, even though former FBI Director James *Comey this month described the dossier as “salacious and unverified.”*
> 
> *And of course, Democratic leaders in Congress keep referring to it to cook up more charges against Trump, while liberal media continue to use it as a road map to find “scoops” on Trump in the “Russiagate” conspiracy they’re peddling* — still hoping against hope that the central thrust of the report — that Trump entered into an unholy alliance with the Russian government during the election — will one day prove true and bring about the downfall of his presidency.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's called "cognitive dissonance" and the left is rife with it. They can't help it at this point because Trump triggered them so hard during the election.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that the DNC wanted to pin the hacking on the Trump administration and their sheep bought every single thing they said. Since they've bought into it so hard they see themselves as the good guys and all the news pointing to him not being involved, over the last 6 months, is ignored and every little assumption/innuendo/hyperbole has been bought into hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> BM is a shining example of this.


Senate democrats knew since feb that trump wasnt the focus of collusion. Just last week, after its increasingly apparent that theres nothing. There, al franken was quoted as saying 'trump obviously colluded with the russians'.

Im increasingly concerned for the future of the country. You have 45% of the government thats tottally fine with telling bald faced lies, anytime and anywhere. That culture has fanned enough radicals in their base to organize dozens of marches, try to murder dozens of gop lawmakers and display zero civility. That culture has polluted the fbi and cia and there is portions of those institutions that are actively trying to destroy a presidency.

If the pressure isnt relieved, and soon, its not gonna be pretty.


----------



## Reaper

Left=Big Government. Big Government = Fiscal failure. 



> THE ILLINOIS FISCAL DISASTER
> by Kevin Ryan
> Illinois is tettering on the brink of bankruptcy. The state has unpaid bills totaling $14.7 billion, and $130 billion unfunded pension liabilities, and has failed to produce a budget for the last 2 years.
> And one of the major reasons is the largess doled out to Illinois public employees. There are 50,000 public employees earning six-figure salaries, who cost Illinois taxpayers $8.0 billion per year ($6.1 billion in salaries plus $1.9 billion in pensions and perks). That includes:
> 18,900 teachers and school administrators
> 9,000 college and university employees
> 8,838 State of Illinois employees
> 5,122 small-town city and village employees
> 5,007 City of Chicago rank-and-file managers and workers
> 60% of state pensioners retired in their 50's, many with full pension benefits. Over half of state pensioners will receive $1 million or more in pension benefits over the course of their retirements. Nearly 1 in 5 will receive over $2 million in benefits.
> The average pensioner will get back their employee contributions after just two years in retirement. In all, pensioners’ direct employee contributions will only equal 6% of what they will receive in benefits over the course of their retirements.
> Illinois has 650,000 active public employees and 350,000 retired public employees receiving a pension check. One in every six paychecks in Illinois goes to a government employee or retiree. All supported by tax dollars, including the highest in the nation property taxes. It's an economic system that simply doesn't work.
> 
> SOURCES:


Everything _must _be privatised.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Continuing my run of proving that @Stephen90 doesn't know what he's talking about...


Must have really pissed you off.


----------



## BruiserKC

After having had a chance to read the AHCA Senate version, I have come to one conclusion. For those of you that have been asking for repeal and replace (or just repeal), you are going to be sorely disappointed. 

While it does kills the individual mandate plus gut a good portion of the bill, it still does not deliver on the promise that was made to the American people. It still keeps waivers in place, not to mention doesn't do one thing to address one of the biggest issues regarding Obamacare in the realm of lowering insurance costs and making premiums more affordable. This is a half-ass measure at best, and once again shows the incompetence of our leadership. 

For years, since the ACA brought the government into the world of messing around with our health care (as it wasn't meant to be in the first place), it doesn't completely do the repeal part that they were so gung-ho about. For years, they kept passing time after time a bill that ended it. Now they have the chance to finally do it and they instead try to fix it. That's all this is, even though they are removing a lot of the taxes that fund it (which rather defeats the purpose of trying to fix it.) 

There are some that say, "This might be our only chance to do anything, so this is the best we can do." I disagree on this...if this is the best chance to nail it why not go all the way and repeal the damn thing? Obama swung for the fences with the one real shot he had, why can't the GOP do the same? 

I understand Trump wants a big legislative victory, but this is not going to cut it. It's not going to solve the problem of bringing down costs and making health care more affordable. To me, this is the equivalent of my telling the family and neighbors at Christmas time we completed a YUGE renovation of our living room...which is really just us moving our recliner and couch to the other side of the room to create space to set up our Christmas tree. This just makes the situation worse, and then if millions don't have the shot to at least purchase affordable health care the cries will become louder for single-payer (which will be the ultimate disaster for health insurance in this country). They are saying, "We'll come back to this later to finish it", but I don't believe them. 

I don't like this, folks...one damn bit.


----------



## Reaper

I'm ok with it ending the mandate and given that we live in a country that doesn't even want to _acknowledge _the real problems with why our healthcare is so costly, it's probably the only victory I can hope for in my lifetime.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Continuing my run of proving that @Stephen90 doesn't know what he's talking about...


You do know outside of the Chicago area most Illinois counties voted conservative right?


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> You do know outside of the Chicago area most Illinois counties voted conservative right?


Yes. And they're fiscally solvent. We've been over this in this very thread. 










Counties that vote Blue are in far deeper financial trouble than those that Vote Red which are relatively better off (but overall Illinois is mostly bad). The bluer the area, the poorer its finances. "Tax and Spend" isn't just slander for the democrats, it's their entire platform. 

Not like Florida which is safely in the green except in areas that vote democrat.



















This holds true for most of the country.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Must have really pissed you off.


LOL, is that what you think? On the contrary, I found that your ignorance on the topic needed further illumination.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> You do know outside of the Chicago area most Illinois counties voted conservative right?


Again, you show your ignorance on the topic. @Iconoclast beat me to the punch, though, so I'll let his post speak as my retort.


----------



## DesolationRow

Chicago is like a Brobdingnagian tumor for the state of Illi-Make-Some-nois.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Again, you show your ignorance on the topic. @Iconoclast beat me to the punch, though, so I'll let his post speak as my retort.


Ignorance is you and others defending a man who's been a failure over and over again. Now go back to living in your Fox News Tucker Carlson bubble.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> I'm ok with it ending the mandate and given that we live in a country that doesn't even want to _acknowledge _the real problems with why our healthcare is so costly, it's probably the only victory I can hope for in my lifetime.


And that's the problem...this bullshit about settling. Were they serious about truly repealing or was it all an act? Yes, Congress is to blame for this as they decided to push through a bill that was absolute garbage. However, I also blame our President. Remember he is the ONLY one of the candidates who was about repeal and replace. Everyone else intended simply to repeal. Trump has to know that this bill does not accomplish what he wanted, not anywhere close. If he does know what was in this bill, then shame on him for trying to pull this con game. If he didn't know, then shame on him for not paying attention.

And let me make very clear again...if Trump does not do what he promised and this blows up in his face, that's on him. Regardless of all those in the media and in Washington who want him to fail, if he does fail then it's his fault and not anyone else's. Regardless of the good or bad, Obama managed to get shit done and he had a Congress that wouldn't work with him. He at least worked with the folks who wanted to work with him. Trump fights the people who want to work with him, treating them just the same as those that don't. That's not how this is going to work. He has both houses of Congress and a mandate to get shit done. There's no excuse for this.


----------



## Goku

Stephen90 said:


> Ignorance is you and others defending a man who's been a failure over and over again. Now go back to living in your Fox News Tucker Carlson bubble.


no response to iconoclast's post?


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> And that's the problem...this bullshit about settling. Were they serious about truly repealing or was it all an act? Yes, Congress is to blame for this as they decided to push through a bill that was absolute garbage. However, I also blame our President. Remember he is the ONLY one of the candidates who was about repeal and replace. Everyone else intended simply to repeal. Trump has to know that this bill does not accomplish what he wanted, not anywhere close. If he does know what was in this bill, then shame on him for trying to pull this con game. If he didn't know, then shame on him for not paying attention.


I'm not settling. Repeal of the mandate was my only concern. 

The thing is, more than half the American population has now succumbed to the idea of a single payer system. 

Free market Healthcare is a lost battle. If we want to draw winnable lines we unfortunately have no choice but to prevent and delay the damage as long as possible because we can't reverse it.


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> Left=Big Government. Big Government = Fiscal failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything _must _be privatised.


Yet most of the world is laughing at Trump. Trump said he doesn't believe in global warming. And all you can talk about is Illinois.


----------



## Vic Capri

Who cares? The man cannot take a shit in the bathroom without getting criticized for it. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Who cares? The man cannot take a shit in the bathroom without getting criticized for it. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Probably because he's tweeting on his phone while doing it.


----------



## Kink_Brawn

Stephen90 said:


> Probably because he's tweeting on his phone while doing it.


Why is this an issue to people??

The man was a millionaire, celebrity, real estate broker before becoming President. He wasn't some phony, political puppet that worked as a congressman beforehand and is not allowed to have personal opinions. 

The man has been talking shit on Twitter before a lot of users on this site probably had pubic hair. I think the fact that he didn't stop doing that shows character.

There is no law that says you have read his Twitter.

Just close your eyes dude.


----------



## Stephen90

Kink_Brawn said:


> Why is this an issue to people??
> 
> The man was a millionaire, celebrity, real estate broker before becoming President. He wasn't some phony, political puppet that worked as a congressman beforehand and is not allowed to have personal opinions.
> 
> The man has been talking shit on Twitter before a lot of users on this site probably had pubic hair. I think the fact that he didn't stop doing that shows character.
> 
> There is no law that says you have read his Twitter.
> 
> Just close your eyes dude.


When did I say I had an issue with his tweeting? I'm sure the people that work for him do.


----------



## Kink_Brawn

Stephen90 said:


> When did I say I had an issue with his tweeting? I'm sure the people that work for him do.


When a user mentioned how people can't abstain from criticizing him at any point, no matter how ridiculous, you snidely pointed out that he would likely be tweeting regardless....

I am asking who cares??

You also suggested that people that work for him are tweeting.

So who is tweeting while Trump is taking a shit.....the man himself or someone else??

Make up your mind.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

Stephen90 said:


> And all you can talk about is Illinois.


Because the current topic of conversation was Illinois. :sk


----------



## Stephen90

Kink_Brawn said:


> When a user mentioned how people can't abstain from criticizing him at any point, no matter how ridiculous, you snidely pointed out that he would likely be tweeting regardless....
> 
> I am asking who cares??
> 
> You also suggested that people that work for him are tweeting.
> 
> So who is tweeting while Trump is taking a shit.....the man himself or someone else??
> 
> Make up your mind.


You clearly didn't understand what I meant. The people like Sean Spicer who clearly have to come up with some excuse for Trump's tweets are properly the one's who don't want Trump tweeting.


----------



## AustinRockHulk

> *Donald Trump Doesn't Care About HIV/AIDS*
> 
> The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and—most concerning—pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.





> In keeping with candidate Trump’s lack of regard for this community, President Trump took down the Office of National AIDS Policy website the day he took office and there has been no replacement for this website 132 days into his administration.
> 
> More important, President Trump has not appointed anyone to lead the White House Office of National AIDS Policy





> Because we do not believe the Trump Administration is listening to—or cares—about the communities we serve as members of PACHA, we have decided it is time to step down.
> 
> We will be more effective from the outside, advocating for change and protesting policies that will hurt the health of the communities we serve and the country as a whole if this administration continues down the current path.
> 
> We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.


More in link.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doesnt-care-about-hiv-were-outta-here-626285


----------



## Stephen90

MillionDollarProns said:


> Because the current topic of conversation was Illinois. :sk


Probably because they don't want to admit failure in POTUS. So they switched it to a topic about liberals to make themselves feel better.


----------



## Jay Valero

Stephen90 said:


> *Yet most of the world is laughing at Trump*. Trump said he doesn't believe in global warming. And all you can talk about is Illinois.


You mean all those globalist ******* whose women are being raped and beaten by Islamic "migrants"? Yeah, I think I'm ok with them laughing.


----------



## Stephen90

Jay Valero said:


> You mean all those globalist ******* whose women are being raped and beaten by Islamic "migrants"? Yeah, I think I'm ok with them laughing.


You mean our European allies you should try social media out and see the kind of shit they're saying. They actually believe in global warming. Unlike Trump who assures us it's all a myth.


----------



## Jay Valero

Stephen90 said:


> You mean our European allies you should try social media out and see the kind of shit they're saying. They actually believe in global warming. Unlike Trump who assures us it's all a myth.


What kind of mindless idiot gives a damn what is said on social media? Oh yeah, lefty globalists.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> You mean our European allies you should try social media out and see the kind of shit they're saying. They actually believe in global warming. Unlike Trump who assures us it's all a myth.


Oh boy more global warming talk.. oh wait wasn't it changed to climate change? 

We need to do something like join a coalition. A coalition by their own admission that won't change much. Europe has its priorities straight for sure.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Ignorance is you and others defending a man who's been a failure over and over again. Now go back to living in your Fox News Tucker Carlson bubble.


Ignorance is you trying to change the subject when you don't know the first thing about the topic being discussed.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Probably because they don't want to admit failure in POTUS. So they switched it to a topic about liberals to make themselves feel better.


Holy crap, your cognitive dissonance is out of control. I sincerely wonder if you ever question your opinions. I'm starting to doubt that you do. That's a dangerous game your playing, a game that in the end will make you look like a fool. Just some words of advice.

And, BTW, this is an anti-Democrats thread as much as it is a pro-Trump thread. Some of us here aren't even pro-Trump, but you wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you for sharing those two well-written stories, @L-DOPA!

It is a terribly disappointing bill, even with the removal of the individual mandate, @BruiserKC, no question about it. It seems as though the likeliest outcome is that the bill will, at least in its present form, die in the Senate.
@AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Iconoclast @MillionDollarProns @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Pratchett (welcome back, Stranger!) @samizayn 

Steve Hilton's new show on Fox News had gone unseen by I but I did just spot the final couple of segments on the network moments ago, and thought I would share a decent little presentation on one of the show's forays into disparate "SwampWatch" segments (this was the first and possibly the only I will ever see but I get the concept!). This week it was the Iron Triangle, aka the Military-Industrial Complex. 

Fast-forward the video below to 29:30 and watch for the next seven minutes! 






A wise tweet:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879060308496588800


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> It is a terribly disappointing bill, even with the removal of the individual mandate, @BruiserKC, no question about it. It seems as though the likeliest outcome is that the bill will, at least in its present form, die in the Senate.


I hope it does. However, what I'm concerned about is Trump might be desperate enough to want to keep his promise so he will push for this to pass so he can say "I did this, I kept my promise." We're seeing this now with the Tweets he has put out and soon-to-be political ads that pro-Trump super PACS are putting out there pressuring those on the fence to vote yes. Of course, posters at other sites are calling them traitors, etc...but those are fucksticks who would cheer Trump even if he breaks every promise and will never hold him accountable for anything. I don't do the moral equivalency game, will never play. 

I have e-mailed both Grassley's and Ernst's offices, and told them this bill does not provide a repeal that they have told us we would be getting for years. If we want this done, everyone here needs to do the same. Let them know that we are demanding they keep the promise of repeal. If nothing else, defeat this bill and just let Obamacare die on its own. Then, they can finally put together legislation for health care that gets the government completely out of the health care business and not just pay the whole thing lip service.


----------



## Jay Valero

BruiserKC said:


> I hope it does. However, what I'm concerned about is Trump might be desperate enough to want to keep his promise so he will push for this to pass so he can say "I did this, I kept my promise." We're seeing this now with the Tweets he has put out and soon-to-be political ads that pro-Trump super PACS are putting out there pressuring those on the fence to vote yes. Of course, posters at other sites are calling them traitors, etc...but those are fucksticks who *would cheer Trump even if he breaks every promise and will never hold him accountable for anything*. I don't do the moral equivalency game, will never play.
> 
> I have e-mailed both Grassley's and Ernst's offices, and told them this bill does not provide a repeal that they have told us we would be getting for years. If we want this done, everyone here needs to do the same. Let them know that we are demanding they keep the promise of repeal. If nothing else, defeat this bill and just let Obamacare die on its own. Then, they can finally put together legislation for health care that gets the government completely out of the health care business and not just pay the whole thing lip service.


Not true! They will go batshit if (when) he so much as hints at weakening the 2nd.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen is just another troll suffering from crippling depression so he's lashing out at Trump and his supporters. Wouldn't take him seriously. I mean what kind of a guy spends time on an Internet forum when his dad's in the hospital? (see, this is how change of subject works).

As far as the bill is concerned, as I've already stated we've got no chance of ever getting anything close to free market Healthcare in this country but we should steadfastly resolve to repealing parts that are the most cancerous, and keep pressure to keep removing the cancerous parts. You give people a little. See the benefits. Give them more. A slow series of wins over time will still get us something good considering nuking it completely isn't the option. Of course the best solution is to nuke anything and everything that props up insurance companies, has socialized healthcare and that horrible network of patents that have led us to this mess --- but you also have to be pragmatic in knowing that while at this point in time that is the best solution, at the other other you have people who want nothing but single-payer. So you find ways to get repeals, improve conditions for the electorate, stay in power and keep chugging along till you eventually win. This isn't something that can be won in 1-2 years time. It's a series of battles that need to be won one step at a time. 

Loyalty to the only party that wants to do something is important but sometimes even the ruling party doesn't know the best. They need to be influenced over time.

--

As for climate change whores:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879050100579991557
This is just a virtue signalling cult with no actual morals. They're like tumors that simply go from place to place leaving millions of dollars of damage in their wake. Taking more and more resources away from the so-called poor they claim to care so much about. Anyone that claims to be a climate change activist is nothing but a malignant tumor on society as far as I'm concerned. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...begins-festival-goers-head-home.html?ITO=1490

*Glastonbury's massive £785,00 clean-up begins as an army of 800 litter pickers moves in after the last of the festival goers stagger home (but at least the fields have two years to recover this time)
*













































"Eco-friendly" my ass :mj4 

Too bad they can't be thrown out like the trash they are and leave behind wherever they accumulate.


----------



## Stephen90

Iconoclast said:


> *Stephen is just another troll suffering from crippling depression so he's lashing out at Trump and his supporters. Wouldn't take him seriously. I mean what kind of a guy spends time on an Internet forum when his dad's in the hospital? (see, this is how change of subject works).*
> 
> As far as the bill is concerned, as I've already stated we've got no chance of ever getting anything close to free market Healthcare in this country but we should steadfastly resolve to repealing parts that are the most cancerous, and keep pressure to keep removing the cancerous parts. You give people a little. See the benefits. Give them more. A slow series of wins over time will still get us something good considering nuking it completely isn't the option. Of course the best solution is to nuke anything and everything that props up insurance companies, has socialized healthcare and that horrible network of patents that have led us to this mess --- but you also have to be pragmatic in knowing that while at this point in time that is the best solution, at the other other you have people who want nothing but single-payer. So you find ways to get repeals, improve conditions for the electorate, stay in power and keep chugging along till you eventually win. This isn't something that can be won in 1-2 years time. It's a series of battles that need to be won one step at a time.
> 
> Loyalty to the only party that wants to do something is important but sometimes even the ruling party doesn't know the best. They need to be influenced over time.


Yeah I'm a troll when I'm staying on topic not btw my Dad's actually out of the hospital now.
Home
SUBSCRIBE to the Magazine

Environment
Most people don't see how climate change is affecting their lives—and that's a problem
Heidi Cullen is the blame changer.
By Hillary Rosner Yesterday at 9:30am

Heidi Cullen
For someone who’s been immersed in the scary realities of global warming for so long, Cullen is surprisingly optimistic.
Marius Bugge
According to a recent Yale survey, 7 in 10 Americans believe global warming is real and .happening. And 6 in 10 believe it is affecting U.S. weather. But only 1 in 3 say they’ve personally felt its effects. That disconnect stuck with Heidi Cullen. “You’re never going to think of it as an issue that’s urgent unless you recognize the fact that you’re already being impacted,” says Cullen, chief scientist for the nonprofit Climate Central. Now in its ninth year, Climate Central is part research hub and part journalism outfit—an unusual hybrid that tries to connect climate change to people’s lives. 


ADVERTISING

The organization’s latest project, World Weather .Attribution, identifies direct links between extreme weather events and global warming. Cullen and her team created the program after realizing that while the tools for attributing such events have evolved, the results were coming out too late to influence the conversation. .Cullen also worried that media covering extreme weather operated off outdated information: They would say you couldn’t tie any specific event to climate change. “Now the techniques exist,” Cullen says. So she set out to provide objective answers, swiftly. Researchers from Climate Central and other institutions around the world combine information from climate models, on-the-ground observations, and a range of peer-reviewed research to supply evidence for their reports. Recently, her team determined that global warming made 2017’s exceptionally warm February in the U.S. at least three times more likely.
Connecting science to regular people’s lives is second nature to Cullen, but that wasn’t always the case. Back in 2002, when she was forecasting droughts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, .Colorado, a producer from the Weather Channel called. They .wanted to hire a climate expert to appear on air. It was four years before An Inconvenient Truth, and many Americans were just opening their eyes to global warming. “It seemed like a really important moment,” Cullen says. She packed up and headed for Atlanta.
“You’re never going to think of it as an issue that’s urgent unless you recognize the fact that you’re already being impacted."
Cullen arrived at the Weather Channel a complete communication novice, unsure of how to convey any scientific info .succinctly, and clueless about makeup and other .accoutrement of television personalities. She would submit scripts for short segments to the producers, “and they would shake their heads” at the overly complex, jargon-laden writing, she recalls. “I’d walk down the hallway, and they would start singing ‘She Blinded Me with Science.’” Eventually, though, Cullen became a pro, earning her own weekly show.
In 2008, Princeton ecologist Stephen .Pacala contacted her about joining Climate Central. Her first project was a program to enable .meteorologists to connect the dots between local weather and global warming. For World Weather Attribution, Cullen is as likely to do the research that will be used in reports as write up results based on others’ investigations.
For someone who’s been immersed in the scary realities of global warming for so long, Cullen is surprisingly optimistic. She credits two things. One, she’s found a proven method for staying upbeat: puppies, which she trains for the Seeing Eye, the nation’s oldest guide-dog training program. Her current charge is a Lab/golden cross named Earl. “It’s a counterpoint to climate change.” The other, she says, is that in her field, “you look with this long-term perspective.” That’s helping her ride out the current administration’s direct attacks on science. “Four years isn’t a long time.http://www.nutrex.com/product/outli...rategy&utm_medium=retargeting&utm_content=web



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Holy crap, your cognitive dissonance is out of control. I sincerely wonder if you ever question your opinions. I'm starting to doubt that you do. That's a dangerous game your playing, a game that in the end will make you look like a fool. Just some words of advice.
> 
> And, BTW, this is an anti-Democrats thread as much as it is a pro-Trump thread. Some of us here aren't even pro-Trump, but you wouldn't know the difference.


I didn't say everyone was pro Trump did I? I just can see through Trump unlike you and your pal @Iconoclast the fact the guy's had failure after failure and you are quick to defend anything the man does. The fact that watch Fox News let's me know how misinformed you are.



Jay Valero said:


> What kind of mindless idiot gives a damn what is said on social media? Oh yeah, lefty globalists.


 Yet I used to wonder why we get such low test scores in this country thanks to you and I know why.



Miss Sally said:


> Oh boy more global warming talk.. oh wait wasn't it changed to climate change?
> 
> We need to do something like join a coalition. A coalition by their own admission that won't change much. Europe has its priorities straight for sure.


England has less crime and better schools then we do. But hey we have a great military.


----------



## virus21

> Senate Judiciary Committee leaders on Friday said they are seeking information about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's alleged interference in Hillary Clinton's private email investigation.
> The bipartisan group is inquiring about Lynch's communication with Clinton campaign aide Amanda Renteria — whom Lynch reportedly assured that the FBI's investigation wouldn't "go too far" — as well as documents and information indicating whether the agency probed that alleged conversation.
> Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), along with other lawmakers including 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham, sent letters to Lynch earlier this week with the request.
> A spokesman for Lynch said the former attorney general "will cooperate fully with this inquiry and respond directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee."
> "Ms. Lynch is a committed public servant who has dedicated much of her career to the Department of Justice and led the department as attorney general in the fair and impartial administration of justice," a spokesman said in a statement Friday.
> The inquiries about Lynch's communication are part of a larger examination of President Donald Trump's dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing the Clinton probe at the time.
> Play Video
> In a testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Comey said that Lynch during the Clinton probe told him: "Don’t call it [an investigation]. Call it a matter. Just call it a matter."’"It gave me a queasy feeling," Comey said in the testimony.


http://time.com/4831849/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-fbi-senate/


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://apnews.com/9c78ee01f1ab45ffba852974fb229487



> *High Court reinstates Trump travel ban, will hear arguments*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
> 
> The action Monday is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.
> 
> The court did leave one category of foreigners protected, those "with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," the court said in an unsigned opinion.
> 
> The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
> 
> Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
> 
> The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
> 
> The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before October 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.


----------



## deepelemblues

The court has basically already ruled in favor of the travel ban with this decision

cuck judges in the 4th and 9th circuits and their judicial double standards and overreach BTFO :banderas

You can see how disappointed the washington post is. It isn't "mostly." More fake news to try the soften the blow of this failure to cucks when they read it. It's 99.99% of the travel ban may and will be implemented. There are very very few people from these countries that have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United states.

But again :lmao fuck off political judges making political rulings. Follow the law bitches

Still not tired of all this winning :trump3


----------



## samizayn

DesolationRow said:


> Steve Hilton's new show on Fox News had gone unseen by I but I did just spot the final couple of segments on the network moments ago, and thought I would share a decent little presentation on one of the show's forays into disparate "SwampWatch" segments (this was the first and possibly the only I will ever see but I get the concept!). This week it was the Iron Triangle, aka the Military-Industrial Complex.
> 
> Fast-forward the video below to 29:30 and watch for the next seven minutes!


What a shame that we are essentially powerless to stop this kind of thing from happening.


----------



## deepelemblues

Court voted 6-3 to allow 99.99% of the travel ban to be implemented

The 3 dissenters wanted to allow 100% to go into effect

Cucks couldn't even get a single one of their judges to vote against it

:heston


----------



## El Dandy

Yeah, to the surprise of nobody who has a clue, the Travel Ban is mostly reinstated. So long as SCOTUS does their job, the Travel Ban most certainly will be upheld when they hear it in October. It should be a 9-0 vote when it happens, I'm doubtful it's unanimous but we will see.

More importantly, finally we know when the clock on this thing will start to tick. Very much interested to see what the next step is after the Travel Ban expires.

Also rumors in the dirt sheets that Justice Kennedy, who has been a wild card at times, will be retiring soon! Trump may get his second conservative SCOTUS judge in there. A stark reminder that, if Hillary would have won, SCOTUS would be completely fucked for us.

No lie, May was a bit of a rough month, but June has been kicking the absolute shit out of Liberals. After my lunch break Imma go mine for some salt!

:trump


----------



## amhlilhaus

The immigrant law that trump used for the travel ban is literally one of the easier laws to read. Trump can ban anyone whenever he wants. Not suprising it was upheld.

Another CONSTITUTIONAL SC justice? Oh lordy lord, that just might make liberals leave the country.

And for our democrat friends, remember constitutional is NOT conservative


----------



## deepelemblues

Black unemployment rate hits 17 year low

I hope it's because more blacks are finding jobs and not because more blacks are giving up on finding jobs


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> I didn't say everyone was pro Trump did I? I just can see through Trump unlike you and your pal @Iconoclast the fact the guy's had failure after failure and you are quick to defend anything the man does. The fact that watch Fox News let's me know how misinformed you are.


Your cognitive dissonance is kicking in again, and I'm not going to explain in detail why because it's blatantly obvious that you don't think you're wrong, nor do you even question if you're wrong.

Failure after failure? Ya, if you cherry pick all of his failures and ignore all of his successes and fulfillments of his campaign promises.

You're trying to change the argument because you know you can't defend your position on Illinois. You so desperately want the conversation to go back to Trump because at least that's a topic you've thought about. I say Democrats suck at financial responsibility, you don't have the first clue what I'm talking about. Your response is to point out Republicans who supposedly spend poorly, as if that's an acceptable counter to the original position. You're doing the same thing in the messages you've sent, trying to compare what's happening in Illinois to Trump filing for bankruptcy on his businesses. As I told you before, if you don't know what you're talking about there's no shame in not commenting. As the old proverb says, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

You wanna talk about Trump or Republicans not spending well? Go find some articles, post them here and make a comment on them. Don't try to change the narrative on my perfectly acceptable point about Democrats in Illinois spending money to the point of insolvency.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds...



> Paris to build 8-foot-high bulletproof glass wall around Eiffel Tower
> 
> Tourists in Paris could soon notice a new sight at the world-famous Eiffel Tower: a bulletproof, 8-foot glass wall around the landmark.
> 
> *The purpose of the wall is to deter attacks*, city officials said *Thursday. A statement from Paris City Hall claimed the wall would replace metal fences* that were set up around the tower for the European football tournament in 2016, BBC News reported.
> 
> It’s expected to cost about $21 million.
> 
> *"The terror threat remains high in Paris and the most vulnerable sites, led by the Eiffel Tower, must be the object of special security measures," Jean-Francois Martins, the assistant mayor for tourism, said. *“We have three aims - to improve the look, make access easier and strengthen the protection of visitors and staff.”
> 
> *Martins said the wall is designed to stop individuals or vehicles storming the site.*
> 
> "We will replace the metal grids to the north and south with glass panels which will allow Parisians and visitors a very pleasant view of the monument," he added.
> 
> The Eiffel Tower is one of France's most visited landmarks, attracting more than six million visitors each year.
> 
> The proposal will be examined by the city's sites commission and then needs approval from the environment ministry. It is part of a $3.2 million project announced in January to modernize the 128-year-old tower.
> 
> No specific timetable has been set.
> 
> Paris has been on high alert after a string of terrorist attacks on the city and other parts of France over the last two years.
> 
> In November 2015, jihadists conducted multiple attacks throughout the French capital that left 130 people dead.
> 
> Last July, 86 people died when a truck plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in the southern city of Nice.
> 
> Earlier this month, an Egyptian man wielding two machetes and shouting “Allahu akbar” was shot by soldiers outside Paris’ Louvre Museum. President Francois Hollande said there was “no doubt” that it was an act of terror.


----------



## deepelemblues

Such a pleasant view

You know for over 100 years there already was a very pleasant view of the eiffel tower available, no barriers at all

This must be in response to team america: world police blowing up the louvre and the arc de triomphe and the eiffel tower, right? I 'member that happening


----------



## Reaper

Supreme Court ok'ed the Travel Ban. 

As it was expected to do considering there was never anything unconstitutional about it.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Thomas Sowell said quite a while ago that "one of these days, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will declare the Constitution unconstitutional".

Anyone with a functioning brain in their head knew that verdict was a disgrace and showcases what a pathetic case of political activism and grandstanding it was, not to mention a complete dereliction of duty. Even Ginsburg voted in favour of this and she is a well-known massive Trump hater.

Just think - Ginsburg is now 84 and probably won't be sucking air for that much longer. There's also talk that at 80, Kennedy is thinking of packing it in. If Trump gets to appoint two more Supreme Court justices that's scarcely believable levels of winning. Your First and Second amendments should be safe for a good while longer hopefully.


----------



## virus21

> A growing number of Democratic lawmakers are publicly pushing their party leadership to shift their focus away from President Donald Trump’s alleged election campaign collusion with Russia and toward the issues facing American voters: jobs, health care, and the economy.
> “We can’t just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren’t really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said on MSNBC this week. “They’re trying to figure out how they’re going to make the mortgage payment, how they’re going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.”
> 
> Ryan, who recently launched a campaign to remove Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) from her post, said, “if we don’t talk more about their interest than we do about how we’re so angry with Donald Trump and everything that’s going on, then we’re never going to be able to win elections.”
> 
> In Minnesota, a state Trump lost by 1.5 percent, gubernatorial candidate and Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) says the state’s residents simply aren’t concerned with the Russia-Trump investigation that has consumed Washington, DC.
> 
> “I did a 22-county tour. Nobody’s focusing on that,” Walz said, according to The Hill. “That’s not to say that they don’t think Russia and those things are important, [but] it’s certainly not top on their minds.”
> 
> Pelosi and partisan media outlets have honed in on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections, and allegations about Trump campaign collusion have dominated the national political discourse even before the inauguration. While no evidence of wrongdoing on the president’s or his team’s behalf has been proven, both the House and Senate Intelligence committees have launched investigations, and former FBI Director Robert Mueller is leading a separate investigation.
> 
> Similar to Ohio and Minnesota, voters in Vermont are not impressed by the Democrats’ pursuit of unproven collusion claims.
> 
> “We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it’s about Russia, whether it’s about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it’s going to happen on its own without us piling on,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT).
> 
> “We’re much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up with an agenda,” he warned. “Talking about Trump and Russia doesn’t create an agenda.”
> 
> Nationally, 64 percent of “voters said the investigations into President Trump and Russia are hurting the country,” while another 56 percent “said it’s time for Congress and the media to move on to other issues, compared to 44 percent who said the focus should stay on Russia,” according to new Harvard-Harris poll.
> 
> Another 73 percent of respondents said, “they’re concerned that the Russia probes have caused Congress to lose focus on the issues important to them. That figure encompasses 81 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats.”
> 
> Last week, Democrats began devising a plan to replace Pelosi, insisting that the far-left lawmaker had become too toxic after 15 years of leading House Democrats. Jon Ossoff’s election loss in Georgia’s Sixth District special congressional election Tuesday night — a defeat that made Democrats zero for five in Trump-era special elections — raised more questions about whether Pelosi was hurting her party more than helping.
> 
> The national media, particularly CNN, the New York Time, and the Washington Post, continue to make Russia the main priority. Democrats, facing re-election and angry voters, are moving on to a more issues-focused agenda.
> 
> “If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like that as a secondary matter, it’s because that’s how my constituents feel about it,” said Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) according to The Hill.
> 
> “I don’t think anybody wants to give a pass to illegal or unethical activity,” Cartwright added. “But in life we all have priorities, and the first priority for my constituents is to their families — as it should be.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/25/panicked-democrats-party-leaders-voters-care-economy-not-russia/


----------



## DesolationRow

The travel moratorium is not quite upheld but with the slam dunk vote beyond the three votes in dissent (which were in favor of expanding the "ban" wholly), so this is something of a reversal of the ridiculous 4th and 9th circuit court injunctions. So now it will be argued in the fall, but the writing is ostensibly on the wall.

Back in the previous :trump thread I predicted an 8-0 blowout vote temporarily reversing the lower courts' injunctions, but that was before Neil Gorsuch was able to make it a 9-0 sweep. This was one case that was just too black and white, cut and dried. :trump

:clap :clap :clap


----------



## Vic Capri

> Supreme Court allows limited version of travel ban to take effect.












- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

While a win for Trump, this was more importantly a great victory for the safety and security of the American people.


----------



## virus21

> A group of Republicans turned the tables on a Charlotte Starbucks Saturday, after its staff was accused of mocking a customer for wearing a Donald Trump tee-shirt.
> 
> Starting at 2 p.m., more than 50 tee-shirt wearing Trump backers staged a peaceful gathering at the Dilworth coffee house, filling chairs, tables and even the parking lot at one point.
> 
> The group told TV station Fox 46 the sit-in was a little tense at the beginning, when a throng of people filed through the door. But the mood lightened as more and more people ordered coffee using the names of different members of the Trump cabinet, including Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions.
> 
> “I gave them the name Trump and...they were very gracious about it,” Shellie Anderson told Charlotte TV station Fox 46. “We just wanted to reverse the little negativity...It’s really good to come together and take something negative and just come in here and be respectful.”
> 
> The group presented no demands. Instead, its members sought to take a stand against any business disrespecting customers based on their politics, said James Tatro, a MeckGOP board member who participated in the event.
> 
> 
> Trump supporters stage "sit-in" at Starbucks
> WJZY - Charlotte, NC
> 
> 
> While it has been described as a sit-in, Tatro says the crowd was made up of paying customers and not just “people who were filling chairs.”
> 
> “We wanted the staff to see that Trump supporters are just as human as anyone else,” he said. “We live in a diverse city. It’s unacceptable in a modern society to make a customer feel uncomfortable, whether it’s a liberal business mistreating a conservative customer or a conservative business mistreating a liberal customer.”
> 
> The Mecklenburg County Republican Party posted on their Facebook page that the event was “a perfect example of a peaceful political demonstration.” The party reported that participants included representatives of the MeckGOP Board, Deplorable Pride (an LGBT Republican group), Hispanics For Trump, Women For Trump and even some independent voters. Republican Rep. William Brawley of Matthews also attended, and spoke to the crowd.
> 
> Starbucks has formally apologized for the original incident, which took place earlier this month. Kayla Hart of Charlotte reported she was wearing a shirt in support of President Donald Trump at the Starbucks and was bullied and laughed at by the staff.
> 
> Instead of the barista putting Hart’s name on her cup, she said the label had the phrase “Build a Wall,” in reference to the president’s campaign promise to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.
> 
> Hart, who did not participate in the Saturday event, told FOX 46 Charlotte she walked out when other people noticed and other baristas laughed. She said she believed she was being bullied for wearing the shirt. “I just found it really sad that I can’t wear a t-shirt with our president without being made fun of,” Hart told FOX 46 Charlotte.
> 
> Reggie Borges, a spokesman for Starbucks’ corporate office in Seattle, said the company was working with the barista and using the incident as a teaching moment. “This experience is absolutely not consistent with our standards or the respectful experience we want to provide to our customers,” Borges said.
> 
> Tatro said the Mecklenburg County Republican Party feels the apology was acceptable – as long as the bullying stops. He calls what happened to Kayla Hart “terrible.”
> 
> “I think it not only hurt her feelings, but discouraged her from being involved in political process,” he said. “Many Trump supporters are afraid to wear Trump gear for that reason...It’s a shame that some people only feel comfortable when it’s group of 40 people or so.”


http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article158217679.html


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> While a win for Trump, this was more importantly a great victory for the safety and security of the American people.


Even IF it doesn't accomplish this, it is still a message to the people that at least they are aware of the threat. 

For me supporting the travel ban wasn't just about preventing mass muslim immigration, but also about knowing that the government is aware of the threat it presents -- not just from the POV of terrorism, but also the cultural incompatibility. And I believe that with this government we have that.

---

This tweet from Pocahontas really aged well :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879440369930338304


----------



## virus21

> CNN has accepted the resignations of multiple employees who were involved with the network’s retracted story that supposedly tied the Trump Administration to the Senate’s investigation into Russia.
> 
> CNN is facing blowback over an erroneous report which claimed that former Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was connected to a $10 billion Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF). The network pulled the story over the weekend, and they have issued new editorial rules for future content about the ongoing probes into Russia’s election interference.
> 
> The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple was first to report that three people have tended their resignations in the aftermath of the affair: Thomas Frank, the reporter who wrote the story, Eric Lichtblau, DC editor of the CNN Investigative Team, and Lex Haris of “CNN Investigates.”
> 
> CNN’s Brian Stelter has confirmed the news:
> 
> Follow
> Brian Stelter ✔ @brianstelter
> Breaking: 3 CNN journalists have resigned after the publication of an article that was retracted. Here's my story http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/cnn-announcement-retracted-article/index.html …
> 5:39 PM - 26 Jun 2017
> Photo published for Three journalists leaving CNN after retracted article
> Three journalists leaving CNN after retracted article
> CNN said Monday that three journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.
> money.cnn.com
> 329 329 Retweets 283 283 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> CNN’s management has launched an internal investigation to review the incident, and Stelter states that the retracted article did not adhere to standard editorial guidelines.
> 
> “These types of stories are typically reviewed by several departments within CNN – including fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers – before publication.
> 
> This breakdown in editorial workflow disturbed the CNN executives who learned about it.”


http://www.mediaite.com/online/three-cnn-employees-resign-over-retracted-story-about-russia-investigations/


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> http://www.mediaite.com/online/three-cnn-employees-resign-over-retracted-story-about-russia-investigations/












I WANT TO BELIVE IN TRUMP/RUSSIA DAMNIT!1


----------



## CamillePunk

The constitution pretty clearly authorizes any immigration ban Trump might pursue though. :lol It's ridiculous it's taking so long. As Trump would end a tweet with, "Politics!". 

Also nice to see the MSM is taking attrition from its Russian witch hunt. This timeline gets better and better. :cool2 I haven't even shared how tickled I am about the Sanders being under investigation and lawyering up which the anti-Trumpers have already established is now to be considered evidence of guilt. :lol All the winning is really too much, and especially sweet when it's self-inflicted damage.


----------



## the_game_master

You guys still sucking off Trump's knob in this thread. Our President is an idiot, he makes George W. Bush seem smart.


----------



## Jay Valero

Does this mean Don Lemon is gone? Anderson Cooper? There needs to be ore transparency from the media. A law should be passed that they have publish/show their political affiliation and voting record with each piece they do so that the American people can be aware of any inherent bias.


----------



## Neuron

Any guesses as to the next fake narrative?


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> The constitution pretty clearly authorizes any immigration ban Trump might pursue though. :lol It's ridiculous it's taking so long. As Trump would end a tweet with, "Politics!".
> 
> Also nice to see the MSM is taking attrition from its Russian witch hunt. This timeline gets better and better. :cool2 I haven't even shared how tickled I am about the Sanders being under investigation and lawyering up which the anti-Trumpers have already established is now to be considered evidence of guilt. :lol All the winning is really too much, and especially sweet when it's self-inflicted damage.


Travel Ban constitutional despite what our "experts" here said about it being illegal. Even the Liberal judges agreed because, well it's not about feelings but by what's the law. Cannot wait to see all these crooked judges with agendas get overturned!

Russia/Trump story taking a huge Hindenburg loss, the MSM especially CNN has no credibility anymore.

Sanders getting investigated for being crooked, ha!

French Government building a wall around the tower to keep people out, hey guys, thought walls don't work? Guess that's why rich gated communities don't have them.. oh wait.. 

No wonder BM hasn't been in the thread.


----------



## BruiserKC

I'll be honest, I'm surprised at the verdict being 9-0. I expected a 5-4 or 6-3 decision, but apparently all the justices were good at extending temporarily the ban and allowing it to be fully looked at come this fall. I was also expecting at some point for some of Trump's tweets and campaign rhetoric to be brought up. At any rate, it will be interesting to see if some of this is open game come this fall when SCOTUS hears on whether or not to keep the ban beyond then. Meanwhile, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas said they would have instated the full ban and not just a partial like they decided, but we will see what happens this fall. 

Now, maybe Congress can get off their ass and use this timeframe, along with the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, and work on getting in place an effective vetting system so that maybe such bans will not be necessary in the future.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Neuron said:


> Any guesses as to the next fake narrative?


Donald Trump's wears a toupe!!!!!


----------



## Reaper

Neuron said:


> Any guesses as to the next fake narrative?


Eric Trump is a Nazi because of his new haircut.

MSM is already trying to make it a thing.


----------



## El Dandy

I just can't get enough

EDIT: Hopefully that shit resizes.


----------



## Reaper

You know, I wasn't going to do this, but I have to. It feels :damn good to be vindicated once again.










:move is the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## El Dandy

:hmm


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

the_game_master said:


> You guys still sucking off Trump's knob in this thread. Our President is an idiot, he makes George W. Bush seem smart.












We love you too, you normie scum. :x


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

El Dandy said:


>


 @birthday_massacre, this is fucking crazy, right? What is your opinion on this?


----------



## Reaper

Is there proof that that guy was a CNN producer?


----------



## DesolationRow

:trump driving the ancient media into such a frenzy that they self-immolate! :mark:


----------



## Jay Valero

CNN sure does hire a lot of ****.


----------



## Vic Capri

For many months, President Trump called CNN fake news and to see of their 3 reporters resign over a fake news story is simply wonderful!

*#Justice*



> Is there proof that that guy was a CNN producer?


http://www.cnn.com/profiles/john-bonifield



> he makes George W. Bush seem smart.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism

Try again.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Oh jeez. Looking at the stories this guy has done, he seemed like one of the good guys. If what he said on the sting is true, he seemed like one of those people who was unhappily going along with what his organization was doing. He hardly seems responsible for any of it. Based on the stories he's done it doesn't seem like he's anywhere near the hub of the Russia mob - so it's likely he's just giving his opinion. 

In a TV channel that employs thousands of people and has multiple news desks, not everyone is privy to what everyone else is doing - so all they have is assumptions and opinions. 

So while knowing that the whole CNN shit IS shit without needing any confirmation from an employee, I think it's incredibly irresponsible to associate a man who probably doesn't know anything with breaking this story. 

This isn't like the Planned Parenthood stings where you get more than people's opinions. This is simply an opinion. The guy was actually doing some good work for CNN.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879520906963554305


----------



## amhlilhaus

the_game_master said:


> You guys still sucking off Trump's knob in this thread. Our President is an idiot, he makes George W. Bush seem smart.


Trumps an idiot whos a billionaire, slayed world class pussy (freely given), became president and is causing the destruction of the democrat party and the main stream media.

I guess all the smart people have that beat


----------



## amhlilhaus

Heres the thing about russian collusion. Early headlines looked promising. They targeted flynn, forced him out. Oh boy, theres got to be more. Then, nothing much. At this point a rational person should have become suspicious. Wheres the evidence? Theyre leaking everything else. Then comeys firing. Uh oh, he thinks trump might have obstructed. Then comeys earlier testimony came out, and trumps clean so far. A rational person thinks, if the fbi cant find any links after all this time, there probably isnt any. Then the wash post story detailing how obama knew about the russian interference, and did zilch about it.

The russian story tying trump to collusion is dead. It hasnt helped dems flip any of the special election seats. In 18 months its doubtful this story propels dems back to power. 

The muller probe is going to dig until they get some low level operative on a perjury charge after interviewing them 30 times. The probe will close, and demonrats will say 'i know trump did it, he was just too smart in covering his tracks'


----------



## Stinger Fan

the_game_master said:


> You guys still sucking off Trump's knob in this thread. Our President is an idiot, he makes George W. Bush seem smart.


And 8-10 years after Trump leaves office and another republican president gets elected, you'll be saying "Trump wasn't that bad but this new guy is super evil!"....like liberals are doing now with Bush . It's a never ending cycle that liberals won't shake off because they insist on making every republican nominee into the exact same outline "Sexist, racist,homophobe"... only now liberals added in "transphobe" and "Islamaphobe" into their "argument". 

I can only hope that the Republicans one day have a presidential nominee who's black, hispanic, Lesbian and Muslim just to see the reaction leftits would have. I think heads would literally explode


----------



## deepelemblues

CNN in institutional array and its man Acosta having near-daily meltdowns at the WH.

Supreme Court sends salt prices into a nosedive with yet another huge mine discovery, salt for centureeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

The investigations narrative more or less flipped - thanks Loretta, thanks Bernie, oh and there's this:

http://www.veritaslive.com/06-26-2017/americanpravdacnn.html

There is a lesson in all this somewhere, about privilege and hubris-

Oh wait there's a simpler lesson: don't get tired of all this winning cus it's not gonna stop.


----------



## Stephen90

Why are you Trump supporters obsessed with CNN? Talking about them only gives them free publicity.


----------



## deepelemblues

Why are you obsessed with :trump

Talking about him only brings more attention to all his winning


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> Why are you obsessed with :trump
> 
> Talking about him only brings more attention to all his winning


Because he's the president. Lame to compare a president to a news station.
This is Trump supporters and CNN


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Why are you Trump supporters obsessed with CNN? Talking about them only gives them free publicity.


Because CNN before the 2016 Election was the News that was supposed to be accurate and fairly trustworthy compared to MSNBC and Fox. 

Because of constant CNN fuckups, lies and just basic asshatery CNN is mocked, it's no different than mocking someone like Hilary etc. CNN has been pretty much at the core of all the phony propaganda that's been circulating so watching them burn is pretty fun!

What's interesting is that Trump's done things they could zinged him for but instead went down a stupid route because they're obsessed with trying to take down Trump. Yet the MSM has pretty much ensured they won't because they decided idiocy was the way to go. 

Trump has pretty much destroyed a whole lot of his detractors by letting them bury themselves, he didn't even need to do an Obama and send the IRS after them!


----------



## Stephen90

Miss Sally said:


> Because CNN before the 2016 Election was the News that was supposed to be accurate and fairly trustworthy compared to MSNBC and Fox.
> 
> Because of constant CNN fuckups, lies and just basic asshatery CNN is mocked, it's no different than mocking someone like Hilary etc. CNN has been pretty much at the core of all the phony propaganda that's been circulating so watching them burn is pretty fun!
> 
> What's interesting is that Trump's done things they could zinged him for but instead went down a stupid route because they're obsessed with trying to take down Trump. Yet the MSM has pretty much ensured they won't because they decided idiocy was the way to go.
> 
> Trump has pretty much destroyed a whole lot of his detractors by letting them bury themselves, he didn't even need to do an Obama and send the IRS after them!


I'll give you that since I quit watching CNN year's ago do their love of corporate Democrats.


----------



## El Dandy

If for no other reason, fuck CNN for "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!"


----------



## Vic Capri

Karma's a bitch huh?

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

El Dandy said:


> If for no other reason, fuck CNN for "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!"


Idiots STILL believe this lie. That the family got $1.5 mil in court is disgusting. The city and state should be suing them, and the terrorist organization BLM, for all the damage caused in the riots.


----------



## virus21

> Rep. Ben Ray Luján — like many in Congress — wants President Donald Trump to release his tax returns.
> 
> Transparency, the New Mexico Democrat said recently in a Facebook post, “is a cornerstone of democracy.”
> 
> But he doesn’t want to release his own tax returns. And that puts him in good company on both sides of the aisle.
> Roll Call sent a request to all of the nation’s senators and representatives — more than 500 in all — to release their tax returns. Only 37 responded, and of those, six provided the documents.
> 
> The written requests were sent at least three times over a period of several weeks, starting in April, to each lawmaker and key staff members.
> 
> Roll Call sought returns from the 2015 and 2016 tax years to accommodate members who have asked for extensions.
> 
> Roll Call reviewed public documents and media reports to determine lawmakers’ positions on the release of Trump’s tax returns. At least 237 lawmakers have called on the president to produce his returns.
> 
> The review, which can be viewed in full here, also sought to identify lawmakers who had released all or part of their own returns. It identified an additional 43 lawmakers in the House and the Senate who had released returns or allowed reporters to review them.
> 
> 26bars-tax-status-web (1)Luján was one of many whose responses to Roll Call stood in stark contrast to their calls for transparency from the president.
> 
> Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
> 
> 
> email address
> [In Tax Return Secrecy, Congress Unites]
> 
> Members of Congress should be held to a different standard, his spokesman said.
> 
> “Unlike individuals seeking the presidency, there is no tradition or precedent that necessitates the release of a member’s tax returns,” spokesman Joe Shoemaker said. “If Congressman Luján decides to run for President, CQ Roll Call will be among the first to whom we release his tax returns.”
> 
> Fewer Republicans have called for Trump to release his returns. But they also are reluctant to release their own.
> 
> Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., has criticized Trump — and his colleagues — for not releasing tax returns.
> 
> “You know, Congress doesn’t do this, by the way,” he said during an April interview on Kansas Public Radio. “There’s a lot of congressmen calling him out in both parties that haven’t done that as well. Maybe it’s something we need to look at … everyone has to release their taxes if you run for federal office.”
> 
> Yoder did not respond to Roll Call’s request to provide his returns or say whether he has ever disclosed his own.
> 
> spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster
> ↑↓volume mmute
> ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60%
> Pulling back the curtain
> The reluctance among members of Congress to release their own tax returns raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. And it prevents voters from learning more about members’ personal financial decisions that could affect how they vote.
> 
> Lawmakers are required by law to fill out yearly “Personal Financial Disclosures.” Those public disclosures provide some details on personal assets and the money that they spend on their campaigns.
> 
> Tax returns provide additional information. That includes past tax deductions, charitable contributions made, how much they pay in taxes, their spouses’ income — if they file jointly — and their general approach to their finances.
> 
> 26disc-compare-web
> 
> Such information is particularly relevant this year, as the Republican-controlled Congress and Trump prepare to introduce what they have billed as the most comprehensive overhaul of the tax code since 1986.
> 
> “Details about their income and investments, charitable giving, and taxes paid might help prove who the politician really is, and head off any ethics scandals related to acting on inside information or illegally helping family, friends or cozy businesses,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group that investigates waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. “If there was improved transparency, maybe the swamp would start to drain itself.”
> 
> The gap between members’ position on Trump’s taxes and their reluctance to release their own stems partly from tradition. Presidential candidates have been expected to release their returns since the disclosure of President Richard Nixon’s aggressive use of deductions in the 1970s. No such scandal has spurred the public to demand the same degree of transparency from members of Congress.
> 
> It is also a question of power: Presidents have more of it, so the public has more to gain from learning about their financial behavior and potential conflicts of interest than from any of the hundreds of people in Congress. And unlike the president, members of Congress can sit out of debates that could enrich them.
> 
> But having one standard for the executive branch, and another standard for legislators, is problematic to some.
> 
> “There is a disparity there that is a little troubling, why we have a norm for some policy makers at the federal level but not for others,” said Matthew T. Sanderson, a lawyer who specializes in campaign finance, “pay-to-play” ethics, and lobbying rules. “They are coequal branches of government, and it does smack of hypocrisy to say that a presidential candidate or officeholder should release his tax return if you haven’t done the same.”
> 
> Sanderson has provided legal counsel for Republicans such as Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and John McCain.
> 
> Cabinet- and sub-Cabinet-level nominees for dozens of federal agencies and many senior-level federal appointments are required to submit their tax returns to the Senate, Mark A. Patterson, the Democratic staff director and chief counsel of the Senate Finance Committee from 1995 to 1999 and chief of staff at the Treasury Department from 2009 to 2013, wrote in The Washington Post in August.
> 
> The requirement is meant to ensure that people in positions of public trust have complied with the law, Patterson wrote.
> 
> Some members have argued that tax returns should be private, and that expecting members to produce them could deter potential candidates.
> 
> “These are private documents for all Americans,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who declined to provide his returns. “This goes for President Trump, and for presidents in general, as well.”
> 
> The issue of privacy for public officials has come up repeatedly, at least at the state level.
> 
> A Florida law that requires certain statewide candidates to provide their tax returns unless they fill out an income disclosure form as a supplement to their financial disclosure statements was upheld by a federal appeals court in 1978. That ruling found that the public’s right to know surpassed candidates’ right to privacy.
> 
> At least 23 states are considering laws that would require presidential candidates to release their returns in order to appear on the ballot, said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, who has reviewed recent proposals. While most of those efforts are focused on presidential tax returns, a bill proposed in New York would extend the requirement to all statewide candidates, including senators.
> 
> “Disclosure is more important when you are at the apex of power, but it is important across the board,” Lang said.
> 
> Not everyone agrees that members of Congress should have to bare all their financial information.
> 
> Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy at Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to overhauling the campaign finance system, said presidents should release their returns. But she does not think there is a public necessity for lawmakers to do the same.
> 
> More transparency would be achieved through a revision of public disclosure requirements and ethics rules, while still maintaining members’ privacy, McGehee said.
> 
> “The public interest is not necessarily how rich you are,” she said. “It is, do you have holdings that conflict with your public duty?”
> 
> Sanderson, the lawyer who has represented Republican presidential candidates, made a similar point. While he said tax returns contain important information, improved financial disclosure could potentially be more valuable. “To me, there’s a marginal benefit to adding a tax return,” he said.
> 
> Shedding a little light
> A handful of members make a habit of releasing their returns.
> 
> Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin includes his returns as a supplement to the Illinois Democrat’s personal financial disclosure forms, which are accessible to the public on the Senate website. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., posts every return for every year she has been in Congress on her website. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., post their most recent returns on theirs.
> 
> Six more provided the documents to Roll Call.
> 
> Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Reps. James Comer, R-Ky., Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., Mike Coffman, R-Colo., and Robert A. Brady, D-Pa. provided full copies.
> 
> Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., one of the wealthiest members of Congress and one of Trump’s biggest antagonists on the Hill, provided the first two pages of his 1040 form. His wife Cynthia, the daughter of a New York real estate mogul, files separately.
> 
> Comer pointed out that he offered to release his returns in 2015, when he ran for governor of Kentucky against two wealthy opponents.
> 
> “I believe that when someone files for the highest public office (president, governor and Congress), that the citizens have a right to know how much income as well as the sources of income of those highest-ranking elected public officials,” he said.
> 
> Cooper, one of the wealthier members in Congress, said it was the first time he could remember anyone asking for them. He provided his 2015 return because he has filed an extension for 2016.
> 
> Casey and Coffman are both facing competitive re-elections this cycle. Casey is seeking a third term in Pennsylvania, a state that Trump won by a narrow margin last fall. And Coffman’s district in Colorado that encompasses the Denver suburbs is a prime target for Democrats seeking to capitalize on anti-Republican sentiment to gain ground in the House.
> 
> Three members — Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Rep. Ruben Kihuen, D-Nev. — said they would provide returns but didn’t after follow-up requests. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., invited a reporter to review them in his office, as he has done in the past, but would not provide a copy.
> 
> A staff member in Sen. Patrick J. Leahy’s office said the Vermont Democrat has released the top three pages of his tax returns pages in each of the last three years and offered to provide those documents, but did not after follow-up requests.
> 
> Congress members’ reluctance to release their own tax returns has come up before.
> 
> In 2012, as Democrats in Congress excoriated Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, for disclosing only two years of his returns, the McClatchy newspaper chain found that only 17 of 535 members would allow reporters to review their own returns.
> 
> “Tax return disclosure is painful to candidates,” said Joseph Thorndike, who directs the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan group that provides analysis and commentary on tax policy. “Unless they feel compelled to do it, or there is some advantage to doing it, they don’t like to do it, and they will try to find their way around doing it.”
> 
> The Tax History Project has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns on its website, a project that began partly because those documents had a tendency to disappear from the public record, Thorndike said. He said he knew of no attempts to catalog such documents from members of Congress.
> 
> Roll Call’s database provides copies of previously released returns for sitting members of Congress and links to news reports containing information about returns that were not released, but were reviewed by reporters.
> 
> Thorndike said such information could be valuable to voters.
> 
> “Knowing how they choose to conduct themselves in the gray areas of tax law, that’s important,” he said. “Knowing how they shoulder the communal fiscal burden, what kind of fiscal citizens they are, that matters. That’s not about conflicts of interest. That’s how they choose to behave in carrying out their citizenship responsibilities.”
> 
> Voters could also see how members would personally benefit from proposals to revise the tax code, such as the elimination of a 3.8 percent capital gains tax for wealthy filers that was included in the House and Senate bills that would repeal the 2010 health care law. House Republicans have also proposed drastically reducing taxes on investment income.
> 
> Cooper’s tax return, for example, reported a $71,304 investment interest expense. That indicates the Tennessee Democrat is an aggressive participant in the stock market who would likely benefit from plans to cut taxes to capital gains — which amounted to about 28 percent of his income, according to David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter who specializes in tax law and reviewed the returns provided to Roll Call.
> 
> That does not make Cooper unique among lawmakers. Investigations of personal financial disclosures have found that many members’ wealth comes from unearned income.
> 
> Coffman, by contrast, submitted a return that showed he is relatively conservative with his finances. He declared no income beyond the $149,455 taxable portion of his $174,000 congressional salary. He also reported pension payments of $79,194 from military and state pensions.
> 
> And Comer’s return provides a window into his practice of buying and flipping farm properties, transactions he described as fairly uncommon.
> 
> “If you have a tax return, you can see where the money comes from,” he said. “There’s nowhere on my financial disclosure form that would give anyone any indication I buy and sell farms.”
> 
> In another notable detail, Casey, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee who has argued for a simplified tax code, prepared his own taxes using the popular TurboTax program.
> 
> Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty once called for a requirement for members of Congress to prepare their own taxes during his 2012 presidential campaign, arguing that it might result in a simplified tax code.
> 
> Many members pointed to the personal disclosure forms they are required by law to file each year when they declined to reveal their tax returns to Roll Call. They said those forms provide more information about potential conflicts of interest, assets and outside income than tax returns. The lawmakers’ salaries are also public information.
> 
> Several of the members who declined to provide their tax returns to Roll Call referred to their personal financial disclosures.
> 
> But those forms provide an incomplete picture. Congress’ disclosure forms allow members to report the value of their assets and liabilities in ranges that get broader as the value increases. They require members to report only the source of spousal income over $1,000, not the amount. And they are not subject to audit.
> 
> After passage of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act in 2012, members were required to report their security trades within 45 days. But no such mandate exists for candidates.
> 
> The House and Senate Ethics committees have been criticized for failing to closely examine these documents or enforce disclosure rules. A few recent investigations have highlighted lapses.
> 
> Rep. Markwayne Mullin is one example. The House Ethics Committee investigated the Oklahoma Republican for improperly maintaining an outside job after his 2012 election to Congress and possibly earning more than $600,000 for that work in 2013. Mullin’s lawyer told The Washington Post in 2014 that the amount was exaggerated and that Mullin was working to restructure his family business in compliance with House rules. The committee has not released a finding in the case.
> 
> In another case, the House Office of Congressional Ethics found in 2012 that Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla, failed to disclose at least $14,000 in income on his financial disclosure reports over four years that he had reported to the IRS. Buchanan filed updated disclosures to correct the omission.
> 
> The House Ethics Committee released a statement saying it found no evidence that Buchanan’s errors were “knowing or willful” and that such omissions are common. It said in a subsequent report that between 30 and 50 percent of all the disclosure reports it reviews every year contain errors or require a corrected statement.
> 
> A handful of members voluntarily provide more information than is required. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has been commended for providing exact figures of his holdings — which his spokeswoman pointed out to Roll Call when she declined to provide his tax returns.
> 
> “Congressman Sensenbrenner releases his financial disclosure down to the penny,” spokeswoman Nicole Tieman said.
> 
> Personal financial disclosures are designed to be imprecise, and there is no match for the information about the source and the nature of a person’s income that is contained in a tax return, said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute.
> 
> “A tax return is a rich reservoir of information,” he said. “If you give me someone’s tax return, I could tell you all sorts of interesting things about their life. I could tell you how they make their money, how generous they are, how aggressive they are in tax planning, their perspective on business and life.”
> 
> He added that tax returns provide much more information about how members could benefit from pending tax-related legislation than financial disclosures. “It’s like night and day,” he said.
> 
> Rosenthal also reviewed the returns provided to Roll Call.
> 
> Johnston, the investigative reporter, criticized members of Congress who say their financial disclosure forms are adequate. His work exposing politicians’ potential conflicts of interest drew national attention in March, when he obtained part of Trump’s 2005 tax return.
> 
> “They’re just arguing for lower standards,” Johnston said. “It’s perfectly reasonable for the public to demand the highest standards for the people who represent us.”


http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/lawmakers-want-trumps-tax-returns-wont-release?utm_content=bufferabb52&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> Multiple members of Congress hired as their information technology (IT) administrator an individual whose most recent job experience was being fired from McDonald’s, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.
> 
> Spokesmen for the members won’t say what their bosses knew at the time, but the hiring decisions highlight the role — witting or unwitting — the representatives played in what turned out to be an alleged multi-million-dollar IT scam in Congress with serious implications for national security.
> 
> Soon after Imran Awan joined the staff of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in 2005, his brothers Abid and Jamal, his wife Hina, and his brother’s wife Natalia all appeared on other members’ payrolls, supposedly as IT administrators. His best friend Rao Abbas landed on the payroll too. Most of them made salaries ordinarily only chiefs of staff earn, but they were rarely seen or heard from in Hill IT circles.
> 
> The crew is now the target of a U.S. Capitol Police criminal information security probe with assistance from other law enforcement agencies as needed. Politico reported the “House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network.”
> 
> Abbas lived in the basement of a house that Hina owned as a rental property, according to Cristal Perpignan, who occupied the top floors of the house. Abbas administered the email accounts and computers of eight members of Congress, according to official payroll records. House IT administrators can read all emails sent and received by members for whom they work.
> 
> Do You Think Congressional Democrats Will Get Better At Vetting?
> Yes No
> Login with your social identity to vote
> 
> 
> Sign in
> inSign in with LinkedIn
> Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
> “Rao did appear to be home most days,” Perpignan said, and she claimed that Imran told her Abbas had lost his job at McDonald’s. Imran appeared to use Abbas as a cutout in more ways than one because he instructed her to make rental checks payable to Abbas instead of the landlord, she said.
> 
> For years, Abbas was the only IT worker for Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri and the only D.C.-based one for Ted Deutch of Florida, according to payroll records. If Abbas did not actually perform IT work for Congress, it raises the question of whether someone else with no staff relationship, such as Imran, was performing sensitive administrator-level IT work when required.
> 
> To get administrator-level access to a congressional office’s accounts, a form must be submitted that requires the member’s signature, House IT workers told TheDCNF. People who are not on staff are not permitted to do work for the office, according to House rules.
> 
> Spokesmen for Cleaver and Deutch refused to say whether Abbas was ever seen in their offices, how Abbas came to appear on their payrolls or who on their staffs had IT administrator-level access to computer files.
> 
> Cleaver put five out of the six members of the Awan circle — all but Jamal — on his payroll at various times. It’s an unusual number of tech workers, and an arrangement that should have made the existence of nepotism obvious to the member or his chief of staff. For the last two years, Abbas was the sole person with access to Cleaver’s computers.
> 
> Deutch, meanwhile, had Natalia — who is from Ukraine, while the others are Pakistani — as his IT person in 2011. Soon he had Natalia, Imran and Abbas all listed as working for him. Then, for the last two years, there was only Abbas, meaning if Abbas was a no-show employee, it should have been obvious. Deutch also has a full-time IT worker based out of his district office, which most members do not have.
> 
> With allegedly no-show employees connected to Imran being added to numerous offices, someone had to do the work. Imran enlisted an old high school friend, Haseeb Rana, for this purpose. Haseeb did not respond to TheDCNF’s multiple requests for comment.
> 
> His father, Tanwir Rana, said Haseeb is a skilled IT professional and “they made him do all the work … After three months, he wanted to leave. We were having a very charged relationship with Imran. [Haseeb] was not satisfied with their behavior.”
> 
> Payroll records show that Haseeb began working for the House in 2013 and quit by the end of 2014.
> 
> Tanwir described Imran as having hired Haseeb even though the men are not part of a company and are hired as individual W-2 employees by congressional offices. Members or their chiefs of staff generally make hiring decisions.
> 
> TheDCNF interviewed multiple people who know Imran personally and say he boasted that he had outsized influence over numerous Democratic lawmakers.
> 
> Wasserman Schultz has refused to fire Imran despite House authorities banning him from accessing official computers. She also threatened the Capitol Police with “consequences” if they didn’t return a computer Imran used that was later seized as evidence in the investigation.
> 
> According to payroll records, two newly-elected Democrats, Reps. Charlie Crist of Florida and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, put Abbas on their payrolls when they took office in January — the time when IT workers would have been setting up the freshmen’s office IT systems and email accounts.
> 
> Spokesmen for Crist and Rosen declined to say who recommended Abbas, despite the availability of many reputable companies and individuals competing for members’ business. They also would not say who set up their offices’ email accounts.
> 
> Former Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, who left the House after losing a Senate race, also had Abbas on his payroll. Like Wasserman Schultz, Deutch and Crist, Murphy is from Florida.
> 
> A House central IT employee who requested anonymity told TheDCNF that “they were ghost employees … When a new Congress would come in, they would have the members of the offices they were servicing vouch for them.”
> 
> A congressional IT employee who has taken over some of the Awans’ offices said employees there “weren’t used to seeing their technicians.”
> 
> Before the criminal probe was revealed, the employee told members Imran was “putting members at risk, so I used that to try to get several members to switch over,” he said. He added that he couldn’t understand why no one seemed to care.
> 
> Politico described Wasserman Schultz and Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York as having a “friendly personal relationship” with the Imran and his wife.
> 
> Previously, a second Democratic House IT worker told TheDCNF “there’s probably a core of 8-10 members that know whats going on,” including Wasserman Schultz and Meeks. “Several members should be kicked off the Hill.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/26/house-dems-hired-a-fired-mcdonalds-worker-as-their-it-guy/


----------



## CamillePunk

honestly same


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Because CNN before the 2016 Election was the News that was supposed to be accurate and fairly trustworthy compared to MSNBC and Fox.
> 
> Because of constant CNN fuckups, lies and just basic asshatery CNN is mocked, it's no different than mocking someone like Hilary etc. CNN has been pretty much at the core of all the phony propaganda that's been circulating so watching them burn is pretty fun!
> 
> What's interesting is that Trump's done things they could zinged him for but instead went down a stupid route because they're obsessed with trying to take down Trump. Yet the MSM has pretty much ensured they won't because they decided idiocy was the way to go.
> 
> Trump has pretty much destroyed a whole lot of his detractors by letting them bury themselves, he didn't even need to do an Obama and send the IRS after them!





El Dandy said:


> If for no other reason, fuck CNN for "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!"





Stephen90 said:


> I'll give you that since I quit watching CNN year's ago do their love of corporate Democrats.


The Communist News Network hasn't been impartial in forever. While I am not a fan of muzzling the press, they have brought a lot of this on themselves


----------



## Reaper

At least the new voice of the President (Sarah Huckabee) is smart and strong. 

Much needed. Hopefully we won't have to deal with Spicer's incompetence anymore ... calling for his head since day 1. A LOT of damage could have been mitigated with a strong voice at the podium months ago. 

I really like that Trump is adjusting and adapting and growing into his role day by day.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> At least the new voice of the President (Sarah Huckabee) is smart and strong.
> 
> Much needed. Hopefully we won't have to deal with Spicer's incompetence anymore ... calling for his head since day 1. A LOT of damage could have been mitigated with a strong voice at the podium months ago.
> 
> I really like that Trump is adjusting and adapting and growing into his role day by day.


Ive thought the same thing. I predict the republicans have til after the 2018 mid terms to shape up. If they dont, trumps gonna go after them too.


----------



## virus21

> WATCH | Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is being investigated by the Office of U.S. Special Counsel for violating The Hatch Act that prohibits FBI agents from campaigning in partisan races.
> 1 of 20
> The Office of U.S. Special Counsel, the government’s main whistleblower agency, is investigating whether FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s activities supporting his wife Jill’s Democratic campaign for Virginia state senate in 2015 violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition against FBI agents campaigning in partisan races.
> 
> 
> Relatedid the FBI retaliate against Michael Flynn?
> 2 of 20
> The agency’s probe was prompted by a complaint in April from a former FBI agent who forwarded social media photos showing McCabe wearing a T-shirt supporting his wife’s campaign during a public event and then posting a photo on social media urging voters to join him in voting for his wife.
> 
> 
> Related:John McCain's own Russia controversy
> 3 of 20
> “I am voting for Jill because she is the best wife ever,” McCabe put on a sign that he photographed himself holding. The photo was posted on her social media page a few days before the election, in response to Dr. Jill McCabe's plea to “help me win” by posting photos expressing reasons why voters should vote for her, according to the complaint.
> 
> Other social media photos in the complaint showed McCabe's minor daughter campaigning with her mother, wearing an FBI shirt, and McCabe voting with his wife at a polling station.
> 4 of 20
> 
> 
> 
> VIEW GALLERY
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the social media photos included in the Hatch Act complaint.
> 5 of 20
> The Hatch Act prohibits FBI employees from engaging "in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group."
> 
> It defines prohibited political activity as "any activity directed at the success or failure of a partisan group or candidate in a partisan election."
> 
> An ethics expert told Circa the photos raised legitimate questions about McCabe's compliance with the law.
> 6 of 20
> OSC declined comment except to confirm the Hatch Act complaint was still active and under review. FBI officials and McCabe, through the FBI press office, declined comment.
> 
> The FBI has said previously McCabe consulted ethics experts to ensure he didn't do anything improper with his wife's campaign and that the agent didn't believe he had ever campaigned or helped his wife's election. That claim, however, is now being challenged by the former FBI agent's complaint.
> 7 of 20
> Meanwhile, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s office released to Circa under the Freedom of Information Act documents showing McCabe attended a meeting with his wife and the governor on a Saturday in March 2015 specifically to discuss having Jill McCabe run for state Senate in Virginia as a Democrat.
> 
> "This is a candidate recruitment meeting. McCabe is seriously considering running against State Senator Dick Black. You have been asked to close the deal," the briefing memo for McAuliffe read.
> 8 of 20
> 
> McAuliffe Office Memo
> Read
> 9 of 20
> Included in the governor's briefing package was a copy of McCabe's FBI biography. The biography made clear that Andrew McCabe was a senior executive who at the time oversaw the FBI’s Washington field office that among many tasks supervised investigations in northern Virginia.
> 
> At the time of the meeting, published reports indicate agents in the Washington field office were involved in both a probe of McAuliffe and of the governor’s close friend, Hillary Clinton’s and her private email account.
> 10 of 20
> The Hatch Act poster hanging inside FBI offices to urge compliance clearly states that an FBI employee "may not knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person with business before the agency."
> 
> FBI sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said agents were specifically concerned that McCabe's meeting with McAuliffe about supporting Jill McCabe's campaign constituted a solicitation of a person with business before the bureau.
> 11 of 20
> 
> Check out the Hatch Act poster advising FBI employees how to comply with the law.
> 12 of 20
> McAuliffe’s office said Tuesday it could not immediately determine how it came to possess the McCabe FBI bio that was included in governor's briefing book.
> 
> The meeting led to McAuliffe supporting Jill McCabe’s candidacy and ultimately sending her $700,000 in support, McAuliffe aides said.
> Related:Senate Judiciary will investigate Lynch
> 13 of 20
> The issue of whether McCabe took the necessary ethics precautions to avoid a conflict of interest is already being investigated by the Justice Department inspector general at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA).
> 
> 
> 14 of 20
> “While Mr. McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia -- presumably including the reportedly ongoing investigation of Mr. McAuliffe regarding illegal campaign contributions -- he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation, despite the appearance of conflict created by his wife’s campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the investigation,” Grassley wrote in seeking the IG probe.
> 
> Jill McCabe, a physician, lost a close race for a state Senate seat in northern Virginia in November 2015.
> 15 of 20
> When questions first arose about the money Jill McCabe's campaign got from McAuliffe, the FBI insisted that Andrew McCabe never used his FBI role to aid her campaign and “did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind” for his wife’s political run.
> 
> Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz, who is suing the FBI and McCabe alleging sexual discrimination during her 16-year career, filed the complaint alleging the social media photos are evidence of possible Hatch Act violations.
> 16 of 20
> The Hatch Act prohibits all federal employees from engaging in election activities during work hours. Most government workers are free, however, to campaign during their own private time.
> 
> But the law imposes a tough standard for FBI employees, prohibiting partisan campaigning at any time. FBI employees “may not campaign for or against candidates or otherwise engage in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group,” the law states.
> 17 of 20
> Gritz argued in her complaint to the OSC that the photos suggest McCabe violated that standard.
> 
> “As a former FBI agent, it is my understanding that we were held to a higher level with regard to the Hatch Act,” Gritz wrote in her OSC complaint. “While I’m filing this complaint, I am doing it due to the large number of current, former and retired FBI agents who know if they were acting such as McCabe we’d be already on leave without pay, under investigation and assured of being in violation. We are all under the impression that these are, in fact, violations.”
> 18 of 20
> Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer for the White House, said that the social media photos and the McAuliffe meeting documents raise serious questions because FBI and intelligence community officials must adhere to more stringent rules under the Hatch Act.
> 
> “What is not acceptable would be using the official position, in the government, particularly the official position in the FBI in order to further a political campaign, the political campaign of a spouse or anybody else,” Painter told Circa.
> 19 of 20
> Painter said the “question is why are you sending your bio from the FBI? Are you trying to do that to influence the campaign or is this something somebody wants for informational purposes? But if you’re trying to use your position to get somebody to give money to a political campaign that is crossing the line.”


http://circa.com/politics/accountability/fbi-chief-mccabe-key-figure-in-russia-probe-under-investigation-for-possible-hatch-act-v


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> Ive thought the same thing. I predict the republicans have til after the 2018 mid terms to shape up. If they dont, trumps gonna go after them too.


I think so too. I think the Republicans will retain their foothold in the Congress in 2018. The electorate based on my observation only seems willing to give Trump and the GOP a fair shot. 

They may not however be as kind in 2020. Trump right now is riding on the coattails of a growing economy but he needs to deliver on the tax reform otherwise it will go in the opposite direction.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Let's never forget, that when given the opportunity to shed more light on the Trump/Russia connection and money, CEO Jeff Zucker chose money. Really makes you question if the connection is even real at all, right @birthday_massacre?



> CNN faced $100M lawsuit over botched Russia story
> 
> *The specter of a $100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting a poorly reported story that slimed an ally of President Trump’s — and forcing out the staffers responsible for it, The Post has learned.*
> 
> *The cable network’s coverage of Trump transition-team member Anthony Scaramucci came amid federal scrutiny of corporate parent Time Warner’s pending purchase by AT&T *— and the widespread belief among media execs that CNN President Jeff Zucker can’t survive a merger.
> 
> *CNN immediately caved after Scaramucci, a financier and frequent network guest, cried foul and threatened to take legal action*, sources said Tuesday.
> 
> Scaramucci got an unusual public apology but still hired a top Manhattan lawyer to put further pressure on CNN and “look after [his] interests in this matter,” one source said.
> 
> *Sources also said the three journalists responsible for the retracted story — reporter Tom Frank, editor Evan Lichtblau and Lex Haris, who headed the CNN Investigates unit — were urged to resign.*
> 
> “They called them in and said they’d pay out their contracts, but they should leave immediately,” one source said.
> 
> *Zucker was afraid of facing a high-profile suit from Scaramucci while the US Justice Department weighs the proposed $85.4 billion media merger.*
> 
> Meanwhile, a CNN insider said staffers are furious at “having lost the moral high ground because of this story.” Sources said Zucker tried to rally his staff during a Tuesday morning conference call.
> 
> “Zucker stressed that this issue was a ‘lapse in editorial standards’ and said it was a lesson to all reporters and editors to continue to strive for strong, accurate reporting,” a source said.
> 
> At last week’s Cannes Lions festival in France — where Zucker boasted that viewers trust CNN “more than ever” — rumors were rife that he’d be out of a job if the AT&T deal goes through.
> 
> *“It’s not just Jeff Zucker, all Time Warner executives are anxious about if they will survive the merger,”* a media source said Tuesday.
> 
> *“What is interesting is that the AT&T execs who will decide who goes and who stays are [AT&T CEO] Randall Stephenson and [AT&T Entertainment Group CEO] John Stankey — who have a very good relationship with the current administration.”*
> 
> President Trump — a fierce critic of CNN — publicly opposed the merger during the campaign. Sources said Scaramucci, a frequent guest on CNN to defend the president, was treated like a star at Saturday’s wedding of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Louise Linton in Washington, DC.
> “Everyone at the White House has been high-fiving each other over Anthony’s success in embarrassing CNN,” one attendee said.
> 
> “*Trump is thoroughly enjoying this*, and Anthony got endless slaps on the back at Steve’s wedding.”
> 
> The retracted story was based on a single, anonymous source who claimed the Senate Intelligence Committee was probing ties between the Trump administration and a Russian government-owned investment fund.
> 
> The story, posted on CNN.com on Thursday, also claimed the Treasury Department was believed to be investigating Scaramucci over a purported Jan. 16 meeting with the fund’s director general.
> 
> In an Editor’s Note posted late Friday, CNN said the story had been deleted for not meeting “editorial standards,” with the network later revealing a “breakdown” in pre-publication vetting that typically involves “fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers.”
> 
> White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday she wasn’t sure if CNN’s handling of the matter was “good enough” for her boss, who went on a Twitter tirade against the news channel earlier in the day.
> 
> “I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America, and I think if that is the place that certain outlets are going, particularly for the purpose of spiking ratings, and if that’s coming directly from the top, I think that’s even more scary,” she said.
> 
> “I think that we should take a really good look at what we are focused on, what we are covering, and making sure that it’s actually accurate and it’s honest,” she added.
> 
> *CNN’s retraction of the Scaramucci story was the latest in a string of recent embarrassments, including the firing earlier this month of “Believer” series host Reza Aslan after he called Trump a “piece of s–t” on Twitter.*
> 
> The network also fired comedian Kathy Griffin — longtime co-host of its New Year’s Eve coverage — over a photo that showed her posing with a prop resembling Trump’s bloody, severed head, and had to own up to a story that incorrectly predicted what fired FBI Director James Comey would testify about before Congress.
> 
> CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> Following Friday’s apology, Scaramucci tweeted that “CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on.”
> 
> On Tuesday, he retweeted a message from CNN “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter saying that “nothing in my story should be taken to imply that Scaramucci is under investigation,” as well as a meme portraying Trump as Batman driving the Batmobile.
> 
> The image also shows Vice President Mike Pence as Robin, holding the “Bat Phone” and saying: “SORRY HE CAN’T TALK RIGHT NOW — HE’S BUSY WINNING!!!!”


----------



## Reaper

Most liberals have essentially abandoned this thread.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Most liberals have essentially abandoned this thread.


LOL, I was just coming here to say the same thing. :dayum


----------



## Mra22

Awfully quiet from all of those crybaby liberals. All of this winning feels good.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> The Communist News Network hasn't been impartial in forever. While I am not a fan of muzzling the press, they have brought a lot of this on themselves


I don't think anyone wants to muzzle the media, they just need to stop with the lies. People mocked Trump for saying Obama spied on him yet there seems to be evidence the Obama administration spied on nearly everyone. This is just one blunder in a set of many such as fast and furious, using the IRS for targeted strikes against groups, arming ISIS unwilling or just by being inept and Libya. This is some Nixon level stuff here.

The msm has been horrible for almost two decades it appears. Switch Obama's reign with Trump right now and they'd be calling him one of the worst scandal entrenched Presidents ever.

The media is our defense against bad Political parties and people yet because they've became enamored with politicians they like and hate others they don't, it's created this mess. Now we treat these people like celebs who should be held accountable but are not.


----------



## Vic Capri

FAKE NEWS TRIGGERED by FAKE NEWS from 2009! :lol

*#TIMEMagazine*

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

I applaud the Senate not voting on the BCRA aka POSTINTROO (Piece of Shit That Is Not The Repeal Of Obamacare). What would be the even better thing to do is come back from the recess and say that they're not going to bring it up for a vote at all and let the bill die. At this point, the only way to truly replace this thing is to let the ACA die. With nothing left to save, there will be no choice but to pull the plug and then we can finally come up with a free-market solution for health care in this country. 

However, Charles Krauthammer put it best when he said that people don't want to give up the goodies and entitlements. Once you are given free stuff, it is hard to give it back. That's why people don't want to lose Obamacare. So, there is a tough balancing act here. That's partly why I'm not a fan of the three-part repeal that they have proposed. There is a way to do it in one shot and be done, either that or just repeal the damn thing and go back to what was there before. 



amhlilhaus said:


> Ive thought the same thing. I predict the republicans have til after the 2018 mid terms to shape up. If they dont, trumps gonna go after them too.





Iconoclast said:


> I think so too. I think the Republicans will retain their foothold in the Congress in 2018. The electorate based on my observation only seems willing to give Trump and the GOP a fair shot.
> 
> They may not however be as kind in 2020. Trump right now is riding on the coattails of a growing economy but he needs to deliver on the tax reform otherwise it will go in the opposite direction.


Typically, the party that runs the White House usually loses seats in the mid-terms. You have that honeymoon period that most Presidents usually get which is about a year or so to start getting things done. After that, politicians go into self-preservation mode as they want to focus on keeping their seats. 

For now, Trump does have his core...the folks that who will NEVER abandon him no matter what. However, there are a lot of people that want stuff done. Trump is counting on the base and plays to them. However, what I would love to happen is for his base to tell him and Congress that there is a severe price to pay if they don't follow through on what was promised. Let Trump know if he doesn't deliver that they will abandon him. 

I know I've been among the most critical here of Trump, probably even more so then most liberals here. It is for good reason...I am fairly demanding in what I expect and I'm tired of politicians lying to us about giving us something and not following through. I also fully understand that Trump is not a traditional conservative, he has to be nudged in that direction. He needs to be kept on task. By all means, when he does well let him know he did a good job, then get him right back on the next task on the list. 

Here's how I approach it...if I was an executive working for Trump and got called in for a review of my job performance he'd want to know what I accomplished. Chances are, if I told him that Bob in accounting was slashing at my budget and I had a couple of people who refused to work with me and that's why I wasn't getting results, he wouldn't accept excuses. He'd inform me that I need to do my job or I would be future endeavored. 

Folks, this is what we need to do. We are technically Trump's boss now. He has the tools to succeed as far as both Houses of Congress. He has the bully pulpit. We need to let our Senators, Congresspeople, and other folks that are in government that we expect in no uncertain terms for shit to get done. Bravo for taking a stand in the world and showing we will stand for what is right. Props for a constitutionalist SCOTUS justice. Good job on bills to help with the VA and to hold shitty government workers accountable. However, this needs to be the beginning, we need to demand more. Let him know that we expect more and if he doesn't deliver he will be fired in four years. Be respectful about it, but remain vigilant and unyielding in what we want. 

Remember, this is not about we have the President they don't want and everything is gravy. The real work started on November 9, 2016. It's up to us to keep the pressure on.


----------



## Art Vandaley

2018 will be interesting, also if the Sup Court end up having to look at the travel bans in fall, my understanding was that the bans were only meant to be temporary and may be over by then anyway, but otherwise American politics is pretty boring atm.

I used to predict a slaughter in 2018 but I'm not so sure anymore. I'm starting to suspect apathy will end up being a major factor and it's quite possible little will change.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> honestly same


This is just a joke post

Civil war ends in annihilation for the left. Theyre concentrated in cities. It will be a simple matter to blockade them and let them kill each other in fights for food. Their socialist goon squads are only bold because they havent met resistance. Once they do they will be eliminated quickly. The rest will go feral quickly once the power is cut and they cant facebook or snap chat anymore. They have been warned.

This has been a joke post

Im sure we can all get along


----------



## amhlilhaus

Alkomesh2 said:


> 2018 will be interesting, also if the Sup Court end up having to look at the travel bans in fall, my understanding was that the bans were only meant to be temporary and may be over by then anyway, but otherwise American politics is pretty boring atm.
> 
> I used to predict a slaughter in 2018 but I'm not so sure anymore. I'm starting to suspect apathy will end up being a major factor and it's quite possible little will change.


Who knows whats gonna happen. Trump is not traditional. The dems have worked their constituents into s lather, and it didnt win them any of the special elections.


----------



## Art Vandaley

amhlilhaus said:


> Who knows whats gonna happen. Trump is not traditional. The dems have worked their constituents into s lather, and it didnt win them any of the special elections.


 They've done a great job, but we're still a year and a half away from any meaningful opportunity to take advantage of that anger and history would suggest it is unsustainable.


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880022039356223489
JESUS! :lol

- Vic


----------



## MillionDollarProns

I'm worried about Birthday Massacre, has anyone seen him lately? :worried

I'm glad CNN is being exposed, honestly any news outlet that thinks "Donald Trump drives his own golf cart" is headline worthy needs to go into the bin.

I've been out of the loop, what's going on with the health care? I hear we're going into 4th of July break with no progress?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> *They've done a great job*, but we're still a year and a half away from any meaningful opportunity to take advantage of that anger and history would suggest it is unsustainable.


No they haven't. What they've done is alienated their core base who are starting to take a serious look at republican candidates instead of automatically voting democrat. 

The longer Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Podesta and Hillary stay on, the more of their electorate they'll lose. Democrats are still the party of centre/center left. They're not a far left socialist party which is what they're turning into.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Iconoclast said:


> No they haven't. What they've done is alienated their core base who are starting to take a serious look at republican candidates instead of automatically voting democrat.
> 
> The longer Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Podesta and Hillary stay on, the more of their electorate they'll lose. Democrats are still the party of centre/center left. They're not a far left socialist party which is what they're turning into.


Pelosi and Hilary need to go. 

The rest of your post is not an accurate reflection of the polling at the very least. 

I don't know maybe you've had Democrats tell you this personally, you're there on the ground, I'm not. But yeah, that is not being reflected in the polls atm.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Pelosi and Hilary need to go.
> 
> The rest of your post is not an accurate reflection of the polling at the very least.
> 
> I don't know maybe you've had Democrats tell you this personally, you're there on the ground, I'm not. But yeah, that is not being reflected in the polls atm.


You should stop talking about or relying on polls. They're completely fucked. They haven't been accurate for more than a year now. 

I chalk it down to pollsters relying on decades old techniques and even samples. 

The things that people don't get about Americans is that even the people getting help from the government don't really want it. They want jobs.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879904787592081408
Looks like another sting is coming up in a few days.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879804904696496128
Imagine if a president of the other party did this. :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

Iconoclast said:


> You should stop talking about or relying on polls. They're completely fucked. They haven't been accurate for more than a year now.
> 
> I chalk it down to pollsters relying on decades old techniques and even samples.
> 
> The things that people don't get about Americans is that even the people getting help from the government don't really want it. They want jobs.


The polls have been accurate within their announced and published margins of errors. They've been off the final result by 2-3%. Trump winning and Brexit were well within the published margins of error, which most of the media ignored because margins of error were too complex of an idea. I'm sure you understand it though being into numbers and all that. 

Currently comparing the polls between now and the election the Democrats are doing substantially better than they were at any point before the Presidential election.

Polls aren't great for accuracy but they can show general trends quite effectively and the general trend since the election has been for the Democrats to gain support rather than lose it.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> The polls have been accurate within their announced and published margins of errors. They've been off the final result by 2-3%. Trump winning and Brexit were well within the published margins of error, which most of the media ignored because margins of error were too complex of an idea. I'm sure you understand it though being into numbers and all that.
> 
> Currently comparing the polls between now and the election the Democrats are doing substantially better than they were at any point before the Presidential election.
> 
> Polls aren't great for accuracy but they can show general trends quite effectively and the general trend since the election has been for the Democrats to gain support rather than lose it.


Why do you guys do this to yourselves? The margins of error conversation is useless because ultimately they're not an important factor at all. Even if the exit polls are within the margins of error, but are _consistently _favoring the side that is _not _predicted to win, that simply means that the calculations that went into getting the margin of error is also part of the overall flawed methodology - and that is caused by flawed sampling. If you go into the actual samples of these polls, you'll see why that is the case.


----------



## Goku

do the polls take the weather into account? :mj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZeTq005trc

:trump4


----------



## Art Vandaley

That run off election was won by Republicans by 23% in 2016 and only 4% in 2017 thoroughly proving my point that people have moved from supporting the Republicans to the Democrats since the Presidental election.

You can critise Ossoff but he got a 19% swing in his favour. 1/5 People in the seat switched votes from Republican to Democrat.


----------



## virus21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Let's never forget, that when given the opportunity to shed more light on the Trump/Russia connection and money, CEO Jeff Zucker chose money. Really makes you question if the connection is even real at all, right @birthday_massacre?


This is what CNN gets for hiring the guy who ran NBC into the ground to run the network


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> That run off election was won by Republicans by 23% in 2016 and only 4% in 2017 thoroughly proving my point that people have moved from supporting the Republicans to the Democrats since the Presidental election.
> 
> You can critise Ossoff but he got a 19% swing in his favour. 1/5 People in the seat switched votes from Republican to Democrat.


Ossof got "close" because democrats spent 40 million on him (which is the most amount of money ever spent in any special run off) - while the republicans spent 5 in the early going and then a little bit more in the late going. 

That would be like an NBA team getting Jordan, Kobe, Shaq and James on the same team and still losing to The Nets and then celebrating the fact that they only lost by 4 points :lol

You do realize that if outspending your opponent, calling an election a referendum on the president, and putting your parties entire hopes on one guy on a _national _scale can't win them anything, then they're not going in the right direction right? They're still not speaking the language of their electorate. That's the real problem.


----------



## Art Vandaley

They got a 19% swing in their favour.

In less than a year 1/5 people who lived in the area who voted Republican on election day, and presumably voted Trump for President changed their minds and voted Democrat. 

If money was as influential as you say Jeb Bush would be President right now.

To say they're moving in the wrong direction because they didn't win a seat they haven't won in decades is a bit ridiculous.


----------



## virus21

> Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, in a bid to demonize Jeff Sessions as Russian agent, said back in March she had never met nor spoke on the phone with a Russian ambassador "ever."
> 
> A simple look at her old tweets showed almost immediately that was a lie.
> 
> Follow
> Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
> I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.
> 6:06 AM - 2 Mar 2017
> 13,237 13,237 Retweets 20,959 20,959 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 
> Follow
> Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
> Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.
> 9:25 AM - 30 Jan 2013
> 733 733 Retweets 350 350 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 
> On Monday, CNN reported McCaskill not only met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but she attended a private dinner at his house in 2015.
> 
> From CNN:
> CNN has learned, McCaskill spent an evening at a black-tie reception at the ambassador's Washington residence in November 2015.
> 
> McCaskill was photographed at the event, honoring former Democratic Rep. James Symington, who hails from her state of Missouri and worked to promote US-Russia relations.
> 
> In an interview, McCaskill acknowledged attending the dinner, but she said she only did so because of her long-standing relationship with Symington, whom she said "kind of got me started in politics."
> 
> She claimed the 140-character limit on Twitter did not let her clarify that she never met "one-on-one" with the Russian ambassador, and added she "did not" speak with Kislyak at the reception.
> I guess this is full-on proof she's a Russian agent. We need a special prosecutor to dig through all her finances ASAP.


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56946


----------



## Goku

@ reaper and alkomesh

The two of you don't exist in the same reality. Instead of trying to reconcile the two, spent some time trying to interpret each other's reality.

:trump4


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> They got a 19% swing in their favour.


How is that evidence of people switching from republican to democrat and not evidence of _more_ democrats voting along party lines that already exist in Georgia - that were mobilized based on converting a special election into the same kind of circus as a national presidential race? 

In fact, you have as much evidence of "Switching" as I have of "illegals being bused into Georgia". What you're engaging in is conjecture, not fact. 



> In less than a year 1/5 people who lived in the area who voted Republican on election day, and presumably voted Trump for President changed their minds and voted Democrat.


What? Trump won Georgia by owning 50% of the vote. Handel won Georgia by owning 52% of the vote. I don't even know what BS you're spouting here. Comparing this election to a traditional congressional election is not very smart because it wasn't a typical congressional election. Normally people in America don't care about congressional elections. 



> If money was as influential as you say Jeb Bush would be President right now.


Of course money is important to an extent. It gets your name plastered all over the state, gets you countless ads on TV. It mobilizes an existing voter base. This is apologia. There is no evidence at all that suggests that people "Switched" from republican to democrat. 

This simply means that a "typical" result can be influenced by money. Money that will not always be there and more conventional results will result eventually. 



> To say they're moving in the wrong direction because they didn't win a seat they haven't won in decades is a bit ridiculous.


In this case the democratic party didn't make their voter base care about a congressional election for their platform or their policies but rather a referendum on Trump. This had nothing to do with the democratic platform at all ... They are definitely moving in the wrong direction because they wanted to beat the republicans through money, not platform. Even in an election about Handel Vs Ossof, democrats were still trying to beat Trump. 

I bet for all your defense of Ossof, you can't actually give me salient points about his platform without looking them up.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Imagine if a president of the other party did this.


Compliments are offensive remember?

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879804904696496128
> Imagine if a president of the other party did this. :lol


Nobody would care because it's nothing. He paid a compliment, so what?


----------



## Reaper

@Alkomesh2 - I think this might change your perspective on how the Democrats are currently viewing their party and its direction: 

http://conservativefiringline.com/shock-poll-democrat-voters-say-time-party-leadership-change/



> *A stunning 58 percent of likely U.S. voters who identify as Democrats think it is time for their party’s leadership to change, a new Rasmussen survey has revealed.*
> 
> *According to Rasmussen Reports, only 31 percent of likely Democratic voters think the current party leadership represents most Democrats. Only 11 percent are undecided.
> *
> This comes at a time when Democrats have increasingly taken the position of a “resistance” rather than working to find compromise with the Republican majority or the White House.
> 
> “By comparison,” Rasmussen reported, “a plurality (48%) of Likely Republican Voters believes the GOP’s current national leadership is representative of most Republicans. Slightly fewer (45%) say the party needs to find new leaders.
> 
> *“Among all likely voters,” Rasmussen continued, “only 23% feel the Democratic leadership is representative of their voter base, while 64% think new leadership is needed. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.”
> *
> These are rather impressive numbers, but it appears doubtful that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts will pay any attention. Instead, they seem determined to fight any efforts to make changes to the Obama administration programs.
> 
> The survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted June 22 and 25, with a +/- 3 percentage point margin of error, according to Rasmussen.
> 
> This new poll comes on the heels of a fourth-in-a-row special election loss for Democrats in Georgia last week; a race in which a fortune had been spent to win a vacant seat. It comes two weeks after a liberal extremist who volunteered for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign opened fire on Republicans at a Virginia baseball park where they were practicing for the annual congressional baseball charity event. It arrived on the same day that the University of Washington released a study showing the Seattle minimum wage law – a major agenda trophy for liberal Evergreen State Democrats – was actually a disaster, having cost low income workers an average of $125 a month in wages (when it was supposed to increase their take home pay), and may have cost the city some 5,000 jobs.
> 
> And on Monday, the Supreme Court reinstated most of the Trump travel ban and announced that arguments on the ban will occur in October. It was a devastating turnabout for liberal Democrats including Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the latter who had sued the Trump administration over the ban earlier this year.
> 
> Democrat Ferguson is “deeply disappointed” and is vowing to continue the fight while declaring that the high court has rejected the administration’s argument, which some might see as a case of denial. The ruling was a victory for Trump.
> 
> *The long term Democrat agenda is beginning to fray badly at the seams, if not fall apart. Pelosi, anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and their far-left ideologue colleagues could be in serious trouble.
> *
> If it is time for a change, it needs to happen soon for the party to have any semblance of a chance for recovering lost ground in the 2018 mid-term election. Otherwise, Hollywood might want to do a reality series on the party leadership and call it “Dead Wood.”


More than 60% of the sampled democrat electorate is disenfranchised by a party that is no longer representing them. 

And yes, I am aware of falling back to a poll in order to validate my point - but for me, this isn't hard "fact" as much as it is an *indicator *_closer _to reality than you seem to be aware of. 

This is anecdotal, by my wife was a life-long democrat (a legacy voter whose family has voted democrat through 4 generations is no longer a registered democrat). If they can lose voters that are this loyal, then there's not much hope for them in 2018 if they continue down the "resist" and far-left path that they are currently on. They need to change directions and come back to the center as that's where most of their voter base is. At the very least they need to stop being outraged by every Trump "outrage" and stop manufacturing dissent on what are clearly bipartisan policies because that basically tells their voter base that they're simply opposed to everything - including their own electorate's concerns. 

Who are the democrats representing exactly at this point?


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> They got a 19% swing in their favour.
> 
> In less than a year 1/5 people who lived in the area who voted Republican on election day, and presumably voted Trump for President changed their minds and voted Democrat.
> 
> If money was as influential as you say Jeb Bush would be President right now.
> 
> To say they're moving in the wrong direction because they didn't win a seat they haven't won in decades is a bit ridiculous.


GA06 failed to reconcile the BernieBros and the Clintonist center, the aftermath has been more of the same recriminations and division. With yet another attempt to get rid of Nancy Pelosi brewing because of the loss. 

23 million dollars spent to get the same percentage of the vote as the first round. 

23 million dollars spent to get 24 less total votes than the last Democratic candidate in the district who spent...

Nothing. 0 dollars. 

23 million dollars spent on a campaign that failed at depressing the Republican vote. Republican voters turned out.

Loads of free, uniformly positive national media coverage for Ossoff failed. 

Claiming that the Democratic Party is moving in the right direction is a bit ridiculous. They're wasting money and energy in great carload lots with the result being they lose. The Democratic Party is moving in no direction at all.


----------



## MrMister

:trump4

Just had to come here and post :trump4



also lmfao that so many Dems don't even think they're Dems anymore. or that the Dems have changed. lmfao Dems.

lmfao

:trump4


Also the reaction of libs to SCOTUS being ok (9-0 lmfao) with the best part of the travel ban was really cute.


----------



## Vic Capri

I finally agree with Van Jones on something. :lol

- Vic


----------



## virus21

> Susan Rice, the Obama national security adviser under fire over her alleged involvement in the “unmasking” of Trump associates during the 2016 presidential election, suggested in a fresh interview that race and gender might be playing a role in the scrutiny she’s faced.
> 
> In an interview with journalist Michael Tomasky for New York Magazine, Rice reportedly questioned the criticism she’s faced dating back to the Benghazi controversy.
> 
> “Why me? Why not Jay Carney, for example, who was then our press secretary, who stood up more?” she asked.
> 
> Tomasky noted in the piece that Carney “isn’t an African-American woman, of course” and apparently asked Rice whether that is the key factor. Rice, in response, left the door open:
> 
> “I don’t know… I do not leap to the simple explanation that it’s only about race and gender. I’m trying to keep my theories to myself until I’m ready to come out with them. It’s not because I don’t have any.”
> 
> SUSAN RICE REQUESTED TO UNMASK NAMES
> 
> But Rice mentioned other prominent female figures – like Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice – who faced “ad hominem” attacks, suggesting a correlation.
> 
> Asked about the comments, a Republican Capitol Hill source pushed back. “This is screaming out for attention… She’s saying I don’t know why they all started picking on me to begin with.”
> 
> As to the suggestion of race and gender being a factor, the source countered, then “why would there be a subpoena for a white male?”
> 
> That was a reference to the fact that Rice is not the only focus of the congressional probe into unmasking. Investigators have issued subpoenas to three different agencies: NSA, CIA and FBI.
> 
> Those subpoenas have asked for unmasking information related to three individuals: former CIA Director John Brennan, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, and Rice.
> 
> She’s not the only focus of congressional frustration, either. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had a tense exchange with a top intelligence community lawyer at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday where he complained he still doesn’t have an answer on whether his communications have been monitored.
> 
> “Am I ever gonna get [the response] in my lifetime?” he asked.
> 
> Rice told Judy Woodruff on PBS on March 22 that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates. But weeks later on MSNBC, she admitted she sometimes sought out the identities of Trump associates who communicated with foreigners, a request known as “unmasking” in the intelligence community.
> 
> But “I leaked nothing to nobody,” Rice told MSNBC.
> 
> Rice initially became a target of Republican criticism back in 2012 for giving misleading information about the origin of the Benghazi terror attack. On Sept. 16, 2012, just days after the attack, Rice appeared on all five Sunday political talk shows to claim the Benghazi attack spun out of a protest over an anti-Muslim video produced in California.
> 
> Former CIA Director David Petraeus reportedly told lawmakers later that the intelligence community considered the attack an act of terrorism at the time. Four Americans were killed in Benghazi, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/28/susan-rice-suggests-race-gender-bias-linked-to-unmasking-backlash.html



> As Nancy Pelosi struggles to beat back an insurgency by her House Democratic colleagues over a string of election losses, there are new questions over her health after she suffered multiple brain freezes during a recent appearance in New York City.
> 
> During a Sunday event at the 92nd Street Y, Pelosi would awkwardly stop mid-sentence repeatedly, stare at the audience, and then continue speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking about her father, Pelosi said, “He was part of a group called the Berkson Group and they did rallies and pageants and parades and um, and when he stood up on the floor of Congress, ‘I stand here as a representative of the—” she said before halting and staring at the audience.
> 
> Then she resumed, “members of the Jewish army.”
> 
> Moments later, while she was talking about a planning an agenda after losing four special elections, she said, “For us, we have to make sure that our members—-participate in that.”
> 
> While urging liberals to tell their Obamacare story, Pelosi said, “At least go to Facebook, Twitter, whatever— Instagram— any platform that you want.”
> 
> A short time later, she froze as she was talking about the Republican healthcare overhaul bill.
> 
> “Home care— some, you know, people are at home but they still get care from, uh— from Medicaid,” she said, after momentarily staring at the audience and seemingly groping for words.
> 
> She added, “It will have a tremendous impact on what families can do for their children—” she said, continuing to motion with her hands with no words being said, before finally saying, “with relationship to what they need to do.”
> 
> Pelosi’s continued strange behavior will likely do little to alleviate the concerns many Democrats are now voicing about their leader.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-nancy-pelosi-suffers-multiple-brain-freezes-nyc-appearance/


----------



## virus21

> Home Politics
> By Joe Simonson | 1:31 pm, June 27, 2017
> 
> After slowly realizing that nobody likes them, Democrats have opted to hire a woman devoted solely to training their candidates to not come off as totally arrogant douchebags.
> 
> The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has appointed Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos as its chairwoman of heartland engagement. The third-term congresswoman will be in charge of helping Democrats tailor their messaging to rural areas. She currently represents Illinois’ 17th district.
> 
> “Cheri is a key member of our leadership team, and her efforts to help recruit and mentor candidates and carry our economic message is critical to our strategy this cycle,” said New Mexico Rep. and DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján.
> 
> While there’s no doubt that Democrats certainly need a strategy to win back rural, and mostly white voters, Bustos’ congressional district is 73% urban. President Donald Trump who won the district in 2016 was the first Republican to do so in at least 16 years.
> 
> Bustos said Democrats need to win rural districts in 2018 if they wish to take back the House, where they must pick up a total of 24 seats. “The heartland is critical to winning back the majority, and we must do a better job listening to the hardworking families from small towns and rural communities if we hope to earn their support,” Bustos said in a statement.
> 
> “As Democrats, we believe in making sure everyone has a chance to find a good-paying job, raise a family and live the American dream—regardless of where they call home. As the Chair of Heartland Engagement, I’m looking forward to helping lead our efforts to build a lasting partnership with the hardworking men and women of America’s heartland,” she added.
> 
> Since Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Trump last November, Democrats have struggled to shed the image that they are disconnected from everyday Americans. According to an April Gallup poll, 67 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was “out of touch with the concerns of most people,” nine points higher than President Trump.


https://heatst.com/politics/democrats-are-so-out-of-touch-that-they-just-appointed-a-chairwoman-of-heartland-engagement/


----------



## Vic Capri

> Judicial Watch had been monitoring Obama family travel costs throughout his presidency. On May 17, Judicial Watch announced that it obtained records from the Secret Service and the Department of the Air Force in response to FOIA requests that showed Obama family travel cost taxpayers at least $99,714,527.82 during his two terms.
> 
> Judicial Watch is also tracking the travel expenses incurred by President Trump, the First Lady and other VIPs.
> 
> “The government could not care less about giving taxpayers basic information about what it costs to provide travel and protection to our political leadership and candidates,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
> 
> “Judicial Watch shouldn’t have to file federal lawsuits to get basic information about how much taxpayers spend on the presidency.”


- Vic


----------



## Mra22

Here is part two to the corrupt news network being exposed.


----------



## Reaper

Well at least Bonifield is still being supported by CNN. I like his stories and he's an honest guy. 

Van Jones on the other hand is one of the worst of the MSM. Probably up there with Madcow.


----------



## Jay Valero

Iconoclast said:


> Well at least Bonifield is still being supported by CNN. I like his stories and he's an honest guy.
> 
> Van Jones on the other hand is one of the worst of the MSM. Probably up there with Madcow.


Don Lemon. The man is too stupid to live.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @El Dandy @Goku @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Miss Sally 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880108309868670977


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @El Dandy @Goku @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Miss Sally
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880108309868670977


Put that guy in the ring with Sam Adonis...who is getting over as a villain in Mexico with his pro-Trump gimmick.


----------



## Genking48

BruiserKC said:


> Put that guy in the ring with Sam Adonis...who is getting over as a villain in Mexico with his pro-Trump gimmick.


Money match right there!


----------



## DOPA

Only problem is @DesolationRow is the Progressive Liberal would get cheered in New York and California at least. If he ventured there 8*D


----------



## Jay Valero

L-DOPA said:


> Only problem is @DesolationRow is the Progressive Liberal would get cheered in New York and California at least. If he ventured there 8*D


Massachusetts and Illinois, too.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> Only problem is @DesolationRow is the Progressive Liberal would get cheered in New York and California at least. If he ventured there 8*D


Nah. They'll boo him. Why? 

Cuz the MSM will work them with articles like these. 

A group that's incapable of forming their own opinions will boo kittens if CNN, WashPo, HuffPo and Buzzfeed ran anti-kitten stories.


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> Only problem is @DesolationRow is the Progressive Liberal would get cheered in New York and California at least. If he ventured there 8*D


He'd probably get 50/50 boos/cheers those places. 

He'd have to be like a real "Liberal" though, only speak up when it's a white wrestler attacking a black one. Strangely quiet when it's two black wrestlers fighting, obnoxiously loud when an "Authority" figure screws someone over, unless that person is white or popular or if it fits an agenda. Back up Steph when she rips on male wrestlers and tell everyone to "check their privilege" while getting title shot after title shot and getting more attention than the wrestler they're "helping".


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880039350972456960


----------



## virus21

> President Trump is scheduled to visit Poland on July 6th prior to the upcoming G20 Summit in Germany. According to a new Reuters report several top-level EU politicians are concerned Polish leadership and President Trump might just get along swimmingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 2016: “I pledge to you a Trump Administration will be a true friend to Poland and to all Polish Americans.” ~ Donald Trump
> 
> Poland is one of the few EU countries that actually spends the agreed upon amount of 2% GDP for NATO defense. One of the concerns amid the non-compliant EU nations, is that the visit will present another opportunity for vulgarian President Trump to embarrass the superior EU intellectuals over their ongoing lack of financial support; while simultaneously engaging in fellowship with like-minded vulgarian poles.
> 
> (Reuters) […] Brussels diplomats view the July 6 gathering, dubbed the Three Seas summit because the countries involved border the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas, as a Polish bid to carve out influence outside the European Union with which the nationalist government has repeatedly clashed.
> 
> 
> […] Most diplomats in Brussels dismiss the importance of the Three Seas project, co-hosted by Croatia, but are wary over Trump’s high-profile visit to participate in a project one senior EU official called Poland’s push towards “self-ghettoisation”.
> 
> “One cannot but feel a bit suspicious if it isn’t an attempt to break up European unity,” another EU diplomat said about the Three Seas project.
> 
> Within the Reuters report outlining the concerns from within Brussels, a few specific quotes provide a particular resonance of the inherent snobbery and elitism:
> 
> […] “We encourage Mr Trump to get out and travel as much as he can. He needs to understand Europe and he can do that by getting out and speaking to people, to European leaders,” said one European official, who declined to be named.
> 
> “(But) he can’t do deals with individual countries over the head of the European Union,” he said. “In Hamburg, he will hear different arguments, we can clear up anything that has been misconstrued.” (more)
> 
> How typically condescending of the “unnamed” EU official?
> 
> How dare President Donald Trump talk to leaders of European countries without the expressed permission of the magnanimous Brussels proletariat?
> 
> Good heavens man, the unimaginable horror of it…
> 
> […] Underscoring Warsaw’s mistrust towards the EU, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo recently called an EU quotas policy for relocation of refugees from the Middle East “a madness of Brussels elites”, in a speech in parliament.
> 
> In turn, EU leaders delivered a snub to Poland’s government by steamrolling its objections and reappointing former Polish premier Donald Tusk to chair summits. Szydlo, acting on orders from party boss and long-time Tusk adversary Jaroslaw Kaczynski, had vowed to stop him securing a second 30-month term.
> 
> Warsaw portrayed the issue as one of fundamental principle, in which vital national interests had been ignored by a Brussels machine dominated by “German diktat”. Its crushing defeat showed how far the biggest of the ex-communist states that joined the EU after the Cold War appears isolated, even in Eastern Europe.
> 
> Deeply distrustful of Moscow, Poland hopes Trump, who once called NATO “obsolete”, will reconfirm his commitment to the alliance’s military build-up in eastern Europe, a deterrence policy against Russia, and possibly promise more.
> 
> The United States has about 900 troops on Polish soil as part of a rotating NATO contingent in eastern Europe. (read more)
> 
> 
> 
> Poland is a proud and strong Christian nation filled with nationalists and patriots. And President Trump is rightly affording Poland global recognition for being on the leading edge of the right side of history! WATCH:


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/29/eu-political-elites-worried-president-trump-may-form-alliance-with-poland/


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump raised $10 million for his re-election campaign during his fundraiser dinner last night. :clap 

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Do you guys remember the millions of people who were dying from lack of health insurance before Obamacare? The dead bodies piling up everywhere from sea to shining sea before they were tossed in vans like Hillary Clinton and taken to the morgue? 

I don't either, because it didn't happen.

But apparently messing with Obamacare will cause literally millions to die. It'll be like Monty Python but instead of it being just another peasant telling you it's time to bring out your dead, it'll be Mitch McConnell and :trump.


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Do you guys remember the millions of people who were dying from lack of health insurance before Obamacare? The dead bodies piling up everywhere from sea to shining sea before they were tossed in vans like Hillary Clinton and taken to the morgue?
> 
> I don't either, because it didn't happen.
> 
> But apparently messing with Obamacare will cause literally millions to die. It'll be like Monty Python but instead of it being just another peasant telling you it's time to bring out your dead, it'll be Mitch McConnell and :trump.


There's nothing more hypocritical than people who are pro abortion complaining about a health care bills causing death.They're all full of it when it comes to how successful Obamacare actually is. Obamacare has actually "killed" people , more than expected . And wasn't there a rise in opiate prescriptions and overdoses with Obamacare?


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28

The poor are so rich they can afford to spend 40% of their income on "luxuries."

The poor have a level of material equality with the rich unseen at any time in human history.

Remember that the next time Pocahontas or BernieOld starts foaming at the mouth about "inequality."


----------



## MrMister

TRUMP said:


> She was bleeding badly from a face lift. :trump4



wtf :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

deepelemblues said:


> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28
> 
> The poor are so rich they can afford to spend 40% of their income on "luxuries."
> 
> The poor have a level of material equality with the rich unseen at any time in human history.
> 
> Remember that the next time Pocahontas or BernieOld starts foaming at the mouth about "inequality."


I actually thought it was much higher, TBH. I notice that the article doesn't take into account what kind of food is being purchased. I would consider eating out to be a "luxury".


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

No biased reporting here.

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> No biased reporting here.
> 
> - Vic


Yes they both are known for their unbiased opinion[emoji3] 

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vic Capri

This message is hidden because Stephen90 is on your ignore list.

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> This message is hidden because Stephen90 is on your ignore list.
> 
> - Vic


Ok don't care really.

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump again with the quite frankly, crazy tweeting.

Who writes that a person's face was bleeding from a facelift? Something is wrong with this man. Very wrong!

Even those wet lettuce leaves Ryan and Graham spoke out against it, again when your own party needs to do that something is wrong.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I actually thought it was much higher, TBH. I notice that the article doesn't take into account what kind of food is being purchased. I would consider eating out to be a "luxury".


It is absolutely a luxury. My wife and I are currently saving for a baby so we did our budget. The first thing that got chopped was our dinner dates. Didn't even factor them in. For us eating out is grabbing a Walmart chicken or cheap Mexican takeout atm. Only time we go on major dates now is for birthdays and our anniversary. 

Eating meat everyday counts as a luxury in most countries. In fact growing up we'd be allowed only 2 small cubes of beef per meal [emoji38].


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Trump again with the quite frankly, crazy tweeting.
> 
> *Who writes that a person's face was bleeding from a facelift? Something is wrong with this man. Very wrong!*
> 
> Even those wet lettuce leaves Ryan and Graham spoke out against it, again when your own party needs to do that something is wrong.


I'm confused, someone saying someone is bleeding from a facelift? Bad.

Accusing someone of a hate crime with no evidence? Good?

EDIT: Just read your response in the other thread, so ignore this, you've clarified your stance.


----------



## Jay Valero

yeahbaby! said:


> Trump again with the quite frankly, crazy tweeting.


Come on. Like this a surprise? We all knew Trump was a loudmouth wackadoo with no impulse control when we elected him.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880518609897897984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880466494047629312

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880240003456147457

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880508992572850176


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


>


Interesting points by Son of Gandalph there I must admit. 

I think he puts a little too much faith into so called 'Citizen Journalists' however. I'm not going to trust some hame and egger who's recorded something on their phone and 'reported' it to their webcam just because they claim they're not beholden to corporate interests.

The sad irony is, if SOG and other Youtubers do become more and more popular and get an ever increasing income and move out of their basement, the most likely tendency will be to change their act and sell out the same way they accuse the 'Legacy Media' of doing so they can get more. More power = corruption.

The other sad irony is if the media did clean their game up and report the proper issues instead of the sensationalist sizzle, then Youtubers like SOG likely wouldn't exist.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> The sad irony is, if SOG and other Youtubers do become more and more popular and get an ever increasing income and move out of their basement, the most likely tendency will be to change their act and sell out the same way they accuse the 'Legacy Media' of doing so they can get more. More power = corruption.
> 
> The other sad irony is if the media did clean their game up and report the proper issues instead of the sensationalist sizzle, then Youtubers like SOG likely wouldn't exist.


Well, the latter will never be possible again, that I think we both can agree on.


----------



## Dr. Middy

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I actually thought it was much higher, TBH. I notice that the article doesn't take into account what kind of food is being purchased. I would consider eating out to be a "luxury".


It's defintely is, and it baffles me how much people tend to do it. I work with people who will buy their lunches everyday, for around $8-10 dollars, which adds up to nearly $50 a week on ONLY lunch, which is just insane and a huge waste of money. I usually end up making salads or sandwiches for myself, and the ingredients I need for those usually add up to less than $10 for the entire week, and sometimes even less depending on what I decide to use.

In fact, I think the lack of ability to properly know how to cook decent meals is a massive negative for a lot of people, and causes a huge drain of money when people decide to order out or go out to eat. Nothing is cheaper than making your own meals, and it's also technically the safest when it comes to everything being sanitary and clean because you're the one in control. I'm always thankful that my parents taught me how to cook (and my own interest helped a ton), as the vast majority of the time I never go out to eat much. I mean, it's not a bad thing to go out once in awhile, but if you're on a tight budget, its defintely something that should be cut out.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, the latter will never be possible again, that I think we both can agree on.


Oh ye of little faith, I'm not that cynical. What is broken can be fixed again.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Oh ye of little faith, I'm not that cynical. What is broken can be fixed again.


Would you stake your life on it? >


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Do you guys remember the millions of people who were dying from lack of health insurance before Obamacare? The dead bodies piling up everywhere from sea to shining sea before they were tossed in vans like Hillary Clinton and taken to the morgue?
> 
> I don't either, because it didn't happen.
> 
> But apparently messing with Obamacare will cause literally millions to die. It'll be like Monty Python but instead of it being just another peasant telling you it's time to bring out your dead, it'll be Mitch McConnell and :trump.


Not millions, but only 10s of thousands per year due to lack of health insurance. Hey but Obamacare resulted in death panels that decided who lives and who dies. Or did that not happen?


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Even those wet lettuce leaves Ryan and Graham spoke out against it, again when your own party needs to do that something is wrong.


Ryan and Graham are exactly who you would expect to, not sure why you think otherwise. They are the disloyal R's Trump spoke of who he had to show how to win.  

Of course CNN want to make it about gender, as if Trump doesn't attack everyone who attacks him regardless of gender or anything else. :lol Funny how we ignore sexism when it favors women. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880508049567428608


----------



## Vic Capri

The Travel Ban went into effect night last night. YES!



> Who writes that a person's face was bleeding from a facelift?


Somebody who defends himself. Oh, the humanity!


George Washington, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon all didn't put up with shit from anybody.

The "unprofessional President" complaint isn't anything new. A lot of people need to re-take US History class.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880742610880647169


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — President Trump will ask other European nations to “take inspiration” from Poland, which has rejected refugee resettlement, in a speech later this week.
> 
> National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters Thursday that President Trump will deliver a speech in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, which symbolizes Polish heroism. He is flying to Poland next Wednesday and stopping there before he attends the G20 summit in Hamburg.
> 
> McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.
> 
> The national security adviser said Poland is a “clear choice” for the major speech for a “bunch of reasons.” He pointed to its status as a frontline NATO nation and said that Trump will highlight what they are “doing now,” and the future of America’s relationship with Poland and with Europe.
> 
> McMaster said the main message of the speech is that “America understands that its interests align with the interests of the Polish people.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/trump-will-tell-europe-to-follow-far-right-polands-lead-in-major-speech/


----------



## Jay Valero

Can you imagine the shaming Hitlary or Hussein the Kenyan would be directing at eastern Europe right now?


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

CamillePunk said:


> Of course CNN want to make it about gender, as if Trump doesn't attack everyone who attacks him regardless of gender or anything else. :lol Funny how we ignore sexism when it favors women.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880508049567428608


He may attack people of both gender's but it's only female's where he constantly make's it about their looks or that their crazy. I don't think it's all that different from a lot of dudes of his age and socioeconomic background
but he clearly has issues with women and it bothers him in a way a guy challenging him doesn't.


----------



## Jay Valero

CNN gets BTFO again


----------



## Impeccable Sin

This guy is such an idiot. Now he's trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare without even having another solution in place.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @CamillePunk

It's definitely true. Donald Trump's tweeting is occasionally out-of-bounds and discourteous, lacking in respectability and chivalrousness. 

Until he can behave like a gentleman on twitter, I wish he would simply send out tweets which read,

_Someone's got it in for me 
They're planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they'd cut it out quick, but when they will, I can only guess
They say I shot a man named Gray
And took his wife to Italy
She inherited a million bucks
And when she died, it came to me
I can't help it if I'm lucky_​
And just keep going and going! :mark:


----------



## FriedTofu

Impeccable Sin said:


> This guy is such an idiot. Now he's trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare without even having another solution in place.


----------



## Reaper

Dana Loesch is freaking amazing. 

Lefties will never be able to provide us with a single woman that can measure up to the powerful female conservative voices we have amongst us these days.

The amount of hysteria is clearly manufactured. The AD was released in April.


----------



## Vic Capri

Weekly Address

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @AryaDark @Goku @Iconoclast @Miss Sally 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162435434446/did-syria-use-chemical-weapons-in-khan-shaykhun



> Did Syria use Chemical Weapons in Khan Shaykhun?
> 
> According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Syrian citizens were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon, in April of 2017 in the Khan Shaykhun area of Syria. The OPCW didn’t visit the site of the attack, but they did interview people and examine materials that came from the area.
> 
> The OPCW did not say who was responsible for the Sarin exposure. That wasn’t their job.
> 
> Ambassador Nikki Haley put out a press release saying the OPCW report is “… concluding that the chemical weapon sarin or a sarin-like substance was used in the attack.”
> 
> Notice Haley’s replacement of “sarin” from the OPCW report with “sarin or a sarin-like substance” for her press release. That’s a tell. It means Haley has some reason to be skeptical that sarin was involved. If the OPCW is willing to call it sarin, why hedge?
> 
> The OPCW does not offer an opinion on who was responsible for the exposure, or even that it came from an “attack.” Yet somehow Nikki Haley knows the chemicals came from a “chemical weapons attack.” Russia claims an airstrike on a nearby storage facility accidentally released deadly gas. But Russia is less credible than CNN, so that doesn’t mean anything.
> 
> Perhaps the United States has reliable evidence connecting the gas on the ground to an actual attack, but we citizens haven’t seen it. We did learn that a Syrian jet bombed the area at the time of the chemical exposure. But I don’t believe anyone found bomb fragments with sarin, or anything that conclusive. If so, we haven’t seen that evidence.
> 
> We are also asked to believe that Syria is planning “another” attack from the same place as the last one, while we watch every step of the way, using drones and whatnot. Does that sound like something a dictator does when he is on the brink of winning and – this is the best part – the only way he can lose from this strong position is by senselessly using chemical weapons?
> 
> Well, maybe. But Syria’s Assad and his Russian mentors don’t seem crazy to me. Brutal, sure. Liars, sure. But crazy? I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
> 
> Apparently Assad has used chemical weapons in the past. If the event that leads to his demise is a manufactured story about his continued use of chemical weapons, I won’t feel any moral outrage. He has it coming. And I assume there is some military/strategic/negotiating advantage for the United States that comes from labelling Assad a repeat user of chemical weapons. So I still have confidence in the United States military leadership.
> 
> But I automatically doubt any claim that comes from a war zone. This one is less credible than most.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Who's still in favor of government run health care?



> Government-Run Health Care Has Sentenced a Baby to Death Against His Parents' Wishes
> 
> *America has been in the throes of health care turmoil for the better part of the last decade. The crux of the debate rests upon what role, if any, the U.S. government should play in the health care marketplace.*
> 
> The debate is bitter and ongoing, with both Democrats and Republicans alleging that the opposing party's plan will lead to crisis and, potentially, the innocent dying.
> 
> However, *in the United Kingdom this week, such grim claims go beyond partisan rhetoric and have become a horrific reality. Across Europe, fully implemented socialized medicine is a norm. The systems mandate that, because health care is a public cost, there must be systems in place to determine how much can be spent on which individuals.*
> 
> *Now, courts have made the decision to sentence a 10-month-old baby to death*, ignoring the desperate pleas of his parents and foregoing a potentially life-saving procedure.
> 
> The Blaze columnist Matt Walsh explained Charlie's condition and predicament:
> 
> *[Charlie's parents] want to take him out of the hospital and to America to undergo a form of experimental therapy that a doctor here had already agreed to administer.* Chris and Connie raised over $1.6 million to fund this last ditch effort to save their child’s life. *All they needed the British hospital to do was release their child into their care, which doesn’t seem like a terribly burdensome request. *They would then leave the country and try their luck with treatment here. However slim the chance of success may have been, it was better than just sitting by and watching their baby die.
> 
> Here’s where things get truly insane and barbaric. *The hospital refused to give Charlie back to his parents. *The matter ended up in the courts, and, finally, in the last several hours,* the European Court of “Human Rights” ruled that the parents should be barred from taking their son to the United States for treatment. **According to the “human rights” court, it is Charlie’s human right that he expire in his hospital bed in London. The parents are not allowed to try and save his life. It is “in his best interest” to simply die, they ruled.*
> 
> *In Europe, “Death with dignity” supersedes all other rights.*
> 
> In Europe, a mother may kill her baby but she is not allowed to keep him alive.
> 
> *After the hospital refused to release Charlie, his parents fought in courts for the chance to save their child. They lost.* Now, Charlie has been sentenced to die by a court, and his parents are not even being allowed to take their child home to die. If you think you can handle it, please watch the parents' emotional, tearful plea from just yesterday:


----------



## Stinger Fan

Iconoclast said:


> Dana Loesch is freaking amazing.
> 
> Lefties will never be able to provide us with a single woman that can measure up to the powerful female conservative voices we have amongst us these days.
> 
> The amount of hysteria is clearly manufactured. The AD was released in April.


Believe it or not, some how the video was a white supremacist video... yeah those people can find racism in everything


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

Impeccable Sin said:


> This guy is such an idiot. Now he's trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare without even having another solution in place.


The irony of your statement is that Trump was really the only one during the campaign that ran on repeal and replace. Everybody else pretty much ran on the idea of just repeal, period. To be honest, the BCRA and AHCA are not repeals of Obamacare no matter what they try to tell us. If you're going to replace it, it's only fair to just repeal what we have now with a deadline for down the road. This way, we can start with a clean slate and find something that works and preferably keeps the government out of it. 



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk
> 
> It's definitely true. Donald Trump's tweeting is occasionally out-of-bounds and discourteous, lacking in respectability and chivalrousness.
> 
> Until he can behave like a gentleman on twitter, I wish he would simply send out tweets which read,
> 
> _Someone's got it in for me
> They're planting stories in the press
> Whoever it is I wish they'd cut it out quick, but when they will, I can only guess
> They say I shot a man named Gray
> And took his wife to Italy
> She inherited a million bucks
> And when she died, it came to me
> I can't help it if I'm lucky_​
> And just keep going and going! :mark:


I understand the media is out to get him, and there are still people who will never give him a chance. That being said, why does he continue to give these people ANY attention whatsoever. I understand responding, but what he did was the equivalent of my dealing with a child who calls me boogerhead by bashing their head and ribs in with a baseball bat. 

Again...I still say the best way to resolve this is to put his head down and get to work. Let the haters hate, and if he ignores him they can slide into irrelevance.


----------



## Impeccable Sin

BruiserKC said:


> The irony of your statement is that Trump was really the only one during the campaign that ran on repeal and replace. Everybody else pretty much ran on the idea of just repeal, period. To be honest, the BCRA and AHCA are not repeals of Obamacare no matter what they try to tell us. If you're going to replace it, it's only fair to just repeal what we have now with a deadline for down the road. This way, we can start with a clean slate and find something that works and preferably keeps the government out of it.


It's not that simple. Do you even realise how many people would be in serious trouble without that insurance? I'm not exaggerating when I say that people will die if it's repealed without something to replace it immediately.


----------



## BruiserKC

Impeccable Sin said:


> It's not that simple. Do you even realise how many people would be in serious trouble without that insurance? I'm not exaggerating when I say that people will die if it's repealed without something to replace it immediately.


That's why you have a sunset date for the ACA...for me a good rule of thumb would be two years out. Then you get started on the replacement. 

I understand the need for health insurance, I have it for me and my family and wouldn't be without it. At the same time, Obamacare has been a disaster. There are still millions of people without insurance in spite of the promise for everyone to have it. Several states will soon only have one insurance option available on the ACA Exchange, some states might be without any options at all. The government has screwed this whole thing up, partly because they shouldn't be involved in the health insurance game to start with. 

The problem now is that the replacements (in reality they keep the skeletons of Obamacare) don't address the idea of costs. We need to find a way to bring down costs so that health insurance is more affordable. Also, allow people to pick what options they want for insurance as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach the ACA took. For example...a few years ago I had a vasectomy, so I'm not having any more children and have no need for neo-natal care options. Open up competition and be able to shop around for insurance the way we shop around for other products. There are plenty of options out there.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880792952645328896


----------



## Reaper

.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> .


Sadly the Twitter hate mob went after her.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Sadly the Twitter hate mob went after her.


Obviously. It's good though. Citizens like her exposing the leftist mob guarantees future support for conservatives.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> Obviously. It's good though. Citizens like her exposing the leftist mob guarantees future support for conservatives.


Indeed. It helps that leftist are acting like angry chimps. And I mean that literally too.


----------



## gsm1988

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Remember when they told us Trump having the worst approval rating of all time in record time was FAKE NEWS? :kobelol*


So outraged about Trump that you consistently give money to a company run by billionaire Trump supporters, some of which will no doubt be given to the Orange Bigot himself.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880949495004938240


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*



gsm1988 said:


> So outraged about Trump that you consistently give money to a company run by billionaire Trump supporters, some of which will no doubt be given to the Orange Bigot himself.


Linda is on Trump's cabinet. So yes. Any money given to the WWE helps Trump and the Republicans tremendously. 

The modern left is exemplified to perfection in this picture.


----------



## virus21

Continuing on from my last post


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @AryaDark @Goku @Iconoclast @Miss Sally
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162435434446/did-syria-use-chemical-weapons-in-khan-shaykhun


The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Hitler invaded Russia and declared war on the United States after the US declared war on Japan.

Saddam Hussein attacked Iran and later invaded Kuwait.

The Arab countries decided to get into a tangle with Israel 3 times.

The Red Chinese decided the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were good ideas.

The Argentinian junta invaded the Falklands.

The Bolsheviks decided to gut their officer corps a few short years before Hitler invaded. They also decided to assrape their peasants a decade before Hitler invaded, which made the war against the Nazis much harder than it would have been if a large proportion of the peasantry hadn't initially thought of the Wehrmacht as liberators. They also decided Lysenko was the greatest agronomist the world had ever produced and that conventional genetics and biology science were capitalist plots.

The list of crazy stupid shit Mussolini did is too long to trot out here.

"They aren't crazy!" is just a really really bad argument when it comes to dictators doing crazy stupid things. They do crazy stupid things _all the fucking time. _


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Makenna*






Shout out to Larry Tipton for cleaning up Trump's vandalized star months back




> This guy is such an idiot. Now he's trying to get congress to repeal Obamacare without even having another solution in place.


The US government should've never gotten involved with the healthcare to begin with. You know when healthcare plans were actually affordable?


- Vic


----------



## Reaper

:move


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881281755017355264
Love this man. :trump2


----------



## virus21

> A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.
> Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner.
> But the U.S. Constitution's 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president's cabinet, or 'such other body as Congress may by law provide,' to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.
> Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself.
> The 25th Amendment has been around since shortly after the John F. Kennedy assassination, but Congress has never formed its own committee in case it's needed to judge a president's mental health.
> Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin has a plan that would allow Congress to name a commission with the power to determine if President Donald Trump is too mentally ill to hold office	+3
> Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin has a plan that would allow Congress to name a commission with the power to determine if President Donald Trump is too mentally ill to hold office
> Trump, shown leaving Washington on Friday with first lady Melania and their son Barron, could be removed from office at the end of a long process – but only if he were unable to make or communicate his decisions to Congress and his cabinet	+3
> Trump, shown leaving Washington on Friday with first lady Melania and their son Barron, could be removed from office at the end of a long process – but only if he were unable to make or communicate his decisions to Congress and his cabinet
> Raskin's bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president.
> The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee's chairman.
> Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president 'to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,' according to the Raskin bill.
> And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that 'shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.'
> Under the 25th Amendment, such a committee – or the president's cabinet – can notify Congress in writing that a sitting president is unfit. In either case the vice president must concur, and he would immediately become 'acting president.'
> Presidents have voluntarily transferred their powers to vice presidents in the past, including when they are put under anesthesia for medical procedures.
> Trump interrupts energy speech to call CNN fake news (again)
> Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:02
> Previous
> Play
> Skip
> Unmute
> Current Time 0:02
> /
> Duration Time 0:51
> Fullscreen
> Need Text
> SHARE THIS
> MORE VIDEOS
> 
> Caitlyn Jenner with her girls Kendall and Kylie in Wyoming
> 
> Brooke Shields in iconic Calvin Klein jeans commerc…
> 
> 'Most humbling experience': Alex Rodriguez chats dating…
> 
> Cathriona White's Los Angeles home sealed by th…
> Raskin, a constitutional law professor as well as a legislator, has mad no bones about the fact that his House bill is an attack on Trump specifically
> Raskin, a constitutional law professor as well as a legislator, has mad no bones about the fact that his House bill is an attack on Trump specifically
> In the case of Raskin's plan, the Constitution holds that both houses of Congress would hold a vote within three weeks.
> If two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate agreed that the president couldn't discharge his duties, he would be dismissed.
> Raskin's plan could have a fatal flaw, however: Legal scholars tend to agree that when the Constitution's framers first provided for the replacement of a president with an 'inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,' they weren't talking about mere eccentricities.
> And when the 25th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1965, the Senate agreed that 'inability' meant that a president was 'unable to make or communicate his decisions' and suffered from a 'mental debility' rendering him 'unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.'
> So far two dozen members of the House, all Democrats, have signed on to cosponsor the bill.
> Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a far-left liberal Democrat, claimed Friday in a Fox Business Channel interview that Congress can remove 'incompetent' presidents.
> 'The 25th Amendment is utilized when a president is perceived to be incompetent or unable to do his or her job,' she said.
> According to the 25th Amendment, whether it's the cabinet or a congressional commission that might decide Trump is unfit to serve, Vice President Mike Pence must agree or the process stops dead in its tracks	+3
> According to the 25th Amendment, whether it's the cabinet or a congressional commission that might decide Trump is unfit to serve, Vice President Mike Pence must agree or the process stops dead in its tracks
> Paul Ryan criticizes Trump's tweet storm against MSNBC host
> Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
> Previous
> Play
> Skip
> Mute
> Current Time 0:00
> /
> Duration Time 1:16
> Fullscreen
> Need Text
> Raskin has made no bones about the fact that his intentions are specific to President Trump.
> 'Trump's mental incapacity is no laughing matter,' he tweeted last month. '#25thAmendment gives us a way to deal with this problem.'
> Raskin summed up his reasoning for Yahoo News on Friday: 'In case of emergency, break glass.'
> 'I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets,' he said.
> 'The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.'
> RELATED ARTICLES
> Previous
> 1
> 2
> Next
> 
> Another clash with the press! Photographers elbowing each...
> 
> 'She doesn't know me': Melania slaps down Mika after Morning...
> 
> Should I sue CNN? What Trump said about network 'phonies'...
> 
> Vicious CNN morning show producer says Kellyanne Conway...
> 
> White House says Trump 'hasn't changed his thinking at all'...
> 
> MSNBC's Mika and Joe fight back at Trump, call him a liar,...
> 
> Travel ban 2.0: Protesters descend on airports across the...
> 
> I'm sending the feds into Chicago after 1,714 shootings this...
> SHARE THIS ARTICLE
> Share
> 37k shares
> 
> Also on Friday, MSNBC co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski authored an op-ed in The Washington Post whose headline argued 'Donald Trump is not well.'
> The pair were responding to a widely criticized tweet in which Trump complained about their behavoior around the New Year and alleged that Brzezinski was bleeding from a bad facelift.
> During a press conference on Thursday, Raskin called Trump a 'barbarian' and said: 'Something is deeply wrong at the White House.'
> He called on 'whoever is in control over there' to 'pull back from this terrible situation.'
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emove-Trump-mental-grounds.html#ixzz4lddHN2kP
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4655964/Democrats-lay-foundation-remove-Trump-mental-grounds.html


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881281755017355264
> Love this man. :trump2


MDP :banderas


----------



## nucklehead88

The right have become such cucks, it's hilarious.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

nucklehead88 said:


> The right have become such cucks, it's hilarious.


----------



## deepelemblues

Being an asshole isn't crazy

Being an asshole gets people places fairly often

All the way to the oval office for some :trump3

Impeachment porn isn't gonna win congressional majorities or the presidency

The minds of the left have been broken too much by :trump for them to realize that the only way his tweets could hurt him is of enough people feel embarrassed that their president is being an asshole on twitter. and guess what :trump's enemies act in embarrassing fashion often enough that it makes them feel :trump being embarrassing isn't really that embarrassing at all. In real life I frequently hear the most derogatory and crazy things said about :trump but even the people saying them usually sound just a little embarrassed. They realize being a crazy asshole in saying someone else is a crazy asshole undermines their opinion that someone else is a crazy asshole. Some of them don't realize it of course and reeeeeeee it up good but most aren't that way. They still have some conscience regarding civility left even if it's after they say something insanely uncivil. 

Why can't politicians figure this out. If you wanna say the other guy's a crazy asshole fine but don't then go about being crazy and assholes yourselves. People notice that.


----------



## Jay Valero

The left and their autistic screeching fpalm


----------



## Reaper

Nucklehead is another anti Trump forum member with crippling depression and suicidal thoughts. It's a common thread that I've noticed. That it's either people with depression or going through a hard time in their lives that come in here from time to time trying to hate on everybody. I think it's become a sort of coping mechanism for them because that way they can keep ignoring their personal issues.

At the end of the day, Trump's electorate now have a leader that they feel is being opposed by both Democrats and traitors within his own party {RINOS}. Trump's tweet about wanting to go straight to repeal was a stroke of genius because it shows us that the man is constantly thinking. I also think that repeal is the way to go but unfortunately there are too many RINOS in power to actually go through with a repeal.

Also, people who just allowed their government to spend 120k on a giant rubber duck rental should probably reexamine their lives anyways.


----------



## nucklehead88

TheNightmanCometh said:


>


Bunch of pissing and moaning about the "leftist mob". Not to mention, the king of cucks himself, ol Orange Bloated Fucksack himself. 

"Waaaaaaaaaaah the media is mean to meeeeeee" 

Every time someone calls him on thE MASSIVE PILES OF BULLSHIT AND LIES that spew out of his mouth on a daily basis, it all of a sudden becomes "fake news" and "failing show". And some people around here have his tiny, flaccid, dysfunctional dick in their mouths, they'll buy anything he says. I mean...he lied in the damn facelift tweet. "They wanted to come see me but I said no"










LIED. There he is. With them. On New Years.

Said she was bleeding badly from a face lift.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880440204204666881
LIED

Said Morning Joe was failing and "low rated"



> Yet the actual ratings data refutes Trump's allegations. In the second quarter of 2017, Morning Joe marked its ninth consecutive quarter of growth, according to an NBC Universal press release. The show posted an average viewership of 997,000, making it the second-highest rated show in the 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. slot. Morning Joe also achieved "MSNBC's highest rating ever" in that time slot among viewers aged 25 to 54, according to the release.
> Cable news viewership overall has spiked in the wake of Trump's election. CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC all saw double-digit ratings increases in the second quarter of 2017, according to Nielsen data cited by Variety.
> Trump has also slammed CNN for low ratings, despite the fact that the network has posted a total day rating spike of 25% in Q2 2017, compared to the same quarter in 2016.
> 
> http://fortune.com/2017/06/30/trump-morning-joe-ratings/


Wrong again fat boy.

Just a sad, fat, delusional old fuck, that lashes out at the world, every time someone is mean to him. Beta male. Whiny little man. Cry baby. Laughing stock. 

And what are Trumpys little snowflakes doing?


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Said she was bleeding badly from a face lift.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880440204204666881


Looks like a bad facelift to me. That's a very forced smile. Probably cuz the skin's too taut to stretch the lips properly.


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> Nucklehead is another anti Trump forum member with crippling depression and suicidal thoughts. It's a common thread that I've noticed. That it's either people with depression or going through a hard time in their lives that come in here from time to time trying to hate on everybody. I think it's become a sort of coping mechanism for them because that way they can keep ignoring their personal issues.
> 
> At the end of the day, Trump's electorate now have a leader that they feel is being opposed by both Democrats and traitors within his own party {RINOS}. Trump's tweet about wanting to go straight to repeal was a stroke of genius because it shows us that the man is constantly thinking. I also think that repeal is the way to go but unfortunately there are too many RINOS in power to actually go through with a repeal.
> 
> Also, people who just allowed their government to spend 120k on a giant rubber duck rental should probably reexamine their lives anyways.


You guys being so gullible and becoming global laughing stocks have put me in fantastic spirits. 











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880015261004435456
"NYTimes is mean to meeeeee"

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880016318396850177


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> Looks like a bad facelift to me. That's a very forced smile. Probably cuz the skin's too taut to stretch the lips properly.


Is it bleeding badly?


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Is it bleeding badly?


Yes because that's what he literally meant. 

How's your mental health? You don't seem to be doing well this morning. I see a lot of projection going on here. 

Didn't have a good Canada Day? Got blueballed? Girlfriend leave you cockblocked? 

See ... How this works? You say mean things, I say mean things but I'm not the bad guy since you started acting like a child and I'm just having fun at your expense since you're serious and I'm not.

Allegory for Trump vs the Media. Start shit. Get hit. Whine. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## Jay Valero

Jay Valero said:


> The left and their autistic screeching fpalm


:grin2:


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> Also, people who just allowed their government to spend 120k on a giant rubber duck rental should probably reexamine their lives anyways.


Perfect representation of Canada's leader: A childish idiot.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Perfect representation of Canada's leader: A childish idiot.


This one was the Ontario government who I believe are also liberals. Of course this is happening at a time when at least two major think tanks are projecting a Canadian housing crisis which the libs are ignoring.


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> Yes because that's what he literally meant.
> 
> How's your mental health? You don't seem to be doing well this morning. I see a lot of projection going on here.
> 
> Didn't have a good Canada Day? Got blueballed? Girlfriend leave you cockblocked?
> 
> See ... How this works? You say mean things, I say mean things but I'm not the bad guy since you started acting like a child and I'm just having fun at your expense since you're serious and I'm not.
> 
> Allegory for Trump vs the Media. Start shit. Get hit. Whine. Rinse. Repeat.


I'm doing fantastic actually. And Canada Day was a 10/10. Drank some local beer, smoked a nice big joint of B.C.'s finest medical weed, ate steak and watched fireworks from my back deck. Thank you for asking. I hope your 4th of July is very enjoyable and you and your family have a wonderful time. 

BTW the real allegory for Trump vs the media is as follows:
Lie. Get called out on it. Whine. Call it fake news. Rinse. Repeat.

He's a puss, man. Soft. Anyone says anything mean about him, he gets so upset. Your PRESIDENT is in a twitter feud with a morning show host. You have to admit, he acts like a child.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> I'm doing fantastic actually. And Canada Day was a 10/10. Drank some local beer, smoked a nice big joint of B.C.'s finest medical weed, ate steak and watched fireworks from my back deck. Thank you for asking. I hope your 4th of July is very enjoyable and you and your family have a wonderful time.
> 
> BTW the real allegory for Trump vs the media is as follows:
> Lie. Get called out on it. Whine. Call it fake news. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> He's a puss, man. Soft. Anyone says anything mean about him, he gets so upset. Your PRESIDENT is in a twitter feud with a morning show host. You have to admit, he acts like a child.


How often have you listen to Joe and Mika? Be serious and don't lie or try to deviate to something else about Trump. Stay on topic. Just answer the question straight up. How many hours since 2016 have you spent actually listening to Mika? 

Also, if the president decides to take a few seconds (because that's all it takes) to feud with people on Twitter, it's fine by me. 

It's still wasting a lot less time than turning your premiership into an elaborate cosplay convention.


----------



## nucklehead88

virus21 said:


> Perfect representation of Canada's leader: A childish idiot.


Yea that would be the Provincial government responsible for that shit show. No clue what they're doing out there. 



Iconoclast said:


> This one was the Ontario government who I believe are also liberals. Of course this is happening at a time when at least two major think tanks are projecting a Canadian housing crisis which the libs are ignoring.


The big housing crisis out here is of course the major market boom in B.C. where houses are going for almost double their worth. But B.C. just ousted the Liberal provincial government and went with a more of a middle class based NDP government to work towards fixing said problem. Much too early to tell if the plans in place will work.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> The big housing crisis out here is of course the major market boom in B.C. where houses are going for almost double their worth. But B.C. just ousted the Liberal provincial government and went with a more of a middle class based NDP government to work towards fixing said problem. Much too early to tell if the plans in place will work.


So you're saying that a somewhat fiscally responsible government is expected to keep the economy growing and prevent a financial crisis in British Columbia. 

Sounds good. The republicans are helping do the same in America. It's good to be on the winning team :trump


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> How often have you listen to Joe and Mika? Be serious and don't lie or try to deviate to something else about Trump. Stay on topic. Just answer the question straight up. How many hours since 2016 have you spent actually listening to Mika?
> 
> Also, if the president decides to take a few seconds (because that's all it takes) to feud with people on Twitter, it's fine by me.
> 
> It's still wasting a lot less time than turning your premiership into an elaborate cosplay convention.


A whole big fat 0 minutes ever. Never watched it. No desire to. I'm not saying it's good tv. And yes the twitter thing takes 3 seconds to type out but then the shit storm follows and it's a circus. On both sides. I couldn't care less about her or his comments about her face. It's the lying blatantly to everyone's face that bothers me. If he were to act like an adult, I would take him seriously as a President.


----------



## Jam

That rubber duck can't be real.....like really????!? 

I mean this is a country known for fucking Moose but that's just next level stupidity


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> So you're saying that a somewhat fiscally responsible government is expected to keep the economy growing and prevent a financial crisis in British Columbia.
> 
> Sounds good. The republicans are helping do the same in America. It's good to be on the winning team :trump


Lol it's not your team I have a problem with. It's the team captain. I have zero hate for Republicans. I disagree with some GOP ideals, agree with others. Hell if I were an American, I probably would have voted for a Republican over Hillary if it were anyone other than Trump. The GOP isn't the problem. Trump is. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and that's your right.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> A whole big fat 0 minutes ever. Never watched it. No desire to. I'm not saying it's good tv. And yes the twitter thing takes 3 seconds to type out but then the shit storm follows and it's a circus. On both sides. I couldn't care less about her or his comments about her face. It's the lying blatantly to everyone's face that bothers me. If he were to act like an adult, I would take him seriously as a President.


So basically, talking out of your ass then. That's ok. If you don't have the foreknowledge to be commenting on an issue, then what you say is worth less than anything and you're actually part of the hysterical circus.



nucklehead88 said:


> Lol it's not your team I have a problem with. It's the team captain. I have zero hate for Republicans. I disagree with some GOP ideals, agree with others. Hell if I were an American, I probably would have voted for a Republican over Hillary if it were anyone other than Trump. The GOP isn't the problem. Trump is. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and that's your right.


I don't just disagree. I know that I'm right in my assessment of Trump which is basically that him being a cunt to people who have been calling him everything from Hitler, to a Russian agent to wanting him assassinated gives his level of cuntishness a free pass .. In fact, it makes him sound like a very loveable man who's virtually oppressed by the leftist mob and therefore deserves our support. 

It's a matter of keeping things in perspective and Trump isn't the one that's lost it. I have quite a few times been irked by some of Trump's policy positions (which is ALL that actually matters), but the press ensures that no matter what Trump retains his electorate.


----------



## nucklehead88

Iconoclast said:


> So basically, talking out of your ass then. That's ok. If you don't have the foreknowledge to be commenting on an issue, then what you say is worth less than anything and you're actually part of the hysterical circus.


In what way am I talking out my ass? I never brought up the substance of their show as a talking point. I was using his tweets about her to show how he lies. I never once mentioned anything he said about the show itself other than the jab at the ratings, which is proven to be false.


----------



## Goku

Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but really catchy song


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> In what way am I talking out my ass? I never brought up the substance of their show as a talking point. I was using his tweets about her to show how he lies. I never once mentioned anything he said about the show itself other than the jab at the ratings, which is proven to be false.


He "lies" if you do not have a high enough IQ to understand context with regards to his tweet about Mika. Says more about your intelligence if you assumed that Trump really meant that tweet about Mika literally. Anyone with half a brain would know that that was hyperbole and a cheap shot. My point is that in the current climate of free-for-all "journalism", Trump being a self-proclaimed self-reporter allows him the leeway to punch back in self-defense. 

The media has also been reporting extremely selective demographics in order to twist the narrative about their ratings. Overall, their ratings are declining.

Just an example of how twisting works: 



> Fox News finished behind MSNBC and CNN among 25-54 year olds during primetime last week amid a tumultuous week for the Trump Administration, AdWeek reports. MSNBC came out on top with on average 611,000 viewers between ages 25-54 years old, and 2.44 million total. Fox News had 497,000 viewers in that category, and 2.4 million in total. *Fox News still has the top primetime ratings and all-day ratings among its competitors for the full month, Business Insider reports.*


However, understanding how "narratives" and "framing" works is too complex of a concept for people who are still stuck in the leftist mentality because that would require years of breaking a certain kind of indoctrination in order to get them to understand how information can be twisted to create false impressions.


----------



## Vic Capri

Trudeau's number one guy said:


> Bunch of pissing and moaning about the "leftist mob". Not to mention, the king of cucks himself, ol Orange Bloated Fucksack himself.
> 
> "Waaaaaaaaaaah the media is mean to meeeeeee"
> 
> Every time someone calls him on thE MASSIVE PILES OF BULLSHIT AND LIES that spew out of his mouth on a daily basis, it all of a sudden becomes "fake news" and "failing show". And some people around here have his tiny, flaccid, dysfunctional dick in their mouths, they'll buy anything he says. I mean...he lied in the damn facelift tweet. "They wanted to come see me but I said no"












- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> So basically, talking out of your ass then. That's ok. If you don't have the foreknowledge to be commenting on an issue, then what you say is worth less than anything and you're actually part of the hysterical circus.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't just disagree. I know that I'm right in my assessment of Trump which is basically that him being a cunt to people who have been calling him everything from Hitler, to a Russian agent to wanting him assassinated gives his level of cuntishness a free pass .. In fact, it makes him sound like a very loveable man who's virtually oppressed by the leftist mob and therefore deserves our support.
> 
> It's a matter of keeping things in perspective and Trump isn't the one that's lost it. I have quite a few times been irked by some of Trump's policy positions (which is ALL that actually matters), but the press ensures that no matter what Trump retains his electorate.


Liberals, the truth about trump lies here. Study these words, and maybe, if you have any of that vaunted understanding (homosexuality, gender confusion, white privelige,) you might understand that trumps support is rock solid, and it will grow as the country improves.

You will hear this a lot in 2019 ' i dont really like him as a person. Hes done a good job though. And democrats offer no solutions'


----------



## Jay Valero

Seriously, I can't get over that duck. Just lol.


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> You will hear this a lot in 2019 ' i dont really like him as a person. Hes done a good job though. And democrats offer no solutions'


Trump will have to personally be involved in an unjustified act of violence in order for me to rescind my support at this point. 

His policy position outcomes aside, I see no reason to do so otherwise. 

Democrats are still trying to beat Trump even though he's won. The narrative around "Trump Lies" is meaningless because any reasonable person would look at that and go "does he lie about anything of extreme consequence to myself or someone else?" The answer to that has so far been a resounding No. And not a single Trump "Lie" has made life worse for myself. 

At the end of the day when it comes down to voting, that is what matters the most. 

We all know everybody lies. I know government is generally a terrible thing for society - but, who lies more? And whose lies make society worse? And which form of government is worse? 

That's what's most important in choosing MODERN DAY leaders.



Jay Valero said:


> Seriously, I can't get over that duck. Just lol.


Pomp and show is the biggest distraction in the social welfare statists' playbook. That's why North Korea is still the best at it. Ontario has Kim beat on this one though. Even HE couldn't come up with a giant DUCK to appease the masses.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880961439078522880
Trump finally getting his press briefings under control and hopefully has gotten rid of Spicer permanently. Give him something better to do. Sanders is awesome at this :woo


----------



## Goku

i like the new press lady. Better than spicer. :cozy


----------



## virus21

> President Donald Trump, speaking alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in, declared Friday US patience with the North Korean regime "is over."
> "The era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed," Trump said in a statement from the Rose Garden. "And, frankly, that patience is over."
> The remarks were the latest sign that Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress in curbing North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which top US officials have eyed with increasing concern in recent months.
> The South Korean President's visit to the White House came after Trump approved a series of measures designed to ratchet up pressure on North Korea -- while also sending signals to China about the US' shrinking patience.
> US, China share concerns over North Korea
> US, China share concerns over North Korea 02:25
> The Treasury Department on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a Chinese bank and several Chinese nationals while the State Department approved a $1 billion arms deal with Taiwan. Both moves appeared aimed at unsettling China, which the US has repeatedly urged to pressure North Korea into changing its behavior, with little success.
> Trump on Friday warned that the US is facing "the threat of the reckless and brutal regime in North Korea" that "has no regard for the safety and security of its people or its neighbors" and vowed the US would continue to act to defend US interests and allies in the region.
> Moon, who was elected on a platform of increased engagement with North Korea, also warned that "threats and provocations from the North will be met with a stern response" and vowed South Korea and the US will "strengthen" their joint deterrence capabilities.
> But he also urged the North Korean regime "to promptly return to the negotiating table" to achieve a peaceful end to its nuclear program.
> Beyond its ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile activity, the sense of alarm in the US has also grown after American student Otto Warmbier fell into a coma while in North Korean custody and died days after he was returned to the US.
> "The North Korean dictatorship has no regard for the safety and security of its people or its neighbors and has no respect for human life -- and that's been proven over and over again," Trump said, before also thanking Moon for expressing his condolences over Warmbier's death.
> US, China relations begin to cool as Trump's honeymoon with Xi ends
> Related Article: US, China relations begin to cool as Trump's honeymoon with Xi ends
> The two men did not take questions, marking the second consecutive foreign visit where Trump has not taken questions alongside a world leader he is hosting at the White House.
> Moon first arrived at the White House Thursday night where he and his wife dined with Trump and the US first lady.
> Moon returned to the White House on Friday morning for a series of meetings after first laying a wreath at the Korean War memorial with Vice President Mike Pence.
> Trump and Moon's discussions went beyond ways to confront the North Korean regime, also centering on the trading relationship between the US and South Korea, following Trump's criticism of the bilateral free trade deal between the two countries, which Trump has called a bad deal for the US.
> "We are renegotiating a trade deal right now as we speak with South Korea and hopefully it will an equitable deal, a fair deal to both parties," Trump said as he greeted Moon in the Oval Office on Friday morning. "It's been a rough deal for the United States but I think that it will be much different for the United States."
> Trump added in the Rose Garden that he was "encouraged by President Moon's assurances that he will work to create a level playing field so that American workers and businesses and especially automakers can have a fair shake at dealing with South Korea."
> But even on trade, China appeared to be at the forefront of the administration's mind.
> In remarks during the bilateral meeting between the US and South Korean sides, National Economic Director Gary Cohn knocked China's "predatory practices" on trade and said the Trump administration hopes to partner with South Korea to jointly tackle Chinese trade abuses that impact both countries.


https://archive.fo/2V1Ec


----------



## Reaper

This is what spending Daddy's money looks and sounds like.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump tweeted a .gif of him beating up Vince McMahon as the CNN logo from Wrestlemania 23. Poor little snowflakes are having another meltdown over it.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump tweeted a .gif of him beating up Vince McMahon as the CNN logo from Wrestlemania 23. Poor little snowflakes are having another meltdown over it.
> 
> - Vic


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

BAW GOD KING HE BROKE THEM. CNN IS BROKEN IN HALF AS GOD AS MY WITNESS. STOP THE DAMN TWITTERS.

Vince must be going crazy right now. This is more attention to WWE than anything they have done this year and I think the first time Trump has been attached to WWE since becoming President. 

Now we need Trump photoshopped on Orton giving an RKO to fake news and Rollins curb stomping them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump tweeted a .gif of him beating up Vince McMahon as the CNN logo from Wrestlemania 23. Poor little snowflakes are having another meltdown over it.
> 
> - Vic


Oh like the Trump snowflakes had a melt down over what Kathy Griffin and Johnny Depp did/said LOL Trump supporter keep proving what a joke the are.

Not to mention this is the POTUS tweeting things out like a child. But sure keep thinking that is something a president should be tweeting out.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh like the Trump snowflakes had a melt down over what Kathy Griffin and Johnny Depp did/said LOL Trump supporter keep proving what a joke the are.
> 
> Not to mention this is the POTUS tweeting things out like a child. But sure keep thinking that is something a president should be tweeting out.


Oh, welcome back, BM. Would you mind going back and responding to the posts I tagged you in?


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh like the Trump snowflakes had a melt down over what Kathy Griffin and Johnny Depp did/said LOL Trump supporter keep proving what a joke the are.


I agree people on the Trump side have been far too sensitive lately. The lady storming the stage of that Julius Caesar production and a lot of pro-Trump people rallying around her like she's a victim was just embarrassing. 



> Not to mention this is the POTUS tweeting things out like a child. But sure keep thinking that is something a president should be tweeting out.


Everyone tweets out nonsense and jokes on Twitter. It's not just for kids. :lol I see no reason for the president not to do it. He spends a second hitting a retweet button. The media spends HOURS talking about it. What's sadder, really?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881512551015751680
:banderas 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881526510804377600


----------



## deepelemblues

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

aha

aha

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:trump making all these little ladies grab for the smelling salts

":trump celebrates violence against journalists" - MarieClaire

":trump encourages violence against reporters" - CNN

"seems like a threat" - Martha Raddatz

":trump tweets himself literally assaulting America's media" - ThinkProgress

and so many many more

this man. this god-emperor. this shitposting LEGEND. 

:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881538337982619649

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881551272725422081
It's a fucking meme. :lol These "journalists" are more out of touch than Vince McMahon. Love how my 71 year-old president has a better understanding of the internet than so many people half his age.


----------



## Punkhead

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881503147168071680
HOLY FUCK! Trump actually Tweeted this. The absolute madman! This is awesome!

Archived, in case it gets deleted.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I agree people on the Trump side have been far too sensitive lately. The lady storming the stage of that Julius Caesar production and a lot of pro-Trump people rallying around her like she's a victim was just embarrassing.
> 
> Everyone tweets out nonsense and jokes on Twitter. It's not just for kids. :lol I see no reason for the president not to do it. He spends a second hitting a retweet button. The media spends HOURS talking about it. What's sadder, really?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881512551015751680
> :banderas
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881526510804377600


What I meant is Trump's tweets sound like they are posted by a kid. He is a grown man and POTUS and he tweets like a middle schooler. Most of Trump's tweets are embarrassing and not even clever.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881538337982619649
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881551272725422081
> It's a fucking meme. :lol These "journalists" are more out of touch than Vince McMahon. Love how my 71 year-old president has a better understanding of the internet than so many people half his age.


They're approaching Jack Thompson level with this shit. Every day :trump exposes how out of touch they are in an incredibly hilarious fashion


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> What I meant is Trump's tweets sound like they are posted by a kid. He is a grown man and POTUS and he tweets like a middle schooler. Most of Trump's tweets are embarrassing and not even clever.


He gets a ton of likes and retweets. :draper2 Too bad they don't appeal to you but not everything has to. Like every popular Twitter page, they appeal to their target audience.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Oh, welcome back, BM. Would you mind going back and responding to the posts I tagged you in?


I am not staying in the thread long but to answer your question, I have been saying how full of shit CNN is since the primaries. I am not surprised at anything they do. Didn't like 3 people get fired over that stuff? 

Also Trump even admitted that Russia hacked the election in a tweet, he just blamed Obama for not stopping it, so even Trump thinks Russia fucked with the election.


----------



## Punkhead

CamillePunk said:


> He gets a ton of likes and retweets. :draper2 Too bad they don't appeal to you but not everything has to. Like every popular Twitter page, they appeal to their target audience.


I think it's hilarious. And what's even funnier is how butthurt CNN got over this.


----------



## deepelemblues

Every :trump shitpost on twitter gives his legions of shitposters the power of a thousand suns :lmao

high energy all dayyyyy


----------



## CamillePunk

It's funny because if it wasn't for the intense media coverage of his every tweet/retweet, Trump's Twitter would be a funny curiosity few people know about. Nobody in real life ever talks about Twitter. Not even on university campuses do I hear people talking about things people tweeted, let alone middle aged or older people who have never used it before. It's not like instagram or facebook memes where younger people share them all the time. Thanks to the media every Trump tweet reverberates through the world and everyone talks about it. It hasn't hurt Trump, but it sure does make the media look like the clown show they keep trying to portray the White House as. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881571671596990464
:lmao :lmao :lmao

It's all too much, man.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> I am not staying in the thread long but to answer your question, I have been saying how full of shit CNN is since the primaries. I am not surprised at anything they do. Didn't like 3 people get fired over that stuff?
> 
> Also Trump even admitted that Russia hacked the election in a tweet, he just blamed Obama for not stopping it, so even Trump thinks Russia fucked with the election.


So, the important question is this...where do you stand on the long held opinion, by you and many others, that Trump and his campaign conspired with the Russians to fix the election? Hope you stick around long enough to answer that.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Holy fuck, the God Emperor has truly surpassed himself with this one! Absolutely laughing my arse off that the President of the United States has tweeted a clip of himself jumping Vince McMahon with a CNN logo shopped over his face. Sometimes I still can't believe this is real - we are truly living in the most blessed of realities, folks.

Just think, in a parallel universe somewhere HRC is President *shudder* those poor people living there will never know of the glory of this timeline. Let's spare a thought for them today


----------



## deepelemblues

There's an infinite number of universes where :trump is president

And an infinite number of universes where side o beef is president

And an infinite number of universes where hitlers brain in a jar is president

Quantum physics is so great


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> There's an infinite number of universes where :trump is president


Motivational poster material imo


----------



## MrMister

Trump really is going to complete the system of German Idealism. Kant couldn't do it. Trump IS doing it. I was dubious this was possible.


----------



## El Dandy

Imagine being a Lefty out there who can't take a step back and appreciate Trump's IRL shitposting.
They'll never come to appreciate a timeline when a man (and his supporters) shitpost so hard that he became President and changed the course of history.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Punkhead said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881503147168071680
> HOLY FUCK! Trump actually Tweeted this. The absolute madman! This is awesome!
> 
> Archived, in case it gets deleted.


i don't even like trump, but :lmao

dude gives no fucks.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

I can appreciate a guy who gives absolutely no fucks. :trump3


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Oda Nobunaga said:


> I can appreciate a guy who gives absolutely no fucks. :trump3


People voted for Trump because he's America first, this includes going after anti-America Americans. Trump is doing everything we want to do, and already do, but his platform is bigger. You can't get more American than going after the anti-American left and, it's puppets, the MSM. The left will never understand this. They'll feign outrage, and all the while, real Americans are laughing celebrating. He's a true hero in this regard.


----------



## DOPA

That Trump tweet with him clotheslining CNN is absolutely hilarious :lmao. The mad man!







The left are having a fit over this! :lol.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

This is acceptable, but Trumps tweet is literally inciting violence. :lmao


----------



## BRITLAND

Trump's retweet of him clothelining CNN is the top story on BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Fucking brilliant! :vince5 :CENA :booklel


I wonder if WWE will sign the Progressive Liberal? I'd love to see the reactions on here.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

BRITLAND said:


> Trump's retweet of him clothelining CNN is the top story on BBC News:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
> 
> Fucking brilliant! :vince5 :CENA :booklel
> 
> 
> I wonder if WWE will sign the Progressive Liberal? I'd love to see the reactions on here.


Meh, I don't doubt for a second that they won't. They skirt the line on being right-wing through the McMahon's political affiliations, but when it comes to the WWE, money rules all, and them taking a political chance in this climate right now will only lead to negative consequences. I gotta say, they learned their lesson after the Muhammad Assan debacle. No way they play with that fire again.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Meh, I don't doubt for a second that they won't. They skirt the line on being right-wing through the McMahon's political affiliations, but when it comes to the WWE, money rules all, and them taking a political chance in this climate right now will only lead to negative consequences. I gotta say, they learned their lesson after the Muhammad Assan debacle. No way they play with that fire again.


Do they toe the line. I think they're pretty blatantly right wing.

Everything from blue blooded american patriotism to working class heroes to foreign villains and even a minstrel show for the pleasure of his audience :Shrug 

There's nothing leftist about the WWE at all. It's incredibly blatant.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881533437148098560
OMG, this is inciting violence!!!! Let's see the equal outrage, MSM. :HA


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Do they toe the line. I think they're pretty blatantly right wing.
> 
> Everything from blue blooded american patriotism to working class heroes to foreign villains and even a minstrel show for the pleasure of his audience :Shrug
> 
> There's nothing leftist about the WWE at all. It's incredibly blatant.


I always felt they toe the line. Sure, they do the Americana face and evil-foreigner heel tropes, but those are as old as wrestling themselves. To come out and say, "Here's a liberal snowflake who we're going to embarrass" is a little bit further as a statement and would make progressives have to respond.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I always felt they toe the line. Sure, they do the Americana face and evil-foreigner heel tropes, but those are as old as wrestling themselves. To come out and say, "Here's a liberal snowflake who we're going to embarrass" is a little bit further as a statement and would make progressives have to respond.


Is it? My wrestling history knowledge isn't at par with most everyone on here, but I was always under the impression that it was essentially Vince that pioneered the american good guy versus evil foreigner trope. I have seen oldish clips of wrestling and all I've ever seen is a bunch of random interchangeable guys beating each other up. Nothing as obviously colorful as Vince's production. 

I think that the progressive liberal will get mixed reactions. He'll be everyone's favorite "bad" guy because he'll come across as a Poe :Shrug


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> *Is it? My wrestling history knowledge isn't at par with most everyone on here, but I was always under the impression that it was essentially Vince that pioneered the american good guy versus evil foreigner trope.* I have seen oldish clips of wrestling and all I've ever seen is a bunch of random interchangeable guys beating each other up. Nothing as obviously colorful as Vince's production.
> 
> I think that the progressive liberal will get mixed reactions. He'll be everyone's favorite "bad" guy because he'll come across as a Poe :Shrug


They've had the "evil foreigner" gimmick going back to the 60's and 70's. First name that comes to mind is Boris Malenko, father of Dean Malenko. He played a Russian heel in the NWA for years. In the early 60's he played a charcarter Otto Von Krupp, a evil German, who was known to wear jackboots and a swastika on his back. Imagine WWE doing that today! LOL, well we did to an extent with Hassan, and we all know how that turned out.


----------



## Reaper

Wrong Thread. I'll edit something relevant into this later.


----------



## deepelemblues

Democratic members of California's House of Representatives are getting death threats for pulling their socialist healthcare bill that would have tripled the states budget :lmao

The powerful Cali nurses union, which has been one of the most ardent proponents of socialist healthcare, is losing its shit on twitter attacking Cali Democrats like they're Republicans, saying people will die because of them :lmao

BernieOld has called the BernieBros to action :lmao

The biggest political story of the last generation - the slow but going faster everyday - breakup of the socialist and only kinda socialist wings of the Democratic Party, is being largely ignored thanks to :trump :lmao

This will only make future fails of the dying Democratic Party even funnier as they will come as crushing surprises to the media and the Party's loyal voters :lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

Punkhead said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881503147168071680
> HOLY FUCK! Trump actually Tweeted this. The absolute madman! This is awesome!
> 
> Archived, in case it gets deleted.





FatherJackHackett said:


> Holy fuck, the God Emperor has truly surpassed himself with this one! Absolutely laughing my arse off that the President of the United States has tweeted a clip of himself jumping Vince McMahon with a CNN logo shopped over his face. Sometimes I still can't believe this is real - we are truly living in the most blessed of realities, folks.
> 
> Just think, in a parallel universe somewhere HRC is President *shudder* those poor people living there will never know of the glory of this timeline. Let's spare a thought for them today





MrMister said:


> Trump really is going to complete the system of German Idealism. Kant couldn't do it. Trump IS doing it. I was dubious this was possible.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

Is the whole election cycle and first six months of this presidency a WWE viral marketing campaign? 

Completing the system of German Idealism may well save much of the U.S. from oblivion. California will probably be sold to Disney and Illinois to Amazon, though. Not everyone can be saved. Eventuating the paradigm to its logical conclusions should arguably be expedited to save some grief in the meantime.

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, for instance, put together some sound arguments in his _On Faith, or Idealism and Realism_, by approaching the Kantian concept of "thing-in-itself." Some of this language fits with Donald Trump's plainspoken evaluations and tweets. By distilling the outside world as conditional through the maintenance of some wisp of faith, Jacobi tied together Kant's direct appeal to keep the proverbial door open to aforementioned faith. Ultimately, the works of Salomon Maimon and neo-Humean philosophers and writers capably beat back against some of the more outlandish and even pernicious qualities of German Idealism. Of course if Trump completes the system of German Idealism even someone who gravitates toward Aquinas and Hume will have to give the philosophical school a reappraisal. All things are possible in this timeline.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> They've had the "evil foreigner" gimmick going back to the 60's and 70's. First name that comes to mind is Boris Malenko, father of Dean Malenko. He played a Russian heel in the NWA for years. In the early 60's he played a charcarter Otto Von Krupp, a evil German, who was known to wear jackboots and a swastika on his back. Imagine WWE doing that today! LOL, well we did to an extent with Hassan, and we all know how that turned out.


Earlier than that. They had 'mad russians' during the 30s, back when stalin was prging his country. Nazi wrestlers were active in the 50s


----------



## Jay Valero

They had evil Japs as well.


----------



## stevefox1200

TheNightmanCometh said:


> They've had the "evil foreigner" gimmick going back to the 60's and 70's. First name that comes to mind is Boris Malenko, father of Dean Malenko. He played a Russian heel in the NWA for years. In the early 60's he played a charcarter Otto Von Krupp, a evil German, who was known to wear jackboots and a swastika on his back. Imagine WWE doing that today! LOL, well we did to an extent with Hassan, and we all know how that turned out.


Wrestling also loves the "high and mighty rich guy who looks down on the average person"

Wrestling is about figuring out which demo the majority of your viewers are and have caricatures of them beat up caricatures of their stereotyped cultural rivals

of course when you put it like that wrestling is stupid, lowbrow and pandering and I wonder why I waste my time watching it


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> Wrestling also loves the "high and mighty rich guy who looks down on the average person"
> 
> Wrestling is about figuring out which demo the majority of your viewers are and have caricatures of them beat up caricatures of their stereotyped cultural rivals
> 
> of course when you put it like that wrestling is stupid, lowbrow and pandering and I wonder why I waste my time watching it


Honestly, I rarely watch it anymore. Haven't caught an episode since Nakamura's debut.

They do pander to their demo, but anti-progressive is a whole different animal. They're a very vocal minority, with the backing of the MSM. While, I figure more people will turn to their product in a positive way, WWE won't want the negative press because as we all know sponsors are giant pussies and will pull money at the first sign of a complaint. WWE can't afford that.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

DesolationRow said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> Is the whole election cycle and first six months of this presidency a WWE viral marketing campaign?
> 
> Completing the system of German Idealism may well save much of the U.S. from oblivion. California will probably be sold to Disney and Illinois to Amazon, though. Not everyone can be saved. Eventuating the paradigm to its logical conclusions should arguably be expedited to save some grief in the meantime.
> 
> Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, for instance, put together some sound arguments in his _On Faith, or Idealism and Realism_, by approaching the Kantian concept of "thing-in-itself." Some of this language fits with Donald Trump's plainspoken evaluations and tweets. By distilling the outside world as conditional through the maintenance of some wisp of faith, Jacobi tied together Kant's direct appeal to keep the proverbial door open to aforementioned faith. Ultimately, the works of Salomon Maimon and neo-Humean philosophers and writers capably beat back against some of the more outlandish and even pernicious qualities of German Idealism. Of course if Trump completes the system of German Idealism even someone who gravitates toward Aquinas and Hume will have to give the philosophical school a reappraisal. All things are possible in this timeline.


I was curious when you first mentioned Kant and the idea of German Idealism and I meant to comment on it, but I got sidetracked. What would you recommend reading to strengthen my knowledge on this subject? Outside of what you just mentioned.


----------



## virus21

> Steve Bannon is causing a stir inside the administration by pushing an idea that's anathema to most Republicans: raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for steep middle and working-class tax cuts. (Some officials who've heard Bannon's idea think it's crazy, but the President's chief strategist believes it's a potent populist idea.)
> Bannon has told colleagues he wants the top income tax bracket to "have a 4 in front of it." (The top bracket is currently 39.6% for Americans who earn more than $418,400.)
> It's classic Bannon – pushing a maximalist position that's reviled by the Republican establishment.
> While all the public attention has been going to health care, Trump aides are teeing up an extremely aggressive tax plan.
> 
> Lobbyists who have met with Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin say they've been struck by how impatient the two appear:
> 
> Cohn has told associates that if tax reform doesn't get done this year, it's probably never going to happen.
> Sources who know Cohn speculate that he'll leave the White House the instant he concludes tax reform is dead.
> While Cohn and Mnuchin differ stylistically — Cohn is brash and physically imposing while Mnuchin is mild-mannered — sources who've been meeting with them say they share the same philosophy: Go big or go home.
> 
> What that means:
> 
> Cohn and Mnuchin aren't bluffing when they say they want to slash the corporate tax rate to 15% from the current 35%. Neither man has any interest in timid tax cuts, and they wager that special interests will relinquish their loopholes if they become convinced their tax rate really will be in the teens.
> They're becoming far less wedded to revenue neutrality — the idea, favored by House and Senate Republican leadership, that tax cuts mustn't add to the deficit.
> They're increasingly tantalized by an idea some conservatives (like Grover Norquist and Sen. Pat Toomey) are pushing: Allow major tax cuts to last longer than 10 years without having to balance the budget. (More detail here.)
> Conservatives like Toomey favor a more expansive 20- or 25-year period. But top White House officials are more cautious, and are said to be weighing a 15-year period.
> Context: The last time Congress passed major tax reform, in 1986, it was a two-year rollercoaster. This time, the White House officials driving the process have concluded there's no chance of getting Democrats to support what Trump wants to do. So they believe it must be done before the 2018 midterm elections or not at all.
> That's going to be a heck of a challenge. They need to first pass a budget, which is embroiled in fights over defense spending and welfare reform. And they need to finish with health care.
> Some top Republicans have come to believe, contrary to conventional wisdom, that tax reform stands a better chance if health care fails — so desperate will Trump and Republican leaders be for a victory.


https://www.axios.com/scoop-bannon-pushes-tax-hike-for-wealthy-2452197801.html


----------



## Blackbeard

Punkhead said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881503147168071680


:lmao:lmao:lmao:maury:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

virus21 said:


> https://www.axios.com/scoop-bannon-pushes-tax-hike-for-wealthy-2452197801.html


Someone should explain to Bannon that if you have your top tax rate significantly higher than your corporation tax rate and all it takes to be considered a corporation is a stroke of a pen then no one pays the individual rate and everyone becomes a corporation.


----------



## Jay Valero

Alkomesh2 said:


> Someone should explain to Bannon that if you have your top tax rate significantly higher than your corporation tax rate and all it takes to be considered a corporation is a stroke of a pen then no one pays the individual rate and everyone becomes a corporation.


Bannon knows that, he's just being a good lapdog for the wealthy elites. This is the kind of stuff that makes me angry at my party.


----------



## DesolationRow

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I was curious when you first mentioned Kant and the idea of German Idealism and I meant to comment on it, but I got sidetracked. What would you recommend reading to strengthen my knowledge on this subject? Outside of what you just mentioned.


Well you should familiarize yourself with the writings of Immanuel Kant, particularly his _Critique of Pure Reason_, which is a highly influential work in the history of philosophy. It's also a good benchmark so to speak with regard to surveying mid-to-late-eighteenth century philosophies. Then you should probably go for the macro view with Arthur Schopenhauer, notably Schopenhauer's condensed criticisms of Kant's works with _The World as Will and Representation_, published in 1818 (easy to remember), not forty years after Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ was written.

For more on post-Kantianism as philosophical school, as it were, you can hardly do better than read most of what Jakob Friedrich Fries and Johann Friedrich Herbart have stitched together. One could go on and on with distinct German Idealist philosophers. Some of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's conclusions are almost maddening in their own way but I cannot help but be fascinated by his piecing together of Kant philosophy, minus the thing-in-itself, for instance. 

It should be noted that I'm partial to Humean conclusions and find myriad neo-Humean arguments at least somewhat more modestly persuasive, but that is neither here nor there.

Hope this helped, even if just a little bit!


----------



## Miss Sally

Does the MSM not learn?

Trying to pass off that Trump is inciting violence against reporters (When Vince isn't even a reporter) and not seeing the forest for the trees is why people are losing faith in them.

Their agenda and bias is so obvious that their fake outrage is met with mockery.

Turns out you don't need soldiers and laws to shut down the Media, just let them make fools of themselves and people will just laugh at them.

Trump's crusade against CNN is truly a thing of beauty!


----------



## Mra22

birthday_massacre said:


> What I meant is Trump's tweets sound like they are posted by a kid. He is a grown man and POTUS and he tweets like a middle schooler.  Most of Trump's tweets are embarrassing and not even clever.


Oh look it's you again. Do us all a favor and shut up


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@birthday_massacre with the drive-by post today. Dude, it ain't kosher for you to be MIA when some crazy shit goes down and then come back around when Trump does something you think is foolish. You should be here either trying to defend the left or admitting that you've been believing all the lies your party has propagated the last 7 months. Where's your backbone, my man?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

That Trump tweet = So...fucking...BASED. :trump2

This is also amazingly appropriate:










:evans


----------



## BruiserKC

TheNightmanCometh said:


> They've had the "evil foreigner" gimmick going back to the 60's and 70's. First name that comes to mind is Boris Malenko, father of Dean Malenko. He played a Russian heel in the NWA for years. In the early 60's he played a charcarter Otto Von Krupp, a evil German, who was known to wear jackboots and a swastika on his back. Imagine WWE doing that today! LOL, well we did to an extent with Hassan, and we all know how that turned out.


Apparently folks here have forgotten about Rusev before Cena neutered him. The WWE did a hell of a job writing and booking his character and his undying devotion to comrade Putin. 

@Jay Valero, they did the evil Japanese into the 90s...Fuji, Professor Toru Tanaka, Kabuki, etc. Yokozuna came in the early 90s at a time when the US was extremely concerned about the Japanese buying up everything here in the States. 

As for this "too soon" talk? They did the Un-American stable less than a year after 9/11 with the likes of Test, Christian, Regal, etc. 
===============================================

Meanwhile...to bring this back...Ted Cruz might have found a compromise that might actually health care. Since anyone who knows their shit realizes that the AHCA and BCRA are not repeal and replace, I like Cruz's idea. 

Cruz basically is saying to let the free market decide what people want. Whereas Susan Collins earlier referred to allowing states that wanted Obamacare to keep it...Cruz takes it one step further. He gives insurance companies the choice of offering all current insurance programs side-by-side along with non-Obamacare compliant programs and let the consumer choose for themselves what they want. You want an Obamacare all-inclusive plan...it's there. You want only certain aspects and coverage and not all the bells and whistles you might not want or need? It's available too. 

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/...gop-moderates-conservatives-offered-ted-cruz/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...alth-care-bill-insurance-regulations-ted-cruz

I like this idea...it's crazy free market ideas that might just be crazy enough to work.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> of course when you put it like that wrestling is stupid, lowbrow and pandering and I wonder why I waste my time watching it


Elitist. There's nothing wrong with enjoying low brow, pandering entertainment :kobe


----------



## CamillePunk

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @birthday_massacre with the drive-by post today. Dude, it ain't kosher for you to be MIA when some crazy shit goes down and then come back around when Trump does something you think is foolish. You should be here either trying to defend the left or admitting that you've been believing all the lies your party has propagated the last 7 months. Where's your backbone, my man?


Did BM ever comment on the Sanders' lawyering up in the midst of a fraud investigation after he implied some in the Trump administration were suspect for doing the same thing? :mj


----------



## DOPA

CamillePunk said:


> Did BM ever comment on the Sanders' lawyering up in the midst of a fraud investigation after he implied some in the Trump administration were suspect for doing the same thing? :mj


He's handled it in the same way Secular Talk has handled it.

Hint: He hasn't said a damn thing.


----------



## DOPA

CNN is cancer.


----------



## Vic Capri

CNN lost 20% of their viewers during the month of June according to Adweek. Thanks, Donald. :lol

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> CNN lost 20% of their viewers during the month of June according to Adweek. Thanks, Donald. :lol
> 
> - Vic


I hope this is true.

Nytimes staffers just protested cuts. Let them fail until someone gets desperate enough to try balanced reporting. 

Truth is, there is NO balanced reporting in this country.

The press should report the news, and aggressively point out the bullshit and hypocrisy of both sides.

The press long term bias and ineptitude has led the whole world to where its at.


----------



## virus21

Find the cure


----------



## deepelemblues

L-DOPA said:


> CNN is cancer.


You are wrong, CNN is ISIS.


----------



## Reaper

> *Media Ignores Trump Tweet Offering To Help Terminally-Ill Baby*
> 
> News of President Trump’s tweet in support of a brain-damaged baby sentenced to death by the United Kingdom was largely absent from the home page of establishment media sites early Monday.
> 
> Outlets including ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post opted instead to feature continuing coverage of a day-old tweet from Trump Sunday morning that escalated his war with the media. These outlets, in particular CNN, have been providing wall to wall coverage of Trump’s recent tweets about the media, at the expense of other stories.
> 
> Trump’s Sunday tweet of a video of himself wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited onto his head in a WWE wrestling match was met with swift and determined outrage from members of the press, who labeled it bullying and a promotion of violence that endangers journalists. Many complained his tweets lack substance and steer the conversation away from serious issues.
> 
> The president did take a break from his feud to weigh in on the life of a baby named Charlie Gard Monday, but much of the media seems to have suddenly lost interest in the Twitter feed that has dominated the news for a week.
> 
> “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so,” Trump tweeted, prompting a response on Twitter from the parents of the baby.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881875263700783104
> Gard has been sentenced to die by the government in the U.K., although his parents raised nearly $2 million to bring him to the states for a long-shot treatment. The court is refusing to allow them to take the baby out of the hospital, ruling it wouldn’t be in the baby’s best interest to have even a long-shot chance at a longer life.
> 
> Hours after Trump sent the tweet, the homepage of major outlets continued hyping the media war and the CNN tweet, while downplaying the breaking news of Trump’s comments about the baby.


Obviously media ignores this tweet. They need to make sure people think that Trump is a monster.

I also think that with the direction the cancerous leftist mob is going, pretty soon they'll start calling these kinds of death sentences late term abortions of "just lumps of flesh and bones".


----------



## virus21




----------



## markoutsmarkout

I'm almost tired of winning...nah, not yet. Let's keep going!


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> Find the cure


There was a study years that journslism majors had the 2nd lowest average college entrance scores, just above teachers


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...h-approaches-americans-debate-democracys-fate

Democrats are unhappy they lost an election so democracy is in danger y'all. :lmao



> "I think it's highly unusual and disconcerting to have so many people worried about the foundations of our democracy," says Wendy R. Weiser, who directs the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, based at New York University School of Law and focusing on voting rights and elections, among other issues. "We're always talking about democracy and struggling to live up to our ideals, but never with so many fundamental questions as we're doing right now."


Wendy Reiser was evidently born in 2009 or she was in a coma when George W. Bush was president. Reagan too. Even Rockefeller Republicans to their core Daddy Bush and Gerald Ford. To certain circles ever since Nixon America's foundations are always in danger when a Republican is president.



> The Democracy Index, compiled by the British-based Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked the U.S. at 21st worldwide in 2016, tied with Italy and trailing Norway, Canada and Uruguay, among others. While Norway and several other Scandinavian countries are considered "full democracies," according to the index, the U.S. last year fell to "flawed democracy," receiving low scores for "functioning of government" and "political participation."


In other words, things that have nothing to do with the political and conscientious freedom of the individual who resides in the United States. Things that have nothing to do with democracy.


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> There was a study years that journslism majors had the 2nd lowest average college entrance scores, just above teachers


Take it from a former TV producer, journalism has nothing to do with intelligence. 

In fact, ideally you want dumb shits as anchors because all they're good for is looking pretty and following the producer's orders. The smarter they get, the more likely they are to have morals and integrity creates friction. 

You want the dumbest piece of shit on that seat in front if the camera.

They're even dumber than the military grunts you have on the front lines of an assault... Expendable and ready to follow orders. That's it.


----------



## deepelemblues

BernieOld is very unhappy his wife is being investigated for the things she did ruining that college.

He's finally found something other than clouds to yell at. Federal investigators :lmao


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881978150627950593


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881978150627950593


----------



## Art Vandaley

CNN harping on about the person who made the meme trump shared is gonna backfire and earn Trump sympathy.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> Take it from a former TV producer, journalism has nothing to do with intelligence.
> 
> In fact, ideally you want dumb shits as anchors because *all they're good for is looking pretty* and following the producer's orders. The smarter they get, the more likely they are to have morals and integrity creates friction.
> 
> You want the dumbest piece of shit on that seat in front if the camera.
> 
> They're even dumber than the military grunts you have on the front lines of an assault... Expendable and ready to follow orders. That's it.


Can confirm: The only reason I fuck with CNN and Fox is because of Brooke Baldwin, Ainsley Earhardt and Kristin Tate.

In my defense, they're total babes that I would be honored to grab by the pussy. :trump3



deepelemblues said:


> BernieOld is very unhappy his wife is being investigated for the things she did ruining that college.
> 
> *He's finally found something other than clouds to yell at*. Federal investigators :lmao


Appropriate:










:kappa


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...h-approaches-americans-debate-democracys-fate
> 
> Democrats are unhappy they lost an election so democracy is in danger y'all. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> Wendy Reiser was evidently born in 2009 or she was in a coma when George W. Bush was president. Reagan too. Even Rockefeller Republicans to their core Daddy Bush and Gerald Ford. To certain circles ever since Nixon America's foundations are always in danger when a Republican is president.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, things that have nothing to do with the political and conscientious freedom of the individual who resides in the United States. Things that have nothing to do with democracy.


While their reasons are wrong, the conclusion that the foundations of our democracy are in danger is, and has been, accurate because when the majority of the press functions as the left's own pravda it's a really bad thing.


----------



## Miss Sally

Jay Valero said:


> While their reasons are wrong, the conclusion that the foundations of our democracy are in danger is, and has been, accurate because when the majority of the press functions as the left's own pravda it's a really bad thing.


The bias is one thing but they've outright lied and manipulated information. 

The media can no longer be trusted. Take example this meme Trump posted, they're saying it's an attack on journalism and you got people going as far as to say it's unconstitutional which is a laugh! Trump is calling out the fake news against him, I highly doubt calling out people for lying is unconstitutional and doubt lying about your Government and Politicians and passing it off as truth is protected.


----------



## DOPA

http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski



> Last year, federal and state judges authorized 3,168 wiretaps “permitting wire, oral, or electronic surveillance,” according to a report from the federal courts system. That may not seem like such a big number — after all, there are more than 300 million people in this country, so one wiretap per every 1,000 people or so isn’t bad, right?
> 
> It seems reasonable until you find out what a single wiretap order can entail. The single largest federal order in 2016, the report notes, “occurred during a narcotics investigation in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and resulted in the interception of 3,292,385 cell phone conversations or messages over 60 days.”
> 
> So for two months, federal law enforcement listened to millions of Pennsylvanians’ phone calls in an incredibly invasive effort to prosecute the ineffective, expensive, inhumane, failure that is our war on drugs. Even if we allowed that fighting the drug war is a good idea (it’s not), there’s no way this didn’t infringe on the privacy of innocents.
> 
> But it gets worse! As the International Business Times reports, all that spying from this absurd sprawl of a wiretap has yet to produce a conviction:
> 
> The order was signed to help the authorities track 26 individuals suspected of illegal drug trafficking and narcotics-related activities in Pennsylvania. However, the investigation cost $335,000 to the taxpayer and led only to a dozen arrests. The surveillance effort neither captured any intercepts nor did it bring anyone to trial or convicted. Other details about the wiretapping are not available since the court records have been sealed.
> 
> Needless to say, this debacle has raised concerns among privacy advocates.
> 
> The feds “spent a fortune tracking 26 people and recording three million conversations and apparently got nothing,” Albert Gidari, a privacy expert at Stanford Law School, told ZDNet. “I’m not surprised by the results,” he added, “because on average, a very very low percentage of conversations are incriminating, and a very very low percent results in conviction.”
> 
> To be clear, this wiretap (and the other 3,167 like it) isn’t in the same category as the sort of illegal, warrantless mass surveillance Edward Snowden exposed. But that doesn’t mean this is okay.
> 
> Following due process is necessary for fair, accountable, and constitutional law enforcement, but it is hardly alone sufficient. (For example, how can an order this huge can possibly fit the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement?)
> 
> As Snowden himself has put it, “we should always make a distinction that right and wrong is a very different standard than legal and illegal.”


Reminder of how far privacy rights have been destroyed.


----------



## virus21

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) dropped the word “friend” Monday from its description of Germany’s relationship with the U.S.
> 
> CDU and its sister party the Christian Social Union released their joint election manifesto Monday. The previous campaign program described the U.S. as Germany’s “most important friend” outside Europe. It further called the “friendship” a “cornerstone” in Germany’s role on the global stage.
> 
> The new manifesto uses the word “partner” to describe the U.S.-German relationship.
> 
> The party has not commented on why it changed the terminology, but it follows a series of comments from Merkel criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump’s leadership.
> 
> The chancellor recently urged the EU to “take its fate into its own hands” as the U.S. and the U.K. are looking after their own interests. (RELATED: Merkel Says Europe Can No Longer Rely On US, UK)
> 
> “The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel said at a campaign rally in Munich May 28. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.”
> 
> Trump has at the same time gone after Germany for its large trade surplus with the U.S. and its low defense spending. (RELATED: Trump Allegedly Handed Merkel A $370 Billion Bill For NATO)
> 
> Trump and Merkel are scheduled to meet Thursday ahead of the G20 meeting in Hamburg. Merkel recently said she won’t “overlook tensions” with Trump, arguing the Paris climate agreement is “irreversible and non-negotiable.” (RELATED: Merkel Vows To School Trump On Climate Change At G20 Summit)
> 
> Merkel enjoyed a much closer relationship with former President Barack Obama, who described the chancellor as his closest ally during his eight years in the White House.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/merkel-drops-the-word-friend-from-description-of-us-german-relationship/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> President Trump and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke at length today in advance of the upcoming G20 summit in Hamburg Germany and they set up a pre-summit meeting for Thursday. President Trump leaves for Europe this Wednesday 7/5/17.
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump is expected to promote U.S. natural gas exports (LNG) during a scheduled enthusiastic visit to Poland. Fraulein Merkel is not happy; not one little bit. Merkel wants EU to buy LNG from Russia.
> 
> There’s a massive amount of irony in the narrative that Merkel is the savior of global leftist ideology yet she wants to be even more cozy with Russia for energy. Meanwhile, regarding President Trump, the Merkel supporting left is on an anti-Russia crusade. Go figure.
> 
> (Via Reuters) […] Europeans will be watching to see whether Trump clarifies his administration’s position on a new pipeline to pump Russian gas to Germany, known as Nord Stream 2.
> 
> The U.S. Senate in June passed a package of sanctions on Russia, including provisions to penalize Western firms involved in the pipeline. The new sanctions have stalled in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> The U.S. State Department has lobbied against the pipeline as a potential supply chokepoint that would make Europe more vulnerable to disruptions.
> 
> The threat of sanctions adds to tensions between Washington and Berlin. Germany’s government supports the pipeline, and Trump’s position on it is a concern for European diplomats. (read more)


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/03/president-trump-will-promote-u-s-natural-gas-exports-in-poland-chancellor-merkel-does-not-approve/



> WASHINGTON — The House passed medical tort reform legislation Wednesday that is intended to help lower the cost of health insurance by lessening the burden of medical lawsuits.
> 
> Proposed by Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, the Protecting Access to Care Act (H.R. 1215), the bill passed with 218 yeas and 210 nays. The bill caps medical malpractice lawsuits by restricting plaintiff non-economic damages to $250,000. Juries may not be informed of this limitation.
> 
> “The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that passage of King’s ‘Protecting Access to Care Act’ would save federal taxpayers at least $50 billion over a ten-year period. In addition, the CBO has estimated that King’s reforms would lower premiums for medical malpractice insurance by an average of 25 percent to 30 percent,” the Iowa congressman said in a statement.
> 
> He added, “Importantly, the ‘Protecting Access to Care Act’ continues to allow an injured party to receive full compensation for measurable, economic harm (such as medical expenses or lost wages) that they have incurred. The damage cap only applies to an award of non-economic damages (such as punitive damages) that are, by their very nature, speculative, subjective, and wildly inconsistent.”
> 
> Should the bill pass the Senate and get President Trump’s signature, it would also limit attorney fees and establish a three-year statute of limitations or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, whichever occurs first. The statute of limitation measure, however, varies slightly depending upon whether the individual is a minor under the age of 8 or 6.
> 
> 
> Do You Support The Protecting Access to Care Act?
> Yes No
> Login with your social identity to vote
> 
> 
> Sign in
> inSign in with LinkedIn
> Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
> Additionally, the bill would apply to medical malpractice lawsuits related to coverage provided from government programs like Medicare or Medicaid.
> 
> It could also be applied to coverage that is only partially covered by a government program or tax benefit. The bill does not, however, preempt particular state laws and federal vaccine injury laws and rules.
> 
> “One of the chief failings of the Affordable Care Act is that it never addressed the true cost-drivers of healthcare,” said California Republican Rep. Congressman Darrell Issa of the bill in a statement Wednesday night. “We spend billions every year on unnecessary procedures just to shield providers from possible lawsuits and it makes health care more expensive for all of us.”
> 
> The bill, according to Issa’s office, is modeled after California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which has reduced California’s medical professional liability premiums, and Texas’ Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA).


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/house-passes-medical-malpractice-tort-reform-bill/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> Canada’s socialized health care is driving more than 63,000 Canadians out of the country for medical assistance — largely to the U.S.
> 
> A new report from the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank, estimates that more than 63,459 Canadians traveled to find the health care that is often unavailable in Canada, usually due to long wait times for operations. That number is a 40 percent increase from the previous year, CTV News reports.
> 
> Based on research with physicians across Canada, the report says that nearly 9,500 patients did not rely on Canadian medicare for general surgeries, 6,400 for urology treatments and just over 5,000 for procedures such as colonoscopies and angiographies (examinations of veins and arteries).
> 
> “If that many Canadians are willing to pay out-of-pocket to get faster access to the treatment they need, that means they are dissatisfied with the quality of care,” Yanick Labrie, a senior Fraser Institute fellow and co-author of the report, said in a statement.
> 
> The report notes that the principle reasons for patients leaving the country to seek alternate health care are the long wait times in Canada and because some procedures are not available in Canada but are in other medical jurisdictions.
> 
> That confirms the experience of an Ontario mayor who went all the way to Germany to seek a canber treatment that wasn’t available in Canada. Treat Hills Mayor Hector Macmillan called the Fraser Institiute findings “damning.”
> 
> Macmillian went abroad because of pancreatic cancer and because the Ontario medicare plan would not allow him to claim for the procedure in the U.S.
> 
> “Our health care system is certainly broken, there is no doubt about that,” Macmillan told CTV News. “I think it’s time for a total overhaul.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/report-says-canadas-socialized-medicine-failing-canadians/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...h-approaches-americans-debate-democracys-fate
> 
> Democrats are unhappy they lost an election so democracy is in danger y'all. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> Wendy Reiser was evidently born in 2009 or she was in a coma when George W. Bush was president. Reagan too. Even Rockefeller Republicans to their core Daddy Bush and Gerald Ford. To certain circles ever since Nixon America's foundations are always in danger when a Republican is president.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, things that have nothing to do with the political and conscientious freedom of the individual who resides in the United States. Things that have nothing to do with democracy.


It's funny how democracy is in danger....when Jill Stein had recounts done finding Trump votes suppressed. It's quite comical actually


----------



## virus21




----------



## Jay Valero

Merkel is either crazy or a willing pawn of the globalist elites. Bitch.


----------



## DOPA

The beginning of this video :lmao!

Tucker Carlson you absolute legend :HA.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow (because we both spent hours of our life watching a video about this)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882331479161831428
the original madman


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow (because we both spent hours of our life watching a video about this)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882331479161831428
> the original madman


:lmao :lmao :lmao

washington, washington
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


----------



## virus21

> Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic congressman and presidential candidate, blasted his party colleagues on Tuesday over a push to examine President Trump’s mental and physical fitness for office – and potentially use the findings to seek his removal.
> The campaign is being led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who has tried to rally support for his bill in the wake of Trump’s controversial attacks on various media outlets and personalities.
> But Kucinich told “Fox & Friends” that Democrats aren’t doing the party any favors with proposals like this.
> “It’s a political statement, not a medical statement,” said Kucinich, a Fox News contributor. “I think it’s destroying the party as an effective opposition.”
> He continued, “People want political parties to be focused on America’s economic needs, jobs, wages, heath care, education, retirement security and peace -- and they want American politicians to be constructive, not destructive.”
> Kucinich speculated that some in his party are having a tough time trying to “reconcile” the results of the November election with their own politics but called for lawmakers to find common ground.
> DEMS MAKE EARLY CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT
> “What’s happening here is not good for the country,” Kucinich said.
> The bill in question would establish an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity,” tasked with carrying out a “medical examination of the President to determine whether the President is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.” Under the bill, this determination could be made if the “Commission finds that the President is temporarily or permanently impaired by physical illness or disability, mental illness, mental deficiency, or alcohol or drug use to the extent that the person lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to execute the powers and duties of the office of President.”
> The bill cites the 25th Amendment, which states the vice president shall assume the powers of the presidency when the president is declared “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
> The same section, though, makes clear that the vice president and others would need to sign off on such a decision – which could speak to why Kucinich and other critics view this as a purely symbolic effort.
> Raskin introduced the bill in April, but revived the push amid the controversy over Trump’s attacks on the media, including CNN and the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
> “The President should take a break from watching TV and read the #25thAmendment to the Constitution. There are ways out of this,” Raskin tweeted on Friday.
> The President should take a break from watching TV and read the #25thAmendment to the Constitution. There are ways out of this. pic.twitter.com/R2WF909FlU
> — Rep. Jamie Raskin (@RepRaskin) June 30, 2017
> The bill has nearly two-dozen cosponsors, including former Democratic Party leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz.


http://archive.is/p06uK#selection-447.0-716.2


----------



## deepelemblues

Ah yes the good old soviet abuse of psychiatry ploy


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol A perfect Independence Day tweet, @CamillePunk! :mark: :lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow (because we both spent hours of our life watching a video about this)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882331479161831428
> the original madman


Lol thats awesome.

Andrew jackson hilariously over stepped his authority as well


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882347723894145024
how am I supposed to go back to being attracted to women I actually have a chance with :mj2


----------



## Jay Valero

I want Lauren Southern to have my babies.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882347723894145024
> how am I supposed to go back to being attracted to women I actually have a chance with :mj2





Jay Valero said:


> I want Lauren Southern to have my babies.


:hayden3 at you two queerosexuals fawning over someone who is legally recognized as a man.













































































On some real shit though, Lauren is indeed a top-tier waifu.  Same goes for Kristin Tate. :woolcock


----------



## Jay Valero

I'd baby Tomi Lahren, too.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I suppose some of you progressives are just fine with this, right? 



> AWFUL! CNN Extorts PRIVATE CITIZEN Over Trump CNN Joke Wrestling Video -Threatens to Dox Him!
> 
> Multi-million dollar corporation CNN is Extorting a Private Citizen over a Joke Tweet!
> 
> CNN reported today that they declined to publicly identify the Reddit user who created the Trump CNN wrestling video because he promised not to do it again.
> 
> CNN reporter Andrew Kaczynski then went on to say, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
> 
> That is extortion.
> They threatened to dox him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video was tweeted out by Donald Trump and shared over a million times online.
> It was President Trump’s second most popular tweet of all time.
> 
> Left-wing CNN said it was anti-Semitic and racist(?)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882291101771722752
> CNN threatened to dox a private citizen over the joke video!
> WOW!
> 
> Mike Cernovich called CNN’s threats extortion of a private citizen.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882412943710617602
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882413074870816768
> Cernovich went hard after CNN tonight on Periscope.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882414660137271297
> This is amazing!
> Big media demands you to get in line or they will destroy you!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882418829132836864
> This is a new low for big liberal media!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882420789106049024
> And now the CNN writer is lying about his dox threat!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882429239986765828


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow (because we both spent hours of our life watching a video about this)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882331479161831428
> the original madman


Washington wasn't sent on a diplomatic mission to Fort Le Beouf, he was sent there to tell the French to get the fuck out of the Ohio River valley and to eat shit if they didn't like it. The French commandant at Le Beouf politely told him to get fucked and things went from there.

Moving on:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...llion-new-us-citizens-in-year/article/2627741

Ummmm city, county, and state governments don't have the legal authority to do that, retards.


----------



## La Parka

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I suppose some of you progressives are just fine with this, right?


"KFILE" is totally fucked, he'll be looking for a new job by noon. While being doxxed by every kid out there. 


Wonder if he gets sued.


----------



## deepelemblues

'FNN reserves the right to sic a lynch mob on a private citizen whose speech FNN didn't like.'

Fuck off FNN, you're ISIS.


----------



## Neuron

I'd like to thank CNN for serving as a daily reminder that journalism isn't a profession and is just another tactic for political activism.


----------



## Reaper

#CNNBlackmail is the top trend on Twitter right now. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882456507819884544

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882440245370904576


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> #CNNBlackmail is the top trend on Twitter right now.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882456507819884544


until whoever is on duty at twitter HQ tonight gets back from the shitter and sees the dozens of DMs from Jack ordering him to memory hole the hashtag, as twitter has done many times before to hashtags Jack doesnt like


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> until whoever is on duty at twitter HQ tonight gets back from the shitter and sees the dozens of DMs from Jack ordering him to memory hole the hashtag, as twitter has done many times before to hashtags Jack doesnt like


It takes less than 3-4 hours for something to reach millions of people on the internet. They can do whatever they like now, the damage is done.

The real problem however is that doxxing has been an acceptable leftist tactic for years so amongst their crowd blackmail and ruining lives is part of their mob violence. They're not going to see this as anything wrong and won't change.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Washington wasn't sent on a diplomatic mission to Fort Le Beouf, he was sent there to tell the French to get the fuck out of the Ohio River valley and to eat shit if they didn't like it. The French commandant at Le Beouf politely told him to get fucked and things went from there.


Fact-checking a joke meme, have you considered a career at CNN?

Absolutely heinous conduct by deepelemblues' future employer in harassing the guy who created that meme. Get a fucking life you deranged fake journo creeps.

A few great tweets on the subject, saving the best for last: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882445809488416769

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882445019830943744

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882446178142502912

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882469853231169536


----------



## deepelemblues

Good job jerkface you've just ruined my meticulous plan years in the making to destroy FNN from within. What are you already on FNN's payroll?????


----------



## Jay Valero

Sad thing is, CNN will run a story about Kardashian butt implants and all the gif dweebs will completely forget about this because they have the attention span of a gnat.


----------



## deepelemblues

All the :trumpies going nuts about how HanAssholeSolo is allegedly a 15 year old LGBT :trump supporter who just recently came out to family and friends.

Which if true would make what CNN did fucked up in even more ways than it already was.

Dunno if it's true but /pol and 8chan are all going nuts, they've been doxing CNN hosts and shit for an hour.


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## FriedTofu

Anything to distract from the failed healthcare reform efforts I guess...


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Anything to distract from the failed healthcare reform efforts I guess...


:lol Don't be bitter.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> :lol Don't be bitter.


Aren't you one of those that bash the media from distracting from reporting on real issues? 

Anyway, it is just ironic that doxing is being classed as an acceptable leftist tactic when it is an acceptable tactics that arose from internet culture regardless of political ideology. Partisan hack trying to score brownie points in their own head.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Anything to distract from the failed healthcare reform efforts I guess...


It was already declared dead in the House, the House passed something.

Now it's dead in the Senate. The Senate will end up passing something.

Then it will be dead when it comes time to merge whatever both passed into a single bill.

Then that will happen and people will probably be jumping out the windows at the New York Times building. 

Then :trump will sign it and America will literally be destroyed by returning to a time somewhat more similar to the dystopian healthcare past of 2009. Surely you remember the vast numbers of dead and dying? Although the death rate fell almost every year of the last 25 until 2016, when it unexpectedly rose. And more people were more unhealthy before Obamacare. Although that isn't true either.

Well maybe not all of those things with getting rid of Obamacare will happen but the Senate will end up passing something sooner or later. The era of giving up on legislation after failing to get the votes one time, which plagued the policy priorities of Congress and the White House the two previous administrations, seems to be over for the moment. 

Not giving up on healthcare also allows talks about tax reform to take place without much attention. Although this is the Republican Party leadership we're talking about they're probably doing fuck-all that will actually produce a tax bill.

Plus any law about healthcare will fail to provide care or be affordable, because Americans' lifestyles are so unhealthy. If more people did regular physical labor or exercised and ate less shitty food, that would make people more healthy and reduce healthcare costs more than any law about how to pay for the way we currently treat the huge numbers of people whose diseases and ailments are exacerbated by their unhealthy lifestyles or are directly caused by those lifestyles. But how are you gonna pass laws to make people exercise and not eat a buttload of processed everything all the time. I'm guessing we'll just have to wait until some miracle machine or procedure of some kind changes the way we digest things and sculpts our bodies while we chow down on pizza and rarely do anything more strenuous than an hour's worth of accumulated easy walking a day. Everyone will look like a Greek god and eat like Garfield.


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> All the :trumpies going nuts about how HanAssholeSolo is allegedly a 15 year old LGBT :trump supporter who just recently came out to family and friends.
> 
> Which if true would make what CNN did fucked up in even more ways than it already was.
> 
> *Dunno if it's true but /pol and 8chan are all going nuts, they've been doxing CNN hosts and shit for an hour.*


They should also be going after executives, hacking into their emails, releasing any and all corporate documents and memos etc.... I hope CNN gets torn completely apart.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> It was already declared dead in the House, the House passed something.
> 
> Now it's dead in the Senate. The Senate will end up passing something.
> 
> Then it will be dead when it comes time to merge whatever both passed into a single bill.
> 
> Then that will happen and people will probably be jumping out the windows at the New York Times building.
> 
> Then :trump will sign it and America will literally be destroyed by returning to a time somewhat more similar to the dystopian healthcare past of 2009. Surely you remember the vast numbers of dead and dying? Although the death rate fell almost every year of the last 25 until 2016, when it unexpectedly rose. And more people were more unhealthy before Obamacare. Although that isn't true either.
> 
> Well maybe not all of those things with getting rid of Obamacare will happen but the Senate will end up passing something sooner or later. The era of giving up on legislation after failing to get the votes one time, which plagued the policy priorities of Congress and the White House the two previous administrations, seems to be over for the moment.
> 
> Not giving up on healthcare also allows talks about tax reform to take place without much attention. Although this is the Republican Party leadership we're talking about they're probably doing fuck-all that will actually produce a tax bill.


In other words socialise the costs and privatise the gains for your saviour :trump? Anything good = :trump. Anything bad = GOP?

You seem to be in agreement that obstructionism from the minority party was rampant during the previous administrations that prevent most things to get done.

Are the death panels still real to you? I hope the solar panels on the wall is more real than those.


----------



## FriedTofu

Jay Valero said:


> They should also be going after executives, hacking into their emails, releasing any and all corporate documents and memos etc.... I hope CNN gets torn completely apart.


Remember this is only an acceptable tactic from the left. :troll


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> In other words socialise the costs and privatise the gains for your saviour :trump? Anything good = :trump. Anything bad = GOP?
> 
> You seem to be in agreement that obstructionism from the minority party was rampant during the previous administrations that prevent most things to get done.
> 
> Are the death panels still real to you? I hope the solar panels on the wall is more real than those.


Of course they're not real, Hillary isn't president. 

You don't need the minority except in the Senate and now after years of usually having a nearly evenly divided Senate, you don't need very much of the minority there either. Both sides have shown skill at peeling off a few Senators from the majority party to frustrate the Majority Leader and the President, many times in the last decade. Blaming obstructionism is the complaint of the ineffectual and the incompetent. If :trump fails to achieve even one of his major legislative priorities, he will have shown himself to be ineffectual and incompetent.

I am expecting for the Grand Old Party to change after :trump's presidency, and am hoping that it shifts back towards the economic and governmental philosophy roots its leadership pays lip service to. Back to Calvin Coolidge. There isn't much room for Silent Cal in a :trumpian Party. So no, my reasons for disliking the current leadership have little to do with :trump. I am quite happy with the Party at the state and local level, and with most of its representatives and Senators outside of the leadership. The party was being reorganized and re-energized well before :trump burst onto the scene, and they are going to make the GOP a going concern for a long time.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

FriedTofu said:


> Anything to distract from the failed healthcare reform efforts I guess...


Maybe you want to talk to CNN about that.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Aren't you one of those that bash the media from distracting from reporting on real issues?
> 
> Anyway, it is just ironic that doxing is being classed as an acceptable leftist tactic when it is an acceptable tactics that arose from internet culture regardless of political ideology. Partisan hack trying to score brownie points in their own head.


They're a major news organization that threatened a kid who made a joke meme. They deserve to be shit on especially for what they've done.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

For any hockey fans:










Courtesy of the glorious bastards over at 4chan.


----------



## Jay Valero

#CNNblackmail is trending at 1 on twitter.

Just remember, on the birthday of the greatest country in the history of the world, not only did cnn commit a full out assault on the first amendment, they may have also broken the law. Over a meme that dared to mock them. This is the thought police in action. This is Big Brother.


----------



## DesolationRow

CNN was able to locate and extort an apology out of some random fellow who enjoys Reddit, but the people behind the scenes still have no clue how Donna Brazile was able to pass along the network's debate questions for Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> They're a major news organization that threatened a kid who made a joke meme. They deserve to be shit on especially for what they've done.


Tofu once lauded the education system of a country that has engaged in decades of infanticide resulting in millions of deaths and a 20 million disparity amongst males and females just so that he could claim that school choice is a bad idea. 

You really think he actually cares about healthcare reform in America? 

Nope. He's just another Trump hater and therefore has shaped all his policy stances based on how they can oppose Trump instead of whether they actually make sense or not. It's a new breed of young individual whose real train of thought starts with "How can I spin this to spout my daily dose of Trump-bashing online today?"

I mean, instead of addressing the fact that a multi-billion dollar corporation literally blackmailed a child, he's still not even addressing the actual crime here - trying to make this about a "distraction". This isn't a distraction. It's part of the overall nature of how terrible MSM is and that's part of the national conversation and gambit of massive problems facing americans these days.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882436299885613056
More Congressmen need to be talking about this. At least one of them seems to have picked it up and addressed it. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882433106367610880


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Aren't you one of those that bash the media from distracting from reporting on real issues?


Uh, CNN blackmailing a Trump supporter and threatening their family for posting a meme IS a real issue. How is it not? It's an attack on free speech by one of the largest media organizations in the world, who are currently involved in a heavily partisan witch hunt against the president that the person they're blackmailing supports. 

I'm of the opinion this is grounds for the president to ban CNN from White House press briefings until an independent investigation is done to determine all those responsible within the company and for them to lose their jobs. If CNN chooses to ignore the issue or refuses to comply, they should be permanently banned. It's time for Trump to crack down on the deranged leftist media. We can't tolerate news organizations blackmailing people and threatening their families.



> Anyway, it is just ironic that doxing is being classed as an acceptable leftist tactic when it is an acceptable tactics that arose from internet culture regardless of political ideology. Partisan hack trying to score brownie points in their own head.


This made no sense at all. Please try again.


----------



## FriedTofu

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Maybe you want to talk to CNN about that.


So we are in agreement all this is just a distraction?



Miss Sally said:


> They're a major news organization that threatened a kid who made a joke meme. They deserve to be shit on especially for what they've done.


What did they do exactly? They tracked down the person responsible for the meme and tried to contact him. 



Iconoclast said:


> Tofu once lauded the education system of a country that has engaged in decades of infanticide resulting in millions of deaths and a 20 million disparity amongst males and females just so that he could claim that school choice is a bad idea.


:wtf

How you conflate those two things is beyond me. I believe I did say there were caveats to said system. Not my problem you are the one that allowed his partisanship to affect his views on everything and tried to project that unto me.



> You really think he actually cares about healthcare reform in America?
> 
> Nope. He's just another Trump hater and therefore has shaped all his policy stances based on how they can oppose Trump instead of whether they actually make sense or not. It's a new breed of young individual whose real train of thought starts with "How can I spin this to spout my daily dose of Trump-bashing online today?"


:lol

I admit I am a Trump hater and think most of his policies are ridiculous. though I don't sit around thinking how to shape my policy stance on how to oppose Trump. I am not the one spinning his leftist hate unto his daily dose of narcissistic posting in here. Why do you keep insisting on projecting the reason you are engaging with others online unto me?




> I mean, instead of addressing the fact that a multi-billion dollar corporation literally blackmailed a child, he's still not even addressing the actual crime here - trying to make this about a "distraction". This isn't a distraction. It's part of the overall nature of how terrible MSM is and that's part of the national conversation and gambit of massive problems facing americans these days.


I think you need to learn what literally mean.




CamillePunk said:


> Uh, CNN blackmailing a Trump supporter and threatening their family for posting a meme IS a real issue. How is it not? It's an attack on free speech by one of the largest media organizations in the world, who are currently involved in a heavily partisan witch hunt against the president that the person they're blackmailing supports.


How is it blackmail? Was there even a threat of litigation similar to how Trump behave when faced with accusations or being made fun of?



> I'm of the opinion this is grounds for the president to ban CNN from White House press briefings until an independent investigation is done to determine all those responsible within the company and for them to lose their jobs. If CNN chooses to ignore the issue or refuses to comply, they should be permanently banned. It's time for Trump to crack down on the deranged leftist media. We can't tolerate news organizations blackmailing people and threatening their families.


Whatever floats your boat. Just gives CNN more stuff to talk about other than issues that really matter. :shrug Might as well sue them like our governments in Asia. 

Seems like you really want to be like China. 



> This made no sense at all. Please try again.


Just poking fun at Reaper for ranting about doxing being a leftist acceptable tactic when both leftist and rightist movement have people that deem these acceptable to use on people they disagree with.


----------



## virus21

Even more amusing is that other left wing news outlets are calling fowl on CNN


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> How is it blackmail? Was there even a threat of litigation similar to how Trump behave when faced with accusations or being made fun of?


Read the article for yourself. It's pretty explicit. 



> Whatever floats your boat. Just gives CNN more stuff to talk about other than issues that really matter. :shrug Might as well sue them like our governments in Asia.


This issue DOES matter. We need to be able to exercise our free speech without major news networks turning us into targets for having opinions they don't like, because we set them off in some way like making a funny meme.


----------



## FriedTofu

virus21 said:


> Even more amusing is that other left wing news outlets are calling fowl on CNN


They should just expose the guy and let everything get real ugly. :lmao


----------



## Jay Valero

virus21 said:


> Even more amusing is that other left wing news outlets are calling fowl on CNN


I saw WaPo and WaTimes have something on it, BBC try to spin it the same as cnn did by throwing around a bunch of "ists" and "isms". But nothing from Fox, msnbc, or cbs that I saw.


----------



## Jay Valero

CamillePunk said:


> Read the article for yourself. It's pretty explicit.
> 
> This issue DOES matter. We need to be able to exercise our free speech without major news networks turning us into targets for having opinions they don't like, because we set them off in some way like making a funny meme.


Anybody that understands the collection of infractions and misdeeds committed by cnn will understand that, in totality, this is more frightening and a graver danger to our great Republic than Watergate. Not joking.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Read the article for yourself. It's pretty explicit.
> 
> This issue DOES matter. We need to be able to exercise our free speech without major news networks turning us into targets for having opinions they don't like, because we set them off in some way like making a funny meme.


But isn't that happening already with corporations targeting individuals due to their online activities? Why is it OK for anonymous individuals to turn you into targets and not corporations who run the risk of what happened to CNN happening to them?

The genie has been loose from the lamp a long time ago. I heard nary a whisper of outrage around here when leftist journalists get death threats.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> But isn't that happening already with corporations targeting individuals due to their online activities? Why is it OK for anonymous individuals to turn you into targets and not corporations who run the risk of what happened to CNN happening to them?
> 
> The genie has been loose from the lamp a long time ago. I heard nary a whisper of outrage around here when leftist journalists get death threats.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Post an example.


----------



## virus21




----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. Post an example.


Tomi Lahren?

I"m not diving into the chans for you regarding random individuals targeting individuals. Sorry.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Fox chiming in. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882569607994724352


----------



## Miss Sally

Oh CNN, why do you keep making fools of yourselves?

Though I did have a good laugh at Canada paying millions to a convicted terrorist.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tofu weren't you saying something about foccusing on distractions, then you were trying to troll me with something about :trump savior and socializing political costs and privatizing political gains and some other tired old lefty talking points and I said sorry no and apparently you're satisfied with getting BTFO and going back to talking about doxing? Pathetic. If you're going to troll like you tried you have to commit.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Tomi Lahren?
> 
> I"m not diving into the chans for you regarding random individuals targeting individuals. Sorry.


Wait what? Tofu making claims to criticize other people here then refusing to back them up? Shockingly surprising from him. Wait no it's all he ever does.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> Oh CNN, why do you keep making fools of yourselves?
> 
> Though I did have a good laugh at Canada paying millions to a convicted terrorist.


It's quite insane how his rights were "violated" but the victims of his crimes should be thanking him it seems. At least they're seeking an emergency injunction , we'll see what happens . Giving 10 million to a terrorist... it's unthinkable to be giving away money to the enemy, he just funded terrorists . This is unjustifiable , I can't even believe it because it doesn't seem real to me

Trudeau is a one term prime minister, and this crap is going to do him in thankfully.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Tofu weren't you saying something about foccusing on distractions, then you were trying to troll me with something about :trump savior and socializing political costs and privatizing political gains and some other tired old lefty talking points and I said sorry no and apparently you're satisfied with getting BTFO and going back to talking about doxing? Pathetic. If you're going to troll like you tried you have to commit.


I think I must have distracted you too much that your typos are increasing. Why are you even trying to claim the moral high ground about distraction when the post you are quoting is in response to your trolling post libtards jumping off of buildings? Pretty sure my response was that we both agreed obstructionism prevented better reforms in past administrations. 

I missed your next post so you are crying for attention. How pathetic. :lmao Fine I'll entertain you so you won't feel ignored by Daddy.



deepelemblues said:


> Of course they're not real, Hillary isn't president.
> 
> You don't need the minority except in the Senate and now after years of usually having a nearly evenly divided Senate, you don't need very much of the minority there either. Both sides have shown skill at peeling off a few Senators from the majority party to frustrate the Majority Leader and the President, many times in the last decade. Blaming obstructionism is the complaint of the ineffectual and the incompetent. If :trump fails to achieve even one of his major legislative priorities, he will have shown himself to be ineffectual and incompetent.
> 
> I am expecting for the Grand Old Party to change after :trump's presidency, and am hoping that it shifts back towards the economic and governmental philosophy roots its leadership pays lip service to. Back to Calvin Coolidge. There isn't much room for Silent Cal in a :trumpian Party. So no, my reasons for disliking the current leadership have little to do with :trump. I am quite happy with the Party at the state and local level, and with most of its representatives and Senators outside of the leadership. The party was being reorganized and re-energized well before :trump burst onto the scene, and they are going to make the GOP a going concern for a long time.


Trump has been blaming obstructionism ever since he got into office. Just check his tweets. So can he already be deemed as ineffectual and incompetent? It also seem more and more likely that compromise is seen as a weakness instead of a virtue. So I doubt anything will change much as long as the far right and the far left wing of whoever is the majority party refuse to budge. GOP controlled all branches of power right now and still can't agree on what to agree on.

The GOP will change from a values-focused campaigning into nostalgia-focused campaigning after Trump imo. Seems like it is going that way based on the replies around here from Trump supporters. Not sure which direction that will move the party towards in terms of economic policies. Curious why do you think GOP will shift back towards your policies when Trump got rich from being a rent seeker.



deepelemblues said:


> Wait what? Tofu making claims to criticize other people here then refusing to back them up? Shockingly surprising from him. Wait no it's all he ever does.


I brought up an example. Sorry you only read the second part of the post.


----------



## Jay Valero

Stinger Fan said:


> It's quite insane how his rights were "violated" but the victims of his crimes should be thanking him it seems. At least they're seeking an emergency injunction , we'll see what happens . Giving 10 million to a terrorist... it's unthinkable to be giving away money to the enemy, he just funded terrorists . This is unjustifiable , I can't even believe it because it doesn't seem real to me
> 
> Trudeau is a one term prime minister, and this crap is going to do him in thankfully.


I thought he was popular up there in Kanadia?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Jay Valero said:


> I thought he was popular up there in Kanadia?


His approval rating has been declining, so I can't see paying out 10 million to a terrorist would help him


----------



## Jay Valero

Stinger Fan said:


> His approval rating has been declining, so I can't see paying out 10 million to a terrorist would help him


We should declare Trudeau an enemy of the state for that shit to be honest. This piece of crap killed at least one American soldier that we know of, and JT is giving him an apology and a ransom? That is offering aid and comfort to the enemy. Fuck that, fuck him, and fuck his supporters. Speers' widow and children should be the ones to get every goddamn cent of that money.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

FriedTofu said:


> So we are in agreement all this is just a distraction?


No, we're not. CNN clearly took Trump's tweet up the butt and have gone too far to try and change the narrative. That's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't partisan.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> No, we're not. CNN clearly took Trump's tweet up the butt and have gone too far to try and change the narrative. That's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't partisan.


Fuck even I don't like Trump but a fucking multi million dollar company harassing a random dude from rebbit is going two far.


----------



## Reaper

More evidence for the fact that Democrats need to shift back to the center-left / or even center right. They are not representing a very big chunk of their own constituents. Democrats are trying to pretend that they're representing europeans and canadians, and have forgotten their own constituents. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882647488586555393


> Republicans overwhelmingly back the restrictions, the poll shows. Eighty-four percent of GOP voters support the ban, while only 9 percent oppose it. *But the policy is also popular among independent voters: 56 percent support it*, compared to 30 percent who oppose it. *Democrats tilt slightly against the ban, with 41 percent supporting it,* and 46 percent in opposition.


This interestingly also goes back to supporting the idea that even the democrats that switched may have actually switched over because of National Security concerns as well.

Of course, if Kellyanne (the winner of the most long-shot presidential candidate in modern history) backs a poll, there's something to it.


----------



## El Dandy

Amazed that they have opened up Pandora's box again. It's like they don't know that this hacker known as 4chan doxxes people for sport; I imagine Kaczynski's family from his mother - to his grandmother - to his 3rd cousin twice removed is about to be met with a swell of harassment, gore & cheese pizza.


----------



## Reaper

4Chan has just declared war on CNN. I've seen these before. They're not pretty.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> I think I must have distracted you too much that your typos are increasing. Why are you even trying to claim the moral high ground about distraction when the post you are quoting is in response to your trolling post libtards jumping off of buildings? Pretty sure my response was that we both agreed obstructionism prevented better reforms in past administrations.


So BTFO you don't even know the definition of "typo" :heston

I never used the word libtards, are you confusing my post with some other post? It was a rather tame joke, the NYT defenestration. A bit of hyperbole regarding what their reaction would be.

Your response was a boring rhetorical trick that got BTFO.



> I missed your next post so you are crying for attention. How pathetic. :lmao Fine I'll entertain you so you won't feel ignored by Daddy.


Your hypocrisy being pointed out garnering your attention is completely up to you.




> Trump has been blaming obstructionism ever since he got into office. Just check his tweets. So can he already be deemed as ineffectual and incompetent? It also seem more and more likely that compromise is seen as a weakness instead of a virtue. So I doubt anything will change much as long as the far right and the far left wing of whoever is the majority party refuse to budge. GOP controlled all branches of power right now and still can't agree on what to agree on.


I think it is a bit premature to conclude he is ineffectual and incompetent legislatively, by this time next year if he hasn't gotten anything major through congress I think it will be fair to conclude that. 



> The GOP will change from a values-focused campaigning into nostalgia-focused campaigning after Trump imo. Seems like it is going that way based on the replies around here from Trump supporters. Not sure which direction that will move the party towards in terms of economic policies. Curious why do you think GOP will shift back towards your policies when Trump got rich from being a rent seeker.


What does :trump being a rent seeker have to do with it? There's a missing connection in your logic there. Is there a 'rent seeking is the way to prosperity' plank in the GOP platform now? Or will there be?

:trump also got rich and stayed rich by playing the Manhattan bankers and winning. What did rent seeking have to do with him using the resources of several banks to amass huge amounts of valuable property and then telling them let's see who blinks first when they wanted him to pay up? (They did.)



> I brought up an example. Sorry you only read the second part of the post.


"Tomi Lahren" isn't an example, it's throwing out a name like everyone is supposed to know all about the details of some d-list conservative e-celeb getting fired from a d-list conservative website like the Blaze, like we're all supposed to pay attention to all these people because we're all on 'the right.' It has been some time since I've read anything on the Blaze, it's unappealing to me for several reasons. Glenn Beck is one reason, another would be the generally low quality of the writing from what I remember. Enlighten me on "Tomi Lahren" as you could very well be right but "Tomi Lahren" doesn't shed much light on that.

Also I'm sure you've noticed how all this has bumped Russia right to the back page. A tweet of some meme surely should not distract attention - for going on four days now - from such an important-to-the-very-soul-of-our-democracy and totally not made-up story, should it?


----------



## Vic Capri

> 4Chan has just declared war on CNN. I've seen these before. They're not pretty.







- Vic


----------



## Punkhead

WOW, that Tweet really caused a shitstorm. CNN apparently doxxed and blackmailed a 15 year old kid into apologizing for making that gif, which is beyond ridiculous. And now #CNNBlackMail is trending on Twitter. And 4chan declared war on CNN? This is gonna be good.










EDIT: Also:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882502701564665856


----------



## Goku

Iconoclast said:


> 4Chan has just declared war on CNN. I've seen these before. They're not pretty.


----------



## MrMister

:lmao CNN

They just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.


----------



## Reaper

It has indeed begun:










The real crime here is he searched for "porno" :ha


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882650050165342208
These are such amazing times.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

And it gets better and better. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882656630290231297

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882675750628986882

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882659697802784773


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> 4Chan has just declared war on CNN. I've seen these before. They're not pretty.


I was just telling my parents last night that the journalist just started an online war and that 4Chan was going to come out guns blazing.


----------



## virus21

> President Trump will visit Poland on Wednesday. Although Trump is unpopular in much of Europe, he can expect a warm welcome in Warsaw. The White House says Poland is a potential energy partner.
> STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
> President Trump heads to Warsaw tomorrow. He visits Poland before visiting Germany, France or the U.K., according to the schedule as it's currently known. Why Poland first? Well, it is a NATO ally, as the White House points out. And NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson offers another possible reason.
> SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON, BYLINE: President Trump is assured a warm welcome by a sympathetic government in Warsaw, even if Poland is something of a pariah in the European Union at the moment. Like the U.S. administration, the Polish government, which is headed by the populist Law and Justice Party, insists national interests trump global ones. Krzysztof Szczerski is a top official in the Polish president's office. He recently spoke to Radio Poland about the Trump visit.
> (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
> KRZYSZTOF SZCZERSKI: America first will meet Poland first. And I think that will be a very fruitful meeting.
> NELSON: It won't be as glitzy as the one a couple of months ago in Saudi Arabia. But the American president can count on the support of Polish leaders and those of 11 other countries belonging to the Three Seas Initiative, which moved up its Warsaw summit to coincide with his visit. The initiative seeks to improve trade and energy links between its members, all of them potential buyers of American oil and gas. But it's not just Trump who benefits. His visit is a major coup for the Law and Justice Party, which leads opinion polls there, but only by a slim margin.
> The populists' two-year tenure has been marred by fierce protests at home and threats of EU sanctions over their attempts to rein in the Polish courts and media. Polish leaders have also been at odds with Brussels over the EU presidency of Donald Tusk. He used to be Poland's prime minister from a rival mainstream party. And the current populist government there tried but failed to get him ousted.
> MALGORZATA GOSIEWSKA: (Speaking Polish).
> NELSON: Law and Justice MP Malgorzata Gosiewska criticized the EU for giving Tusk a second term. She says it shows the EU is not in touch with reality when it elects a Polish man who polls don't want to lead it. But Law and Justice Party troubles don't seem to faze its voters. Critics charge they are bought off with subsidies the country can ill afford, including one that pays Polish families that have more than one child. Voter Martin Fietkiewicz is a Gdansk businessman whose family receives $260 a month under that program. But he says money isn't the reason he supports the populists.
> MARTIN FIETKIEWICZ: (Speaking Polish).
> NELSON: Fietkiewicz says the Law and Justice government fights corruption. He adds the populists aren't perfect, but he considers him more reliable than the previous governments.
> (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
> JAROSLAW KACZYNSKI: (Speaking Polish).
> NELSON: At a party convention last weekend, Law and Justice Chair Jaroslaw Kaczynski lauded government leaders for keeping faith with Polish voters. He also accused Western European countries of being envious that Trump is coming to Poland first. So what do he and other Poles hope to hear from the American president when he's there? Szczerski described it to Radio Poland.
> (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
> SZCZERSKI: The one important message saying that the partnership between the U.S. and Poland is a real one. It's not just a theoretical one or not just build up on emotions.
> NELSON: Szczerski said there is also money at stake. He said he hopes Trump's visit will result in more U.S. investment in Poland. Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, NPR News.
> (SOUNDBITE OF WARSAW VILLAGE BAND'S "JOINT VENTURE IN THE VILLAGE")


http://archive.is/yO1nw#selection-4535.0-4665.67


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> 4Chan has just declared war on CNN. I've seen these before. They're not pretty.


Those people scare me

Untold hilarity to follow


----------



## Miss Sally

amhlilhaus said:


> Those people scare me
> 
> Untold hilarity to follow


Considering they found Shia's flag and exposed a lot of antifa rejects who attacked people they are pretty scary. CNN execs etc are going to get dragged over the coals as it seems all these people do is information gather.


----------



## DaRealNugget




----------



## virus21




----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> So BTFO you don't even know the definition of "typo" :heston


I don't know. You clearly made a a typo in that quote.


> I never used the word libtards, are you confusing my post with some other post? It was a rather tame joke, the NYT defenestration. A bit of hyperbole regarding what their reaction would be.


Did I say you used that word? Did I say I was offended by the joke? I merely state we were both trolling so your attempt at bitching about me trolling is pathetic.



> Your response was a boring rhetorical trick that got BTFO.


But I merely agreed with what you said.



> Your hypocrisy being pointed out garnering your attention is completely up to you.


You clearly needed my attention just because I missed out on replying to you. Almost like you need to be anti-something to post in here. 



> I think it is a bit premature to conclude he is ineffectual and incompetent legislatively, by this time next year if he hasn't gotten anything major through congress I think it will be fair to conclude that.


But you gave two examples to label someone as such. Blaming obstructionism and not getting things done. Why is it premature when he already fit one according to you?





> What does :trump being a rent seeker have to do with it? There's a missing connection in your logic there. Is there a 'rent seeking is the way to prosperity' plank in the GOP platform now? Or will there be?
> 
> :trump also got rich and stayed rich by playing the Manhattan bankers and winning. What did rent seeking have to do with him using the resources of several banks to amass huge amounts of valuable property and then telling them let's see who blinks first when they wanted him to pay up? (They did.)


Because that would shape his economic viewpoint. i.e fking with the state to make his money. I think you are mistaking my label of rent-seeking and him playing the banks. His business is having access to a limited resource and charging a premium for it was what I meant. Him conning the banks is just his hustle. Speaking of his hustle, why aren't you afraid he is amassing his wealth and power via his presidency and then telling his supporters who blinks first when it is time for him to pay up?





> "Tomi Lahren" isn't an example, it's throwing out a name like everyone is supposed to know all about the details of some d-list conservative e-celeb getting fired from a d-list conservative website like the Blaze, like we're all supposed to pay attention to all these people because we're all on 'the right.' It has been some time since I've read anything on the Blaze, it's unappealing to me for several reasons. Glenn Beck is one reason, another would be the generally low quality of the writing from what I remember. Enlighten me on "Tomi Lahren" as you could very well be right but "Tomi Lahren" doesn't shed much light on that.
> 
> Also I'm sure you've noticed how all this has bumped Russia right to the back page. A tweet of some meme surely should not distract attention - for going on four days now - from such an important-to-the-very-soul-of-our-democracy and totally not made-up story, should it?


Tomi Lahren is an example because most people in this thread know of the story. I doubt CP do not know of her story. If he is, he could bring it up.

The Russia thing to me was less about a threat to democracy, but a hostile foreign influence on your elections. The rise of Trump's and Bernie's populism is more of a concern to the soul of your democracy. Maybe those two are connected if Trump was getting advise on how to shift your democracy away from what it used to be from Russia.


----------



## virus21




----------



## El Dandy

all these maymays


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Tomi Lahren?
> 
> I"m not diving into the chans for you regarding random individuals targeting individuals. Sorry.


How is Tomi Lahren an example of this? I don't get it.

Don't apologize to me. I lose nothing when you refuse to back up the things you say. :draper2 The loss is entirely yours.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

If only the DNC really wanted to figure out the truth behind Russia trying to sway the November election. 

:ha



> Hacked computer server that handled DNC email remains out of reach of Russia investigators
> 
> *It is perhaps the key piece of forensic evidence in Russia’s suspected efforts to sway the November presidential election, but federal investigators have yet to get their hands on the hacked computer server that handled email from the Democratic National Committee.*
> 
> Indeed, *the only cybersecurity specialists who have taken a look at the server are from CrowdStrike*, the Irvine, *California-based private cybersecurity company that the DNC hired to investigate the hack — but which has come under fire itself for its work.*
> 
> *Some critics say CrowdStrike’s evidence for blaming Russia for the hack is thin. **Members of Congress say they still believe Russia was responsible but wonder why the DNC has never allowed federal investigators to get a look at the key piece of evidence: the server.* Either way, a key “witness” in the political scandal consuming the Trump administration remains beyond the reach of investigators.
> 
> “I want to find out from the company [that] did the forensics what their full findings were,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is leading the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry, told The Washington Times.
> 
> *Scrutinizing the DNC server hack and CrowdStrike’s analysis has not factored heavily in multiple probes exploring the Russia issue. But behind the scenes, discussions are growing louder, congressional sources say.*
> 
> President Trump will hold an official bilateral meeting on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a Group of 20 summit in Germany, although it’s unclear how big the Russian election hacking scandal will loom in their private talk.
> 
> *In recent days, questions about the server have taken on more importance as attention has focused on an email suggesting that the DNC and the Obama administration’s Justice Department were trying to limit the scope of the FBI’s investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s secret email account.*
> 
> *Mentioned in recent reporting and testimony from fired FBI Director James B. Comey, the correspondence reportedly shows Obama-era Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch privately assuring “someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter.”*
> *
> Some observers have wondered whether the information is real or is Russian disinformation.*
> 
> The hacked server was last photographed in the basement of the DNC’s Washington headquarters near a file cabinet dating from the 1972 break-in of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.
> 
> *Both Republicans and Democrats say the DNC’s reaction to the hacking is troubling.*
> 
> Jeh Johnson, who served as homeland security secretary under President Obama, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last month that his department offered to assist the DNC during the campaign to determine what was happening, but Mr. Johnson said he was rebuffed.
> “The DNC,” Mr. Johnson said at the time, “did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time. I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there, and the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them, they don’t want our help, they have CrowdStrike.”
> 
> *In January, Mr. Comey told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI issued “multiple requests at different levels” to assist the DNC with a cyberforensic analysis. Those requests were also denied.*
> 
> DNC officials said the Russian hack had already been discovered and dealt with when the Homeland Security Department approached them last summer.
> 
> *Sen. Kamala D. Harris, California Democrat and a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said more needs to be known about the interaction.
> “As a general point, there is no question that we need to look into everything in terms of who did what, what was invasive about hacking, and what they gained from it and why,”* Ms. Harris told The Times. “Not only so we can establish what happened, but so it can teach us what is frankly inevitable about the next election cycle if we don’t figure out what happened.”
> *The White House has highlighted what it says is the DNC’s reluctance to accept help dealing with the server hack. President Trump, in a May 7 tweet, wondered: “When will the Fake Media ask about the Dems dealings with Russia & why the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI to check their server or investigate?”*
> 
> Clouds over CrowdStrike
> 
> *The DNC hack produced embarrassing internal emails *that were posted to WikiLeaks and sparked a nasty internal battle just as the party was preparing for its convention and refereeing a spirited primary contest between front-runner Hillary Clinton and the insurgent campaign of Sen. Bernard Sanders.
> 
> *Some emails suggested that the DNC leadership — including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz — had plotted to undermine Mr. Sanders’ ascent in the presidential race. The WikiLeaks revelations on July 22 eventually resulted in the departures of Ms. Wasserman Schultz and several other top DNC executives.*
> 
> To explore the hack, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity tech company launched in 2011 hoping to challenge better-known industry leaders such as Symantec and McAfee.
> 
> Co-founded by George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch, both former McAfee employees, CrowdStrike quickly acquired a string of high-profile clients.
> In 2014, it investigated the Sony Pictures leak, the disclosure of a trove of sensitive and embarrassing internal emails and executive salary data apparently orchestrated by hackers sympathetic to North Korea, and who objected to Sony’s comic depiction of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
> “We don’t have a mission statement — we are on a mission to protect our customers from breaches,” CrowdStrike’s website declares.
> 
> The firm also has found success in generating venture capital support. Fortune magazine reported that it has raised $256 million and boasts a “valuation exceeding $1 billion.”
> 
> *Investors include Warburg Pincus, whose president, Timothy Geithner, worked for the Clinton and Obama administrations. The Clinton campaign’s largest corporate contributor, Google, whose employees donated more than $1.3 million to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign last year, also has funded CrowdStrike.*
> 
> During the election cycle last year, the DNC paid CrowdStrike more than $410,000. This year, it has collected more than $121,000 from the party.
> *The DNC declined to answer questions about CrowdStrike. During a telephone call with The Times, DNC communications staff also refused to discuss the location of its infamous server.*
> 
> *In an ironic twist, CrowdStrike has added the National Republican Congressional Committee to its client list. The NRCC also declined to answer questions for this report.*
> 
> In an email to The Times, CrowdStrike defended its record and said criticisms about its DNC work and interaction with U.S. law enforcement agencies are unfounded.
> 
> “In May 2016 CrowdStrike was brought to investigate the DNC network for signs of compromise, and under their direction we fully cooperated with every U.S. government request,” a spokesman wrote. The cooperation included the “providing of the forensic images of the DNC systems to the FBI, along with our investigation report and findings. Those agencies reviewed and subsequently independently validated our analysis.”
> 
> Questions
> 
> *Still, the company faces increasing scrutiny, including over the impartiality of co-founder Mr. Alperovitch.*
> 
> *Mr. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank focused on international issues that is partially funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who reportedly has donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.*
> 
> Late last year, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank, disputed CrowdStrike’s analysis of a Russian hack during Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. CrowdStrike later revised and retracted portions of its analysis.
> 
> CrowdStrike’s most famous finding — that Russian-supported hackers penetrated the DNC server — has triggered the most questions.
> Last year, that finding was wrapped into the assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which first raised alarms about Russian meddling.
> 
> The DNI, which briefed Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump on the Russian meddling operation and issued classified and public assessments, concluded that “the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” meaning the DNC hack.
> 
> *CrowdStrike said it found malware known as X-Agent on the DNC computers.* Russia’s Federal Security Service and its main military intelligence branch, the GRU, have used this malware to penetrate unclassified networks at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> *CrowdStrike also said it had identified two teams of Russian hackers, with the code names “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” operating inside the DNC network.*
> 
> “We’ve had lots of experience with both of these actors attempting to target our customers in the past and know them well,” Mr. Alperovitch wrote on CrowdStrike’s blog in June 2016.
> 
> *But cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr questioned whether CrowdStrike’s evidence clinches the case.*
> 
> *“X-Agent has been around for ages and has always been attributed to the Russian government, but others use it,” said Mr. Carr, who has supplied the U.S. intelligence community with analysis.*
> 
> Mr. Carr said in an interview that the malware can be recovered, reverse-engineered and reused. Copies of X-Agent exist outside Russian hands, including one with an American cybersecurity company. He said it’s possible CrowdStrike was duped — or simply sees Russia’s handiwork everywhere.
> WikiLeaks has consistently denied that it received the material from the Kremlin amid reports that a leaker within the DNC might have abetted the hack. *WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News in January: “We can say, we have said, repeatedly over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”*
> 
> *Atlanta-based hacker Robert David Graham, who runs a consultancy called Errata Security, said CrowdStrike’s certainty about the Russian role can’t be accepted uncritically.
> 
> “CrowdStrike is better than anything that the government has,” he said. “But once you decide it is Russia, you will go looking for Russia.”*
> 
> Overall, he said, political factors distorted what needs to be a more scientific approach to who had access to the DNC servers.
> 
> “For good or bad, we make judgments based on our expertise and knowledge,” he said. “Sometimes they are insightful and awesomely correct. Sometimes they fall flat on their face.”
> 
> Mr. Graham, a libertarian like many others in the hacker community, said that from a privacy standpoint, he understands why the DNC would not want to hand over its server to the federal government. “What private company would?”
> 
> Congressional inquiry?
> 
> *Whether CrowdStrike appears before a congressional inquiry anytime soon could depend on the momentum of the overall Russia investigations throughout Capitol Hill.*
> 
> Late last month, after hearing Mr. Johnson say the DNC denied Homeland Security overtures to help secure its computers, *Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, “There may be something else on that server [that the DNC] didn’t want law enforcement to see.”
> Mr. Graham has insisted he needs to know more about CrowdStrike.
> “What did they find?” he asked.*
> 
> *Some on Capitol Hill have an even harsher take. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a conservative Texas Republican and a former prosecutor, said DNC and CrowdStrike are acting like defendants with something to hide in declining to allow government investigators access to the server.
> *
> *“Why would they not invite them in?” Mr. Gohmert asked in a Fox News interview last month. “And I’m really interested in their excuse. But just from my own experience in all those years, usually the reason somebody didn’t want to invite law enforcement in to investigate is because they knew they would find that they had committed crimes if they came in and started investigating.”*
> 
> The cybersecurity community also wants more answers.
> *“The only things that pay in the cybersecurity world are claims of attribution,” Mr. Carr said. “Which foreign government attacked you? If you are critical of the attack, you make zero money. CrowdStrike is the poster child for companies that operate like this.”*
> 
> Last year, alongside one of the DNI assessments, the Obama administration released a spreadsheet containing part of CrowdStrike’s cyberforensic work. The data included digital signatures and IP addresses, which trace computer-to-computer communications and help identify hackers. Mr. Graham, the hacker, said the only way to dispel all doubt would be to analyze independently everything CrowdStrike has seen. To do so would mean getting access to the DNC server.
> 
> *As for CrowdStrike, when asked whether officials would be willing to testify before a congressional inquiry, a spokesman reiterated in an email that the company already “provided the forensic images and our analysis to the FBI.” He said the company is “standing by the work it did for the DNC.”*
> In May, less than a week after Mr. Comey was fired as FBI director, CrowdStrike announced it had raised $100 million in venture capital.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If only the DNC really wanted to figure out the truth behind Russia trying to sway the November election.
> 
> :ha


Only got a third of the way through this, but its incredible how casually biased.these fucking reporters are.

Trumps administration is not drowning in the russian scandal, its come clear of that tar pit CAUSE NOTHINGS THERE

And dnc leadership was definitely helping, not apparently, hillarys campaign. Im not democrat, sanders an old idiot but he got royslly fucked. Dont feel bad for him though, he took a payoff to go away. Typical socialist in power. The struggle is real! That is, YOUR struggle. I got mine


----------



## DOPA




----------



## TripleG

Yeah, way to make yourselves look good CNN. 

Overreact to a joke/meme, track down who made it, and essentially blackmail him into compliance. 

You are totally not making yourselves look terrible and totally not making Trump look good. Nope, not at all. Keep it up guys.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Beatles123

This thread series is the best thing WrestlingForum has ever produced.

Yes, even counting the Shield Discussion thread. :rollins


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Duda shrugging at :trump as they leave the stage like "geez you really gotta deal with these dumb assholes all the time?"


----------



## amhlilhaus

Beatles123 said:


> This thread series is the best thing WrestlingForum has ever produced.
> 
> Yes, even counting the Shield Discussion thread. :rollins


How many threads will there have to be to discuss trump?

7 more years


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

amhlilhaus said:


> How many threads will there have to be to discuss trump?
> 
> 7 more years


Well, so far there have been two Trump threads in eight months, not counting the General Election thread which ran before the first Trump thread. This one will likely end in a couple months or so, leaving room for ANOTHER Trump thread.

Truly a WF draw. :trump4


----------



## Jay Valero

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Well, so far there have been two Trump threads in eight months, not counting the General Election thread which ran before the first Trump thread. This one will likely end in a couple months or so, leaving room for ANOTHER Trump thread.
> 
> *Truly a WF draw*. :trump4


Butts in seats.


----------



## Reaper

Next thread needs to coincide with a #Covfefe like moment :trump4


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Iconoclast said:


> Next thread needs to coincide with a #Covfefe like moment :trump4


This whole CNN debacle would've been the perfect catalyst for a new Trump thread :trump3, but the activity has dropped off since his inauguration. He needs a new "scandal" or something.


----------



## MrMister

I was just noticing the post count the other day and how this thread will need to be rebooted SOON.


----------



## Vic Capri

Why is North Korea launching missiles to begin with? Any military action taken by the US is justified. If you want peace, prepare for war.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883003944263442433
ROADS ARE RACIST BECAUSE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE TOO FUCKING POOR TO DRIVE

:sodone :sodone :sodone :sodone

What are the poor brown people's thoughts on dis? 

Where my fellow non-white peeps at? 

Ya'all driving are appropriating rich white culture now. You should be too poor to own cars 

:sodone


----------



## Jay Valero

Vic Capri said:


> Why is North Korea launching missiles to begin with? Any military action taken by the US is justified. If you want peace, prepare for war.
> 
> - Vic


Because that fucker is nuts, and nobody's gonna do anything about it anyway.


----------



## amhlilhaus

MrMister said:


> I was just noticing the post count the other day and how this thread will need to be rebooted SOON.


Its because the leftists who posted thought trump was in real trouble because of the fake russian story.

Now even they can see its nothing theyve retreated until the next true sign of scandal.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883003944263442433
> ROADS ARE RACIST BECAUSE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE TOO FUCKING POOR TO DRIVE
> 
> :sodone :sodone :sodone :sodone
> 
> What are the poor brown people's thoughts on dis?
> 
> Where my fellow non-white peeps at?
> 
> Ya'all driving are appropriating rich white culture now. You should be too poor to own cars
> 
> :sodone


it's not like good roads are important to attract businesses (jerbs) to an area and to reduce shipping costs for all goods but especially consumer goods

oh wait it's exactly like that 

if you're against spending money on roads you're for hurting poor people (who are disproportionately not white) with higher-priced goods and denying them JERBS

this perez woman is obvy a very racist bitch who hates the poor


----------



## MrMister

Roads also count bridges right? yes please don't maintain bridges so they collapse. People don't even realize that everything deteriorates and needs maintenance. Sad!

lmfao only rich white men drive is this satire?


----------



## Reaper

I was starting to think it might have been a poe, but considering her twitter is now private so probably not :kobelol










Nope. No satire. Just your everyday, normal feminist :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

every time an SJW dumbshit sets their twitter to private, the hordes of based shitposters have won another battle


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> it's not like good roads are important to attract businesses (jerbs) to an area and to reduce shipping costs for all goods but especially consumer goods
> 
> oh wait it's exactly like that
> 
> if you're against spending money on roads you're for hurting poor people (who are disproportionately not white) with higher-priced goods and denying them JERBS
> 
> this perez woman is obvy a very racist bitch who hates the poor


She's a feminist activist , what did you expect? Thoughtful insight and solutions to real problems? :lol


----------



## Jay Valero

Idk, I've never noticed rich white men out there working on the roads.


----------



## deepelemblues

Jay Valero said:


> Idk, I've never noticed rich white men out there working on the roads.


ive seen plenty of fat white union guys making 30+ bucks an hour plus full benefits talking to each other and scratching underneath their bulbous guts while the japanese standing shovels do all the work on roads, though


----------



## Jay Valero

I don't know what a standing shovel is, but I think a lot more of those guys on the road crews than I do corporate executives.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...lve-republican-problem-report/article/2627901

regressives are so dumb


----------



## Vic Capri

> Nope. No satire. Just your everyday, normal feminist


Feminism is cancer.

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> every time an SJW dumbshit sets their twitter to private, the hordes of based shitposters have won another battle


Considering his political twitter rants, Corny should be getting FLOODED with #fakenews and #cnnblackmail tweets.


----------



## domotime2

we can have welfare and roads


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882664754396897280


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883049171204362240
:lmao


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Well done, @Goku . :trump2



virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882664754396897280


Cobra-LALALALALALALALA! CNN-NANANANANANANA!

:hayden3


----------



## CamillePunk

Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour, the Muslim woman who tells women she disagrees with they should have their vaginas taken away, has called for jihad against the Trump White House:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18334/watch-womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-calls-ben-shapiro#

Interesting she mentions black Muslim slaves in the US when Islamic countries massacred and castrated millions of black slaves throughout history.











jesus is just alt right with me


----------



## deepelemblues

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

:hmmm


----------



## Vic Capri

> 1.) Download CNN app.
> 
> 2.) Leave 1 star rating on Google Play / ITunes store
> 
> 3.) Uninstall app.
> 
> 4.) Read the negative reviews, lol.


God bless 4chan. :clap

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883040276616552450
:lol


----------



## Jay Valero

Wait, so family, freedom, country, and God are now bad things?


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> How is Tomi Lahren an example of this? I don't get it.
> 
> Don't apologize to me. I lose nothing when you refuse to back up the things you say. :draper2 The loss is entirely yours.


Targeted because of her opinion. :shrug

You whined about not having fun on the internet the previous time. :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Targeted because of her opinion. :shrug


I don't think you understand this topic.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think you understand this topic.


Then explain to me where I got it wrong.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour, the Muslim woman who tells women she disagrees with they should have their vaginas taken away, has called for jihad against the Trump White House:
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/18334/watch-womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-calls-ben-shapiro#
> 
> Interesting she mentions black Muslim slaves in the US when Islamic countries massacred and castrated millions of black slaves throughout history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jesus is just alt right with me


I'd question Linda's claim of African slaves being Muslim, considering the Europeans got the majority of their slaves from Western Africa and in Islam enslaving another Muslim is forbidden I highly doubt there was very many of them.

The Islamic expansion seen them in Northern Africa and parts of the West and interior. I don't see Islamic rulers selling Muslim slaves to Europeans and from what i recall the Europeans dealt with many tribal African rulers, a lot of the slaves were captured in tribal warfare.

This just seems like another attempt by Muslim fundamentalists trying to claim Islam has always been a part of American which it has not, it's had zero effect on the founding of America or it's values. Her claim is an insult to blacks who were slaves, trying to use their suffering for her benefit.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Then explain to me where I got it wrong.


Tomi Lahren is a political commentator and public figure. She already voluntarily puts herself out there and agrees to be held responsible for all of her arguments and views. 

Some guy who made a meme has done nothing of the sort, as evidenced by CNN having to conduct an investigation to track down his identity and then threaten him with releasing it to the public - against his will - all because he made a meme about them. He wasn't targeted for his views, he was hunted down because he made a meme. If you really see the situations as comparable I don't think our realities have enough convergence to continue the conversation.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Tomi Lahren is a political commentator and public figure. She already voluntarily puts herself out there and agrees to be held responsible for all of her arguments and views.
> 
> Some guy who made a meme has done nothing of the sort, as evidenced by CNN having to conduct an investigation to track down his identity and then threaten him with releasing it to the public - against his will - all because he made a meme about them. He wasn't targeted for his views, he was hunted down because he made a meme. If you really see the situations as comparable I don't think our realities have enough convergence to continue the conversation.


The discussion was about social media use being used by corporations to target individuals. If all he did was made a meme, what would CNN have to threaten him with?

I am going to assume your outrage was feigned if you are now taking the position of it being all over a meme and not the individual being targeted for his views.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> The discussion was about social media use being used by corporations to target individuals. If all he did was made a meme, what would CNN have to threaten him with?
> 
> I am going to assume your outrage was feigned if you are now taking the position of it being all over a meme and not the individual being targeted for his views.


:lol I'm just now taking that position? 



CamillePunk said:


> Uh, CNN blackmailing a Trump supporter and threatening their family* for posting a meme* IS a real issue. How is it not? It's an attack on free speech by one of the largest media organizations in the world, who are currently involved in a heavily partisan witch hunt against the president that the person they're blackmailing supports.
> 
> I'm of the opinion this is grounds for the president to ban CNN from White House press briefings until an independent investigation is done to determine all those responsible within the company and for them to lose their jobs. If CNN chooses to ignore the issue or refuses to comply, they should be permanently banned. It's time for Trump to crack down on the deranged leftist media. We can't tolerate news organizations blackmailing people and threatening their families.
> 
> This made no sense at all. Please try again.





FriedTofu said:


> How is it blackmail? Was there even a threat of litigation similar to how Trump behave when faced with accusations or being made fun of?





CamillePunk said:


> Read the article for yourself. It's pretty explicit.
> 
> This issue DOES matter. We need to be able to exercise our free speech without major news networks turning us into targets for having opinions they don't like, because we set them off in some way like *making a funny meme.*


His views were just a post hoc justification for their investigation and the leverage for their blackmail ploy. They didn't know about them before deciding to go after the guy. It's not like Tomi Lahren posted a funny picture and then people scrounged the internet for the clip of her saying she's pro-choice. She went on national television and said she was pro-choice and that was cause and subject of everything that came after. 

I'm sorry but I just don't think you're smart enough for these kinds of discussions if you can't keep track of what the conversation is about, and try to portray as parallel two very separate things, and then hallucinate that I was talking about something else the entire time to justify you going off-topic. I'm going to have to move my attention to people who can demonstrate the ability to keep up.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

Who remembers Clock Boy? :lol


----------



## virus21

> According to reports, a man was arrested outside of Senator Jeff Flake’s (R-AZ) office for telling staffers that liberals will solve their ‘Republican problem’ by getting a better aim. More violent threats from the left (shocker).
> 
> 
> Washington Examiner:
> 
> A man was arrested for telling staffers to Sen. Jeff Flake that liberals will solve their Republican problem by getting “better aim,” and made a reference to the shooting at a practice for the congressional baseball game last month.
> 
> Jason Samuels, Flake’s communications director, told Tuscon News Now a protester was arrested on Thursday morning after making threatening statements to staffers.
> 
> “You know how liberals are going to solve the Republican problem? They are going to get better aim,” he said. “That last guy tried, but he needed better aim. We will get better aim.”
> 
> The protester was likely referencing last month’s shooting in Alexandria, Virginia.
> 
> KVOA reports that a second protester was also arrested for forcing his way into Senator Flake’s office:
> 
> That man has been identified as Mark Prichard, 59. He was arrested for Criminal Trespass in the 3rd Degree and Threats and Intimidation, according to Pima County Sheriff’s Dept. spokesman Dep. Cody Gress.
> 
> “The office is a rented space on privately owned property, and the property management company as well as the staff at Sen. Flake’s office indicated they wanted the protester who made the comments to be trespassed, Gress said.”
> 
> Another protester, identified as Patrick Diehl, 70, was arrested after allegedly forcing his way into Flake’s office when a staffer opened the door to pass out informational packets, Gress said. The office was not allowing protesters inside.
> 
> Diehl was immediately arrested for Criminal Trespass in the 3rd Degree as well, Gress said.
> 
> Both Prichard and Diehl were transported to the Pima County Adult Detention Complex for their charges, Gress added. The remaining protesters were allowed to be on the property 5 at a time from that point forward, and the remaining protest time was peaceful.
> 
> Photo of the two protesters arrested below. Prichard, 59 and Diehl, 70.
> 
> 
> The protester was referencing last months shooting of Congressman Scalise. Senator Flake was at the Alexandria, VA baseball field when the shooting occurred and was one of the first to tend to Scalise. He also quickly grabbed Senator Joe Barton’s (R-TX) 10-year-old son who was helping the team on the field by fetching baseballs, and hid him under the dugout bench to protect him from gunfire.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/protester-arrested-outside-senators-office-said-liberals-will-get-better-aim-solve-republican-problem/


----------



## CamillePunk

Zydeco said:


> Who remembers Clock Boy? :lol


My life would peak if Trump just started posting a bunch of CNN memes. :lol He's content with letting CNN destroy themselves though, which is the smart play, as expected from Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> :lol I'm just now taking that position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, CNN blackmailing a Trump supporter and *threatening their family* for posting a meme IS a real issue. How is it not? It's an attack on free speech by one of the largest media organizations in the world, who are currently involved in a heavily partisan witch hunt against the president that the person they're blackmailing supports.
> 
> I'm of the opinion this is grounds for the president to ban CNN from White House press briefings until an independent investigation is done to determine all those responsible within the company and for them to lose their jobs. If CNN chooses to ignore the issue or refuses to comply, they should be permanently banned. It's time for Trump to crack down on the deranged leftist media. We can't tolerate news organizations blackmailing people and threatening their families.
> 
> This made no sense at all. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article for yourself. It's pretty explicit.
> 
> This issue DOES matter. We need to be able to exercise our free speech *without major news networks turning us into targets for having opinions they don't like,* because we set them off in some way like making a funny meme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His views were just a post hoc justification for their investigation and the leverage for their blackmail ploy. They didn't know about them before deciding to go after the guy. It's not like Tomi Lahren posted a funny picture and then people scrounged the internet for the clip of her saying she's pro-choice. She went on national television and said she was pro-choice and that was cause and subject of everything that came after.
> 
> I'm sorry but I just don't think you're smart enough for these kinds of discussions if you can't keep track of what the conversation is about, and try to portray as parallel two very separate things, and then hallucinate that I was talking about something else the entire time to justify you going off-topic. I'm going to have to move my attention to people who can demonstrate the ability to keep up.
Click to expand...

What blackmail ploy? :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

If you haven't listened to or read :trump's speech Poland speech, it is quite something. Damn fine speechwriting.


----------



## Reaper

Oh yeah. My usual pre-emptive anti-autistic screeching post about Poland's first lady "rejecting" Trump's handshake. 

She just didn't see it or maybe it's protocol there for first lady's to shake hands first. 

But it's fun to watch them try to spin anything and everything they can. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883020938597609472


----------



## Vic Capri

I remember somebody else shaking Melania's hand first that caused a fake news uproar.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Some FNN dumbshit reported that Merkel chose Hamburg as the host city for this year's G20 summit because the location of the summit in Hamburg can be "completely surrounded" by protesters, so as to show :trump how much he is disliked.

Only problem is, Hamburg was chosen as the host city a year ago, when Side o Beef was expected to easily win the election. 

Literally every day brings a new example of FNN reporting something negative about :trump that is completely untrue.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

FriedTofu said:


> The discussion was about social media use being used by corporations to target individuals. If all he did was made a meme, what would CNN have to threaten him with?
> 
> I am going to assume your outrage was feigned if you are now taking the position of it being all over a meme and not the individual being targeted for his views.


You don't read the news, do you?


----------



## deepelemblues

All Joe the Plumber did was express his opinion to a candidate for president of the United States and the media started running stories about how he wasn't really a plumber, his license was expired, his first name isn't really Joe, he had a tax lien, blah blah blah. Just a bunch of really transparent smearing of him over literally nothing. Of course Joe the Plumber translated his 15 seconds of fame into a decent money stream from people who liked GIT ER DONE and other dumb shit like that so it turned out pretty good for him.


----------



## Beatles123

@Headliner Tell me...do you view this as a containment thread?


----------



## DOPA




----------



## BruiserKC

Vic Capri said:


> Why is North Korea launching missiles to begin with? Any military action taken by the US is justified. If you want peace, prepare for war.
> 
> - Vic





Jay Valero said:


> Because that fucker is nuts, and nobody's gonna do anything about it anyway.


Unfortunately, 20 years of appeasement and throwing money at North Korea every time they raised up in the hopes they would be nice and stop developing their nuclear weapons program have now put us in a position where there are no good options. 

Sanctions clearly haven't worked, as there are nations that are clearly willing to work through the loopholes or just defy them altogether. Providing money and food hasn't been effective either as most of it ends up going to the military and the continued building of the weapons program. For all Trump's discussions with Chinese leaders, the truth is China (and Russia) have no intention of really doing anything about putting little brother back on his Ritalin. At the same time, China doesn't want thousands of potential North Korean refugees pouring over its border in the event of military conflict with the US, nor are they willing to accept a unified Korea under democratic rule. Trump has stated he is willing to sit down with Kim Jong-Un, but would that actually be effective or nothing more than a photo op and propaganda for the North Korean leadership? 

While Trump has made very clear he is no longer willing to pacify the North Korean leadership, just talking tough may not be enough. The problem is that you might not be able to do a whole lot with military action. A full-fledged military operation to wipe out North Korea's nuclear program won't completely do the job because we don't know where every installation is, plus many of them are probably underground. Even a surgical strike taking out a couple of installations in a "message sent" manner invites the possibility of a full-fledged retaliation on Seoul and Japan. Even if they didn't use nukes, North Korea could kill tens of thousands alone with their chemical weapons. Assassinating Kim Jong-un could create a chaotic situation where there is massive upheaval. Plus, China might intervene militarily on their own behalf with any type of action that we take. 

So, we have no good options here, and it is further complicated by the problem that doing nothing is not really a good option either.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Assassinating Kim Jong-un could create a chaotic situation where there is massive upheaval.


It would be really interesting to see what happened to North Korea if the Kim family was dead since they've ruled the country for 7 decades come next year.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

On that note...

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162632490866/solving-the-north-korea-situation



> Solving the North Korea Situation
> 
> I have some spare time this morning so I thought I would solve the North Korean nuclear threat problem.
> 
> The current frame on how all sides are approaching the problem is a win-lose setup. Either North Korea wins – and develops nukes that can reach the mainland USA – or the United States wins, and North Korea abandons its nuclear plans, loses face, loses leverage, and loses security. Our current framing of the situation doesn’t have a path to success.
> 
> So how do you fix that situation?
> 
> First we must acknowledge that a win-lose model has no chance of success in this specific case because North Korea responds to threats by working harder to build nukes. That’s no good. You need some form of a win-win setup to make any kind of deal. That’s what I’m about to suggest. And by winning, I mean both sides get what they need, even if it isn’t exactly what they said they want.
> 
> What the U.S. wants is a nuclear-free North Korea. That would be our win.
> 
> What North Korea wants is an ironclad national defense, prestige, prosperity, and maybe even reunification of the Koreas on their terms. So let me describe a way to get there.
> 
> The main principle to keep in mind is that you can almost always reach a deal when two parties want different things. If we frame the situation as North Korea wanting nuclear weapons, and the U.S. not wanting them to have those nukes, no deal can be reached. There is no way for North Korea to simultaneously have nukes while having no nukes.
> 
> So you need to reframe the situation. The following deal structure does that.
> 
> Proposed North Korean Peace Deal
> 
> China, Russia, and U.S. sign a military security agreement to protect
> 
> BOTH
> 
> North Korea and South Korea from attack
> 
> BY ANYONE
> 
> for 100 years, in return for North Korea suspending its ICBM and nuclear weapons programs and allowing inspectors to confirm they are sticking to the deal.
> 
> At the end of a hundred years, North Korea and South Korea agree to unify under one rule. No other details on how that happens will be in the agreement. North Korea will be free to tell its people that the Kim dynasty negotiated to be the rulers of the unified country in a hundred years. South Korea will be free to announce that unification is a goal with no details attached. We will all be dead in 100 years, so we can agree to anything today. (That’s the key to making this work – all players will be dead before the end of it.)
> 
> The U.S. withdraws military assets from South Korea.
> 
> South Korea and North Korea reduce their non-nuclear military assets that point at each other.
> 
> Over the course of the 100-year deal, there could be a number of confidence-building steps in the agreement. For example, in ten years you might have a robust tourist arrangement. In twenty years, perhaps you can do business across borders. In fifty years, perhaps a unified currency (by then digital).
> 
> A hundred years is plenty of time for the Kim family to make their fortunes and move to Switzerland, or wherever, before unification is an issue. The deal might require some sort of International amnesty agreement for any North Korean leaders looking to get out of the country before unification.
> 
> Under this proposed deal structure all sides get what they want. North Korea’s leader can tell his people that their nuclear program was a big success because it resulted in the United States withdrawing forces, and it led to an eventual Korean unification on his terms. There is no opposition press in North Korea to dispute that framing. This looks like total victory to North Korea. That’s a win.
> 
> For the United States, a credible deal to get rid of North Korean nukes is a win. China and Russia would look like the adults in the room. They win too.
> 
> South Korea wins too, obviously.
> 
> And this deal would probably result in Nobel Peace Prizes for the leaders of all countries involved.
> 
> Students of history will recall that Great Britain agreed to lease Hong Kong from China for 99 years to avoid any risk of China taking Hong Kong militarily. The long lease period allowed both countries to agree to a deal that could not have been reached for a shorter time period. And it gave everyone time to plan for the peaceful transfer. No two situations are alike, but you can see how a hundred-year deal makes it easy to agree to difficult things today. We’ll all be dead before any of it matters. And if you work toward a common goal for a hundred years, the odds are good that it can happen. One way or another.
> 
> This is the sort of deal that would have been impossible in prior years. But the Trump administration understands the structure of dealmaking. This solution is available for the taking.
> 
> Update: President Trump tweeted that trade between China and North Korea is up 40% in the first quarter. Look at how he frames it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I have been describing as Trump’s go-to strategy of creating two ways to win and no way to lose. In this case, China either clamped down on North Korea (we win), or we can say we tried to get them to help and they refused.
> 
> That’s a free pass to do whatever we need to do, no matter how much China dislikes it. Hey, we tried it the other way. Clearly it didn’t work.
> 
> And it sets the table for all sides to get more serious about solving this non-militarily. Would you want President Trump to have a free pass to kill you?
> 
> My suggested deal structure is the only non-military option, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Jay Valero

Let's just drop an assload of freedom on N Korea and let S Korea claim whatever is left.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> On that note...
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162632490866/solving-the-north-korea-situation


Interesting idea...unfortunately it's very unrealistic. Kim will not willingly give up his power and nuclear weapons program under ANY circumstances. He has made that clear. It reminds me a lot of Munich in 1938...after the annexation of the Sudetenland the Germans were to be done with territorial claims for the Fatherland. Six months later the rest of Czechoslovakia was under German control and by the fall of 1939 the world was at war. The idea of just holding it off until we are gone won't work. Kim rules through terror and death and that is all he understands. 


Besides can you hear the uproar from all media, lamestream and conservative, that Trump has become the Neville Chamberlain of this generation? You know Kim would never negotiate in good faith and keep his word. The family hasn't done so since Carter showed up in 1994. Would we see the North Korean army roll over the border a few months later hoping to unify Korea now? 

Interesting idea and Adams' heart may be in the right place but you can't negotiate with a psychopath. The psychopath known as Kim Jong-Un wouldn't keep his promise.


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> @Headliner Tell me...do you view this as a containment thread?


What do you mean by containment thread? A place where all associated topics are lumped into one thread?


----------



## Jay Valero

Yeah, no. Way too try hard for me to take seriously. Put on a fucking shirt.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @Goku 

Seems like Trump and Putin are getting along quite well!  

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017...acking-north-korea-syria-chemistry/?mod=e2twp



> U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met for more than two hours Friday at the G-20 gathering in Germany. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson briefed reporters afterward on how the discussions went. Here are highlights from Mr. Tillerson’s remarks to reporters:
> 
> * * *
> 
> On meddling by Russia in U.S. election:
> 
> “The president opened the meeting with President Putin by raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject. The president pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement. President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past.
> 
> “The two leaders agreed, though, that this is a substantial hindrance in the ability of us to move the Russian-U.S. relationship forward, and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process, as well as those of other countries. So more work to be done in that regard. …
> 
> “[W]e’ve agreed to continue engagement and discussion around how do we secure a commitment that the — the Russian government has no intention of, and will not, interfere in our affairs in the future, nor the affairs of others, and how do we create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable.” …
> 
> “The Russians have asked for proof and evidence. I’ll leave that to the intelligence community to address.”
> 
> On Syria:
> 
> “They discussed important progress that was made in Syria. And I think all of you have seen some of the news that just broke regarding an — a de-escalation agreement and memorandum which was agreed between the United States, Russia and Jordan for an important area in southwest Syria that affects Jordan’s security, but also is a very complicated part of the — of the Syrian battlefield. … A cease-fire has been entered into. And I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria.
> 
> “And as a result of that, we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on, to de-escalate the areas and the violence, once we defeat ISIS, and to work together towards a political process that will secure the future of the Syrian people.”
> 
> On North Korea:
> 
> “We did have a — a pretty good exchange on North Korea. I would say the Russians see it a little differently than we do. So we’re going to continue those discussions and ask them to do more. Russia does have economic activity with North Korea.
> 
> “But I would also hasten to add Russia’s official policy is the same as ours: a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.
> 
> “And so I think, here, again, there is a difference in terms of view around tactics and pace. And so we will continue to work with them to see if we cannot persuade them as to the urgency that we see.”
> 
> On the chemistry between Putin and Trump:
> 
> “The — the two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly. There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two.
> 
> “I think, again — and — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had many, many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of relitigating of the past. I think both of the leaders feel like there’s a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about. We’re unhappy; they’re unhappy.
> 
> “I think the — the perspective of both of them was, this is a really important relationship. Two largest nuclear powers in the world; it’s a really important relationship. How do we start making this work? How do we live with one another? How do we work with one another? We — we simply have to find a way to go forward. …
> 
> “And I think there was just such a level of engagement and exchange, neither one of them wanted to stop. Several times, I — I had to remind the president — people were sticking their heads in the door, and I think they even — they sent in the first lady at one point, to see if she could get us out of there, and that didn’t work either.”


:lol They didn't want to stop talking. Looks like we're going to have what Trump said we would have during the election, to the autistic screeching of many on the left - a GOOD relationship with Russia. Heaven forbid! 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883406343549399041
:lol 

Social media is of course full of people making asinine posts like "Putin showed up early to meet with Trump, he's playing him like a fiddle!", and a clip showing one of their many handshakes has Trump reaching out first (as he often does when meeting foreign leaders) with implications that this somehow makes Trump subservient to Putin. :lol Absolutely deranged lunatics. 

The most insane of them all, Keith Olbermann, who has been leading THE RESISTANCE since Trump's election and believes our government is currently under Russian occupation, said that Trump is "capitulating" to Putin. :lol What the fuck is going to happen with these crazies when weeks and months and years have passed and the US is still doing its own thing, and clearly the Russian puppet narrative will have all been a ridiculous lie? It's like those end of the world cults.


----------



## DOPA

Only the far left would want the US and Russia to have a bad relationship like the one there was under Obama. They are still desperate to paint Trump as a puppet of Russia and that there is some sort of collusion going on between Trump and Putin, all because their girl Hillary lost the election. Meanwhile, every other sane person either on the left or right would rather want a better and more stable relationship with Russia so there isn't any unnecessary escalation or tension. Sounds like Trump had a good conversation with Putin.

I am surprised he brought up the hacking allegation but it's smart by Trump to address it and iron out any concerns. Makes Trump look like he's working through the process, he must know that the allegations are bullshit, insane and are based off of no real evidence whatsoever. Every sane voice I've heard on this subject on all sides of the political spectrum have said it's bullshit. CNN have admitted it's bullshit in covert videos. This embarrassing conspiracy theory needs to be put to bed and I have no interest in taking the matter seriously.

North Korea is an interesting one. Unfortunately, economic sanctions will not work and will only hurt the vast majority of the population there who are starving. The regime will be hit very little and will care very little about economic sanctions because they do not care about the population at large. They only care about keeping their people in line behind the cult of personality and projecting a big tough world presence. There are no easy answers with NK and I can't pretend to have one honestly. Though Scott Adams idea is an interesting one which I think deserves some thought.

What I am most encouraged by is the talk on Syria and the efforts being made to finally work together on this to get a solution pushed forward. The cease fire agreement is encouraging but we will have to see if it actually is implemented or if either side breaks it, which wouldn't surprise me at this rate. This horrible civil war which has done nothing but destabilize the region and helped to give more power to ISIS which is now finally being broken down (as well as ISIS being broken down in Iraq) has to end as soon as possible. Especially considering it will leave the EU no excuse to keep bringing in more migrants which is causing mass civil unrest in places like France, Germany and Sweden. Both due to the policies of the EU and those governments themselves.

Finally I would love to see Trump stand with Poland not only in keeping Russian aggression in check but also against the EU and it's migration policy which is hell bent on destabilizing and destroying nation state democracies. The Polish people have been the most stalwart and brave in opposition to EU policy in defence of it's self determination to be a nation state that makes it's own decisions. That includes the Polish government as well which is very rare.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Social media is of course full of people making asinine posts like "Putin showed up early to meet with Trump, he's playing him like a fiddle!", and a clip showing one of their many handshakes has Trump reaching out first (as he often does when meeting foreign leaders) with implications that this somehow makes Trump subservient to Putin. Absolutely deranged lunatics.
> 
> The most insane of them all, Keith Olbermann, who has been leading THE RESISTANCE since Trump's election and believes our government is currently under Russian occupation, said that Trump is "capitulating" to Putin. What the fuck is going to happen with these crazies when weeks and months and years have passed and the US is still doing its own thing, and clearly the Russian puppet narrative will have all been a ridiculous lie? It's like those end of the world cults.


Tell a lie enough times and people will believe it even with zero proof. 

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883442898665996288
:lmao Perfect Scott Adams tweet.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883293315554299904


----------



## MrMister

All your base are belong to us 

That's the first thing that popped into my head.


----------



## CamillePunk

"Is this what the west calls...trans?" - Putin


----------



## virus21

Oh come on, you guys are missing the obvious one:
Putin: I must break you.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Interesting idea and Adams' heart may be in the right place but you can't negotiate with a psychopath. The psychopath known as Kim Jong-Un wouldn't keep his promise.


Was watching Scott Adams talk on a periscope today and he mentioned some people stating his North Korea article was invalid because Kim Jong Un is a psychopath, and he had a fairly interesting counter-argument you may be interested in:

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1jMKgokNpbjKL?t=10

Skip ahead to 7:27 for the relevant bit, although the entire periscope is interesting and discusses the anti-Trump people and Trump's meeting with Putin.


----------



## MrMister

Adams doesn't deal with with the possibility that China doesn't want a united Korea...ever.

shit like that pence thing virus posted is why i like the internet. so fucking stupid yet so funny.


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> Adams doesn't deal with with the possibility that China doesn't want a united Korea...ever.


Doesn't matter. Watch the periscope I linked from 7:27 on. He has an interesting solution due to the fact China is supplying North Korea its weapons.


----------



## MrMister

Will do a bit later. Please save us Scott Adams.


----------



## CamillePunk

A lot of photos of Macron staring at Trump dreamy-eyed and being overly touchy with him. :woah I know Macron's wife is his mommy, but I don't think Trump is interested in being his daddy...


----------



## Vic Capri

> A lot of photos of Macron staring at Trudeau dreamy-eyed and being overly touchy with him...


Edited for accuracy.

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> A lot of photos of Macron staring at Trump dreamy-eyed and being overly touchy with him. :woah I know Macron's wife is his mommy, but I don't think Trump is interested in being his daddy...


I was not aware of this but i am not surprised even though I said wow out loud when I saw her age.

64 and 39.


----------



## Reaper

Gone are the days when the left would protest these summits because they were the ultimate in globalism .... 

Does anyone remember that wonderful time when leftists were anti-globalist as well? 

Whatever the fuck happened ... How did that switch come about?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Gone are the days when the left would protest these summits because they were the ultimate in globalism ....
> 
> Does anyone remember that wonderful time when leftists were anti-globalist as well?
> 
> *Whatever the fuck happened ... How did that switch come about?*


In a nutshell? Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Long-winded? A long-term infiltration on college campuses and Hollyweird of far-left idealists who dream of a "no borders" world. They aren't globalists for economic reasons. They're globalists for social reasons. Progressives give fuck all about economics.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> In a nutshell? Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Long-winded? A long-term infiltration on college campuses and Hollyweird of far-left idealists who dream of a "no borders" world. They aren't globalists for economic reasons. They're globalists for social reasons. Progressives give fuck all about economics.


I actually was in college in the 90's and early 2000's when the left was fully protesting globalist summits ... But then it was because they had the right idea as it was corporatist lobbying that they knew was happening at these summits. So we were in the right back then. The left is still anti-corporatist, but then they're not challenging big government anymore. It's something I know that they did till at least 2010 for sure. 

I still don't understand it. My analysis seems to fall short of what's really happening because a group that is anti-corporatist coming out in full support of the EU in the UK in recent years is one of the weirdest and most contradictory things I've ever seen.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> I actually was in college in the 90's and early 2000's when the left was fully protesting globalist summits ... But then it was because they had the right idea as it was corporatist lobbying that they knew was happening at these summits. So we were in the right back then. The left is still anti-corporatist, but then they're not challenging big government anymore. It's something I know that they did till at least 2010 for sure.
> 
> I still don't understand it. My analysis seems to fall short of what's really happening because a group that is anti-corporatist coming out in full support of the EU in the UK in recent years is one of the weirdest and most contradictory things I've ever seen.


Double think 

noun
the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> I actually was in college in the 90's and early 2000's when the left was fully protesting globalist summits ... But then it was because they had the right idea as it was corporatist lobbying that they knew was happening at these summits. So we were in the right back then. *The left is still anti-corporatist, but then they're not challenging big government anymore.* It's something I know that they did till at least 2010 for sure.
> 
> I still don't understand it. My analysis seems to fall short of what's really happening because a group that is anti-corporatist coming out in full support of the EU in the UK in recent years is one of the weirdest and most contradictory things I've ever seen.


I think this is where you might be erring. There's been a clear paradigm shift, which I know you see, among the left. Before they were "pro-Constitutional rights" and "anti-corporatist", but today, particularly those who you see currently rioting and protesting in Hamburg, are the new left; "anti-Constitutional rights", "pro-Big Brother", "pro-Globalist/Socialist". There are still the left that you mentioned, but that's not the group we're seeing out there now, at least not on a massive scale.


----------



## CamillePunk

Okay I was joking before but now I don't even know anymore. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883387133993660416
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that Macron, whose entire adult life has been dominated by his much older female teacher-wife, would latch on to a strong male role model. :lol Perhaps Macron used to watch Trump on TV when he was younger and wish Trump was his father. It's a common thing with young boys lacking male role models.


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883293315554299904


Merkel-anal?

Putin-nah i dont do that


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Miss Sally

Despite the leftist narrative that Mexico had somehow made Trump back down from his plan to have Mexico pay for the border wall, at the G20 Summit President Trump reaffirmed his intent to have Mexico pay for the wall - as the Mexican president sat right beside him. :lol The testicular fortitude of this man is something that is simply alien to the estrogenic left. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ly-wants-Mexico-pay-wall.html#article-4675074


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> Doesn't matter. Watch the periscope I linked from 7:27 on. He has an interesting solution due to the fact China is supplying North Korea its weapons.


Watched it and chuckled that he said the US should just retreat.

I agree with his notion that China and NK are possibly the same entity. I also agree with the notion that China wants NK to exist because a united Korea is much more of a threat to China than a divided one is (he didn't really touch on this one though). A united Korea will be a more powerful South Korea, not the other way around. So essentially since we're not in direct conflict with China, we won't be in direct conflict with a nuclear NK. NK won't nuke for the same reasons China won't nuke, since they are the same. It's an unresolved problem, but if NK = China then it's not a world ending problem most likely.

The South Koreans wouldn't be too happy about this but it's not like the United States wouldn't still have their back in an apocalyptic inferno that potentially ends civilization.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I think this is where you might be erring. There's been a clear paradigm shift, which I know you see, among the left. Before they were "pro-Constitutional rights" and "anti-corporatist", but today, particularly those who you see currently rioting and protesting in Hamburg, are the new left; "anti-Constitutional rights", "pro-Big Brother", "pro-Globalist/Socialist". There are still the left that you mentioned, but that's not the group we're seeing out there now, at least not on a massive scale.


I may have contradicted myself a little and misspoke. I meant to say that big government isn't a major issue with most leftists because they see government as innately benevolent and trustworthy.

However, the anarchist left has recently become increasingly pro-government as well with fewer and fewer left libertarians standing up for social causes and more shifting towards government as a method of implementing their social causes instead of relying on individual and personal action. 

So in that I agree. 

Where are the left small-government protesters - and why have they allowed big government leftists to ally with them. Don't they realize that it's contradictory (btw, I was on the left of the anarchist scale too but then started getting disenfranchised as I saw more and more of them forget what anarchy was all about).


----------



## Jay Valero

Apparently the Black Bloc took over the streets outside the G20. Rioting, breaking stuff, setting shit on fire. Yay?


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> Apparently the Black Bloc took over the streets outside the G20. Rioting, breaking stuff, setting shit on fire. Yay?


Not their first. They've actually been doing this regularly since the 90's. The first one I ever heard of was the one in Seattle against the WTO in 1999 but that was almost entirely against crony capitalism, government collusion and globalization. 

Unfortunately, they used to be anti-corporatist, but now most of them have been infiltrated by big government socialists who don't actually care about crony capitalism anymore, but rather demand government entitlements and "increased taxes on the rich" ...


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Jay Valero said:


> Wtf is this guys deal with hanging out in his dorm with a leather jacket and no shirt? I don't even watch his videos because it's so off-putting.


I would say to stop watching the videos and just listen. Dude is really smart and makes solid points, consistently. A lot of the times I'll play the video and open up other tabs.


----------



## Pratchett

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I would say to stop watching the videos and just listen. Dude is really smart and makes solid points, consistently. A lot of the times I'll play the video and open up other tabs.


This is good advice. I'm not bothered by his not wearing a shirt. In fact, I find it funny because my wife is always complaining about him doing that. :lol If there is anything he does that bugs me, it is the way his glasses reflect the glare from his screen. It's a bit distracting, but I can deal with it.


----------



## virus21

Apparently CNN now has lower ratings then reruns of old Yogi Bear cartoons. Couldn't happen to a nicer network


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC

The reason I don't really go in on the health care discussions in this thread is because I view the problem as largely unsolvable through government means, and neither political party seems anywhere close to offering any kind of solution that could possibly achieve the aim of delivering the best, cheapest healthcare to the most people. I'm also morally opposed to forcing anyone to provide a service, or to pay for someone else to receive a service. Here's a great article that offers some keen insight on the major issues with our current healthcare system, and some innovative technological solutions, that could actually solve the problem - unlike anything they could possibly cook up in congress: 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sm...to-the-health-care-crisis-1499443449?mod=e2tw



> The Smart-Medicine Solution to the Health-Care Crisis
> 
> Our health-care system won’t be fixed by insurance reform. To contain costs and improve results, we need to move aggressively to adopt the tools of information-age medicine.
> 
> The controversy over Obamacare and now the raucous debate over its possible repeal and replacement have taken center stage recently in American politics. But health insurance isn’t the only health-care problem facing us—and maybe not even the most important one. No matter how the debate in Washington plays out in the weeks ahead, we will still be stuck with astronomical and ever-rising health-care costs. The U.S. now spends well over $10,000 per capita on health care each year. A recent analysis in the journal Health Affairs by the economist Sean P. Keehan and his colleagues at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that health spending in the U.S. will grow at a rate of 5.8% a year through 2025, far outpacing GDP growth.
> 
> Our health-care system is uniquely inefficient and wasteful. The more than $3 trillion that we spend each year yields relatively poor health outcomes, compared with other developed countries that spend far less. Providing better health insurance and access can help with these problems, but real progress in containing costs and improving care will require transforming the practice of medicine itself—how we diagnose and treat patients and how patients interact with medical professionals. In medical training, private sector R&D, doctor-patient relations and public policy, we need to move much more aggressively into the era of smart medicine, using high-tech tools to tailor more precise and economical care for individual patients. This transition won’t be easy or fast—the culture of medical practice is famously conservative, and new technology always raises new concerns—but it has to be part of the solution to our health-care woes.
> 
> Radical new possibilities in medical care are not some far-off fantasy. Last week in my clinic I saw a 59-year-old man with hypertension, high cholesterol and intermittent atrial fibrillation (a heart rhythm disturbance). Before our visit, he had sent me a screenshot graph of over 100 blood pressure readings that he had taken in recent weeks with his smartphone-connected wristband. He had noticed some spikes in his evening blood pressure, and we had already changed the dose and timing of his medication; the spikes were now nicely controlled. Having lost 15 pounds in the past four months, he had also been pleased to see that he was having far fewer atrial fibrillation episodes—which he knew from the credit-card-size electrocardiogram sensor attached to his smartphone.
> 
> In my three decades as a doctor, I have never seen such an acceleration of new technology, both hardware and software, across every dimension of medical practice. I have also had the opportunity to advise and collaborate with several companies on these developments. The new tools are not just more powerful, precise and convenient; they are more economical, driven by the information revolution’s ability to deliver, as Moore’s Law holds, ever-increasing computing power for less money.
> 
> Consider the biggest line items in the 2016 national health-care budget, according to Mr. Keehan and his colleagues: more than $1 trillion for hospital care, $670 billion for doctor and clinician services, $360 billion for drugs. And compare the often sorry outcomes: more than 1 in 4 patients harmed while in the hospital; more than 12 million serious diagnosis errors each year; a positive response rate of just 25% for patients on the top 10 prescription medications in gross sales.
> 
> We don’t have to resign ourselves to this outrageous situation. Smart medicine offers a way out, enabling doctors to develop a precise, high-definition understanding of each person in their care. The key tools are cheaper sensors, simpler and more routine imaging, and regular use of now widely available genetic analysis. As for using all this new data, here too a revolution is under way. Algorithms and artificial intelligence are making it possible for doctors to rapidly apply relevant medical literature to their patients’ cases, while “natural language processing” (that is, talking to computers) holds the promise of liberating them from keyboards during office visits.
> 
> One obvious practical effect of these developments will be to replace hospital stays with remote monitoring in the patient’s home. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved wearable sensors that can continuously monitor all vital signs: blood pressure, heart rate and rhythm, body temperature, breathing rate and oxygen concentration in the blood. The cost to do this for weeks would be a tiny fraction of the cost for a day in the hospital. Patients will be able to avoid serious hospital-acquired infections and get to sleep in their own beds, surrounded by family.
> 
> We do more than 125 million ultrasound scans a year in the U.S., at an average charge of well over $800—that’s $100 billion. But we now have ultrasound probes that connect with a smartphone and provide exquisite resolution comparable to hospital lab machines. It is possible to examine any part of the body (except the brain) simply by connecting the probe to the base of a smartphone and putting a little gel on the probe’s tip. When I first got a smartphone ultrasound probe last year, I did a head-to-toe “medical selfie,” imaging everything from my sinuses and thyroid to my heart, lungs, liver, gallbladder, aorta and left foot.
> 
> That experience came in handy when I recently developed pain in my flank. Seeing my very dilated kidney on my smartphone screen helped to confirm the diagnosis that I had a kidney stone. The CT scan later ordered by my doctor showed a nearly identical image, but the charge for that was $2,200. If this single tool was used in a typical office visit, a large proportion of expensive and unnecessary formal scans could be avoided.
> 
> Smart medicine can also bring some sanity to how we handle medical screening, which today results in an epidemic of misdiagnoses and unnecessary procedures and treatments. The leading culprits are routine tests for breast and prostate cancer for individuals at low risk for these diseases. Because the tests have such extraordinarily high rates of false positives, they result all too often in biopsies, radiation and surgery for people in no medical danger.
> 
> It would not be hard to use screening tests in a more discriminating way, for the much smaller population that really should worry about certain serious health problems. Genome sequencing for an individual—identifying all three billion base pairs in a person’s genetic makeup—can now be done for about $1,000, and we know a great deal about which genes predispose someone to conditions such as cancer and heart disease. Guided by genomic risk scores that can be determined with an inexpensive device known as a gene “chip”—and, of course, by family histories and clinical examinations—doctors could spare many families from the ordeal of unnecessary treatment while making a dent in the $15 billion spent each year in the U.S. on mass screening for breast and prostate cancer.
> 
> Routine use of individual genetic information could also allow us to prescribe drugs more effectively, avoiding the waste, in clinical time and in money, caused by medications that misfire. More than 130 drugs in common use have an FDA label for DNA data—that is, they provide peer-reviewed research instructing doctors about dosage, side effects and potential responsiveness for patients with particular genetic profiles. But with rare exceptions outside of some cancer treatment centers, doctors in the U.S. don’t obtain such data before prescribing drugs. That’s a shame, because the relevant genetic information for each patient could be determined easily and inexpensively from saliva DNA at an office visit or even a pharmacy.
> 
> For its part, the drug industry needs to make genetic information available for far more drugs by making it a regular part of testing. This R&D effort would be inexpensive relative to the cost of developing a new drug, and it could make medications far more efficient, upping the response rate and averting dangerous side effects.
> 
> Smart medicine can also transform the doctor-patient relationship. Most medical services today are still provided in the traditional outpatient setting of a doctor’s office. It takes an average of 3.4 weeks to get a primary care appointment in the U.S., and there’s little time allotted for each visit. Most doctors provide a minimum of eye-to-eye contact as they busily record the session on a keyboard.
> 
> The frustrations and inefficiencies of this system are obvious—and unnecessary. In the era of telemedicine consults, there is no reason to wait weeks for an appointment. For the same copay as an office visit, connection with a doctor can occur instantly or within minutes. With increasing use of patient-generated data from sensors and physical exam hardware that connects with a smartphone, the video chats of today will soon be enriched by extensive data transfer.
> 
> Indeed, obtaining patient data solely from the occasional office visit is no way to get a full picture of someone’s health or to assess their medical needs. As more people generate and maintain their own medical data, they will carry this information around with them, no longer leaving it in the exclusive domain of doctors.
> 
> At the Scripps Research Institute, we are working with the support of a National Institutes of Health grant and several local partners to develop a comprehensive “health record of the future” for individual patients. It will combine all the usual medical data—from office visits, labs, scans—with data generated by personal sensors, including sleep, physical activity, weight, environment, blood pressure and other relevant medical metrics. All of it will be constantly and seamlessly updated and owned by the individual patient.
> 
> Such medical data belongs to us rather than to our doctors—it’s about our bodies, after all, and we generate and pay for much of it. But it will also make our medical care more exact, more precisely tailored, as we move from doctor to doctor, depending on our needs at a particular moment. It will make unnecessary the billions of dollars spent each year in the duplication of labs and scans. Personal medical data—stored in a cloud or using blockchain technology, a kind of digital ledger—also will be more secure and relatively immune to hacking, compared with data sitting on massive servers.
> 
> Having such data readily available will be vital to reaching the next stage of smart medicine, with virtual medical coaches. Just as we have adopted Alexa, Siri and Cortana for daily activities, we are headed to a time in the years ahead when our continuously updated personal medical data will provide health guidance. Consider the diabetic whose blood sugar sensor indicates that control is slipping because of lack of sleep or physical activity, or the asthmatic whose sensors show reduced lung function before any symptoms occur, so that she can adjust her medications. Refined feedback, through text, voice or avatar, will ultimately lead to better prevention and management of medical conditions.
> 
> The revolution in patient data will empower doctors too, particularly as artificial intelligence matures into practical technologies. Researchers at Google DeepMind and Stanford University have recently shown the great potential of “deep learning”—computers that grow ever smarter through the continuous analysis of new data—for accurate interpretation of medical scans, pathology slides and skin lesions, on par with doctors. In a paper last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, authors Andrew Beam and Isaac Kohane, specialists in biomedical informatics, calculated that advances in artificial intelligence now make it possible for computers to read as many as 260 million medical scans in a day, at a cost of $1,000. The advances in diagnostic power would be enormous, to say nothing of the cost savings.
> 
> So why have we been so slow to adopt and encourage these potential solutions? Medicine is hard to change, especially when reforms threaten established modes of payment and the customary control of patients. And like everyone else, doctors are seldom eager for extensive new training. But our current course of medical spending and practice is unsustainable, and no change in how we handle health insurance is likely to alter that reality.
> 
> Fortunately, serious ventures in smart medicine are well along. My colleagues and I at the Scripps Research Institute are leading the Participant Center of the NIH’s Precision Medicine Initiative, which is currently enrolling one million Americans. Volunteers in the program will be testing many of the new tools I have described here. The recently formed nonprofit Health Transformation Alliance, which includes more than 40 large companies providing health benefits to 6.5 million employees and family members, intends to address the high cost of health care by focusing on, among other things, the sophisticated use of personal data.
> 
> Physicians will also need to be trained to use the new technologies, from interpreting genomic data to using a smartphone for ultrasound. The FDA recently announced a broad initiative to foster innovation in digital health devices, with the intent to streamline the regulatory review process.
> 
> But more could certainly be done to move us toward better health outcomes at lower costs. Perhaps some enterprising member of Congress will propose a Frugal Health Care Innovation Act, providing government incentives for technology, research and implementation. Such public support for electric cars has rapidly changed the face of the whole auto industry. American medicine today is no less antiquated than the Detroit of a generation ago, and it needs to find its way into the present century.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

The FDA actually coming on board the prospect of smart medicine is promising. Congress, to no one's surprise, will do fuck all in regard to passing a remotely passable healthcare law because why would they rock the boat that holds their sweet, sweet lobbying money from Big Pharma?

This timeline has already been a quite the delightfully bizarre ride, so it'd be amazing to see Trump read something like this, get in contact with the Scripps Research Institute, etc. and use his executive (cis white male) privilege to pass healthcare reform that implements smart medicine, because fuck congress.

Book it, Teflon Don.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ke-action-against-all-undocumented-immigrants

:banderas

Get fucked illegals, you want to come to this country do it LEGALLY


----------



## MOX

:lol


----------



## deepelemblues

The Vice President marking his territory for the day when :trump is removed from office and MIKEY PENCE is in charge

Or maybe he's praying to the Critical Space Flight Hardware. Possibly laying hands on it, is Critical Space Flight Hardware gay? PRAY IT AWAY PENCEY


----------



## Jay Valero

Iconoclast said:


> Not their first. They've actually been doing this regularly since the 90's. The first one I ever heard of was the one in Seattle against the WTO in 1999 but that was almost entirely against crony capitalism, government collusion and globalization.
> 
> Unfortunately, they used to be anti-corporatist, but now most of them have been infiltrated by big government socialists who don't actually care about crony capitalism anymore, but rather demand government entitlements and "increased taxes on the rich" ...


Oh, I'm aware it's been happening since at least the mid-nineties. This one is a bit different in that German antifa ain't like American antifa, and this is one of the larger gatherings of the Black Bloc in years. It's not a "sign" of anything, except maybe these fuckers should be classified as domestic terrorists as soon as they start destroying property or attacking people and, as terrorists, should be handled with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Jay Valero

So, we dropped some dummy bombs near the N Korea DMZ yesterday as a response to their missile test. Things heating up in that theater?


----------



## Reaper

@Jay Valero, I agree. This is now the left libertarian in a nutshell:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883621978132840449
Most are no better than thieving terrorists. If they're not directly stealing or destroying stuff, they're colluding with the authoritarian left to rob everyone else through taxation and regulations.


----------



## Reaper

Pence tweeted this himself. So apparently it was all on a dare from Rubio 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883408914196332544
:ha 

What has this world come to when the most conservative of conservative old people start posting dank memes of themselves and the so-called rebellious left is reduced to autistic screeching hystericals who are incapable of seeing any humor in life :CENA

I believe this is Pence's #covfefe moment.


----------



## virus21




----------



## RavishingRickRules

I love the idea of politicians daring each other in escalating harmless pranks a summits tbh, makes them more human. Imagine the possibilities too, 2am after a night of high-end liquor "Mike...I dare you to put your schlong in Putin's Whisky...do it, do it, do it, do it..."


----------



## Jay Valero

My fave Putin story is when he stole Robert Kraft's Super Bowl ring.


----------



## Reaper

TBH, Pence was humanized for me when the media went after him for saying that he doesn't dine with women that are not his wife. 

Sure, it's not something we all have to do or even see him as a role model for, but in a way it makes him seem very humble and conservative. He lives what he preaches and I see that as a good trait.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883682413108281344

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883659772699987968

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883392064531996674


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC
> 
> The reason I don't really go in on the health care discussions in this thread is because I view the problem as largely unsolvable through government means, and neither political party seems anywhere close to offering any kind of solution that could possibly achieve the aim of delivering the best, cheapest healthcare to the most people. I'm also morally opposed to forcing anyone to provide a service, or to pay for someone else to receive a service. Here's a great article that offers some keen insight on the major issues with our current healthcare system, and some innovative technological solutions, that could actually solve the problem - unlike anything they could possibly cook up in congress:
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sm...to-the-health-care-crisis-1499443449?mod=e2tw


The government has failed regarding our insurance and Trumpcare does not solve that...just makes it worse. But we need to find a way to bring down costs for health care for any replacement to work. I like Ted Cruz 's idea of selling ACA and non-ACA products and let the free market decide. And I know this was not why you voted for him but this is a promise that he must keep. For all the other stuff that would have buried any other candidate a long time ago, I think it's safe to say Trump doesn't get a second term if Obamacare repeal doesn't happen. Replace or not, this is what they ran on. 

BTW I watched the Adams video. Interesting points he made. When have more time will put forward my additional thoughts on North Korea. Need to give them due diligence.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> The government has failed regarding our insurance and Trumpcare does not solve that...just makes it worse. But we need to find a way to bring down costs for health care for any replacement to work. I like Ted Cruz 's idea of selling ACA and non-ACA products and let the free market decide. And I know this was not why you voted for him but this is a promise that he must keep. For all the other stuff that would have buried any other candidate a long time ago, I think it's safe to say Trump doesn't get a second term if Obamacare repeal doesn't happen. Replace or not, this is what they ran on.
> 
> BTW I watched the Adams video. Interesting points he made. When have more time will put forward my additional thoughts on North Korea. Need to give them due diligence.


Allowing Health Insurance Companies to compete like Car Insurance would bring down cost, cut down on waste and actually provide services people need. There is no reason why any other Insurance can compete locally or nationally but not Health Insurance wise.

Health Care spending accounts would also help people, pretax dollars for people to save up money to use for copays and anything medical related. The best part is since it's pretax you don't lose money and lower your income amount to lower taxes. It's win/win!


----------



## deepelemblues

NASA said they told Pence it was okay to touch it.

Even NASA has been corrupted by the administration oh nooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Vic Capri

> TBH, Pence was humanized for me when the media went after him for saying that he doesn't dine with women that are not his wife.
> 
> Sure, it's not something we all have to do or even see him as a role model for, but in a way it makes him seem very humble and conservative. He lives what he preaches and I see that as a good trait.


I watched his interviews with Oliver Stone and while he's done some shady shit I'm sure and probably told some lies during them, it would make me like him even more. 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

For those of you who believe that taxes aren't theft: 



> NORWAY'S VOLUNTARY TAX PROGRAM BRINGS IN JUST $1,325
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> In 2014, the Norwegian economy was sent into crisis when the price of oil plunged (Norway is heavily dependent on oil revenues). The government responded by, among other things, significantly cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. The resulting criticism by those on the left was predictably angry. The country's left-wing Labour Party claimed that the cuts left people paying too low taxes (despite the fact that Norway has some of the highest tax rates in the world, with a top income tax bracket of 46.7% and VAT of 25%).
> So the center-right government introduced a program that allows people who think they're paying too little in taxes to voluntarily pay more. With so money people critical of the tax cuts, you'd think people would be tripping over themselves to give more of their money to the government, right?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> *Since being enacted in June, the total amount of taxes voluntarily contributed by the country's 5.3 million people has been just $1,325. Not per person, mind you. Total. Apparently when most critics of the tax cuts said taxes were too low, they meant that other people's taxes were too low, not their own.*


:CENA 

Yes. Now repeat after me. 

Taxation. Is Theft. 

Taxation. Is Theft. 

There's no such thing as a voluntary tax - which is why the government creates a series punishments to force everyone to pay taxes and why the government is coercive and therefore morally wrong.


----------



## samizayn

^Is coercion always wrong?


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> ^Is coercion always wrong?


Is rape always wrong?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> Pence tweeted this himself. So apparently it was all on a dare from Rubio
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883408914196332544
> :ha
> 
> What has this world come to when the most conservative of conservative old people start posting dank memes of themselves and the so-called rebellious left is reduced to autistic screeching hystericals who are incapable of seeing any humor in life :CENA
> 
> I believe this is Pence's #covfefe moment.


When it comes to the overwhelming majority of his policies, I'm not fond of Pence. But for a guy that is nearly 60, yet is nevertheless self-aware enough to do self-depreciating humor *and* is in touch just enough to use them newfangled internet jokes called "maymays", he's earned my respect.

Well played, Mr. VP. :bjpenn

This work of art shall henceforth Penceforth be known as Covfefe 2: Pencelectric Boogaloo. :trump2


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883460508078178304

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883515369855438848
Left Anarchists are fucking cancer.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Pence tweeted this himself. So apparently it was all on a dare from Rubio
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883408914196332544
> :ha
> 
> What has this world come to when the most conservative of conservative old people start posting dank memes of themselves and the so-called rebellious left is reduced to autistic screeching hystericals who are incapable of seeing any humor in life :CENA
> 
> I believe this is Pence's #covfefe moment.


This is a classic example of taking control of the narrative. I'll give you an example, I'm a huge Braves fan, and I know most here probably don't follow the Braves in any way, but I frequent this message board for Braves fans and there's this guy who likes to talk a lot of shit about the GM and the front office. His famous saying is "Coppy/hart genius" and it's meant to signify that they are idiots; he adds it to every post. Well, I decided to take control of the narrative. I changed my name to TNCoppyhartgenius, and every good thing they did I would respond with, "Just another example of the Coppy/hart genius. Guess what happened, he stopped saying it.

The funny thing is the left isn't that smart. 

By taking control of the narrative, Trump, Pence, and others are not only preventing the left from turning something trivial into something bigger, they're frustrating the left into conflation and hyperbole by continuing to try and make it something bigger, and making themselves look bad for doing so.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> For those of you who believe that taxes aren't theft:
> 
> 
> 
> :CENA
> 
> Yes. Now repeat after me.
> 
> Taxation. Is Theft.
> 
> Taxation. Is Theft.
> 
> There's no such thing as a voluntary tax - which is why the government creates a series punishments to force everyone to pay taxes and why the government is coercive and therefore morally wrong.


you're wrong sir

$1,325 of it is not theft

in norway


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883460508078178304
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883515369855438848
> Left Anarchists are fucking cancer.


This is exactly what globalists want. They want instability, the need it. How can you bring about a World Government if you have stable Western Nations?


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> The funny thing is the left isn't that smart.
> 
> By taking control of the narrative, Trump, Pence, and others are not only preventing the left from turning something trivial into something bigger, they're frustrating the left into conflation and hyperbole by continuing to try and make it something bigger, and making themselves look bad for doing so.


They are very smart tbh. It's more that the majority of leftist millennials grew up under the 8 year rule of Obama where the press was in 100% collusion with the government. The last Republican president went from 2000-2008 (Youtube only launched in 2007 or so, Facebook and Twitter even later) so there was only a handful of press outlets and they controlled the narrative and the leftists soaked it up without opposition at all. 

So the lazy leftist press basically fed whatever it could to lazy leftists who soaked up and patted themselves on their backs endlessly for their amazing philanthropy and great empathic ideals. They became like Nero themselves. Tyrants that didn't know they were Tyrants because everyone loved them and they loved each other. (Most still do). I call this the Nero complex of the left - and why their fall resembles that of rome. Brought down by "benevolent" tyrants who could see no ill and could not see the horde gathering around them because they became fat and corrupt themselves. 

badly brainwashed and misinformed about the world. 

Of course, Trumpism changed all of that. Youtube made conservatism "cool" and "hip" and figured out how to communicate effectively. Trump then brought it all crashing down. But overall, it was a collective effort of conservatives to finally break out of their demure selves and as PJW puts it become the counter-culture. 

The left is smart. Very smart. But they're so full of their own empathy and benevolence and kindness that they can't see past any of the festering corruption within their politicians at all.


----------



## Jay Valero

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> When it comes to the overwhelming majority of his policies, I'm not fond of Pence. But for a guy that is nearly 60, yet is nevertheless self-aware enough to do self-depreciating humor *and* is in touch just enough to use them newfangled internet jokes called "maymays", he's earned my respect.
> 
> Well played, Mr. VP. :bjpenn
> 
> This work of art shall henceforth Penceforth be known as Covfefe 2: Pencelectric Boogaloo. :trump2


Could you delineate where you part ways with the VP?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Jay Valero said:


> Could you delineate where you part ways with the VP?


- Sex education
- Stem cell research
- LGBT rights
- Patriot Act
- NAFTA and TPP
- Gitmo and the Middle East
- Citizens United
- Birthright citizenship

However, I do like his stance on the DREAM Act, since it's a shady way to garner support for the act's supporters because of its appeal to illegals and is largely moot because of birthright citizenship being part of the Constitution's citizenship clause.

While rape has garnered "Boy Who Cried Wolf" status at an alarming rate in recent years, it is nevertheless a serious crime and Pence views it as such too, since he signed a bill that extends the statute of limitations for rape by 5 years.


----------



## stevefox1200

I understand Trump feels his family are his most "loyal" employees but can he not use them to sit in at an official international meeting in his place

It reminds me of when "El presidente for life" would send his Vice President Cousin or General Brother to the UN and official state meetings


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> They are very smart tbh. It's more that the majority of leftist millennials grew up under the 8 year rule of Obama where the press was in 100% collusion with the government. The last Republican president went from 2000-2008 (Youtube only launched in 2007 or so, Facebook and Twitter even later) so there was only a handful of press outlets and they controlled the narrative and the leftists soaked it up without opposition at all.
> 
> So the lazy leftist press basically fed whatever it could to lazy leftists who soaked up and patted themselves on their backs endlessly for their amazing philanthropy and great empathic ideals. They became like Nero themselves. Tyrants that didn't know they were Tyrants because everyone loved them and they loved each other. (Most still do). I call this the Nero complex of the left - and why their fall resembles that of rome. Brought down by "benevolent" tyrants who could see no ill and could not see the horde gathering around them because they became fat and corrupt themselves.
> 
> badly brainwashed and misinformed about the world.
> 
> Of course, Trumpism changed all of that. Youtube made conservatism "cool" and "hip" and figured out how to communicate effectively. Trump then brought it all crashing down. But overall, it was a collective effort of conservatives to finally break out of their demure selves and as PJW puts it become the counter-culture.
> 
> The left is smart. Very smart. But they're so full of their own empathy and benevolence and kindness that they can't see past any of the festering corruption within their politicians at all.


I disagree. If the left was smart, theyd reject their ideas, since they lead to death, destruction and misery.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Iconoclast said:


> TBH, Pence was humanized for me when the media went after him for saying that he doesn't dine with women that are not his wife.
> 
> Sure, it's not something we all have to do or even see him as a role model for, but in a way it makes him seem very humble and conservative. He lives what he preaches and I see that as a good trait.


I think it's a fair criticism,since if he doesn't want to dine or be alone with women he shouldn't dine or be alone with anyone. Politics and a lot of other industries 1 on 1 by mentoring,and small lunches here or there are a vital form of networking and methods of moving up the ladder. Only eating 1 on 1 with men essentially closed the door to women in Indiana for certain jobs within the Govt. It's 1 thing if someone feels like that in most occupations that is their business and it doesn't effect anyone,in certain occupations though it is essentially just a new of instituting the old boys clubs.


----------



## CamillePunk

People go after Pence for the strangest things. :lol You can criticize his LGBT views from the past but he's been a totally non-controversial blank slate since being picked as VP. All I see him do is support the president, which is his job. 



BruiserKC said:


> The government has failed regarding our insurance and Trumpcare does not solve that...just makes it worse. But we need to find a way to bring down costs for health care for any replacement to work. I like Ted Cruz 's idea of selling ACA and non-ACA products and let the free market decide. And I know this was not why you voted for him but this is a promise that he must keep. For all the other stuff that would have buried any other candidate a long time ago, I think it's safe to say Trump doesn't get a second term if Obamacare repeal doesn't happen. Replace or not, this is what they ran on.
> 
> BTW I watched the Adams video. Interesting points he made. When have more time will put forward my additional thoughts on North Korea. Need to give them due diligence.


You should read that healthcare article I posted instead of remaining stuck in the swampy political mindset of how to fix healthcare.  



samizayn said:


> ^Is coercion always wrong?


When initiated against people acting peacefully, yes.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> - Sex education
> - Stem cell research
> - LGBT rights
> - Patriot Act
> - NAFTA and TPP
> - Gitmo and the Middle East
> - Citizens United
> - Birthright citizenship
> 
> However, I do like his stance on the DREAM Act, since it's a shady way to garner support for the act's supporters because of its appeal to illegals and is largely moot because of birthright citizenship being part of the Constitution's citizenship clause.
> 
> While rape has garnered "Boy Who Cried Wolf" status at an alarming rate in recent years, it is nevertheless a serious crime and Pence views it as such too, since he signed a bill that extends the statute of limitations for rape by 5 years.


I don't know if Pence changed his views(it seems doubtful), but he did say positive things about the LGBT and being against discrimination 

“I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration,” Pence said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that aired Sunday,. “He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike...-place-trump-administration/story?id=45273812

Maybe he doesn't mean it? I really don't know but that's the kind of stuff you want to hear and hopefully will continue to do so . Not just through words either but show it through actions


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @L-DOPA @Goku @BruiserKC @Lumpy McRighteous

Interesting article by Scott Adams regarding international relations in a nuclear world. 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162748871766/international-relations-in-a-time-of-nukes-and



> International Relations in a Time of Nukes and Plenty
> 
> In olden days, if a neighboring kingdom was prosperous and capable, it was a risk to your security. A rich neighbor can assemble powerful armies to capture your resources and enslave your people. In those primitive times, any powerful empire was a real enemy, and you had to treat them as such.
> 
> Fast-forward to 2017, and some of those old rules have changed. A rich country with nuclear weapons won’t attack a weak country with nuclear weapons. Economics and national defense are somewhat disconnected in modern times. Nukes changed everything.
> 
> Our weapons have improved since the time of kings, but our way of thinking has not fully evolved. Consider Russia. We have every reason to cooperate for mutual economic benefit, and for fighting ISIS. And we have no real reasons for trying to screw each other at every turn. Our “reasons” are entirely in our heads.
> 
> The fancy word for that is cognitive dissonance.
> 
> We believe Russia is our adversary, because they were in the past, so we act as if they are now as well. Russia does the same, for the same reason. When they poke us, we poke back. When we imagine they might poke us, we poke them first, or prepare to be poked. But none of the poking helps either side in any meaningful way. It just feels as if it should. It is more reflex than reason.
> 
> President Trump came to power at an interesting time for civilization. He has exactly the right skillset (persuasion) to reframe our relationships with our traditional “adversaries” to something more productive. You might think prior presidents tried the same thing and failed. But unilaterally acting nice and talking nice isn’t enough. To sell the new frame you need real-world actions that shove all of us out of the old way of thinking. And it has to be a hard shove, mentally.
> 
> The “bad version” of this idea might include (as an example only) a treaty partnering NATO with both Russia and China to act against terrorism and against nuclear proliferation. In the year 2017, why do any of the big three military powers point their weapons at each other? No one has any intention of starting that sort of war. Why act as if we do?
> 
> If Russia wants a warm-weather port, or China wants to extend its military reach to some islands off their shores, those situations feel like problems for the U.S., so long as we regard them as military adversaries. But if we’re on the same team, it doesn’t mean as much.
> 
> This sort of reframing – from military adversaries to friendly competitors who are on a mission to improve life on Earth – wouldn’t work if limited to speeches and punditry. It would need real-world treaties and actions so everyone can see something physical changing. Words wouldn’t get it done.
> 
> In the modern world, the real enemies of the rich countries are some of the poor countries, with their nukes and their terrorists. Rich countries are not much risk to other rich countries in modern times. I think we would all do better if we recognized that reality.
> 
> This would be a good time to remind you that cartoonists are not good sources of geopolitical wisdom. I present ideas such as this for entertainment, and to educate you on the finer points of persuasion when it applies. If anything I write here turns out to be useful in the bigger world, that would be a lucky benefit.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stinger Fan said:


> I don't know if Pence changed his views(it seems doubtful), but he did say positive things about the LGBT and being against discrimination
> 
> “I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration,” Pence said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that aired Sunday,. “He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.”
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike...-place-trump-administration/story?id=45273812
> 
> Maybe he doesn't mean it? I really don't know but that's the kind of stuff you want to hear and hopefully will continue to do so . Not just through words either but show it through actions


I personally view Pence's explanation as the republican version of Jay-Z's support of LGBT folks: too sudden to be truly believable and simply done as a way to tow their leader's line in spite of their history on the subject.

If Pence actually is softening his stance toward the LGBT community, that'd be great. And while it'd cross off only one thing on the list of things he and I differ on politically, my respect for him would nevertheless improve.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I personally view Pence's explanation as the republican version of Jay-Z's support of LGBT folks: too sudden to be truly believable and simply done as a way to tow their leader's line in spite of their history on the subject.
> 
> If Pence actually is softening his stance toward the LGBT community, that'd be great. And while it'd cross off only one thing on the list of things he and I differ on politically, my respect for him would nevertheless improve.


Ultimately who knows, but hopefully its a step in the right direction


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883460508078178304


> Rages against the machine
> Takes a selfie while doing so


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stinger Fan said:


> Ultimately who knows, but hopefully its a step in the right direction


Indeed. After seeing Pence have his own covfefe earlier today, I'm definitely willing to give him a chance, much like how I warmed up to Tillerson because of how his confirmation hearing humanized him quite a bit.


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

I have a VERY hard time trusting this "persuasion" the president supposedly has when Russia and China are signing the supposedly super "evil globalization deals" while praising Trump for not doing the same

When your political rivals are signing deals that are supposedly "clearly stupid" something is going very wrong 

I feel he is being grifted pretty damn hard 

The more I dig the more AstroTurf I am finding the more "WTF we have no clue" from Washington regulars 

Trump is taking advice from blank faces over the internet and global leaders who want to take his spot and is nothing but smiles about it


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Maybe he doesn't mean it? I really don't know but that's the kind of stuff you want to hear and hopefully will continue to do so . Not just through words either but show it through actions


What I see this as the inability of leftists to simply percieve the notion that Pence is not your typical ****** hating homophobe. 

He's more of the religious "homophobe" who views homosexuality as part of the flaws of man where he must repent for his sexuality and keep himself celebate of gay sex. So this is not a view with which he would "discriminate" against gays, but rather see them as individuals that need help. 

This isn't a view I agree with obviously - nor do I think that it's the right view. 

But it's far from the far-fetched gay hating anti-LGBT politician the left has made him and others of his ilk out to be. In fact, I'd take a million Mike Pence's over a single muslim in America any day of the week - because Muslims have not evolved to the point of being non-violent or secular about gays at all and secretly they're much less likely than someone like Mike Pence to allow their son for example to date a gay man. 

At least christians while still backwards are trying and largely succeeding in being secular.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883853589306888192


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump trolling saying he talked with Putin about forming a joint US-Russia "impenetrable" cyber unit to safeguard elections

Undoubtedly it will be under the direction of Space Computer-Wizard Barron who will write all the code which will be so impenetrable you're not gonna believe how impenetrable it's gonna be, it's gonna be great, so great, the best elections you ever saw

The irl shitpostings will continue until you're tired of how easy it is for :trump to make lefty heads asplode :lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> People go after Pence for the strangest things. :lol You can criticize his LGBT views from the past but he's been a totally non-controversial blank slate since being picked as VP. All I see him do is support the president, which is his job.
> 
> You should read that healthcare article I posted instead of remaining stuck in the swampy political mindset of how to fix healthcare.
> 
> When initiated against people acting peacefully, yes.


Did read it...I like the idea of advancement in technology and innovations through the free market to put these plans into action. We see that today with LASIK eye surgery. Years ago the concept was expensive in many situations. Today it is much less expensive and convenient thanks to innovation without government involvement. From personal experience my vasectomy was far less intrusive, painful, and inconvenient than it was for other men years ago. 

Perhaps the discussions in Congress can be a stopgap between this and smart medicine. That is...if our government was willing to actually do it.


----------



## MrMister

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883460508078178304
this is too fucking funny but also extremely pathetic


----------



## Draykorinee

Imagine the furore if Obama had his kids attend a G20 meeting.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Imagine the furore if Obama had his kids attend a G20 meeting.


Yes, there would have been quite a furor among the media to see who could jizz in their pants the hardest over how Obama was grooming his daughters to be future presidents and how awesome the Obama daughters both being president would be


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Imagine the furore if Obama had his kids attend a G20 meeting.


That'd be weird considering his kids are teenagers with no executive experience of any kind.

Ivanka is a world class businesswoman. :trump2 Liberals should be celebrating having a strong woman like her take center stage in world affairs. Consider it priming for 2024-2032.


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump protesters cheered Hitler speech. :lol

*#GotEm*

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884033889613828096
There's a song. :lol


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Did read it...I like the idea of advancement in technology and innovations through the free market to put these plans into action. We see that today with LASIK eye surgery. Years ago the concept was expensive in many situations. Today it is much less expensive and convenient thanks to innovation without government involvement. From personal experience my vasectomy was far less intrusive, painful, and inconvenient than it was for other men years ago.
> 
> Perhaps the discussions in Congress can be a stopgap between this and smart medicine. That is...if our government was willing to actually do it.


You also see it in elective cosmetic surgery where the costs of many procedures have gone down and others has not risen because the free market controls it and insurance won't cover it and governments don't get involved. 










The rate of basic healthcare which is needed by more people however has continued to sky rocket ever since companies offered health plans and insurance companies and governments all got involved.

The answer to rising healthcare costs is only in the free market ... but many of the administrative components as well as unnecessary regulations and the patent market needs to be brought down as well. The complexity around healthcare in America is too complex and it needs to be simplified. 

There is no other solution. Any form of government healthcare is basically going into a negotiation where the seller demands 1500 bucks and you go in and say ok, we'll pay insurance companies 2000 to pay you 1500, how's that?


----------



## stevefox1200

Trump wants to form a joint cyber security group with Russia and his party is baffled while his base just posts endless memes

this is so fucked, I am re-registering as a democrat or maybe write a letter to McCain or Rubio and telling them to make their own party


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump wants to form a joint cyber security group with Russia and his party is baffled while his base just posts endless memes
> 
> this is so fucked, I am re-registering as a democrat or maybe write a letter to McCain or Rubio and telling them to make their own party


Or maybe we realize that Russia isn't our enemy any more than it has to be and we need to play nice with them temporarily like we did before the cold wars in order to end a greater threat called ISIS - and posting memes is only part of what we do. 

Also, it's interesting that the democrat camp is being shored up by neo-cons like McCain, who are so paranoid that they probably think Latvia has WMD's and is gassing its own people as well.


----------



## MickDX

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump wants to form a joint cyber security group with Russia and his party is baffled while his base just posts endless memes
> 
> this is so fucked, I am re-registering as a democrat or maybe write a letter to McCain or Rubio and telling them to make their own party


Russia is pretty good in cyber-security, this might be a good idea if this joint is really used properly.

I don't understand why Trump asked Putin directly if he really intervened in the elections. It seems pointless to me, who in their right mind would think Putin will recognize meddling in the election? Anyway, the Russia elections storyline seems pretty dead given no real evidence has been provided.


----------



## Reaper

Perfect analysis of how the media plays a role in convincing people to demand single-payer even though it's absolutely unnecessary. 



> MEDIA DISHONESTY IN ONE HEADLINE
> By Will Ricciardella
> 
> The headlines regarding the CBO report on the Senate health care bill were disingenuous and misleading at best.
> Most headlines read like this:
> 
> "22 Million People Will Lose Healthcare (Or Go Uninsured) If GOP Bill Passes"
> That's most likely true.
> 
> Implied in the headline, however, is that some of those people thrust off health insurance will be the poor and those with pre-existing conditions because of their inability to pay.
> Hard news reports in most publications never explicitly mention that because it's not true. Instead, they publish numerous opinion pieces that claim it will happen. Their hard news reporting leaves the door unlocked to the scenario, and opinion-editorials walk right through into their ideological fantasy land, and then claim the op-ed isn't the opinion of the paper.
> 
> *What it doesn't account for is that without changes to Medicaid and changes to those with pre-existing conditions in the bill, those 22 million people are most likely young, healthy people that were forced to sign up for Obamacare under the threat of penalty for more than they would pay otherwise.*
> 
> What the headline should read:
> 
> *"22 Million People Will Chose Not To Purchase Obamacare If GOP Senate Healthcare Plan Passes"*
> This of course doesn't mean that they won't sign up for health insurance that is more tailed to their individual needs, and more affordable.
> I think the GOP's plan to "repeal and replace" is neither of those things, and just as bad as what we have now. But the reporting has been atrociously one-sided.


Think about it this way. 

- You don't need to buy a Pizza
- The government however says you must buy Pizza. 
- You say you don't want to buy Pizza
- The government says it will now charge you 1000 bucks a year if you don't buy Pizza
- You buy Pizza because you don't want to pay 1000 bucks.
- Also, now the Pizza that costed only 50 bucks costs everyone 500 bucks because it's still cheaper than 1000 bucks! 
- Now 22 million people have bought 500 dollar Pizza. 
- Now the new government says you don't need to buy Pizza. 
- 22 Million people stop buying Pizza because they no longer have to buy 500 dollar Pizza. 

The media says *"22 MILLION PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER EAT AND WILL DIE TO DEATH!" *

American current healthcare situation in a nutshell.


----------



## CamillePunk

MickDX said:


> Russia is pretty good in cyber-security, this might be a good idea if this joint is really used properly.
> 
> I don't understand why Trump asked Putin directly if he really intervened in the elections. It seems pointless to me, who in their right mind would think Putin will recognize meddling in the election? Anyway, the Russia elections storyline seems pretty dead given no real evidence has been provided.


The left would get even more autistic toward him if he didn't bring it up. I think Trump is a big boy who realizes all governments are meddling in elections all the time, and doesn't really care. The left are looking for a smoking gun they'll never find that Russia had some decisive impact in the election instead of being just one of a million factors. Nothing Trump could ever do short of resigning would be good enough, and then the left would just go on trying to de-legitimize President Pence. They wouldn't stop until a Democrat was president. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884045060232409088
Pretty much. :lol


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Iconoclast said:


> Perfect analysis of how the media plays a role in convincing people to demand single-payer even though it's absolutely unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it this way.
> 
> - You don't need to buy a Pizza
> - The government however says you must buy Pizza.
> - You say you don't want to buy Pizza
> - The government says it will now charge you 1000 bucks a year if you don't buy Pizza
> - You buy Pizza because you don't want to pay 1000 bucks.
> - Also, now the Pizza that costed only 50 bucks costs everyone 500 bucks because it's still cheaper than 1000 bucks!
> - Now 22 million people have bought 500 dollar Pizza.
> - Now the new government says you don't need to buy Pizza.
> - 22 Million people stop buying Pizza because they no longer have to buy 500 dollar Pizza.
> 
> The media says *"22 MILLION PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER EAT AND WILL DIE TO DEATH!" *
> 
> American current healthcare situation in a nutshell.


No one will ever need pizza in their life,eventually everyone will need medical care. Obamacare is flawed but so is the notion people in their 20's shouldn't contribute anything to a system that will provide more to them then they are giving once they are older.


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> No one will ever need pizza in their life,eventually everyone will need medical care. Obamacare is flawed but so is the notion people in their 20's shouldn't contribute anything to a system that will provide more to them then they are giving once they are older.


It's called having a retirement plan and managing your own money.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Iconoclast said:


> It's called having a retirement plan and managing your own money.


Except most people are living paycheck to paycheck and even someone who has a secure job,a nice amount saved are basically 1 major medical illness in their family away from having all their wealth get wiped away and filing for bankruptcy(#1 reason for bankruptices in the Us and growing)

:hmmm Is it really reasonable to except to have 50- 100K lying around in the offchance someone in their family get's an illness and their treatment options are not covered by their insurance.


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Except most people are living paycheck to paycheck and even someone who has a secure job,a nice amount saved are basically 1 major medical illness in their family away from having all their wealth get wiped away and filing for bankruptcy(#1 reason for bankruptices in the Us and growing)
> 
> :hmmm Is it really reasonable to except to have 50- 100K lying around in the offchance someone in their family get's an illness and their treatment options are not covered by their insurance.


Yes. It's all very unfortunate. But it's part of the system government, taxation, crony capitalism and government have all combined to create.

The solution isn't to keep adding to that system of crony capitalism, government bloat and corruption.

That's like trying to avoid running into a pole by running into a pole. Or not shooting yourself in the head by shooting yourself in the head.


----------



## rzombie1988

TRUMP MAGA


----------



## amhlilhaus

draykorinee said:


> Imagine the furore if Obama had his kids attend a G20 meeting.


Especially since theyre not adults and didnt help during the campaign.

I dont like it, but i have to do it

Wah wah


----------



## Reaper

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/07...feels-unsafe-terrorism-ravaged-britain-511080


















These fucking morons and their army of Islam apologist non-violent ideological terrorists preach one thing and do another. 

Typical.

All Muslim immigrants in the West do the same thing. They leave their ravaged countries torn by Islam, come to the west where it's safe and destroy that too. 

We call that a virus or a cancer. We shouldn't pretend that it's anything but.


----------



## deepelemblues

Of course Russia is the enemy of the United States lol

And the United States is the enemy of Russia lol

You aren't going to do away with literally 100 years of being unfriendly rivals, AT BEST (and the only times in the last 100 years they were unfriendly rivals and not open enemies was 3 years of an alliance of convenience against Hitler, and the years between the collapse of the USSR and Putin taking over Russia), in 6 months...


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Of course Russia is the enemy of the United States lol


Not sure if serious but since the Soviet Union was dissolved how many military actions has Russia taken that directly threaten Americans or even Americans living abroad?

Until and unless we apply an extremely broad definition of what's an enemy, I fail to see why we're at odds with one another at this point in time except for the American government wanting to oust Assad.


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> Of course Russia is the enemy of the United States lol
> 
> And the United States is the enemy of Russia lol
> 
> You aren't going to do away with literally 100 years of being unfriendly rivals, AT BEST (and the only times in the last 100 years they were unfriendly rivals and not open enemies was 3 years of an alliance of convenience against Hitler, and the years between the collapse of the USSR and Putin taking over Russia), in 6 months...


But thats wrong. We are enemies of Eurasia. We are always enemies of Eurasia.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> Not sure if serious but since the Soviet Union was dissolved how many military actions has Russia taken that directly threaten Americans or even Americans living abroad?


What military actions did the US take from 1945 to 1991 that directly threatened Russians or even Russians living abroad? Such a friendly time for the US and Russia, those years...



> Until and unless we apply an extremely broad definition of what's an enemy, I fail to see why we're at odds with one another at this point in time except for the American government wanting to oust Assad.


Well just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean they don't exist. :draper2

They certainly exist to Vladimir Putin.



virus21 said:


> But thats wrong. We are enemies of Eurasia. We are always enemies of Eurasia.


Oceania and Eurasia didn't intend to actually conquer the other though. Or EastAsia either. Russia and America fully intended to conquer the other for most of the last 100 years. You can ignore it if you like, doesn't make it disappear.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> What military actions did the US take from 1945 to 1991 that directly threatened Russians or even Russians living abroad?


What does the past history of the two country's adversarial relationship have to do with considering Russia an enemy of Americans today?

You're avoiding my question with a question. That is a fallacy. You know you're smarter than that.


----------



## CamillePunk

France and Britain will never not be enemies, they've been at war for 600 years! - some wrong guy in the 1800s


----------



## Jay Valero

Never, and I mean Never, try to outdrink a Russian.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> What does the past history of the two country's adversarial relationship have to do with considering Russia an enemy of Americans today?
> 
> You're avoiding my question with a question. That is a fallacy. You know you're smarter than that.


You're trying to narrow the scope in a way that benefits your opinion, as if the only way or main way to determine friendliness or unfriendliness is the existence or lack thereof of directly threatening military action. Which is rank nonsense. what are you trying to pull here acting like you're not trying to pull something?

And while you're trying to convince everyone russia and the united states can be friends, :trump is trying to do a repeat of what Reagan did with oil in the 1980s that wrecked the USSRs income. Except this time instead of getting the Saudis to open the taps like reagan did, :trump's trying to wreck both Saudi Arabias and russias global energy trade market share. Think putin hasn't noticed how friendly :trump talks and how unfriendly :trump acts? If :trump gets what he wants on American energy exports, eventually the income and power of the Russian government will be savaged. 

But please tell us some more how they can be friends while simultaneously ceaselessly trying to undercut the other in fundamental ways. :draper2


----------



## Cliffy

I'd love to go to war with the French again.

Been too long:mj2

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> You're trying to narrow the scope in a way that benefits your opinion, as if the only way or main way to determine friendliness or unfriendliness is the existence or lack thereof of directly threatening military action. Which is rank nonsense. what are you trying to pull here acting like you're not trying to pull something?
> 
> And while you're trying to convince everyone russia and the united states can be friends, :trump is trying to do a repeat of what Reagan did with oil in the 1980s that wrecked the USSRs income. Except this time instead of getting the Saudis to open the taps like reagan did, :trump's trying to wreck both Saudi Arabias and russias global energy trade market share. Think putin hasn't noticed how friendly :trump talks and how unfriendly :trump acts? If :trump gets what he wants on American energy exports, eventually the income and power of the Russian government will be savaged.
> 
> But please tell us some more how they can be friends while simultaneously ceaselessly trying to undercut the other in fundamental ways. :draper2


Nope. Your word was enemy. That's what I have an issue with. 

Not rival. Not unfriendly. Not anything else that can be conflated to enemy status. Just enemy.

How are we and Russians enemies in the modern era. 

I'm not narrowing any definition when I'm sticking to the operative word you used.

Also I've always stated that America and Russia can be allied in the fight against ISIS. I don't care about other issues.

You're all over the place here.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> France and Britain will never not be enemies, they've been at war for 600 years! - some wrong guy in the 1800s


Except it isn't 1881, it's 1750. 

You guys stick your heads in the sand so far and it's so :lmao

Heaping scorn on the idea that the US and Russian governments can't be friends when neither has been acting in a manner showing a true desire for friendship and that has not changed one bit with the presidency of :trump. You guys are supposed to be so insightful, yet you've fallen for the cheapest and most transparent rhetoric and ignored the most blatantly obvious :facts like :trump trying to wreck russias energy market share, continuing to maintain the sanctions on moscow, cozying up to all those eastern european countries which really grinds moscows gears, refusing to accept russias wishes in syria... yeah, the US under :trump is really being accomodating to the desires of russia. :heston

It's not any better on russias side, they've done absolutely nothing showing a desire to accommodate America's wishes. 

Just what is there to show a real desire for friendship on either side? I'll hang up and listen to the silence because there aren't any...


----------



## CamillePunk

Sure seems like you're attributing a lot of statements and positions to me and Reaper that we've never made or expressed. :lol That's usually a tell you're talking out your ass when you have to hallucinate the other person's position to argue against it. That's some stevefox-level posting right there.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> Nope. Your word was enemy. That's what I have an issue with.
> 
> Not rival. Not unfriendly. Not anything else that can be conflated to enemy status. Just enemy.
> 
> How are we and Russians enemies in the modern era.
> 
> I'm not narrowing any definition when I'm sticking to the operative word you used.
> 
> Also I've always stated that America and Russia can be allied in the fight against ISIS. I don't care about other issues.
> 
> You're all over the place here.


Now you're just projecting and incoherently flailing about :heston

Let it be a lesson learned to you, keep your fantasies in check, maintain some perspective regarding them. The actions of russia and america are not the actions of unfriendly rivals who might soon see their way to mutually beneficial accomodation and eventual friendship. They are the actions of enemies. 

Plus the distance from unfriendly rivals to enemies is far shorter than you imply it is when it comes to countries anyway.

Perhaps one countrys government will give up its geopolitical ambitions. That's the only way your friendship is going to happen. Don't hold your breath. :trump is president, not Ron paul.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Now you're just projecting and incoherently flailing about :heston
> 
> Let it be a lesson learned to you, keep your fantasies in check, maintain some perspective regarding them. The actions of russia and america are not the actions of unfriendly rivals who might soon see their way to mutually beneficial accomodation and eventual friendship. They are the actions of enemies.
> 
> Plus the distance from unfriendly rivals to enemies is far shorter than you imply it is when it comes to countries anyway.
> 
> Perhaps one countrys government will give up its geopolitical ambitions. That's the only way your friendship is going to happen. Don't hold your breath. :trump is president, not Ron paul.


Deep. I gave you more credit than you deserved on this issue. 

Perhaps we can talk once you stop being consumed by your russophobia because you have been unable to provide any evidence of how America and Russia have been enemies (your word not mine) in the modern era.

That was the conversation here. You made a statement that you haven't backed up. We're done.


----------



## CamillePunk

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...ersations-contained-classified?rnd=1499645596



> Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material
> 
> More than half of the memos former FBI chief James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.
> 
> This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> Comey testified last month he considered the memos to be personal documents and that he shared at least one of them with a Columbia University lawyer friend. He asked that lawyer to leak information from one memo to the news media in hopes of increasing pressure to get a special prosecutor named in the Russia case after Comey was fired as FBI director.
> 
> “So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document?,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey on June 8. “You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share to the media as you wanted through a friend?”
> “Correct,” Comey answered. “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out.”
> 
> Comey insisted in his testimony he believed his personal memos were unclassified, though he hinted one or two documents he created might have been contained classified information.
> 
> “I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership,” he testified about the one memo he later leaked about former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
> 
> He added, “My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”
> 
> But when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.
> 
> While the Comey memos have been previously reported, this is the first time there has been a number connected to the amount of the memos the ex-FBI chief wrote.
> 
> Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.
> 
> A spokesman for the FBI on Sunday declined to comment.
> 
> FBI policy forbids any agent from releasing classified information or any information from ongoing investigations or sensitive operations without prior written permission, and mandates that all records created during official duties are considered to be government property.
> 
> “Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law,” states the agreement all FBI agents sign.
> 
> It adds that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America” and that an agent “will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”
> 
> Comey indicated in his testimony the memos were in his possession when he left the bureau, leaving him in a position to leak one of them through his lawyer friend to the media. But he testified that he has since turned them over to Robert Mueller, a former FBI chief and now spearheading the investigation about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
> 
> It is not clear whether Comey as director signed the same agreement as his agents, but the contract is considered the official policy of the bureau. It was also unclear when the documents were shown to Congress whether the information deemed "secret" or "confidential" was classified at the time Comey wrote the memos or determined so afterwards, the sources said.
> 
> Congressional investigators had already begun examining whether Comey’s creation, storage and sharing of the memos violated FBI rules, but the revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared.
> 
> Ironically, that was the same issue the FBI investigated in 2015-16 under Comey about Clinton’s private email server, where as secretary of State she and top aides moved classified information through insecure channels.
> 
> Comey ultimately concluded in July 2016 that Clinton’s email practices were reckless, but that he could not recommend prosecution because FBI agents had failed to find enough evidence that she intended to violate felony statutes prohibiting the transmission of classified information through insecure practices.
> 
> “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said in a decision panned by Republicans and embraced by Democrats.
> 
> Now,congressional investigators are likely to turn their attention to the same issues to determine if Comey mishandled any classified information in his personal memos.


Uh oh, Spaghetti-O's. :lol

Meanwhile the media is trying to manufacture another MUH RUSSIA lifeline today, as Don Jr met with a Russian lawyer who claimed she had evidence that various Russians were funding the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Turned out the woman had no such evidence, and that was the end of it. Not so, for the delusional left-wing media, who claim that by meeting with this woman in the first place to find out if Russians were funding the DNC and Hillary Clinton, Don Jr is now guilty of collusion with Russia himself. :lol Simply because he described such hypothetical evidence as "helpful information". In other words, they're upset that Don Jr would have tried to expose some shady dealings between the DNC, HRC, and other people who wanted Hillary Clinton to be president (such as the people reporting this story, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), something that will NEVER EVER happen, to the absolute joy of all decent people everywhere.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> When initiated against people acting peacefully, yes.


What is your idea of "peace" in regards to necessary coercion?



TheNightmanCometh said:


> By taking control of the narrative, Trump, Pence, and others are not only preventing the left from turning something trivial into something bigger, they're frustrating the left into conflation and hyperbole by continuing to try and make it something bigger, and making themselves look bad for doing so.


You know, that's very interesting. Reading your post gave me the strangest sense of deja vu, and I've realised that this story seems familiar because it was essentially the same story with rightwing Republicans for eight years. Obama, I believe, had something like a record number of drone strikes during his tenure? Yet by far the most prominent and enduring legacy in the realm of Obama criticisms, is that he is a Muslim, and that he is a Kenyan. The remarks of unintelligent hysterical racists who practically perched the halo on his head in the process.

I suppose it's a process of power, maybe? Those without it are doomed to look desperate, ugly, and sad.


This is a little bit old, but Pew got the numbers on worldwide confidence in Pres. Trump vs Pres. Obama (sorry if posted already) http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26...rumps-leadership/pg_2017-06-26-us_image-00-1/
Those more confident are Russia and Israel.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> What is your idea of "peace" in regards to necessary coercion?


Not initiating force against others.


----------



## Vic Capri

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/08/what-if-trump-had-won-as-a-democrat-215351

I think the media would've still loved him and he wouldn't have gotten all the racist, sexist, Islamphobe Russian spy crap he did. Would've still defeated Clinton then Bush to become President.

There would've been less protests too. 



> Of course Russia is the enemy of the United States lol


According to liberals, fuck diplomacy and keep the nukes pointed at each other!

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

Russia constantly puts out statements that statements that other Eastern European nations are full of terrorists and are fascists oppressing ethnic Russian and constantly compare their governments to nazi

Radical left wing pro-soviet terrorists in places like Poland, Estonian and Romania are funded by rich billionaires in Russia and Serbia and when ever they ask for investigations they get "LOL WESTERN PROPAGANDA FUNDED BY THE NAZIS"

It is text book Soviet propaganda, the same rules that their president was taught with, that west can be defeated by taking advantage of their individuality and playing them against each other 

If 99% of the government, investigation organizations, and news sources say WE HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM and the 1% that raves about chem trails and gay bombs are the ones saying "nah its nothing everything is cool" I know where my loyalist lie

Seriously, go to any non HARD right wing community and you will see nothing but "What the fuck is this"

Outside of the Donald subreddit and twitter and facebook profiles that do nothing but post memes and #s to each other and zero other posting history you will see everyone is questioning this 

There are people on here who will believe that 9/11 was an inside job before they well believe that Trump camp is infested with Russian spies, something that is backed up intelligence agencies 

For such anti-globalist he sure seems to suck a lot of Saudi and Russian cock


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> For such anti-globalist he sure seems to suck a lot of Saudi and Russian cock


You don't see any possible reason, that could be more important to Trump than his anti-globalist stance, that would cause him to try and make allies with Saudi and Russia?


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884113912328667136
Neocons, neolibs. Same bloody, crimson page.


----------



## BruiserKC

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump wants to form a joint cyber security group with Russia and his party is baffled while his base just posts endless memes
> *
> this is so fucked, I am re-registering as a democrat* or maybe write a letter to McCain or Rubio and telling them to make their own party


The bolded part is crazy talk. As disgusted as I have been with the GOP, even to the point I did drop my affiliation with them after '08...there is no way I would ever cross over to the dark side and be a Democrat. Get the frustration, but you can't consider such insanity, sir.  



Vic Capri said:


> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/08/what-if-trump-had-won-as-a-democrat-215351
> 
> I think the media would've still loved him and he wouldn't have gotten all the racist, sexist, Islamphobe Russian spy crap he did. Would've still defeated Clinton then Bush to become President.
> 
> 
> 
> According to liberals, fuck diplomacy and keep the nukes pointed at each other!
> 
> - Vic


Most likely, I think it would have been Trump vs. Cruz in the general election under that scenario. Jeb got absolutely no traction whatsoever even before Trump came along. Cruz would have been that Reagan-esque force the GOP would have adored, Cruz tried that vibe right up to his non-endorsement of Trump at the GOP convention (which Reagan did in '76 when he wouldn't endorse Ford and even went so far as to refuse to stump for him during the general campaign.) Plus, considering at one time and at a couple of times during this campaign Trump flew the trial balloon of single-payer health care he might have gotten the Sanders supporters to follow him. Only issue with the column is that if nothing else changes, you have a GOP controlled Congress still to deal with. If the GOP wasn't letting Garland get a hearing, Michelle Obama as a justice on SCOTUS would not happen either. 

Now, as for Russia...I know people here want a reset in our relations with the Russkis and I know I'm not opposed to that (even though I trust Putin about as far as I can throw him). 

What people need to understand is that as people mock Trump's opponents as being stuck in the Cold War mindset...Putin IS in that mindset and has never left it. He is still fighting the Cold War in his head and has taken FULL advantage of Obama's tactical retreat of America as leader on the world stage. Putin demonstrated that with military action in Crimea and Georgia, and when we abdicated helping out with Syria initially he stepped in to broker the deal. He went out of his way to woo our allies over there that felt betrayed, including Egypt and even ISRAEL! Yes, Netanyahu and Putin did have a couple of meetings, which once upon a time considering the anti-Israeli rhetoric that came from the Kremlin would never have been thought possible. He talks about brokering deals in Syria to combat ISIS, except up until very recently Russia's involvement in that region has been more about going after the rebels that oppose Assad then the Islamic State itself. 

I don't doubt that Putin would have tried to influence our election, he felt that Trump would be easier to manipulate then Hillary Clinton. It's obvious Trump had nothing to do with it, so let's get that out of the way. However, keep in mind Putin has managed to take advantage of the dissension among the western Allies and the US to carve out a bigger role for Russia on the world stage. They are not openly and actively calling for hostile action against us, but we need to be VERY careful in our dealings with him. The truth is, he does not share our interests and only wants to become involved in world affairs so that they can be a power and influence...which we backed away from during the Obama years and Trump wants to do a little bit of this as well so we can focus on ourselves first (which I'm not opposed to, BTW).

If Trump can find the reset, I'm all for it. However, we need to go in with eyes wide open and be very careful. For all the jokes and memes about our Cold War mentality...Putin is firmly entrenched in just that and need to watch out.


----------



## Art Vandaley

> Mr Trump also reassured the world he had done his due diligence with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a man renowned for his candour and forthrightness.
> 
> "I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it."
> 
> As Garry Kasparov helpfully noted:
> 
> "And if you can't take the word of a brutal KGB dictator, whose word can you take?


I loled at Trumps plan and I loled at him trusting Putin, Trump is just Bush 2.0


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Russia constantly puts out statements that statements that *other Eastern European nations are full of terrorists and are fascists oppressing ethnic Russian* and constantly compare their governments to nazi


And some of that is actually true. If you look at the ex-Russian states that had muslim majorities, you'll find that their conditions resemble that of the Islamicized middle east. Not all of what Russia has done in the region completely baseless or hitler-esque. Many of these Muslim majorities have consistent terrorist cells that are operative in mainland Russia. Why is this framed as Russia being aggressive to its neighbors without cause and just as an effort to annex territory? 



> Radical left wing pro-soviet terrorists in places like Poland, Estonian and Romania are funded by rich billionaires in Russia and Serbia and when ever they ask for investigations they get "LOL WESTERN PROPAGANDA FUNDED BY THE NAZIS"


That is also true, but how is that evidence of the fact that Russia is a dangerous nation with an ideology that's dangerous to the American way of life. 



> It is text book Soviet propaganda, the same rules that their president was taught with, that west can be defeated by taking advantage of their individuality and playing them against each other


We have similar strains of propaganda in the States where we've gone from Iraq to Libya to now Syria where we've filled the heads of Americans who first believed that Iraq had WMD's and Saddam was oppressing his citizens (which eventually led to his ouster and the creation of the Islamic State), followed by similar tactics in Libya (where Gaddafi's ouster led to slave trade and more IS recruitment) and now Syria where literally the same thing is happening and created the mass refugee problem across Western Europe. 

Yes, no one's denying that Russia has its version of terrible foreign policy. Unfortunately so do we and now we're in a battle to determine how to deal with known terrorists with Russia and America on opposite sides (thanks to Obama) in one party shoring up anti-government rebels and the other shoring up a dictatorship in order to establish foothold in the region. 

@BruiserKC - You need to recognize that the US given its decade of destructive middle east foreign policy has _created _this situation where Russia has been able to indulge those that oppose Americans. I believe that had we had a more neutral approach in the region it was unlikely that Russia would have been able to woo any support at all. This is on our past governments (both Obama and Bush). Putin would never have been able to flex its muscles in the middle east without the US effectively destroying the middle east. 



> If 99% of the government, investigation organizations, and news sources say WE HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM and the 1% that raves about chem trails and gay bombs are the ones saying "nah its nothing everything is cool" I know where my loyalist lie


That is just nonsensical hysteria. 



> Seriously, go to any non HARD right wing community and you will see nothing but "What the fuck is this"


Examples. 



> Outside of the Donald subreddit and twitter and facebook profiles that do nothing but post memes and #s to each other and zero other posting history you will see everyone is questioning this


Are they right though? 



> There are people on here who will believe that 9/11 was an inside job before they well believe that Trump camp is infested with Russian spies, something that is backed up intelligence agencies


What are you even trying to communicate here? 



> For such anti-globalist he sure seems to suck a lot of Saudi and Russian cock


You do realize that pretty much everyone on here opposes the Saudi-US alliance irregardless of our political alignments. This is unanimous. There isn't a single person I've ever read on here (or really anywhere else) that has appreciated or praised Trump for his Saudi deal. At all. 

The other thing is that sheer hysteria that you and deep indulge in and create strawmans about the extent to which at least Camille, myself and other libertarians want. 

All I care about is a temporary alliance between Russia and America to destroy ISIS - and I've repeated this at least a dozen times here. 

They can continue to fight their economic war and war over allies because that's a relatively non-destructive part of foreign policy which is complex and something I've never commented on nor really care that much about.


----------



## amhlilhaus

stevefox1200 said:


> Russia constantly puts out statements that statements that other Eastern European nations are full of terrorists and are fascists oppressing ethnic Russian and constantly compare their governments to nazi
> 
> Radical left wing pro-soviet terrorists in places like Poland, Estonian and Romania are funded by rich billionaires in Russia and Serbia and when ever they ask for investigations they get "LOL WESTERN PROPAGANDA FUNDED BY THE NAZIS"
> 
> It is text book Soviet propaganda, the same rules that their president was taught with, that west can be defeated by taking advantage of their individuality and playing them against each other
> 
> If 99% of the government, investigation organizations, and news sources say WE HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM and the 1% that raves about chem trails and gay bombs are the ones saying "nah its nothing everything is cool" I know where my loyalist lie
> 
> Seriously, go to any non HARD right wing community and you will see nothing but "What the fuck is this"
> 
> Outside of the Donald subreddit and twitter and facebook profiles that do nothing but post memes and #s to each other and zero other posting history you will see everyone is questioning this
> 
> There are people on here who will believe that 9/11 was an inside job before they well believe that Trump camp is infested with Russian spies, something that is backed up intelligence agencies
> 
> For such anti-globalist he sure seems to suck a lot of Saudi and Russian cock


If trumps camp is 'infested with russian spies' something thats never been close to proven, you can rest easy.

Unlike democrats whose loyalty is failed globslist theology, conservatives would hrlp throwing him out if proven


----------



## Goku

his base posting endless memes :banderas

we have achieved 4D chess mastery :goku


----------



## rzombie1988

Shinya Trumpimoto dropkicks the hell out of Kazuhiko CNNsawara


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

These Trump/CNN gifs/memes. :heston

The people that are taking 'em dead serious and want to ruin other people's lives because of 'em. :heston


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884096304401584128


----------



## deepelemblues

The NYT story about DJT Jr. is burying the lede. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a 20 minute meeting with no follow up is all it takes to beat Side o Beef Shillary.


----------



## Jay Valero

Oda Nobunaga said:


> These Trump/CNN gifs/memes. :heston
> 
> The people that are taking 'em dead serious and want to ruin other people's lives because of 'em. :heston


My favorite is a scene from, I believe, _The Patriot_ with Trump's head as the cannonball that decapitates a cnn redcoat.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

^ fake news

ivanka's boobs arent big enough


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884096304401584128


Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is a real thing.

"If you can't see that, there's definitely something wrong with you."

I see she's bought into the liberal playbook.


----------



## Jay Valero

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is a real thing.
> 
> "If you can't see that, there's definitely something wrong with you."
> 
> I see she's bought into the liberal playbook.


Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## virus21

> en. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is calling for regulators to crack down on “snortable chocolate,” warning that it’s being marketed like a drug.
> Schumer wrote a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Saturday asking them to investigate products like Coco Loko, an inhalable food product with caffeine, according to the Associated Press.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> “This suspect product has no clear health value,” Schumer said. “I can’t think of a single parent who thinks it is a good idea for their children to be snorting over-the-counter stimulants up their noses.”
> Coco Loko is made with cacao powder, an ingredient used in chocolate that contains caffeine. It also reportedly uses ingredients common in energy drinks.
> It’s marketed as a stimulant that aids in focus, feelings of euphoria and “motivation that is great for partygoers to dance the night away without a crash,” according to the AP, which notes that those claims have not been vetted by the FDA.


http://archive.is/6zFSB#selection-1601.1-1671.240


----------



## deepelemblues

Don't snort chocolate powder guys.

Don't ruin your life.

Once you snort brown you never go down :drose


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Jay Valero said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder.


Speaking of which, where's @birthday_massacre? I hope he's living his life, questioning everything he's believed over the last year.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Speaking of which, where's @birthday_massacre? I hope he's living his life, questioning everything he's believed over the last year.



Hes done with this thread.

If most of us cant see clearly trumps guilty then he doesnt know


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

amhlilhaus said:


> Hes done with this thread.
> 
> If most of us cant see clearly trumps guilty then he doesnt know


Quits instead of using the opportunity to learn? How unfortunate.


----------



## CamillePunk

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884096304401584128


This has to be satire, surely. :lol

EDIT: I can confirm it is satire, because it says SATIRE right in the tweet.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> *Speaking of which, where's @birthday_massacre?* I hope he's living his life, questioning everything he's believed over the last year.


----------



## CamillePunk

NBC's Christina Hayes (Richard Maddow's twin sister) seems PRETTY SURE that they've got Drumpf now, based on an e-mail where the Russian government told Donald Trump Jr that they were trying to get Trump elected. I know you think that sounds impossible to believe, that the Russian government would outline a conspiracy to affect a US election in an e-mail, but hold it right there with your unwarranted skepticism you shitlord, this is on good authority from _three anonymous individuals who claim knowledge of the e-mail_. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884583466049974276

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884585256589955073

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884585976290578432
Drumpf is done!


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

CamillePunk said:


> This has to be satire, surely. :lol
> 
> EDIT: I can confirm it is satire, because it says SATIRE right in the tweet.


:shockedpunk

How did I miss that? LOL


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> http://archive.is/6zFSB#selection-1601.1-1671.240


That sounds like a Lethal Weapon episode from last season.

Exactly like it.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> NBC's Christina Hayes (Richard Maddow's twin sister) seems PRETTY SURE that they've got Drumpf now, based on an e-mail where the Russian government told Donald Trump Jr that they were trying to get Trump elected. I know you think that sounds impossible to believe, that the Russian government would outline a conspiracy to affect a US election in an e-mail, but hold it right there with your unwarranted skepticism you shitlord, this is on good authority from _three anonymous individuals who claim knowledge of the e-mail_.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884583466049974276
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884585256589955073
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884585976290578432
> Drumpf is done!


This is like looking for Jimmy Hoffa, you got everyone and their dog trying to find the Russia/Trump connection, people on the inside trying to find it and the entire DNC trying to find it and the best they got is a few conspiracies and anonymous sources that cannot be verified. 

When Politics starts looking like a monster quest type series one should take a step back and wonder if they're not acting like fools.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> That sounds like a Lethal Weapon episode from last season.
> 
> Exactly like it.







If you set it up, I'm going to post a Sunny reference, every time. Every time. :wink2:


----------



## glenwo2

Hey! Did everyone here about the Cease-Fire achieved by Trump recently?


Everyone(of the far left): ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz....



Oh wait....we're still accusing Trump of the "fixing the elections" horseshit, still. My bad.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Hes done with this thread.


Best news I heard all day!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

You know CNN is really ISIS when even Salon runs a story about them hiring an Al-qaeda propagandist to film a documentary.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

You know something, this thread dying is the surest sign that Trump isn't anywhere close to how he's been portrayed, not that we had any doubt. This place was visited by at least half a dozen lefties when I got here and now there's barely one. I can only imagine what this place was like during the primaries and the general election. The narrative is falling to pieces, the grasp of anything and everything and conflating it with hyperbole has lost its effectiveness. Posters that bought into the narrative are gone and embarrassed. Them being gone, is the surest sign of their cognitive dissonance breaking down.

This is what Trump meant when he said, "Covfefe".


----------



## Beatles123

im not dissatisfied with trump at all. I got what I wanted so far, I dunno about the rest of you but I only regret voting because of all the hate I've gotten for it. Trump himself has not dissapointed me enough to retract my vote. :trump2


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> That'd be weird considering his kids are teenagers with no executive experience of any kind.
> 
> Ivanka is a world class businesswoman. :trump2 Liberals should be celebrating having a strong woman like her take center stage in world affairs. Consider it priming for 2024-2032.


You know full well I meant within the context of them being able to in the first place. She has absolutely no right to be at that meeting regardless of your dubious praise as a 'world class' business woman.

Change it to Hilary and Chelsea then.

You Trumpers are hypocrites.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You know something, this thread dying is the surest sign that Trump isn't anywhere close to how he's been portrayed, not that we had any doubt. This place was visited by at least half a dozen lefties when I got here and now there's barely one. I can only imagine what this place was like during the primaries and the general election. The narrative is falling to pieces, the grasp of anything and everything and conflating it with hyperbole has lost its effectiveness. Posters that bought into the narrative are gone and embarrassed. Them being gone, is the surest sign of their cognitive dissonance breaking down.
> 
> This is what Trump meant when he said, "Covfefe".




Its a sign that the circle jerk is tiresome and fundamentally fruitless, its just as easy to bang your head against a brick wall. Nothing to do with the narrative changing. The left are still being the left and the right are still being the right. Not a thing has changed. 

I appreciate your claims of victory are an attempt to pander to the other posters in here, but its not in any way a true reflection on whats happening in the real world, its just the tiny microcosm of a wrestling forum, I'm sat here reading the BBC with yet another 2 articles about Trump and Russia. The narrative is going nowhere.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884096304401584128


She needs serious psychological counseling.

Scary thing is she votes, has kids, etc


----------



## Draykorinee

amhlilhaus said:


> She needs serious psychological counseling.
> 
> Scary thing is she votes, has kids, etc


Theres a massive word in the tweet. 

SATIRE.


----------



## Jay Valero

TheNightmanCometh said:


> This is what Trump meant when he said, "Covfefe".


Supposedly it's an old Vietnam era acronym. Command Objective Verified, Fuckin Enemy Fully Engaged. Remember, that tweet was about the press.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884770144765059073
Never seen a sadder sight in my life. 

:kobelol


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Its a sign that the circle jerk is tiresome and fundamentally fruitless, its just as easy to bang your head against a brick wall. Nothing to do with the narrative changing. The left are still being the left and the right are still being the right. Not a thing has changed.
> 
> I appreciate your claims of victory are an attempt to pander to the other posters in here, but its not in any way a true reflection on whats happening in the real world, its just the tiny microcosm of a wrestling forum, I'm sat here reading the BBC with yet another 2 articles about Trump and Russia. The narrative is going nowhere.


Such a comfortable non-reality. So far, most pundits are predicting independents swinging farther right in America as well as the upcoming post-millennial generation being increasingly conservative and you're stuck in your belief that "the left is still the left". 

Just one example of this is the travel ban which is supported by 0% of democrat "leaders" and yet supported by 41% of their constituents and 56% of the independents. 

Guess who loses when the party comes out with increasingly sympathetic policies with regards to refugees. 



> Republicans overwhelmingly back the restrictions, the poll shows. Eighty-four percent of GOP voters support the ban, while only 9 percent oppose it. But the policy is also popular among independent voters: 56 percent support it, compared to 30 percent who oppose it. Democrats tilt slightly against the ban, with 41 percent supporting it, and 46 percent in opposition.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215

The political left is not being the traditional American left. The left is veering away from its leftist leaders and will start voting for centre right republicans or center left democrats in the next elections ---- mostly Republicans who are starting to move ever so slightly towards the center on social issues. If Pence survives as a secular VP that he's shaping up to be, it will go a long way in establishing that Republicans while still on the social right are not as crazy as their extreme leftist counterparts and restore faith in independents to start considering republican candidates. 

The American "left" was never as far left as the European left, but their leaders have veered so far left that they've disenfranchised a huge support base in both indies and center-left Americans. The extreme leftist views you're seeing most highlighted by the American press (both right and left) is a fringe minority, but the party that supposedly represents all left-wing politics is now exclusively pandering to that extreme left minority. That's not how you win elections.


----------



## Stinger Fan

amhlilhaus said:


> She needs serious psychological counseling.
> 
> Scary thing is she votes, has kids, etc


She's not an actual liberal, she's mocking them. She has a facebook page called "The Conservative Momma"


----------



## Goku

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884770144765059073
> Never seen a sadder sight in my life.
> 
> :kobelol


4d chess. I don't she knows how to play.

ridiculous attempt to emulate the adorable deplorable thing the shitposters ran with.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> Such a comfortable non-reality. So far, most pundits are predicting independents swinging farther right in America as well as the upcoming post-millennial generation being increasingly conservative and you're stuck in your belief that "the left is still the left".
> 
> Just one example of this is the travel ban which is supported by 0% of democrat "leaders" and yet supported by 41% of their constituents and 56% of the independents.
> 
> Guess who loses when the party comes out with increasingly sympathetic policies with regards to refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215
> 
> The political left is not being the traditional American left. The left is veering away from its leftist leaders and will start voting for centre right republicans or center left democrats in the next elections ---- mostly Republicans who are starting to move ever so slightly towards the center on social issues. If Pence survives as a secular VP that he's shaping up to be, it will go a long way in establishing that Republicans while still on the social right are not as crazy as their extreme leftist counterparts and restore faith in independents to start considering republican candidates.
> 
> The American "left" was never as far left as the European left, but their leaders have veered so far left that they've disenfranchised a huge support base in both indies and center-left Americans. The extreme leftist views you're seeing most highlighted by the American press (both right and left) is a fringe minority, but the party that supposedly represents all left-wing politics is now exclusively pandering to that extreme left minority. That's not how you win elections.


That poll is so fake news. Just reading a handful of sites that much is obvious.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> That poll is so fake news. Just reading a handful of sites that much is obvious.


The response of the democrats was a response to that very question so how is that fake news? The context of that article was to expose that while 41% of democrats support the revised travel ban, 0% of democrat leaders do. 

It's also not fake news that the democrat party leadership does not support the travel ban in _any _context - even the supreme court ruling. They simply shut up about it instead because they were called out by the supreme court on their bullshit. 

Find me _one _democrat leader that supports the current supreme court ruling on the revised travel ban publicly and then you can call it fake news.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> The response of the democrats was a response to that very question so how is that fake news? The context of that article was to expose that while 41% of democrats support the revised travel ban, 0% of democrat leaders do.
> 
> It's also not fake news that the democrat party leadership does not support the travel ban in _any _context - even the supreme court ruling. They simply shut up about it instead because they were called out by the supreme court on their bullshit.
> 
> Find me _one _democrat leader that supports the current supreme court ruling on the revised travel ban publicly and then you can call it fake news.


They do not support Trumps travel ban.


Its interesting dissecting that poll. 58% think the country is going in the wrong direction. Don't see you right wingers using that statistic.

As you may know, the U.S. Department of State recently outlined new guidelines
which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close
family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country. Knowing this, do
you support or oppose these new guidelines?
Strongly support 742 37%
Somewhat support 456 23%
Somewhat oppose 287 4%
Strongly oppose 278 4%
Dont Know/No Opinion 226 %


Looking through that poll, thats the closest I came to seeing anyone supporting restricted entry to the US. That is not support for a Trump ban.

I'll be amazed if its only 41% of people who think restricting immigration to some level is a good thing, because thats pretty much what needs to be done. Politico and their clickbait.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> They do not support Trumps travel ban.





> Its interesting dissecting that poll. 58% think the country is going in the wrong direction. Don't see you right wingers using that statistic.


What a broad stroke. 



> As you may know, the U.S. Department of State recently outlined new guidelines
> which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close
> family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country. Knowing this, do
> you support or oppose these new guidelines?
> Strongly support 742 37%
> Somewhat support 456 23%
> Somewhat oppose 287 4%
> Strongly oppose 278 4%
> Dont Know/No Opinion 226 %


And yet the democratic leadership doesn't support it in any context or even the revisions. Why are you skirting the real issue here that the left is being abandoned by its party which this study and even breaking apart its pieces is showing. 



> Looking through that poll, thats the closest I came to seeing anyone supporting restricted entry to the US. That is not support for a Trump ban.


It's support for Trump's _revised _ban. Even that is not being supported by the DNC - hence abandoning its own constituents. Like I said. Find me Democrat leadership that supports the travel ban in any way at all. 

Nice try.


----------



## deepelemblues

lol is this bloke being serious

i guarantee you that precisely zero of the respondents to that poll made the distinction between ":trump's travel ban" executive order and the conditioned executive order given leave to be put in operation by the supreme court. 

this just goes to show precisely how bottom of the barrel places like think progress are reaching. 60% of respondents approve of :trump's travel ban. get over it you desperate losers. you've been reduced to insisting that the addition of one condition to a presidential executive order completely separates the conditioned order from the original. as if the supreme court created a new executive order out of whole cloth completely unconnected to the one :trump signed. this is the rankest of stupid nonsense. the people see no such distinction. the executive order (the "guidelines') in operation now are viewed by the public as :trump's executive order, not the supreme court's executive order.


----------



## Draykorinee

So Trump Jr's email I'm assumed are to be ignored?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> So Trump Jr's email I'm assumed are to be ignored?


There's nothing to ignore or be concerned about. 

I read the e-mail chain as well as his notes on the e-mail and the meeting it's just another nothingburger. So they found nothing and are running with a fake story that he was "excited to meet someone" whereas there's no excitement evident in the emails themselves even if you use an extremely broad definition of what excitement was. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884789418455953413
Political opposition research is valid and it doesn't matter who the source is. 

Meeting with Russians isn't a crime. Doing business with Russians isn't a crime. 

Being forced to listen to some stupid Russian woman who wants to talk about adoption policy while she pretended that she had some info on the opposition isn't a crime. 

I don't even know what you're on about this morning. You seem to be trying desperately to get something to stick and haven't been able to address even the simplest of my questions about finding a single democrat leader that supports their own constituents even in a restrictive immigrant policy publicly or otherwise so now are trying to change the subject to yet another nothingburger. 

The sheer amount of Ruskiphobia is nothing more than a mild annoyance for Trump supporters at this point because it's the left's Sandy Hook conspiracy (maybe even worse). But go one, be fucking russophobes if it gives your narratives some credence in your hallucinated reality. 

The entire narrative has been utterly shattered for those of us who live in the real world.


----------



## Vic Capri

> 4d chess. I don't she knows how to play.
> 
> ridiculous attempt to emulate the adorable deplorable thing the shitposters ran with.


She ran out of Chinese contributions.

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

It seems that the Ukrainian government helped the DNC/Clinton campaign by digging for dirt on Trump, among other things. Is that bad? According to leftists and the MSM that must be bad, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446


_Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

...

The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.

In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world. 

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party. 

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well. 

She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 — months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign — Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection,” Chalupa recalled. “And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election,” said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was “Putin’s political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections.”


...


Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the DNC’s encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych. 

While the embassy declined that request, officials there became “helpful” in Chalupa’s efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.” But she stressed, “There were no documents given, nothing like that.” 


Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions. She added, though, “they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.”_


----------



## stevefox1200

Iconoclast said:


> There's nothing to ignore or be concerned about.
> 
> I read the e-mail chain as well as his notes on the e-mail and the meeting it's just another nothingburger. So they found nothing and are running with a fake story that he was "excited to meet someone" whereas there's no excitement evident in the emails themselves even if you use an extremely broad definition of what excitement was.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884789418455953413
> Political opposition research is valid and it doesn't matter who the source is.
> 
> Meeting with Russians isn't a crime. Doing business with Russians isn't a crime.
> 
> Being forced to listen to some stupid Russian woman who wants to talk about adoption policy while she pretended that she had some info on the opposition isn't a crime.
> 
> I don't even know what you're on about this morning. You seem to be trying desperately to get something to stick and haven't been able to address even the simplest of my questions about finding a single democrat leader that supports their own constituents even in a restrictive immigrant policy publicly or otherwise so now are trying to change the subject to yet another nothingburger.
> 
> The sheer amount of Ruskiphobia is nothing more than a mild annoyance for Trump supporters at this point because it's the left's Sandy Hook conspiracy (maybe even worse). But go one, be fucking russophobes if it gives your narratives some credence in your hallucinated reality.
> 
> The entire narrative has been utterly shattered for those of us who live in the real world.


it actually is against the law for a foreign national to make a donation or offer help during an election and its illegal to accept their help

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20


----------



## Reaper

Yeah ... we're living in this odd timeline where the word Russia is supposed to invoke fears of the evil communist that wants to nuke America while ignoring the history of the last 30 years of Russian independence as well as American and Russian cooperation since the fall of the Soviet Union. 

It's also ironic that while the leftist crowd wants us to consider ourselves Islamophobic for fearing a religion that has literally killed thousands around the world on a yearly basis, that we're not supposed to be able to turn around and call people who are innately afraid of anything Russian as Russophobes -- despite the fact that Russians have not threatened us or our way of life in well over 30 years. 

It's a very interesting timeline indeed.



stevefox1200 said:


> it actually is against the law for a foreign national to make a donation or offer help during an election and its illegal to accept their help


You're conflating _information _with _financial contribution _now?

Well, looks like you really are turning into a democrat after all ...


----------



## deepelemblues

Meanwhile Ted Kennedy in 1983 secretly offering the Soviet government concessions in a Democratic administration if the Soviets would help them beat Reagan in 1984 continues to rot in the memory hole it has been shoved down into for going on 35 years now.

A direct offer of the implementation of American foreign policies amenable to the USSR, if the USSR colluded with the Democratic Party to beat Ronald Reagan. An offer posed by a sitting United States Senator.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> I don't even know what you're on about this morning. You seem to be trying desperately to get something to stick and haven't been able to address even the simplest of my questions about finding a single democrat leader that supports their own constituents even in a restrictive immigrant policy publicly or otherwise so now are trying to change the subject to yet another nothingburger.


I don't need to. The majority of Democrats don't support it, the party position is not to support it so why do they need to support Trumps position just because a small poll says that the number of people supporting it is increasing? I'm not sure what you're looking for with this.

These emails are not easy to ignore, because the whole idea that the Russian narrative is disappearing is not happening, in the real world the Russian probe is even more ferocious now than ever, I know it sucks for you guys because you don't see any merit in it, but lets not pretend like this is narrative going anywhere.

I guess at least he didn't delete the emails.:thumbsup


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Meanwhile Ted Kennedy in 1983 secretly offering the Soviet government concessions in a Democratic administration if the Soviets would help them beat Reagan in 1984 continues to rot in the memory hole it has been shoved down into for going on 35 years now.
> 
> A direct offer of the implementation of American foreign policies amenable to the USSR, if the USSR colluded with the Democratic Party to beat Ronald Reagan. An offer posed by a sitting United States Senator.


1984.

:rileyclap



Jay Valero said:


> According to leftists and the MSM that must be bad, right?


Yes. Its not an equivalence at all athough. Just looks like they talked shit about Trump, which a lot of countries did.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I don't need to. The majority of Democrats don't support it, the party position is not to support it so why do they need to support Trumps position just because a small poll says that the number of people supporting it is increasing? I'm not sure what you're looking for with this.


The whole point was that the democrat leadership is not representing the demands of its own constituents and that simply drives them towards the right more. Democrats are in the business of supporting their personal agendas or creating a party platform that doesn't cater to its constituents. It seems you have no clue what politicians are elected to do by their electorate. The ideals of the party are in no where close to the ideals of that electorate. 

If they actually cared and weren't operating like some sort of socialist/communist monolith you'd see opposition to various policies (including immigration) within the democrats like you see disagreement amongst Republicans --- which is a good thing, not a bad thing. It shows that there's diversity of thought and opinion and therefore it's overall a party that's closer to the diversity of its constituents. 

Still waiting for you to provide me with names of democrats that represent their party's interest on the restrictive immigration policy btw. 



> These emails are not easy to ignore, because the whole idea that the Russian narrative is disappearing is not happening, in the real world the Russian probe is even more ferocious now than ever, I know it sucks for you guys because you don't see any merit in it, but lets not pretend like this is narrative going anywhere.
> 
> I guess at least he didn't delete the emails.:thumbsup


The narrative is busted. People still talking about it doesn't give it merit simply because they won't stop talking about it. 

I mean, flat earthers still talk about it so you could say that the narrative won't die. Doesn't mean that it has any merit worth caring about. People still talk about illuminati, still talk about Sandy Hook being a false flag, still talk about FEMA death camps, still talk about the moon landing being faked. Doesn't mean that they have any merit to what they're saying. There are still outlets pandering to that group on a daily basis. 

The narrative is dead. Continuing to try to keep it alive with nothingburgers doesn't mean anything at all because any new "development" is busted within minutes these days. 

Of course, you yourself have literally nothing of value to contribute to this thread anymore.


----------



## rzombie1988

God Emperor Jr. was so worried about this that he disclosed the meeting to the FBI or whatever and then posted the emails from it himself.

Yeah this is definitely the one guys lol


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> Meanwhile Ted Kennedy in 1983 secretly offering the Soviet government concessions in a Democratic administration if the Soviets would help them beat Reagan in 1984 continues to rot in the memory hole it has been shoved down into for going on 35 years now.
> 
> A direct offer of the implementation of American foreign policies amenable to the USSR, if the USSR colluded with the Democratic Party to beat Ronald Reagan. An offer posed by a sitting United States Senator.


Collusion is only bad when it's not the Demorats doing it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> The whole point was that the democrat leadership is not representing the demands of its own constituents and that simply drives them towards the right more. Democrats aren't in the business of supporting their personal agendas or creating a party platform that doesn't cater to its constituents. It seems you have no clue what politicians are elected to do by their electorate. The ideals of the party are in no where close to the ideals of that electorate.
> 
> Still waiting for you to provide me with names of democrats that represent their party's interest on the restrictive immigration policy btw.


I said I don't need to. They're representing the majority of their constituents already, your 'whole' point is a nonsense point. More democrats oppose the ban than support it, so why do they need to pander to the minority? Especially a minority from a poll of 2000 people. Polls suck, and it always embarrasses when people try to use these to push their agenda. 



> The narrative is busted. People still talking about it doesn't give it merit simply because they won't stop talking about it.
> 
> I mean, flat earthers still talk about it so you could say that the narrative won't die. Doesn't mean that it has any merit worth caring about. People still talk about illuminati, still talk about Sandy Hook being a false flag, still talk about FEMA death camps, still talk about the moon landing being faked. Doesn't mean that they have any merit to what they're saying. There are still outlets pandering to that group on a daily basis.
> 
> The narrative is dead. Continuing to try to keep it alive with nothingburgers doesn't mean anything at all because any new "development" is busted within minutes these days.
> 
> Of course, you yourself have literally nothing of value to contribute to this thread anymore.


I mean, you're not wrong about people 'talking about' things doesn't mean a narrative is really a thing. However we're talking about every news channel, every single press agency is running this story. Its a false equivalency and you know it. I fully appreciate its easy to close your eyes to reality.


----------



## Draykorinee

rzombie1988 said:


> God Emperor Jr. was so worried about this that he disclosed the meeting to the FBI or whatever and then posted the emails from it himself.
> 
> Yeah this is definitely the one guys lol


He released them after the NYTimes said they were going to, and what evidence do you have to support the idea he disclosed it to the FBI?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> Its a sign that the circle jerk is tiresome and fundamentally fruitless, its just as easy to bang your head against a brick wall. Nothing to do with the narrative changing. The left are still being the left and the right are still being the right. Not a thing has changed.
> 
> I appreciate your claims of victory are an attempt to pander to the other posters in here, but its not in any way a true reflection on whats happening in the real world, its just the tiny microcosm of a wrestling forum, I'm sat here reading the BBC with yet another 2 articles about Trump and Russia. The narrative is going nowhere.


It appears that the cognitive dissonance for some is still as strong as ever.

And it looks like you follow your confirmation bias like a sheep follows it's shepard. My post wasn't a victory post. It was an observation.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I said I don't need to. They're representing the majority of their constituents already, your 'whole' point is a nonsense point. More democrats oppose the ban than support it, so why do they need to pander to the minority? Especially a minority from a poll of 2000 people. Polls suck, and it always embarrasses when people try to use these to push their agenda.


Of course I agree polls suck. However, they're not outright dismissable nor should be and people should learn lessons from them. 

Also, you don't seem aware at all of how electorate and party agendas need to align. The representation of people's demands needs to be equally (or close to equally) represented as a division within members of congress - which is literally what the lawmakers are voted to do in their own states by their own people. 

If 41% of an electorate supports a policy, this means that the party has to listen to that 41% and align their own response accordingly. They can't vote as a monolith and ignore that minority. 

If you have a 51% majority, it does not by any means at all mean that you simply say that the other 49% are complete and utter retards and that the entire leadership or group abandons that 49% entirely based on what the majority dictates or what the party leadership says. You know that kind of leadership is literally fascism, right? 

What you're talking about is how majority creates a democratically elected fascist government - which is not how the American Republic works or is supposed to work. By creating a monolothic voting block on issues addressed by congress where you're simply voting along party lines and not your conscience or what you or your constituents want, then you're not being a leader - you're being fascist. You don't get compromise or workable solutions. You get hysteria and rejection of your own electorate which is why eventually people switch sides and why America goes through this 8 year change but stays largely in the center. If this party continues on its self-destructive path of ignoring a huge chunk of its electorate, they'll just switch and they do and have been. 8 year of Obama's reign had significant losses for democrats across the board - and they're still losing. 

Part of the reason why America has an electoral college instead of an outright majority based democracy is to address the needs of the few. We do not follow the european populist model simply because it is far more susceptible to fascism which goes further and further away from the needs of the few. 

In our country, the needs of the few matters. That's the entire basis of our democracy. 



> I mean, you're not wrong about people 'talking about' things doesn't mean a narrative is really a thing. However we're talking about every news channel, every single press agency is running this story. Its a false equivalency and you know it. I fully appreciate its easy to close your eyes to reality.


This is literally bullcrap and just argumentative where I know you're not even committed to your point of view and are simply wasting everyone's time trying to attribute some kind of false merit to a meaningless narrative.



Jay Valero said:


> Collusion is only bad when it's not the Demorats doing it.


Except it's implied that there is any "collusion" in the current government where the greatest scrutiny ever awarded to any administration in 36 years of my life has not turned up a single shred of evidence of any form of collusion whatsoever. 

:Shrug


----------



## rzombie1988

draykorinee said:


> He released them after the NYTimes said they were going to, and what evidence do you have to support the idea he disclosed it to the FBI?


I said I was going to win the lottery multiple times this year. Now I'm writing to you from my yacht. Saying isn't the same as doing unfortunately.

Now the question is how did the NY Times get email information. This leads to 1 of 3 choices. Someone in the very inner personal circle of Trump's team leaked, someone honey potted them and they are going to expose it or someone hacked their email to get that information. The first one is going to be easy to figure out. The second is going to be interesting and the 3rd would be illegal.

He disclosed the meetings in one of the briefings or whatever.

DJTJ also does not have a position within the WH, making him a private citizen, so it's hard to see how this will lead to anything.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> I said I don't need to. They're representing the majority of their constituents already.


And, what? You think the minority is just going to fall in line with the majority? 43% of Democrats agree with some, if not all, of the ban. If Democrats don't at least try to represent these people, these people will find a candidate who will. Which means that Democrats will lose voters. If you don't see that as a problem then you're the same type of person that said everything would be okay while the Titanic was sinking.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And, what? You think the minority is just going to fall in line with the majority? 43% of Democrats agree with some, if not all, of the ban. If Democrats don't at least try to represent these people, these people will find a candidate who will. Which means that Democrats will lose voters. If you don't see that as a problem then you're the same type of person that said everything would be okay while the Titanic was sinking.


He's a european. He has no clue how America's government works or how our Constitution and government structure was created entirely on the basis of listening to the minority. 

Over there they vote the most populist government and then ignore the minority which is why most leftists sit pretty in their ideals and have never faced any real opposition because they simply stamp them out of having any representation in their society. Europe and Canada has gone farther and farther to the left towards authoritarianism and socialism, but America has because of its very strong ideal of understanding how minorities need representation has stayed very close to the center. 

Most europeans tend to believe in absolute authority of the state as voted in by the majority and that's how their systems are built and their governments are run. 

For them it's not a big deal. I've noticed this amongst the vast majority of Canadians and Europeans that I've talked to.


----------



## Goku

rzombie1988 said:


> God Emperor Jr. was so worried about this that he disclosed the meeting to the FBI or whatever and then posted the emails from it himself.
> 
> Yeah this is definitely the one guys lol


impeach drumpf


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And, what? You think the minority is just going to fall in line with the majority? 43% of Democrats agree with some, if not all, of the ban. If Democrats don't at least try to represent these people, these people will find a candidate who will. Which means that Democrats will lose voters. If you don't see that as a problem then you're the same type of person that said everything would be okay while the Titanic was sinking.


You're asking a party to change its position based on a poll of 2000 people. We don't actually know the facts as to whether a sizeable minority of democrats really do support the new 'travel ban'. Basing an entire agenda/discussion on a poll of 2000 people is asinine.

Losing voters happens all the time, you can't cover every spectrum. Maybe more Democrats do need to come out in favour of Trumps new plans, but I fail to see the relevance or importance.



rzombie1988 said:


> He disclosed the meetings in one of the briefings or whatever.


Source?


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> Over there they vote the most populist government and then ignore the minority which is why most leftists sit pretty in their ideals and have never faced any real opposition because they simply stamp them out of having any representation in their society.


We have one of our most right leaning governments in power in ages, we have literally had about 12 years of left wing governemnent in 40 years (and that was about as centre left as you can get, thanks Blair), WTF are you on about? And you have the audacity to say I'm clueless about American politics? 

:kobefacepalm


----------



## samizayn

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah ... we're living in this odd timeline where the word Russia is supposed to invoke fears of the evil communist that wants to nuke America while ignoring the history of the last 30 years of Russian independence as well as American and Russian cooperation since the fall of the Soviet Union.
> 
> It's also ironic that while the leftist crowd wants us to consider ourselves Islamophobic for fearing a religion that has literally killed thousands around the world on a yearly basis, that we're not supposed to be able to turn around and call people who are innately afraid of anything Russian as Russophobes -- despite the fact that Russians have not threatened us or our way of life in well over 30 years.
> 
> It's a very interesting timeline indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating _information _with _financial contribution _now?
> 
> Well, looks like you really are turning into a democrat after all ...


I feel it's important to not conflate the two. Russia is guilty of interfering (successfully, in part) in the election. That is a threat to the way of life of the American people, and should be treated as an act of aggression.

The media controversy these days is attempting to ascertain whether or not the Trump campaign/current administration encouraged or solicited this interference. Even if it were somehow possible to prove that the president is innocent without a shadow of a doubt, it must be acknowledged that Russia is hostile to the American democracy.


TheNightmanCometh said:


> It appears that the cognitive dissonance for some is still as strong as ever.
> 
> And it looks like you follow your confirmation bias like a sheep follows it's shepard. My post wasn't a victory post. It was an observation.


Ooo, buzzwords!

The American two party system will prevent the bleed of democrats that you're predicting, unfortunately. You pick the party that nauseates you least, and while 41% may be an interesting stat to consider it doesn't mean these 41% will also suddenly start agreeing with Republican tax policies, etc.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> You're asking a party to change its position based on a poll of 2000 people. We don't actually know the facts as to whether a sizeable minority of democrats really do support the new 'travel ban'. Basing an entire agenda/discussion on a poll of 2000 people is asinine.
> 
> Losing voters happens all the time, you can't cover every spectrum. Maybe more *Democrats do need to come out in favour of Trumps new plans, but I fail to see the relevance or importance.*


You fail to see the relevance or importance of supporting bipartisan policies :lmao


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> *I feel it's important to not conflate the two. Russia is guilty of interfering (successfully, in part) in the election.* That is a threat to the way of life of the American people, and should be treated as an act of aggression.
> 
> The media controversy these days is attempting to ascertain whether or not the Trump campaign/current administration encouraged or solicited this interference.* Even if it were somehow possible to prove that the president is innocent without a shadow of a doubt, *it must be acknowledged that Russia is hostile to the American democracy.


Yeah, that was debunked several months ago Sami. You're behind the times. There has been absolutely nothing that has proven that there was any Russian interference. 

Also ... "Proving Innocence" ... like there's implied guilt ... 

WTF is wrong with how you guys are thinking about things these days? I thought the western ideal was to prove guilt, not innocence.


----------



## El Dandy

>he's not serious, he will drop out!
>he'll never make it past the primaries!
>he’ll never insult his way to the nominee!
*(wins the GOP primary)*
>he can't possibly beat Hillary!
>he's doing so bad in the polls - Hillary doesn't even have to try!
>he's fucking up the debates so bad - Hillary's got this!
>he stands no chance of winning!
>GRAB HER BY THE PUSSY! WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
*(he wins the election)*
>WTF - the world is ending!
>the electoral college doesn't have to pick him!
>the electoral college won't pick him!
>the electoral college will pick an alternate - it's their right!
*(gets the EC pick)*
>the senate won't accept the ECs pick!
>they have a right to reject the pick and choose someone else!
*(gets confirmed)*
>he's not fit to be president, and won't be allowed to be inaugurated!
*(gets inaugurated)*
>January: Impeachment any day now...
>he can't just withdraw from the TPP!
*(withdraws from TPP)*
>February: Impeachment any day now...
>Travel Ban?! 100% Unconstitutional! OUTRAGE!
>lower courts have denied it!
>suck it DRUMPF there is nothing you can do about it!
>FLYNN! WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
>March: Impeachment any day now...
>no way his nomination of an Originalist gets approved for SCOTUS!
*(Gorsuch is approved)*
>April: Impeachment any day now...
>May: Impeachment any day now...
>he can't just fire the FBI Director!
>he doesn't have the right!
>WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
*(fires Comey)*
>he can’t declassify classified intelligence!
>that’s TREASON!
>WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
*(Turns out he’s the ultimate declassifier and 100% can declassify anything he wants, to whomever he wants, whenever he wants)*
>June: Impeachment any day now...
>he can't just leave the Paris Accord! 
>what about MUH ENVIRONMENT?!
>our friends around the world will laugh at us!
*(leaves Paris Accord)*
>Comey will testify and will say Trump obstructed justice!
>it will be be our SuperBowl!
>WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
*(Comey doesn’t say Trump obstructed justice; turns out to be absolutely nothing)
(also also Comey turns out to be a leaker lel)*
>no matter,THE BLUE WAVE IS COMING!
>Special Election time! we're gonna take back seats!
>America hates Trump and the job he and his party are doing!
>in Montana, Republican nom Gianforte bodyslammed a reporter 1 day before the election!
>political suicide! That seat is in the bag now!
>in Georgia, we're giving all of our money to Osoff and he's up against a loser like Handel!
>it's ez pz BLUE WAVE B O Y Z!
*(Dems go 0-5 in special elections and don't pick up a single seat)*
>well, at least Trump didn't get that Travel Ban haha fuck you DRUMPF
>SCOTUS wouldn’t dare go against the lower courts
>SCOTUS will never hear it
>SCOTUS will never grant cert
*(SCOTUS reinstates Travel Ban with all of the best parts)*
>WTF! This is a gross overreach by SCOTUS!
>Who the fuck does SCOTUS think they are?!
>July: Impeachment any day now...
>ha! Trump's son acted on his own and was willing to accept information from Russia!
>he even voluntarily released the entire email exchange to the public!
>WE GOT HIM NOW! HA!
(you already know what's gonna happen)

god damnit I love this timeline; can't wait to add the section next year where Mueller's investigation doesn't find much
:move


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> You fail to see the relevance or importance of supporting bipartisan policies :lmao


I'll admit that was poorly worded, I meant important to our original discussion. It was an irrelevant argument based on a nothing poll.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> I feel it's important to not conflate the two. Russia is guilty of interfering (successfully, in part) in the election. That is a threat to the way of life of the American people, and should be treated as an act of aggression.


[citation needed]

there is zero proof that the russian government interfered in the election at all, only allegations. the evidence, if any even exists, has been deliberately withheld from the public by the deep state bureaucracy and by the DNC refusing to hand over its servers to the FBI or any intelligence agency.

the position of wikileaks is that the information was leaked from inside the DNC, not stolen from it by russia. as wikileaks has presented no evidence backing up this claim either, it is just as credible as the claim by obama deep state bureaucrats that it was russia. both are unsupported assertions.



> it must be acknowledged that Russia is hostile to the American democracy.


well of course russia is hostile to american democracy, there is no doubt about that. proof that that hostility translated into the actions alleged has, for whatever reason, not been provided to we, the public. it has been withheld from us, and we are expected to simply accept assertions.


----------



## samizayn

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, that was debunked several months ago Sami. You're behind the times.
> 
> "Proving Innocence" ... like there's implied guilt ...
> 
> WTF is wrong with how you guys are thinking about things these days?


Unfortunately there's always implied guilt particularly because there is rarely such a thing as proving innocence. In the likely event this all dies down, many will believe it's simply because they didn't "catch him" rather than the fact he may not have actually done it.


I'm not aware. Basing this off of the testimonies/opinions of govt officials? https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bf31d4-5686-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html

This is from Jun 21. I must say I haven't been paying close attention to the RUSSIA SCANDAL, but there have seemed to be a huge amount of top level people who are confidently saying that they did it.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> We have one of our most right leaning governments in power in ages, we have literally had about 12 years of left wing governemnent in 40 years (and that was about as centre left as you can get, thanks Blair), WTF are you on about? And you have the audacity to say I'm clueless about American politics?
> 
> :kobefacepalm


I already knew I was wrong when I lumped the UK into Europe because they have right wing governments (from their perspective) --- which in American terms is still far left because they have all continued to avidly support socialist policies. The same can be said about Bush's government that was essentially a RINO government.

However, the point about ignoring the minority once in power in a parliamentary system still stands because majority power for any government means they can pass populist legislation.



samizayn said:


> Unfortunately there's always implied guilt particularly because there is rarely such a thing as proving innocence. In the likely event this all dies down, many will believe it's simply because they didn't "catch him" rather than the fact he may not have actually done it.


Lolwut? 



> I'm not aware. Basing this off of the testimonies/opinions of govt officials? https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bf31d4-5686-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html
> 
> This is from Jun 21. I must say I haven't been paying close attention to the RUSSIA SCANDAL, but there have seemed to be a huge amount of top level people who are confidently saying that they did it.


Argument from authority has to mean that that authority is right in the first place. When searching for truth, taking the word of someone is a huge no-no. They need to provide evidence which they have none. At all. 

I can go up to you and call you a witch and get the clergy and the bishop and the pope to support me. Does that make you a witch?


----------



## Draykorinee

samizayn said:


> Ooo, buzzwords!
> 
> The American two party system will prevent the bleed of democrats that you're predicting, unfortunately. You pick the party that nauseates you least, and while 41% may be an interesting stat to consider it doesn't mean these 41% will also suddenly start agreeing with Republican tax policies, etc.


I had the same thought. Its like he got a 'how to appear intelligent on the internet with words' book or something.

I find it a weird Dilemma, that people expect a party leader to change his/her stance to appeal to a minority so they don't lose votes, but then if they change their stance, do they not risk alienating the majority who don't support that stance? 
Can you imagine a Democrat deciding to vote against Gay marriage because a small number of Democrats don't like gay marriage? That leader would be ostracised.

For me, I understand that parties in the UK can't appeal to all of my preferences. You think I like Corbyn supporting Brexit? I'm not going to switch to Lib Dems based on one policy.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://twitter.com/Real_Assange/st...1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://ace.mu.nu/

Julian Assange tweeting that sources are telling him the Hillary e-mail investigation will be re-opened next week

If true, just another SAVAGE 88D chess move from :trump :trump3


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> there is zero proof that the russian government interfered in the election at all, only allegations. the evidence, if any even exists, has been deliberately withheld from the public by the deep state bureaucracy and by the DNC refusing to hand over its servers to the FBI or any intelligence agency.
> 
> the position of wikileaks is that the information was leaked from inside the DNC, not stolen from it by russia. as wikileaks has presented no evidence backing up this claim either, it is just as credible as the claim by obama deep state bureaucrats that it was russia. both are unsupported assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> well of course russia is hostile to american democracy, there is no doubt about that. proof that that hostility translated into the actions alleged has, for whatever reason, not been provided to we, the public.


Okay. I guess I just don't see why all of them would choose to join in on a collective lie like this.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> Okay. I guess I just don't see why all of them would choose to join in on a collective lie like this.


mass political delusions occur frequently in all countries


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Okay. I guess I just don't see why all of them would choose to join in on a collective lie like this.


And that's your standard of evidence that there's truth to it? That they wouldn't be crazy enough to believe it. 

Umm. Ok.

----

Anyways, back to SHITPOSTING MEMES!


----------



## samizayn

Iconoclast said:


> I already knew I was wrong when I lumped the UK into Europe because they have right wing governments (from their perspective) --- which in American terms is still far left because they have all continued to avidly support socialist policies. The same can be said about Bush's government that was essentially a RINO government.
> 
> However, the point about ignoring the minority once in power in a parliamentary system still stands because majority power for any government means they can pass populist legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> Lolwut?
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from authority has to mean that that authority is right in the first place. When searching for truth, taking the word of someone is a huge no-no. They need to provide evidence which they have none. At all.
> 
> I can go up to you and call you a witch and get the clergy and the bishop and the pope to support me. Does that make you a witch?


I was trying to express the idea that Russian interference vs Trump-supported Russian interference were two separate issues. I gave a hypothetical in which it was magically possible to show that Trump is 1000% innocent, and said that even if that hypothetical came true, Russia should still be treated as a hostile nation because of its aggression towards the United States democracy.

I guess I'll ask again. Why would they lie? They certainly could, but I'm having trouble grasping why they would pile on Russia as opposed to country X, and what could possibly be in it for any of them. That's why I feel inclined to take them at face value, that they're doing their jobs of collecting intelligence and protecting the homeland as it were. I can't imagine what possible reason they'd have for fabricating something like this, though I acknowledge that without evidence, it's certainly a possibility.


deepelemblues said:


> mass political delusions occur frequently in all countries


What would be the material result of the delusion? A comfortable pretext for war, god forbid? Evidence that we need to funnel billions (more) into these government agencies? 

That one wouldn't surprise me actually.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> I guess I'll ask again. Why would they lie? They certainly could, but I'm having trouble grasping why they would pile on Russia as opposed to country X, and what could possibly be in it for any of them.


Obama/Hillary/Neocon democrat-led war in Syria and another neocon regime change. 

Trump/Putin alliance stands in the way of that. 

Obama launched a misguided attempt to "free Syria" where Syria didn't need freeing. Russia got involved because Assad and Putin have had a positive relationship. Russia has always wanted an in in the middle east which the Americans have opposed for at least 70 years. 

Russia however is backing Assad partly because of energy and oil self-interest and partly because Russia has faced significant problems had the hands of Islamist terrorists over the last few decades most of which has been escalated by American foreign policy in the region. 

Democrats stand a lot to gain from creating an army of Russophobes because it masks the real intent which is the continued removal of dictators in the middle east and gets them continued support for their foreign war policy. By calling Trump a puppet of Russia, the desire is to make his government look less credible than it really is so that his successes get buried under the daily dose of mass hysteria propagated by a press that is in obvious collusion with the Democrats. CNN (owned by Time Warner who gave Hillary 1 million) for example is a huge campaign donor of Hillary's. It's not even secret. 

Dems didn't start the process of destablisation of the middle east out of pure malice btw. They thought they would be sitting pretty and able to do in Syria what they did in Iraq, afghanistan and Libya without foreign interference. But Russia got involved and they freaked the fuck out and went back to fueling old Cold War rhetoric. 

The Russia strategy is a LONG TERM plan to destabilize the current government and hopefully come back in power in 4-8 years and continue where the last democrat government left off. 

Of course, you can claim that I'm claiming this without evidence. However, I'm basing this on Obama's actions in souring a workable relationship with Putin over Ukraine where it escalated from neutral and even somewhat allied to absolutely adversarial in a matter of a few years.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> I was trying to express the idea that Russian interference vs Trump-supported Russian interference were two separate issues. I gave a hypothetical in which it was magically possible to show that Trump is 1000% innocent, and said that even if that hypothetical came true, Russia should still be treated as a hostile nation because of its aggression towards the United States democracy.
> 
> I guess I'll ask again. Why would they lie? They certainly could, but I'm having trouble grasping why they would pile on Russia as opposed to country X, and what could possibly be in it for any of them. That's why I feel inclined to take them at face value, that they're doing their jobs of collecting intelligence and protecting the homeland as it were. I can't imagine what possible reason they'd have for fabricating something like this, though I acknowledge that without evidence, it's certainly a possibility.
> 
> 
> What would be the material result of the delusion? A comfortable pretext for war, god forbid? Evidence that we need to funnel billions (more) into these government agencies?
> 
> That one wouldn't surprise me actually.


political self-interest - the lust for power - and seeing your political enemies laid low are the usual reasons


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Follow the money, and you'll see where the real source of the cancer is. 










Microsoft owns MSNBC - Donated 1,1 million. 
Time Warner owns CNN - Donated aprox 1 million. 

Guess who's leading the charge on the entire Trump/Russia hysteria. 

Crony capitalism is the real cancer here and funny thing is that non-Americans are the ones that are the worst worked up ones by it :lol

Edit: 5 universities on the donor list :CENA 

And then they wonder why the cost of education is so high in America and why colleges have turned into indoctrination centers for far leftist socialism.


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> We have one of our most right leaning governments in power in ages, we have literally had about 12 years of left wing governemnent in 40 years (and that was about as centre left as you can get, thanks Blair), WTF are you on about? And you have the audacity to say I'm clueless about American politics?
> 
> :kobefacepalm


Theresa May is hardly right wing. Cameron perhaps, but even he was closer to the center, his biggest influence on his politics and decision making was actually Blair. He's on record for saying that and Blair was a centre left politician. Cameron for example raised the minimum wage, something which left wingers continually push.

Of course you would counter that by talking about the cuts to public spending, but let's be honest with ourselves here: It's been 7 years later and we still don't have a balanced budget. We've doubled our debt and May is looking to for example put forward an infrastructure bill, which is more of a left wing policy. Last time we had a balanced budget was 2006 and the Tories have all but given up on fiscal responsibility.

I hope you aren't confusing decisions such as the horrible investigatory powers act as right wing when it has nothing to do with economics. Certainly one can argue May is the most authoritarian leader we have had in a while, although we have been going that direction for a while. But right wing?

Arguing for price caps in the Energy sector for example is hardly right wing. It was a move right out of the Ed Miliband playbook who is clearly centre-left and more left wing than what Blair was. May also snubbed the libertarian wing of the Conservative party, saying that the Conservatives no longer believe in "untrampled free markets". The Conservative party under May have become increasingly interventionist. They have been veering to the left ever since she got into power on an economic level.

It is true by European standards, that we haven't had a "left wing" government ever since before the days of Thatcher but we were so veered to the left back then that it would have been difficult to find a part of the economy that wasn't nationalized. So of course we haven't had a proper left wing government for ages. 

And thank fuck for that. Economically speaking even though I would still be opposed, I'd much rather have a centrist who at least embraces having the vast majority of the economy in the private sector and ran by the market than have a lunatic like Corbyn who has praised Cuba and Venezuela in the past.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> political self-interest - the lust for power - and seeing your political enemies laid low are the usual reasons


Destabilizing democratically elected governments through politically fueled propaganda like this has long been America's strategy and they've done it throughout the world. 

It's interesting to see them do it to their own though. Never thought I'd see it happen. :hmmm


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884863207923261440
Can't wait! :mark:


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...&gwh=AD8EF6F4B23F051A768F89009D95D028&gwt=pay

:heston


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> You're asking a party to change its position based on a poll of 2000 people. We don't actually know the facts as to whether a sizeable minority of democrats really do support the new 'travel ban'. Basing an entire agenda/discussion on a poll of 2000 people is asinine.
> 
> Losing voters happens all the time, you can't cover every spectrum. Maybe more Democrats do need to come out in favour of Trumps new plans, but I fail to see the relevance or importance.


Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats since Obama was elected. Clearly there is a reason for that. You think the reason for that is because Democrats can't cover every spectrum? It appears to me that they've lost that many seats because they've abandoned their base, and there is loads of evidence that confirms it. 

You're saying this poll is inconsequential, but then you cited a poll, if it was the same poll Iconoclast cited I'm not sure, and you're argument was that the poll stated that the majority of people feel the country is going in the wrong direction as evidence that Democrats are doing the right thing. It seems a bit hypocritical to me for you to brush aside one poll and use another as evidence.

And 2,000 people is an adequate sample size as long as the margin of error is realistic. A 2,000 person sample size typically yields a 2 to 3% margin of error, which is and has always been an acceptable amount for a margin of error.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

samizayn said:


> I feel it's important to not conflate the two. Russia is guilty of interfering (successfully, in part) in the election. That is a threat to the way of life of the American people, and should be treated as an act of aggression.
> 
> The media controversy these days is attempting to ascertain whether or not the Trump campaign/current administration encouraged or solicited this interference. Even if it were somehow possible to prove that the president is innocent without a shadow of a doubt, it must be acknowledged that Russia is hostile to the American democracy.
> 
> Ooo, buzzwords!
> 
> The American two party system will prevent the bleed of democrats that you're predicting, unfortunately. You pick the party that nauseates you least, and while 41% may be an interesting stat to consider it doesn't mean these 41% will also suddenly start agreeing with Republican tax policies, etc.


The feigned outrage over Russia interfering with the election is all due to the left not winning the election. Russians have tried to interfere with our elections since the Cold War, that is a fact. It has been confirmed that the Russians did not tamper with a single vote, so their influence, whether it was small or large, was more of an attempt to discredit Hillary as President. We don't know if their influence had an effect because there's just no way of knowing the level of influence the Russians actually had. You call it a threat to our way of life, cool, but you don't cut off a World Power because they do what all other World Powers do, including America. The world is much too complicated for something like that. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. I'd much rather see the US have some sort of relationship with Russia than no relationship at all.

No it doesn't mean that 41% will switch, but it's folly to think 0% will switch. The "travel ban" is just one particular issue where the Party is ignoring a sizeable part of their base. Per Gallup, 48% of Democrats worry a great/fair deal about illegal immigration. How man Democratic leaders are opposed to illegal immigration? That's just another example, then you get into taxes, jobs, the economy, so on and so forth. 1,000+ seats have been lost, what's your reasoning for that?


----------



## deepelemblues

2000 people is on the larger end of sample sizes

as long as it isnt misleading with the phrasing of questions and its methodology isnt garbage, AND the respondents answer honestly, studies have shown that a poll with a sample size of around 800 or so (or larger) is pretty accurate and the results can be reliably extrapolated to the general population of the group being polled


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> *I had the same thought. Its like he got a 'how to appear intelligent on the internet with words' book or something.*
> 
> I find it a weird Dilemma, that people expect a party leader to change his/her stance to appeal to a minority so they don't lose votes, but then if they change their stance, do they not risk alienating the majority who don't support that stance?
> Can you imagine a Democrat deciding to vote against Gay marriage because a small number of Democrats don't like gay marriage? That leader would be ostracised.
> 
> For me, I understand that parties in the UK can't appeal to all of my preferences. You think I like Corbyn supporting Brexit? I'm not going to switch to Lib Dems based on one policy.


Ad hominem attacks already?


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884809284000903168
Another guy broken by another Trump :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## Stinger Fan

TheNightmanCometh said:


> The feigned outrage over Russia interfering with the election is all due to the left not winning the election. Russians have tried to interfere with our elections since the Cold War, that is a fact. It has been confirmed that the Russians did not tamper with a single vote, so their influence, whether it was small or large, was more of an attempt to discredit Hillary as President. We don't know if their influence had an effect because there's just no way of knowing the level of influence the Russians actually had. You call it a threat to our way of life, cool, but you don't cut off a World Power because they do what all other World Powers do, including America. The world is much too complicated for something like that. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. I'd much rather see the US have some sort of relationship with Russia than no relationship at all.
> 
> No it doesn't mean that 41% will switch, but it's folly to think 0% will switch. The "travel ban" is just one particular issue where the Party is ignoring a sizeable part of their base. Per Gallup, 48% of Democrats worry a great/fair deal about illegal immigration. How man Democratic leaders are opposed to illegal immigration? That's just another example, then you get into taxes, jobs, the economy, so on and so forth. 1,000+ seats have been lost, what's your reasoning for that?


What I find funny is how leftists claim the election must have been rigged for Trump to win, and applauded Jill Steins efforts for recounts....until people found out that Trump votes were suppressed. Funny how no one wants to talk about that but continue to suggest that Russia made Trump win. I can only imagine how they'd react if Hillary Clinton had votes "missing"


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884809284000903168
> Another guy broken by another Trump :kobelol


the breakings will continue until lefty morale is 6 feet under


----------



## deepelemblues

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/370600.php

DJT Jr. just being a journalist. Why does the left and the media hate the First Amendment???????? DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS


----------



## Reaper

Sean Spicier is another Twitter shitposter everyone should follow :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884471051249385473
Poor girl probably _still _hasn't noticed the "i". 

This is the education standard of the "college" graduates that voted for Hillary. Seriously, in all this mess, they've done more damage to what it means to be college educated than at any other time in history. 

:ha


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Iconoclast said:


> Sean Spicier is another Twitter shitposter everyone should follow :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884471051249385473
> Poor girl probably _still _hasn't noticed the "i".
> 
> This is the education standard of the "college" graduates that voted for Hillary. Seriously, in all this mess, they've done more damage to what it means to be college educated than at any other time in history.
> 
> :ha


"You have to be highly educated to be this stupid."

-Ben Shapiro


----------



## Arya Dark

*Universities donating to political campaigns? Jesus fucking christ....and they have the nerve to raise tuition? Fucking pathetic.... but not surprising in the slightest. I'd love to say I'm surprised by this but I'm not. *


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884838883518709761


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Coku @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @AryaDark @BruiserKC

Simply a must-see Tucker Carlson Tonight as Tucker took on Cold War neocon Ralph Peters, who became so deranged in trying to keep his total war fervor in check he actually compared Tucker to a Nazi apologist simply for thinking the US and Russia working together against ISIS is OK. In response Tucker slapped him down by bringing up past articles he had written about the Iraq War and how terribly wrong they were in retrospect. :lol Ol' Ralph also incredibly asserted that Putin is "as bad as Hitler". 

Then everybody's favorite precog SCOTT ADAMS got a few minutes to tackle the Russia/Don Jr story, slandering British publicists everywhere and warning of the zombie lawyer apocalypse. :lol


----------



## Reaper

AryaDark said:


> *Universities donating to political campaigns? Jesus fucking christ....and they have the nerve to raise tuition? Fucking pathetic.... but not surprising in the slightest. I'd love to say I'm surprised by this but I'm not. *


Universities donating didn't surprise me quite half as much as finding out that Planned Parenthood does this as well. 

They've donated a total of $12 million to various politicians (major chunk going to democrats) since 1990 - $4 million of this was donated in 2016. 900k of this was donated to Hillary. 



















So much for saving women's lives.


----------



## deepelemblues

Manafort and Kushner reported this meeting some time ago and nobody cared :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

AryaDark said:


> *Universities donating to political campaigns? Jesus fucking christ....and they have the nerve to raise tuition? Fucking pathetic.... but not surprising in the slightest. I'd love to say I'm surprised by this but I'm not. *


They get loads of money from the Government and from outside sources besides tuition. Someone has to pay for all these Professors making 6 figures a year while teaching how Capitalism is bad and various other useless classes.

If Unis want to save money then cut these worthless programs, stop putting loads of money into athletics and practice some fiscal responsibility!


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Coku @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @AryaDark @BruiserKC
> 
> Simply a must-see Tucker Carlson Tonight as Tucker took on Cold War neocon Ralph Peters, who became so deranged in trying to keep his total war fervor in check he actually compared Tucker to a Nazi apologist simply for thinking the US and Russia working together against ISIS is OK. In response Tucker slapped him down by bringing up past articles he had written about the Iraq War and how terribly wrong they were in retrospect. :lol Ol' Ralph also incredibly asserted that Putin is "as bad as Hitler".
> 
> Then everybody's favorite precog SCOTT ADAMS got a few minutes to tackle the Russia/Don Jr story, slandering British publicists everywhere and warning of the zombie lawyer apocalypse. :lol


Ralph Peters is one crazy fellow. Used an article he wrote about Iraq for an assignment to "deconstruct" someone's argument almost a decade and a half ago. :lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Coku @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @AryaDark @BruiserKC
> 
> Simply a must-see Tucker Carlson Tonight as Tucker took on Cold War neocon Ralph Peters, who became so deranged in trying to keep his total war fervor in check he actually compared Tucker to a Nazi apologist simply for thinking the US and Russia working together against ISIS is OK. In response Tucker slapped him down by bringing up past articles he had written about the Iraq War and how terribly wrong they were in retrospect. :lol Ol' Ralph also incredibly asserted that Putin is "as bad as Hitler".
> 
> Then everybody's favorite precog SCOTT ADAMS got a few minutes to tackle the Russia/Don Jr story, slandering British publicists everywhere and warning of the zombie lawyer apocalypse. :lol


Interesting segment. 

Just remember that Putin has his own agenda and while I have no objection to a reset in relations with Russia, his anti-globalist approach is more about spreading the shadow of Mother Russia across Europe and the Middle East. Hopefully Trump is going into this with eyes wide open. Putin is jockeying to be THe power broker in this part of the world as they perceive our retreat. 

As Reagan would say, "Trust but verify. "


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Interesting segment.
> 
> Just remember that Putin has his own agenda and while I have no objection to a reset in relations with Russia, his anti-globalist approach is more about spreading the shadow of Mother Russia across Europe and the Middle East. Hopefully Trump is going into this with eyes wide open. Putin is jockeying to be THe power broker in this part of the world as they perceive our retreat.
> 
> As Reagan would say, "Trust but verify. "


If "this part of the world" refers to the Middle East then I welcome them to it.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> If "this part of the world" refers to the Middle East then I welcome them to it.


Russia did such a fine job the last time they were THE power broker in the Middle East. A bunch of mangy Islamists teaming up with mangier Commie Europeans to hijack planes and shoot up a cruise ship in the Mediterranean and shoot up airport terminals in Europe and the Israeli quarters at the Olympic Village in Munich, a never-ending stockpile of Warsaw Pact weapons streaming to those mangy terrorists, and to the mangy Arab governments harboring them who also got into big wars with Israel. And into a pointless war in Yemen for some reason :draper2 

Going back to the 60s and 70s Middle East is just as shitty an alternative as the current Middle East.

Despite heartfelt beliefs to the contrary Russia doesn't give two shits about fighting Islamists unless doing so furthers Russia's interests. They've finally found a strongman in Ramzan Kadyrov who can keep the Chechen Islamists from attacking Russia proper and not get too many ideas about Chechen independence. He's done such a good job of repressing the Chechen Islamists - or colluding with them - that when those who have gone to Syria on jihad leave, they're going to Europe instead of back to Russia to kill infidels. Russia wouldn't be fighting in Syria if Assad wasn't Moscow's last vassal state in the region which the Kremlin really doesn't want to lose. If Putin decided tomorrow that abandoning Assad would serve him better, that US-Russia anti-ISIS alliance fantasy would instantly die. He doesn't give a shit about fighting Islamists, they're good cannon fodder to drain Western resources as long as they aren't turning their sights on Mother Russia too. Two and a half weeks after he became Yeltsin's official heir apparent Chechnya was invaded. After ten years of beating down the Caucasus Islamist pot from boiling to just simmering, Putin stopped. He could have wiped them out. He didn't. Why? Because Islamists originating from the Caucasus are useful, as long as they're leaving to go kill non-Russian infidels abroad.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Russia did such a fine job the last time they were THE power broker in the Middle East. A bunch of mangy Islamists teaming up with mangier Commie Europeans to hijack planes and shoot up a cruise ship in the Mediterranean and shoot up airport terminals in Europe and the Israeli quarters at the Olympic Village in Munich, a never-ending stockpile of Warsaw Pact weapons streaming to those mangy terrorists, and to the mangy Arab governments harboring them who also got into big wars with Israel. And into a pointless war in Yemen for some reason :draper2
> 
> Going back to the 60s and 70s is just as shitty an alternative as the current situation


Sounds like a lot of problems for countries that aren't the one I live in.


----------



## CamillePunk

:sodone We're reaching memetic levels that aren't supposed to be possible to achieve.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Sorry this is late or has been posted already

A particularly poignant critique 'lonely' Trump at G20






I honestly think for quite a while now the guy does not want to be Prez anymore. He doesn't have the desire nor the chops for the job.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry this is late or has been posted already
> 
> A particularly poignant critique 'lonely' Trump at G20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly think for quite a while now the guy does not want to be Prez anymore. He doesn't have the desire nor the chops for the job.


If you assume everything he says about Trump is true, while not actually having the privilege of knowing the man personally, and also looking at what he's done through your own personal cognitive dissonance, while using confirmation bias to make sense of it all then, ya, you're probably gonna think his critique was pretty poignant. I'm sure he thinks he was being pretty poignant too.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Sounds like a lot of problems for countries that aren't the one I live in.


Unfortunately in this day and age it could become our problem. As much as I would love to let the rest of the world figure out their own problems it's not a good idea to completely turn our backs on a very dangerous situation right now. For now the Islamists and lone wolves aren't baying at the door but that can change tomorrow with a terrorist attack. 

We could face repeating history again, both regarding Russia and the Islamist movement. We worked with Stalin in WW2 only to face them in the Cold War for 40 plus years. When Dubya took office he said we weren't going to be involved everywhere even in the face of a rising threat in Islamofascism. Then came 9/11. If Trump completely ignores what goes on and the fact that Putin is more interested in his own power than advancing peace in the ME, I can imagine the reaction if we face another 9/11 type attack. 

Hopefully he won't repeat the mistakes of the past.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Unfortunately in this day and age it could become our problem. As much as I would love to let the rest of the world figure out their own problems it's not a good idea to completely turn our backs on a very dangerous situation right now. For now the Islamists and lone wolves aren't baying at the door but that can change tomorrow with a terrorist attack.
> 
> We could face repeating history again, both regarding Russia and the Islamist movement. We worked with Stalin in WW2 only to face them in the Cold War for 40 plus years. When Dubya took office he said we weren't going to be involved everywhere even in the face of a rising threat in Islamofascism. Then came 9/11. If Trump completely ignores what goes on and the fact that Putin is more interested in his own power than advancing peace in the ME, I can imagine the reaction if we face another 9/11 type attack.
> 
> Hopefully he won't repeat the mistakes of the past.


9/11 was not the result of pursuing a non-interventionist foreign policy, quite the opposite in fact. Any rhetoric by Bush doesn't negate decades of actions in the region. 

This country has only suffered two major attacks in the last hundred years. First was due to our involvement in Europe's wars, and second was our involvement in the middle east. You can defend our involvement in WWI and WWII and I don't care to argue the point, but this idea that America minding its own business will result in an attack against us is pure backwards fantasy-land horseshit with no basis in reality or history. 

No, we don't need to lead the world. No, we don't need to bomb x country for y reason. There is no justification, and the warmongers in this country with blood on their hands need to politely fuck off instead of trying to talk us into more wars with this mealy-mouthed rhetoric and hallucinatory hypotheticals.


----------



## Goku

"it's an american duty"

:buried


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> 9/11 was not the result of pursuing a non-interventionist foreign policy, quite the opposite in fact. Any rhetoric by Bush doesn't negate decades of actions in the region.
> 
> This country has only suffered two major attacks in the last hundred years. First was due to our involvement in Europe's wars, and second was our involvement in the middle east. You can defend our involvement in WWI and WWII and I don't care to argue the point, but this idea that America minding its own business will result in an attack against us is pure backwards fantasy-land horseshit with no basis in reality or history.
> 
> No, we don't need to lead the world. No, we don't need to bomb x country for y reason. There is no justification, and the warmongers in this country with blood on their hands need to politely fuck off instead of trying to talk us into more wars with this mealy-mouthed rhetoric and hallucinatory hypotheticals.





Correct on the first part...but retreating at that point and not paying attention led to 9/11. No we shouldn't be the world police but we need to be aware and involved in a world that right now is a dangerous place. Hypotheticals about North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc...are now reality. We need to tread carefully but not have our heads in the sand.


----------



## Reaper

@CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; 










(I haven't verified if this is true btw).



BruiserKC said:


> Correct on the first part...*but retreating at that point and not paying attention led to 9/11*. No we shouldn't be the world police but we need to be aware and involved in a world that right now is a dangerous place. Hypotheticals about North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc...are now reality. We need to tread carefully but not have our heads in the sand.


9/11 happened because a terrorist organization funded by Saudis, created by a culture of non-muslim hating muslims made a plan to attack America and succeeded. That's really all there is to it imo. 

Indoctrinated in extreme religious tradition to believe that America is the root of all evil in the world because it allows people the freedom to drink freely, women to wear "revealing" clothes, people to engage in sex outside of marriage and eat pork. 

America also was and is still perceived as the greatest threat to Muslims and Islam because of their continued support of Israeli Jews which is something Americans did need to do at one point in order to ensure the survival of a small group of persecuted peoples. If you look at other minor religions within Muslim majority borders, they have all been wiped out. So I'll speak in defense of protecting the Jews. 

We all know just how much Muslims have loved jews since the time of Mohammad. Muslim hatred for western values and jews has existed for 1500 years and for 1500 years Muslims have relentlessly pursued a war for global dominion. 

A few American actions in the middle east are a small blip in time and didn't cause or create the situation that led to the attacks on 9/11. The attacks happened because 1500 years of hatred for a certain way of life and that terrorists made a plan. The reason why they made that plan is more caused by muslim hatred of freedom than by some sort of revenge ... any sort of revenge for anything the Americans did. 

America (and the west) represents things Muslims are forbidden to do. We cannot forget this when analysing the actions of the terrorists. 

What we need to do is protect ourselves and our way of life within our own borders. 

Yes, I'm ok with actions against ISIS, but we need to let go of the narrative that our way of life isn't 99% of the reason why terrorists keep coming after us.

Because if it wasn't, secular peaceful Muslims who just want to mind their own business wouldn't be their #1 targets. 

What has happened since 9/11 is somewhat of a consequence of escalation and "liberation" of more west hating muslims through continued misguided foreign intervention. We need less of it now, not more and let secular muslims govern their own just like we did in Jordan and Malaysia where there's no record of Islamist terrorism in recent memory.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> but then you cited a poll, if it was the same poll Iconoclast cited I'm not sure, a


It was the same poll. I just used one question to show how inconsequential polls are as a basis for anything, I wasn't using the poll as an actual basis for argument, outside of the argument that people will take from a massive poll ONE question that they like and ignore the ones they don't. Polls are historically inaccurate, but if all you do is use the one bit you like and ignore the bits that don't fit your narrative, you're not going to achieve much with me.
The narrative that all is well just because one question on a poll said a minority of Dems support Trumps travel ban and then completely ignore the fact that more people think he's doing bad just doesn't sit right.



L-DOPA said:


> Theresa May is hardly right wing.


You may have noticed I said right leaning, its not like I made her out to be Trump. I was very very clear in not saying she was a right winger, which is why I said shes one of our most right leaning government in years. She doesn't have a patch on Thatcher. She is however, and in her manifesto.

Anti-immigration (not actually a bad thing sometimes)
She created a dementia tax
Supported a new fox hunting vote WTF
Scrapped school meals

She's way more thatcherite than Cameron ever was. She has taken the party more right than Cameron. Her party front bench is one of the most Right I've seen for a long time.


----------



## Reaper

"Trump broke me"

:trips4


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> It was the same poll. I just used one question to show how inconsequential polls are as a basis for anything, I wasn't using the poll as an actual basis for argument, outside of the argument that people will take from a massive poll ONE question that they like and ignore the ones they don't. Polls are historically inaccurate, but if all you do is use the one bit you like and ignore the bits that don't fit your narrative, you're not going to achieve much with me.
> 
> The narrative that all is well just because one question on a poll said a minority of Dems support Trumps travel ban and then completely ignore the fact that more people think he's doing bad just doesn't sit right.


But if your narrative is "Dems aren't representing a large portion of their constituents" I don't see how people's opinions on the direction of the country has anything to do with that. The two poll questions that were mentioned between you and Iconoclast aren't two sides of the same coin, they're completely two different things. Maybe you're assuming Iconoclast is saying that if the Dems don't represent all their constituents they'll support Trump? I think it's entirely possible for a person to support an executive order and not the President. It's called being pragmatic.

Maybe I'm wrong here and @Iconoclast can clear it up.


----------



## virus21

And I just bought Airplane over the weekend

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884514101082210304


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you assume everything he says about Trump is true, while not actually having the privilege of knowing the man personally, and also looking at what he's done through your own personal cognitive dissonance, while using confirmation bias to make sense of it all then, ya, you're probably gonna think his critique was pretty poignant. I'm sure he thinks he was being pretty poignant too.


Jesus man, why did you even bother writing that reply you buffoon, nothing more than a thinly veiled troll attempt by again trotting out your favourite terms cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. It was clearly an editorial by the reporter based on Trump's performance, or lack thereof, at the G20. It went viral because people did find it poignant, to the point and well-worded.

At this point you've become a cartoon of yourself, a parody, so keen to impress your fellow Trumpeters in a pathetic echo chamber on a wrestling forum of all places! You think that impresses anyone?

Why don't you try addressing the points the reporter made about Trump's failure to show any leadership or inspire any unity over North Korea?


----------



## Headliner

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884901943843274752
:mj4 Ya'll news station. Believe and report shit based on a known bullshitter and liar over a former director of the FBI with years of dedicated service to this country and be forced to apologize ya'll.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus man, why did you even bother writing that reply you buffoon, nothing more than a thinly veiled troll attempt by again trotting out your favourite terms cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. It was clearly an editorial by the reporter based on Trump's performance, or lack thereof, at the G20. It went viral because people did find it poignant, to the point and well-worded.
> 
> At this point you've become a cartoon of yourself, a parody, so keen to impress your fellow Trumpeters in a pathetic echo chamber on a wrestling forum of all places! You think that impresses anyone?
> 
> Why don't you try addressing the points the reporter made about Trump's failure to show any leadership or inspire any unity over North Korea?


Nothing like a good ol' ad hominem attack, right? It's your go to.

And my comment did address it. The guy is biased and those who think it was poignant is also bias. My comment summarized that perfectly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Nothing like a good ol' ad hominem attack, right? It's your go to.
> 
> And my comment did address it. The guy is biased and those who think it was poignant is also bias. My comment summarized that perfectly.


Okay I'll ask again:

Why don't you try addressing the points the reporter made about Trump's failure to show any leadership or inspire any unity over North Korea?

And something bonus

What are your reasons for thinking the reporter is biased? Try without using your buzzwords and making assumptions about his background that you consistently accuse others of doing.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884901943843274752
> :mj4 Ya'll news station. Believe and report shit based on a known bullshitter and liar over a former director of the FBI with years of dedicated service to this country and be forced to apologize ya'll.


Who watches Fox News? I sure don't


----------



## FriedTofu

Went away and this Trump Jrs shit happen to make Trumpers shitpost about others to feel better about the situation. :lol

my TL/DR tibits

Collusion alone isn't a crime. Conspiracy to commit a felony would be. The subsequent cover ups would be.
Doesn't this justify the Russian crap throughout the campaign?
Emails is still a buzzword in 2017 American politics.
The Hilary defence will be used to deflect.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Don't forget it wasn't watergate which did Nixon in, it was the cover-up. 

Same with Clinton, wasn't the blowjob that nearly did him in it was lieing about the blowjob that nearly did him in. 

Not saying Trump will be impeached and its impossible while the Republicans hold the house and senate, but yeah, if he does it won't be Russia it'll be trying to cover it up.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/morning-joe-scarborough-leaving-republican-party/

I hate both parties with a passion, but not a single fuck will be given, nor will anything of value be lost for this stooge leaving, especially since it took him so long to see what's wrong with his party (and that Trump is said party's *only* saving grace).

Enjoy looking like a poor man's Colbert and being saddled with a stone-faced, low IQ cunt that can't take a joke.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stinger Fan said:


> Who watches Fox News? I sure don't


I don't think I've watched Fox News for more than 20 seconds at a time since like 2010?

I feel like I should check out THE TUCK'S show but I probably won't.

The only political talk radio I can stand is Rush Limbaugh and that's only if he's cracking jokes with Snerdley and being silly and having fun with whatever he's talking about, when he gets 'serious' it's just boring. And no call-ins, listening to talk radio call-in conversations should be used to torture terrorists


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> I don't think I've watched Fox News for more than 20 seconds at a time since like 2010?
> 
> I feel like I should check out THE TUCK'S show but I probably won't.


I've seen a couple of his segments, but I don't think many people around here actively watch Fox News much. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't normally see Fox News used often outside of Tucker


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884901943843274752
> :mj4 Ya'll news station. Believe and report shit based on a known bullshitter and liar over a former director of the FBI with years of dedicated service to this country and be forced to apologize ya'll.


Just another daily reminder that the MSM, regardless of its political slant, is cancerous to the point that even regular folks on YouTube can be more reliable and/or informative than they are.

:hayden3


----------



## virus21

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/morning-joe-scarborough-leaving-republican-party/
> 
> I hate both parties with a passion, but not a single fuck will be given, nor will anything of value be lost for this stooge leaving, especially since it took him so long to see what's wrong with his party (and that Trump is said party's *only* saving grace).
> 
> Enjoy looking like a poor man's Colbert and being saddled with a stone-faced, low IQ cunt that can't take a joke.


----------



## CamillePunk

MSM news isn't news, it's entertainment. CNN and MSNBC offer the dramatic crime thriller about a corrupt President who is in league with a foreign government. WaPo and NY Times can give you this in text form if you're more of a reader. Fox offers the heroic tale of an American patriot who is fighting to save his country from an evil media-deep state conspiracy. I don't know what ABC or CBS is offering because I've never watched either's "news" programs save a Trump interview here or there. Fox's narrative is a bit closer to my reality than it may be to someone else's, but I still only watch Tucker's show (again, mainly for entertainment purposes, which is all the MSM is good for), and then disparate clips from each network online that someone has shared online for whatever reason.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


>


Indubitably. :quite


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> MSM news isn't news, it's entertainment. CNN and MSNBC offer the dramatic crime thriller about a corrupt President who is in league with a foreign government. WaPo and NY Times can give you this in text form if you're more of a reader. Fox offers the heroic tale of an American patriot who is fighting to save his country from an evil media-deep state conspiracy. I don't know what ABC or CBS is offering because I've never watched either's "news" programs save a Trump interview here or there. Fox's narrative is a bit closer to my reality than it may be to someone else's, but I still only watch Tucker's show (again, mainly for entertainment purposes, which is all the MSM is good for), and then disparate clips from each network online that someone has shared online for whatever reason.


I simply call it infotainment and it's absolutely fascinating.

Especially when posting memes triggers someone far enough to change political affiliations. I find the power that wields upon the minds of people to be an impressive tool as a self-admitted narcissist. 

---
@BruiserKC, I see you in this thread and this should interest you:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/29/michigan-college-arrests-kids-for-handin



> *Michigan College Arrests Kids for Handing Out Constitutions, Whines About Being ‘Vilified’ When Students Sue*
> 
> Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) members were passing out pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution to fellow students at Kellogg Community College (KCC) in Michigan when college officials approached them and ordered them to stop. When the members refused—arguing that the First Amendment protected their actions—they were arrested for violating the school's policies.
> 
> The charges were dropped 10 days later, but KCC students and YAL members Michelle Gregoire and Brandon Withers, along with the rest of the KCC YAL chapter, sued the community college, the Board of Trustees, and a few other administrators for violating their First Amendment rights, as Reason reported earlier this year.
> 
> Now the administration is claiming that they are the real victims and have been unfairly vilified by the YAL lawsuit.
> 
> "Despite repeated public statements that the College does not take into consideration the content of speech or solicitation when granting access to campus, the YAL [chapter] and its supporters have vilified the College by spreading false information about why individuals were arrested on Sept. 20 and by suggesting that KCC does not value the U.S. Constitution or the free speech rights of its students," KCC spokesman Eric Greene said in a press release, "These accusations couldn't be further from the truth."
> 
> The community college claims that the YAL members could have gone on about their business had they just filed some paperwork and acquired a permit, but it is that exact policy the lawsuit argues is unconstitutional.
> 
> "Through the permitting process, KCC retains unfettered discretion to determine both whether students may speak at all and where they may speak," YAL's lawsuit reads. "These policies and practices chill protected student speech and disable spontaneous student speech on campus."
> 
> Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit legal organization that focuses on religious freedom, filed a brief last month in support of the plaintiffs and took issue with KCC's speech permit policy. They pointed out that the Student Life Office has the ability to modify or deny any student's request for a permit, and that there are no objective standards for officials to review the requests.
> 
> "This policy requires that KCC officials examine the viewpoint of expression and censor such speech if it is perceived to be contrary to the College's mission," the brief reads. ADF argues that KCC's policy falls under viewpoint discrimination and violates students' First Amendment rights.
> 
> Other schools, such as Bunker Hill Community College in Massachusetts and Los Angeles Pierce Community College, have also violated students' First Amendment rights by preventing students and YAL members from handing out pocket Constitutions.
> 
> Those schools deserve to be "vilified" too.


----------



## deepelemblues

I approve of old-style shaming where people and institutions being shamed were either ignored or treated with contempt

Today it's all kinds of struggle session style insanity


----------



## BruiserKC

If Donald Trump, Jr didn't break the law, he definitely pulled a move that wasn't the best idea. It's all about optics, like Joisey Governor Christie sitting on a beach (even if it was outside his residence) when they shut down the state and all the public parks and beaches. And yes...I get that the media, the libs, etc...have been after the Trumps since November 9. However, when they are still looking for a connection with the Russkis and your son admits to contacting them looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton (there was plenty of it to start with without reaching out to them)...I have to say "What were you thinking?" 

Part of this is self-inflicted, BTW. President Trump keeps going on his victory rallies, meanwhile his associates and family complain about the unfair treatment they are getting but then take potshots at their enemies. This just leads the whole thing to start over. I still say he needs to just leave it alone, leave the haters alone, and get to work. We're still waiting on the repeal of Obamacare (even though the AHCA and BRCA aren't anywhere close). Businesses are waiting on tax reform so that more jobs can be created. We have a wall on the border, etc. And while right now the Democrats seem to lack a clear message or direction, if not a whole lot has been done a year from now we could be seeing a different situation. 

Mr. President, you want to silence the haters (or at least prove them wrong)? DO YOUR JOB...and get that worthless Congress to do their jobs as well. 




Iconoclast said:


> @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I haven't verified if this is true btw).
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 happened because a terrorist organization funded by Saudis, created by a culture of non-muslim hating muslims made a plan to attack America and succeeded. That's really all there is to it imo.
> 
> Indoctrinated in extreme religious tradition to believe that America is the root of all evil in the world because it allows people the freedom to drink freely, women to wear "revealing" clothes, people to engage in sex outside of marriage and eat pork.
> 
> America also was and is still perceived as the greatest threat to Muslims and Islam because of their continued support of Israeli Jews which is something Americans did need to do at one point in order to ensure the survival of a small group of persecuted peoples. If you look at other minor religions within Muslim majority borders, they have all been wiped out. So I'll speak in defense of protecting the Jews.
> 
> We all know just how much Muslims have loved jews since the time of Mohammad. Muslim hatred for western values and jews has existed for 1500 years and for 1500 years Muslims have relentlessly pursued a war for global dominion.
> 
> A few American actions in the middle east are a small blip in time and didn't cause or create the situation that led to the attacks on 9/11. The attacks happened because 1500 years of hatred for a certain way of life and that terrorists made a plan. The reason why they made that plan is more caused by muslim hatred of freedom than by some sort of revenge ... any sort of revenge for anything the Americans did.
> 
> America (and the west) represents things Muslims are forbidden to do. We cannot forget this when analysing the actions of the terrorists.
> 
> What we need to do is protect ourselves and our way of life within our own borders.
> 
> Yes, I'm ok with actions against ISIS, but we need to let go of the narrative that our way of life isn't 99% of the reason why terrorists keep coming after us.
> 
> Because if it wasn't, secular peaceful Muslims who just want to mind their own business wouldn't be their #1 targets.
> 
> What has happened since 9/11 is somewhat of a consequence of escalation and "liberation" of more west hating muslims through continued misguided foreign intervention. We need less of it now, not more and let secular muslims govern their own just like we did in Jordan and Malaysia where there's no record of Islamist terrorism in recent memory.


We need to find a approach somewhere in the middle between those who want to turn the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula into glass and those who will flat out never fight under any circumstances. It just seems like we go through both phases and then repeat them. Is it possible to just simply tell the world that we don't want war, but will fight if it becomes completely necessary? Growing up, my dad taught me that fighting should not be the first option to solve a problem but at some point it has to be an option sometimes. 

No, we should not be the world's police force, but to just completely put our heads in the sand and say "Not our problem" doesn't work either. 



deepelemblues said:


> I don't think I've watched Fox News for more than 20 seconds at a time since like 2010?
> 
> I feel like I should check out THE TUCK'S show but I probably won't.
> 
> The only political talk radio I can stand is Rush Limbaugh and that's only if he's cracking jokes with Snerdley and being silly and having fun with whatever he's talking about, when he gets 'serious' it's just boring. And no call-ins, listening to talk radio call-in conversations should be used to torture terrorists


Mark Levin is fairly entertaining, so is Dana Loesch. Loesch is coming up the ranks as far as conservative talk, she will be poised I think down the road to become a huge name once folks like Rush, Levin, and Hannity start winding down their careers. 



Stinger Fan said:


> I've seen a couple of his segments, but I don't think many people around here actively watch Fox News much. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't normally see Fox News used often outside of Tucker


I find myself watching less of Fox News, especially since they canned O'Reilly. He at least was willing to be honest and kept it real. These days, I tend to watch more of One America News (Graham Ledger is awesome, he's worth a watch), Newsmax TV, and CRTV (Conservative Review aka Mark Levin's digital baby).


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> If Donald Trump, Jr didn't break the law, he definitely pulled a move that wasn't the best idea. It's all about optics, like Joisey Governor Christie sitting on a beach (even if it was outside his residence) when they shut down the state and all the public parks and beaches. And yes...I get that the media, the libs, etc...have been after the Trumps since November 9. * However, when they are still looking for a connection with the Russkis and your son admits to contacting them looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton (there was plenty of it to start with without reaching out to them)...I have to say "What were you thinking?*"


Wait, what? :lol That's not at all what happened, or what is being reported. Someone reached out _to him_, through a friend, and he took the meeting, which was probably a mistake but there's nothing wrong with taking a meeting and hearing someone out. Russia-gate was also not a thing at the time of the meeting. Just taking a meeting and hearing someone out is not collusion or proof of intent to do anything.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Wait, what? :lol That's not at all what happened, or what is being reported. Someone reached out _to him_, through a friend, and he took the meeting, which was probably a mistake but there's nothing wrong with taking a meeting and hearing someone out. Russia-gate was also not a thing at the time of the meeting. Just taking a meeting and hearing someone out is not collusion or proof of intent to do anything.


I get it...there was no collusion. If anything, Putin probably felt Trump would be easily manipulated considering his lack of political experience. He has found out otherwise so far. And there is nothing illegal about just sitting down to a meeting to hear what the other side has to say. However, this causes another shitstorm to come up, and at some point I think the Trumps need to get out of the situation altogether and just get to doing what their dad was voted to do. Yes, the media and the liberals are batshit crazy now and hell-bent on taking this man down. Why give them ammunition, even though it's unintentional and most likely will result in nothing but still gets tiresome? 

Let the libs and Marxists screech themselves hoarse, all Trump needs to do is ignore them and get his work done.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> I get it...there was no collusion. If anything, Putin probably felt Trump would be easily manipulated considering his lack of political experience. He has found out otherwise so far. And there is nothing illegal about just sitting down to a meeting to hear what the other side has to say. However, this causes another shitstorm to come up, and at some point I think the Trumps need to get out of the situation altogether and just get to doing what their dad was voted to do. Yes, the media and the liberals are batshit crazy now and hell-bent on taking this man down. Why give them ammunition, even though it's unintentional and most likely will result in nothing but still gets tiresome?
> 
> Let the libs and Marxists screech themselves hoarse, all Trump needs to do is ignore them and get his work done.


Well you said Don Jr reached out to them which is false so let's acknowledge that first please. :lol 

Also this happened over a year ago and you seem to be talking about it as if Don Jr did this recently during the Muh Russia frenzy. Also not the case.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Well you said Don Jr reached out to them which is false so let's acknowledge that first please. :lol
> 
> Also this happened over a year ago and you seem to be talking about it as if Don Jr did this recently during the Muh Russia frenzy. Also not the case.


But, it's still a distraction...one that the Trump administration really doesn't need. He should have probably just kept his mouth shut the whole time, or just come out and said something about the meeting rather than have the NYT say we're about to run with this story. Sometime back the Trumps were saying, "Nothing happened." And most likely nothing did happen. But, now you have to come out and say, "There was a meeting, I sat in on it". The Trump clan partly does this knowing full well it sets off the lamestream media and his enemies...it is obviously for the lolz and many of the Trump supporters (especially here) love to watch them chase their tails. 

But at what point will it get tiresome and people will start to say, "Play time is over, kids..let's get to work." Neil Cavuto has spoken out on this, as did Lou Dobbs the other night when he took Conway to task and accused her of filibustering on his show. And don't forget Cavuto and Dobbs are true conservatives, Dobbs himself was a huge Trump supporter from early on as well. Steve Bannon is clearly back running the show now, he is the one that especially loves to get people riled up. But, Trump needs to heed the calls of those of us on the right that are wanting shit to get done. I blame Congress as well...they're sitting on their asses and not doing much. But, the buck stops with Trump...he needs to roll up his sleeves and do what he is being asked to do.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BASED Gorka coolly yet calmly laying down the law is always a treat. :trump2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay I'll ask again:
> 
> Why don't you try addressing the points the reporter made about Trump's failure to show any leadership or inspire any unity over North Korea?
> 
> And something bonus
> 
> What are your reasons for thinking the reporter is biased? Try without using your buzzwords and making assumptions about his background that you consistently accuse others of doing.


He says Trump has no cure for his perceived illness in Western Democracy. Trump has a cure, the left just doesn't like it. - Cognitive Dissonance.

He says Trump seems intent on exploiting it, but doesn't explain in what ways. - Appeal to Authority Fallacy

He says Trump has no desire or capacity to lead the world - Cognitive Dissonance

He said the US ended the G20 isolated and friendless - Confirmation Bias

He said a deft President would have found an issue to rally the leaders around - Moralistic Fallacy

That's in the first 30 seconds, should I keep going?

Why do I think he's biased? Because everything he said was negative. He painted the entire picture that Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.

I think the real question is, how could you not think his opinion is biased?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> BASED Gorka coolly yet calmly laying down the law is always a treat. :trump2



I only watched the first one, and it was extremely painful to see those two egos clashing over and over, but that Gorka guy is a slippery eel and that certainly wasn't any kind of victory for him.

He can't possibly claim that leaving a country like Indo off the the ban list holds any kind of water just because it's the highest populist muslim country. They left them off the list because they're not Arab and the average perception is Muslim = Arab. It was classic spin.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> But, it's still a distraction...one that the Trump administration really doesn't need. He should have probably just kept his mouth shut the whole time, or just come out and said something about the meeting rather than have the NYT say we're about to run with this story. Sometime back the Trumps were saying, "Nothing happened." And most likely nothing did happen. But, now you have to come out and say, "There was a meeting, I sat in on it". The Trump clan partly does this knowing full well it sets off the lamestream media and his enemies...it is obviously for the lolz and many of the Trump supporters (especially here) love to watch them chase their tails.


*You were wrong.* Don't know why you won't admit that and instead just keep repeating yourself. I get it, you think he should've done things differently. I agree, and Don Jr said he probably should have done things differently too. But you already had your judgment before you knew the facts of the case, and strangely being corrected did nothing to change your view of the situation. That's usually a tell for bias. 



> But at what point will it get tiresome and people will start to say, "Play time is over, kids..let's get to work." Neil Cavuto has spoken out on this, as did Lou Dobbs the other night when he took Conway to task and accused her of filibustering on his show. *And don't forget Cavuto and Dobbs are true conservatives, Dobbs himself was a huge Trump supporter from early on as well.* Steve Bannon is clearly back running the show now, he is the one that especially loves to get people riled up. But, Trump needs to heed the calls of those of us on the right that are wanting shit to get done. I blame Congress as well...they're sitting on their asses and not doing much. But, the buck stops with Trump...he needs to roll up his sleeves and do what he is being asked to do.


I thought you couldn't support Trump because you were a true conservative, so how was Lou Dobbs able to do it?! :lol 

"Steve Bannon is clearly back running the show now" is not a rational statement. You've hallucinated that you know the inner workings of the White House to the point you can tell who is "running the show" at given periods of time, based on your demonstrably incorrect understanding of certain reported events, and your conclusions which somehow don't change when corrected on the facts.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is an unlikable, awkward, vain oaf, who has no friends, is taking advantage of an illness in Western Democracy for his own personal gain, has no ability to lead, that he's incapable of complex thinking, and is responsible for the decline of America as a world leader.


Your words and not anyone else's.

:booklel


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> I only watched the first one, and it was extremely painful to see those two egos clashing over and over, but that Gorka guy is a slippery eel and that certainly wasn't any kind of victory for him.
> 
> He can't possibly claim that leaving a country like Indo off the the ban list holds any kind of water just because it's the highest populist muslim country. They left them off the list because they're not Arab and the average perception is Muslim = Arab. It was classic spin.


Considering Indonesia is actually looking to crack down on Islamism in the wake of a recent attack instead of rolling over about it, it makes sense that they didn't make the list y2j). I don't like that Iraq was taken off, although seeing as how Mosul has been reclaimed, they've managed to show that they have some semblance of getting their shit in order.

If you don't like the fact that the countries listed in the ban have well-known and very bloody histories when comes to Islamic terrorism, then take issue the leaders of said countries for allowing such ass-backward barbarism to continue in this day and age and reduce their countries to war-torn shitholes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If you don't like the fact that the countries listed in the ban have well-known and very bloody histories when comes to Islamic terrorism, then take issue the leaders of said countries for allowing such ass-backward barbarism to continue in this day and age and reduce their countries to war-torn shitholes.


That's projection and beside the point of what news segment was about - in short, the game playing of Trump and his team.

The point is more why for example one of the heavyweights of producing, supporting and funding terrorism, Saudi Arabia, were left off.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Iconoclast @L-DOPA

:lmao :lmao :lmao Tucker Carlson vs. Max "Psycho" Boot on the matter of Russia. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

5 Times Liberals Mocked Mitt Romney For Warning About Russia

:mj



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Iconoclast @L-DOPA
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao Tucker Carlson vs. Max "Psycho" Boot on the matter of Russia. :lol


"I have contempt for your non-argument" :done I feel this every day and will now be co-opting the line.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Your words and not anyone else's.
> 
> :booklel


I have contempt for your non-argument.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Error


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> I only watched the first one, and it was extremely painful to see those two egos clashing over and over, but that Gorka guy is a slippery eel and that certainly wasn't any kind of victory for him.
> 
> *He can't possibly claim that leaving a country like Indo off the the ban list holds any kind of water just because it's the highest populist muslim country. They left them off the list because they're not Arab and the average perception is Muslim = Arab. It was classic spin.*


He mentioned Indonesia as the most populous Muslim country....and Egypt as the most populous Muslim country in the Middle East, or does that not count because it's technically in Africa?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> That's projection and beside the point of what news segment was about - in short, the game playing of Trump and his team.
> 
> *The point is more why for example one of the heavyweights of producing, supporting and funding terrorism, Saudi Arabia, were left off.*


For the same reason why the proposed bill for 9/11 victims' families to sue SA won't pass: we've been in bed with the Saudis economically and geopolitically for decades.
@DesolationRow and @CamillePunk already outlined this in considerable detail (much more than I can) 10+ pages ago. Ideally, I'd love to see that shithole wiped off the face of the Earth, but we can't always have our cake and eat it too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> For the same reason why the proposed bill for 9/11 victims' families to sue SA won't pass: we've been in bed with the Saudis economically and geopolitically for decades.
> 
> @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk already outlined this in considerable detail (much more than I can) 10+ pages ago. Ideally, I'd love to see that shithole wiped off the face of the Earth, but we can't always have our cake and eat it too.


You know that, I know that, most people know that. The point is that if Trump and his team of slicksters want to say this is primarily about protecting the American people then the economic relationship shouldn't matter should it? 

This was the guy that was going to tear down the establishment and drain the swamp; was going to change things because he wasn't a politician; was going to break the rules and make you great again. If you all loved him because he called a spade a spade then, then why not demand he tell the truth over something like SA? Just come out and say - 'It's bad for America's business'.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Error


You can sure say that again Junior!


----------



## Goku

yeah1993 > yeahbaby


----------



## Beatles123

Shit on @yeahbaby! more, he still thinks Kangaroos are people. :trump3


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> You know that, I know that, most people know that. The point is that if Trump and his team of slicksters want to say this is primarily about protecting the American people then the economic relationship shouldn't matter should it?
> 
> This was the guy that was going to tear down the establishment and drain the swamp; was going to change things because he wasn't a politician; was going to break the rules and make you great again. If you all loved him because he called a spade a spade then, then why not demand he tell the truth over something like SA? Just come out and say - 'It's bad for America's business'.


If he were a miracle worker, he'd have no excuse in regard to telling the American people who aren't in the know regarding America being in bed with SA how that situation is. But he's not a miracle worker. He's a businessman. And like every successful businessman, he knows which pitches sell which ones don't.

I know what is and isn't feasible coming from Trump and came to terms with it a while ago. The travel ban is feasible, the wall is not (although it's an awesome meme regardless). Congressional term limits are feasible, bringing back the coal industry to full force is not. Banning someone from getting into lobbying following the end of their political term is feasible, nuking North Korea is not.

If anybody expected Trump to part seas and turn water to wine, they have no one to blame but themselves for their disappointment. If they face realistic problems that can be solved with proper governance that nevertheless fail to to be fixed, they can retaliate by taking their vote to a different candidate.


----------



## Beatles123

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> the wall is not


 *FUCK YOU IT'S NOT* :fuckthis


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I only watched the first one, and it was extremely painful to see those two egos clashing over and over, but that Gorka guy is a slippery eel and that certainly wasn't any kind of victory for him.
> 
> He can't possibly claim that leaving a country like Indo off the the ban list holds any kind of water just because it's the highest populist muslim country. They left them off the list because they're not Arab and *the average perception is Muslim = Arab.* It was classic spin.


You've been saying that Saudi *Arab*ia and other Gulf states which have Arab control should be on the list but Indo was left off because they don't fit the Arab narrative?

:swaggyp

Let's also look at the ban list, it includes Iran (Mostly not Arab), Sudan (Not Arab), Somalia (Not Arab), Syria (Not all Arab), Yemen (Who are fighting the Arabs) and Libya(Which isn't fully Arab and has loads of Africa migrant traffic coming from it.) Most of these places aren't even Arab.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> *You were wrong.* Don't know why you won't admit that and instead just keep repeating yourself. I get it, you think he should've done things differently. I agree, and Don Jr said he probably should have done things differently too. But you already had your judgment before you knew the facts of the case, and strangely being corrected did nothing to change your view of the situation. That's usually a tell for bias.
> 
> I thought you couldn't support Trump because you were a true conservative, so how was Lou Dobbs able to do it?! :lol
> 
> "Steve Bannon is clearly back running the show now" is not a rational statement. You've hallucinated that you know the inner workings of the White House to the point you can tell who is "running the show" at given periods of time, based on your demonstrably incorrect understanding of certain reported events, and your conclusions which somehow don't change when corrected on the facts.


Dobbs saw a much more business friendly component to Trumps policies compared to what we had for eight years and foresaw with four at least of the Hildabeast. As for Bannon...

https://www.axios.com/steve-bannon-is-out-of-trumps-doghouse-2453655521.html

Lot of articles are out regarding this...the more combative Trump is back and Bannon encourages that because he feels Trump loses with the base if he starts to act like an insider. It's obvious. 

As for his not being a true conservative...he isn't. He is a populist and many of his views don't represent true free market conservative principles. 

Meanwhile, Trump has done a few good things but his huge promises are what people expect to be kept. He is not getting that done right now. Part is a clueless Congress but some of this is of his own doing. That you can't deny. I am clear on this...for as critical as I have been I want him to succeed and thrive. The country is fucked otherwise. But he needs to cut the shit out of poking the bear regarding libs and get shit done. Every time he gets dragged into or instigates drama it deters from what needs to be done. I will support him but not be a blindly supporting cheerleader for him. I don't trust him but that is more from politicians that have lied to us about saying one thing and doing something different once in office. 

Memo to store away...I am not the enemy here. I know what is at stake here. He needs to focus on the task at hand. If he does that I am good.


----------



## Stinger Fan

BruiserKC said:


> I find myself watching less of Fox News, especially since they canned O'Reilly. He at least was willing to be honest and kept it real. These days, I tend to watch more of One America News (Graham Ledger is awesome, he's worth a watch), Newsmax TV, and CRTV (Conservative Review aka Mark Levin's digital baby).


Yeah, there's definitely been an increase in smaller independent news sources that people to talk about around here. There seems to be more interest in them and less in mainstream media outlets these days as people are less trusting of them as polls have shown.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

:heston

:sodone


----------



## Vic Capri

*#HeBrokeMe*

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Stinger Fan said:


> Yeah, there's definitely been an increase in smaller independent news sources that people to talk about around here. There seems to be more interest in them and less in mainstream media outlets these days as people are less trusting of them as polls have shown.


I just want my news sources to be honest and credible. The ones I mentioned are conservative in nature but are not afraid to criticize our leadership when they screw up. While CNN and MSNBC are not capable of giving Trump credit for the things he does right...Fox News has gone completely the opposite direction and Trump is perfect in most of their eyes. Folks like Levin, Wayne Allyn Root, Joe Walsh (not the former Eagle but former Congressman) and others will praise where deserved and criticize where necessary.


----------



## Stinger Fan

BruiserKC said:


> I just want my news sources to be honest and credible. The ones I mentioned are conservative in nature but are not afraid to criticize our leadership when they screw up. While CNN and MSNBC are not capable of giving Trump credit for the things he does right...Fox News has gone completely the opposite direction and Trump is perfect in most of their eyes. Folks like Levin, Wayne Allyn Root, Joe Walsh (not the former Eagle but former Congressman) and others will praise where deserved and criticize where necessary.


I hear ya. I try to follow both sides but it can be a chore sometimes. Like you, I think everyone here just wants the news to be as honest as possible, criticize and praise when its warranted . I followed CNN for a while but my goodness they got too much to handle during election and their clear bias turned me completely off of them. I had heard about OAN but never followed them after I heard they were "alt-right" ...though I should have known better because everything is labelled alt-right now :lol


----------



## Reaper

Actually the wall project is still in development stage. They haven't abandoned it. I've been around civil engineers to know that it takes years for a project that massive to get off the ground and it's only been 6 months since he's been in power. 

My biggest complaint about recent events is that Ivanka tweeted out that her daddy has promised an additional 639 million in foreign aid at the G20 ---- Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen. fpalm

Of course, after facing opposition, she deleted the tweet.



> Rob Jenkins, acting head of the USAID's bureau of democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance, said of the funding, over $191 million would go to Yemen, $199 million to South Sudan, $121 million to Nigeria and almost $126 million for Somalia.


At least half of that money is going to fund local terrorism.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> Actually the wall project is still in development stage. They haven't abandoned it.
> 
> My biggest complaint about recent events is that Ivanka tweeted out that her daddy has promised an additional 700 million in foreign aid at the G20 fpalm
> 
> She's Hillary in disguise and I fucking hate it.


You gotta spend money to make money! - :trump3

Also :trump has been deporting a ton of illegals and YUUUUUUUGELY reducing the number of illegals getting into the country without a wall. If you support :trump because of his illegal immigration promises you have literally nothing to complain about, he is getting the job done on illegal immigration more than in any other area.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> You gotta spend money to make money! - :trump3
> 
> Also :trump has been deporting a ton of illegals and YUUUUUUUGELY reducing the number of illegals getting into the country without a wall. If you support :trump because of his illegal immigration promises you have literally nothing to complain about, he is getting the job done on illegal immigration more than in any other area.


That's such a forced defense of a bad foreign policy move though :trump4 

Pretty sure everyone would agree that shitholes like Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen (all of which have severe local terrorism problems) won't use the foreign aid to feed their citizens. 

It's a waste of tax payer money and there's no financial gain for Americans as a result.



deepelemblues said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump
> 
> :heston
> 
> :sodone


She was also outed as having attended at least one anti-Trump rally right after inauguration. It sounds like a political setup as part of the democrats long term plan to destabilize the current government.


----------



## deepelemblues

Spend money to make DEALS is that more acceptable

Because that's the way :trump would look at it you asked him specifically

He's never had a problem spending other people's money he got from banks to make DEALS why would he stop now that he can use taxpayer money


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Spend money to make DEALS is that more acceptable


:hmmm

What's the good part of this "investment". What good deal is he being able to make after throwing money at NGO's and the UN directed at countries who don't even have stable governments to be able to allocate that money responsibly?


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> :hmmm
> 
> What's the good part of this "investment". What good deal is he being able to make after throwing money at NGO's and the UN directed at countries who don't even have stable governments to be able to allocate that money responsibly?


Buying influence of course :vince$

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article161030769.html



> Top Trump official warns special immigration status may end soon for a million people
> 
> President Donald Trump's top immigration official warned Hispanic members of Congress Wednesday that over a million people living in the United States under a special protected status could soon be placed in line for deportation.
> 
> Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that the fate of deferred action program known as DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — will likely be determined by the courts, perhaps as soon as September, and that attorneys he’s consulted with do not think the program is legally sustainable. Kelly also would not commit to extending temporary protected status, or TPS, for nationals from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and four other countries, but indicated that TPS for Haitians will likely end.
> 
> “I have never left a meeting so emotionally affected than from what I just heard inside,” said U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who estimated that millions of people could be deported. “And I’m positive that my colleagues heard the same thing that I heard.”


:banderas

Your salty tears are so, so delicious, Mr. Gutierrez.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Buying influence of course :vince$


----------



## BruiserKC

Stinger Fan said:


> I hear ya. I try to follow both sides but it can be a chore sometimes. Like you, I think everyone here just wants the news to be as honest as possible, criticize and praise when its warranted . I followed CNN for a while but my goodness they got too much to handle during election and their clear bias turned me completely off of them. I had heard about OAN but never followed them after I heard they were "alt-right" ...though I should have known better because everything is labelled alt-right now :lol


OAN has conservative programs with The Daily Ledger and Tipping Point (Tomi Lahren started on the Point when she was at OAN), but their news coverage is excellent. If you watch one of their news reports, it is straight news and you couldn't tell if they were a conservative channel. Closest thing to it was AlJazeera America who tried the straight news format but failed.


----------



## DOPA

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Iconoclast @L-DOPA
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao Tucker Carlson vs. Max "Psycho" Boot on the matter of Russia. :lol


Jesus, this interview was such a trainwreck :lmao.

"We sent stockpiles of ammunition and food to Joesph Stalin in 1941 because at the time we thought Hitler was a greater threat. Does that make us Stalinists?"

"How many terrorist attacks have been committed by Iranians in the United States since 9/11?"

:sodone.

The guest couldn't answer and you could tell he was very uncomfortable broaching those questions :lol. Guy was a lunatic.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If he were a miracle worker, he'd have no excuse in regard to telling the American people who aren't in the know regarding America being in bed with SA how that situation is. But he's not a miracle worker. He's a businessman. And like every successful businessman, he knows which pitches sell which ones don't.
> 
> I know what is and isn't feasible coming from Trump and came to terms with it a while ago. The travel ban is feasible, the wall is not (although it's an awesome meme regardless). Congressional term limits are feasible, bringing back the coal industry to full force is not. Banning someone from getting into lobbying following the end of their political term is feasible, nuking North Korea is not.
> 
> If anybody expected Trump to part seas and turn water to wine, they have no one to blame but themselves for their disappointment. If they face realistic problems that can be solved with proper governance that nevertheless fail to to be fixed, they can retaliate by taking their vote to a different candidate.


No way in fuck are congressional term limits feasible.

The only way for term limits are after the coming civil war and the winning side forces it


----------



## Jay Valero

amhlilhaus said:


> No way in fuck are congressional term limits feasible.
> 
> The only way for term limits are after the coming civil war and the winning side forces it


I think we all know who the winning side would be.


----------



## Vic Capri

> No way in fuck are congressional term limits feasible.


Ironically, Republicans were in support of it before the Supreme Court ruined everything back in the day.

- Vic


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> Buying influence of course :vince$
> 
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article161030769.html
> 
> 
> 
> :banderas
> 
> Your salty tears are so, so delicious, Mr. Gutierrez.


Salty tears? Indifference to the 'C' in DACA is far worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> Salty tears? Indifference to the 'C' in DACA is far worse.


Being a child doesn't and shouldn't give you a free pass to enter the United States illegally.

DACA is a scam. Children have nothing to do with why Obama illegally tried to implement it. Just a smokescreen. The point was for adult illegal immigrants to be handed a legal protection from deportation. If it weren't "they got KIDS like HEATH SLATER" it would have been some other reason to demagogue and manipulate emotions on. 

And if children can come to the United States without restriction because they're cute adorable innocent little children who 'deserve' a better life, what incentive is there for anyone in their shit native country to fix it so it isn't shit anymore? Certainly not so the children can have better lives than their parents did, they can just be sent to the US for that. And the parents get to go along and get a better life for themselves too in the bargain! Meanwhile their native country remains a shithole indefinitely. 

It's just another example of the selfish greed of leftism, I don't have it good so I have license to do as I please so I have it better. Fuck the law, fuck everyone else. It's 'unfair' so it should be disregarded. Fuck fairness to everyone but me and mine.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885210857008922624


----------



## Reaper

:sodone :sodone :sodone


----------



## deepelemblues

This Veselnitskaya woman was denied a visa but then the Loretta Lynch DOJ cited "extraordinary circumstances" and allowed her entry into the United States. She then engaged in activities (lobbying re: the Magnitsky Act) that had nothing to do with the reasons she stated on her visa application for wanting to enter the US... yet she was allowed to remain in the country by the Obama administration.

Yet another MUH RUSSIA bombshell that isn't even a hand-held sprinkler firework. All :trump has to do if he feels like it is say that she was in cahoots with the Obama administration to entrap :trump and his campaign - remember, her meeting with Kushner, Manafort, and DJT Jr. was a large part of the justification for the FISA warrant - and that is that. He doesn't have to because the allegation that the meeting was improper in any way or proof of MUH RUSSIA is laughable bullshit. The whole "DJT Jr. broke the law" narrative collapsed in less than 24 hours as soon as actual lawyers, not twitter lawyers or FNN daytime guest appearance lawyers, weighed in.

Another media/Democrat axis fail. They're so damn incompetent.


----------



## Reaper

In another note. Mosul has now been fully liberated from the ISIS. The Caliphate is in tatters. ISIS is dying in Iraq. 

However, marines are warning that there is potentially a second uprising that could happen in the near future so we can't get complacent. 

Sounds like a yuge win for :trump4 

http://uproxx.com/news/iraq-claim-victory-isis-mosul/



> *Iraq’s Prime Minister Declares Victory Over ISIS After Retaking Their Final Stronghold In Mosul*
> 
> A week ago, Iraq claimed a “symbolic victory” against ISIS by recapturing the Mosul mosque where the ISIS caliphate declared itself in 2014. Now, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has declared a formal victory after the nine-month fight to push the Islamic State out of its remaining Mosul stronghold. This end has arrived after a concentrated push by Iraqi forces beginning two weeks ago in conjunction with the U.S. led coalition’s airstrikes in an effort to retake the city from ISIS.
> 
> This ending, such as it is, remains a conflicted declaration. After all, Mosul sits in shambles after nearly 1 million citizens were driven from their homes, some of which are understood to be booby-trapped with explosives that must be cleared. Some ISIS fighters, possibly suicide bombers, still remain in the city and will attempt further bloodshed. U.S. military officers spoke to the New York Times about the struggle that shall endure:
> 
> Indeed, NBC News points out that this victory could present “as big [of] a problem as defeat.” Not only do remaining ISIS fighters present dangers, but new violence could break out between Arabs and Kurds or Sunnis and Shi’ites as the city struggles to regain balance, and these groups will make territorial claims. Further, there’s the continued existence of “outside powers” who have undeniably helped to mold Iraq since 2003 — when the U.S. helped overthrow Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was this very shift that arguably helped create the vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish in Iraq.
> 
> Still, the end of the long battle in Mosul has left the Iraqi government optimistic (unlike in Syria, where the battle still rages), and the prime minister’s office issued a statement to that effect: “The commander in chief of the armed forces Haider al-Abadi arrived in the liberated city of Mosul and congratulated the heroic fighters and the Iraqi people on the achievement of the major victory.”
> 
> (Via New York Times, NPR, NBC News & The Telegraph)


I may be late to this news. But it seems like the DTJ scandal was timed to bury this extremely yuuuge win for the Trump administration.

We need that Russia/American alliance in Syria and that's probably why the democrat media is pushing so hard against any chance of it happening.

---
@DesolationRow; @CamillePunk, @Miss Sally; @TheNightmanCometh; @virus21; @BruiserKC;

Also, Trump's administration may be preparing a post-ISIS Syria stability plan which is something none of Bush, Obama and Shitlary even bothered to consider in the aftermath of their devastating wars. 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-russia-america-work-together-syria-21451



> Can Russia and America Work Together in Syria?
> 
> The United States is willing to work jointly with Russia to conduct stability operations in a post-ISIS Syria. Those stability measures could include jointly monitored no-fly zones and cease-fire observation missions. But exactly how such arrangements might be implemented are likely to be the subject of intense negotiations—and could be derailed by wayward proxies on the ground.
> 
> The United States and Russia have previously worked together during peacekeeping operations in the Balkans during the 1990s, but Moscow is not likely to be as willing to make the same kinds of concessions today that Boris Yeltsin’s government did when the Kremlin’s power was at a near historic low point. Today’s Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin is much more likely to demand an equal partnership in Syria than the severely weakened state that emerged in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse.
> 
> *“The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability, including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a statement on July 5.
> *
> *“If our two countries work together to establish stability on the ground, it will lay a foundation for progress on the settlement of Syria's political future.”
> *
> The Russians do not necessary oppose working with U.S. forces—or even having Russian troops under American command as they did in the Balkans—analysts said. However, Moscow is only likely to cooperate with Washington if the Kremlin’s interests are taken into account.
> 
> *“I think that such operation under U.S. control is possible—but only if Russia finds the political arrangements acceptable,” Vasily Kashin, a senior fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics told The National Interest.
> *
> *“If the Russian interests are served, it does not really matter who is formally in charge.”
> *
> Unlike during the 1990s when Russia was in shambles, the Kremlin is in a much stronger position these days.
> 
> “Of course, the current situation is different. In 1999 Russia made a lot of concessions—for example, during the negotiations on the Istanbul agreements,” Kashin said.
> 
> “Weakness on Kosovo at that time was just one reflection of wider weakness. So, of course, this time the interests of Russia and Russian allies will have to be secured and there will be genuine compromise.”
> 
> *Maxim Suchkov, editor of Al-Monitor’s Russia coverage and foreign policy analyst at the Russia International Relations Council, told The National Interest that Tillerson’s proposal would probably be acceptable to the Kremlin—so long as Moscow is positioned to be seen as being on an equal footing with the United States.
> *
> “The set of the proposals Tillerson voiced contains both the potential necessary to help drive the Syria conflict to a final stage—which is a gradual settlement—and a message that is acceptable to the Russians,” Suchkov said.
> 
> *“It is important for Moscow to have it on an equal basis, but also the Kremlin would be watchful to make sure the way the proposals are framed doesn’t put the U.S. in an upper position.”
> *
> While the Russians might be willing to work with the United States and vice-versa, the practical realities of implementing some sort of agreement to conduct joint operations could be very difficult.
> 
> “The Russians really, really, really want joint mechanisms in principle,” Olga Oliker, senior adviser and director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The National Interest.
> 
> *“In practice, working out rules is a bear. It also doesn’t help that every time the U.S. does something that annoys Russia, the Russians shut down what Syria cooperation exists, because it’s the only thing they’ve got.”
> *
> Coordination between the United States and Russia will have to be a first step towards joint operations should an agreement eventually emerge.
> 
> “I think coordination is the necessary first step. If that can function effectively, and not get shut down every few weeks, for a while, you can start having conversations about joint action,” Oliker said.
> 
> “But I would imagine it would not be under anyone’s flag, but rather tightly coordinated efforts with each firmly in command of their own forces.”
> 
> *Indeed, the Russian view of joint operations with the United States might mean that Moscow simply has its zone of control—similar to what the Kremlin had proposed at various stages during negotiations to set up peacekeeping forces in the Balkans.
> 
> “I think the Russians’ real vision is of zones of influence/control, and coordination between those,” Oliker said.
> 
> “That’s actually feasible, except for both sides’ limited control over their proxies.”*
> 
> Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, highlighted the same problem.
> 
> “I don’t think the Russians have a problem operating in coordination or even cooperation with U.S. forces, per se. The devil is in the details in Syria, however, where Russia’s main operations are air support for the ground forces of the Assad regime and Iranian backed militias and special forces,” Rojansky told The National Interest.
> 
> “It is hard to imagine how the U.S.-led coalition could hold together, much less maintain partnership with its Syrian opposition allies, if it was perceived to be cooperating with the Assad regime. That suggests the only workable option may be a de facto separation between Assad/Iranian/Russian and US/coalition/opposition areas of operations, as is effectively the case already. The problem there is Assad’s apparent determination to press any advantage, to use chemical weapons and barrel bombs, and to take back ‘every inch’ of territory. In other words, Assad may never respect such de facto lines of control, and Moscow may not be willing or able to constrain him.”
> 
> Ultimately, it will be the Assad regime and the various other proxy forces—both U.S. and Russian aligned—that will determine if the two great powers can work together.
> 
> Dave Majumdar is the defense editor of The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter @davemajumdar.
> 
> Image: Reuters.


----------



## deepelemblues

Bush had a post-war stability plan for Iraq.

It was just a shit plan that never could have worked because it included disbanding the old Iraqi Army which put tens of thousands of trained soldiers and thousands of trained officers out on the street without trying to even secure their weapons and munitions first. If the old Iraqi Army hadn't been disbanded the Sunni terrorist groups and general Sunni insurgency would have had a lot fewer men and weapons and munitions and militarily capable tacticians and strategists. Hell the two guys (maybe) vying for control of ISIS now that Baghdadi is (maybe) dead are ex-Iraqi Army officers. After al-Zarqawi was blown to little pieces by F-16s, ex-Iraqi Army officers pretty much completely took over al-Qaeda in Iraq and were in control when AQI turned into the core of ISIS. The military and political leadership of ISIS to this day is still dominated by radicalized ex-Iraqi Army officers.

tldr disbanding the old Iraqi Army instead of telling its members to return to their barracks and reorganizing them as part of the new Iraqi Army was a really retarded move that radicalized many of its members, and they consequently became insurgents and terrorists, while their weapons and ammo and other military equipment were not secured, so they just took their gear with them to the Sunni terrorist and insurgent groups they joined / created. 

Heckuva job, Rummy.


----------



## DaRealNugget

virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885210857008922624


:lmao :lmao :lmao

we need a LOTR, charge of the rohirrim version imo.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> In another note. Mosul has now been fully liberated from the ISIS. The Caliphate is in tatters. ISIS is dying in Iraq.
> 
> However, marines are warning that there is potentially a second uprising that could happen in the near future so we can't get complacent.
> 
> Sounds like a yuge win for :trump4
> 
> http://uproxx.com/news/iraq-claim-victory-isis-mosul/
> 
> 
> 
> I may be late to this news. But it seems like the DTJ scandal was timed to bury this extremely yuuuge win for the Trump administration.
> 
> We need that Russia/American alliance in Syria and that's probably why the democrat media is pushing so hard against any chance of it happening.
> 
> ---
> @DesolationRow; @CamillePunk, @Miss Sally; @TheNightmanCometh; @virus21; @BruiserKC;
> 
> Also, Trump's administration may be preparing a post-ISIS Syria stability plan which is something none of Bush, Obama and Shitlary even bothered to consider in the aftermath of their devastating wars.
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-russia-america-work-together-syria-21451


Actually they had a plan...problem is no backup when they weren't celebrated as rescuers. A plan is a good thing but plan B is necessary.


----------



## rzombie1988

TRUMP MAGA


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Beatles123 said:


> *FUCK YOU IT'S NOT* :fuckthis












However, this timeline has been delightfully bizarre so far, so I fully welcome the possibility of ZA WARUDO WARRU being built.



amhlilhaus said:


> No way in fuck are congressional term limits feasible.
> 
> The only way for term limits are after the coming civil war and the winning side forces it


Well, considering the radical left's only method of offense is using pepper spray, bike locks and autistic screeching, it's pretty clear who's gonna win in the end.

:trump3



virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885210857008922624












:trump2


----------



## deepelemblues

is there any explanation other than RAW ALPHA MALE SEXUAL ENERGY as to why the macrons and trudeaus look at :trump like this? like they're remembering how :trump just grabbed em right by the pussy, bent them over a desk and fucked them until their brains melted out their ears?


----------



## Sensei Utero

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-new-picture-shows-moment-10794096

Wouldn't mind hearing the thought of folk who support breaking away from the whole Paris Agreement stuff, and those who believe climate change is a hoax. Considering I've heard from folk in the left and centre-left/centre (perhaps I should say 'center' for the Americans and the like ) online, I wouldn't mind hearing from the right-wing side either! So thoughts?


----------



## Reaper

Deus Vult!


----------



## FriedTofu

Iconoclast said:


> I may be late to this news. But it seems like the DTJ scandal was timed to bury this extremely yuuuge win for the Trump administration.
> 
> We need that Russia/American alliance in Syria and that's probably why the democrat media is pushing so hard against any chance of it happening.


You can't be serious with this belief. :ha

Was DTJ in on the scandal by tweeting out the emails?

:lmao


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Iconoclast said:


> Deus Vult!


Hopefully Florida follows up on this soon. :mj

:mark:


----------



## Jay Valero

Da fuq?


----------



## deepelemblues

InUtero said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-new-picture-shows-moment-10794096
> 
> Wouldn't mind hearing the thought of folk who support breaking away from the whole Paris Agreement stuff, and those who believe climate change is a hoax. Considering I've heard from folk in the left and centre-left/centre (perhaps I should say 'center' for the Americans and the like ) online, I wouldn't mind hearing from the right-wing side either! So thoughts?


It says right in the story (lol Daily Mirror) that "scientists" won't attribute it to climate change. Probably because a piece of ice that huge has to be melting somewhere for a long time to break. I'm sure there are some "scientists" who will blame globular warminens but it would be a much bigger story than it is if "scientists" were going nutso over it. And I put "scientists" in quotes to mock the Daily Mirror, not scientists 

So I don't see how the subject has a political angle. It's an interesting natural phenomenon.


----------



## Jets4Life

The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


----------



## Goku

Jets4Life said:


> The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


hope you get through this :mj2


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> Deus Vult!


Deus vult!












Oda Nobunaga said:


> Hopefully Florida follows up on this soon. :mj
> 
> :mark:












Book it, Rick Scott Batboy!


----------



## deepelemblues

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Hopefully Florida follows up on this soon. :mj
> 
> :mark:


they gotta let you agree to terms first or that's some unchivalrous bullshit right there


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-new-picture-shows-moment-10794096
> 
> Wouldn't mind hearing the thought of folk who support breaking away from the whole Paris Agreement stuff, and those who believe climate change is a hoax. Considering I've heard from folk in the left and centre-left/centre (perhaps I should say 'center' for the Americans and the like ) online, I wouldn't mind hearing from the right-wing side either! So thoughts?


Considering the Paris Agreement has no way to enforce anything it proposed other than to give money to nations under no obligation to change I'd say the whole Paris Agreement is moot. It was worthless, even they admitted it in their own words.



Jets4Life said:


> The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


The best thing for humanity is for half the population to die off. Too many people are breeding and for some reason people think we need MORE people.



deepelemblues said:


> Being a child doesn't and shouldn't give you a free pass to enter the United States illegally.
> 
> DACA is a scam. Children have nothing to do with why Obama illegally tried to implement it. Just a smokescreen. The point was for adult illegal immigrants to be handed a legal protection from deportation. If it weren't "they got KIDS like HEATH SLATER" it would have been some other reason to demagogue and manipulate emotions on.
> 
> And if children can come to the United States without restriction because they're cute adorable innocent little children who 'deserve' a better life, what incentive is there for anyone in their shit native country to fix it so it isn't shit anymore? Certainly not so the children can have better lives than their parents did, they can just be sent to the US for that. And the parents get to go along and get a better life for themselves too in the bargain! Meanwhile their native country remains a shithole indefinitely.
> 
> It's just another example of the selfish greed of leftism, I don't have it good so I have license to do as I please so I have it better. Fuck the law, fuck everyone else. It's 'unfair' so it should be disregarded. Fuck fairness to everyone but me and mine.


Thank you for this! A lot of people don't realize that if you give people a bailout time after time there is no reason to try and improve. The reason why humanity improved is because they faced trials that they didn't want to ever again. Life is like the Titanic, it's going to sink no matter what and you cannot save everyone. It's just not possible no matter how you try to do it. Unless EVERYONE makes an effort for change, it simply cannot be one group of people doing all the work. 

What makes me laugh is we have black and white ghettos in ruins and nobody cares, the South hasn't recovered since the civil war and is ripe for agriculture yet no effort has been made to revive it at all. The largest amount of poor people living on scraps are white in the US. The largest % is black, yet for some reason the Left seems overly concerned about people South of the border while people in the South and people in poor areas get mocked by the Left. It's astounding and I cannot understand how people do not realize that none of the politicians actually give a fuck.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Jets4Life said:


> The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


----------



## MickDX

Jets4Life said:


> The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


How is a new Ice Age coming when the planet is becoming warmer? If you're thinking about very distant future it's likely an ice age can happen again but we won't be here when it happens.

The first big impact of the global warming is rising the sea levels and put port cities and countries like Netherlands in danger. But it's still a slow process and hopefully we may find a way to stop it.

You better be ready for that Civil War. Book your weapons in time or by that time you may miss them


----------



## Stinger Fan

Jets4Life said:


> The iceberg breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf is probably the result in global warming. People don't realize that the Earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. It will probably speed up a new Ice Age, and make half the planet uninhabitable. Once that happens, people will start killing each other off like nothing we have ever seen. There are too many people on this Earth as it is. America will be in full Civil War mode by the end of the the Trump Administration.


They've already mentioned that it was not caused by Climate Change or at the very least, unlikely to have been. A new Ice Age have been predicted since at least the 70s ,to occur by the year 2000, in fact many predictions have been wrong for decades . Rest assured , you don't need to prepare your bomb shelter just yet


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885826772369002496
Poor Macron acting like an unfathered child clinging to the closest thing he's ever had to a real male role model :mj2


----------



## BruiserKC

Meanwhile the updated Senate version of the replacement for the ACA is out. After seven years is the best they could do? McConnell promised to pull out Obamacare by the roots...all he fucking did was take a weedwhacker to it and trim the hedges. Meanwhile throwing money at the insurance companies and asking them nicely to drop premiums is the solution for rising costs for healthcare? 

I hope someone can justify with a straight face why we should be on board with this.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> I hope someone can justify with a straight face why we should be on board with this.


We shouldn't. 

If the GOP lose seats and the next election, it will be because of Healthcare. 

The only solution to healthcare is in the free market and that should be and remain the GOP platform.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Republican leadership has brass balls the size of grapefruits when they have no responsibility, and as soon as they get responsibility they trade em in for loose floppy sopping pussies.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their cronies didn't give two shits what Democrats and the media thought when Hussein was president, now that a Republican is president they're so scared of the Democrats and the media saying mean things about them that they're just this side of useless. The only useful function they fill as leaders of the majority in each chamber is that Democrats are prevented from playing all kinds of games the majority party can play in Congress.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile the updated Senate version of the replacement for the ACA is out. After seven years is the best they could do? McConnell promised to pull out Obamacare by the roots...all he fucking did was take a weedwhacker to it and trim the hedges. Meanwhile throwing money at the insurance companies and asking them nicely to drop premiums is the solution for rising costs for healthcare?
> 
> I hope someone can justify with a straight face why we should be on board with this.


The solution is simple, it really is. Rand Paul has a good plan, even Trump's idea of allowing IC competition would work wonders. 

Someone needs to bust up the monopoly these companies have and yet our solutions are, stick with Obamacare which is unsustainable which the Democrats knew or go with this garbage GOPcare which is just Obamacare lite.


----------



## Vic Capri

You notice how friendlier Macron got with Trump after getting compliments on his wife? He might actually be a cuck. :lol

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Considering how many Buzzfeed types Snopes has been hiring in recent years this article is somewhat of a surprise:

http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/12/trump-lies/ (lies about :trump, not :trump lying)


----------



## DOPA

InUtero said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-new-picture-shows-moment-10794096
> 
> Wouldn't mind hearing the thought of folk who support breaking away from the whole Paris Agreement stuff, and those who believe climate change is a hoax. Considering I've heard from folk in the left and centre-left/centre (perhaps I should say 'center' for the Americans and the like ) online, I wouldn't mind hearing from the right-wing side either! So thoughts?


I don't believe Climate Change is a hoax but I do question just how much we are contributing to the changing climate because scientists themselves can't agree on it. Prediction models are notoriously inaccurate and have had to be changed several times by those who have made them. It also does not help with the sensationalism around the topic. Those in the 90's who said that the ice around Antarctica would be melted, polar bears would be extinct and we would have cities under water look very silly right about now. Yes, it is a problem but we have to be realistic here. Sensationalism is not going to help and the outrage surrounding Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement only makes those who believe Climate Change is a real threat look more insane when you look at the actual agreement and what it would actually achieve.

I wish I could find it but on the BBC, there was even a Climatologist speaking about this giant iceberg who essentially confirmed that Climate Change from a human perspective has very little to do with the iceberg breaking off of the Antarctic. Now I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to this, but who do you suppose I'm going to believe? The alarmists who have cried wolf for 30 years or a climatologist, one who has repeatedly stated that climate change is happening but has studied what is happening with this giant iceberg and concluded that it was going to happen regardless of activity from man and that similar events have happened in the past of this scale? I wonder indeed....

I've already posted about the Paris Climate Accord before and how much of a virtue signalling treaty it really is and how it will do very little to bring down emissions even if all the protocols were followed through to the end of the century but I'll post some stuff again: http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises



> A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
> 
> Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
> 
> Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:
> 
> * The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
> * Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
> * US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
> * EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
> * China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
> 
> The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.



The accord itself would have very miminal results whilst costing billions. In short, government cannot solve the climate change problem through legislation or by taxing people on carbon. We shouldn't be trying to make fossil fuels so dear no one will buy them because most likely it will still be cheaper than the alternatives. Rather, we should be pushing forward to make renewable energy so cheap that it gives people an incentive to switch over. The only way to do this is through investment in the private sector, something which the likes of Bill Gates has called for.

Using government won't work. Germany has been trying to use government through having parts of the energy sector in public hands and through billions in subsidies and it has dramatically increased the prices of energy bills throughout Germany. It is now by far the most expensive country to buy energy in Europe and Berlin is the most expensive city in Europe to buy energy. We in the UK don't seem to be learning the lesson that you need to increase competition in the market rather than stifle it thanks to a) Theresa May insisting on an energy price cap, which is led to energy companies increasing their tariffs as much as 40% and b) Corbyn wanting to nationalize energy.....by doing exactly the same policies as what Germany are pushing forward.

Until we move past the notion that world agreements are the way forward when they always fall apart (see Kyoto for example) and that government can solve the problem rather than making it worse, we won't see any progress made tackling climate change on a wide scale.


----------



## Sensei Utero

L-DOPA said:


> I don't believe Climate Change is a hoax but I do question just how much we are contributing to the changing climate because scientists themselves can't agree on it. Prediction models are notoriously inaccurate and have had to be changed several times by those who have made them. It also does not help with the sensationalism around the topic. Those in the 90's who said that the ice around Antarctica would be melted, polar bears would be extinct and we would have cities under water look very silly right about now. Yes, it is a problem but we have to be realistic here. Sensationalism is not going to help and the outrage surrounding Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement only makes those who believe Climate Change is a real threat look more insane when you look at the actual agreement and what it would actually achieve.
> 
> I wish I could find it but on the BBC, there was even a Climatologist speaking about this giant iceberg who essentially confirmed that Climate Change from a human perspective has very little to do with the iceberg breaking off of the Antarctic. Now I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to this, but who do you suppose I'm going to believe? The alarmists who have cried wolf for 30 years or a climatologist, one who has repeatedly stated that climate change is happening but has studied what is happening with this giant iceberg and concluded that it was going to happen regardless of activity from man and that similar events have happened in the past of this scale? I wonder indeed....
> 
> I've already posted about the Paris Climate Accord before and how much of a virtue signalling treaty it really is and how it will do very little to bring down emissions even if all the protocols were followed through to the end of the century but I'll post some stuff again: http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The accord itself would have very miminal results whilst costing billions. In short, government cannot solve the climate change problem through legislation or by taxing people on carbon. We shouldn't be trying to make fossil fuels so dear no one will buy them because most likely it will still be cheaper than the alternatives. Rather, we should be pushing forward to make renewable energy so cheap that it gives people an incentive to switch over. The only way to do this is through investment in the private sector, something which the likes of Bill Gates has called for.
> 
> Using government won't work. Germany has been trying to use government through having parts of the energy sector in public hands and through billions in subsidies and it has dramatically increased the prices of energy bills throughout Germany. It is now by far the most expensive country to buy energy in Europe and Berlin is the most expensive city in Europe to buy energy. We in the UK don't seem to be learning the lesson that you need to increase competition in the market rather than stifle it thanks to a) Theresa May insisting on an energy price cap, which is led to energy companies increasing their tariffs as much as 40% and b) Corbyn wanting to nationalize energy.....by doing exactly the same policies as what Germany are pushing forward.
> 
> *Until we move past the notion that world agreements are the way forward when they always fall apart (see Kyoto for example) and that government can solve the problem rather than making it worse, we won't see any progress made tackling climate change on a wide scale.*


Interesting post, which has given me a load of knowledge :bjpenn

Sorta now agreeing on the bolded part. I didn't agree with America leaving the Paris Agreement at the time, or that climate change is a hoax, but now - I don't see world agreements working. Don't agree some of Trump's policies as most folk would know p), or his views on climate change, but something more needs to be done, and it's clear that these agreements just aren't working.


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON—Peter W. Smith, a Republican political activist and financier from Chicago who mounted an effort to obtain former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers, died on May 14 after asphyxiating himself in a hotel room in Rochester, Minn., according to local authorities. He was 81 years old.
> 
> Mr. Smith’s body was found by a hotel clerk in the Aspen Suites hotel, located across the street from the Mayo Clinic, according to a Rochester Police Department report. An associate of Mr. Smith said that he had recently visited the clinic. A representative for the facility wouldn’t confirm if Mr. Smith was a patient.
> 
> READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL
> 
> Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
> 
> Trump Campaign Digital Chief to Meet Russia Investigators
> New Senate Health Bill Aims to Bridge GOP Gaps, But Resistance Remains
> Trump Defends Son’s Decision to Meet With Russian Lawyer
> Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban
> House Rejects Defense Bill’s Amendment Banning Medical Care for Gender Transition
> Trump Says His Mexico Border Wall Won’t Need to Cover Entire Distance
> Mr. Smith died about 10 days after an interview with The Wall Street Journal in which he recounted his attempts to acquire what he believed were thousands of emails stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s private email server. He implied that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then serving as the senior national security adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, was aware of his efforts.
> 
> Newsletter Sign-up
> 
> Mr. Smith’s attempts to obtain what he believed would be politically damaging emails marked the first potential evidence of coordination between members of the Trump campaign and Russian hackers, a central issue in probes by Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
> 
> When the Journal reported on Mr. Smith’s efforts last month, it wasn’t clear how he died. His obituary listed no cause of death, officials in the town where he lived didn’t release information, and messages left at Mr. Smith’s home went unanswered.
> 
> The police report said Mr. Smith was found by a hotel clerk with a plastic bag around his head attached tightly with black rubber bands. Mr. Smith “left documentation on why he committed suicide, medical records, his written obituary, and life insurance” on a table in his room, the report said.
> 
> Peter W. Smith
> Peter W. Smith
> The hotel clerk who found Mr. Smith told police the security latch on his door was locked from the inside. Hotel staff said they had to break the door open to enter his room.
> 
> The note Mr. Smith left said “there was no foul play, no one assisted him, he had a recent bad turn of health and that his life insurance policy would soon expire,” the police report said.
> 
> The hotel clerk who found Mr. Smith told police two helium tanks were attached to the bag on Mr. Smith’s head with tubes.
> 
> By the time he died, Mr. Smith had been in the hotel for 10 days. He was due to check out May 13, but asked the hotel to extend his stay for one day. He was found dead the afternoon of May 14 by the clerk, who was checking Mr. Smith’s room after he didn’t check out by the assigned time.
> 
> In Mr. Smith’s room, police found a receipt from a nearby Wal-Mart , dated May 13, that included “helium jumbo” and pliers.
> 
> The Chicago Tribune first reported Mr. Smith’s cause of death Thursday.
> 
> In emails and documents meant to recruit others to his efforts to find Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails, Mr. Smith and an associate identified Mr. Flynn’s company, Flynn Intel Group, and Michael G. Flynn, the general’s son, as allies in the operation.
> 
> Neither Mr. Flynn nor his son responded to requests for comment around the time of the original article, which was published June 29.
> 
> A lawyer for Mr. Flynn and a lawyer for his son, Michael G. Flynn, declined to comment for this article.
> 
> The group Mr. Smith assembled included technical experts, lawyers and a private investigator in Europe who spoke Russian, he said. The group made contacts with five groups of hackers, including two that were Russian, who claimed to have obtained Mrs. Clinton’s emails, Mr. Smith said. He ultimately didn’t acquire the messages because he said he couldn’t verify their authenticity. Instead, he urged the hackers to give the emails to WikiLeaks.
> 
> Mr. Smith also listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort. The White House officials contacted by the Journal said they were unaware of his efforts and why their names appeared in the document.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/details-emerge-in-suicide-of-gop-activist-who-sought-hillary-clinton-emails-1500051276



> There’s zero doubt that Republicans all over the country dislike Senator Elizabeth Warren with a particular passion. And though they are loath to admit it, many probably fear her as a potential 2020 presidential candidate.
> 
> That is feeding strong interest in making Warren’s 2018 reelection a very difficult — if not disastrous — political experience for her. And at least one GOP challenger has emerged who is guaranteed to pull no punches: computer scientist and entrepreneur Shiva Ayyadurai.
> 
> The 53-year-old career gadfly and Trump fan, who has four degrees from MIT, has been running for the Senate since March. But he really burst onto the national political scene this week in an appearance on Fox Business, when the immigrant who left Mumbai for America at the age of 7 offered the quip (as described by the Washington Examiner) that will likely be the centerpiece of his campaign against Warren:
> 
> “Well, I think only a real Indian can defeat a fake Indian,” he said.
> 
> Warren has previously claimed to have Native American heritage, though reports say she could only be about 1/32 Native American.
> 
> “I sent her a DNA test kit for her birthday, and I was very sad that she returned it,” Ayyadurai added.
> Ayyadurai is talking, of course, about the brouhaha the conservative Boston Herald set off in 2012 in a report that an academic directory back in the 1980s and 1990s had listed Warren as a minority member due to a Native American ancestry. While she doesn’t seem to have much (or any) Native American blood, she says she based the claim on family lore she heard growing up in Oklahoma. Since it ties together alleged mendacity and privilege-seeking with identity politics and political correctness, this story has been catnip to conservatives, as reflected in the president’s habit of referring to the senior senator from Massachusetts as “Pocahontas.” Ayyadurai, who calls Donald Trump “my hero,” will clearly play this one-note taunt for all its worth; if nothing else, it will help keep the meme alive if Warren considers running for president.
> 
> Without question, Ayyadurai is a legendarily persistent critic of his perceived enemies. He’s sued at least two media outlets — Gawker, with whom he reached a settlement in conjunction with the much bigger Hulk Hogan settlement, and Techdirt, against whom litigation is still underway — for libel in mocking his claim that he invented email as a New Jersey teenager in the 1970s. And his whole political mission seems to be based on a belief that liberal elites have created a pervasive caste system similar to that he experienced as a child in Mumbai.
> 
> As a profile of Ayyadurai in Boston Magazine explains, his Trump-like disdain for elites and for both political parties and his fearless pursuit of in-your-face obnoxious tactics have made him very popular in the fringier precincts of GOP politics:
> 
> Ayyadurai has quickly and improbably became the favored candidate of the ascendant conservative fringe. The same night he announced his intention to run, “new-right” provocateur Mike Cernovich feted him at a post–Conservative Political Action Conference bash outside of Washington, DC, attended by Pizzagate promoter Mike Flynn Jr., son of Donald Trump’s ousted national security adviser. Ayyadurai also picked up an early endorsement from former Red Sox pitcher and Breitbart News personality Curt Schilling, who is ideologically in the same camp as the alt-right and had been publicly pondering a Senate run himself.
> None of this is to suggest that Ayyadurai is an immediate threat to Warren’s reelection. For one thing, other, more conventional, pro-Trump Republicans are in the race, such as state legislator Geoff Diehl, who co-chaired the president’s Massachusetts campaign last year. And despite a February WBUR poll that showed Warren as vulnerable, which excited Republicans enormously, there’s really no reason to doubt the Cook Political Report assessment of the race as “Solid Democratic.” Donald Trump, after all, lost the Bay State by nearly a million votes last year, and there’s no reason to think Warren has the sort of political weaknesses that made Martha Coakley an upset victim to Republican Scott Brown in a 2010 special Senate election in the state (Warren herself disposed of Brown by a fairly comfortable margin in 2012).
> 
> Still, Ayyadurai could be a serious annoyance for Warren, if no other reason than that his tactics will draw attention. This opener from the Boston Magazine piece shows how determined the candidate is to pursue the “fake Indian” theme to hell and back:
> 
> Just before dusk on a warm Tuesday in May, V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai parks his red, white, and blue school bus outside the Lexington Community Center and cues up a recording of the Florida State Seminoles’ war chant. A banner beaming “Shiva 4 Senate: Be the Light,” complete with a torch, is plastered on the side of his vehicle. Neatly dressed in a white shirt with French cuffs and a gold-colored tie, Ayyadurai presses play, flings open the doors, and—to an audience consisting of myself and his three assistants—pumps his fist to the music in the otherwise quiet lot.
> It could be a very long election year in Massachusetts.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/self-described-real-indian-offers-challenge-to-warren.html



> lmost all of the lawmakers who co-sponsored a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour also hired unpaid interns to supplement their staffs, a survey shows.
> 
> A report from the Employment Policies Institute reveals that 174 of the bill’s 184 co-sponsors, or 95 percent, hire interns who are paid nothing.
> 
> “It’s hypocritical to rally for a $15 minimum wage when these lawmakers don’t pay their own entry-level employees a cent,” said Michael Saltsman, managing director of the Employment Policies Institute.
> 
> Bernie Sanders has been a leading voice calling for a $15/hour minimum wage. He pays his interns $12/hour.
> Last month, the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduced the legislation to more than double the minimum wage, to counter what the lawmakers see as wage inequality amid a higher standard of living.
> 
> The Institute said it called the offices of House and Senate members and also checked congressional websites June 6 to 8 to determine intern compensation.
> 
> The study counted members of Congress who advertised a limited number of stipend positions as having paid interns, even if they also use unpaid interns. So the 95 percent figure is conservative.
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, a leading voice in the calls for a $15 minimum wage, is the only senator to offer an hourly wage to interns, the study found. However, Sanders’ office offers $12 an hour while he proposes $15 in the private sector.
> 
> Progressive lawmakers will argue that paying interns more will limit the number of available opportunities, the Employment Policies Institute notes, yet don’t recognize this same concern in the private sector.
> 
> “It seems that Washington, D.C., is the only place where hypocrisy is a virtue,” David Kreutzer, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, said in an email to the Daily Signal, adding:
> 
> As employers, members of Congress fully understand that paying higher wages means they will hire fewer workers. Nevertheless, these same members support harmful labor legislation with rhetoric that runs 180 degrees against the truth proved by their own experience.
> 
> What would this hypocritical minimum wage do?
> 
> Studies over the years have found that increasing the minimum wage has an adverse effect on employment, particularly for low-skilled workers who are supposed to be helped the most, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
> 
> For years, studies have found that increasing the minimum wage decreases employment.
> One survey concluded that two-thirds of the newer studies on the minimum wage, and 85 percent of the most convincing studies, found consistent evidence that increasing the minimum wage leads to job loss for low-skilled workers.
> 
> David Neumark, an economist and professor at the University of California at Irvine, and William Wascher, a deputy director at the Federal Reserve, published the study in 2007.
> 
> Research has shown that a raise in the minimum wage decreases employment opportunity for two reasons, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
> 
> First, employers tend to invest in other equipment or capital when low-skilled labor becomes more expensive. Second, as wages increase, employers are forced to charge their customers more, which leads to less demand.
> 
> Studies have also shown that when the cost of low-skilled labor increases, employers are more likely to hire higher-skilled labor and fewer low-skilled workers.
> 
> Perhaps these politicians are providing us with a picture of what will happen when their policy is fully put in action.


https://fee.org/articles/governments-15-minimum-wage-advocates-arent-paying-their-interns/



> Today, Fusion GPS employee Rinat Akhmetshin today confirmed his attendance at a meeting with Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner along with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
> 
> Accusations have arisen that the meeting was part of a wider setup to achieve a FISA warrant to wiretap phones of the Trump campaign during 2016. President Trump himself has accused the FBI under Loretta Lynch of wiretapping his campaign.
> Now, a former Trump campaign official reports that Paul Manafort’s phone was subject to FISA wiretap during the infamous meeting.
> 
> If true, this FISA warrant would have been carried out under Loretta Lynch, Attorney General to Barack Obama. Former FBI Director James Comey has testified under oath to instances of collusion between AG Lynch and the Clinton campaign during 2016, as well as obstruction of justice in the Clinton investigation.
> Yesterday, multiple news agencies and President Trump all stated that Veselnitskaya was granted special permission to enter the US by Attorney General Lynch after her visa had been initially blocked.
> FISA transcripts of the meeting in June 2016 may have also served the basis of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, now headed by Bob Mueller.
> Other senior members of the Trump campaign may have participated in the meeting via conference call.
> Update: This would have been illegal, as FISA court denied Obama’s June 2016 request.
> In May, Reuters reported the FBI was investigating 18 undisclosed meetings between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and individuals who may be associated with Russia.
> Also in May, Jack Posobiec broke the news that one of these meetings took place with a member of the Trump family who was not Jared Kushner. This turned out to be Donald Trump Jr.


https://medium.com/@JackPosobiec/breaking-lynch-ordered-manaforts-phone-tapped-during-veselnitskaya-meeting-363824284be8


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885602749496270848


----------



## deepelemblues

InUtero said:


> Interesting post, which has given me a load of knowledge :bjpenn
> 
> Sorta now agreeing on the bolded part. I didn't agree with America leaving the Paris Agreement at the time, or that climate change is a hoax, but now - I don't see world agreements working. Don't agree some of Trump's policies as most folk would know p), or his views on climate change, but something more needs to be done, and it's clear that these agreements just aren't working.


I think it is just as absurd to believe that human activities aren't having an impact on the climate as it is to believe that the sun has less of an impact than human behavior, which is the conventional globul warminens wisdom. Both are totally absurd. 

The biggest single individual national achievement of the last ten years in reducing carbon emissions didn't come from international agreements or government regulations - it came from fracking in America, with cheap natural gas replacing more expensive coal in electrical generation. European countries that have also achieved good success in the last 10 years at reducing carbon emissions were largely switching to new efficiency-improved energy and other technologies already - their governments' policies at most added a slight push to the direction they were heading anyway.

A top-down approach where business and society simply have to adapt to government dictates won't work as well as a bottom-up approach where the uncoerced, undistorted profit motive (no government coercive and economy-distorting moves like carbon taxes) has a legitimate and critical role to play.



Wall Street Journal said:


> And though they are loath to admit it, many [Republicans] probably fear her [Elizabeth Warren] as a potential 2020 presidential candidate.


Fantasies of finally being in a situation where alphas fear them are common among human betas. 

Elizabeth Warren is a less likeable, more leftist, less-able-to-control-her-volcanic-rage in public Hillary Clinton. Dear God please allow her to become the Democratic nominee. :trump wouldn't have to do anything but riff on Pocahontas eight ways to Sunday and Warren would ragesplode and destroy her campaign in the fashion Democrats kept fantasizing :trump would do last year

The WSJ is so cucked anymore, Republicans are afraid of an unabashed leftist who will finally stop playing nice with them (yeah the left is just too nice to Republicans :lmao) and unleash the inherent love for socialism in America's heart is another leftist archfantasy/delusion.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

According to Drudge, Washington Post is going to run a story on Sunday about how the :trump administration is considering a new policy that will expedite deportations of "some" illegals 

:banderas


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> Considering how many Buzzfeed types Snopes has been hiring in recent years this article is somewhat of a surprise:
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/12/trump-lies/ (lies about :trump, not :trump lying)


Snopes was started by lefties and has always leaned left to say the least.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

A great analogy (not an argument) by Stefan Molyneux about the Russian hacking story:


----------



## deepelemblues

https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45af...n-lobbyist-says-he-was-in-Trump-son's-meeting

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I can't

I can't

I just can't

I can't breathe

:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston

THE GUY THEY BREATHLESSLY RAN OUT INTO THE SPOTLIGHT TO PROVE COLLUSION SAYS OUTRIGHT THAT :trump's SON WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE INFORMATION BECAUSE VESELNITSKAYA HAD NO EVIDENCE AND DJT JR. WANTED THE MEETING TO END ASAP ONCE HE FOUND THAT OUT

I CAN'T

I JUST CAN'T

THE INCOMPETENCE OF THESE MEDIA DIPSHITS 

:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston:heston


----------



## FriedTofu

I thought the main reason to be alarmed is the meeting even happened in the first place, not whether there was evidence presented to DTJ. All of this just make it sadder that somehow the GOP and Hilary both lost to this populist meme campaign.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> I thought the main reason to be alarmed is the meeting even happened in the first place, not whether there was evidence presented to DTJ. All of this just make it sadder that somehow the GOP and Hilary both lost to this populist meme campaign.


I assume you are shaken to your very core by the undeniable collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainian government then. Not a 20 minute meeting where nothing happened and nothing came of it, Clinton operatives getting info from Ukrainian government operatives through the US embassy in Kiev. Publicly available evidence of it galore. Unlike the zero evidence of collusion between the :trump campaign and the Russian government.

The collusion narrative has been so BTFO we're now supposed to get in an uproar about a meeting where collusion was offered (although the offer may not have been genuine) and rejected :heston

You can't shift the goalposts now you spent far too much time digging them deep in on "collusion"


----------



## rzombie1988

God Emperor Trump be like:


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> I assume you are shaken to your very core by the undeniable collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainian government then. Not a 20 minute meeting where nothing happened and nothing came of it, Clinton operatives getting info from Ukrainian government operatives through the US embassy in Kiev. Publicly available evidence of it galore. Unlike the zero evidence of collusion between the :trump campaign and the Russian government.
> 
> The collusion narrative has been so BTFO we're now supposed to get in an uproar about a meeting where collusion was offered (although the offer may not have been genuine) and rejected :heston
> 
> You can't shift the goalposts now you spent far too much time digging them deep in on "collusion"


Well one country is more hostile towards your country than the other. You are the one shifting goalposts in deciding what is acceptable and what isn't here. Do we need to go back to the campaign threads and all the hooplah over foreign influence and globalist agenda again?


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Iconoclast @Miss Sally


http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/rand-paul-mitch-mcconnell-reintroduce-economic-freedom-zones-act/



> *Rand Paul ReIntroduces “Economic Freedom Zones” Act*
> 
> In a press release, Sen. Rand Paul and his fellow Kentucky Senator, Mitch McConnell, reintroduced the Economic Freedom Zones Act. According to the release, the bill would institute “free market enterprise zones and dramatically reduce taxes to help facilitate the creation of new jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, enhance and renew educational opportunities, and increase community involvement in bankrupt or economically distressed areas.”
> 
> “The Economic Freedom Zones Act will bring hope to struggling communities by relieving the oppressive, big government burdens weighing them down,” said Senator Paul, in his release. “It’s time the federal government stop picking winners and losers and instead trust in the ingenuity of the American people.”
> 
> “By reintroducing this legislation, we are standing up for American families who are suffering under the strain of regulation and the consequences of failed economic policies,” said Senator McConnell, according to the release.“Innovative ideas like this will help bring hope and prosperity to distressed communities across our nation, including those in Kentucky.”
> 
> Simply put, the bill would create an Economic Freedom Zone in any area code where the unemployment rate was greater than one and a half times the national average, as well as to any other economically depressed areas, explained the press release.
> 
> A similar bill, known as HR 2028 the Energy Policy Modernization Act, was pushed earlier in 2016, and Sen. Paul often spoke about his EFZs during his 2016 Presidential bid.



This to me is one of Rand's best policy ideas and I'm glad its being reintroduced even though I think the chances of this passing are unlikely because of a) How bold it is and b) The RINO's in the Republican party being almost as bad as Democrats when it comes to economic freedom.

For too long inner cities have been plagued by Democrat policies which have done nothing to help the citizens there. Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis just to name a few. The old saying that the definition of insanity is repeating the same ideas hoping that they will work reigns supreme when it comes to the US's struggling inner cities.

Time to legalize freedom and allow residents/businesses to keep much more of the money they earn to finally give these areas an opportunity to rise from the ashes.

Here is the one page document that details the bill itself: https://www.scribd.com/document/353780230/Economic-Freedom-Zones-Act-One-Pager#from_embed


----------



## Goku

can rand paul be in charge of the healthcare bill kthnx


----------



## Jets4Life

MickDX said:


> How is a new Ice Age coming when the planet is becoming warmer? If you're thinking about very distant future it's likely an ice age can happen again but we won't be here when it happens.
> 
> The first big impact of the global warming is rising the sea levels and put port cities and countries like Netherlands in danger. But it's still a slow process and hopefully we may find a way to stop it.


It's part of the Earth's natural cleansing mechanism. I don't have time to write about it, as it would take forever, but the last time in history where the Earth became too warm, Icelandic settlers actually colonized sections of Greenland, only to retreat when temperatures plummet. It's a natural cycle, but I have no doubt humans are speeding the process up quite a bit. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but eventually it will. Problem is nobody knows when it will occur. Problem is people tend to wait until it effects the person in the mirror, so nothing will likely get done until it's nearly too late.



> You better be ready for that Civil War. Book your weapons in time or by that time you may miss them


Well maybe I'm being a bit too pessimistic, but if Trump were to be impeached, I have no doubt there is an excellent chance at Civil War. Trump practices divisive politics, and has the habit of drawing a line in the sand. In terms of media, most networks are opposed to him, while FOX supports Trump at all costs. It's going to be interesting to see what plays out in the next few years.


----------



## Mra22

MAGA!!!! Get rid of Obamacare!!!!


----------



## virus21

Our tax payer money at work folks


> The vote failed 214 to 209
> 24 Republicans voted with Democrats to defeat the amendment.
> 
> Liberals cheered the vote.
> They think you should pay for the
> 
> The Washington Post reported:
> 
> The Republican-led House narrowly rejected a measure on Thursday that sought to strike an Obama-era practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy.
> 
> Democrats described the proposal as bigoted, unconstitutional and cowardly and they won support from 24 GOP lawmakers to scuttle the amendment to the annual defense policy bill, 214-209.
> 
> The amendment crafted by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., would have forbid money from being spent by the military’s health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition. Hartzler portrayed her proposal as a good government plan aimed at assuring military dollars are spent only on critical national defense needs.
> 
> Reader Angelina sent this in on the vote.
> 
> 24 REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTED TO DEFEAT THIS BILL
> 
> The amendment authored by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., would have stopped money from being spent by the military’s health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition.
> H R 2810 RECORDED VOTE 13-Jul-2017 5:41 PM
> AUTHOR(S): Hartzler of Missouri Amendment No. 10
> 
> AMASH Mi 3Rd District
> BERGMAN MI 1ST DISTRICT
> COFFIN CO 6TH DISTRICT
> COMSTOCK VA 10TH
> COOK CA 8TH DISTRICT
> COSTELLO PA 6TH DISTRICT
> CURBELO FL 26TH DISTRICT
> DEHAM CA 10TH DISTRICT
> DENT PA 15TH DISTRICT
> FASO NY 19TH DISTRICT
> FITZPATRICK PA 8TH DISTRICT
> ISSA CA 49TH DISTRICT
> KATKO NY 24TH DISTRICT
> KNIGHT CA 25TH DISTRICT
> LANCE NJ 7TH
> LOBIONDO NJ 2ND
> MACARTHUR NJ 3RD
> MAST FL 18TH
> REED NY 23RD DISTRICT
> REICHERT WA 8TH DISTRICT
> ROS LEHTINEN FL 27TH DISTRICT
> SHUSTER PA 9TH DISTRICT
> STEFANIK NY 21ST DISTRICT
> TENNEY NY 101ST
> 
> NOT VOTING
> RODNEY DAVIS IL 13TH DISTRICT
> SAM JOHNSON TX 3RD DISTRICT
> LABRADOR ID 1ST DISTRICT
> SANFORD SC 1ST DISTRICT
> SCALES LA 1ST DISTRICT
> VAIADAD CA 21ST DISTRICT


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/republican-house-approves-taxpayer-funded-transgender-surgery-troops/


----------



## virus21

Trump time travel confirmed

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886336216957767680


----------



## deepelemblues

justin amash is a complete fuckwad like most 'libertarians'

there's a reason libertarians hold their meetings at the local denny's


----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


> Trump time travel confirmed
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886336216957767680


Yeah we're living in a simulation.






:lol


----------



## Jay Valero

virus21 said:


> Our tax payer money at work folks
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/republican-house-approves-taxpayer-funded-transgender-surgery-troops/


I hope they publish who those chickenshit Reps were. There is no way in hell the taxpayers should be footing the bill for the mentally damaged to surgically mutilate themselves.


----------



## Jedah

We really have to kick these pussies out of congress. Trump showed them how it's done and still we get this shit. They've been conditioned to lose so much they just don't know how to win. Time for some new blood in there. There's a lot of plans to primary some of these cucks in 2018.

With regards to "muh Russia," I have much to say, but don't have the time now. What I will say at the moment is that as a serious student of persuasion and someone who's written extensively about Trump on this subject (the only others to my knowledge are Scott Adams, Mike Cernovich, and George Lakoff too though he's seeing it through a left wing filter), I recognized when this "scandal" started in December that it was using many of the same persuasion and marketing methods that Trump used in his campaign.

For example, when you endlessly channel attention to the bugbear word "collusion," which is a nefarious-sounding term that's vague enough to basically amount to anything, and you get to go on a fishing expedition, you're going to find _something._

That that something has nothing to do at all with the allegations beforehand: the accusation that the Trump campaign was involved in some way with the "hacking of the election" (noticing a pattern with these word choices yet?) is irrelevant because the tripwires for confirmation bias are very, very, sensitive given the constant attention paid to this by the fake news media even though those stories have been either entirely false or vastly overstated.

I won't say this ad campaign has not been well done, because it is. Will this really effect anything? I have my doubts. Despite the wild, deranged fantasies, it isn't going to get Trump impeached and I think it will hurt the Democrats in 2018. But there are certain factions in the "Deep State" that want to prevent rapprochement with Russia and deescalation in our silly proxy wars at any cost and will go to any length they have to to keep that from happening, and this may have an effect on that.


----------



## Vic Capri

> /pol/ found a book from 1893 called "Baron Trump’s Marvellous Underground Journey"
> 
> The narrator's name is Don


*WHAT THE FUCK?!!*










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886063932892364800
Part of me wants this kind of _passion_ in our Congress :mj2


----------



## virus21

> Liberal rock star Maxine Waters suffered an awkward moment during a live interview on Friday when she appeared to short circuit mid-sentence.
> 
> Waters was speaking to MSNBC’s Katy Tur when she had a verbal malfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waters was once again slamming President Trump and spinning her Russia conspiracy theories when she questioned the patriotism of Trump supporters and said, “I just don’t understand why they don’t call it like it is and recognize that evidence is pouring in and it’s growing, or what— is matt— what, what is wrong with them, I just don’t quite understand,” she struggled to say.
> 
> In April, the 78-year-old congresswoman suffered a brain freeze during another interview.
> 
> Speaking with Yahoo News, Waters was talking about China’s role in containing North Korea, and momentarily appeared confused about what she was discussing.
> 
> “Those in China have a great trading relationship, they sell an awful lot of stuff to North Korea,” she said.
> 
> 
> 
> “And so (the Chinese) president is warning Trump, ‘okay, don’t start talking about preemptive strikes. We want a diplomatic solution,'” Waters said, speculating about China’s conversations with Trump.
> 
> The 78-year-old continued, “‘We do not want war in, uh, uh, uh, North Korea — North, uh, um, um, Korea at all,'” struggling to complete her thought.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/maxine-waters-short-circuits-live-tv-interview/


----------



## Reaper

The irony of a fat cat government official getting an eye surgery while he delays the vote to determine the affordability of healthcare for his own constituents is lost upon him.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886063932892364800
> Part of me wants this kind of _passion_ in our Congress :mj2


Mcgregor vs the Diaz brothers ain't got nothing on the Taiwanese :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

Goku said:


> can rand paul be in charge of the healthcare bill kthnx


He and Ted Cruz are seeming to be the only ones trying to keep their promises to actually REPEAL Obamacare. These clowns are just putting something together to just say we repealed it when this clearly is not a repeal. I swear that these idiots running the government could be getting an erotic massage and screw up the happy ending. 

Meanwhile...maybe this delay in the vote due to McCains surgery can give Trump a chance to review this and articulate his message to the American people on what he is wanting done. I think he needs to do more in working directly with the Reps and Senators while talking more to the American people about specifically what he wants and what his s agenda is. And you can't do that in 140 characters


----------



## Jay Valero

Stinger Fan said:


> Mcgregor vs the Diaz brothers ain't got nothing on the Taiwanese :lol


It's a work, brother.


----------



## Reaper

D'Souza explaining deregulation to the layman with a fantastic analogy.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886705086403137536


----------



## yeahbaby!

"Donald Trump's record-low approval rating 'not bad at this time"

"Donald Trump's record-low approval rating 'not bad at this time"

"Donald Trump's record-low approval rating 'not bad at this time"

"Donald Trump's record-low approval rating 'not bad at this time"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/donald-trump-says-record-low-approval-rating-not-bad/8714012



> At this point in their respective presidencies, almost every leader since Harry Truman has been enjoying a honeymoon with approvals in the high 50s and up.
> 
> The exceptions are Gerald Ford — who had just pardoned the disgraced Richard Nixon — and Bill Clinton, who recovered and left office with approvals at 66 per cent.
> 
> *Now, Donald Trump has set a record low of 36 per cent and record-high disapprovals of 58 per cent.*
> 
> On the upside, the ABC News (America)/Washington Post poll shows Mr Trump's base remains loyal.
> 
> But on the downside, his support is slipping among voters who supported him despite having previously voted for Barack Obama.


----------



## MarkovKane

IDK, a president was voted in, that is democracy, so no point in bitching about it now.


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's job approval rating in the American counties that fueled his 2016 victory stands at 50 percent, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of these "Trump counties."
> 
> Fifty percent of adults in these counties — consisting of Republicans, Democrats and independents — approve of the president's job performance (including 29 percent who strongly approve), while 46 percent disapprove (including 35 percent who do so strongly).
> 
> By comparison, last month's national NBC/WSJ poll had Trump's overall approval rating at 40 percent.
> 
> 
> The poll's sample was taken from 439 counties in 16 states — Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — that either flipped from Barack Obama to Trump, or where Trump greatly outpaced Mitt Romney's performance in 2012.
> 
> 
> But there's a significant difference in Trump's approval rating in the these two kinds of Trump counties.
> 
> In the Trump "surge counties" (for example: Carbon, Pa., where Trump won 65 percent to 31 percent, versus Romney's 53-45 percent margin) — 56 percent of residents approve of the president's job performance.
> 
> Trump beat Hillary Clinton in these "surge" areas nationwide by a combined 65 percent-to-29 percent margin in 2016.
> 
> But in the "flip counties" (for example: Luzerne, Pa., where Obama won 52 percent to 47 percent, compared to Trump's 58-39 margin), Trump's job rating stands at just 44 percent.
> 
> Trump won these "flip" areas overall in 2016, 51 percent to 43 percent.
> 
> The rest of this NBC/WSJ poll — which was conducted July 8-12 of 600 adults in these counties, and has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 4.0 percentage points — will be released later in the week.
> 
> In "Flip" counties, 342 interviews were conducted, which has a margin of error of plus-minus 5.3 percentage points. And in "Surge" counties, 258 interviews were conducted, and the margin of error there is plus-minus 6.1 percentage points.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-s-approval-stands-50-percent-counties-fueled-his-win-n783151?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma


----------



## DaRealNugget

virus21 said:


>


:lmao

that's BG Kumbi at the beginning. don't take him seriously. dude is trolling pretty hard.


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> is there any explanation other than RAW ALPHA MALE SEXUAL ENERGY as to why the macrons and trudeaus look at :trump like this? like they're remembering how :trump just grabbed em right by the pussy, bent them over a desk and fucked them until their brains melted out their ears?


What is it with right wing dudes and sexually fetishising a 70y/o man?


----------



## virus21

> Never miss the latest political data and news from Morning Consult. Subscribe to Morning Consult’s Washington email brief here.
> 
> If Americans were feeling optimistic about their senators at the dawn of the new era of a Republican-controlled federal government, many are souring on those elected officials as the 115th Congress rolls on, according to Morning Consult’s new Senator Approval Rankings.
> 
> More than half of all senators saw negative swings in net approval outside of the surveys’ margins of error in their respective states. By comparison, over 20 senators saw their net approval rating decrease in the first quarter of the year from the 2016 pre-election rankings.
> 
> The rankings are based on more than 140,000 interviews with registered voters nationwide conducted from April 1 through June 18. Full methodology is available here.


https://morningconsult.com/july-2017-senator-rankings/


----------



## Stinger Fan

What would happen if Hilary had won? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/886027423074197508


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> What is it with right wing dudes and sexually fetishising a 70y/o man?


I thought literalism was for creationists.


----------



## virus21

> Pro-President Trump “America First” candidates across the country are banding together in the 2018 election to put up a united front against their Republican establishment and Democratic opponents.
> 
> Big League Politics has learned that at least four major American nationalist candidates will appear together at a rally on August 26 in Pennsylvania to introduce their team-effort approach. This rally marks the first concerted effort to build a Trump Caucus within the United States Congress — something that is desperately needed as the Republican National Committee shows disinterest or outright hostility toward the Deplorable faction.
> 
> The America First Rally, organized by a former Trump campaign staffer, will be held at Green Grove Gardens in Pennsylvania near the Maryland border, and will feature Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bobby Lawrence, Maxine Waters’ California congressional opponent Omar Navarro, Joe Manchin’s West Virginia challenger and coal miner Bo Copley, and Elizabeth Warren’s “Real Indian” opponent V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai from Massachusetts. Kelli Ward — who primaried John McCain last year and is now running against NeverTrump Senator Jeff Flake in Arizona — is also in talks to appear. Other candidates are expected to sign on as we get closer to the rally.
> 
> The rally organizer is also meeting with Michigan Senate hopeful Kid Rock in several days.
> 
> “This is about the America First agenda laid out by President Trump during his campaign,” Bobby Lawrence told Big League Politics. Lawrence, a commercial glass company owner, announced his campaign to potentially unseat Senator Bob Casey here on the pages of Big League.
> 
> 
> Bobby Lawrence, Facebook
> 
> “There’s going to be 2 to 5 thousand people there, and different candidates talking about the pro-Trump message. I think we’ll get a lot of national attention,” Omar Navarro, Maxine Waters’ opponent in the California 43rd, told Big League Politics.
> 
> “What distinguishes us and makes us different is, we’re outsiders. We’re people from the outside who want to see change in our country, in our government. Changes are not happening. We need people working with the administration to get the job done. Maxine Waters is constantly touting impeachment. Impeach 45, impeach 45. These things are not related to the 43rd district. You have Toyota, Honda, many other companies that are leaving the 43rd district. So she’s interested in pushing a hoax to try to impeach the president?”
> 
> “I’m working very hard every single day,” Navarro said. “I’m raising money, that’s part of the game. I’m doing it without the Republican Party through small donors. I’m endorsed by Larry Elder, I have Roger Stone working on my campaign as a political strategist. We are picking up momentum. I’m going to be at PolitCon with Roger Stone, we’re going to be talking to different people. I know that Maxine Waters is not going to win next year. If I keep fundraising the way I’m fundraising she’s not going to win. People are saying this has the potential to be the next Ossoff race.”
> 
> 
> Omar Navarro with Roger Stone, Facebook
> 
> Elizabeth Warren’s “Real Indian” challenger V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is running hard against the establishment in Massachusetts, accusing his primary opponent Geoff Diehl — who was handpicked by NeverTrump governor Charlie Baker — of being a fake Trumper and member of the “controlled opposition” who even Photoshopped a picture of himself with President Trump. Shiva announced his candidacy at the “Bull Moose Party” at Washington’s Shelley’s Back Room during CPAC, which was hosted by nationalist writer Mike Cernovich and Deplorable mover-and-shaker Jeff Giesea.
> 
> “What we’re witnessing is, Trump’s win was a disruption to the establishment Republicans and Democrats,” Shiva told Big League Politics. “The Deplorables is a rightful term. The elites in Washington, Cambridge and Hollywood think they know better but they have no idea the anger that people feel. It’s an anti-establishment movement.”
> 
> “When the first shot in Lexington was fired in 1775, at Bunker Hill they were defeated but that was the beginning of a movement. Trump winning has to be seen in a much larger context. A much larger victory took place. Someone like me doesn’t have to do this, Kid Rock doesn’t need to do this, but the zeitgeist is, we love this country and we need to save it. Every day that Trump is out there is a victory.”
> 
> “Every day Donald Trump survives another day, we win. We can’t get caught in their mindset, oh he didn’t pass bills. They’re bullshit bills anyway. That’s not going to change the history of the world. Movements change this world,” Shiva said. “They’re going to block everything. They’re the Deep State. The mark of success is how many people come out of the woodwork and start raising a flag.”
> 
> “Think about Elizabeth Warren and Debbie Stabenow, who both voted for the Monsanto Protection Act, which allows Monsanto to pollute the food in this country. It’s building a multi-pronged movement so Trump’s win has many legs to it besides just him fighting against Ryan,” Shiva added.
> 
> 
> V.A. Shiva, Facebook
> 
> West Virginia coal miner Bo Copley, who was laid off as politicians in both parties turned their backs on coal, is determined to defeat Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who has been flogging the dead horse of the “Russia” conspiracy theory against President Trump.
> 
> “President Trump was able last election to open the door for people like us to bring forth a movement. We’re going to surprise a lot of people. We fully expect to win,” Copley told Big League Politics.
> 
> “We’ve run into a lot of positive supporters and a lot of people who are appreciative of what we’re trying to do, we offer something different. So far the response has been very uplifting,” Copley said. “We’re a grassroots effort, everybody knows that. We’re talking to people on the ground and making phone calls.”
> 
> Copley remembers meeting with Hillary Clinton last year and “standing up to her.”
> 
> “Joe Manchin was at that very table, I told him — with no political aspirations in mind at that time — that he was making a big mistake in the state by supporting Hillary Clinton.
> 
> “Don’t overlook the little guy. Just because political pundits think they know the way this country should be run and won’t want to give the new people a chance, that doesn’t mean we should be overlooked. That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing,” Copley said.
> 
> 
> Bo Copley, Facebook
> 
> Great America Marketing head Teresa Unruh, who designed the backdrop for every Donald Trump rally during the presidential campaign, told Big League that Trump “has always said we need to unify, because he can’t do everything alone. Everybody knows that, and they’re saying ‘Trump Train.’ But really he’s trying to get help in the Senate to be able to do this and the RNC isn’t helping. It’s no longer two parties, it’s just everybody against Trump.”
> 
> As Big League reported, the RNC scolded their own pro-Trump Montana House candidate Greg Gianforte (the man behind the widely-praised “Bodyslam” of a liberal Fake News reporter) in the announcement certifying his special election victory. Don Trump Jr.’s stump speeches were credited with putting Gianforte over the top in the nationally-watched race.
> 
> “So many good people are trying to come out and there’s no way for them to fight the establishment that has been in power for so long,” Unruh said. “We’re following what we’ve learned about government, and there’s no way that these candidates can fight the money and the establishment without one unified platform. This is not a new party. History shows that we would be taking away from the win if we start a new party. So instead of doing that I just want to give support and be the middle-man to help these people collaborate to do what they want to do for Trump. We want people in there who have their hearts in the right place.”
> 
> Unruh, who is meeting with Kid Rock in a few days, said that “I think his run will bring in so many young voters.”
> 
> “It’s a long process but it’s coming together now,” Unruh said. “We’re doing a presidential campaign for the Senate.”
> 
> Can President Trump build a Deplorable caucus within the House and Senate to push for populist-nationalist policy items — from Wall funding to protectionist trade policies? If he hopes to fully succeed in the White House and build a legacy that will continue after his presidency — rather than watch his agenda get undone by Koch-funded globalist “conservatives” in the factional Republican Party — he will have to focus special attention on this task. But maybe, as Shiva the Real Indian said, passing the bills doesn’t matter so much, because the first shot has already been fired at Lexington and now the mark of success is how hard the movement fights to get people out in the streets.
> 
> That next battle will get mapped out on August 26 in Pennsylvania.


http://bigleaguepolitics.com/pro-trump-house-senate-candidates-team-massive-america-first-rally/


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> What is it with right wing dudes and sexually fetishising a 70y/o man?


kink shaming is not very tolerant of you pls repent and report to buzzfeed for re-programming


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887136558805110786


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887041810639585280
I love the random shit he's always doing.


----------



## CamillePunk

With yet another Obamacare replacement bill dead in the Senate (yay!) and Donald Trump expressing his desire for simple repeal of Obamacare, it seems that may be what we're getting:


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> With yet another Obamacare replacement bill dead in the Senate (yay!) and Donald Trump expressing his desire for simple repeal of Obamacare, it seems that may be what we're getting:


Which should have been done the first time. Then they can take their time and put something together that actually works. Reach out to those in the medical community as well as they would be able to provide insight into what is needed. Rand Paul was right when he said that the delay would get some to realize this wasn't a true repeal. 

Insurance is important to have but not everyone wants the same coverage and should have the opportunity to purchase what they feel is better for them. Some want chiropractic care and others may.not want mental health issues covered. The options should be there. 

Take their time and get it right.


----------



## Reaper

Trump delivering on another major campaign talking point. He's basically restoring refugee intake to typical long term trends instead of the forced increase in intake of Muslims in 2016. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...nt-for-growing-share-of-u-s-refugee-arrivals/



> *In first months of Trump presidency, Christians account for growing share of U.S. refugee arrivals*
> 
> More Christian than Muslim refugees have been admitted to the United States in the first months of the Trump administration, reversing a trend that had seen Muslims outnumber Christians in the final fiscal year under President Barack Obama, a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department refugee data has found.
> 
> *From Donald Trump’s first full day in office on Jan. 21 through June 30, 9,598 Christian refugees arrived in the U.S., compared with 7,250 Muslim refugees. Christians made up 50% of all refugee arrivals in this period, compared with 38% who are Muslim. Some 11% of these arrivals belong to other religions, while about 1% claim no religious affiliation.
> *
> *The religious composition of refugees to the U.S. has been shifting on a monthly basis as well. In February, Trump’s first full month in office, Muslims accounted for 50% of the 4,580 refugees who entered the U.S., and Christians made up 41% of arrivals. By June, Christians (57%) made up a larger share of arrivals than Muslims (31%).
> *
> *This stands in contrast to fiscal 2016, when a record number of Muslim refugees entered the U.S. and Muslims made up a higher share of admitted refugees than Christians (46% vs. 44%, respectively). However, the shift in the religious composition of refugees since January falls in line with longer-term trends: Between fiscal years 2002 and 2016, Christians outnumbered Muslim refugees in all but three years – 2005, 2006 and 2016.
> *
> The religious affiliation of refugees has come under scrutiny since Trump first issued an executive order on Jan. 27 announcing restrictions on people traveling into the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), a temporary halt of the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program, and a new, lower cap on refugee admissions (set to 50,000 people annually). Legal challenges held up this executive order, but the U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed parts of the administration’s second version of the order, dated March 6, to take effect until the court hears the case sometime this fall.
> 
> It’s not clear why the religious composition of refugees to the U.S. has changed since February. Trump’s revised executive order states no religious preference for refugee admissions. Also, it’s not yet known whether the religious composition of refugee applicants (not arrivals) has shifted during the Trump administration, since it is likely that many refugees admitted from February through June actually applied to the Refugee Resettlement Program before Trump took office (the refugee application process typically takes between 18 and 24 months to complete).
> 
> Overall refugee admissions to the U.S. in fiscal 2017 (which ends Sept. 30) are on pace to fall below the 85,000-person ceiling established by the Obama administration for fiscal 2016, a year that saw 84,995 actual refugee arrivals. At the same time, arrivals for the current fiscal year are already nearing the new cap set by Trump in his executive order. As of June 30, the U.S. had already admitted 49,255 refugees. However, under the Supreme Court’s recent order, refugees with close family members in the U.S. may continue to enter the U.S. even after the new cap is reached.
> 
> One important factor that influences the religious composition of refugee arrivals is country of origin, which has driven previous shifts in the religious affiliation of refugees. In fiscal 2016, for example, many Muslim refugees traced their origin to Syria, while in fiscal 2005 and 2006 an earlier wave of Muslim refugees arrived from Somalia.
> 
> In the first months of the Trump administration, the top countries of origin for refugees have been the Democratic Republic of the Congo (3,235), followed by Burma (Myanmar) (2,470), Iraq (1,923), Somalia (1,879), Syria (1,779) and Ukraine (1,603). These six countries have made up two-thirds (67%) of all refugees entering the U.S. since Jan. 21, 2017. Of these, three are majority-Muslim origin countries (Iraq, Somalia and Syria).
> 
> But since April – when Christian refugees topped 50% of all refugee arrivals to the U.S. – there has been a further shift. From April through June, Iraq is the only Muslim-majority nation among the top six origin countries. Other leading countries during this time have been the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Bhutan and Eritrea.


----------



## Miss Sally

Iconoclast said:


> I thought literalism was for creationists.


I'm more surprised that people take that sort of silly talk actually serious..By their logic, when I call Trump a "God Emperor" they must really believe that I view him as a God..

I mean come on now that's pretty sad not to be able to see obvious humor.


----------



## deepelemblues

Calling :trump God-Emperor pisses off moonbats

That alone makes doing so worth it


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I mean come on now that's pretty sad not to be able to see obvious humor.


It's because conservatism is the new punk rock and counter-culture. :trump4


----------



## deepelemblues

It's a sad state of affairs when the only group of people actually fighting authoritarian shitlib socialism - and earning victories - are a bunch of 20-something shitposters tending to their memes on the intarwebs. Because the GOPe pussies sure as fuck ain't. 

Either a sad state of affairs, OR... a glorious new beginning.


----------



## virus21

> The verdict is in: Nobody cares.
> 
> Bloomberg News released a poll on Monday and, of course, couched it in the worst possible terms for President Donald Trump.
> 
> "Americans Feel Good About the Economy, Not So Good About Trump," said the headline.
> 
> "Almost six months into Donald Trump’s presidency, Americans are feeling fairly optimistic about their jobs, the strength of the U.S. economy, and their own fortunes. That should be welcome news for the president, except for one thing: The public’s confidence largely appears to be in spite of Trump, not because of him."
> 
> Throughout the story, Bloomberg downplayed Trump's role in the improving job market and thundering economy. We'll get back to that later, but something glaring leaped out at us.
> 
> Here are the top issues people care about:
> 
> Health care -- 35%
> Unemployment and jobs -- 13%
> Terrorism -- 11%
> Immigration -- 10%
> Climate Change -- 10%
> Relationship with Russia -- 6%
> Taxes -- 4%
> Other -- 4%
> Trade -- 2%
> None of these -- 2%
> Not sure -- 2%
> The question posed to those surveyed was "Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?"
> 
> So, 79% said, "Not Russia."
> 
> Just 6% said Russia — despite the nonstop coverage from the mainstream media on unsubstantiated allegations that Trump and his campaign team colluded with Vladimir Putin to swing the 2016 election Trump's way.
> 
> Nobody cares. In fact, the Russia relationship is just 2 points above "Other" and the combined "None of these" and "Not sure." As one-time adviser Van Jones called it, the Russia story is a real "nothingburger."
> 
> But you know what else the poll found? Some really good stuff for Trump (although you wouldn't know it with that dismal, "glass half brutally murdered" headline).
> 
> "There are at least two areas where Americans say they believe Trump will deliver: Almost two-thirds say he will make significant cuts in government regulation, though it’s not clear whether most think that’s a good or bad thing. Likewise, 53 percent believe he will succeed in deporting millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally," the story said.
> 
> Also: "Trump’s voters are still sticking with him. Among those who cast ballots for him, 89 percent still say he’s doing a good job."
> 
> The article puts Trump's approval rating at 40% and notes that "Almost six months into Donald Trump’s presidency, Americans are feeling fairly optimistic about their jobs, the strength of the U.S. economy, and their own fortunes."
> 
> "The latest Bloomberg National Poll shows 58 percent of Americans believe they’re moving closer to realizing their own career and financial aspirations, tied for the highest recorded in the poll since the question was first asked in February 2013."
> 
> Of course, Bloomberg doesn't ascribe any of that optimism to Trump: "The public’s confidence largely appears to be in spite of Trump, not because of him."
> 
> And as we always do with polls, we like to take a look at the methodology, find out the political self-identifications of those surveyed. According to Bloomberg, 37% were Democrats or leaned Left, while 30% were Republicans or leaned Right.
> 
> We're still waiting for a poll that has an equal number of from each party — but we're not holding our breath.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/18691/poll-just-6-americans-say-russia-story-important-joseph-curl#



> hey were wrong and their fears were more than just “premature” as the U.S. tourism industry is experiencing an uptick as international arrivals as well as travel-related spending are up in 2017 compared to the same period of time in 2016, according to the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> Roger Dow, CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, claims that there could even be a “Trump bump” wherein the tourism industry will benefit from the Presidency of Donald Trump.
> 
> Dow was among the president’s detractors just a few months ago, but he noted that “impending doom hasn’t manifested itself” and much like the #FakeNews about damn near everything else related to this presidency, Dow stated that:
> 
> “Right now we cannot identify a loss. It’s contrary to everything we’ve heard, but travel is in slightly better shape than it was a year ago. Everyone wants me to tell the story of the sky is falling, but for the travel industry, the sky is not falling.”
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reports:
> 
> Latest numbers from the U.S. Travel Association’s Travel Trends Index showed 6.6 percent growth in international travel to the U.S. in April and 5 percent growth in May compared with the same months last year. The Travel Trends Index uses hotel, airline and U.S. government data.
> 
> Individual sectors have good news, too. Hotel occupancy for the first five months of 2017 was “higher than it has ever been before,” said Jan Freitag, senior vice president with STR, which tracks hotel industry data. American Express Meetings & Events has “not seen a slowdown in either domestic U.S. meetings or international meetings from the U.S. in the past six months,” according to senior vice president Issa Jouaneh. Even New York’s National September 11 Memorial and Museum has more international visitors: 554,381 at the museum Jan. 1-July 11, up from 517,539 the same period last year.
> 
> Florida’s Orlando International Airport, a gateway for theme park visitors, reported growth for domestic and international passengers year to date, though Visit Orlando CEO George Aguel said it was “still premature to determine a specific impact” from Trump administration policies.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/tourism-experience-trump-bump-rather-liberal-feared-trump-slump/



> Those are the approval ratings of Republican governors Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, Larry Hogan in Maryland and Phil Scott in Vermont – three of the bluest states in the country.
> 
> While the Democrat Party is becoming more and more confined to the coasts, Republican governors are overwhelmingly popular everywhere – even in Democrats’ own backyard.
> 
> Recent polling shows the 11 most popular governors are Republican, with four of them being states that are more reliably blue than they are red.
> 
> Via Morning Consult:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/poll-gop-governors-overwhelmingly-popular-even-radical-blue-states/


----------



## deepelemblues

watching the national GOP reaffirm that is simply the socialist lite party really makes me wish there was a way that the national GOP could get slaughtered while not hurting the local/state GOP, because the GOP at the local/state level is the fucking tits. they run as conservatives and - shockingly! - get conservative legislative and policy priorities implemented. unlike the national GOP


----------



## Draykorinee

"We don't own this, the Democrats own this" - Trump 2017










:LIGHTS


----------



## DOPA

I'd much prefer a clean repeal of Obamacare and for the Senate to take more time to work out a good healthcare bill then rattle through any of the horrible bills they have tried to get through Congress which may have made the problem even worse.

Not my first choice of action but if compromises need to be made, this is the way to do it imo.


----------



## Reaper

You can't repeal it. I believe it needs a 60 vote majority in the Senate even if it makes it that far to do so and that's never going to happen under the current obstructionist climate.


----------



## deepelemblues

I still think they're going to pass something because by this time next year Obamacare will be on its financial deathbed if nothing is done. It might not be until next year but it's gonna happen.

People are going to continue to say fuck it I'm not signing up in larger numbers because of the ridiculous premium increases and :trump basically gutting the individual mandate through executive order + the illegal Obama slush fund money isn't being used to prop it up anymore + more insurance companies are going to leave the exchanges because they know that this administration isn't going to make good their hundreds of millions of dollars in losses a year. The government spigot to Obamacare has been significantly closed in the last 7 months. Not all the way which sucks but to a level Obamacare can't survive without millions more buying policies each year which they are not going to do because unless you're dirt poor Obamacare sucks. 

If the GOP were smart they'd let it crash and burn and make it their foremost theme in the next election to ask again and again "How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to make Obamacare 'work'? How much more than that in taxes are you willing to pay for 'single payer'? If you want to pay a hundred trillion dollars in taxes this century to pay for that kind of thing (and single payer would probably cost more than that thanks inflation), then you know who to vote for. If you don't want everybody's taxes - not just 'the rich', sorry, they don't have enough - raised up to Pluto to pay for what will be the biggest money trough in history that will be wasteful and corrupt as hell, then you know who to vote for. We will find a solution that doesn't bankrupt you and the whole country.'

But the GOP is too dumb to do something like that.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> You can't repeal it. I believe it needs a 60 vote majority in the Senate even if it makes it that far to do so and that's never going to happen under the current obstructionist climate.


In 2015 they sent a clean bill of repeal. Obama vetoed it. To say they couldn't is BS, except for the fact that several GOP Senators who voted repeal last time didn't this time. How sad.




deepelemblues said:


> I still think they're going to pass something because by this time next year Obamacare will be on its financial deathbed if nothing is done. It might not be until next year but it's gonna happen.
> 
> People are going to continue to say fuck it I'm not signing up in larger numbers because of the ridiculous premium increases and :trump basically gutting the individual mandate through executive order + the illegal Obama slush fund money isn't being used to prop it up anymore + more insurance companies are going to leave the exchanges because they know that this administration isn't going to make good their hundreds of millions of dollars in losses a year. The government spigot to Obamacare has been significantly closed in the last 7 months. Not all the way which sucks but to a level Obamacare can't survive without millions more buying policies each year which they are not going to do because unless you're dirt poor Obamacare sucks.
> 
> If the GOP were smart they'd let it crash and burn and make it their foremost theme in the next election to ask again and again "How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to make Obamacare 'work'? How much more than that in taxes are you willing to pay for 'single payer'? If you want to pay a hundred trillion dollars in taxes this century to pay for that kind of thing (and single payer would probably cost more than that thanks inflation), then you know who to vote for. If you don't want everybody's taxes - not just 'the rich', sorry, they don't have enough - raised up to Pluto to pay for what will be the biggest money trough in history that will be wasteful and corrupt as hell, then you know who to vote for. We will find a solution that doesn't bankrupt you and the whole country.'
> 
> But the GOP is too dumb to do something like that.


May not matter by then. This might be the biggest broken promise since Bush 41 said "read my lips, no new taxes." For nearly eight years we were promised a repeal of the ACA. This was HUGE for giving them Congress and the WH. This doesn't happen there might be a good chance of serious turnover of seats in both houses.


----------



## xio8ups

Lord emperor trump. The king of kings.


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887464796744015872


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887464796744015872


That's funny, think the Brave heart one is the best though.


----------



## FriedTofu

My tinfoil hat says the repeal failed because the GOP needed a boogeyman for the next elections. Negative partisanship is the only surefire way to get voters out in the current political climate. There is no Hilary or Obama to campaign against thus far. So Obamacare has to remain for them to form a narrative around. Democrats have Trump to pair with Republicans and conservatives to message to their voters, GOP need a symbol to stick the message of 'liberals/democrats are bad' with.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> My tinfoil hat says the repeal failed because the GOP needed a boogeyman for the next elections. Negative partisanship is the only surefire way to get voters out in the current political climate. There is no Hilary or Obama to campaign against thus far. So Obamacare has to remain for them to form a narrative around. Democrats have Trump to pair with Republicans and conservatives to message to their voters, GOP need a symbol to stick the message of 'liberals/democrats are bad' with.


Honestly if they just let Insurance Companies compete etc they could win over more people. You get more flies with honey than vinegar. 

Not to mention if you actually do accomplish some good stuff like, upping the economy, better trade deals, a better way to deal with Health Care etc it makes the people who just hate Trump/GOP seem like whiners and will turn people off from their side.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Honestly if they just let Insurance Companies compete etc they could win over more people. You get more flies with honey than vinegar.
> 
> Not to mention if you actually do accomplish some good stuff like, upping the economy, better trade deals, a better way to deal with Health Care etc it makes the people who just hate Trump/GOP seem like whiners and will turn people off from their side.


What is stopping insurance companies from competing now?

People got turned off by the whiners against Obama but that didn't stop the GOP from winning record seats during his presidency. The reality is negativity win more votes than actually getting things done.

Sure you can improve the economy, but they will just bash you with you didn't improve as much as you can. You can get better trade deals, but they will message it as jobs lost in the one sector over the benefits to the overall economy of such deals.

Obama bailouts saved many auto industry jobs in America. But his distractors use it against him as upsetting the free market. The stock market have hit record highs so far in Trump's presidency, his distractors use it to bash him for favouring corporations. It goes both ways. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> What is stopping insurance companies from competing now?
> 
> People got turned off by the whiners against Obama but that didn't stop the GOP from winning record seats during his presidency. The reality is negativity win more votes than actually getting things done.
> 
> Sure you can improve the economy, but they will just bash you with you didn't improve as much as you can. You can get better trade deals, but they will message it as jobs lost in the one sector over the benefits to the overall economy of such deals.
> 
> Obama bailouts saved many auto industry jobs in America. But his distractors use it against him as upsetting the free market. The stock market have hit record highs so far in Trump's presidency, his distractors use it to bash him for favouring corporations. It goes both ways. :shrug


Insurance for health is carved up by territory atm so they cannot really compete much. Some medical facilities only accept certain insurance so if hurt you could pay a lot out of pocket.

Basically the way it is now only a few companies get to really compete which is stupid because every other type of insurance can compete equally.

Health Care in the US is really crooked because of this, not to mention thier elaborate need for quality of equipment etc but the actual care is subpar because of the constant rising costs.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> My tinfoil hat says the repeal failed because the GOP needed a boogeyman for the next elections. Negative partisanship is the only surefire way to get voters out in the current political climate. There is no Hilary or Obama to campaign against thus far. So Obamacare has to remain for them to form a narrative around. Democrats have Trump to pair with Republicans and conservatives to message to their voters, GOP need a symbol to stick the message of 'liberals/democrats are bad' with.





FriedTofu said:


> What is stopping insurance companies from competing now?
> 
> People got turned off by the whiners against Obama but that didn't stop the GOP from winning record seats during his presidency. The reality is negativity win more votes than actually getting things done.
> 
> Sure you can improve the economy, but they will just bash you with you didn't improve as much as you can. You can get better trade deals, but they will message it as jobs lost in the one sector over the benefits to the overall economy of such deals.
> 
> Obama bailouts saved many auto industry jobs in America. But his distractors use it against him as upsetting the free market. The stock market have hit record highs so far in Trump's presidency, his distractors use it to bash him for favouring corporations. It goes both ways. :shrug


Won't be so simple this time. For several years, this was THE mantra of the GOP that they were going to repeal Obamacare. Senator McConnell himself said they were going to pull it out by the roots. They told us if we gave them the Senate, the House, and the White House that they would get rid of it. Of course, up until Trump came along the talk was simply repeal, the concept of "repeal and replace" is only a recent adjustment. As I said in a previous post, at this moment this is THE biggest broken promise since "Read my lips, no new taxes." When you ran on that for almost eight years with finally have everything you asked for to make this happen and you don't deliver...that's a huge problem. One of the only saving graces for the GOP is that right now the Dems are in a massive state of disarray and haven't found a clear cut message to rally around. 

First of all, though...I applaud Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul for standing their ground and saving Trump from what could have been a real clusterfuck. Anyone who took the time to read what they were offering as a replacement would have known that this was not a true repeal. You basically keep the structure of the ACA but take away the mandate which was supposed to finance it. Plus, throwing billions of dollars at the insurance companies and asking them to please lower premiums was a joke as well. Lee and Paul said flat out it was not repeal and that they needed to keep their promises to the American people. 

I do, however, pin blame fully on Ryan and McConnell for trying to justify to the American people this steaming pile of fecal matter (to quote the gorgeous conservative goddess Dana Loesch). Plus, while Trump wants to say that he doesn't own this...I'm sorry but he has to shoulder some of the blame. Mr. President, you need to do a better job of putting your message out there to the American people. No, I'm not talking about the rallies and the Tweets. You need to make clear what you want to accomplish, explain how it is going to be done, and what the benefits will be for us. Plus, you need to roll up your sleeves and get involved. I know people say for the most part Trump likes to be hands-off, but I think that when he needs to he gets in the middle of things when he was running the Trump business. After all, that is his name on the building and it was his bread and butter. He did some talking to leadership and some of the Congresspeople who wanted to work with him...that's not enough. During the campaign, when you calmly put your message out there on what you were looking for, that's when you got a lot of attention. Just sitting back and hoping it happens is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, when they move on to tax reform that is when he gets more involved (I think he will because that is more in his wheelhouse). But you need to do so, Mr. President. Get in the middle of the matter and get it done. 

For health insurance, there has never been any true competition. My choices for insurance are the ones that my wife and mine's employers offer, or Medicaid (state insurance). Under the ACA, my premiums have tripled...where my wife works premiums have multiplied by 5. To me, competition would be allowing me to shop around for the best health insurance for me and my family...the way we can shop around for just about everything else from car insurance to homes. If you can do that, you will see costs drop sufficiently.

The market has gone up in anticipation of Trump's presidency being more business friendly. Of course they want that momentum to carry on to true tax reform. Businesses want to stay here but have left because of Obamas policies and taxation. Plus tax cuts to people means more people spend and tax cuts to businesses means they will hire more people and grow the economy that way.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/prep-begins-for-border-wall-construction/35225



> *Prep Begins For Border Wall Construction*
> 
> The Texas Observer, citing a federal official, says construction of the wall on the property of the 2,088-acre refuge could begin as early as January 2018.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection, working with private contractors, is preparing to build the first part of President Trump's promised border wall through the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge in South Texas, according to a report Friday.
> The Texas Observer, citing a federal official, says construction of the wall on the property of the 2,088-acre refuge could begin as early as January 2018.
> The official said the government chose to start building the wall through the refuge because the property is owned by the federal government, meaning the Trump administration won't have to negotiate with private landowners. At least 95 percent of the 1,241-mile Texas border is privately owned.
> Customs and Border Protection plans to build an 18-foot levee wall through three miles on the wildlife refuge, the Observer said.
> A reporter for the Observer on Friday witnessed workers drilling into the existing earthen levee on the wildlife refuge and extracting soil samples to prepare for construction.
> The federal official told the Observer that if the government builds the levee wall, it would jeopardize the refuge. In addition to the levee wall, the proposed plan would include the construction of a road south of the wall and clearing refuge land on the sides of the wall for surveillance, cameras, and light towers.
> The refuge, located on the Texas-Mexico border about 10 miles southeast of McAllen in the Rio Grande Valley, is known as one of the top birding destinations in the country.
> A spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection would not confirm the plan for a wall at the wildlife refuge. But he said there have been preliminary meetings for projects specified in Trump's fiscal 2018 budget request.
> "CBP has prioritized 28 miles of new levee wall system in Rio Grande Valley, 32 new miles of border wall system in the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of replacement secondary barrier in San Diego," the spokesman, Carlos Diaz, wrote to the Observer in an email.
> A must-pass Homeland Security funding bill proposed by House Republicans this week includes $1.6 billion to fund the beginning of Trump's border wall.
> The Republican-controlled Congress did not provide new money for a border wall in a spending bill it passed in May, instead giving money for technology at the border.
> Lawmakers in both parties, especially those representing border states and districts, have questioned whether a wall is the best approach to securing the border, noting the cost and complications in securing rights to land to build on.
> 
> Source: Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...-texas-wildlife-refuge-report/article/2628751



----






Love this gal.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC

Something I think everyone can enjoy, a podcast discussion/debate between Sam Harris and Scott Adams regarding the competency and character of Donald J Trump:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/triggered


----------



## Goku

i have mixed feelings.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-national-district-attorneys-association



> *Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks to the National District Attorneys Association*
> 
> ...In addition, we hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers. With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners....


----------



## Beatles123

Iconoclast said:


> http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/prep-begins-for-border-wall-construction/35225
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love this gal.


Fuck healthcare (and those of you wanting it perfect or thinking something won't eventually pass :trump seriously. I want full repeal but if you cant understand how it may be impossible you just might be a moron.) THIS...*THIS* is what I want!


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC
> 
> Something I think everyone can enjoy, a podcast discussion/debate between Sam Harris and Scott Adams regarding the competency and character of Donald J Trump:
> 
> https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/triggered


I've listened to 1 hour so far and I recommend it to everyone, no matter what side you're on.

having listened to a bit more, sam harris is in too deep to think outside of his self-inflicted limits.


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> Fuck healthcare (and those of you wanting it perfect or thinking something won't eventually pass :trump seriously. I want full repeal but if you cant understand how it may be impossible you just might be a moron.) THIS...*THIS* is what I want!


Two years ago a full repeal bill made it to Obamas desk...it was vetoed. The Senate did not have the so-called 60 votes needed...they actually passed the legislation and went to the POTUS. It is possible because it was done. Problem is now that they own what happens some are scared and others are still remembering the promise they made. 

Sorry, this idea of it being impossible...that dog won't hunt.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

> Actress Rosie O'Donnell certainly knows how to push conservatives' buttons. And now she is drawing their ire by pushing her own button: one that makes President Trump jump off a cliff.
> 
> "Push Trump Off A Cliff Again," O'Donnell tweeted Saturday in an apparent play on Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. The tweet links to a game in which the player can, as O'Donnell says, make the president jump off a cliff, again and again.
> 
> Follow
> ROSIE ✔ @Rosie
> Push Trump Off A Cliff Again http://www.pushtrumpoffacliffagain.com/
> 11:42 AM - 15 Jul 2017
> Photo published for Push Trump Off A Cliff Again
> Push Trump Off A Cliff Again
> Take out your frustrations with President by pushing him off a virtual cliff, or into a virtual volcano.
> pushtrumpoffacliffagain.com
> 1,150 1,150 Retweets 2,730 2,730 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Conservatives expressed outrage as O'Donnell's weekend tweet came to their attention.
> 
> Sean Hannity's blog referred to the game as "gross" and "sick."
> 
> "Sadly, violence has become an acceptable form of dissent for liberals these days," said a post on Young Conservatives.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/19/rosie-odonnell-trump-cliff-game/490223001/


----------



## deepelemblues

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-national-district-attorneys-association


Jeff Sessions is not completely out of ammo yet in the DROOG WAR


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

virus21 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/19/rosie-odonnell-trump-cliff-game/490223001/


Liberals sure are mad as fuck these days. :lol


----------



## virus21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887672154413813760


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

virus21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887672154413813760


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Reaper

He's a satirist guys ... 

You guys need better filters .. or googling :lol










His last name is Middle-Eastern/Israeli and he happens to follow 786 people (786 is a number of prominence amongst Muslims). 

Seems like a very well crafted persona to me. 










:Shrug


----------



## virus21

> President Donald Trump has elected to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels fighting against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria according to U.S. officials who spoke to the Washington Post. The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later. Preceding the CIA program was a Pentagon-led effort which was criticized by Foreign Policy for costing $500 million without yielding tangible results.
> 
> Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia after Trump’s July 7 meeting with Putin at the G-20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany. It may also signal an lack of ability as well as desire by Washington to take steps to remove Assad from power in Syria. Officials told the Washington Post that Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
> 
> After the Trump-Putin meeting, the United States and Russia announced an agreement to back a new cease-fire in southwest Syria, along the Jordanian border, where many of the CIA-backed rebels have long operated. Trump described the limited cease-fire deal as one of the benefits of a constructive working relationship with Moscow. The ending of the CIA program was not a condition of the cease-fire negotiations according to officials.
> 
> The “moderate” Syrian rebel groups operating in Syria have long been criticized for their close ties to jihadist groups such as ISIS and al-Nusra. In 2015, Western media finally admitted that there were no longer any “moderate” rebel groups operating in Syria. In January 2017, Representative Tusli Gabbard returned from a visit to Syria to confirm these reports, as well as to reveal that U.S. support was effectively delivering arms to jihadist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaida, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS who are operating inside Syria. The Guardian has also reported that even the “anti-ISIS” force attempting to seize the group’s regional capital in Raqqa, Syria is mainly comprised of mercenaries who have and will fight for jihadist groups if the price is right.


http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/donald-trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-moderate-syrian-rebels/


----------



## DOPA

Iconoclast said:


> Love this gal.


Absolutely nailed it. Will have to follow her more closely (Y).

Repealing Obamacare is the last chance the US will have before being potentially dragged into the nightmare that is single payer healthcare. Don't make the same mistake we (the UK did) by being cucks and appealing to liberals :hogan.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> Absolutely nailed it. Will have to follow her more closely (Y).
> 
> Repealing Obamacare is the last chance the US will have before being potentially dragged into the nightmare that is single payer healthcare. Don't make the same mistake we (the UK did) by being cucks and appealing to liberals :hogan.


I think America simply can't have single payer because of the private insurance lobby. Single payer will kill the industry so at least that's one good aspect of the lobby (though I'd rather it does die naturally because without collusion isn't isn't sustainable at these levels).

It's also the main reason why we're stuck in this endless spiraling vortex of spiraling costs and can't seem to get out. 

Insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals have significant members of both parties in their pockets.


----------



## Reaper

McCain has brain cancer guys...

This is sad. Not kidding around.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> McCain has brain cancer guys...
> 
> This is sad. Not kidding around.


That would explain a few things. Still sad to have that happen


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> I think America simply can't have single payer because of the private insurance lobby. Single payer will kill the industry so at least that's one good aspect of the lobby (though I'd rather it does die naturally because without collusion isn't isn't sustainable at these levels).
> 
> It's also the main reason why we're stuck in this endless spiraling vortex of spiraling costs and can't seem to get out.
> 
> Insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals have significant members of both parties in their pockets.





Iconoclast said:


> McCain has brain cancer guys...
> 
> This is sad. Not kidding around.


My prayers to McCain and his family. Say what you want, he is the epitome of a true American hero. 

As for single payer in this country, one-sixth of our economy would be permanently earmarked for our healthcare. That is money that would normally go to other programs. We would have to take care of 330 million people. It wouldn't work.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> As for single payer in this country, one-sixth of our economy would be permanently earmarked for our healthcare. That is money that would normally go to other programs. We would have to take care of 330 million people. It wouldn't work.


The really sad part is that I've finally come to understand that we have ALL the problems of single-payer in terms of astronomical costs already including high tax burdens. 

Maybe it's time we sadly accepted that we have a government that is more corrupt than most western countries ... who while destroying their economies through terrible policies at least appear to give people more for their tax dollars than we get :Shrug 

Maybe I'm just feeling really pessimistic at the moment. Could do with some optimism.


----------



## CamillePunk

The bell tolls far too late for war-mongers.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Insurance for health is carved up by territory atm so they cannot really compete much. Some medical facilities only accept certain insurance so if hurt you could pay a lot out of pocket.
> 
> Basically the way it is now only a few companies get to really compete which is stupid because every other type of insurance can compete equally.
> 
> Health Care in the US is really crooked because of this, not to mention thier elaborate need for quality of equipment etc but the actual care is subpar because of the constant rising costs.





BruiserKC said:


> Won't be so simple this time. For several years, this was THE mantra of the GOP that they were going to repeal Obamacare. Senator McConnell himself said they were going to pull it out by the roots. They told us if we gave them the Senate, the House, and the White House that they would get rid of it. Of course, up until Trump came along the talk was simply repeal, the concept of "repeal and replace" is only a recent adjustment. As I said in a previous post, at this moment this is THE biggest broken promise since "Read my lips, no new taxes." When you ran on that for almost eight years with finally have everything you asked for to make this happen and you don't deliver...that's a huge problem. One of the only saving graces for the GOP is that right now the Dems are in a massive state of disarray and haven't found a clear cut message to rally around.
> 
> First of all, though...I applaud Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul for standing their ground and saving Trump from what could have been a real clusterfuck. Anyone who took the time to read what they were offering as a replacement would have known that this was not a true repeal. You basically keep the structure of the ACA but take away the mandate which was supposed to finance it. Plus, throwing billions of dollars at the insurance companies and asking them to please lower premiums was a joke as well. Lee and Paul said flat out it was not repeal and that they needed to keep their promises to the American people.
> 
> I do, however, pin blame fully on Ryan and McConnell for trying to justify to the American people this steaming pile of fecal matter (to quote the gorgeous conservative goddess Dana Loesch). Plus, while Trump wants to say that he doesn't own this...I'm sorry but he has to shoulder some of the blame. Mr. President, you need to do a better job of putting your message out there to the American people. No, I'm not talking about the rallies and the Tweets. You need to make clear what you want to accomplish, explain how it is going to be done, and what the benefits will be for us. Plus, you need to roll up your sleeves and get involved. I know people say for the most part Trump likes to be hands-off, but I think that when he needs to he gets in the middle of things when he was running the Trump business. After all, that is his name on the building and it was his bread and butter. He did some talking to leadership and some of the Congresspeople who wanted to work with him...that's not enough. During the campaign, when you calmly put your message out there on what you were looking for, that's when you got a lot of attention. Just sitting back and hoping it happens is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, when they move on to tax reform that is when he gets more involved (I think he will because that is more in his wheelhouse). But you need to do so, Mr. President. Get in the middle of the matter and get it done.
> 
> For health insurance, there has never been any true competition. My choices for insurance are the ones that my wife and mine's employers offer, or Medicaid (state insurance). Under the ACA, my premiums have tripled...where my wife works premiums have multiplied by 5. To me, competition would be allowing me to shop around for the best health insurance for me and my family...the way we can shop around for just about everything else from car insurance to homes. If you can do that, you will see costs drop sufficiently.
> 
> The market has gone up in anticipation of Trump's presidency being more business friendly. Of course they want that momentum to carry on to true tax reform. Businesses want to stay here but have left because of Obamas policies and taxation. Plus tax cuts to people means more people spend and tax cuts to businesses means they will hire more people and grow the economy that way.


How are you going to increase competition in the insurance market unless you are willing to let companies discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, which defeats the purpose of improving healthcare anyway?

Across state lines is competition is basically free-market dogma. Almost all healthcare is delivered locally. Insurance companies need to make deals with local providers to adhere to local regulations. IMO true lower costs in the local market can only be achieved if the state insurance can actually negotiate lower prices to set the price point.

Which business that wanted to stay but left due to Obama's policies? Which businesses planned to return due to the current administration's proposed policies? Both parties just paid lip service to real issues and refuse to discuss automation and the sharing economy destroying jobs that used to pay well. 

GOP getting the 60 votes to repeal only was due to posturing. They knew Obama would veto it, so there was no cost to agreeing to the vote. Now there is a real cost to their constituents, they have to think twice about it.


----------



## CamillePunk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...utin-russia-anti-assad-fighters-a7849971.html

Trump does what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail, JUST. LIKE. RUSSIA. WANTED. :lol Clowns. 

Great move by the God Emperor. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Here's the transcript of Trump's recent interview with The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html



> Trump: After that, it was fairly surprising. He [President Emmanuel Macron of France] called me and said, “I’d love to have you there and honor you in France,” having to do with Bastille Day. Plus, it’s the 100th year of the First World War. That’s big. And I said yes. I mean, I have a great relationship with him. He’s a great guy.
> 
> HABERMAN: He was very deferential to you. Very.
> 
> TRUMP: He’s a great guy. Smart. Strong. Loves holding my hand.
> 
> HABERMAN: I’ve noticed.
> 
> TRUMP: People don’t realize he loves holding my hand. And that’s good, as far as that goes.
> 
> _________
> 
> TRUMP: I mean, really. He’s a very good person. And a tough guy, but look, he has to be. I think he is going to be a terrific president of France. But he does love holding my hand.


:lmao


----------



## Alco

It's true. Macron does love holding the man's hand. I especially liked the scene where he kept holding Trump's hand while Trump was greeting en kissing his wife. Good times.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alco said:


> It's true. Macron does love holding the man's hand. I especially liked the scene where he kept holding Trump's hand while Trump was greeting en kissing his wife. Good times.


How romantic!


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> Absolutely nailed it. Will have to follow her more closely (Y).
> 
> Repealing Obamacare is the last chance the US will have before being potentially dragged into the nightmare that is single payer healthcare. Don't make the same mistake we (the UK did) by being cucks and appealing to liberals :hogan.


I'm pretty disappointing in the nonsense cuck stuff from you, I'm assuming this is satire? The formation of the NHS was a cross party creation and had absolutely nothing to do with liberals. I think you knew that and possibly just making a satirical comment?

We'll also not discuss America consistently being one of the worst health services in the developed world even before Obama while the UK sits about middling.


----------



## Goku

draykorinee said:


> I'm pretty disappointing


self rekt? :trump


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> I'm pretty disappointing in the nonsense cuck stuff from you, I'm assuming this is satire? The formation of the NHS was a cross party creation and had absolutely nothing to do with liberals. I think you knew that and possibly just making a satirical comment?
> 
> We'll also not discuss America consistently being one of the worst health services in the developed world even before Obama while the UK sits about middling.


The appealing to liberals was in reaction to how the Republicans have handled the legislation to "repeal" Obamacare :lol. I know the NHS was a cross party creation.

The US has had problems with their healthcare for decades yes, and Obamacare has made it that much worse. I've done several posts analyzing this before you ever came on to the forum.

Let's not go into the NHS again shall we? We both know what each others positions are :lol.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/charlie_gard_is_the_face_of_singlepayer.html


----------



## DesolationRow

John McCain's utterly bizarre questioning of James Comey suddenly makes a great deal of sense, after the fact.


----------



## Reaper

First official end to at least one disastrous foreign policy. Great move :clap

Now he needs to put an end to foreign aid to corrupt governments. ]

---










Don't like the "replace" bit. Just fucking repeal the damn thing.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> First official end to at least one disastrous foreign policy. Great move :clap
> 
> Now he needs to put an end to foreign aid to corrupt governments. ]
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like the "replace" bit. Just fucking repeal the damn thing.


The political environment is such that people seriously think that the country was a dystopian sci-fi novel where tens of millions were dead, dying, or living lives of total misery and despair from untreated medical conditions before Obamacare. The dystopian time of... 2009. You remember that, right? I don't know how the country survived for so long without Obamacare, things were so awful by 2009. 

Oh wait Obamacare has done literally nothing to add to Americans' life expectancy or their general level of health in 7 years and the country was not a dystopian nightmareland where tens of millions weren't receiving adequate medical services in 2009.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Been out of the loop for a few days, but evidently Teflon Don Juan:

- Told the "moderate" Syrian rebels to get fucked by cutting our funding to them
- Revealed that Macron is his bitch
- Told Congess to own up to their promise instead of being lying pieces of shit


----------



## Beatles123

This thread is so fun lately.


----------



## Draykorinee

Goku said:


> self rekt? :trump


Haha, yeah I got myself good with that one.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Haha, yeah I got myself good with that one.


it happens to all of us :mj2

except god-emperor of course :trump2


----------



## MrMister

:lmao at the Macron loves holding my hand bit :lmao



BruiserKC said:


> My prayers to McCain and his family. Say what you want, he is the epitome of a true American hero.


Not he's not. But it does suck for anyone to get malignant cancer.


----------



## Reaper

Listening to the Sam and Scott Adams podcast and it seems like Sam is absolutely incapable of fighting his own cognitive dissonance --- which to me exposes him as less of a skeptic and more of a fanatic stuck in an unchangeable position. That to me is the hallmark of the narrow minded. Not much respect here for him. (I'm about 45 minutes in right now ... may or may not listen to the rest). Sam is a total and utter retard trying to push the "can commit treason" narrative. Jesus. 

Another completely retarded statement from Sam "The fact that all of us are engaged in politics (suggests that something is deeply wrong with our society and that is caused by Trump). 

He literally said that if we're involved in discussing politics then there's something wrong with society .. WTF. 

:lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone 

Also, Scott is even smarter than I thought through his articles and tweets. The guy understands the human mind better than even the few therapists I've been with.

Jesus. Sam Harris is a fucking know nothing goof.


----------



## Miss Sally

Iconoclast said:


> Listening to the Sam and Scott Adams podcast and it seems like Sam is absolutely incapable of fighting his own cognitive dissonance --- which to me exposes him as less of a skeptic and more of a fanatic stuck in an unchangeable position. That to me is the hallmark of the narrow minded. Not much respect here for him. (I'm about 45 minutes in right now ... may or may not listen to the rest). Sam is a total and utter retard trying to push the "can commit treason" narrative. Jesus.
> 
> Another completely retarded statement from Sam "The fact that all of us are engaged in politics (suggests that something is deeply wrong with our society and that is caused by Trump).
> 
> He literally said that if we're involved in discussing politics then there's something wrong with society .. WTF.
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone
> 
> Also, Scott is even smarter than I thought through his articles and tweets. The guy understands the human mind better than even the few therapists I've been with.
> 
> Jesus. Sam Harris is a fucking know nothing goof.


If Politics were sex education, Sam would be telling people they can get pregnant by giving a guy a blowjob. He's a moron.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> Listening to the Sam and Scott Adams podcast and it seems like Sam is absolutely incapable of fighting his own cognitive dissonance --- which to me exposes him as less of a skeptic and more of a fanatic stuck in an unchangeable position. That to me is the hallmark of the narrow minded. Not much respect here for him. (I'm about 45 minutes in right now ... may or may not listen to the rest). Sam is a total and utter retard trying to push the "can commit treason" narrative. Jesus.
> 
> Another completely retarded statement from Sam "The fact that all of us are engaged in politics (suggests that something is deeply wrong with our society and that is caused by Trump).
> 
> He literally said that if we're involved in discussing politics then there's something wrong with society .. WTF.
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone
> 
> Also, Scott is even smarter than I thought through his articles and tweets. The guy understands the human mind better than even the few therapists I've been with.
> 
> Jesus. Sam Harris is a fucking know nothing goof.


the few therapists you've *been with*

have you been with them in the conventional sense, or in the tony soprano sense :cena5

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW*

*not really

pivoting to some true insanity:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/370753.php

read the whole thing, as the instapundit man would say. fucking nutso


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> the few therapists you've *been with*


My last therapist was kind of hot ... probably why he was able to fix problems his predecessors could not. I actually looked forward to our visits :banderas

---

Speaking of Healthcare. 



> OBAMACARE'S COST SAVINGS HAVE NOT MATERIALIZED
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> President Obama promised over and over that the Affordable Care Act would lower premiums for the average family by $2,500 a year. Well, numbers published this year show just how wrong he was.
> 
> The average premium sold through healthcare.gov has increased 105% in less than 4 years. That represents an annual increase of nearly $3,000 per person. The average family has therefore seen an average increase in their premiums of $6,000 or more. That's an astonishing difference from the promised SAVINGS of $2,500 per year.
> 
> Proponents of the ACA would likely point out that lower income families receive subsidies to at least partially offset these increases. But those subsidies are paid for by taxes imposed on... the average family.
> 
> Indeed, the creators of the Affordable Care Act specifically chose to impose taxes in ways that are less visible but just as impactful on tax payers. As Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was caught on video saying, “We just tax the insurance companies, who pass it on in higher prices… It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
> 
> Affordable Care Act opponents point to the cost increases as yet another reason that government should not be involved in healthcare to begin with.
> 
> NOTE: The numbers were collected from the 39 states using the healthcare.gov exchanges for individual market (i.e. not through work) policies. States that already had insurance mandates similar to those required in the ACA in effect before 2014 already had the highest premiums in the nation, and therefore had smaller premium increases between 2013 and 2017. States with freer markets for healthcare prior to the ACA saw the highest increases.
> 
> SOURCES: https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/256751/IndividualMarketPremiumChanges.pdf
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...er-topple-obamacare-113369.html#ixzz3LQTZ5TJO
> https://youtu.be/_lT4VzH5xY8
> https://youtu.be/66bgpRRSDD4


Cost of premium is averaging a 100% increase (doubling for those of you who are less mathematically inclined and more methametically inclined) across almost all states since the introduction of the biggest financial scam in American history (ok, second biggest if you count the introduction of taxes).


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Putin wat r u doin

Putin STAHP

:lmao


----------



## virus21

> What we clearly see in the focus groups is they don’t regret what they did.”
> 
> “They” are millennials of color who either didn’t vote or voted third party. And for Cornell Belcher, the president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies, who was the pollster for the Democratic National Committee under then-Chairman Howard Dean and for both of Barack Obama’s campaigns for the White House, this makes them the new swing voters the Democratic Party should be trying to win over.
> 
> Belcher came to this conclusion after conducting focus groups, commissioned by the Civic Engagement Fund, in Milwaukee and Fort Lauderdale in May. The goal was to find out why young voters who previously voted for Obama either sat out the 2016 election or voted for one of the third-party candidates. The results were sobering.
> 
> “They are so outraged at the broken politics that they see on both sides,” Belcher told me, “that they really think that them protesting their vote … makes both parties have to pay attention.”
> 
> And there is pointed ire at the Democratic Party. One participant was particularly blunt. “You’re damn right, I don’t have any loyalty to Democrats,” a person of color said in a focus group in Fort Lauderdale. “If Republicans want to get real about s--t that’s happening in my community, I would vote for every one of them. Then maybe Democrats would take us serious, too.”
> 
> The Democratic Party had better be paying attention now. When you look at the third-party vote margins in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the missed opportunity jumps off the page.
> 
> FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL SHARE
> Election Day by the numbers
> 
> While this historic election didn't bring the U.S. its first female president, there were some other firsts. Explore the results, reaction and history of Election Day 2016.
> Nicole Cvetnic and Sohail Al-Jamea McClatchy
> “They’re not necessarily Democratic voters,” Belcher told me, “but they are Obama voters.” This is an echo of what former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele told me about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton immediately after the election. “There’s no connection to her. Black folks have not had a connection to her. They’ve not had a real substantive feel for her,” Steele said. How could that be when she is the wife of the still-revered former president Bill Clinton and was the secretary of state for the beloved Obama? Steele broke it down. “If I have a connection with your friend over here in the corner through you,” he said, “it’s not the same as my connection with you.”
> 
> “We spend a lot of time talking about blue-collar white voters and Reagan Democrats. Reagan Democrats are dead,” said Belcher, who believes effort should be placed on winning back millennials of color and young progressive whites. “Bringing that coalition back together would seem to make a lot more sense to me than trying to, in fact, bring in voters who have not been voting Democrat for quite some time.”


http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article162307118.html


----------



## Neuron

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888077917007339520
Just a quick note to the pro-McCain virtue signalers. Even with the fact that he's probably going to die really soon, he's *still *playing his subversive neo-con warhawk act.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Neuron said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888077917007339520
> Just a quick note to the pro-McCain virtue signalers. Even with the fact that he's probably going to die really soon, he's *still *playing his subversive neo-con warhawk act.


it's not an act

it's what he truly believes

if you think it's just an act, well, that's how zombie john mccain is gonna get ya

he just fails to realize that in the grand scheme of things whether assad stays or goes means little to the balance of power between russia and the united states. the balance that is heavily, gargantuan-ly, humongous-ly in favor of the united states. the only area russia is a match for the united states (nuclear weaponry) is in the one area that russia can't use. 

in all other ways militarily, economically, diplomatically, they can't keep up with us. mccain can't see the forest for the trees. russia still aims to be at least equal and hopefully superior to the united states and china (and any other real or potential geopolitical rivals) in power of all kinds, but her ability to achieve those aims is greatly reduced from what it was from 1945 to the last days of 1991. 

people like mccain just want to confront russia everywhere and challenge her to a flag match. yeah that was the right way to go in 1950 but it's 2017. america is way more powerful in every way than she was in 1950 and russia in numerous non-military ways is much less powerful than she was in 1950. a competent foreign policy could hold russia down in many ways without having to be so blatant and direct about it


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> How are you going to increase competition in the insurance market unless you are willing to let companies discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, which defeats the purpose of improving healthcare anyway?
> 
> Across state lines is competition is basically free-market dogma. Almost all healthcare is delivered locally. Insurance companies need to make deals with local providers to adhere to local regulations. IMO true lower costs in the local market can only be achieved if the state insurance can actually negotiate lower prices to set the price point.
> 
> Which business that wanted to stay but left due to Obama's policies? Which businesses planned to return due to the current administration's proposed policies? Both parties just paid lip service to real issues and refuse to discuss automation and the sharing economy destroying jobs that used to pay well.
> 
> GOP getting the 60 votes to repeal only was due to posturing. They knew Obama would veto it, so there was no cost to agreeing to the vote. Now there is a real cost to their constituents, they have to think twice about it.


http://www.heritage.org/health-care...kes-the-case-market-driven-health-care-system

Good article and that makes a solid case for a market driven healthcare system. 

For companies that have pulled up shop, you have Burger King, Medtronic, and Actavis/Allergan for starters. They all pulled up their corporate headquarters from here to overseas because of much lower corporate taxes. For example...the United States corporate tax rate is about 36.5 percent. As a result of Medtronic's corporate HQ move to Ireland, they only have to deal with a tax rate of 12 percent. Carrier might still not keep most of the jobs here they were promising and take them down to Mexico...another company facing that is Mondelez (who help produce Nabisco products such as Oreos). 

Right now, the market is going well, but that will only go so far. Eventually, tax reform is needed so that we can have more money in our pockets, not to mention companies can have more money which they can hire new employees.


----------



## deepelemblues

BruiserKC said:


> http://www.heritage.org/health-care...kes-the-case-market-driven-health-care-system
> 
> Good article and that makes a solid case for a market driven healthcare system.
> 
> For companies that have pulled up shop, you have Burger King, Medtronic, and Actavis/Allergan for starters. They all pulled up their corporate headquarters from here to overseas because of much lower corporate taxes. For example...the United States corporate tax rate is about 36.5 percent. As a result of Medtronic's corporate HQ move to Ireland, they only have to deal with a tax rate of 12 percent. Carrier might still not keep most of the jobs here they were promising and take them down to Mexico...another company facing that is Mondelez (who help produce Nabisco products such as Oreos).
> 
> Right now, the market is going well, but that will only go so far. Eventually, tax reform is needed so that we can have more money in our pockets, not to mention companies can have more money which they can hire new employees.


nope what we need to do is finally admit that we're gonna add to the debt until the numbers are so insane that we can't ignore them any more

and then we're gonna welsh on a lot of it

it might take 40 or 50 or 60 years or longer but it will happen 

the major tax reform and cuts needed - just to simplify the code would be a major effort that is completely necessary and will probably never happen, it's ridiculous - can't and won't happen without simultaneous spending cuts that enable the federal government to at least get within shouting distance of the black 

the government under obama brought in record tax receipts and still added 9.3 trillion to the debt. there are very few first world governments that ever reduce spending in any meaningful way regardless of the tax situation 

spending cuts of that magnitude aren't a gonna happen 

reducing the amount of the yearly deficit to under 100 billion might push the evil day so far back that the GDP/debt ratio switches direction. assuming the economy grows which as any good classical librul knows will happen when government spends largely within its means and doesn't impose onerous taxation


----------



## Neuron

deepelemblues said:


> it's not an act
> 
> *it's what he truly believes*
> 
> if you think it's just an act, well, that's how zombie john mccain is gonna get ya


I know. I said "act" because it's a carefully organized routine. Maybe shtick would be a better word to use?


----------



## deepelemblues

Neuron said:


> I know. I said "act" because it's a carefully organized routine. Maybe shtick would be a better word to use?


i don't think it's wise to be so certain that a clear, bright dividing line (or even a broad, muddied one) exists like that in the personalities and character of some politicians

almost all politicians to a degree, find the right issue and they'll go frothing mad til the bitter end over it 

i think mccain has certainly been crafty enough to cultivate his image but he really is all-in on a lot of things especially foreign policy related. sometimes the act is the man and when it comes to those dirty ex-commies, the act is the man 

i think it's a little bit much to an expect a man who was the tortured prisoner of a government the russians were sending guns and money to hand over fist to ever like or trust the russians :draper2

which maybe means he shouldn't have been a senator maybe ever once the cold war ended (been there since 1986) 

but then again like and trust might be too strong, these are those dirty ex-commies we're talking about :hmmm


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> http://www.heritage.org/health-care...kes-the-case-market-driven-health-care-system
> 
> Good article and that makes a solid case for a market driven healthcare system.
> 
> For companies that have pulled up shop, you have Burger King, Medtronic, and Actavis/Allergan for starters. They all pulled up their corporate headquarters from here to overseas because of much lower corporate taxes. For example...the United States corporate tax rate is about 36.5 percent. As a result of Medtronic's corporate HQ move to Ireland, they only have to deal with a tax rate of 12 percent. Carrier might still not keep most of the jobs here they were promising and take them down to Mexico...another company facing that is Mondelez (who help produce Nabisco products such as Oreos).
> 
> Right now, the market is going well, but that will only go so far. Eventually, tax reform is needed so that we can have more money in our pockets, not to mention companies can have more money which they can hire new employees.


The article said why a market driven health care system is possible but use a multiple bed hospital example as economy of scale to lower barrier to entry. Sounds kind of comparing apple to oranges here. Unless the point was innovation can lower barrier of entry. :shrug

Health savings accounts is basically similar to the individual mandate, asking the individual to set aside an amount of money that could have been use in the present. At least that's how I view it. So if you are against one on principle, then you have to be against the other too.

The articles cites pros to a market driven healthcare system, but doesn't really convince how to improve competition among the insurance companies.

The effective corporate tax rate in the US is closer to 20% but still much higher than the likes of Ireland. Did they pull out of America due to Obama's policies or the pull of other countries lower tax rate? But I agree tax reform is badly needed to make it easier to file taxes. Corporations with more money might not mean new job opportunities in America. It could mean more dividends or expansion overseas. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Health savings accounts is basically similar to the individual *mandate*, *asking* the individual to set aside an amount of money that could have been use in the present. At least that's how I view it. So if you are against one on principle, then you have to be against the other too.


The mandate isn't "asking", it's a threat. Do this or we take money from you, resist our attempt to take money from you we jail you, resist being jailed we kill you. 

Personally I don't believe threats of force have any place in people's healthcare decisions.


----------



## Oxidamus

Someone give me a quick rundown on the cost of the ACA please. In Australia, taxpayers pay a Medicare levy of 2% of their taxable income. That's increasing to 2.5% soon. It doesn't cover the entirety of Medicare. The average Australian wage is something around $70,000 - $75,000 a year.

How does that compare to the ACA?

Also I think you're all greedy regardless.


----------



## Reaper

:clap


----------



## deepelemblues

The Sean Spicier twitter has just lost its cachet as the real Spice has "suddenly" resigned over Scaramucci being hired as White House communications director

RIP Sean Spicier, may you come back harder and stronger :trump2

There is only one suitable replacement in my mind-

MILO :trump3


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Spicer resigned. The Trump administration is crumbling right before our eyes :drose*


----------



## deepelemblues

Legit BOSS said:


> *Spicer resigned. The Trump administration is crumbling right before our eyes :drose*


:heston

yeah this is the end for drumpf

just like the other 50 times it was the end for drumpf but wasn't


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/s...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push



> *Sarah Huckabee Sanders Takes Over As Press Secretary*
> 
> Photo of Amber Athey
> 
> AMBER ATHEY
> 
> Sarah Huckabee Sanders was formally announced as the next White House press secretary Friday.
> 
> Huckabee Sanders has been serving as the deputy press secretary for the White House and is taking over for Sean Spicer, who resigned from the Trump administration Friday morning. .
> 
> Spicer reportedly resigned in response to President Trump’s decision to hire New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House communications director. Spicer told CNN that he wanted to give the White House a “clean slate.”
> 
> He will continue to serve as press secretary through the end of August.
> 
> Scaramucci announced Huckabee Sanders’ promotion to press secretary during Friday’s White House press briefing.
> 
> In response to concerns about conflicts with Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Scaramucci asserted, “I’m a businessman so I’m used to dealing with friction.”


I love this lady. She smart as fuck. Spicer caveman in comparison.


----------



## deepelemblues

Meanwhile totally respected and not partisan at all Mueller and his team of Democrats, apparently frustrated by their inability to find any evidence of :trump campaign-Russia collusion, are now on your typical 'independent counsel' 'special prosecutor' fishing trip wanting to take a gander at :trump business records and :trump family financials. If I were :trump I'd give him until Halloween to produce something and if he doesn't then he's fired. Enough of this bullshit is enough. They got nothing, they're not gonna get anything because there's nothing to get, having these political witch hunts drag on indefinitely is a disgrace. And that is clearly what they want to do, drag it on for years despite a total failure to find anything in the 2 months since Mueller was appointed and in the 11 months the FBI was investigating prior to that appointment. The Deep State has been desperately trying to find something for 13 months, they haven't found anything, just how long should an investigation that doesn't find jack shit run? How long does it take to do such an investigation? Forever, apparently. When you realize the point is not to find evidence, it is to provide fuel for rumor and innuendo and smearmongering. The same way the investigation of the Valerie Plame 'leak' never found any evidence of any of the allegations leveled at the Bush Administration, yet it went on and on and on forever providing innuendo headlines about the iniquities of the Administration that didn't exist.


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *Spicer resigned. The Trump administration is crumbling right before our eyes :drose*


And you're not even wanting to talk about it :lmao


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888355973945053184

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888473664903151616
The state has no business banning the free travel of Americans ... even if it is to a shithole like NK. It's an adult decision that only has consequences to the individual himself. No third party is being harmed by someone traveling to North Korea. 

Can't believe that Ted Cruz who is so pro-liberty otherwise fails to see the federal overreach in this decision.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888355973945053184
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888473664903151616
> The state has no business banning the free travel of Americans ... even if it is to a shithole like NK. It's an adult decision that only has consequences to the individual himself. No third party is being harmed by someone traveling to North Korea.
> 
> Can't believe that Ted Cruz who is so pro-liberty otherwise fails to see the federal overreach in this decision.


Because people's stupidity usually causes a fucking headache for the government because when one of these retards goes there, we get shat on because we did nothing.
Besides, NK could become a warzone at any moment, so probably a good idea to ban travel there


----------



## Draykorinee

I'll miss Spicer, he was a disaster and it made for some great laughs.

I actually think its wise to ban travel to North Korea.


----------



## deepelemblues

It is the government's duty to try to help its citizens abroad. When some American goes to North Korea and gets kidnapped by their weirdo government guess what our tax dollars and our prestige have to be spent trying to save him or her because otherwise our government and we the people both look like total bitches even when everybody knows from the start that it's all pointless if the weirdo Pyongyang government decides it doesn't wanna listen. 

Better to just say you can't fucking go to North Korea and not have to deal with all that nonsense and also it will probably prevent at least a few Americans from getting kidnapped and tortured.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> *I'll miss Spicer, he was a disaster and it made for some great laughs.*
> 
> I actually think its wise to ban travel to North Korea.












McCarthy's "Radical Moose Lambs" line will never get old for me because of how she busted out Lamb Chop the sheep puppet when she said it. :lol I also love using it as a disproportionately cutesy jab towards any dirty, ass-backwards, goat-fucking Islamists. :sk

I'm mixed on the ban toward NK, though: I agree with @Iconoclast on that it's federal overreach, yet when you factor in how Lil' Kim's spaztastic reign lead to Otto Warmbier dying at such a young age, I can see the reasoning behind Trump enacting this ban.


----------



## Miss Sally

The NK ban is good because if tensions keep rising, Kim may nab any American citizens he can and use them as pawns and make for a really difficult situation.


----------



## rzombie1988

Miss Sally said:


> The NK ban is good because if tensions keep rising, Kim may nab any American citizens he can and use them as pawns and make for a really difficult situation.


Yep all so some goof can get himself in trouble in a country that hates the US. 

If you are going to NK right now, you are asking for trouble. And the US is tired of bailing you out of it.


----------



## Reaper

Not a fan of nanny states. 

You all have valid points of you accept that the state is responsible for deciding what adults can and cannot do in just about every area too...

But it's not something I'm concerned with too much.


----------



## rzombie1988

Iconoclast said:


> Not a fan of nanny states.
> 
> You all have valid points of you accept that the state is responsible for deciding what adults can and cannot do in just about every area too...
> 
> But it's not something I'm concerned with too much.


Unfortunately, actions have to be taken when people think it's a good idea to go to a place that wants to nuke us.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888355973945053184
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888473664903151616
> The state has no business banning the free travel of Americans ... even if it is to a shithole like NK. It's an adult decision that only has consequences to the individual himself. No third party is being harmed by someone traveling to North Korea.
> 
> Can't believe that Ted Cruz who is so pro-liberty otherwise fails to see the federal overreach in this decision.


We know what the government there is all about in North Korea. Why should any of our money go to add to their coffers? Granted, 99% are smart enough to steer clear of that hellhole of a nation. But, if we complain as much as we do about the government there, I personally am OK with none of our dollars going to help them whatsoever.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous 

Stefan Molyneux delivers a fiery speech on the Alex Jones Show on the importance of fighting globalism in this crucial moment of history:


----------



## Draykorinee

Alex Jones show lol.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> Not a fan of nanny states.
> 
> You all have valid points *of you accept that the state is responsible for deciding what adults can and cannot do in just about every area too...*
> 
> But it's not something I'm concerned with too much.


well that's nonsense, don't be butthurt and act like butthurt regressives do because of it



draykorinee said:


> Alex Jones show lol.


i know right, i don't get the fascination with that fucking weirdo and his satanist illuminati reptile lizard alien obsession which he has only stopped talking about to get more mainstream appeal in the age of :trump


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> well that's nonsense, don't be butthurt and act like butthurt regressives do because of it


Nothing here refutes what I said. Stop being statist sheep. 

See how much of a productive discussion we just had. Good stuff.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Stefan Molyneux delivers a fiery speech on the Alex Jones Show on the importance of fighting globalism in this crucial moment of history:


I'm not an economist and I don't intend to ever have kids, but after reading on how Keynes had such a negative perception on the notion of someone saving too much money, I'd tell him to eat shit if I had the chance to meet him when he was still alive.


----------



## DOPA

Not mad at Spicer's departure to be honest as he was pretty embarrassing. I think that's something that remarkably will get close to a 100% agreement in this thread which is rare :lol.

I have to agree with @Iconoclast on the issue of the North Korea ban. On principle, the government shouldn't restrict an individuals decision to travel to foreign countries, even if it is volatile like North Korea. If you can justify NK, then it leads to other countries potentially in the future being added through the same justification and I'd rather not have a government tell me where I can and cannot travel to. It is federal overreach no matter how you look at it or justify it.

Not that I think many people would want to travel there but that is besides the point. I don't particularly want to see money going to North Korea either but if some nutcase for some reason wants to travel there then what business is it of mine to tell him no?

@CamillePunk @AryaDark @Goku @Miss Sally @DesolationRow

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet but: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/world/middleeast/cia-arming-syrian-rebels.html



> President Trump has ended the clandestine American program to provide arms and supplies to Syrian rebel groups, American officials said, a recognition that the effort was failing and that the administration has given up hope of helping to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> The decision came more than a month ago, the officials said, by which time the effort to deliver the arms had slowed to a trickle.
> 
> It was never publicly announced, just as the beginnings of the program four years ago were officially a secret, authorized by President Barack Obama through a “finding” that permitted the C.I.A. to conduct a deniable program. News of the troublesome program soon leaked out.
> 
> It joins similar failed efforts to deliver arms and money to groups seeking to overthrow governments that Washington found noxious, most famously the Kennedy administration’s disastrous effort to do away with the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba.
> 
> The White House had no comment. But the decision is bound to be welcomed by the Russians, whose military has backed Mr. Assad’s government and relentlessly attacked some of the rebel groups that the United States was supplying, under the guise of helping to eradicate terrorists.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> The Trump White House
> The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
> Congress Reaches Deal on Russia Sanctions, Creating Tough Choice for Trump
> JUL 22
> Trump’s Attack on Russia Inquiry Is From Familiar Playbook: The Clintons’
> JUL 22
> Trump Says He Has ‘Complete Power’ to Pardon
> JUL 22
> The Latest Voice at the Lectern: An Effusive New Yorker
> JUL 21
> Trump’s Virginia Golf Outings Leave Paddlers High, Dry and Angry
> JUL 21
> See More »
> 
> On Tuesday, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, charged that the United States had helped destabilize the region, and portrayed Iran as merely defending its interests. Washington, instead, views Iran’s aid to the Assad government as part of an effort to restore itself as a major regional power.
> 
> From the start, there were doubts that arming disorganized, often internally fractious forces would succeed. Officials in the Obama administration conceded that there was no way to predict the future loyalties of those who received American arms, despite a lengthy vetting process. That problem — getting the weapons into the right hands and assuring they were not passed on to others and used against American troops or allies — plagued the effort soon after it was proposed by Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state, and David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time.
> 
> Mr. Trump’s decision was first reported by The Washington Post. But it was foreshadowed as early as April, when the Trump administration said that ousting Mr. Assad, whose government has fought a civil war that has taken roughly half a million lives, was no longer a priority. Instead, the United States and Russia have been discussing cease-fire zones in the country, the first of which went into effect this month.
> 
> Those discussions have been possible because Mr. Assad, secure in his support from Moscow and Tehran, no longer sees a fundamental threat to his ability to remain in power. And Mr. Trump’s decisions amounted to an acknowledgment that no escalation of the program, which began in 2013 in concert with the C.I.A.’s counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, was likely to yield a different result.
> 
> When it began, the initial objective was to force Mr. Assad to the bargaining table, in a series of negotiations that the secretary of state at the time, John Kerry, took up in earnest in late 2015. But each agreement — for cease-fires, and deadlines for a political “road map” for elections in the country — fizzled. Mr. Kerry fumed that Mr. Obama was not willing to provide the kind of military pressure on Mr. Assad that might bolster the diplomacy. Mr. Obama, for his part, was leery of entering another Middle East war whose outcome he could neither control nor predict.
> 
> The program became less relevant as the Russians increased their presence in Syria, targeting and badly weakening the C.I.A.-backed rebels, who were the most capable of the opposition fighters. That helped the Assad government claw back and consolidate territorial gains.
> 
> “This is a big deal, but it’s been a long time coming,” Charles Lister, a Syria analyst for the Middle East Institute in Washington, said. “It’s the biggest indication so far of the administration’s having given up on the opposition.”
> 
> “After all, the Southern Front has consistently been our most reliable anti-Assad partner,” Mr. Lister said, referring to opposition forces fighting Mr. Assad in the southern part of the country. “It’s also the result of strong Jordanian pressure, as Amman has been pushing a freeze for a long time. So it was probably inevitable, but it’s nonetheless very significant.’’
> 
> He added that it was “a big mistake in my mind.”
> 
> Other independent experts said it was unclear whether Mr. Trump’s decision would have an impact on fighters defending areas held by the opposition.
> 
> At its height, the program was run through operations rooms in Jordan and Turkey, supporting rebel groups fighting under the banner of the Free Syrian Army who were deemed not to be extremists.
> 
> But the pressure on Mr. Assad was not great enough to force him to enter negotiations to end the civil war. Nor was it sufficient to clear the way for the rebel groups to take over major cities or approach the capital, Damascus. The program also sought to bolster so-called moderate rebels against extremist factions like the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda.
> 
> When the history of the effort is written — and the documents surrounding it are declassified — historians will doubtless seek to learn why the rebels lost ground for years, to Syrian government forces and their Russian and Iranian allies, and to extremists.
> 
> After the rebels’ expulsion from the eastern half of the city of Aleppo last year, it became clear that they no longer posed a serious threat to Mr. Assad’s rule.
> 
> But stopping the covert program, which mainly helped rebels near the Turkish border in northwestern Syrian and along the Jordanian border in the south, will not affect the fight against the jihadists of the Islamic State in the east. A different program there run by the Pentagon is supporting a Kurdish-Arab militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces.


For me personally, this is the biggest political win thus far in the Trump era. I've talked about this issue for years and finally it seems as though the retarded policy of arming the Syrian rebels is coming to an end. Remember that this would have never happened under Hillary Clinton and we wouldn't be talking about cease fires either. This confirms to me that in foreign policy terms, Trump at least as it stands was indeed both in rhetoric and practice the far better candidate.

In other news:










To quote Rand Paul again: *"If we're going to be Democrat Lite, what's the point? WHY BOTHER?!"*

If only some RINO's understood this...


----------



## Beatles123

Hey @Iconoclast

'Member how Hussein rose to power?

'Member how he had those who didn't stand against him labeled traitors after a (((CONFESSION))) of a plot against him by all the men around him in that room, and ordered them shot while smoking a victorious cigar?

Is it bad that I would love to see this happen to the washington elite, minus the murder part? 

:trump needs to start naming names on this healthcare thing and end a few careers. Time to go from :trump to :trump4


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

L-DOPA said:


> I don't know if anyone has posted this yet but: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/world/middleeast/cia-arming-syrian-rebels.html
> 
> 
> 
> For me personally, this is the biggest political win thus far in the Trump era. I've talked about this issue for years and finally it seems as though the retarded policy of arming the Syrian rebels is coming to an end. Remember that this would have never happened under Hillary Clinton and we wouldn't be talking about cease fires either. This confirms to me that in foreign policy terms, Trump at least as it stands was indeed both in rhetoric and practice the far better candidate.
> 
> In other news:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Rand Paul again: *"If we're going to be Democrat Lite, what's the point? WHY BOTHER?!"*
> 
> If only some RINO's understood this...


The "moderate" Syrian rebels essentially being told by the Trump administration to get fucked was posted a few pages ago, but I'm not complaining at all in regard to seeing it posted again, since it's definitely one of the biggest accomplishments that the administration has achieved.

:trump2

And :tucky at BASED Paul once again reaming out the assholes of republicans that are showing themselves to be nothing more than snake oil salesmen. I really hope that he and Trump continue to build a bridge of like-mindedness with each other so that they can get more shit done.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> Hey @Iconoclast
> 
> 'Member how Hussein rose to power?
> 
> 'Member how he had those who didn't stand against him labeled traitors after a (((CONFESSION))) of a plot against him by all the men around him in that room, and ordered them shot while smoking a victorious cigar?
> 
> Is it bad that I would love to see this happen to the washington elite, minus the murder part?
> 
> :trump needs to start naming names on this healthcare thing and end a few careers. Time to go from :trump to :trump4


Party over country. Great idea there kid.


----------



## DesolationRow

:trump ending the insane anti-Assad program in Syria! :woo :clap


----------



## Vic Capri

In the Ex Parte Garland case of 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has full power to pardon anyone, either before, during or after prosecution.

So theoretically, a US President could pardon himself, but it would make him look guilty as Hell and it would be a legal shit storm of epic proportions. :lol

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> Not mad at Spicer's departure to be honest as he was pretty embarrassing. I think that's something that remarkably will get close to a 100% agreement in this thread which is rare :lol.
> 
> I have to agree with @Iconoclast on the issue of the North Korea ban. On principle, the government shouldn't restrict an individuals decision to travel to foreign countries, even if it is volatile like North Korea. If you can justify NK, then it leads to other countries potentially in the future being added through the same justification and I'd rather not have a government tell me where I can and cannot travel to. It is federal overreach no matter how you look at it or justify it.
> 
> Not that I think many people would want to travel there but that is besides the point. I don't particularly want to see money going to North Korea either but if some nutcase for some reason wants to travel there then what business is it of mine to tell him no?
> 
> 
> In other news:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Rand Paul again: *"If we're going to be Democrat Lite, what's the point? WHY BOTHER?!"*
> 
> If only some RINO's understood this...


Spicer was an idiot. You need someone up there that is cool, calm, and composed. At least we see that to an extent with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, she seems like she wants to be up there. Spicer appeared to be and acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there. Although, it's interesting to have Scaramucci now being the one to lay the agenda out as communications director considering he was not a Trump fan and has gone out of his way to delete all those tweets from the past. 

For North Korea, I am perfectly on board with this. For years, I have made the argument that a way to really slash the budget deficit could be to take this money that we put into nations that have openly hostile governments toward us and put that money elsewhere. Now, I know there are certain nations that may not like things we do and have concerns but I'm more focusing on nations like North Korea and Iran that we know have governments that openly hate us. Yet, they have no problem with taking our money, or taking the money of tourists that come there to spend. 

We can go a long way towards solving that problem by cutting ALL ties to them, financially and otherwise. If we have an embassy there, close it and call our ambassador and their staff home. If they have an embassy here, we are kicking out everyone there and shutting it down. American businesses with offices there are closed immediately. Hopefully, it would be joined by other nations that have the same issues towards that government. Any financial aid to those countries...those purse strings are cut off. That would go to the idea that they don't get our tourists and the money we spend there either. They don't want anything to do with us, they can have their wish. No money, no relations, nothing. Then, we can handle our business with these nations knowing that we have no monetary stake to fuck things up potentially. 

As for Rand Paul and other GOP members...I will address that to WF's #1 Trump fan...




Beatles123 said:


> Hey @Iconoclast
> 
> 'Member how Hussein rose to power?
> 
> 'Member how he had those who didn't stand against him labeled traitors after a (((CONFESSION))) of a plot against him by all the men around him in that room, and ordered them shot while smoking a victorious cigar?
> 
> Is it bad that I would love to see this happen to the washington elite, minus the murder part?
> 
> :trump needs to start naming names on this healthcare thing and end a few careers. Time to go from :trump to :trump4


McConnell is doing just that with the vote on Tuesday...he wants to know who is onboard with repeal and who is not and why. Putting the whole thing to a vote means putting your name on it and then we know who is who. 

Now...before you throw the baby out with the bathwater...keep in mind that some of them are set against the current legislation being discussed because they don't do what was promised. These bills are not a true repeal of Obamacare and I have stated here the reasons why they clearly are not. Folks like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz should be applauded for actually standing for their principles and wanting to do their damnedest to keep their promises to the American people. They understand that the AHCA and the BCRA are complete garbage and don't actually do what they are supposed to do. 

Yet, you have a certain number of idiots out there that are completely clueless and just automatically scream out, "THESE FUCKERS ARE AGAINST TRUMP! THEY WON'T JUST GO ALONG! KILL THEM ALL! 'MURRICA!" Meanwhile, with all that is going on right now with the Russia stuff (I think most of it is trash but maybe this could have all blown over if Trump and his son had just kept their mouths shut and Tweets to themselves), Trump seems to want a victory just for the sake of victory. That is a huge mistake, one that if these abominations were to be conferenced in between the House and Senate and become law, would come back to bite them bigly. Obamacare was pushed through in a panic just to tell the world that Obama got a huge win by the promise of health insurance for everyone. Seven years later, look at how that has turned out. If they push this through just so that he can sign the legislation and say that the beast is dead (when in fact it is still on life support somewhere and in a vegetative state), then within a few years we will be in the same position we are now and maybe worse. 


Yes, our healthcare system needs a massive overhaul, but this doesn't do it. I fully understand that the window is closing before people suddenly decide the only other option is single-payer. That would create permanent damage to the Republic. We have the opportunity to stop this, but at the same time we need to do this right. Trump needs to stop tweeting out multiple positions on this (3 different stances in 18 hours), have the backs of those who have supported him up to this point (Regardless of how people feel Sessions handled the Russia recusal, etc...the fact that Trump is considering firing one of his most loyal supporters and his tweets of the replacement ACA bills being "too mean" probably has some other GOP leadership wonder if he will fully support them in this endeavor), and really get involved and hands-on regarding this whole thing. Here is a column of CNBC talking to Mary Jo Jacobi, currently an executive with Shell and former member of both the Reagan and Bush administration...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/trum...a-on-health-care-former-reagan-aide-says.html

Many of us old-school conservatives know our shit. We're not in this game just to be cool or to pick up hot conservative chicks.  

If Trump takes the time to work on this in the way he no doubt would on a huge deal for his own company, he can have something that he (and the American people) can be proud of. Then, we can hopefully kill the idea once and for all of single-payer in this country. But, we have to take the courage to do this. Most importantly, we have to actually do it. 

Plus, we need to listen to those who are against what they have now. For some, they want to keep their promise of repeal. For others, they want to keep the promise Trump made of replacing it with something better. Trump needs to be willing to accept that people are going to disagree with them but still have his best interests. Branding them traitors now, at this stage in the game, will make all the other stuff he wants to do that much more difficult. It will send the message that Trump will throw anyone under the bus. Yes, by all means hold leadership accountable, but to just sacrifice someone because they say no is not a good idea. 

Hopefully, Trump got the message when Rand Paul and Mike Lee stood up and basically said, "Mr. President, there isn't enough lipstick to put on this pig to purty it up."


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Many of us old-school conservatives know our shit. We're not in this game just to be cool or to pick up hot conservative chicks.


Yeah, but I don't see many old timers walking around with ugly chicks either. 

Ya'all love them hot conservative babes as well. Stop denying reality just 'cuz you want to stand apart from the tribe, brother.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah, but I don't see many old timers walking around with ugly chicks either.
> 
> Ya'all love them hot conservative babes as well. Stop denying reality just 'cuz you want to stand apart from the tribe, brother.


I love hot babes period. As for the hot conservative ones, give me Dana Loesch or Bre Payton (writer for the Federalist and fill in host for the Tipping Point on OAN). I would have to be careful with Loesch as she owns guns and would not be afraid to use them. :lol

I appreciate those who have crossed over to the conservative side of the aisle. Just remember that just because you cross over doesn't mean bringing ideas like border tariffs and job killers like mandatory paid family leave. Leave those at the door.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams said in a periscope yesterday that to him, the Scaramucci hiring is a signal that Trump is going in a forward-thinking, technology-focused direction for healthcare. Sounds like wishful thinking but it'd sure be nice.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Just remember that just because you cross over doesn't mean bringing ideas like border tariffs and job killers like mandatory paid family leave. Leave those at the door.


It's not the conservatives that are bringing in these ideas based on anything I've seen. 

New conservatives are closer to minarchists than Ivanka. Ivanka's politics are bad and disagreeable.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Party over country. Great idea there kid.


These assholes are not for "Country". They're out for themselves. Everyone talks about corrupt politicians, and you'd scoff at me for wanting them exposed?

You have no nuts.


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> Spicer was an idiot. You need someone up there that is cool, calm, and composed. At least we see that to an extent with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, she seems like she wants to be up there. Spicer appeared to be and acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there. Although, it's interesting to have Scaramucci now being the one to lay the agenda out as communications director considering he was not a Trump fan and has gone out of his way to delete all those tweets from the past.
> 
> For North Korea, I am perfectly on board with this. For years, I have made the argument that a way to really slash the budget deficit could be to take this money that we put into nations that have openly hostile governments toward us and put that money elsewhere. Now, I know there are certain nations that may not like things we do and have concerns but I'm more focusing on nations like North Korea and Iran that we know have governments that openly hate us. Yet, they have no problem with taking our money, or taking the money of tourists that come there to spend.
> 
> We can go a long way towards solving that problem by cutting ALL ties to them, financially and otherwise. If we have an embassy there, close it and call our ambassador and their staff home. If they have an embassy here, we are kicking out everyone there and shutting it down. American businesses with offices there are closed immediately. Hopefully, it would be joined by other nations that have the same issues towards that government. Any financial aid to those countries...those purse strings are cut off. That would go to the idea that they don't get our tourists and the money we spend there either. They don't want anything to do with us, they can have their wish. No money, no relations, nothing. Then, we can handle our business with these nations knowing that we have no monetary stake to fuck things up potentially.
> 
> As for Rand Paul and other GOP members...I will address that to WF's #1 Trump fan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell is doing just that with the vote on Tuesday...he wants to know who is onboard with repeal and who is not and why. Putting the whole thing to a vote means putting your name on it and then we know who is who.
> 
> Now...before you throw the baby out with the bathwater...keep in mind that some of them are set against the current legislation being discussed because they don't do what was promised. These bills are not a true repeal of Obamacare and I have stated here the reasons why they clearly are not. Folks like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz should be applauded for actually standing for their principles and wanting to do their damnedest to keep their promises to the American people. They understand that the AHCA and the BCRA are complete garbage and don't actually do what they are supposed to do.
> 
> Yet, you have a certain number of idiots out there that are completely clueless and just automatically scream out, "THESE FUCKERS ARE AGAINST TRUMP! THEY WON'T JUST GO ALONG! KILL THEM ALL! 'MURRICA!" Meanwhile, with all that is going on right now with the Russia stuff (I think most of it is trash but maybe this could have all blown over if Trump and his son had just kept their mouths shut and Tweets to themselves), Trump seems to want a victory just for the sake of victory. That is a huge mistake, one that if these abominations were to be conferenced in between the House and Senate and become law, would come back to bite them bigly. Obamacare was pushed through in a panic just to tell the world that Obama got a huge win by the promise of health insurance for everyone. Seven years later, look at how that has turned out. If they push this through just so that he can sign the legislation and say that the beast is dead (when in fact it is still on life support somewhere and in a vegetative state), then within a few years we will be in the same position we are now and maybe worse.
> 
> 
> Yes, our healthcare system needs a massive overhaul, but this doesn't do it. I fully understand that the window is closing before people suddenly decide the only other option is single-payer. That would create permanent damage to the Republic. We have the opportunity to stop this, but at the same time we need to do this right. Trump needs to stop tweeting out multiple positions on this (3 different stances in 18 hours), have the backs of those who have supported him up to this point (Regardless of how people feel Sessions handled the Russia recusal, etc...the fact that Trump is considering firing one of his most loyal supporters and his tweets of the replacement ACA bills being "too mean" probably has some other GOP leadership wonder if he will fully support them in this endeavor), and really get involved and hands-on regarding this whole thing. Here is a column of CNBC talking to Mary Jo Jacobi, currently an executive with Shell and former member of both the Reagan and Bush administration...
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/trum...a-on-health-care-former-reagan-aide-says.html
> 
> Many of us old-school conservatives know our shit. We're not in this game just to be cool or to pick up hot conservative chicks.
> 
> If Trump takes the time to work on this in the way he no doubt would on a huge deal for his own company, he can have something that he (and the American people) can be proud of. Then, we can hopefully kill the idea once and for all of single-payer in this country. But, we have to take the courage to do this. Most importantly, we have to actually do it.
> 
> Plus, we need to listen to those who are against what they have now. For some, they want to keep their promise of repeal. For others, they want to keep the promise Trump made of replacing it with something better. Trump needs to be willing to accept that people are going to disagree with them but still have his best interests. Branding them traitors now, at this stage in the game, will make all the other stuff he wants to do that much more difficult. It will send the message that Trump will throw anyone under the bus. Yes, by all means hold leadership accountable, but to just sacrifice someone because they say no is not a good idea.
> 
> Hopefully, Trump got the message when Rand Paul and Mike Lee stood up and basically said, "Mr. President, there isn't enough lipstick to put on this pig to purty it up."


You need to drop the number one trump fan shit. You're starting to sound patronizing. How many times must I debunk this with you?


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> You need to drop the number one trump fan shit. You're starting to sound patronizing. How many times must I debunk this with you?


For one, you are the only Trump backer to seemingly never show disapproval of anything he does. For eight years we had to put up with the nonsense of people telling us to support everything Obama did. I have zero interest in the shit coming from the right for at least the next four. I have had to smack down people at sites like Newsmax and Breitbart where fuckwads think any criticism of Trump is deserving of being sent to a reeducation camp. This concept of everyone that opposes the garbage the ACA repeal bills are traitors is ridiculous. 

I told you I want to support him but my criticism still stands. He is a man not a god (either big or small g). We have little margin for error here if there is the chance to get America on the right track. So forgive me if I plan to hold him accountable for what happens.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> These assholes are not for "Country". They're out for themselves. Everyone talks about corrupt politicians, and you'd scoff at me for wanting them exposed?
> 
> You have no nuts.


The fact that you relate disagreeing with Trump with corruption shows you are the one that has no nuts. :lmao

Whine about executive orders under the previous administrations, now wishing for Trump to ruin careers just for disagreeing with him. I guess power-adjacent corrupted you so you think everyone else will be corrupt just like you. :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

Vic Capri said:


> In the Ex Parte Garland case of 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has full power to pardon anyone, either before, during or after prosecution.
> 
> So theoretically, a US President could pardon himself, but it would make him look guilty as Hell and it would be a legal shit storm of epic proportions. :lol
> 
> - Vic


My understanding is Garland doesn't look at whether the President could pardon themselves, and when Nixon sought official justice department legal adivce back in the day they said he couldn't, but using old English common law principles. 

My reading of the text in the constitution itself is that he could. 

However, it wouldn't save him from impeachment and he can be impeached for things done before or after taking the Presidency. And it would have no effect on state crimes and indeed could and would be used as admission of guilt in the state courts.

Also the act of pardoning himself could be considered obstruction of justice and hence a crime in and off itself.

So basically if Trump tried to pardon himself it isn't 100% clear the Supreme Court wouldn't say he couldn't in line with the official government advice on the issue, and even if he was successful he's still screwimg himself anyway. 

My favorite thing about Trumps presidency is the unbelievably stupid shit we get to discuss because he is so corrupt and insane.


----------



## Reaper

Interesting but incredibly deceptive framing of the recent narrative for delusional leftist. It's like they've got a completely separate movie playing that has absolutely nothing to do with reality at all. 

Instead of even _pretending _to _attempt _to prove that there has ever been _any _wrong-doing at all, now they've got the sheep talking about whether Trump can pardon himself. Talk about skipping a whole bunch of steps in order to maintain this mass delusion of wrong-doing. :lmao 

Love this thread sometimes. 

Of course, this post is going to go down as another _hostile _attempt to be _unwelcoming _to those outside our right-wing circle jerk. But seriously, the kind of conversations the left engages in, they're making things hostile for themselves ... don't blame us when we call out the BS :Shrug


----------



## virus21




----------



## GothicBohemian

Iconoclast said:


> Interesting but incredibly deceptive framing of the recent narrative for delusional leftist. It's like they've got a completely separate movie playing that has absolutely nothing to do with reality at all.
> 
> Instead of even _pretending _to _attempt _to prove that there has ever been _any _wrong-doing at all, now they've got the sheep talking about whether Trump can pardon himself. Talk about skipping a whole bunch of steps in order to maintain this mass delusion of wrong-doing. :lmao
> 
> Love this thread sometimes.
> 
> *Of course, this post is going to go down as another hostile attempt to be unwelcoming to those outside our right-wing circle jerk. But seriously, the kind of conversations the left engages in, they're making things hostile for themselves ... don't blame us when we call out the BS* :Shrug


Ok, since I'm a known "delusional leftist": 

I just want to be clear that I did *not* complain to admins or mods about this thread or anyone involved with it, nor did I ask for moderator intervention. As best as I know, no one has. I won't deny having shared my disappointment about how aggressive the dialogue has become, but I've never had this conversation with forum staff. In fact, I explicitly said - though again, not to staff - that I had no problem with WF taking a hard turn to the right politically***.

Do I feel welcome here? No, I don't but that's my problem and no one else's. WF is not for me anymore but that doesn't mean it's broken. You folks should be able to interact however you wish. If staff is issuing warnings outside the previously stated rules then that needs to stop, imo. 



*** _I'm a socialist woman of mixed racial heritage who lives in a more or less socialist country; I'm not invested in Trump or American libertarian movements and I sure as hell don't want to engage in aggressive, constant debates with folks about right-wing populism, nationalism, feminism, racism and xenophobia. I joined WF to talk about wrestling, and maybe enjoy some lite banter in rants or chat about entertainment and news topics, not to defend my political and cultural viewpoint in every damn thread. But here's the thing - rather than be a whiny bitch about it I found other places to visit online. Whoever's complaining, it wasn't me and I don't support it._


----------



## Reaper

I wasn't implying that this had anything to do with the mods btw. The mods of the Anything section are probably the best we could hope for on any site. Most tolerant pair I've witnessed on any site actually. :mj 

It's mostly whining in the cbox about what goes on in the anything section ... mostly without even reading the full contents of the thousands of posts in here.


----------



## CamillePunk

Did I miss something? When was there talk about someone having complained about this thread to staff?


----------



## Reaper

I think Gothic misread my post to mean something it didn't. 

For me it was just banter about how people whine in cbox sometimes about the general "nature" of things in the Anything section.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well I'd say the Anything forum does lean toward a right-wing circle jerk, even if most of the posters are more centrist. The social justice stuff tends to make right wing death squad initiates of even the most even-keeled sensible person. That's fine. Most places in the US and online don't lean to the American right. 

I actually do consider myself intolerant of socialists for what it's worth. :draper2 They want to use the violence of the state to control many aspects of my life that I'm not willing to surrender my autonomy on, and implicitly accept the right of the state to take my life if I don't comply. I'm intolerant of a socialist like a rape victim is intolerant of their rapist, or a murder victim is of their murderer. I'm not going to be shamed out of what I consider to be a virtuous intolerance. :lol


----------



## Reaper

The interesting thing here is that almost every leftist on here has at least at one point trotted out "right-wing, extremist, racist, science denier, sexist, islamophobe, uncaring, lacking in empathy " etc etc without once realizing just how much that language in and of itself is problematic in their own circles. 

The desire to not post in what is assumed to be a right wing circle jerk implies that the space is unsafe or unworthy so the obvious resultant action to this disdain for this space is to seek a space that's more welcoming and comfortable .... ergo a leftist circle jerk. But to them, right wing circle jerks are bad. Actually, to leftists I've noticed everything people now do that disagrees with their vision for this world are just monsters and they have to be monsters to oppose their humane views, right? You can't be empathic and want the best for someone else without sharing the same political ideology on how to acheive it because their solution is the only right solution. 

I think the left no longer recognizes the fact that these words have lost all meaning in the new world and this generation is immune to the labels because these labels simply do not fit. 

Ironically, we disagree in here on some major, major issues. Almost none of us are conventional right wingers. We have neocons, anti-statists, anarchists and right wing statists trying to agree with one another and more often than not disagree on the core issues ... but of course, we're a right wing circle jerk. It doesn't compute. The labeling does not fit the general vibe of this thread in particular.


----------



## CamillePunk

Iconoclast said:


> Ironically, we disagree in here on some major, major issues. Almost none of us are conventional right wingers. We have neocons, anti-statists, anarchists and right wing statists trying to agree with one another and more often than not disagree on the core issues ... but of course, we're a right wing circle jerk. It doesn't compute. The labeling does not fit the general vibe of this thread in particular.


Don't forget about the _true conservatives! _ @BruiserKC 8*D


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> For one, you are the only Trump backer to seemingly never show disapproval of anything he does. For eight years we had to put up with the nonsense of people telling us to support everything Obama did. I have zero interest in the shit coming from the right for at least the next four. I have had to smack down people at sites like Newsmax and Breitbart where fuckwads think any criticism of Trump is deserving of being sent to a reeducation camp. This concept of everyone that opposes the garbage the ACA repeal bills are traitors is ridiculous.
> 
> I told you I want to support him but my criticism still stands. He is a man not a god (either big or small g). We have little margin for error here if there is the chance to get America on the right track. So forgive me if I plan to hold him accountable for what happens.


How many times must we have this conversation? Either you're blatantly ignoring my issues with Trump or trolling me now.

Hell, Im arguing one of them with Tofu right now, are you not seeing this?


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Don't forget about the _true conservatives! _ @BruiserKC 8*D


I'm too cool to be a _true _conservative :cool2


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> The fact that you relate disagreeing with Trump with corruption shows you are the one that has no nuts. :lmao
> 
> Whine about executive orders under the previous administrations, now wishing for Trump to ruin careers just for disagreeing with him. I guess power-adjacent corrupted you so you think everyone else will be corrupt just like you. :lmao


way to be completely wrong there. The establisgment are being corrupted not for disagreeing with Trump but refusing to even work with one another. The people halting progress on this need to be made known to the public.


----------



## Draykorinee

The right wing circle jerk is pretty much the most fitting description for the anything section. I mean, have you seen how often you guys just like each others posts or mention each other? The only reason I bother is because I enjoy the challenge, but only in small doses.


----------



## MrMister

No one has complained to me about anyone in Anything.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

MrMister said:


> No one has complained to me about anyone in Anything.


Nor me.

What is fascinating about these "circle jerks" is that not too long before the :trump2 era began, this section leaned more towards the opposite end of the spectrum. Now the pendulum has swung towards the "right" if you will, especially after Brexit and Trump's victory.

Almost as if said victories gave those supporters a voice. Interesting, for not too long ago, they were the voices that were ridiculed in the section so to speak by those on the opposite side. Now those same voices believe they are the ones being stifled. If you can debate, debate. No one is being stifled for their opinion. None of us are going to stop anyone unless they break the rules and go too far. :shrug

I'm not making any judgments on what "sides" people fall on, whether right, left, or in between. Just don't break the rules, no matter what "side" you belong to. That's it. No rules being broken, no fouls. The rules may be stretched a bit because I know that these kind of threads beget passion, sometimes aggressive passion, but we all know where the line is drawn.


----------



## MickDX

I believe the problem with the section is that a small group of posters are dominating every thread and they are very aggressive when someone has a opinion against one of the members. They are supporting each other, mention each other and make sure they alienate every other person. Forums are supposed to be friendly not some propaganda machine. The rest of the forum is much more casual. I don't have anything against mods or that group. I'm not a leftist even though I don't like some of Trump's policies. I actually hate the socialists who are ruling my country, they are ruining it with their dumb policies.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't know, I was around in political threads for years before Trump came onto the scene and don't remember feeling like it was left-wing dominated. Filthy statist-dominated yes, but not necessarily lefty. :mj



MickDX said:


> I believe the problem with the section is that a small group of posters are dominating every thread and they are very aggressive when someone has a opinion against one of the members. They are supporting each other, mention each other and make sure they alienate every other person.


I don't think any of this is true. :lol


----------



## Reaper

I'm down with the equal redistribution of likes and mentions if it so pleases you socialists. :mj4


----------



## MickDX

Iconoclast said:


> I'm down with the equal redistribution of likes and mentions if it so pleases you socialists. :mj4


Of course I'm a socialist, a leftist and I love the islamic people, right? That's just because you felt yourself included in what I said. Even though I just said I don't support socialists. And you said that people accused you of being right-wing, please quote me when I said that about you. And when I said something about likes? Supporting each other doesn't mean likes for me, I was talking about being too aggressive. If someone makes a comment against one of you, immediately someone is on fire. This is just my observations in the last 2 months.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm none too fussed by likes or dislikes, I get enough validation just from knowing I'm morally and intellectually superior to right wingers


----------



## Reaper

@draykorinee and @MickDX - I don't think you're really socialists for what it's worth.

Oh and I feel no embarrassment in claiming that I'm so far on the right that I don't think even Trumpism comes close to addressing most of how far on the right I am. 

It's just unfortunate that being libertarian means that you're pretty much squarely on the left on most social issues though - especially because of the live and late live caveat.

But honestly, at this point I am getting to the point of wanting to sympathize with Neo-Nazi over Berkley liberals as a result of seeing one group's violence dwarfed by the other. 

I am on the left on many, many issues, but I hate the left on their stance on the vast majority of issues. 

Split personalities :Shrug


----------



## MickDX

Iconoclast said:


> @draykorinee and @MickDX - I don't think you're really socialists for what it's worth.
> 
> Oh and I feel no embarrassment in claiming that I'm so far on the right that I don't think even Trumpism comes close to addressing most of how far on the right I am.
> 
> It's just unfortunate that being libertarian means that you're pretty much squarely on the left on most social issues though - especially because of the live and late live caveat.
> 
> But honestly, at this point I am getting to the point of wanting to sympathize with Neo-Nazi over Berkley liberals as a result of seeing one group's violence dwarfed by the other.
> 
> I am on the left on many, many issues, but I hate the left on their stance on the vast majority of issues.


As I said I don't have anything against you and the others. You made a lot of valid opinions and you even changed my opinion is some matters regarding Trump. Still I believe USA can do better than Trump. He is no saint or savior and I'm worried because he acts so childish sometimes.

The left with their recent dumb protests at Hamburg really get on my nerves. I'm center-right myself and I tolerate almost anyone except for lazy socialists who are waiting for money from the government.


----------



## Reaper

MickDX said:


> As I said I don't have anything against you and the others.


Oh. I know. Honestly even if you did, at this point it no longer bothers me. 

When you leave a religion like Islam and have your own siblings use that to abuse you every time it strikes their fancy, you develop an iron-like exterior that becomes impervious to any strangers' view of you. You just keep chugging along. You become the crusader to their saracen. You scream Deus Vult when they scream Allah Akbar. 



> You made a lot of valid opinions and you even changed my opinion is some matters regarding Trump. Still I believe USA can do better than Trump. He is no saint or savior and I'm worried because he acts so childish sometimes.


He's not a savior or a saint, but he's not a sinner or the devil either. 

Trumpism however as a whole is a very unique ideology that should not be dismissed simply because the President says mean or even contradictory things ... It's not a perfect ideology, but it's a better set of policies than both the Republicans and Democrats are pushing. 

Trump is an independent that rose to power. This is why the left and right both oppose him - this is why he's so fascinating to me. He also didn't become republican after he became president either and that to me shows a strength of character that's uniquely his. 

As critics the basis for criticism however has to be valid and ... let's just say I'm more optimistic in my analysis of Trump and his behavior than anti-Trumpers. Sometimes, some of the critiques are completely bogus and also aggressive so the response is equally aggressive. Sometimes we go on the offensive .. It's just how debates work. 



> The left with their recent dumb protests at Hamburg really get on my nerves. I'm center-right myself and I tolerate almost anyone except for lazy socialists who are waiting for money from the government.


The other problem is that the left has been free of criticism for many of their ideas for far too long and so because of lack of aggressive criticism of their ideas they've started believing that their ideas are right ... 

The left created the anti-left. The left created people like me and there are more being created every day. The more you (the metaphorical you) call me selfish, racist, bigot, sexist, Islamophobe (despite giving money away to three kids for their education, marrying a white girl, taking care of the house while she has a better career than me and having family that are muslims), the stronger I become because the shit ass words being used to describe me (and people like me) simply do not fit .. 

And since they do not fit, all it does is remind me that the person talking to me is an ignorant ass not worthy of any respect for _any _of their ideas.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> way to be completely wrong there. The establisgment are being corrupted not for disagreeing with Trump but refusing to even work with one another. The people halting progress on this need to be made known to the public.


It isn't why they are corrupt that is wrong. It is your belief that disagreeing with Trump is what 'exposed' them as corrupt that is hilariously dumb.

Have you been living under a rock all these years about the congress about GOP halting progress to win votes? You almost sound like Trump here projecting your ignorance unto 'the public'. "Nobody knew healthcare would be this difficult" :lmao "People halting progress on this need to be made known to the public"
:lmao

I know this isn't the way to convince the likes of you in a discussion, but it's been 2 years. If you are still trapped in his cult of personality, then you are a joke and not worth the effort. Leave the adult discussion to the likes of Bruiser m'kay?



draykorinee said:


> The right wing circle jerk is pretty much the most fitting description for the anything section. I mean, have you seen how often you guys just like each others posts or mention each other? The only reason I bother is because I enjoy the challenge, but only in small doses.


Ring wing circle jerk seem to offend these snowflakes. (hope I don't get another warning for this :lol) The more correct term should be anti-leftist circle jerk. The last few posts suggest most of them suffer from some form of victimhood when just a few post above they use the similar derogatory terms on people on the other side of the isle. :lol


----------



## DOPA

In response to the right wing circle jerk accusations:






.


----------



## Reaper

:ha :ha :ha 

Another one bites the dust. 

And another one

And another one

And another one

And another one 

:lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone

500k for prostitutes and spreading fake news :wow


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889617883466153985
:lol


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Don't forget about the _true conservatives! _ @BruiserKC 8*D





Iconoclast said:


> I'm too cool to be a _true _conservative :cool2


Hey, I was conservative when conservatism wasn't cool. The concept of conservatism has a great message...the idea of limited government and individual freedoms is a beautiful thing. What has sucked is the people that have been running the show on the right have for years done a shitty job of putting that message out there. 

We won't see eye to eye all the time, but rest assured we want the same thing. I will still be honest and call it as I see it. When he does a good job, I will applaud. When he is off a little, I will point it out. If he is WAY off, I'm howling from the mountain tops. Just have the grace to remember that I will not play the game of moral ambiguity. That is something folks like the Clintons do. As I have stated in previous posts...if Trump is to do the job, unfortunately based on where we are he doesn't have much room for error. So it is very important to make sure he is accountable...and just because I don't always agree don't send me to those Agenda 21esque re-education camps. Some of you are new to this side of the aisle, I have been at this a long time and do know what I'm talking about (even though sometimes you think I'm full of shit.) I won't steer you wrong, and I won't piss down your leg and tell you it's raining.  




Beatles123 said:


> How many times must we have this conversation? Either you're blatantly ignoring my issues with Trump or trolling me now.
> 
> Hell, Im arguing one of them with Tofu right now, are you not seeing this?


Dude, I am not trolling you. I don't have the chops to be a good troll...not my style. I have no problem with the idea of seeing where people are when it comes to their votes so we know where they stand. After all...this is THE number one reason that for years the GOP has been put in control. But...some of them have very legitimate reasons for not voting for the repeal of Obamacare. 

For one...the trash they have tried to pass is not repeal...not anywhere even close to the vicinity of repeal. If we are going to get this right, we have to commit to a true full repeal of the ACA so that we have a clean slate to start over. So...that's why folks like Rand Paul and Mike Lee are saying if this doesn't do what we have promised for years, we ain't doing this. Meanwhile...the replace part (which is really late in the game) is the concern of Senators like Collins, Heller, and Murkowski. The whole thing is being rushed through piecemeal just so that Trump has something to sign and say, "I DID IT! I REPEALED OBAMACARE!" IIRC, the biggest complaint about the ACA was it was forced through and was done too quickly. He is in such a hurry for a victory that he is in danger of making the same mistake. If this doesn't prove to be much better, the moderates aren't going to be on board with this. 

Trump should actually be thanking these Senators, not chastising them for actually holding to their principles. Yes, I get all of the "drain the swamp" stuff...I understand the frustration. I have been talking about for years how much the shit in Washington needs to change. At the same time, many of these same people who want to work with him have serious questions on whether he will reciprocate. In 2013...Trump put out this Tweet regarding leadership...*“Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible."* It's as true back then as it always has been...it is very important to show leadership at this point. 

Again, it boils down to this...you are among those who have cheered him on, but have never once shown me that you are seriously holding him accountable. At least folks like @Iconoclast and @CamillePunk have expressed disappointment at some point along the way, they at least will be willing at times to say when he goes off the reservation. To you, it's everyone else's fault all the time that Trump doesn't get stuff done. To an extent, there is a lot of pushback...but at the end of the day it is on him whether he succeeds or not. All I heard from people like you here and across other right-wing sites like WND, Breitbart, Newsmax, Conservative Review, Daily Wire, etc...is that if Hillary Clinton became President that it was curtains. So, it stands to reason that if we have a chance to get things right...then we need to make sure he receives honest feedback and not be cheerleaders shaking our pom-poms and cheering him on. It is our duty, it is our obligation, it is our prerogative to do so. I am hard on my leaders...always have been, always will be. 

It may piss you off, but you know I'm right on this one. Either he gets the job done and we turn this country back on the path the Founding Fathers intended...or he does a collective shit in his pants and four years from now it goes back to the Democrats...only this time the progressives and the far left have shoved semi-centrists like Schumer aside. You think things are bad now...just wait. 

Stop being triggered...the future of the Republic is at stake and now is the time to get serious about this. 

Dear God...I'm getting as bad as Gandhi with my walls of post.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Hey, I was conservative when conservatism wasn't cool.


Perhaps there's a causation there. 8*D


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Perhaps there's a causation there. 8*D


I'd prefer to think that you have all come to the correct answer in life. :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889617883466153985
> :lol


A Daily Show bit under Trevor Noah's tenure that's actually funny? What sorcery is this?!?


----------



## Goku




----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> It isn't why they are corrupt that is wrong. It is your belief that disagreeing with Trump is what 'exposed' them as corrupt that is hilariously dumb.
> 
> Have you been living under a rock all these years about the congress about GOP halting progress to win votes? You almost sound like Trump here projecting your ignorance unto 'the public'. "Nobody knew healthcare would be this difficult" :lmao "People halting progress on this need to be made known to the public"
> :lmao
> 
> I know this isn't the way to convince the likes of you in a discussion, but it's been 2 years. If you are still trapped in his cult of personality, then you are a joke and not worth the effort. Leave the adult discussion to the likes of Bruiser m'kay?
> 
> 
> 
> Ring wing circle jerk seem to offend these snowflakes. (hope I don't get another warning for this :lol) The more correct term should be anti-leftist circle jerk. The last few posts suggest most of them suffer from some form of victimhood when just a few post above they use the similar derogatory terms on people on the other side of the isle. :lol


The left and the right tend to argue in very similar fashion you're correct. It's why I lean more and more to the centre after every pathetic social justice attempt or every other left wing hissy fit. I saw Dawkins banned from talking at a radio station because of his 'offensive' comments about Islam, first thing I did was bitch about how the left is getting regressive.
You can hate Trump and not be some liberazi. 
And if you see offense or victimhood in any of my posts you're not reading correctly.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Iconoclast said:


> :ha :ha :ha
> 
> Another one bites the dust.
> 
> And another one
> 
> And another one
> 
> And another one
> 
> And another one
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone
> 
> 500k for prostitutes and spreading fake news :wow


Snopes left wing?

They have debunked and or shown others exaggerating plenty of negative stories about Trump and Republicans in the past


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Here is one from last month where they called out media sites lying

http://www.snopes.com/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> The left and the right tend to argue in very similar fashion you're correct. It's why I lean more and more to the centre after every pathetic social justice attempt or every other left wing hissy fit. I saw Dawkins banned from talking at a radio station because of his 'offensive' comments about Islam, first thing I did was bitch about how the left is getting regressive.
> You can hate Trump and not be some liberazi.
> And if you see offense or victimhood in any of my posts you're not reading correctly.


I was referring to the victimhood displayed by the circle jerking posters around here. Not you.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Here is one from last month where they called out media sites lying
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/


They just need to switch to a poorly lit webcam youtube show format where they debunk the MSM and Liberals, then the team here will love them.


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> They just need to switch to a poorly lit webcam youtube show format where they debunk the MSM and Liberals, then the team here will love them.


If you appeal to your viewers for patreon donations, you are 'real' journalism unlike corporate media that are beholden to corporate money.

At least that's what youtube personalities and their cult keep telling me.


----------



## Miss Sally

Iconoclast said:


> The interesting thing here is that almost every leftist on here has at least at one point trotted out "right-wing, extremist, racist, science denier, sexist, islamophobe, uncaring, lacking in empathy " etc etc without once realizing just how much that language in and of itself is problematic in their own circles.
> 
> The desire to not post in what is assumed to be a right wing circle jerk implies that the space is unsafe or unworthy so the obvious resultant action to this disdain for this space is to seek a space that's more welcoming and comfortable .... ergo a leftist circle jerk. But to them, right wing circle jerks are bad. Actually, to leftists I've noticed everything people now do that disagrees with their vision for this world are just monsters and they have to be monsters to oppose their humane views, right? You can't be empathic and want the best for someone else without sharing the same political ideology on how to acheive it because their solution is the only right solution.
> 
> I think the left no longer recognizes the fact that these words have lost all meaning in the new world and this generation is immune to the labels because these labels simply do not fit.
> 
> Ironically, we disagree in here on some major, major issues. Almost none of us are conventional right wingers. We have neocons, anti-statists, anarchists and right wing statists trying to agree with one another and more often than not disagree on the core issues ... but of course, we're a right wing circle jerk. It doesn't compute. The labeling does not fit the general vibe of this thread in particular.


Really what it boils down to is the "Left" here rarely has any valid points or anything to debate, it's mostly feels, name calling and conspiracy bullshit. Come with some facts and actual talking points and we can have a discussion.

There have been plenty of posters like Arya, Tater, BoHo, Anark, Headliner and even Drayk who have shown up and made some valid points and had good debates. Obviously some are less likely to debate and that's okay. 

I'm sure if Hillary or if Bernie won this area would look a little different. I'm sure it will when the next elections come by. 

Frankly I don't care who posts in this area, though I find the "sticking together and liking each other's comments" funny because the same few posters here on the left all like each other's posts. Pot meet kettle. 

:laugh:


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Snopes left wing?
> 
> They have debunked and or shown others exaggerating plenty of negative stories about Trump and Republicans in the past


Yes. Since they hired a self proclaimed liberal, they introduced a significant amount of bias where they spent time defending every single negative liberal story in op eds than actual fact checking. Especially and mainly during the elections where it was actually important for them not to have a bias. They didn't have many stories by Dan at that point when it was that libtard girl doing all the "fact-checking". 

Check everything by libtard Kim Lacapria. 

But liberals don't ever see their own bias so I don't expect you guys to get it. Your cult is sickeningly brainwashed.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Really what it boils down to is the "Left" here rarely has any valid points or anything to debate, it's mostly feels, name calling and conspiracy bullshit. Come with some facts and actual talking points and we can have a discussion.
> 
> There have been plenty of posters like Arya, Tater, BoHo, Anark, Headliner and even Drayk who have shown up and made some valid points and had good debates. Obviously some are less likely to debate and that's okay.
> 
> I'm sure if Hillary or if Bernie won this area would look a little different. I'm sure it will when the next elections come by.
> 
> Frankly I don't care who posts in this area, though I find the "sticking together and liking each other's comments" funny because the same few posters here on the left all like each other's posts. Pot meet kettle.
> 
> [emoji23]


You have a significantly low standard for what you consider valid points from the left because I feel like you come at this from the point of view of a peacekeeper ... I personally don't care about peace or mutual understanding or any of that stuff when I know that someone is completely and utterly wrong about something. :shrug 

No offense to you intended at all.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trumpton going to a boy scouts jamboree and making it about himself. No surprise there. Had the audacity to critique Obama for not going in person, Obama was a boy scout, Trump wasn't.

Not sure why he thinks its appropriate to use that particular platform to politic.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Trumpton going to a boy scouts jamboree and making it about himself. No surprise there. Had the audacity to critique Obama for not going in person, Obama was a boy scout, Trump wasn't.
> 
> Not sure why he thinks its appropriate to use that particular platform to politic.


So petty. You sound like a child who's upset that someone's daddy at show and tell said things you didn't like. Technically, I can also claim Obama was like that absent daddy who didn't ever deem the boy scouts worthy enough to grace with his presence. You know the kind of deadbeat dad that says he's there but never shows up? 

On other note, given the unchallenged socialist and liberal brainwashing that takes place in schools by a hugely partisan faculty, I'm happy that Trump established a counter narrative in the face of all that brainwashing. Generation Z deserve to hear the counter-narrative to liberal politics and if they're getting it from the current father of conservatism (whether I agree with all of it or not) then they're getting to hear a side of politics they're usually shielded from in favor of liberal politics.

But then, Trump is literally hitler and he is creating an army of hitler youth. So I guess the future is so shcarryy...


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump Youth. :trump 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889790429398528000
He's not wrong. :draper2 All I hear about from Jeff Sessions these days is drug war nonsense. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889800510106107904
:lmao The absolute madman. Twitter geeks are accusing him now of "using his child as a pawn".  I remember when the left had a sense of humor.


----------



## Reaper

For Tulsi Gabbard fans: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889703669360455681
I'm still not a believer, but by and far she is the most rational vocal Democrat these days.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi looking so fine there. :kobe6

Also agree with everything she said etc


----------



## Headliner

Dray


Iconoclast said:


> So petty. You sound like a child who's upset that someone's daddy at show and tell said things you didn't like. Technically, I can also claim Obama was like that absent daddy who didn't ever deem the boy scouts worthy enough to grace with his presence. You know the kind of deadbeat dad that says he's there but never shows up?
> 
> On other note, given the unchallenged socialist and liberal brainwashing that takes place in schools by a hugely partisan faculty, I'm happy that Trump established a counter narrative in the face of all that brainwashing. Generation Z deserve to hear the counter-narrative to liberal politics and if they're getting it from the current father of conservatism (whether I agree with all of it or not) then they're getting to hear a side of politics they're usually shielded from in favor of liberal politics.
> 
> But then, Trump is literally hitler and he is creating an army of hitler youth. So I guess the future is so shcarryy...


Dray isn't wrong. Trump had no business talking about how great he is, crowd sizes, fake news and polls to the fucking boy scouts or any professional event for that manner.

He's the fucking President. Stop giving him passes for acting and talking like a 10 year old.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Dray
> Dray isn't wrong. Trump had no business talking about how great he is, crowd sizes, fake news and polls to the fucking boy scouts or any professional event for that manner.
> 
> He's the fucking President. Stop giving him passes for acting and talking like a 10 year old.


Or maybe the tables have turned and you guys are literally doing what the conservatives used to do whenever Obama gave speeches and conflated the crap out of what was actually said. 

We don't have to like either Trump or Obama, but at some point we have to retain perspective and not become the very thing we're criticizing. 

I already said that I don't agree with all of what Trump said or even believes in. Why are you ignoring that to frame my response as full apologia for everything Trump said. My quip about Obama being a deadbeat was also simply an extreme conflation to establish a deliberately created negative narrative - with the point being that the left has basically become the same type of whiny conservative that they have disdain for.


----------



## wagnergrad96

What an absolute POS this man is - to give a political speech to 12-year-olds and get them to boo a former president. Complete scum bag move - but who's surprised? Every day is a new low from this buffoon.


----------



## Reaper

Here's an article from 2009 where the tables were literally reversed. Conservatives were whining about Obama's speech and Liberals were defending him:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html



> Many conservatives enraged over Obama school speech
> 
> (CNN) -- The White House found itself on the defensive Friday over what would ordinarily be considered the most uncontroversial of events: a back-to-school speech to the nation's children.
> 
> The White House says President Obama's address next week to schoolchildren isn't a policy speech.
> The White House says President Obama's address next week to schoolchildren isn't a policy speech.
> 
> The White House said the address, set for Tuesday, and accompanying suggested lesson plans are simply meant to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.
> 
> Many conservative parents aren't buying it. They're convinced the president is going to use the opportunity to press a partisan political agenda on impressionable young minds.
> 
> "Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me," suburban Colorado mother Shanneen Barron told CNN Denver affiliate KMGH. "I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now." Video Watch how some parents are upset »
> 
> School administrators are caught in the middle of the controversy. Some have decided to show the president's speech, while others will not. Many, such as Wellesley, Massachusetts, superintendent Bella Wong, are deciding on a class-by-class basis, leaving the decision in the hands of individual teachers.
> 
> "The president of the United States has asked us to facilitate his outreach to students. And in that vein, we have decided to honor the request," Wong told CNN. "We'll trust in his judgment."
> 
> Republican leaders have not shied away from the debate. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible contender for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, said Friday the classroom is no place to show a video address from Obama. Video Watch the debate over the president's speech »
> 
> "At a minimum it's disruptive. Number two, it's uninvited. And number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's school children," he told reporters at the Minnesota State fair.
> 
> Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer released a statement this week accusing Obama of using taxpayer money to "indoctrinate" children.
> 
> Don't Miss
> Poll: GOP makes gains but still trails Democrats
> President to focus on health care specifics, Biden says
> Year-round schools get mixed grades
> "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.
> 
> "The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans ... is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power." Video Watch why some conservatives are angered by Obama's school speech »
> 
> Nonsense, the White House replied.
> 
> "The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate," an administration spokesman said. "This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."
> 
> White House officials noted that Obama's speech, which will be available for anyone to view on the Web on Monday, is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington D.C., school in the fall of 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard.
> 
> In November 1988, President Ronald Reagan delivered more politically charged remarks that were made available to students nationwide. Among other things, Reagan called taxes "such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper ... because they have to give so much to the government."
> 
> Charles Saylors, president of the national Parent Teacher Association, said the uproar over Obama's speech is "sad."
> 
> "The president of the United States, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to have a presentation and have a pep talk, if you will, to America's students," he told CNN.
> 
> Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan created by the Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."
> 
> The letters "would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," the plan stated.
> 
> After pressure from conservatives, the White House said that the plan was not artfully worded, and distributed a revised version encouraging students to write letters about how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
> 
> A number of the president's critics, however, were not placated.
> 
> "As far as I'm concerned this is not civics education -- it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell, a Republican.
> 
> White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the whole dispute Friday as part of "the silly season."
> 
> The administration, while acknowledging it made a mistake with the initial lesson plan, has been frustrated by the controversy, said CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry.
> 
> It was a much different atmosphere when Bush made similar remarks 18 years ago, Henry noted.
> 
> "Let's face it. You didn't really have blogs. You didn't have as many cable networks out there as you do now," Henry said. "I think people just sort of take something and blow it out of proportion in this environment right now."
> 
> The controversy is the latest example of how sharply polarized political debate has become.
> 
> "Ninety percent of Americans who identify with the president's party approve of him, but 85 percent of those who belong to the opposition party disapprove," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
> 
> "In that kind of environment, almost nothing Obama does is immune from politics."


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> Or maybe the tables have turned and you guys are literally doing what the conservatives used to do whenever Obama gave speeches and conflated the crap out of what was actually said.
> 
> We don't have to like either Trump or Obama, but at some point we have to retain perspective and not become the very thing we're criticizing.
> 
> I already said that I don't agree with all of what Trump said or even believes in. Why are you ignoring that to frame my response as full apologia for everything Trump said. My quip about Obama being a deadbeat was also simply an extreme conflation to establish a deliberately created negative narrative - with the point being that the left has basically become the same type of whiny conservative that they have disdain for.


This has nothing to do with Obama. Nice typical right wing spin by bringing up Obama. This is not a left wing or right wing thing.

This has everything to do Trump and the prestige of the Presidency. When I grew up, Reagan Republicans and adults period told me and many others how eloquent, intelligent, prestigious. etc the President and his office is. A role model for all children. Trump is NYC trash and the worst kind of role model yet his behavior is ok to some white apologist Republicans because he's white.

When Clinton fucked up with Monica in the 90's he was shit on for disrespecting the decency of the Presidency and what it stood for. He deserved it. Trump does this shit almost every day whether he's randomly attacking Hilary, Obama or his own staff. It's fucking pathetic and every single person who supports this shit from the President of the US is a piece of shit. No excuses.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> This has nothing to do with Obama. Nice typical right wing spin by bringing up Obama. This is not a left wing or right wing thing.


I already established why I bring up Obama - and yes, it's fair game to bring up other presidents. 



> This has everything to do Trump and the prestige of the Presidency. When I grew up, Reagan Republicans and adults period told me and many others how eloquent, intelligent, prestigious. etc the President and his office is. A role model for all children. Trump is NYC trash and the worst kind of role model yet his behavior is ok to some white apologist Republicans because he's white.


It's ok to have different types of role-models ... and it's ok to compare presidents since you're doing it now too. Interesting that I can't do it, but you can :hmmm 

If he's not a good role model then kids are smart enough to decide that for themselves. 



> When Clinton fucked up with Monica in the 90's he was shit on for disrespecting the decency of the Presidency and what it stood for. He deserved it. Trump does this shit almost every day whether he's randomly attacking Hilary, Obama or his own staff. It's fucking pathetic and every single person who supports this shit from the President of the US is a piece of shit. No excuses.


Diddling interns and cheating on your wife in the Oval office is as bad as saying mean things about political opponents on twitter? I'll shit on him when he's actually caught cheating or doing some terrible things. So far all he's done is said mean things about people he doesn't like. To me, it's not that big of a deal. I'm more concerned with policies. 

I just think that shitting on Trump for saying certain things in front of children is petty.


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> I already established why I bring up Obama - and yes, it's fair game to bring up other presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok to have different types of role-models ... and it's ok to compare presidents since you're doing it now too. Interesting that I can't do it, but you can :hmmm
> 
> If he's not a good role model then kids are smart enough to decide that for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Diddling interns and cheating on your wife in the Oval office is as bad as saying mean things about political opponents on twitter? I'll shit on him when he's actually caught cheating or doing some terrible things. So far all he's done is said mean things about people he doesn't like. To me, it's not that big of a deal. I'm more concerned with policies.
> 
> I just think that shitting on Trump for saying certain things in front of children is petty.


This is pathetic dude. Your mental gymnastics on this is embarrassing.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> This is pathetic dude. Your mental gymnastics on this is embarrassing.


If you don't want to carry on then so be it, but you should award someone the courtesy of at least trying to refute their points - none of which are apologia for Trump or even attacks on other presidents. I've openly critizied Trump when I've deemed it necessary. I just don't engage in petty vilifying based on things I don't like about someone's personality. 

Oh well. Not much gained or lost here. This went mostly as expected. 

----


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> If you don't want to carry on then so be it, but you should award someone the courtesy of at least trying to refute their points - none of which are apologia for Trump or even attacks on other presidents. I've openly critizied Trump when I've deemed it necessary. I just don't engage in petty vilifying based on things I don't like about someone's personality.
> 
> Oh well. Not much gained or lost here. This went mostly as expected.
> 
> ----


What is there to refute? The fact that you are basically trying to justify his behavior and put blame and responsibility on other people? Kids are highly influential. Not all of them are able to just choose someone else. And that line about different role models in order to duck his behavior is bullshit.

Again, pathetic sympathizer bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> What is there to refute? The fact that you are basically trying to justify his behavior and put blame and responsibility on other people? Kids are highly influential. Not all of them are able to just choose someone else. And that line about different role models in order to duck his behavior is bullshit.
> 
> Again, pathetic sympathizer bullshit.


Clearly you didn't even read what I said nor are willing to budge from your position. 

I don't see his behavior as bad. I don't agree with what he said. I don't see it has bad as you but that's not the same as justifying his behavior. 

Also, you didn't understand the part about role models at all. People have different views of what's a good role model in society and has long as Trump doesn't do some criminal shit like act in a violent manner or push an incredibly harmful policy position, I don't see much reason to engage in petty vilifying over mean tweets.


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> Clearly you didn't even read what I said nor are willing to budge from your position.
> 
> I don't see his behavior as bad. I don't agree with what he said. I don't see it has bad as you but that's not the same as justifying his behavior.
> 
> Also, you didn't understand the part about role models at all. People have different views of what's a good role model in society and has long as Trump doesn't do some criminal shit like act in a violent manner or push an incredibly harmful policy position, I don't see much reason to engage in petty vilifying over mean tweets.


Nah I read it clearly.

Answer this question yes or no. No political spin or foolishness. Considering what the office of the Presidency is suppose to represent from a human decency standpoint, do you support Trump's behavior and conduct. Yes or no.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> Here's an article from 2009 where the tables were literally reversed. Conservatives were whining about Obama's speech and Liberals were defending him:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html


tWhat are you on, in your example They were whining about him actually speaking at a school, they were not whining about the content because he hadnt even done it, its even worse because they didn't even give him a chance.
Trumps speech was very clearly a political speech, the fact you're conflating the two is embarrassing. Your example is so far removed from the actual problem which is Trump using a Scouts Jamboree to politic, I have zero issues with Trump going and talking at schools, at Jamborees, he can even come to Friday night magic if he wants. Thats not the issue, its that he used the opportunity to not only politic, but to denegrate a previous President. 

Fucking apples and orangees mate.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Nah I read it clearly.
> 
> Answer this question yes or no. No political spin or foolishness. Considering what the office of the Presidency is suppose to represent from a human decency standpoint, do you support Trump's behavior and conduct. Yes or no.


Everything that argues against your stance isn't "spin". :kobe

Don't use words of convenience in order to shirk from having to justify your positions while forcing the person you're talking to to do the same all time.

That's just a defensive tactic, it's not an argument. 

Not to me it doesn't. No spin. No bullshit. Given the context of the current political climate I don't mind a President punching verbally and being offensive. 

For me it's not an issue as I've said half a dozen times already. I care about policies, not character. Vilifying someone's character is petty.



draykorinee said:


> tWhat are you on, in your example They were whining about him actually speaking at a school, they were not whining about the content because he hadnt even done it, its even worse because they didn't even give him a chance.
> Trumps speech was very clearly a political speech, the fact you're conflating the two is embarrassing. Your example is so far removed from the actual problem which is Trump using a Scouts Jamboree to politic, I have zero issues with Trump going and talking at schools, at Jamborees, he can even come to Friday night magic if he wants. Thats not the issue, its that he used the opportunity to not only politic, but to denegrate a previous President.
> 
> Fucking apples and orangees mate.


Get off your phone when you want to respond with a wall of text :lol 

The fear was the same so it's not apples and oranges. Obama was criticized in advance because of the same fear of him potentially using the platform to speak partisan politics. Trump is being vilified after he spoke. As I've already said, I don't agree with all that he said .. I don't even have to like his personality. 

ANd his "denegrating of Obama" was simply him asking "Did he come to a Jamboree?". Some of the kids booed on their own ... Yeah, that's a joke and apparently kids have a sense of humor ... Wow. What a concept. Something you guys have completely and utterly lost in this day and age. Apparently cracking jokes at the expense of your predecessors now is a vile and horrible thing to do. 

But again, I guess since Trump is Hitler, he was just pandering to Hitler Youth and creating Trump's Army of future Death Eaters.


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

Iconoclast said:


> If he's not a good role model then kids are smart enough to decide that for themselves.


I'm not sure if you have children, but that's just not true. Maybe for children up until a certain age. For the most part, garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Reaper

WalkingInMemphis said:


> I'm not sure if you have children, but that's just not true. Maybe for children up until a certain age. For the most part, garbage in, garbage out.


Yeah ... because exposure is so bad for kids and OMG if they ever make mistakes and gain life experience by following bad role models :lol

This of course is assuming that Trump is a bad role model which I don't think he is in the first place. He has certain glaring personality flaws, but in the grand scheme of things the Boy Scouts are going to be exposed to much much much worse. 

I have been around 6 kids including a teen. I was also one myself. So this "have you been around kids" crap is shite.


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

Iconoclast said:


> Yeah ... because exposure is so bad for kids and OMG if they ever make mistakes and gain life experience by following bad role models :lol
> 
> This of course is assuming that Trump is a bad role model which I don't think he is in the first place. He has certain glaring personality flaws, but in the grand scheme of things the Boy Scouts are going to be exposed to much much much worse.
> 
> I have been around 6 kids including a teen. I was also one myself. So this "have you been around kids" crap is shite.


I'm glad you have "been around 6 kids". I'm currently raising 3 girls. "Being around" and raising children are apples and oranges, but oh well...glad you find this so amusing. LOL to your heart's content.

I'm certainly no saint, but if I can keep my girls on the straight and narrow by not having them follow trash examples, then so be it. I got enough shit to deal with in bad examples of adults they might personally know. Now, I have to deal with the toddler-in-chief? Whatever.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> Get off your phone when you want to respond with a wall of text :lol


I'm on my laptop though 



> The fear was the same so it's not apples and oranges. Obama was criticized in advance because of the same fear of him potentially using the platform to speak partisan politics. Trump is being vilified after he spoke. As I've already said, I don't agree with all that he said .. I don't even have to like his personality.
> 
> ANd his "denegrating of Obama" was simply him asking "Did he come to a Jamboree?". Some of the kids booed on their own ... Yeah, that's a joke and apparently kids have a sense of humor ... Wow. What a concept. Something you guys have completely and utterly lost in this day and age. Apparently cracking jokes at the expense of your predecessors now is a vile and horrible thing to do.
> 
> But again, I guess since Trump is Hitler, he was just pandering to Hitler Youth and creating Trump's Army of future Death Eaters.


I don't see how you satisfactorily defended your position. The outcry is that he used a Jamboree to openly politic not that he shouldn't even be near a Jamboree which is what the conservatives were doing. They're two entirely different complaints. 

The fact Trump used a speech to 12 year olds to sell himself and his politics and attack his opponents should be difficult for all sides to accept, but its Trump. Saviour of the right.

(Stop using the Trump Hitler thing, its tiresome and is not an opinion I hold)



WalkingInMemphis said:


> I'm not sure if you have children, but that's just not true. Maybe for children up until a certain age. For the most part, garbage in, garbage out.


Kids are a terrible judge of character.


----------



## Reaper

WalkingInMemphis said:


> I'm glad you have "been around 6 kids". I'm currently raising 3 girls. "Being around" and raising children are apples and oranges, but oh well...glad you find this so amusing. LOL to your heart's content.
> 
> I'm certainly no saint, but if I can keep my girls on the straight and narrow by not having them follow trash examples, then so be it. I got enough shit to deal with in bad examples of adults they might personally know. Now, I have to deal with the toddler-in-chief? Whatever.


So you turn off the TV, take away their cell phones, restrict their social media useage to prevent them from having any exposure to Trump and his supporters? They're not allowed to read the news, or engage in political talk at home? They don't get to discuss who the president is? Are you letting your personal bias against the President create their impression of him at home? 

That must be one hell of a restrictive environment for them. I feel bad.



draykorinee said:


> I'm on my laptop though
> 
> I don't see how you satisfactorily defended your position. The outcry is that he used a Jamboree to openly politic not that he shouldn't even be near a Jamboree which is what the conservatives were doing. They're two entirely different complaints.
> 
> The fact Trump used a speech to 12 year olds to sell himself and his politics and attack his opponents should be difficult for all sides to accept, but its Trump. Saviour of the right.
> 
> (Stop using the Trump Hitler thing, its tiresome and is not an opinion I hold)


What exactly is my position when I've openly claimed that I don't agree with all that he said? My position is in your head. 

The comparison I'm making is in the pettiness of vilification of Presidents by first the right because they shat on a democrat president and now the left doing the same because it's a right wing president. 

You guys have this impression in your heads and it seems that you want the bashing to continue and that everyone should fall in line with bashing the president for every little thing. I wouldn't have based Obama for making a speech to school children in 2009 even if it was partisan and I'm not going to bash Trump for doing it in 2017. 

All I said was that Trump established a counter-narrative to the liberal bias they face in schools because the majority of educators in schools are liberal. I don't even agree with all of it. 

I don't even know why you guys need to justify your pettiness at this point.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> All I said was that Trump established a counter-narrative to the liberal bias they face in schools because the majority of educators in schools are liberal. I don't even agree with all of it.
> 
> I don't even know why you guys need to justify your pettiness at this point.


I mean, the first is conjecture.

The last bit is subjective. Nothing petty about discussing Trump doing bad things in a Trump thread, its no more petty than Virus constantly posting some guys videos every chance he gets, its all to open up discussion.

You wre right about the position though, I was assuming you were defending his use of a 12 year old scout meet to inflate his ego and discuss his politics, I was wrong.


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

Iconoclast said:


> So you turn off the TV, take away their cell phones, restrict their social media useage to prevent them from having any exposure to Trump and his supporters? They're not allowed to read the news, or engage in political talk at home? They don't get to discuss who the president is? Are you letting your personal bias against the President create their impression of him at home?
> 
> That must be one hell of a restrictive environment for them. I feel bad.


Feel as you wish. I don't restrict any of the above, but fortunately my parenting skills aren't on public display. Our narcissistic President and his disfunctional administration is. Way to project all of these non-sensical extremes on me. 
ositivity


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I mean, the first is conjecture.
> 
> The last bit is subjective. Nothing petty about discussing Trump doing bad things in a Trump thread, its no more petty than Virus constantly posting some guys videos every chance he gets, its all to open up discussion.


"Doing bad things". Lol. And you can't see the bias fueling this impression of what transpired in the first place hence resulting in this petty "criticism" if you can even call it that. 

And no, the first is not conjecture. Schools have a significant liberal bias in both education and policy. This is not conjecture. It's a known fact.


> You wre right about the position though, I was assuming you were defending his use of a 12 year old scout meet to inflate his ego and discuss his politics, I was wrong


Nope. I'm just taking jabs at the pettiness of conflating a Presidents' speech into an earth shattering and life-defining moment on 12 year olds ---- all of whom after 10 or so years will have only left with the impression that they saw the president live and won't remember almost anything he said .... meanwhile they have to go back to liberal indoctrination centers where we know they are actually being indoctrinated. 



WalkingInMemphis said:


> Feel as you wish. I do none of the above, but fortunately my parenting skills aren't on public display. Our narcissistic President and his disfunctional administration is. Way to project all of these non-sensical extremes on me.
> ositivity


No projection here. Since you're so disgusted by the exposure of 12 year olds to Trump as a "bad role model", it's simply logical to assume that you would be limiting the exposure of your girls to modern day politics at your home. 

Good to see that at least you admit tacitly that you're just virtue signalling and that your fear of your girls being exposed to a "bad role model" doesn't translate into any active indoctrination at home and is just restricted to online expression of your disdain.


----------



## Goku

trump is my rolemodel :trump4


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> Everything that argues against your stance isn't "spin". :kobe
> 
> Don't use words of convenience in order to shirk from having to justify your positions while forcing the person you're talking to to do the same all time.
> 
> That's just a defensive tactic, it's not an argument.
> 
> Not to me it doesn't. No spin. No bullshit. Given the context of the current political climate I don't mind a President punching verbally and being offensive.
> 
> For me it's not an issue as I've said half a dozen times already. I care about policies, not character. Vilifying someone's character is petty.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your phone when you want to respond with a wall of text :lol
> 
> The fear was the same so it's not apples and oranges. Obama was criticized in advance because of the same fear of him potentially using the platform to speak partisan politics. Trump is being vilified after he spoke. As I've already said, I don't agree with all that he said .. I don't even have to like his personality.
> 
> ANd his "denegrating of Obama" was simply him asking "Did he come to a Jamboree?". Some of the kids booed on their own ... Yeah, that's a joke and apparently kids have a sense of humor ... Wow. What a concept. Something you guys have completely and utterly lost in this day and age. Apparently cracking jokes at the expense of your predecessors now is a vile and horrible thing to do.
> 
> But again, I guess since Trump is Hitler, he was just pandering to Hitler Youth and creating Trump's Army of future Death Eaters.


Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich would be proud. Stick to the code and act like none of this matters.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> "Doing bad things". Lol. And you can't see the bias fueling this impression of what transpired in the first place hence resulting in this petty "criticism" if you can even call it that.
> 
> And no, the first is not conjecture. Schools have a significant liberal bias in both education and policy. This is not conjecture. It's a known fact.


Its actually your own bias thats stopping you from condemning Trump for doing bad things, supposedly its just 'petty' and not a concern. I think not fully understanding children has something to do with why you don't see the problem.

Yes, its fully conjecture I'm afraid. Higher education is more liberal, but there is nothing to suggest the kind of people Trump was proselytising to are in a liberal education, the research is all done on higher education, colleges and universities. Not sure why its their fault that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> *Its actually your own bias thats stopping you from condemning Trump for doing bad things*, supposedly its just 'petty' and not a concern. I think not fully understanding children has something to do with why you don't see the problem.


This despite the fact that I have consistently admitted that he has character flaws and that I've openly spoken up against many of his policies as well that I'm biased. I love Trump. But I've always criticized him and his policies. The problem is with you guys who simply CANNOT believe that rational people exist in this world who would actually love someone you are irrationally biased against. :lmao 

If I'm biased towards anything, it's people who conflate nothingburgers and keep trying to justify tenuously held beliefs with nothing more than dogmatic ideologuism. 



> Not sure why its their fault that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.


The more educated the Taliban are in their medressahs, the more likely they are to blow shit up :hmmm

And love the argument of elitism :lmao "I'm more educated therefore I'm liberal" :lmao


----------



## amhlilhaus

Goku said:


> trump is my rolemodel :trump4


How so? Get so rich and famous you can grab super models by the pussy?

Yeah, guess hes mine too


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich would be proud. Stick to the code and act like none of this matters.


Keep making non-arguments based on stereotyping people.


----------



## deepelemblues

I eagerly await you people who don't like :trump condemning elementary age children being trotted out to sing the praises (literally) of Barack Obama, or to read :trump's tweets (because :trump is a dumb child, see? Hahahah!), or to pull on heartstrings over illegal immigration, or any of the other ways the Left uses young children as props.

Okay I'm not eagerly awaiting it because it will never happen.

:trump gave a speech to them. They loved it. He didn't use them as props. He didn't pull some Boy Scouts up on the stage and pat them on the head while yelling about how these wonderful American children must be protected from ISIS or bad hombres from south of the border or anything. He gave a speech to them and they loved his speech. Deal with it babies. You want more :trump? This is how you get more :trump, trying to shame him and anyone who likes him with an egregiously blatant double standard. People had enough of this one set of rules for us doubleplusgoodthinking Lefties and another set of rules for you doubleplusbadthinking Righties and it helped him beat Hillary. Keep the double standard in operation, do your part to get :trump re-elected. Because that's all your clinging to that double standard does.


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> Keep making non-arguments based on stereotyping people.


Non argument? Lol you're so partisan and blind that you haven't been able to refute my points. You just do the normal politician spin, deflect and bullshit justify your bias.

Again, this isn't a political or partisan thing. This is a human decency thing. You clearly can't see that because you're so stuck in your defensive right wing ways.

Hey, at least your buddies approve so you're doing something right.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> For Tulsi Gabbard fans:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889703669360455681
> I'm still not a believer, but *by and far she is the most rational vocal Democrat these days.*


Which is why the DNC will never allow her to clinch the nomination.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1BRJjyDgbnBGw?t=1

Scott Adams says the Trump administration is on the cusp of total victory. :mj


----------



## virus21

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Which is why the DNC will never allow her to clinch the nomination.


Which is why they will keep losing. Then again, as long as they keep getting donor money from corporations and retard Hollywood people, what do they care.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Non argument? Lol you're so partisan and blind that you haven't been able to refute my points. You just do the normal politician spin, deflect and bullshit justify your bias.
> 
> Again, this isn't a political or partisan thing. This is a human decency thing. You clearly can't see that because you're so stuck in your defensive right wing ways.
> 
> Hey, at least your buddies approve so you're doing something right.


This is just another non argument. 

How am I biased when I've said at least half a dozen times that I don't like some parts of Trump's personality or actions?

His personality is irrelevant to his policy positions. You guys are being petty as fuck just because he said some things you disagree with to a bunch of kids.


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> This is just another non argument.
> 
> How am I biased when I've said at least half a dozen times that I don't like some parts of Trump's personality or actions?
> 
> His personality is irrelevant to his policy positions. You guys are being petty as fuck just because he said some things you disagree with to a bunch of kids.


Explain what's petty about this. This isn't about a disagreement. It's about conduct and behavior and this extends to his entire Presidency. 

Excuses, spins, deflects, justification, bias, delusion.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Explain what's petty about this. This isn't about a disagreement. It's about conduct and behavior and this extends to his entire Presidency.
> 
> Excuses, spins, deflects, justification, bias, delusion.


Throw in a few more buzzwords in there. Tossing in a bunch of words doesn't mean that you're accurately describing what I'm doing. It simply means that you know a bunch of words. 

It's petty af to conflate a bunch of jokes, some of which were bad jokes and some of which were ok jokes into something "he can't talk about". 

Controlling what a man says and making a bigger deal out of it now has eerie similarities to the whining conservatives used to do about Obama all the time. 

It was petty when they used to do it, and it's petty now.


----------



## Headliner

Iconoclast said:


> Throw in a few more buzzwords in there. Tossing in a bunch of words doesn't mean that you're accurately describing what I'm doing. It simply means that you know a bunch of words.
> 
> It's petty af to conflate a bunch of jokes, some of which were bad jokes and some of which were ok jokes into something "he can't talk about".
> 
> Controlling what a man says and making a bigger deal out of it now has eerie similarities to the whining conservatives used to do about Obama all the time.
> 
> It was petty when they used to do it, and it's petty now.


Now they are just jokes aka let me figure out how to downplay this.* He's at a Boy Scout event. *It's about what's appropriate. You don't go there to be on some political bullshit and to make un-necessary attacks. HE's THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. His whole Presidency has been based on immaturity, disrespect, ignorance and 10 year old shit yet you think this is ok and it's all "LOL Liberals, "LOL @ whoever else ya'll right wing fanatics can point ya'll fingers too in order to accuse people of being hysterical or delusional because ya'll think ya'll know everything. That shit's like a blind cult following and it clouds ya'll ability to be fair minded and recognize human decency. 

Excuses, spins, deflects, justification, bias, delusion.

Toxic.


----------



## Reaper

So basically your entire displeasure here is that he's not the kind of person you personally would like as a President. We're back to the "he's not presidential" complaint. About 60 odd million people like him. 

OK. I can live with that.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Donald Trump's rally in Youngstown, Ohio

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> Which is why they will keep losing. Then again, as long as they keep getting donor money from corporations and retard Hollywood people, what do they care.


If Kid Rock can seriously challenge Stabenow for her senate seat, their reputation will be even further down in the shitter even if he doesn't win. :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1BRJjyDgbnBGw?t=1
> 
> Scott Adams says the Trump administration is on the cusp of total victory. :mj


I LOVE your new sig, so DAMIEN-ish.


----------



## BruiserKC

OK...after watching the Scott Adams blog...I hope that he still realizes that a win just for a win's sake is not a win. These bills are still not repeal and replace for the Affordable Care Act...at this point they are really starting all over from square one considering what they have brought out previously wasn't selling very well. 

The Boy Scout speech...sorry folks...I'm siding with @Headliner on this one. You had the BSA put out a statement that they weren't trying to make a political statement with bringing Trump out to speak to them. A speech like that before the Heritage Foundation or CPAC? Fine, that is the place. A political speech with the Boy Scouts? Not so much. It's not a left or right issue...it's common sense and that wasn't the place for a rally speech. Lot of parents put off as well. Know your audience, people. 

The AG Sessions drama...has Trump really been seething about this for months and is only just now trying to do something? Sessions recused himself because he was part of Trump's campaign...Trump was all about law and order being restored and the process of law being followed. Sessions made the right decision and anything else would have been branded as a conflict of interest. However, now you are going after a guy who was one of the very first folks in Congress to support you. Sessions also is very popular for his stances on immigration, which IIRC was one of Trump's biggest campaign draws. Sessions is enforcing the laws, and illegal immigration is way down plus he is cracking down on drug gangs and sanctuary cities. If Trump wants to fire him now, he can but that would be a very shitty thing to do and this will send reverberations. He is very well respected in Congress...Trump better tread very carefully here. If this was an issue, he shouldd have done something months ago.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> OK...after watching the Scott Adams blog...I hope that he still realizes that a win just for a win's sake is not a win. These bills are still not repeal and replace for the Affordable Care Act...at this point they are really starting all over from square one considering what they have brought out previously wasn't selling very well.


Repealing Obamacare, getting tax reform done, defeating ISIS, and seeing record economic growth all in his first year (which is what Scott Adams is proposing that Trump is on the cusp of) all sound like major wins to me. I don't believe that Scott Adams, who is highly in favor of free market technological solutions to healthcare and views Congress as the wrong vehicle for healthcare reform, suggested that the Republican's crappy replacement for Obamacare would feature in this hypothetical victory. Perhaps we watched two different videos.


----------



## Art Vandaley

"A boy scout jamboree is an inappropriate setting for a political speach."

"Fuck you, you delusional lefty, Trump isn't hitler and how dare you criticise him".

- political debate in 2017


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> "A boy scout jamboree is an inappropriate setting for a political speach."
> 
> *"Fuck you, you delusional lefty, Trump isn't hitler and how dare you criticise him".*
> 
> - political debate in 2017


proof of two movies.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Repealing Obamacare, getting tax reform done, defeating ISIS, and seeing record economic growth all in his first year (which is what Scott Adams is proposing that Trump is on the cusp of) all sound like major wins to me. I don't believe that Scott Adams, who is highly in favor of free market technological solutions to healthcare and views Congress as the wrong vehicle for healthcare reform, suggested that the Republican's crappy replacement for Obamacare would feature in this hypothetical victory. Perhaps we watched two different videos.


If you're just saying 'Repealing ObamaJammaCare' without replacing it with anything meaningful, isn't that kind of low hanging fruit for a Prez with a big Congress majority?

And DEFEATING ISIS.... Come on man. How likely is that to happen any time soon?


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> "A boy scout jamboree is an inappropriate setting for a political speach."
> 
> "Fuck you, you delusional lefty, Trump isn't hitler and how dare you criticise him".
> 
> - political debate in 2017


:lol It wasn't pro-Trump people who brought up the Hitler Youth stuff.



yeahbaby! said:


> If you're just saying 'Repealing ObamaJammaCare' without replacing it with anything meaningful, isn't that kind of low hanging fruit for a Prez with a big Congress majority?
> 
> And DEFEATING ISIS.... Come on man. How likely is that to happen any time soon?


Not replacing it with anything would be the ideal scenario. If that's what happens I'll be absolutely thrilled. 

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the ISIS situation. That's understandable since all the media wants to talk about is Russia.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> *:lol It wasn't pro-Trump people who brought up the Hitler Youth stuff.
> *
> Not replacing it with anything would be the ideal scenario. If that's what happens I'll be absolutely thrilled.
> 
> I guess you haven't been keeping up with the ISIS situation. That's understandable since all the media wants to talk about is Russia.





Iconoclast said:


> Everything that argues against your stance isn't "spin". :kobe
> 
> Don't use words of convenience in order to shirk from having to justify your positions while forcing the person you're talking to to do the same all time.
> 
> That's just a defensive tactic, it's not an argument.
> 
> Not to me it doesn't. No spin. No bullshit. Given the context of the current political climate I don't mind a President punching verbally and being offensive.
> 
> For me it's not an issue as I've said half a dozen times already. I care about policies, not character. Vilifying someone's character is petty.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your phone when you want to respond with a wall of text :lol
> 
> The fear was the same so it's not apples and oranges. Obama was criticized in advance because of the same fear of him potentially using the platform to speak partisan politics. Trump is being vilified after he spoke. As I've already said, I don't agree with all that he said .. I don't even have to like his personality.
> 
> ANd his "denegrating of Obama" was simply him asking "Did he come to a Jamboree?". Some of the kids booed on their own ... Yeah, that's a joke and apparently kids have a sense of humor ... Wow. What a concept. Something you guys have completely and utterly lost in this day and age. Apparently cracking jokes at the expense of your predecessors now is a vile and horrible thing to do.
> *
> But again, I guess since Trump is Hitler, he was just pandering to Hitler Youth and creating Trump's Army of future Death Eaters.*


Yes, yes it was.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Repealing Obamacare, getting tax reform done, defeating ISIS, and seeing record economic growth all in his first year (which is what Scott Adams is proposing that Trump is on the cusp of) all sound like major wins to me. I don't believe that Scott Adams, who is highly in favor of free market technological solutions to healthcare and views Congress as the wrong vehicle for healthcare reform, suggested that the Republican's crappy replacement for Obamacare would feature in this hypothetical victory. Perhaps we watched two different videos.


Going out of order here...ISIS is on the run, although we still have a lot of work left to do. Kicked them out of Mosul, but they will be regrouping and if Mosul was any indication, Raqqa and other strongholds in Syria won't be easy either. However, progress is being made (lot of it is other groups and the Kurds leading the way). Just have to make sure Russia and other allies there are also dedicated to the cause. Again, Russia has focused more on keeping Assad in power then taking care of the Islamic State. But, we are seeing progress there and that is a good thing. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/25/us/politics/senate-votes-repeal-obamacare.html

At least there is a good sign with the Senate voting against the BCRA POS. 

Of course, the problem is that Trump put his eggs all in the Obamacare repeal basket. While I do like some of the stuff we saw and talked about previously regarding smart medicine (which I'm sure Adams would be in favor of), Trump used this as the catalyst for tax reform. He should have probably gone for the tax reform part first (which as a businessman is more in his wheelhouse) and then moved on to healthcare. By then, the entire market would be ready to collapse and then maybe both sides could find a solution. But Congress has to pull its collective head out of its ass first. 

The reason that the BCRA/AHCA is not repeal is fairly simple. The skeleton of the ACA still remains, or the malnourished regulatory body of this thing as it stands right now. All Trump did was sign an E.O. that effectively killed the individual mandate and the employer mandate, as does the BCRA and AHCA. The mandate was supposed to be what fed the ACA, this is what would force people to buy health insurance. The more people who bought, the more the costs would go down. It hasn't worked that way, more ill people have bought into the program...this has led insurance companies to simply send prices skyrocketing. If these abominations were to have passed and you saw something like that signed into law...costs would have gone even higher then they are now. Trump would have been blamed bigly. Folks like Murkowski, Mike Lee, Tom Cotton, etc...did him a huge favor. Hopefully he thanks them rather than ridicule them for saving him from a disaster. If you are going to repeal, you have to COMPLETELY remove the entire regulatory body of Obamacare in order to be able to start over. Anyone who actually pays attention rather than buys into the hysteria (or euphoria depending on who you support) would tell you what these bills did certainly did not do that. 

So now, what comes next...the economic growth now depends on the tax reform. Right now, the market is slowing down a bit and the signs are all over the place that we might be heading for a correction soon. All of this growth we've seen and what was to come is highly dependent on the tax reform happening. Will Trump be willing to allow Congress to shift gears, and will Congress be able to do so themselves? Trump pushed the narrative that we had to have the repeal of the ACA to springboard into the tax reform matter. The market expects this to happen.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes, yes it was.


oh man Reaper started it all with his post on wrestling forum read round the world I stand corrected


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> oh man Reaper started it all with his post on wrestling forum read round the world I stand corrected


 I'm sorry did you not follow that my post in this forum was about this forum?

Because let me now clarify, my post in this forum was about this forum.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm sorry did you not follow that my post in this forum was about this forum?
> 
> Because let me now clarify, my post in this forum was about this forum.





Alkomesh2 said:


> "A boy scout jamboree is an inappropriate setting for a political speach."
> 
> "Fuck you, you delusional lefty, Trump isn't hitler and how dare you criticise him".
> 
> - political debate in 2017


Oh yeah, I brought up hitler to shit post and if you read through the tone of my Hitler statements you'll see them as the harmless non-serious jabs as they are. 

However, your history on this forum and now trying to distance yourself from the screeching left that has claimed Trump was hitler in the past is not easily forgiveable. 

You never denounced yourself for claiming Trump was hitler btw:



>


I bet if I go through the post history of other Lefties in the previous Trump thread I find similar Hitler stuff.

Leftists' past beliefs and statements that they haven't denounced are fair game in current criticisms of their screeching :Shrug 

You brought this upon yourself.

This is why I never thought that the left sincerely believed Trump was Hitler because if they were then they wouldn't have forgotten their own Hitler spin on Trump so soon. I mean these posts aren't even a year old.


----------



## CamillePunk

:buried

Of course, the man who predicted the shift from "HITLER!" to "Incompetent" by Summer was none other than Scott Adams. :aryep 

This means by the end of the year we'll be in the "Competent, but we don't like it" phase.


----------



## Reaper

I predict "Trump is incompetent" never rears its ugly head. 

Trump has been entirely TOO competent and I believe that the left knows it, which is why they're attacking him for what I personally believe to be non-issues instead of policy positions because by and large Trump has been able to accomplish a significant portion of his promises. 

He even managed to get Congress to vote on ACA repeal and keep it pushing forward. 

I don't think the left now sees him as incompetent, but rather competent and hence aren't actually attacking him on any policy positions anymore whatsoever and ignoring them in favor of insignificant speeches to 12 year olds and saying mean things. Something we as supporters knew he would continue to do and aren't bothered by it. His "mean-ness" was part of his appeal to those of us who threw our support behind him and so of course we didn't expect that to change once he got into power. 

His detractors are free to feel otherwise though ... It's fair since they opposed him for it and so at least it's consistent.

---










Apparently, the Globe thinks that Romney is a politician on the job :lmao 

The state of modern journalism :kobelol










:ha


----------



## DOPA

Tulsi Gabbard is just about the only principled Democrat left in Congress.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> Tulsi Gabbard is just about the only principled Democrat left in Congress.


I'd like to believe there are more and that they're just being held hostage (not like physically hostage, but ideologically so) by the party leaders. 

For example, Ossof's political campaign was actually fairly center left and on his platform he actually a decent chance to win, but the party leaders decided to market him as an SJW and embroiled him in the their anti-Trump movement decreasing his chances.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> :lol It wasn't pro-Trump people who brought up the Hitler Youth stuff.


Umm, yes, yes it was.



yeahbaby! said:


> If you're just saying 'Repealing ObamaJammaCare' without replacing it with anything meaningful, isn't that kind of low hanging fruit for a Prez with a big Congress majority?
> 
> And DEFEATING ISIS.... Come on man. How likely is that to happen any time soon?


Any claims of defeating ISIS are seriously misjudged.


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> I predict "Trump is incompetent" never rears its ugly head.
> 
> Trump has been entirely TOO competent and I believe that the left knows it, which is why they're attacking him for what I personally believe to be non-issues instead of policy positions because by and large Trump has been able to accomplish a significant portion of his promises.
> 
> He even managed to get Congress to vote on ACA repeal and keep it pushing forward.
> 
> I don't think the left now sees him as incompetent, but rather competent and hence aren't actually attacking him on any policy positions anymore whatsoever and ignoring them in favor of insignificant speeches to 12 year olds and saying mean things. Something we as supporters knew he would continue to do and aren't bothered by it. His "mean-ness" was part of his appeal to those of us who threw our support behind him and so of course we didn't expect that to change once he got into power.
> 
> His detractors are free to feel otherwise though ... It's fair since they opposed him for it and so at least it's consistent.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the Globe thinks that Romney is a politician on the job :lmao
> 
> The state of modern journalism :kobelol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :ha


So Romney has become Justin Trudeau?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Umm, yes, yes it was.


Yes, and it's anti-Trump people who simply refuse to acknowledge the context of something - and by complaining about what was an obvious shitpost exaggeration in a light-hearted tone and not an actual accusation or a strawman, what did you really betray about yourself. 

Of course, now you're likely going to claim that I'm just claiming this in hindsight because it's not about context, but rather about gotcha moments --- and the useless and unproductive crap continues. 

Oh well. This is typical of people who get involved in internet arguments. At some point once the argument of the actual debate has dwindling points, the focus is deliberately moved in order to keep arguing minutia once all the so-called justifications of each others stances are dried up. 

Until and unless you really thought I was being serious with the Hitler stuff, then we've got a whole set of problems with how you comprehend what you read. 

The lack of sense of humor amongst the left however continues to dismay. You guys take this stuff and yourselves way too seriously and are showing an incapability to contextualize discussions.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> :buried
> 
> Of course, the man who predicted the shift from "HITLER!" to "Incompetent" by Summer was none other than Scott Adams. :aryep
> 
> *This means by the end of the year we'll be in the "Competent, but we don't like it" phase.*


So basically...

- Denial [✓]
- Anger [✓]
- Bargaining [soon-to-be ✓]
- Depression []
- Acceptance []

If so, I can live with this schedule. :yoshi


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Umm, yes, yes it was.


cool assertion without evidence bro

http://www.newsweek.com/hitler-trump-germany-nazi-president-641392

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-boy-scouts-event-to-hitler-youth-rally.html


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889877363789574144
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ech-to-boy-scouts_us_597748a6e4b0c95f375e9436

http://heavy.com/news/2017/07/trump-boy-scout-hitler-youth-rally-nazi-critics-twitter-photos/

http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trumps-scout-speech-likened-by-some-to-hitler-youth-rally/

into the bin with you :trump


----------



## Reaper

And so, I'm right again. :trump4



draykorinee said:


> Any claims of defeating ISIS are seriously misjudged.


Oh I missed this gem. Substantiation for this claim?


----------



## CamillePunk

They do like to try and turn things around on other people, don't they? :lol Reading the New York Times piece today about how Trump is OBSESSED with Hillary Clinton for bringing up her crimes all the time, as if they aren't fucking obsessed with this totally baseless Russia witch hunt, and completely willing to ignore every bit of Hillary's PROVEN shady dealings at the same time. Trump mentions Hillary in this context. They try and make it about Trump being weirdly obsessed and just trying to deflect from himself. 

These are not serious people. The rank-and-file are suffering from a mental disorder, Trump Derangement Syndrome, but the longer it goes on the less empathy I have for them. Let the man do the job he was democratically elected to do.


----------



## Reaper

What I feel is that this lynch mob is the same as lynch mobs of the past that basically starts crying if the person they're lynching tells them to stop lynching him - with regards to Trump. 

"WHY ARE YOU TELLING US TO STOP LYNCHING YOU. STOP OPPRESSHING US!"

It's actually kind of funny to watch the left fall into the same kind of mentality that they _used_ to meme about with regards to Christians whining about oppression by anti-theists. The similarities are hilarious.


----------



## Goku

nice circlejerk you two have going here :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890193981585444864

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890196164313833472

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890197095151546369


----------



## Reaper

Goku feeling left out :trump


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> cool assertion without evidence bro


Thats not this forum though? Why would I have any interest in those references?



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890193981585444864
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890196164313833472
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890197095151546369


Lol, nice photoshop, even Trump wouldn't say that.

Edit: Wait thats real...shit a brick.


----------



## Goku

of course he wouldn't.

Why... would... he... sayyy... sumth4ngg... li... :troll

(don't click the link, kayfabe4lyfe)


----------



## Reaper

This thread is going to be LIT for the next few days :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890202649446019072
:ha


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Guess no one told him what the T stand's for


----------



## CamillePunk

Some people are saying this is an appeal to his base after attacking Jeff Sessions. Could be. Still seems like a sensible decision to me.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Someone needs to alert John McCain and get him on CNN to rant about how wrong this is before he has to go to the White House to stand behind Trump during the signing of the resolution establishing it.


----------



## Stephen90

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Guess no one told him what the T stand's for


Trump never cared about LGBT just looked at who he picked to be his Vice President. Mike Pence a guy who wants to electrocute the gay out of people.


----------



## CamillePunk

Brain damaged John McCain defending trans people in the military would be apropos as fuck.


----------



## Stinger Fan

CamillePunk said:


> cool assertion without evidence bro
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/hitler-trump-germany-nazi-president-641392
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-boy-scouts-event-to-hitler-youth-rally.html
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/889877363789574144
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ech-to-boy-scouts_us_597748a6e4b0c95f375e9436
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2017/07/trump-boy-scout-hitler-youth-rally-nazi-critics-twitter-photos/
> 
> http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trumps-scout-speech-likened-by-some-to-hitler-youth-rally/
> 
> into the bin with you :trump


Fuck Keith Olbermann and anyone who is willing to stand on top of the millions of Jews who were killed durign the holocaust simply because they have their feelings hurt over their team losing.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Guess no one told him what the T stand's for


I agree with him on not allowing transgender into the military. It opens up Pandora's Box and we don't need that with all the baggage it would entail.

It does bother me though he didn't acknowledge Gay Pride Month. It made his gay and lesbian supporters look foolish.

- Vic


----------



## rzombie1988

Trans people have something wrong with them and need help, not surgeries.

If you have a penis, you are a boy. If you have a vagina, you are a girl. If you are the 1 out of 100 million who happen to have both, you have my sympathy.

And I've read the 52 genders list. I would like someone to tell me how I am not a Tomahawk Cruise Missile based on the criteria given. I've read through it and Tomahawk Cruise Missile fits multiple genders.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

With that being said, I don't care what you do in your private life. If you want to dress up as a girl, go for it. Leave me out of it.

I don't believe the military needs those types of distractions and I definitely don't think we should be paying for it.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Vic Capri said:


> I agree with him on not allowing transgender into the military. It opens up Pandora's Box and we don't need that with all the baggage it would entail.


What Pandora's Box does it open? Transgendered people have been fighting in Wars since Rome and are already serving honorably in the military. What he is doing now is a regressive witch hunt.


----------



## Draykorinee

BoFreakinDallas said:


> What Pandora's Box does it open? Transgendered people have been fighting in Wars since Rome and are already serving honorably in the military. What he is doing now is a regressive witch hunt.


They're worried that they might fancy them.


----------



## Papadoc81

Isn't the military healthcare based on taking care of what soldiers and their families NEED not what they WANT? If a transgender was in the military, why would the military pay for anything like a sex change or hormone replacement? None of that is needed for someone to live a healthy life. That's just a person's personal choice. Isn't that how it works?


----------



## rzombie1988

BoFreakinDallas said:


> What Pandora's Box does it open? Transgendered people have been fighting in Wars since Rome and are already serving honorably in the military. What he is doing now is a regressive witch hunt.


We are already starting to see it with trans people wanting the military to pay for their medicine and operations.

What happens if people start declaring themselves various genders and want something to help them achieve that? I've read through the list. Most of the definitions are so open-ended that I believe I can defend that I'm a Tomahawk Cruise Missile through them. That would be a total crapshow.

I also agree with papadoc81. You don't need gender re-assignment surgery or hormones. That's a want.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

rzombie1988 said:


> Most of the definitions are so open-ended that I believe I can defend that I'm a Tomahawk Cruise Missile through them. That would be a total crapshow.


Sounds like the same arguement people made against gay marriage,well if we allow gay's to get married what's next people will marry their dog .


----------



## rzombie1988

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Sounds like the same arguement people made against gay marriage,well if we allow gay's to get married what's next people will marry their dog .


I've read the various "52 genders" and the argument for almost all of them comes down to "I'm x because I feel x about x". Well I feel I'm a tomahawk cruise missile.

Let's just look at some of these:

Abimegender– A gender which is profound, deep, and infinite. Tomhawk cruise missiles are profound, could be deep and could be infinite.

Adamasgender- A gender which refuses to be categorized. I might be a tomahawk cruise missile, but I refuse to be categorized.

Adeptogender– When your gender identity was obtained through your realization of your kinself. as in your kin realization spurred your gender realization. (note: the gender and kin type do not necessarily have to correlate with each other). I became a tomahawk cruise missile through my realization of my love for Trump.

Aethergender– A gender that feels very wide, commanding, breathtaking and powerful. Like my penis, a tomahawk cruise missile is commanding, very very wide, breathtaking and powerful. Wait, I'm not sure I'm not talking about my penis here.

Affectugender– A gender affected by mood swings. I was a brontosaurus but I changed my mood and now I'm a tomahawk cruise missile.

Start proving to me how tomahawk cruise missile is not a gender using these definitions as evidence.

-----

Being gay is also blatantly against what the Bible preaches, so I don't see how gays can take part in a christian ritual. If they want to call it something else though, go for it.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Papadoc81 said:


> Isn't the military healthcare based on taking care of what soldiers and their families NEED not what they WANT? If a transgender was in the military, why would the military pay for anything like a sex change or hormone replacement? None of that is needed for someone to live a healthy life. That's just a person's personal choice. Isn't that how it works?


For every dollar spent on hormone pills for Transgendered there's probabably a thousand spent on things like ADD meds or other things that some might argue as wants not needs . Is this really about nickel and diming people who serve our country or is he just trying to deflect his fighting with Sessions or some other big thing he wants to get out of the news cycle.


----------



## rzombie1988

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Sounds like the same arguement people made against gay marriage,well if we allow gay's to get married what's next people will marry their dog .





BoFreakinDallas said:


> For every dollar spent on hormone pills for Transgendered there's probabably a thousand spent on things like ADD meds or other things that some might argue as wants not needs . Is this really about nickel and diming people who serve our country or is he just trying to deflect his fighting with Sessions or some other big thing he wants to get out of the news cycle.


Us Trumpers would be fine with a review of various medicine needs. However, I can promise you that a doctor is never going to sign off saying that a person needs hormone pills.

The Sessions stuff is just a smokescreen for the IT's aides getting busted and possible re-openings of the Clinton/Comey investigations.


----------



## Vic Capri

> What Pandora's Box does it open? Transgendered people have been fighting in Wars since Rome and are already serving honorably in the military. What he is doing now is a regressive witch hunt.


1.) They are mentally unfit.

2.) They will lower the moral of the men and woman serving in the military.

3.) The targeting of Chaplains and other religious figures in the military will increase even further, specifically against Christians.

4.) Men and woman who "transgender" have suicide rates, with attempts on their life, of up to 20 to 41 percent according to studies by Canadian universities.

5.)Men and woman who "transgender" have depression rates of 51.4% for transgender women; 48.3% for transgender men.

6.)Men and woman who "transgender" have anxiety rates of 40.4% for transgender women; 47.5% for transgender men.

7.)The "maintenance" to keep their "transgender" "switch", for lack of a better term, would interfere with basic duties.

The U.S. military is not a social experiment.

- Vic


----------



## Jedah

Trump made the right decision. A friend of mine who's a former major in the marines has written about the dangers of these social engineering policies and is no doubt going to be thrilled.

Denying biological reality could be your individual prerogative, but it doesn't belong in sports or especially in the military. Less than 1% of the population doesn't have the right to force the other 99.% of the population to bend for them.

Now I want to see him move to more aggressively roll back the shuttling of women into combat roles that they're unsuited for. One thing at a time I guess.


----------



## Papadoc81

BoFreakinDallas said:


> For every dollar spent on hormone pills for Transgendered there's probabably a thousand spent on things like ADD meds or other things that some might argue as wants not needs . Is this really about nickel and diming people who serve our country or is he just trying to deflect his fighting with Sessions or some other big thing he wants to get out of the news cycle.


Someone suffering from ADD more than likely wouldn't be allowed to enlist in the military. But if someone was than that person not getting their meds would affect their ability to do their job. Doesn't apply for a TG.

I'm not arguing whether TGs should be allowed to enlist or not. I just don't get why people think that just because they sign up that means the military is gonna pay for everything they want to get done when I know that is not going to be the case. 

Would the military pay for a woman to get a boob job? Nope.
Would the military pay for an older woman to get a facelife? Nope.

So why would anyone think the military would fork over the bill if a man wanted to make alterations to his body whether through a pill or surgery? They wouldn't. That kind of stuff comes out of your own pocket.


----------



## deepelemblues

if they allowed transgenders in and kept everything else the same, fine

but that's not what the SJWs and PC Police have been doing to the military

it's all a social engineering experiment that has nothing to do with training soldiers to kill the enemy and not get killed by the enemy

when the PC Police can have transgenders be in the military and have them be treated the same as non-transgender soldiers, no we're not paying for your cosmetic surgery, no we're not wasting time with sensitivity training or any of the other bullshit, we're training you to kill or to help other soldiers kill that's it, then i'll support transgenders being in the military

until then, sorry but transgenders not being allowed in is just another cost of the overreach of the PC Police 

the military is not a college campus, it has more important shit to do than navigate the ever changing labyrinth of what the PC Police demand. like making the enemy dead and keeping its own soldiers alive.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890181198940696576
Scaramucci has been ace so far.


----------



## Miss Sally

Couldn't care less about Trans people in the military but I don't think joining the military should be an option just to get surgeries and other amenities.

The Military is about killing and all that, if you cannot handle that then don't sign up. 

The Military shouldn't need to do a bunch of hand holding training and other crap. 

If you're going to join it should be for the right reasons, same with any job.


----------



## Stall_19

Did he just announce a major policy over twitter? Is this what we've come to? Also he continues to show that he is a garbage human being.


----------



## BruiserKC

To me, as a former member of the military, it's simple. If you can do your job and when the shit hits the fan I can trust you to have my 6, so be it. I don't care what you are or what you do. 

Interesting to see what the costs are when you only have about 250 transgendered people currently in the service. 

Coïncidence though that this comes right after potentially pissing off a few conservatives by throwing Sessions under the bus? This is clearly something that the religious right clearly wanted so no doubt he will be loved by this piece of red meat.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Interesting to see what the costs are when you only have about 250 transgendered people currently in the service.


Really? I've seen people claiming the figure is between 4,000 and 11,000 today.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stall_19 said:


> Did he just announce a major policy over twitter? Is this what we've come to? Also he continues to show that he is a garbage human being.


there would be zero difference in anything if he had announced it in a formal press release.

what's garbage is expecting the taxpayer to pay for your cosmetic surgery so you don't have a penis or a vagina anymore and expecting the taxpayer to pay for useless training that does not build camaraderie or morale and does nothing to make soldiers safer when carrying out their duties or make the enemy less safe when he is carrying out his.

the military isn't a fucking humanities department sorry.

transgenders should be allowed into the military when doing so means they accommodate themselves to the expectations and needs of the military. not the other way around. straight males have had to change their characters, personalities, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors etc. upon joining a military organization to suit the standards of that military organization since there were organized militaries to join. the military organization didnt have to change itself to suit _them._ and the military organization certainly did not have to waste time on useless training, or spend money on activities that did nothing to raise its fighting ability or readiness, to suit the standards of the individuals joining it. that is the way it should be.

the modern western military does not and should not exist for the purpose of social engineering. it exists to kill people, and to provide transportation and other logistics capabilities for humanitarian missions. when it can be shown that taxpayers paying for military transgenders' reassignment surgery or for LGBT sensitivity training increases its capabilities in those two areas, then by all means go for it. but of course those two things don't increase its combat readiness or general logistics capabilities. so they're a fucking waste of time and money in the context of a military organization. go spend taxpayer money on transgenders at the department of health and human services, and the department of labor, and the department of education. not the department of defense.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

BruiserKC said:


> To me, as a former member of the military, it's simple. If you can do your job and when the shit hits the fan I can trust you to have my 6, so be it. I don't care what you are or what you do.
> 
> Interesting to see what the costs are when you only have about 250 transgendered people currently in the service.
> 
> Coïncidence though that this comes right after potentially pissing off a few conservatives by throwing Sessions under the bus? This is clearly something that the religious right clearly wanted so no doubt he will be loved by this piece of red meat.


SRS is one that takes someone out for a few weeks like an surgery dealing with a major organ. The Transgendered's costly SRS surgery is a nice smokescreen since Trump can't outright just say he is Pandering to the Evangelical/Social Conservative wing .No one serving active combat is going to then decide to have a major operation while on tour of duty.


----------



## peep4life

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...edical-care/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4aa2314e5fdb

Looked at another way, the upper estimate for annual transgender medical costs in the military amounts to.less than a tenth of the price of a new F-35.fighter jet. Or.a thousandth of 1 percent of the Defense Department's annual budget.


Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk


----------



## Reaper

The left:

1970s: Make love not war
1980's: Literal riots against the US military for operations in Vietnam
1990's: We are peacekeepers not war mongerers
2000's: War is bad!
2010's: Are we at war? Oh. Look a baby drownded in the sea. We must save millions of people! War creates Refugees! 

2017: TRANSGENDERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY WOMEN SHOULD BE DYING FOR US ON THE FRONTLINES. IT'S THEIR RIGHT! 

We've certainly come a long way :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

peep4life said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...edical-care/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4aa2314e5fdb
> 
> Looked at another way, the upper estimate for annual transgender medical costs in the military amounts to.less than a tenth of the price of a new F-35.fighter jet. Or.a thousandth of 1 percent of the Defense Department's annual budget.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk


"You're already paying a ton of money against your will for all this other stuff we don't really need" isn't a great argument for convincing someone they should pay more.


----------



## peep4life

Look, I'm the last person who thinks that our ridiculous military budget is necessary, but the small percentages of money they require is a small price to pay for people willing to fight. 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk


----------



## Reaper

peep4life said:


> Look, I'm the last person who thinks that our ridiculous military budget is necessary, but the small percentages of money they requir*e is a small price to pay for people willing to fight. *
> 
> Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk


Yah. Just recruit mentally stable men. The military does not have a shortage of recruits and make it a policy to not recruit someone who's an it. 

It's not like we're facing a situation where we need to draft anyone.

BTW, I'm like 100% pro-transgender. I'm not phobic at all. I just don't think they have any business being in the military ... or that it is an intrinsic human right for them to be a part of the military.

Transgenderism is defined somewhat loosely with wanting to adopt to a female type of life ... and is military really their best and only choice in life that'll make them happily live a transgendered life. Why restrict themselves to such an environment. No one is forcing them to be in the military or stay in the military.


----------



## Mra22

I'm very happy Trump banned these sickos from the military they need locked up in a mental facility.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Comments like the awful one above showcases that this decision is a victory for transphobia today as well as against equal rights. I'm disgusted.


----------



## Stinger Fan

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Sounds like the same arguement people made against gay marriage,well if we allow gay's to get married what's next people will marry their dog .


Could you not lump gay people in with trans? Gay people accept how they were born the way they are. It's always the same argument "this is how the gays were treated!" , well gay people aren't going to use the military healthcare to achieve what they want and thats their transition funded for free, tax payers sure as hell shouldn't pay for it. That doesn't mean they don't want to help, but lets be honest here if they have an ulterior motive that's not the type of people you'd want to serve your military. 

Does that mean I'm against them being in the military? Not necessarily . I think there needs to be more research done, is transgenderism a mental illness? It was labelled that at one point, but that was forced to change due to its "offensive" label. This shouldn't be tip toed around , there needs to be more information on it so I think its best to cool off on it. The military shouldn't be a place for social experiments so you can claim "inclusiveness" . Then there's the issue of if trans are being held to a lower standard as well, if you aren't capable physically of reaching a certain point then you shouldn't be able to join. People hvae protested against that , there shouldn't be exceptions made, one standard for everyone. 

It's not black and white as you may want it to be. It's a very complex issue



CamillePunk said:


> Really? I've seen people claiming the figure is between 4,000 and 11,000 today.


I saw 150k :lol


----------



## virus21

> Job approval ratings for President Trump are 50 percent or higher in 17 states, and above Real Clear President Trump Job Approval average of 39 percent in another 16 states, meaning that over two-thirds of the nation feels better about him than reported in national poll headlines.
> 
> 
> Gallup sized up the president's polls since coming into office and just reported these details:
> 
> Trump had approval ratings of 50 percent or higher in 17 states in the first half of 2017.
> Another 17 states gave him approval ratings below 40 percent.
> 16 states produced a rating average of between 40 percent and 49 percent.
> Highest approval in West Virginia, North Dakota and South Dakota.
> Lowest approval in Vermont and Massachusetts.
> Trump largely owed his victory in the 2016 presidential election to his wins in three key Rust Belt states -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In these states, his January-June approval ratings were just slightly above his overall average of 40 percent, including 43 percent in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and 42 percent in Michigan.
> According to Gallup, the bottom line is this:
> 
> Trump is hardly a conventional politician, but his patterns of support at the state level mostly reflect traditional Republican-Democrat differences. Although 2020 is a long way off, for him to successfully win re-election, historical patterns suggest his overall 40 percent rating would need to rise closer to 50 percent. He would also need to shore up his support in the key Rust Belt states that delivered the Electoral College win to him. In those states, his job approval is slightly above 40 percent, but barely so, raising questions of whether he can carry them in 2020.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-approval-rating-higher-than-average-in-33-of-50-states/article/2629750



> Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology (IT) aide was arrested Monday attempting to board a flight to Pakistan after wiring $283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to that country.
> 
> He attempted to leave the country hours after The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group revealed that he is the target of an FBI investigation, and the FBI apprehended him at the airport.
> 
> Credit union officials permitted the wire to go through, and his wife has already fled the country to Pakistan, after police confronted her at the airport and found $12,000 in cash hidden in her suitcase but did not stop her from boarding, court documents show.
> 
> “On January 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm, an international wire transfer request form was submitted [at the Congressional Federal Credit Union] at the Longworth House Office Building in the District of Columbia, in the amount of $283,000.00, to two individuals in Faisalabad, Pakistan,” according to an affidavit obtained by TheDCNF.
> 
> Imran Awan, a Pakistani-born IT aide, had access to all emails and files of dozens of members of Congress, as well as the password to the iPad that Wasserman Schultz used for Democratic National Committee business before she resigned as its head in July 2016.
> 
> Do You Think Awan Will Confess To The Alleged Crime?
> Yes No
> Login with your social identity to vote
> 
> 
> Sign in
> inSign in with LinkedIn
> Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
> In March, his wife Hina Alvi, who also was on the House payroll, withdrew her children from school and left the country, the affidavit says. The Capitol Police confronted her at the airport but could not stop her. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted a search of Alvi’s bags immediately prior to her boarding the plane and located a total of $12,400.00 in U.S. cash inside. Alvi was permitted to board the flight to Qatar and she and her daughters have not returned to the United States,” the affidavit says. “Alvi had numerous pieces of luggage with her, including cardboard boxes… Your affiant does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”
> 
> Soon after Imran began working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, four of his relatives appeared on the payroll of other Democrats at inflated salaries, but Democratic staffers said they were rarely seen at work. They collected $4 million in taxpayer salaries since 2009.
> 
> House authorities told members in February that Imran and his relatives were suspects in a criminal investigation into theft and IT abuses, and they were banned from the Capitol network.
> 
> Wasserman Schultz has refused to fire Imran, despite being a known criminal suspect in a cybersecurity probe for months, and has blocked Capitol Police from searching a laptop they confiscated because it was tied to him.
> 
> TheDCNF reported Sunday night that the FBI had joined the investigation and seized smashed hard drives from Imran’s home. The next day, the FBI apprehended him at Dulles Airport after noticing that he had purchased a ticket to Pakistan, via Qatar.
> 
> The affidavit says he was charged with bank fraud involving fraudulently taking out mortgages, which was one of several financial schemes TheDCNF has detailed. It appears to be a placeholder for future charges, spurred because of the attempt to leave the country, and does not mention his work for Congress, which is the investigation’s primary focus.
> 
> As TheDCNF has reported, the Awans own numerous rental properties that often have multiple mortgages taken out on them, and they have told renters they want payments in untraceable ways. The charging documents say Imran’s wife Hina Alvi, who also made $165,000 working for House Democrats, took out a second mortgage against a house from the Congressional Federal Credit Union by falsely claiming it was her “principal residence” and that she will “occupy” the property, and also fraudulently reported no rental income on her taxes.
> 
> A renter told the FBI “they paid approximately $2,000 per month for rent and that the rent check was written to Suriaya Begum. Based on information and belief, I know that Begum is Alvia’s mother,” an FBI agent wrote.
> 
> The agent also said Imran appears to have applied for the loan in his wife’s name.
> 
> Democratic members of Congress, including Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, have suggested that police had framed the Pakistani-born brothers out of Islamophobia. Yet his own stepmother, a devout Muslim, filed court documents accusing him of using high-tech devices to wiretap her and extorting her (see p. 23 of court documents in that case). A dozen people who have dealt with Imran painted a picture in interviews with TheDCNF of a charming, “cunning” extrovert who bragged about his power among Democratic officials and who seemed to have an unquenchable thirst for cash.
> 
> The affidavit also paints him as an overly confident con artist, saying he listed his House phone number when initiating the wire transfer, and pretended to be a woman — his wife — on the phone when a Congressional Federal Credit Union questioned the transfer. “The person answering the call, who was a male, pretended that he was Alvi. On the call, the [bank] representative asked the man to verify the address of where the wire was being sent and the purpose of the outgoing wire,” the document says.
> 
> Imran claimed the $300,000 was for “funeral arrangements.”
> 
> “The CFCU representative then stated that ‘funeral arrangements’ may not be an acceptable reason for the wire. The male speaking to the representative then responded that he would look online for an acceptable reason for the wire. After a long pause, the male said that the reason for the wire was ‘buying property.’ The representative accepted that reason and initiated the wire transfer to Pakistan.”
> 
> Fox News was first to report the arrest. TheDCNF has done 20 stories on the brothers since February — linked below — including reporting that Imran’s wife had fled.
> 
> Bill Miller, spokesman for the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, told TheDCNF that Awan “was arraigned today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. He pled not guilty and was released pursuant to a high-intensity supervision program. The conditions of release are that he receive a GPS monitor, he abide by a curfew of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., and that he not leave a 50-mile radius of his residence in Virginia. Awan was also ordered to turn over all of his passports.”
> 
> Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman, David Damron, did not immediately return a request for comment.
> 
> See if your member of Congress is on the chart below. The Awan brothers could read all emails sent and received by these members, as well as all files on their staffers’ computers.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/25/wasserman-schultzs-it-aide-arrested-trying-to-flee-the-country/



> Tucker Carlson tore into Rep. Maxine Waters Monday night after she accused him of racism for asking how a lawmaker can afford to live in a $4.3 million home.
> 
> The Daily Caller co-founder first pointed out on his show several weeks ago that Waters, who has served in public office for nearly 40 years, lives in one of the richest neighborhoods in Los Angeles despite representing one of the poorest.
> 
> Waters was asked about the disparity in a New York Times Magazine interview and accused Carlson of being “racist” for questioning how an African-American woman acquired her wealth.
> 
> Instead of even bothering to engage with the racism argument, Carlson chose to rip into Waters’ shady investments and political corruption.
> 
> “So where did the money [for the house] come from?” Carlson asked again. “Maybe she borrowed it from family members. Since 2006 she’s paid her own daughter $600,000 from campaign funds.”
> 
> “Then there’s her husband who was once the director of One United Bank,” he continued. “Never heard of it? Well in 2008 One United Bank got a $12 million tax bill bailout after Waters convince the treasury department to take up the case.”
> 
> “One liberal group ranked Waters as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. We are withholding judgment on that,” Carlson concluded. “We’ve asked Waters on this show many times to explain and we’re going to keep asking.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/24/tucker-refuses-to-let-up-on-race-baiting-maxine-waters-video/


----------



## skypod

Seems like a waste of all the masculine AF female-to-males who'd be an asset to the army. Let's not forget Alan Turing was a genius and a hero for World War 2. If they want to not take male-to-female transgender people in just unofficially exclude someone you don't think is tough enough at the recruitment process. I can't imagine a huge amount of transgender people enjoy the "we'll break you then build you back up" process or the macho comradery and if they are fine will all that they deserve to be in. "Officially" excluding them sets a bad principal. There's already a system in place to choose who fights for the country. 


Let's not forget all the non-combat related positions as well. You should be taking in any talent you can get.


----------



## Reaper

So the Rino's got exposed today:



> Senators voted 55-45 against the measure in a procedural vote Wednesday, which likely signals that a full, clean repeal that conservatives are pushing for could not pass the legislative body.
> 
> Seven Republicans voted against the measure, including: Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Dean Heller of Nevada, John McCain of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.


Meaning this WOULD have passed without these fucking turncoats.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I'm just curious if the idea behind them being a burden (for reasons I assume that have to do with elements like mental health), is enough to warrant excluding them from any military duty at all. I'm sure right now there are hundreds of transwomen and transmen who are currently in the military that are probably doing just as good a job as any normal man or woman, and I feel like making them unable to serve in any capacity takes away what could have been driven people who would be useful in the military. 

Perhaps they could just have stricter measures regarding enlistment of them? Obviously trans-gendered people shouldn't be in the military to get money for gender reassignment surgery or other health matters like that. But I see no problem with somebody who's been transgender for years that hasn't had any sort of health issue or mental issue (technically there are people who view transgenderism as a mental condition on it's own that forbids them to be in the military in the first place).


----------



## virus21

> America’s colleges and universities have finally stopped their practice of annually gouging students with price increases for tuition, fees and room and board — to the accumulated tune of a growth rate of 400 percent in the last three decades.
> 
> Labor Department statistics collected by The Wall Street Journal show that aggregate tuition increases in 2017 rose 1.9 percent in 2017. This figure accords with the overall rate of U.S. inflation.
> 
> From 1990 to 2016, college tuition costs had increased at an average rate of 6 percent annually, which was more than twice the overall inflation rate for the same period.
> 
> This year’s steep decline in college cost increases has many causes.
> 
> One cause of the decline is the decision by Congress to stop raising the maximum amount of federally-subsidized student loans which college students can borrow to finance their educations. Congress has not increased this maximum amount since 2008, the Journal notes.
> 
> Should Congress Further Lower The Loan Amounts To Reduce Tuition Cost?
> Yes No
> Login with your social identity to vote
> 
> 
> Sign in
> inSign in with LinkedIn
> Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
> Subsidies cause the price of any good or service to rise. College administrators continually raised prices year after year — and decade after decade — precisely because the federal government generously subsidized those price increases with more and more student loans. Administrators responded rationally to the government’s allowance of bigger college loans by raising prices for college.
> 
> Now that the federal government has kept maximum borrowing rates the same for nearly a decade, college administrators have responded to the new economic reality by limiting price increases.
> 
> Other factors causing colleges to rein in their prices are societal and demographic.
> 
> For example, the United States now has 33 percent more schools offering two-year and four-year degrees than it had in 1990 but college enrollment across the nation has decreased over 4 percent from its 2010 pinnacle.
> 
> While a strong economy is causing fewer older people to seek new skills, a far bigger reason for the decline — and for a continuing decline in future years — is that there are fewer college-aged students because of declining birth rates.
> 
> The trend of fewer classroom bodies will almost certainly persist even if the economy remains perpetually robust because of the low birth rates. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education projects that high school graduation rates will remain stagnant until at least 2023, according to the Journal.
> 
> Also, the higher education group expects the number of white high school graduates — the demographic which tends to attend college the most — to decrease.
> 
> The decline in student enrollment is causing some schools to shut down, especially for-profit colleges and universities. (RELATED: SCIENCE: Degrees From For-Profit Colleges Are Inferior Crap)
> 
> Private colleges and universities, which tend to be more expensive than their public (and publicly-funded) peers, are also suffering because of student enrollment declines. Many public community colleges and some public universities have also been hit hard by enrollment declines. (RELATED: Mizzou Hemorrhages More Students And Cuts Jobs Because Of Black Lives Matter Protests)
> 
> Also, the Journal notes, while colleges and universities have stopped increasing prices so much, they are still increasing prices. And, because tuition has become so expensive in the last 30 years, a small percentage increase can still be a decent chunk of cash.
> 
> At a fancypants private school like Wesleyan University where a single year of tuition, fees and room and board costs $66,970, a 1.9 percent increase would cost students and parents about $1,270 each year.
> 
> At the taxpayer-funded University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where a single year of tuition, fees and room and board costs $27,176 for state residents, a 1.9 percent increase would cost students and parents about $516 each year.
> 
> A study by the Federal Reserve cited by the Journal indicates that close to 40 percent of Americans who are younger than 30 and who have not attended college say they are put off by the immense cost. A similar number of college dropouts under 30 also said cost was the reason.
> 
> Student loan debt continues to rise annually in the United States. Some 44 million Americans hold $1.31 trillion in student loan debt, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported earlier this year. (RELATED: Half Of America’s College Students Believe The Federal Government Will Forgive Their Loans)
> 
> To put this $1.31 trillion figure in perspective, Americans hold $779 billion in outstanding credit card balances, a figure nearly half the size of the total student loan burden.
> 
> Or think about it this way: The enormity of the U.S. student loan mess is larger than the entire annual economy of Russia, where the nominal gross-domestic product is $1.26 trillion annually.
> 
> Still another way to think about it: the amount Americans collectively owe on student loans is more than the annual gross domestic products of the Netherlands, Greece and Chile — combined.
> 
> Of the $1.31 trillion in outstanding student debt, some $31 billion, is “seriously delinquent,” meaning the debtors are at least 90 days past their payment dates. Another $32.6 billion of the total debt is “newly delinquent,” meaning that the debts are at least 30 days past their due dates. (RELATED: Guy With USELESS Degree From $62,965-A-Year College Is REALLY SAD About His Student Loans, You Guys)
> 
> Data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers tracks the total endowment value of 832 colleges and universities in the United States. In 2014, the total value of these schools’ endowments was $516 billion — more than the GDP of Norway. The schools also averaged an impressive investment return of 15.5 percent in 2014.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/24/shocker-colleges-stop-exorbitant-price-increases-after-congress-caps-student-loans/


----------



## zonetrooper5

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890181198940696576
> Scaramucci has been ace so far.


Why do you americans still insist on having a privatized healthcare system when you could have a state run healthcare system which would be cheaper and help protect more people regardless of your wealth status.


----------



## Draykorinee

zonetrooper5 said:


> Why do you americans still insist on having a privatized healthcare system when you could have a state run healthcare system which would be cheaper and help protect more people regardless of your wealth status.


Lol, good luck on that one mate, you must be new here if you think these guys are going to accept that. This thread is purely for the Trump-white alpha male circle jerk. Aint nobody got time for single payer healthcare systems in here.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just curious if the idea behind them being a burden (for reasons I assume that have to do with elements like mental health), is enough to warrant excluding them from any military duty at all. I'm sure right now there are hundreds of transwomen and transmen who are currently in the military that are probably doing just as good a job as any normal man or woman, and I feel like making them unable to serve in any capacity takes away what could have been driven people who would be useful in the military.
> 
> Perhaps they could just have stricter measures regarding enlistment of them? Obviously trans-gendered people shouldn't be in the military to get money for gender reassignment surgery or other health matters like that. But I see no problem with somebody who's been transgender for years that hasn't had any sort of health issue or mental issue (technically there are people who view transgenderism as a mental condition on it's own that forbids them to be in the military in the first place).


But its icky though right? 

Seriously though, I don;t think the military should pay for treatment, but if they're already done or in private treatment its fucking pathetic they're blanket banning them.


----------



## Draykorinee

Styx calls Trump out on Transgender issue. Virus doesn't link it, what a surprise.

Odd when his champion doesn't fit his narrative he doesn't link the video...



> If someone is transgendered, who cares


Well said Styx.


----------



## virus21

draykorinee said:


> Styx calls Trump out on Transgender issue. Virus doesn't link it, what a surprise.


Because I don't give a shit one way or another and I'm sick of the fucking issue on both sides of the argument.


----------



## amhlilhaus

zonetrooper5 said:


> Why do you americans still insist on having a privatized healthcare system when you could have a state run healthcare system which would be cheaper and help protect more people regardless of your wealth status.


Protect more people like the kid in britain?

Come back to us in a few years after all the muslim refugees get a load of your healthcare


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> Because I don't give a shit one way or another and I'm sick of the fucking issue on both sides of the argument.


You had a big enough fucking opinion earlier mate. Funny how things change. Hypocrit.


----------



## virus21

draykorinee said:


> You had a big enough fucking opinion earlier mate. Funny how things change.


On transgenderism? I don't recall ever mentioning it that I recall. Refresh my memory. Also, I Styx video I posted also mentions something he forgot to mention prior.


----------



## Draykorinee

amhlilhaus said:


> Protect more people like the kid in britain?


That kid was well protected from that liar American doctor who offered million dollar treatment without even reviewing the patient, if thats what you get in America, you can keep it. Unscrupulous vultures.

American doctor offers treatment without reviewing patient, reviews patient and refuses treatment. Well done America. Come back next time.


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> On transgenderism? I don't recall ever mentioning it that I recall. Refresh my memory. Also, I Styx video I posted also mentions something he forgot to mention prior.


Actually, you're right. It wasn't you. I'll take that back and write that one off as confusing Vic Capri with yourself. I'll go hide in a hole for two minutes.

Just in future if you're going to continue to post him, maybe share everything even if it doesn't fit the Turmp love in narrative?


----------



## MickDX

zonetrooper5 said:


> Why do you americans still insist on having a privatized healthcare system when you could have a state run healthcare system which would be cheaper and help protect more people regardless of your wealth status.


Why americans should spend money on a good healthcare system when those money can be used to build the greatest army ever which brings "freedom and happiness" everywhere around the globe? /sarcasm
Do you expect Trump and the others congressmen to give a fuck about the pathetic peasants?

Seriously though, public healthcare is considered a left-wing and socialist move. If they wanted that, Sanders was their best bet. In the latest years, America is more and more right-wing and I think it will continue to follow this trend.

While I am center-right, I support a basic healthcare for anyone especially for children and young adults.


----------



## skypod

amhlilhaus said:


> Protect more people like the kid in britain?
> 
> Come back to us in a few years after all the muslim refugees get a load of your healthcare


And how are you planning to protect low income families? 

Wealth does not equal value of human life btw. I do realise thats hard for a capitalist to understand.


----------



## FriedTofu

Curious how many have served in the military or willing to make a sacrifice for public service themselves? I don't think the majority of public servants have an issue with working alongside trans people, the main issue is the perceived special treatment they 'might' be getting based on the surgeries costs the departments seem to be offering or being shielded from certain responsibilities due to their trans-status.

Let's not pretend what the Obama administration did was anything but a PR move to allow for the military to spend on re-alignment surgery. This blanket ban is simply the same but to appeal to a different group of voters. Both were extreme position to take to appeal to a small group of their base that demanded the White House to give legitimacy to their cause that nobody really gives a rat's ass about.

At the end of the day it is about what you feel the costs/benefits of allowing these surgeries and how you spin it according to your beliefs. One could argue these surgeries can be seen as special privileges for transgenders and potentially breed resentment among the ranks. One could argue spending a few millions a year on these could be offset as part of recruitment material that the military takes care of its own. One could argue spending extra millions on a few hundred rank-and-file personnel is gross misuse of military spending, but another could argue the costs pale in comparison to trillions dollars worth of white elephant military projects.

Apparently this was a hold up to Trump's funding for his wall, so he decided to light the table on fire when Congress asked him to lit a candle to get things done. Go nuts.


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> Lol, good luck on that one mate, you must be new here if you think these guys are going to accept that. This thread is purely for the Trump-white alpha male circle jerk. Aint nobody got time for single payer healthcare systems in here.


You are more racist with that single post than any one of us have been.



InUtero said:


> Comments like the awful one above showcases that this decision is a victory for transphobia today as well as against equal rights. I'm disgusted.


stop. Transphobia isn't even that big a deal.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> stop. Transphobia isn't even that big a deal.


Maybe not to you, but it is to me and others.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Maybe not to you, but it is to me and others.


Well guess what? Im sorry every last person can't have their exact definition of what equality is without upsetting someone. Hell, I can't even have mine. Point is, Trans people are coming a long way and I know many that couldn't give less of a fuck about this. Is going to head there eventually anyway.


----------



## deepelemblues

skypod said:


> And how are you planning to protect low income families?
> 
> Wealth does not equal value of human life btw. I do realise thats hard for a capitalist to understand.


:lmao the bigotry of socialists never fails to amuse. stealing money from people at gunpoint - which is what every government in the world does - because you think you're robin hood doesn't make you a morally upright person, i do realize that is hard for a socialist to understand. 

the single greatest driver of healthcare costs after the rise in life expectancy is government guarantee of payment for healthcare regardless of actual cost or what the price would be in a free market

healthcare would be far cheaper and more efficient if government got itself the fuck out. $30,000 for a two-night stay in a hospital because you got a bad chest cold, with the barest minimum of care provided, no cutting-edge procedures using cutting-edge technology, no cutting-edge medicinal treatments using expensive substances? why do you think it costs $30,000 when it should cost about $300, tops? you consume a bed, some saline, some antibiotics that were developed 30 years ago and are cheap as hell to produce, and the bill to the government or to an insurance company or to you directly is TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS? why? because guaranteed government money paying for some patients sets the floor on prices for all patients. far, far above where it should be. 

a hundred years ago effective medical care was expensive because effective treatments and competent doctors were _scarce._ supply was low and demand high.

today, effective medical care is abundant in western nations. yet the price of it has gone up and up and up, far faster than the rate of inflation. supply has increased far more than demand has, although demand has also increased because of people living longer and needing all kinds of care in their old age. but again, the supply has increased far more than the demand for many, many types of treatment. yet the price to the consumer has risen for ALL kinds of treatment (except over the counter medicines). _in a free market, this would not happen. the price would go *down* as the supply increased._ we have a distorted market where cost bears no relation to supply and demand. cost is dependent on how much money government and insurance companies are willing to pay health care providers and pharmaceutical companies, which is apparently *any amount the healthcare providers wish to charge for services and the pharmaceuticals wish to charge for medicines.* do you think the people in charge of these providers and companies are dumb? guaranteed sales, regardless of price! _of course they're going to raise the price astronomically._ the rules have been set so that corruption and greed can rule the day. and that is precisely what they do. the united states, canada, france, germany, britain, any first-world country. price has been disconnected from supply and demand and that disconnection has grossly distorted the market to the point where the retail price is completely ludicrous.


----------



## Art Vandaley

So what's Trump distracting from?


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> So what's Trump distracting from?


Backlash from his base against his actions against Sessions.


----------



## Beatles123

Single payer is Fucking over Britain any way.

Tell em, @L-DOPA!


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> Well guess what? Im sorry every last person can't have their exact definition of what equality is without upsetting someone. Hell, I can't even have mine.


Cool down, man. No need to get mad.

I'm just disappointed and disgusted at the ruling. To me anyway, it doesn't really back up Trump's claims from way back on twitter that he'd basically take care of the LGBT community. I think Middy's post on this a few pages back explained it well, and I don't know if I could add further to that.

On your equality, I'm sorry. Obviously not the same situation, but being a socially isolated friendless clinical depressed hermit in Northern Ireland (I know you're Christian - and NI is a VERY Christian dominated land basically ruled and fought over by religion/Christianity, and whilst I'm an agnostic atheist, I have nothing against your faith and respect that - my mother is Christian after all), I'm not given equal rights either when it comes to my mental health, so I can get mad over that too. On your own rights over your disability condition, all I can say is that I hope that changes someday for the better sooner rather than later, whether it's with Trump or someone else or whoever/whatever.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Really? I've seen people claiming the figure is between 4,000 and 11,000 today.


That should be 250 openly transgendered troops. The number of ones that aren't open about it vary based on whatever survey you review. That can be anywhere from 2,000 to 11,000. 

Anyway, no matter how you spin it, Trump today delivered a big wet kiss to the social conservatives. With the anger swirling around regarding Sessions and the votes on Obamacare, Trump made some of his base very happy. These are the ones that do not want to pander to the LGBTQ community or feel God delivered Trump to save America. Many here could care less about the social issues but Trump dropped a MOAB on the culture war battlefield today. 

Notice how the narrative has changed in the last 24 hours.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just curious if the idea behind them being a burden (for reasons I assume that have to do with elements like mental health), is enough to warrant excluding them from any military duty at all. I'm sure right now there are hundreds of transwomen and transmen who are currently in the military that are probably doing just as good a job as any normal man or woman, and I feel like making them unable to serve in any capacity takes away what could have been driven people who would be useful in the military.
> 
> Perhaps they could just have stricter measures regarding enlistment of them? Obviously trans-gendered people shouldn't be in the military to get money for gender reassignment surgery or other health matters like that. But I see no problem with somebody who's been transgender for years that hasn't had any sort of health issue or mental issue (technically there are people who view transgenderism as a mental condition on it's own that forbids them to be in the military in the first place).


Like I mentioned earlier, it's not really a black and white issue. It's more complex and I don't believe in labeling someone a "transphobe" if they raise questions or play "devils advocate" 

There's no real telling what the medication can do to them physically and mentally over time, there just isn't enough time. There was a research last month I believe showing that kids who started treatment ended up being smaller and weaker because of the medication forcibly stopping their natural body from growing . But like I said there's just not that much research into it and you and I both know that any "negative" research will be labelled as "transphobic" therefore it should immediately be dismissed. 

I'm not saying that they have no place in the military ever, but with little known then maybe they shouldn't right now.


----------



## Reaper

I think it's a win from a cultural standpoint. 

There's a huge list of reasons why you aren't fit for service and if you're taking estrogen treatments and cutting off your pee pee AFTER you enter the military having passed the stringent military tests require to pass AS A MAN, then you're GAMING the fucking system. 

You're already cheating and depriving more deserving men - AND women - of a better chance at life and stealing from tax payers at the same time. 

I think men who pass military tests as men and then start identifying as women afterwards are selfish scum and I don't believe that that level of selfishness makes them worthy of serving in the military. Requirements for women are very different for men and you need to maintain a certain level of fitness as a man, but not if you suddenly identify as a woman :lol 

Yes, however I do agree that a blanket ban as always is missing the nuance and there can be more nuance built into this program. But at the same time I can understand why the ban was instituted in the first place - and I don't see it as innately wrong. 

There wasn't also any nuance built into the previous system either btw where they were at the other extreme where anyone could simply come up and say that they're a woman and the government put itself in a situation to be forced to comply with blanket laws in that case as well.

There are blanket bans on _several_ pre-existing conditions as well --- so this isn't anything new for the military.


----------



## skypod

deepelemblues said:


> :lmao the bigotry of socialists never fails to amuse. stealing money from people at gunpoint - which is what every government in the world does - because you think you're robin hood doesn't make you a morally upright person, i do realize that is hard for a socialist to understand.
> 
> the single greatest driver of healthcare costs after the rise in life expectancy is government guarantee of payment for healthcare regardless of actual cost or what the price would be in a free market



Or its the promise that you pay into a system when you're young because you'll need the healthcare when you're older? The promise that if you have no money in your bank account, your workplace lets you go and you get a horrible rash or break your the next day, you'll be taken care of without falling into debt (and possible depression spiral afterwards, all things which delay you getting another job).

I want to know about the worst case scenario. It really feels like middle class have absolutely no idea of poverty traps and how hopeless the situation is for others. This is why the Right is demonized, above anything else.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> Single payer is Fucking over Britain any way.
> 
> Tell em, @L-DOPA!


Hi There, 

Universal Healthcare is actually a system that's serving it's citizens quite well in Australia for example that has a combination of a public and private. Many other nations who value the basic right of healthcare to their citizens have similar successful systems.

So while the British NHS may or may not be a disaster, doesn't mean the notion itself of public healthcare is a failure around the rest of the world. There is much, much evidence for it's goodness behind this if you look for it.

The basic reason that it can work on a public model is that governments are not looking to make a profit from providing care, whereas obviously Private Insurers are required to.

Thank You and God Bless


----------



## Art Vandaley

Iconoclast said:


> I think men who pass military tests as men and then start identifying as women afterwards are selfish scum and I don't believe that that level of selfishness makes them worthy of serving in the military.


You consider people willing to fight and die for you selfish scum because they realise they were wrong about their gender?

Also being transgender isn't a disease and describing it as a pre-existing condition puts you on the level of the religious muslim homophobia you pretend to be so disgusted by.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> You consider people willing to fight and die for you selfish scum because they realise they were wrong about their gender?


No because identifying as a woman now has different expectations on you in the military. You are no longer required to fight in combat positions and you no longer have to maintain the same level of fitness as a man. 

It's a perfect heist so yeah, it's scummy as fuck. 



> Also being transgender isn't a disease and describing it as a pre-existing condition puts you on the level of the religious muslim homophobia you pretend to be so disgusted by.


:lmao Pre-existing conditions are not all medical or diseases. Yes, there are several medical conditions that make you ineligible for military service but there are also physical criteria that you need to meet --- and maintain. If you enter as a man and then identify as a woman, you don't have to maintain the same level of fitness or even combat readiness anymore. That sounds like a pretty sweet fucking ride to me. 

Having a certain height say 5 feet makes you ineligible for military service. That's not a disease, but it's a pre-existing condition in the sense that you don't meet the requirements of the military.

If you identify as a woman AFTER you join the military, then leave the military and find a more welcoming line of work. 

Only 0.47% of the military identifies as transgender. There are 7 million jobs available in the country. It's not that difficult for these people to do something else. 

I think most of them are in it for the money and the easy ride. I have little reason to trust them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

If TG people pass the tests to get in the services etc then don't they have the right to serve? This ban by Trump is just plain old discrimination isn't it, and probably..... dun dun dun... UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

The whole paying for sex changes is a separate issue, it's obviously retarded and they should rescind that - but you shouldn't ban all valuable TG people because of that reason.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> If TG people pass the tests to get in the services etc then don't they have the right to serve? This ban by Trump is just plain old discrimination isn't it, and probably..... dun dun dun... UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!
> 
> The whole paying for sex changes is a separate issue, it's obviously retarded and they should rescind that - but you shouldn't ban all valuable TG people because of that reason.


I guess they shouldn't ban anyone for being under 5 feet either. 

Maybe we should have a midget regiment as well because that's unconstitutional!

Though I wouldn't mind a bunch of Tyrion Lannisters running around the battlefield.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> No because identifying as a woman now has different expectations on you in the military. You are no longer required to fight in combat positions and you no longer have to maintain the same level of fitness as a man.
> 
> It's a perfect heist so yeah, it's scummy as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao Pre-existing conditions are not all medical or disease.
> 
> Having a certain height say 5 feet makes you ineligible for military service. That's not a disease, but it's a pre-existing condition in the sense that you don't meet the requirements of the military.


I think, perhaps, that a case of a soldier claiming to be transgender just to get out of certain duty or to not have to meet certain military standards should be demonstrated as having actually happened before it can be presented as a major argument against transgenders serving.



yeahbaby! said:


> Hi There,
> 
> Universal Healthcare is actually a system that's serving it's citizens quite well in Australia for example that has a combination of a public and private. Many other nations who value the basic right of healthcare to their citizens have similar successful systems.
> 
> So while the British NHS may or may not be a disaster, doesn't mean the notion itself of public healthcare is a failure around the rest of the world. There is much, much evidence for it's goodness behind this if you look for it.
> 
> The basic reason that it can work on a public model is that governments are not looking to make a profit from providing care, whereas obviously Private Insurers are required to.
> 
> Thank You and God Bless


That is just not true though.

Making it "public" does not magically remove human greed and ambition from the equation. 

If that were so the governments of these countries would not have a debt crisis every time there is a recession or almost have a debt crisis every time the growth of the economy slows. They spend so much on entitlements, the most major one of which is healthcare, that unless tax receipts grow continuously at above a certain rate, they cannot stay standing under the debt. And why do they spend so much? Because people know that with the government, cost is no object save in a very specific time of crisis, the government defaulting on its debts. No first-world government has really had to go through that kind of situation. Any other time the government can and will spend more or less (almost always more) freely. Not saying most people the government pays or pays for in some way games the system for more than they really should get, but large numbers do, and even larger numbers benefit by the amount the government spends being distorted upwards, for that and other reasons. 

The United States federal government will spend more than 4 trillion dollars this year, with more than half of that going to entitlement and health care spending. More than 2 trillion dollars. Much of that entitlement money (Social Security, it's like a quarter of the federal budget) will be used by the recipients to pay for healthcare. Who else in the world is throwing that kind of money around? Who wouldn't - and in no dishonest way - receive or make as much as they could from that almost indescribably vast sum of money being spent. 10% of the largest GDP in the world! King Croesus would weep and rage in shame at his poverty, beholding so much wealth. 

There will be more (and more widespread) and harsher austerity of the kind Europe is still somewhat going through in the future unless these successful systems find a way to not cost so much.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> I think, perhaps, that a case of a soldier claiming to be transgender just to get out of certain duty or to not have to meet certain military standards should be demonstrated as having actually happened before it can be presented as a major argument against transgenders serving.


The military is a closed up affair. How often do they let cases leak to the public that would make them look bad?

*1. Josh Ghering, U.S. Marine staff sergeant, Iraq and Afghan War veteran, former drill instructor:
*


> "If transgendered individuals are being taken out for these procedures and treatments, they are not being trained properly. Before we go to war, we train for over a year on ranges and with regimen after regimen. So then we take these individuals out of training to get their surgery. But what good are they if we are over in a war zone and they aren’t able to contribute to the fight because they’re going through therapy or recovering from said surgery.
> 
> “I didn’t have a problem when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was in place. But the military is not a social experiment. Its objective is to fight wars. That's where its sole focus should be.”


*3. Sean Conner, U.S. Marine sergeant, MARSOC operator (Raider), and Iraq veteran:
*


> "Considering less than 1 percent identify as transgender in the military, it would be a major burden, and the cost benefit analysis would be in the favor of not allowing this policy to go through. The amount of change, cost and redirection would not outweigh the very small pros, if any.
> 
> “The military had it right before with Don't Ask Don't Tell, or else things get complicated real quick. The rules were there before Trump came around and for good reason. I empathize if they want to serve, but just do it without having to announce your sexual orientation — its pretty simple.”


*6. Gregory Diacogiannis, U.S. Army sniper and Iraq War veteran:
*


> "These people need help and using the military for help is wrong and it doesn't help the military become a better kill force. Nothing is worse for morale than having someone treated differently and letting them live by a different set of rules.
> 
> “You will 'other' them because they will become a protected class. In combat everyone is equal, it doesn't matter if you are black, white, gay, straight, man, or woman. But if you let other people live by a different standard you crush morale. Also, we are talking about 0.1% of the population not being able to serve.”


*I suppose what I can do is shift my stance back to "Don't ask, don't tell" as well. 
*
However, the way the other extreme was going was also clearly not the right way to go about it either. 

GO back to "Don't ask, don't tell". Stop using the military as a tool for social experimentation. 

It's supposed to be a killing machine. Not a hollywood movie where you can have a bunch of diversity to impress your virtue signalling fee fees.


----------



## Vic Capri

The last time a transgender soldier was a hot topic, "she" gave out national secrets.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> But its icky though right?
> 
> Seriously though, I don;t think the military should pay for treatment, but if they're already done or in private treatment its fucking pathetic they're blanket banning them.


Agree with this 100%

If you're done with your transition etc it shouldn't matter. 

If you're joining just to get the medical treatment, then yeah, no.


----------



## Reaper

The military is also INCREDIBLY ABLEIST. 

I have a bad leg so I can't serve. 

I should be able to serve. I want to die for America. 

It's SO UNCONSTITUSHUNNEL! 

:triggered


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> That is just not true though.
> 
> *Making it "public" does not magically remove human greed and ambition from the equation. *
> 
> If that were so the governments of these countries would not have a debt crisis every time there is a recession or almost have a debt crisis every time the growth of the economy slows. They spend so much on entitlements, the most major one of which is healthcare, that unless tax receipts grow continuously at above a certain rate, they cannot stay standing under the debt. And why do they spend so much? Because people know that with the government, cost is no object save in times of crisis. Not saying most people the government pays or pays for in some way games the system for more than they really should get, but large numbers do, and even larger numbers benefit . The United States government will spend more than 4 trillion dollars this year, with more than half of that going to entitlement and health care spending. More than 2 trillion dollars. Much of that entitlement money (Social Security, it's like a quarter of the federal budget) will be used to pay for healthcare. Who else in the world is throwing that kind of money around? Who wouldn't - and in no dishonest way - receive or make as much money as they could off that almost indescribably vast sum of money being spent. 10% of GDP!
> 
> There will be more (and more widespread) and harsher austerity of the kind Europe is still somewhat going through in the future unless these successful systems find a way to not cost so much.


Of course making it 'public' doesn't remove greed or misappropriation of funds etc and things like that, but fundamentally there is a lot to be said by approaching healthcare more from a non-profit standpoint. Yes it costs money but it also saves money by the bucketloads in preventative measures for little conditions that turn into the big expensive ones.

Of course there is going to be people that 'game' the system, like any system, but there's also going to be a whole lot of people who end up healthier because they don't need to pay hundreds of dollars just to see a doctor and save money in the long run. There's a yin to every yang.

Secondly there's a wide variety of reasons why govts go into debt and it certainly can't be blamed all on something like Healthcare. That's a whole different kettle of fish.


----------



## deepelemblues

Iconoclast said:


> The military is also INCREDIBLY ABLEIST.
> 
> I have a bad leg so I can't serve.
> 
> I should be able to serve. I want to die for America.
> 
> It's SO UNCONSTITUSHUNNEL!
> 
> :triggered


don't worry son, once they start putting brains in jars and putting the jars in forty foot tall war robots, the salty old dog you'll be by then will be just what the military wants 

you (well your brain in a jar) won't have to tell your great great great grandchildren you spent the second siberian war shoveling shit in a field in louisiana


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> don't worry son, once they start putting brains in jars and putting the jars in forty foot tall war robots, the salty old dog you'll be by then will be just what the military wants
> 
> you (well your brain in a jar) won't have to tell your great great great grandchildren you spent the second siberian war shoveling shit in a field in louisiana


So the future military will run on WH40k rules?


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> don't worry son, once they start putting brains in jars and putting the jars in forty foot tall war robots, the salty old dog you'll be by then will be just what the military wants
> 
> you (well your brain in a jar) won't have to tell your great great great grandchildren you spent the second siberian war shoveling shit in a field in louisiana


If they ever come up with the tech to upload my brain into a robot, I'll literally be the first recruit ever.


----------



## deepelemblues

virus21 said:


> So the future military will run on WH40k rules?


knowing the government they'll probably run on stupid mechwarrior rules or stupid fucking giant robot anime rules

imbalanced fucking mechs and gundams


----------



## Miss Sally

We're still talking about Government Health Care?

The US Government? The Government that bloats anything it takes over?

Private Insurance isn't working very well because of some stupid rules in place and retarded policies.

Begging the Government for help is beyond stupid, Cali estimated it would cost 400 billion a year to do it's program. It also covers non-citizens and illegals. This would put a huge burden on the tax system.

The differences between HC with America and Aussie/Europe is apples and oranges, stop trying to view it through your rose tinted glasses without even understanding the American situation.

Unless this program doesn't cover illegals so there isn't a mass flooding of people trying to get on welfare and get the freebies it shouldn't be done.

The US would have to cut it's military budget, which I wouldn't mind if it meant closing military bases around most of the world and pulling out of NATO. The US can be like Germany, too expensive to pay for the military, we got to pay for stuff back home. 

I'd be a-okay with that!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The differences between HC with America and Aussie/Europe is apples and oranges, stop trying to view it through your rose tinted glasses without even understanding the American situation.


They also don't know the relationship between massive government debt, poor incentives, higher taxes and unemployment rates in their countries. 

Most countries with social welfare and government healthcare have higher than 10-14% real unemployment rates. I hear that Australia has full States that have literally 0 jobs for workers. Literally 0. Canada's unofficial real unemployment rate hovers between 12-15% ---- And that's out of only 35 million total people. 

Most of the remaining employable workforce is under-employed (working jobs they're over-qualified for) and severely struggling small businesses, almost no innovation and government subsidized monopolies. Of course their cost of living is pretty piss poor as well. Same can be said about Democrat states in America. Almost everyone I know that complains about being in perpetual poverty tends to come from blue states. 

But none of that is related back to the consequences of their socialised welfare systems because their brains are not trained to think that way.

There's a reason why these people are taught Shakespeare in school but not Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Stinger Fan said:


> Like I mentioned earlier, it's not really a black and white issue. It's more complex and I don't believe in labeling someone a "transphobe" if they raise questions or play "devils advocate"
> 
> There's no real telling what the medication can do to them physically and mentally over time, there just isn't enough time. There was a research last month I believe showing that kids who started treatment ended up being smaller and weaker because of the medication forcibly stopping their natural body from growing . But like I said there's just not that much research into it and you and I both know that any "negative" research will be labelled as "transphobic" therefore it should immediately be dismissed.
> 
> I'm not saying that they have no place in the military ever, but with little known then maybe they shouldn't right now.


Oh I wasn't insinuating that it was a simple issue, didn't mean for it to come across like that. And yeah, there's always people screaming their heads off about anything done that even paints them near a negative light. Best thing to do is ignore those types.

However, what it sort of feels like is a blanket policy for something you and me know isn't that simple. Perhaps it would have been better to put a temporary halt on acceptance of any more transgendered recruits, and instead have somebody look more into how they are recruited, so you don't end up with a bunch of transgendered people who are gaming the system like @Iconoclast mentioned, or transgendered people who continue to go through therapy while technically in active duty. 

A big point is that I think it would have went over better if Trump had maybe written a letter and put it up on the white house site and not do a "banning" of them over twitter. It just seems tacky and somewhat unprofessional to do that, in my view anyway.



Iconoclast said:


> I think it's a win from a cultural standpoint.
> 
> There's a huge list of reasons why you aren't fit for service and if you're taking estrogen treatments and cutting off your pee pee AFTER you enter the military having passed the stringent military tests require to pass AS A MAN, then you're GAMING the fucking system.
> 
> You're already cheating and depriving more deserving men - AND women - of a better chance at life and stealing from tax payers at the same time.
> 
> I think men who pass military tests as men and then start identifying as women afterwards are selfish scum and I don't believe that that level of selfishness makes them worthy of serving in the military. Requirements for women are very different for men and you need to maintain a certain level of fitness as a man, but not if you suddenly identify as a woman :lol
> 
> Yes, however I do agree that a blanket ban as always is missing the nuance and there can be more nuance built into this program. But at the same time I can understand why the ban was instituted in the first place - and I don't see it as innately wrong.
> 
> There wasn't also any nuance built into the previous system either btw where they were at the other extreme where anyone could simply come up and say that they're a woman and the government put itself in a situation to be forced to comply with blanket laws in that case as well.
> 
> There are blanket bans on _several_ pre-existing conditions as well --- so this isn't anything new for the military.


Sounds like there's something that could be looked into when it comes to nuances within the current system. Like I mentioned to Stinger, it's odd to do a blanket ban of all transgendered folk when it just was never a black and white issue to begin with. 

Like the things you mentioned here, with transgendered woman actually being men who failed to pass required tests, that is definitely something that shouldn't be allowed at all, and it does make the military itself look bad, as well as take spots away from women who really do deserve to be there. 

Still think it could just be called a temporary halt on recruitment until actual stricter requirements for them are set up, like not needing surgeries, or therapy not being necessary.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Equating being transgender with having a physical disability is no better than equating it with disease.

If you support this move and/or don't ask don't tell you're accepting that there is something "wrong" with transgender people.

And all these argumemts about how women have lesser roles are nonsense unless you also support a blanket ban on women serving. 

If you support natural born women serving but not men who have changed gender then you're simply being bigoted as there is no real difference. 

No one is saying transgender people shouldn't be put through the same tests as non transgender people, all we're saying is if they've passed the tests (and can continue passing said tests) they should be allowed to serve as anyone else who passed the same tests could. 

The assumption that being transgender effects your ability to do anything is ridiculous.

Allowing the people who are risking their lives for you to be open and honest about their sexuality and sexual identity isn't a social experiment, it's basic human decency.

Also people justifying this should also remember it applies to desk jobs etc too.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Still think it could just be called a temporary halt on recruitment until actual stricter requirements for them are set up, like not needing surgeries, or therapy not being necessary.


Frankly speaking, there was one interview I posted that made a very valid point about how the pros and cons in doing it Obama's way potentially make the entire system unworkable. Then there was a valid complaint from a drill instructor. 

A temporary halt in this case does not take care of the problem at all because what realistically can be done to create a situation where transgenders prove their worth the trouble? ... Until and unless they go back to don't ask, don't tell .. I don't see how realistically they can have transgenders come in and require special treatment ... because despite all the claims about "they're like everyone else", they're not. They require special medical care and special rules. 

This isn't the same situation as allowing gays or people from different races or religions. I mean, the military even allows legal immigrants to join as long as they meet the background checks. 

But people who join and then want to remain a part of the military while getting treatments and surgeries is a burden on the system. They're out of action for long periods and that is not what the military is about. 

Heck, even a lot of private employers don't tolerate people taking leaves of absence for the majority of medical procedures.



Alkomesh2 said:


> The assumption that being transgender effects your ability to do anything is ridiculous.


Getting medical procedures done on you while on active duty removes you from active duty. 

Even private employers are not so kind. This is the military. If you're going to be off duty for long periods of time, you might as well be booted out of the military and not be a part of it.

And if you believe that a medical condition that requires medical treatments isn't a medical condition then you might as well believe that water isn't wet.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Iconoclast said:


> Getting medical procedures done on you while on active duty removes you from active duty.
> 
> Even private employers are not so kind. This is the military. If you're going to be off duty for long periods of time, you might as well be booted out of the military and not be a part of it.


If there was a ruling saying that people who end up in too much leave because of surgeries got kicked out then no one would care. 

That isn't what this is. 

How do you justify applying that argument to only the one kind of surgery?

And how do you justify the ban being imposed on people who already had the surgery/never will have surgery?

Here you are again with calling being transgender a medical condition, it isn't anymore than being short, and your belief that it is then it puts you on the level with the religious muslim homophobes you always attack. 

By definition a medical condition is something "wrong", you are saying that transgender people are fundamentally wrong when you describe being transgender as a medical condition.

The surgery involved is cosmetic surgery, women regularly have surgery to enlarge their breasts, that doesn't make having small breasts a medical condition.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> If there was a ruling saying that people who end up in too much leave because of surgeries got kicked out then no one would care.


People get kicked out of the military for the smallest things .. Surgeries as well. People with Diabetes even can't serve. People with heart conditions, or requiring certain medications can't serve. Statistically, there is no significant improvement in the mental stability of transgenders after sex reassignment surgery. 

I don't think it's worth the headache for the military to take on such a huge responsibility when it doesn't need to just so that it can be seen as "diverse and accepting". 

They don't accept people for a lot of reasons. I think there's valid medical justification here to reject all transgenders - even if I don't full agree with it. 



> That isn't what this is.


It's part of it. The other parts are reintegration, otherism and discord within the troups. 



> How do you justify applying that argument to only the one kind of surgery?


Yes, because getting an entire gender changed is the same as getting like an appendix removed :lol Way to minimize the entire process of sex reassignment to something so simplified. 



> And how do you justify the ban being imposed on people who already had the surgery/never will have surgery?


I don't justify it in that case. 

Why do you think that I would when I've said that I don't support a blanket ban because it lacks nuance and that I would've liked to have more nuance built in. 

Are you even reading my posts or just trying to paint a picture of Reaper being a transphobe in your head so you can keep fighting this monster you've created :lol 

I'm ok with Don't ask, don't tell. It was working in the past. 

.47% of the military isn't worth the cost or the social headaches it causes internally.

Unfortunately just because you want to deny the fact that a medical condition that requires surgeries as well as ongoing treatments isn't a medical condition at all is your problem with accepting reality.


----------



## FriedTofu

Can we get an example of a country that do not have government healthcare for employment numbers comparison? 

Even Switzerland and Singapore, two countries that American conservatives love to praise for their healthcare policies, rely on government interference. Of course those two countries are also some of the richest in the world too that might have something to do with why it work. Who really knows?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> Oh I wasn't insinuating that it was a simple issue, didn't mean for it to come across like that. And yeah, there's always people screaming their heads off about anything done that even paints them near a negative light. Best thing to do is ignore those types.
> 
> However, what it sort of feels like is a blanket policy for something you and me know isn't that simple. Perhaps it would have been better to put a temporary halt on acceptance of any more transgendered recruits, and instead have somebody look more into how they are recruited, so you don't end up with a bunch of transgendered people who are gaming the system like @Iconoclast mentioned, or transgendered people who continue to go through therapy while technically in active duty.
> 
> A big point is that I think it would have went over better if Trump had maybe written a letter and put it up on the white house site and not do a "banning" of them over twitter. It just seems tacky and somewhat unprofessional to do that, in my view anyway.


My apologies, I wasn't trying to say you were insinuating something, I'm just having a discussion with you and mentioning that people try to make it black and white when it really isn't .I don't know what a proper solution would be if I'm honest. I don't think this will be a "forever" thing(the white house isn't great with their words), unless obviously if something comes up through research suggesting that there is something there and maybe they shouldn't be in the military . I really don't know, I just don't think the military is the proper place for a social experiment is all. 

Honestly I feel like Trump should really only be focusing on policy stuff while using twitter, I think that's much better than having twitter wars but I get what you're saying.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Iconoclast said:


> Unfortunately just because you want to deny the fact that a medical condition that requires surgeries as well as ongoing treatments isn't a medical condition at all is your problem with accepting reality.


Ok, here is the defintion of medical condition:



> medical condition A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition 

Having read that can you see why being transgender is not a medical condition and to say that it is is to imply there is something wrong with it?

And btw if I thought you were a transphobe I wouldn't be taking the effort to explain this to you.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Ok, here is the defintion of medical condition:
> 
> 
> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition
> 
> Having read that can you see why being tramsgender is no a medical condition and to say that it is is to imply there is something wrong with it?


Yes, just because the PC police have been able to brainwash diversity champions with artfully chosen words to describe a disorder as a non-disorder doesn't make it a non-disorder. 

People have a different body to a different mindset of what their body should be. That's a disorder. 

"Nothing wrong" is a leading phrase and a crafty method to get someone to make a statement that makes these diversity champions create a "gotcha, you transphobe" moment. 

It takes something where something is clearly wrong --- that's why transgenders hate their bodies they're born with - and also refuses to acknowledge whatever little we know of biological science where a birth defect can no longer be called a defect when even poor transgenders are trying to "fix" themselves. 

It's hilariously obnoxious and completely misguided. 

So if there's nothing wrong, then what are the transgenders trying to fix? Why do they need medical treatments if it's not a medical condition. 

Can I have some of what you're smoking so I can escape reality as easily?


----------



## Reaper

TBH, instead of getting embroiled in the transgender debate, I'm actually more upset over the fact that a group of 7 republicans shot down the ACA repeal. 

I bet that if we followed the money, those senators would be found to be on Insurance company payrolls. In fact, that's something I'm going to look into tomorrow. 

Follow the crony capitalist and that's usually where the answer lies.


----------



## Goku

Intersex is medical condition. Hormonal imbalance is also a medical condition (though how loosely we gauge balance could be important). Why is transgenderism not a medical condition?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Goku said:


> Intersex is medical condition. Hormonal imbalance is also a medical condition (though how loosely we gauge balance could be important). Why is transgenderism not a medical condition?


 Because (to refer to my earlier definition) "a biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition."

So it depends on if you consider it within the range of normal human variation. 

And yes I am aware how subjective that test is.

And to respond to Icon I would point out that they don't "need" surgery, they merely "want" it. Like a woman with small breasts might "want" breast enlargement surgery they don't "need" it. I would accept someone who "needs" it could be considered having a mental disorder on that basis.


----------



## Jay Valero

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890193981585444864
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890196164313833472
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890197095151546369


One of the most important things Trump will ever do. These people are mentally ill and have no place in the military.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> And to respond to Icon I would point out that they don't "need" surgery, they merely "want" it. Like a woman with small might "want" breast enlargement surgery they don't "need" it. I would accept someone who "needs" it could be considered having a mental disorder on that basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental flaw in this description.
> 
> There is an intrinsic element of suffering with regards to transgenderism which makes it an innate disorder. Without the need there is no suffering and therefore no compelling desire to want the surgery.
> 
> A want obviously implies a lack of need and therefore if there is a lack of need, then there is no issue with accepting ones lot in life.
> 
> This isn't as circular as it sounds. Without suffering, there is no issue. WIthout an issue there isn't a demand to make something accessible and available - Without compulsion one can gladly accept being a female in a male body or a male in a female body -
> 
> There is no want in a sex reassignment surgery. It's not "elective" in that sense. It's a necessity. For it not to be a necessity, then there would be no suffering and no sense of oppression and therefore no need to demand special access and therefore a female bodied transgender would be ok with their lot in life and just live their life as a woman.
> 
> This is not transgenderism at all. You cannot separate dysphoria and suffering from any experience of transgenderism as a matter of convenience.
> 
> Maybe you should spend some time listening to Blaire White .. If I wasn't worried about anonymity, I would introduce you to my best friend who has suffered all her life and has provided me with the bulk of my knowledge through her experience.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Middy

Iconoclast said:


> Frankly speaking, there was one interview I posted that made a very valid point about how the pros and cons in doing it Obama's way potentially make the entire system unworkable. Then there was a valid complaint from a drill instructor.
> 
> A temporary halt in this case does not take care of the problem at all because what realistically can be done to create a situation where transgenders prove their worth the trouble? ... Until and unless they go back to don't ask, don't tell .. I don't see how realistically they can have transgenders come in and require special treatment ... because despite all the claims about "they're like everyone else", they're not. They require special medical care and special rules.
> 
> This isn't the same situation as allowing gays or people from different races or religions. I mean, the military even allows legal immigrants to join as long as they meet the background checks.
> 
> But people who join and then want to remain a part of the military while getting treatments and surgeries is a burden on the system. They're out of action for long periods and that is not what the military is about.
> 
> Heck, even a lot of private employers don't tolerate people taking leaves of absence for the majority of medical procedures.


You have a point with the private employers thing, as there are certain positions which heavily imply that they cannot accept long breaks in employment, regardless of what they might be for. I can't name some off the top of my head at this moment, but I'm assuming that these would be higher level office positions and the like. 

But overall, I do understand where you're coming from in terms with the absence thing, and it just cannot work if somebody needed to be out because of surgery that was due to personal choices. I always thought that there is a certain point for transgenders where they really don't need to worry much about treatment and surgeries much though? Could be wrong here, and it might be something I have to look up. Regardless, I'm still not a fan of the policy in general, but I do see what he is trying to do here.



Stinger Fan said:


> My apologies, I wasn't trying to say you were insinuating something, I'm just having a discussion with you and mentioning that people try to make it black and white when it really isn't .I don't know what a proper solution would be if I'm honest. I don't think this will be a "forever" thing(the white house isn't great with their words), unless obviously if something comes up through research suggesting that there is something there and maybe they shouldn't be in the military . I really don't know, I just don't think the military is the proper place for a social experiment is all.
> 
> Honestly I feel like Trump should really only be focusing on policy stuff while using twitter, I think that's much better than having twitter wars but I get what you're saying.


Right now it seems like they're equating transgendered people to a pre-existing condition that could be of hindrance to the normal system, given the chance of more health problems, and the need for more surgeries, treatments, and the like, and also how it seems to cost more money as a result. It's shitty if you're a transgendered person who actually is relatively healthy and fit to serve yes, but I'm not sure if this is going to be a concrete thing or not. We'll have to see more about this over the next few weeks.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> You are more racist with that single post than any one of us have been.
> 
> stop. Transphobia isn't even that big a deal.


Racism/transphobia its all bigotry,not sure why you put more or less value on one or the other. What I said wasn't racist though.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump doesn't belong on Mt. Rushmore.

He should get his own mountain.


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> Trump doesn't belong on Mt. Rushmore.
> 
> He should get his own mountain.


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> Racism/transphobia its all bigotry,not sure why you put more or less value on one or the other. What I said wasn't racist though.


"White male circle jerk" was your description. This implies racial overtones and, with that, you are more bigoted or racist than we have been. This is a fact. Nothing we have said is based on anything you accused us of in your post.


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> "White male circle jerk" was your description. This implies racial overtones and, with that, you are more bigoted or racist than we have been. This is a fact. Nothing we have said is based on anything you accused us of in your post.


Shhh .. It's ok to shit on white people because you know his professors told him that you guys have institutional power therefore you have money therefore 300 years ago some rich rich people were colonial masters and enslaved everybody therefore hating today's white people is good because ... because you know, only white people support trump because only white people are racist and transphobic and very phobic and much full of dislike for other groups of people because you know like his teachers and salon and jezebel journalists told him like that he's totally altruistic because he spends so much time putting you white trump supporters in your place .. well the list goes on. mk.

---


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:Wat? at the transgender soldier ban. Sounds like fuckery that Pence, not Trump, would get wet over.

I can understand not accepting pre-op transgenders, because they still need to undergo surgery and the appropriate hormonal balance. Plus, gender reassignment surgery is a cosmetic procedure and thus should be paid out of pocket by those who wish to undertake it, instead of being sought from an employer's pocketbook.

However, unlike a kid, who gets swept up in a whirlwind of emotions leading into and during puberty, an adult transgender is (or should be) firmly set in their sexual identity once they've fully transitioned. In addition to being unable to get behind the banning of post-op transgenders from serving in the military, I can actually see it being struck down as unconstitutional, much like Don't Ask, Don't Tell.



Goku said:


>


Ya boi Roshi blew up the moon, though. :krillin2

Meh, no worries. Trump can simply use his top-tier construction powers to invest in brand new infrastructure for the moon.

:trump2


----------



## MickDX

Doesn't matter if the military budget is very huge, those expenses on surgeries for transgender people are still not ok to be done by the government. There is plenty people who want to join the military. In the latest years, the transgender agenda has gone out of control, people are starting to invent some fuckery genders and some of them think are special snowflakes and deserve better treatment than the rest of the people. I know not everyone trans is bad and they don't deserve discrimination but they have enough domains to make it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TRUMP'S SPREADING TAINT!


----------



## DOPA

The issue of Transgenderism (is that even a word? :lol ) itself is very complex so in reality, the issue of admitting them into the military should have always been looked into again and analyzed properly. Let's be honest with ourselves here: Obama's policy of letting them serve in the military was simply a virtue signalling measure to appeal to the progressive wing of his party, it wasn't well thought through or mapped out. So I support a rethink. Having said, I think this measure is pretty much the same from Trump on the opposite scale to appease social conservatives who I will never agree with on social issues or civil liberties issues.

So I'm going to have to disagree with the Trump supporters on this one for the most part. Overall, I think the issue of equality of *opportunity* is being overlooked here and I don't think a blanket ban of Transgender people being able to serve in the military really helps the issue here. It's a position that shows a complete lack of nuance and thought. Overall I think there needs to be measure in which both serves the military's interest but also gives Transgender people who genuinely want to serve and protect the country the opportunity to do so. This policy essentially places both the fully transitioned potential recruit who would be absolutely no burden to the military in terms of time away and money spent on medical procedures and the Transgender person who is still going through or just starting the transition period in exactly the same position. That's not only I don't think is right from a standpoint of fairness but also just isn't the right policy position to begin with.

My view overall is this: If you can pass all the relevant tests to get into the military and can be shown to be an asset to the military overall and are willing to fight for and protect my country then I don't give a damn what you are.

There are of course some relevant points being made on the opposite end of the argument. Having transgender people being constantly taken out of service to have medical procedures done and delaying their training is a big problem, because they do end up getting special treatment and do become a burden to the rest of their regiment. It is also a problem because taxpayer money is being used to essentially pay for Transgender people's medical procedures. That simply is not acceptable because that taxpayer money in terms of the military should be used on the military itself to defend the country, not on some extraneous reason. As a general rule, I believe taxpayer money should be used for the universal benefit of the country. Transgender surgery doesn't fit that bill nor does a list of other things the left wants citizens money to be used on like for example abortion.

So yes in those cases, take them out of the military because it's a waste of money, time and effort. And those who start off in the military and come out as transgender later should also be taken out if they want to go through the transition period as in that case it no longer becomes equality of opportunity or having the same equal treatment as every other soldier. But instead of this shoddy ill thought out measure, why not instead deal with it on a case by case basis? That way those who are trans who won't be a burden on both the military and taxpayer can serve to the benefit of everyone and those who are taking liberties can be rightly removed. 

A blanket ban doesn't help anyone, if a *fully transitioned* trans male or female passes all the relevant tests and is willing to fight for the country, why should we stop them?

I can't think of any reason to do so.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> "White male circle jerk" was your description. This implies racial overtones and, with that, you are more bigoted or racist than we have been. This is a fact. Nothing we have said is based on anything you accused us of in your post.


I actually said white male circle jerk, so that also makes me a mysandrist for simply pointing out the liklihood that most posters in here are white males, there was no negative connotation to being white and male, its like saying most rappers are black. 
And if you think thats more bigotted than saying transgenders are mentally ill and should be locked up...well you'd be wrong.

Lets be honest though, you picked up one comment from me and refused to have a go at the more obscene bigotted comments like 



Mra22 said:


> I'm very happy Trump banned these sickos from the military they need locked up in a mental facility.


Because you don't think transphobia is even a big thing. But dare to use the term white male and then you'll get on your high horse. Think the word is triggered actually.


----------



## virus21

This is something I have been following since its my home state


----------



## Draykorinee

He should be congratulated for creating more jobs, he's just cost 3000 transgenders theres though, so its a bit of give and take I suppose 

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nobody can agree on how many trannies are actually in the US military. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

I don't agree with Mra but it doesn't mean what you said wasn't just as much a broad assumption in its own way Drayk :lol You appeal to the white male argument as if it's a valid reason to discredit the thread when we have woman and non-whites in here all the time. Further, a circle jerk would imply we agree with each other. If you've been paying attention we don't. most of our time is spent debating and counter-proposing. Thats far from a circle jerk. As for the transgenders, Im pretty sure they're gonna be fine with or without the army. They're coming a long way and if this thing isn't settled in their favor soon, they will be. For the record my opinion is let them in, but if your argument is "FUCKING WHITE MEN LOL" to discredit this thread and the people in it you can :gtfo


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> I don't agree with Mra but it doesn't mean what you said wasn't just as much a broad assumption in its own way Drayk :lol You appeal to the white male argument as if it's a valid reason to discredit the thread when we have woman and non-whites in here all the time. Further, a circle jerk would imply we agree with each other. If you've been paying attention we don't. most of our time is spent debating and counter-proposing. Thats far from a circle jerk. As for the transgenders, Im pretty sure they're gonna be fine with or without the army. They're coming a long way and if this thing isn't settled in their favor soon, they will be. For the record my opinion is let them in, but if your argument is "FUCKING WHITE MEN LOL" to discredit this thread and the people in it you can :gtfo


In all honesty it was just a facetious joke, the whole comment wasn't a particularly well articulated one because I was just messing around, I didn't expect anyone to take it that seriously, I thought the tone was apparant with my last, ain't nobody got time for that schtick. The circle jerk jokes have been a running thing for the last 20 odd pages so I was carrying it on.

I find it odd that mine was such an issue when clearly there are worse examples of bigotry going uncontested.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> He should be congratulated for creating more jobs, he's just cost 3000 transgenders theres though, so its a bit of give and take I suppose
> 
> The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.


Were the 250 fired? Or is it 3000? Maybe it's 150k? Maybe a million?! 

Does anyone really know?


Seems Cali is still trying to split from the US though now from what I've read of the proposal, it's a pussy split. They want more autonomy but want to keep federal funds.. Who thought this up? We want your money but not anything else the Federal Government has! Besides these assholes love Government oversight and babysitting.


----------



## FriedTofu

The funniest thing from this trans ban is LGBT friendly groups bringing up US military spending on Viagra to compare costs. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> In all honesty it was just a facetious joke, the whole comment wasn't a particularly well articulated one because I was just messing around, I didn't expect anyone to take it that seriously. I find it odd that mine was such an issue when clearly there are worse examples of bigotry going uncontested.


As I said before, I myself disagree with him. I think it's pretty likely that few here really endorse Mra's particular language on the subject (Though certainly a civil debate is to be had on whether Transgender-ism is the result of a disorder or not, and I think we've been doing that) but to fire back using the white male cliche even AS a joke makes you seem just as unable to articulate yourself. In a time where Liberals are actually using this as ammo, you as more of a leftie need to rise above that if you want your side heard well amongst the right, i feel.

Don't be this guy:






Just sayin' :justsayin


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Were the 250 fired? Or is it 3000? Maybe it's 150k? Maybe a million?!
> 
> Does anyone really know?
> 
> 
> Seems Cali is still trying to split from the US though now from what I've read of the proposal, it's a pussy split. They want more autonomy but want to keep federal funds.. Who thought this up? We want your money but not anything else the Federal Government has! Besides these assholes love Government oversight and babysitting.


Let them go. See how far they get.


----------



## DOPA

@Beatles123 @FriedTofu @Iconoclast @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally


One thing I need to make clear again I feel in regards to Obamacare and the healthcare debate in general is something which I think the left and right in this thread don't seem to get right is in regards to the differences between universal and single payer. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems as though people in this thread are conflating the two as exactly the same. But universal healthcare and single payer are *not mutually exclusive.*

Both are yes, universal however for example in Switzerland and the Netherlands, healthcare is universal as in everyone is covered however all of the providers are private and there is a large degree of competition in both of those systems, particularly in the Netherlands where they are praised in many studies for having their bureaucrats largely removed from the system, essentially laying some basic ground rules and regulations and leaving the rest between the doctors and patients. A large reason why in a number of years, it's been ranked the leading healthcare system by the Euro Health Index. Just in this year alone for at least the second year in a row, the two countries I've listed have been ranked the best healthcare systems in Europe. Universal systems but both completely private whereas the UK continues to struggle in comparison.

Those systems and those mixed healthcare systems like France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal etc. are not the same as single payer where the majority provider of healthcare comes from the state where you rely completely on government policy to deliver healthcare to it's citizens regardless whether it's a right wing or left wing government. This is where the problems really mount up which I have many times gone over in this thread. Without a realistic alternative to the state managed healthcare, if that system breaks down or fails essentially you have no realistic alternative for the 95% of the population who can't afford private health insurance because it's too expensive. Essentially, only the very rich can buy out of the system which is something you would think the left who prides itself on having income equality would be more vocal about: having a system which only the very rich have the opportunity and choice to buy their own health insurance. Unfortunately, many of these same people don't believe in freedom to choose either, so that's where the conflict lies.

A good example of where the system fails and there's no choice out of it is the winter crisis the NHS recently had in late 2016-early 2017 where a larger than expected number of patients had to be admitted and there wasn't enough space or resources to cover them all. Not enough beds, not enough rooms, not enough staff available. Doctors and nurses had to work near 24 hour shifts just to maintain any sense of control. There was even cases of where it took 4 hours to move patients from the ambulances into the hospital. That's how bad it got.

This is where the problems of fully managed state socialized healthcare come into play. Many blame the Conservative government for what transpired but what I think they don't realize is this sort of failure of the system can happen at any moment regardless of what government is in power because the most of the healthcare is provided by one source which is state funded. All it takes is some errors in government policy, no matter how well intentioned for the system to collapse and be in crisis again leaving patients completely stranded and nowhere to go. All it takes is one government, who doesn't have the best intentions for the health service to come in and rip it up and then you leave everyone worse off with no option to buy out of the system. That's the one fatal flaw that a single payer system will always have regardless of who is in charge: it relies completely and solely on the government to provide the care with no realistic alternative option. 

This is what the Democrats want and this is what I am urging Americans to not give into. Once you go that route, it is extremely difficult to come back from and you get situations like in the UK where if you even mention changing the system so there is a degree of competition alongside the public option i.e a mixed two or three tier system, you are essentially branded as an evil person who doesn't care about the least well off, where realistically I only want a system which works best for everyone, gives people the freedom to choose their providers and doesn't rely on a single state managed source which fucks over everyone when it inevitably collapses during it's most difficult periods.

This is why it pains me to see systems like Singapore, Switzerland and Germany be compared to the NHS. I'd absolutely LOVE for one of those type of systems to come in and replace the NHS. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Now whether or not a universal system in the US would work is another question, the fact is further government intervention through Obamacare hasn't worked and made the problems much worse and historically it has been shown the more the government gets involved and monopolizes certain aspects of the US healthcare system, the further the costs have gone up. 

I will link an article which shows the history of US intervention in the healthcare system and how it has spiked prices in the insurance market, essentially driving away competition and making access to healthcare that much harder and expensive. You'd need to reverse the biggest of these first before you have any chance of improving the US system in my opinion. Very good article worth reading:

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive



> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," declared philosopher George Santayana.
> 
> The U.S. “health care cost crisis” didn’t start until 1965. The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals. Health care prices responded at twice the rate of inflation (Figure 1). Now, the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes with the unveiling of Obamacare (a.k.a. “Medicare and Medicaid for the middle class”).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 1: An Indexed Comparison of Health Care Inflation and Consumer Price Index in US from 1935 to 2009 (Source: US Census 2013
> 
> Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote that medical price inflation since 1965 has been caused by the rising demand for health-care coupled with restricted supply (Friedman 1992). Robert Alford explained the minority view: "The market reformers wish to preserve the control of the individual physician over his practice, over the hospital, and over his fees, and they simply wish to open up the medical schools in order to meet the demand for doctors, to give patients more choice among doctors, clinics, and hospitals, and to make that choice a real one by public subsidies for medical bills" (Alford 1975).
> 
> The majority of policymakers support either monopolization (e.g. typically Republicans) or nationalization (e.g., typically Democrats). Both have claimed "physician supply can create its own demand," which means increasing the supply of doctors and hospitals will just motivate them to convince "ignorant" consumers to order more unnecessary and expensive health care. During the 1970s, Frank Sloan, a Vanderbilt University health care economist, explained the success of the most influential pro-regulation health care economist, Uwe Reinhardt: "His theories are highly regarded because he is so clearly understood. Unfortunately the evidence for them is not good; it is not bad either, it is just not there. And it would be a shame to see federal policy set on such a poor, unscientific basis."
> 
> Since the early 1900s, medical special interests have been lobbying politicians to reduce competition. By the 1980s, the U.S. was restricting the supply of physicians, hospitals, insurance and pharmaceuticals, while subsidizing demand. Since then, the U.S. has been trying to control high costs by moving toward something perhaps best described by the House Budget Committee: “In too many areas of the economy — especially energy, housing, finance, and health care — free enterprise has given way to government control in “partnership” with a few large or politically well-connected companies” (Ryan 2012). The following are past major laws and other policies implemented by the Federal and state governments that have interfered with the health care marketplace (HHS 2013):
> 
> * In 1910, the physician oligopoly was started during the Republican administration of William Taft after the American Medical Association lobbied the states to strengthen the regulation of medical licensure and allow their state AMA offices to oversee the closure or merger of nearly half of medical schools and also the reduction of class sizes. The states have been subsidizing the education of the number of doctors recommended by the AMA.
> * In 1925, prescription drug monopolies begun after the federal government led by Republican President Calvin Coolidge started allowing the patenting of drugs. (Drug monopolies have also been promoted by government research and development subsidies targeted to favored pharmaceutical companies.)
> * In 1945, buyer monopolization begun after the McCarran-Ferguson Act led by the Roosevelt Administration exempted the business of medical insurance from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws. (States have also more recently contributed to the monopolization by requiring health care plans to meet standards for coverage.)
> * In 1946, institutional provider monopolization begun after favored hospitals received federal subsidies (matching grants and loans) provided under the Hospital Survey and Construction Act passed during the Truman Administration. (States have also been exempting non-profit hospitals from antitrust laws.)
> * In 1951, employers started to become the dominant third-party insurance buyer during the Truman Administration after the Internal Revenue Service declared group premiums tax-deductible.
> * In 1965, nationalization was started with a government buyer monopoly after the Johnson Administration led passage of Medicare and Medicaid which provided health insurance for the elderly and poor, respectively.
> * In 1972, institutional provider monopolization was strengthened after the Nixon Administration started restricting the supply of hospitals by requiring federal certificate-of-need for the construction of medical facilities.
> In 1974, buyer monopolization was strengthened during the Nixon Administration after the Employee Retirement Income Security Act exempted employee health benefit plans offered by large employers (e.g., HMOs) from state regulations and lawsuits (e.g., brought by people denied coverage).
> * In 1984, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Reagan Administration after the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act permitted the extension of patents beyond 20 years. (The government has also allowed pharmaceuticals companies to bribe physicians to prescribe more expensive drugs.)
> * In 2003, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Bush Administration after the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act provided subsidies to the elderly for drugs.
> * In 2014, nationalization will be strengthened after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”) provided mandates, subsidies and insurance exchanges, and the expansion of Medicaid.
> 
> The history of medical cost inflation and government interference in health care markets appears to support the hypothesis that prices were set by the laws of supply and demand before 1980 and perhaps 1990. Even the degree of monopolization and nationalization promoted by politicians before 1965 was not enough to cause significant cost inflation and spending increases (Figure 2) until demands created by Medicare and Medicaid outstripped the restricted supply of physicians and hospitals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 2: Health Care Spending in U.S. by Sector from 1960 to 2005 (Source: US Census 2013)
> 
> Spending on prescription drugs didn't accelerate until after pharmaceutical monopolies were strengthened in 1984. Spending has increased even less for administrative, net cost of private health insurance and nursing home care, and not much at all for dental, structures, equipment, public health, other personal and professional care, home health care, research, non-prescription drugs and durable medical equipment.
> 
> Since the 1980s, the government has used its buyer monopoly power, through its Medicare and Medicaid programs, to effectively set price and quality controls (e.g., underpayments) on physicians and hospitals (Stagg-Elliot 2012). For the same purpose, the Federal and state governments promoted the concentration of private insurance into buyer monopolies (e.g., HMOs). The government has also encouraged clinics and hospitals to respond by merging into concentrated provider monopolies (while continuing to limit the supply of doctors and hospitals).
> 
> These government-private partnerships called "managed competition" resemble centrally-planned fascism (Richman 2013). Government sets prices, which has predictably led to reduced quality, rationing and other perverse gaming. Moreover, the bureaucracy has brought standardized care, higher administrative costs and high executive salaries. Although costs have continued to rise at the same double the rate of inflation, it is questionable the extent to which prices are now set by the laws of supply and demand.
> 
> Obamacare is expected to expand coverage by about 22 million people with subsidies and another 17 million through Medicaid. Regardless how the current problems with mandates play out, demand will likely skyrocket without increasing supply proportionately (Fodeman 2011). Higher prices and costs and/or lower quality can be expected to result in calls for nationalization (e.g., “single payer”) by Democrats while Republicans counter with private insurance and tort reforms.
> 
> The search for alternative economic systems should include free markets through a closer reexamination of the health care marketplace before 1980 to 1990 to determine whether prices offered by physicians and hospitals were ever set by the laws of supply and demand. Economist Henry Hazlitt provides the following description:
> 
> Prices are fixed through the relationship of supply and demand. ... When people want more of an article, they offer more for it. The price goes up. This increases the profits of those who make the article. Because it is now more profitable to make that article than others, the people already in the business expand their production of it, and more people are attracted to the business. This increased supply then reduces the price.
> (1) Hazlitt: Prices are fixed through the relationship of supply and demand.
> 
> In 1965, Congress enacted the Medicare and Medicaid programs (Figure 3). From 1966 to 1980, Medicare provided health insurance for about 20 million elderly. By 1980, Medicaid was covering about 12 million poor people. (U.S. 1985) M. Stanton Evans claimed that by dumping "demand into our medical system, these government programs bid up all the factors of supply" (Evans 1977).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 3. Medicare and Medicaid spending as part of total U.S. healthcare spending as percent of gross domestic product. (Source: Congressional Budget Office)
> 
> Other factors that also contributed to an escalation in demand for physician and hospital services before and after 1965 have included a growing and later aging population, rising personal incomes, private health insurance, breakthroughs by the American drug industry, and advances in electronic and mechanical devices. Unmet demand for physician services have persisted in rural and poor urban areas, preventive care, geriatrics, house calls, cost management, computerized medicine, entrepreneurism, medical supply, environmental, public-health services, mental institutions, prisons, drug programs, and military and foreign service.
> 
> Physician services became the number one growth industry. Health-care industry experts agree that the major service provided by the health care industry is rendered or overseen by physicians. Protected by licensure laws from competition by non-physicians, physicians control an estimated 80 percent of all health care expenses (Goodman 2013), including 70 percent of hospital costs (Norman 2013).
> 
> While some proposed reforms for reducing excessive demand have merit, their unpopularity has only served as an excuse to delay a supply response. Some have blamed government for subsidizing health care, and call for taxing employee benefits and even eliminating government programs. Others have blamed the unhealthy living habits of consumers, but it has proved difficult trying to deny them the freedom to choose how to live their life.
> 
> Between 1965 and 1980, it is unlikely physicians and hospitals were creating their own demand since they were busy meeting the additional demands created by government. In addition, patients subsidized by Medicare remained concerned purchasers that spent an average of 20 percent of their income on medical care, including purchasing insurance.
> 
> Many blame third-party insurance for making consumers less accountable for spending. But consumers seek to spread risk by purchasing health coverage from third-party payers. Moreover, third-party insurance existed long before the health care cost crisis (Figure 4). Since the 1930s, hospital groups like Blue Cross and physician groups like Blue Shield had been offering fee-for-care insurance programs to employers, who then offered them to their employees for premiums. The non-profit Kaiser Permanente contracted with companies to meet all of the medical needs of employees for premiums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 4 Number of people with employer-provided health insurance 1940 to 1960. (Source: Sourcebook of Health Insurance Data 1965)
> 
> A free competitive market can still exist with third-party payment. Consumers want the most benefits for the lowest health care premiums and also want to limit employee wages assigned to health care coverage. Insurance companies and self-insured employers want to pay the lowest amount possible to physicians and hospitals. If the health care industry was indeed competitive at all supply levels, suppliers would aggressively offer insurers competitive prices for high quality services. Insurers would have no trouble selecting health care policies for their policyholders that encouraged them to obtain the best service they could for the lowest cost. Consumers would protect themselves from unethical providers by taking their business to those who had a good reputation for quality work at reasonable prices without unnecessary services. In a competitive market, providers are forced to obtain this reputation or they go out of business.
> 
> The supply and demand curves are both price-inelastic, as illustrated by mostly vertical plots (Figure 5). The demand for physician care is a classic example of a necessity with no close substitutes (i.e., licensing restrictions prevent substitutions from non-physician practitioners). The price elasticity of demand is only 0.31 for medical insurance (Samuelson 1992). This means the quantity that consumers demand will not change much with changes in price or the method of financing (i.e., people will pay whatever they can). The supply curve is also price-inelastic and not very responsive to price because physicians require many years of training.
> 
> Since 1965, the demand curve has shifted toward more quantity demanded at each price. For example, the equilibrium point as shifted from E1,1 to E2,1. Since the supply and demand curves are price inelastic, increases in demand are amplified into larger increases in medical prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 5 Graphic Illustration of a Price-Inelastic Demand Increase to Higher Price for Health Care
> 
> (2) Hazlitt: The price goes up. This increases the profits of those who make the article.
> 
> Since 1965, medical prices have exploded with physician fees (Figure 6). From 1965 through 1993, the price for medical care increased by 699% and physician fees 675% compared to only 359% for all goods and services measured in the Consumer Price Index. Today, medical prices and physician fees continue to grow at about twice the rate of inflation. Hospital prices have increased at almost four times. U.S. health-care spending has increased from 6% of the Gross Domestic Product in 1965 to 18% ($3 trillion) today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 6 An Indexed Comparison of Inflation of Total Medical Prices (-) and Physician Services (- -) from 1950 to 1993 with Base Year 1950. (Source: US Census 2013)
> 
> Jay Winsten of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote: "The solution lies ... in examining the forces driving the medical-care delivery system. This examination must focus on physicians" (Winsten 1983). Economist Lawrence Baker reported that HMOs aren't achieving their goal of increasing the efficiency of the delivery of medical services because physicians have too much market power for the development of competition (Baker 1994).
> 
> Cost control incentives encouraged by competition for clients has been limited in health care because client demands have grown more than physician supply since 1965. Even when physicians work for health institutions like hospitals, physician number can limit the volume of patient care rendered and thus the extent to which competition for patients occurs between institutions. In the absence of competition, not only physician fees but prices for every element of health care that physicians control inflated because there was little incentive to efficiently manage costs. The highly paid and hurried work week has reduced cost-saving and quality-improving innovative incentives placed on physicians.
> 
> The lack of competition between hospitals and other health care institutions also limited cost control incentives placed on executives. The lack of competition between both medical institutions and the doctors that control most of their spending could explain why hospital costs have been inflating twice as fast as even physician fees. Hospitals are loaded with waste and inefficiency. For example, a hospital stitch costs more than $500 today.
> 
> Health care may be the only industry in which suppliers blame technology for high costs. But researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reported that small medical expenses controlled by physicians, such as blood tests and ordinary x-rays, were responsible for medical inflation, not complex technologies. The article stated that if the annual operating costs of the nation's more complex technologies — kidney dialysis, coronary bypass, electronic fetal monitoring, and computerized x-rays — were reduced one-half, the net savings would be less than one percent of the nations medical bill. They proposed income incentives for physicians as motivation for cost control (Robert 1979).
> 
> Some market opponents disputed that a free market could create competition since they claim a "surplus" of doctors in some medical fields and geographic areas had not brought price competition. However, evidence of this is limited to secondary care physicians, such as surgeons. Secondary care physicians, who derive more of their patient load from referrals, cannot compete on the basis of price unless the primary care physicians, that refer patients to them, are under competition to care about costs. Few primary care physicians would refer a patient to a physician taking aggressive price cutting steps because they would be viewed as "rocking the boat." The higher-paid secondary care physicians may experience some unemployment before a competitive surplus of primary care physicians can develop. Geographic studies involving cities with a "surplus" supply are based on physician-to-population ratios and do not take into account the fact that demand may be much higher in the cities.
> 
> The collapse of demand during economic downturns has provided evidence that physicians cannot create their own demand. The AMA had to respond to low physician incomes caused by the Great Depression by cutting medical school admissions (and not creating their own demand). During another temporary decrease in demand caused by the severe recession during the early 1980s, the Wall Street Journal reported: "good news, however to free-market advocates, who note that in a few cities price wars have cut medical costs ... doctors are also alarmed by the increasing number of physicians ... fear they won't be able to compete with other doctors" (Editor July 1983).
> 
> (3) Hazlitt: "The People Already in the Business Expand Their Production of It.
> 
> The increase in demand allowed physicians to expand their practices to serve more patients. Since physicians actually worked a few hours less per week, the increased number of patients received far less attention and quality deteriorated.
> 
> In 1972, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, "The average patient load and the average volume of units of patient care for the average physician has increased dramatically in the last five to six years. Medicare, Medicaid and the increased coverage of medical and hospital insurance have produced a skyrocketing rise in effective demand for medical services ... the demand could be met only by the existing number of physicians providing more units of patient care." They claimed the doctor shortage had increased the possibility of the kind of breakdown in the patient-doctor relationship that can lead to a lawsuit (Ribicoff 1973).
> 
> Overworked practitioners have been rendering hurried, poor quality medical care, dangerously understaffed hospitals and medical facilities, waiting lines, and 36 hour shifts squeezed into 120 hour work weeks by many residents at hospitals. Many doctors have freely admitted to being too busy healing to keep abreast of new techniques and research ideas. It has been suggested that the long, hurried work week of physicians contributed to the high incidences of fatigue, depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide among doctors (Harris 2011). The lack of competition has failed to drive out the estimated five percent of the physicians considered unfit to practice medicine. Recently, Harvard University's Lucian Leape has estimated there are approximately 120,000 accidental deaths and 1,000,000 injuries in U.S. hospitals every year.
> 
> The physician's lack of time to communicate effectively depersonalized care. The Wall Street Journal reported, "Many doctors concede that the increasingly impersonal tone of medical care makes bringing a (malpractice) claim easier" (Editor, September 1983). In 1994, a study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that doctors could reduce the chances of being sued for malpractice by not acting rushed or being impersonal with patients.
> 
> The consumer revolt to the quality deterioration was dubbed "the malpractice crisis." While the total dollars spent on health care in the United States increased about 100% from 1966 to 1972, malpractice insurance increased 400% for all physicians and 425% for surgeons (Figure 7). Higher rates were a response to increased losses by insurance companies. For example, Aetna's indemnity losses for both doctor and hospital malpractice suits in the United States went from $300,000 to $9.5 million per year between 1965 and 1968, respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 7. Malpractice Insurance for Physicians and Surgeons from 1960 to 1972. (Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Medical Malpractice Report)
> 
> Lawyers Sylvia Law and Steven Polan claimed, "Doctors are primarily responsible...A consultant to the American Hospital Association reported in 1976 that hospital personnel-controllable claims, such as burns, medication mistake, and blood-transfusion error, were remaining relatively stable, but physician-controllable claims were increasing rapidly." They add, "In the enormous quantity of research and literature generated by the malpractice crisis there is not a shred of hard evidence suggesting that the injuries of successful claimants resulted from anything other than avoidable medical negligence" (Law 1978).
> 
> To protect themselves against malpractice suits, physicians claimed they were practicing “defensive medicine” by desperately ordering more and expensive tests and procedures for patients performed by other paramedical personnel. Polls have shown a majority will also protect each other by refusing to testify against other doctors in lawsuits.
> 
> Those who have claimed the laws of supply and demand do not apply to health care have noticed that as doctors are added, prices do not decrease. They sometimes fail to consider that doctors can expand their services by spending more time on each patient and restoring quality rather than competing for clients based on price. One problem is that the consumer price index used by economists to measure the rate of inflation cannot measure quality.
> 
> After 1965, prices (for comparable quality) likely rose faster than that measured by economists. After 1972, an increase in the annual number of newly-licensed physicians meant more demand was met and the attention to patients was likely being restored. During the 1980s, the malpractice crisis began to level off. Still, the U.S. has “lowest life expectancy, at 78.2 years” among developed countries (Sauter 2012).
> 
> (4) Hazlitt: "More People Are Attracted to the Business. This Increases Supply then Reduces Price"
> 
> As the laws of supply and demand would predict, the number of medical school applicants have consistently responded to increases in the demand for physician services and fees (Figure 8). In the seven years from 1967 to 1974 the number of medical school applicants for a given year increased by 127% compared to only 35% for the seven years from 1960 to 1967 (AAMC 2013). Today, medical school applicants are at an all-time high of over 48,000, as increases in physician fees remain at twice the rate of inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 8. Comparison of Medical School Applicants and Physician Fees from 1932 to 1993. (Sources: US Census 2013 and AAMC 2013)
> 
> But the U.S. failed to allow physician supply to respond to meet consumer demand. From 1965 through 1972 the number of newly-licensed U.S. physicians graduated each year from medical schools in the United States and Canada increased from 7455 to 7815 or by only 360 physicians!
> 
> From 1972 through 1980, this amount gradually doubled but the medical schools became even more restrictive as they annually rejected about 20,000 qualified applicants who tried to fill the unmet demand (Figure 9). Today, medical schools are rejecting 28,000 applicants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 9. Number of Applicants and Successful Applicants from 1932 to 1994. (Source: AAMC 2013)
> 
> The doubling in the number of licenses meant a mere 3.5% annual increase in the 418,000 total physicians in 1980. Since much of the increase in medical school acceptances since 1965 has been necessary just to keep up with the increased level of demand, only a fraction of the increase in enrollment has gone toward filling the shortage or back-log of doctors created by the 1965 crisis. If only 10% of annual physician output fills this back-log, a further doubling in the output would achieve competition eleven times faster.
> 
> In 1980, the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare said there was no clear analysis showing whether health-care costs would be reduced if the nation achieved a "surplus" of physicians because "we have never lived in an excess supply situation so we don't have a model that would give us an answer."
> 
> Medical schools have been rejecting applicants that could have increased the existing quality of doctors. The average rejected applicant of 1975 had higher Medical College Admissions Test scores than the average accepted applicant of 1955 (on the same test that was replaced in the 1970s). In the early 1980s, the handbook of the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that "the number of qualified applicants from the United States alone is over twice the number of places available." Admission remains so competitive today that only the very top students even bother to apply for limited places and most are rejected in a selection process that involves significant cronyism (Wellington 1974) . Meanwhile, the U.S. has granted medical licenses to the 25 percent of all doctors practicing in the United States that were educated abroad, often at inferior schools.
> 
> The states allow the AMA to control total enrollment at medical schools by allowing them to determine the number of medical schools, the cost of medical education, and the amount of subsidies. The subsidies needed for medical education has been used as an excuse for rejecting qualified applicants. But the high cost of medical education was grossly inflated by a more than doubling in the ratio of faculty to students, and faculty salaries that dwarf the salaries of other professors (made only necessary by the need to lure physicians from an overly lucrative medical market). (Roth 2011) Moreover, total medical school subsidies are insignificant compared to the money lost by an uncompetitive market.
> 
> Milton Friedman wrote that physicians prevent health-care competition by limiting the number of entrants into the profession. (Friedman 1962) Another Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson of MIT wrote: "Because the demand for medical care is price-inelastic, restricting the number of medical students raises the price of medical care and increases the incomes of doctors” (Figure 10) (Samuelson 1992).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 10 Graphic Illustration by Paul Samuelson Showing How Limiting the Supply of Doctors Causes Higher Prices. (Source: Samuelson 1992
> 
> Market opponents have not only claimed there are too many doctors but also too many hospital beds. In 1972, the federal government started restricting the supply of hospitals with certificate-of-need (followed by repeal of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act in 1974). Alaska House of Representatives member Bob Lynn argued the true motivation was "large hospitals are ... trying to make money by eliminating competition" under the pretext of using monopoly profits to provide better patient care. From 1965 to 1989, the number of hospital beds and occupied beds (per population) declined by 44 and 15 percent, respectively (Friedman 1992).
> 
> Today, the U.S. and Canada have less than 25 doctors and 30 hospital beds (per 10,000 population), compared to over 35 and 50, respectively, in most countries in continental Western Europe.
> 
> Mark Pearson, head of Division on Health Policy at The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), discussed possible reasons the U.S. spends more than two-and-a-half times per person more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries: “The U.S. has fewer physicians and fewer physician consultations relative to its population. The U.S. also has fewer hospital beds for its population size and shorter average stays in hospital relative to other countries. Indeed, the lower numbers of physicians could help explain why they cost more; there is less competition for patients.” He adds that universities in other countries are still able to attract the best students to medicine (Kane 2012).
> 
> Solutions
> 
> The U.S. health-care market appears to behave according to laws of supply and demand (at least until the 1980s). Assuming government subsidy of the elderly and poor serves the public good, the cause of the “U.S. health care cost crisis” appears to be that government didn’t allow the supply of doctors and hospitals to respond to increased consumer demands. Politicians from both major political parties created a self-fulfilling prophesy by assuming markets couldn’t work in health care.
> 
> The obvious solution is to increase the supply of physicians and hospitals to meet demand. Unfortunately, if medical schools doubled their class sizes by next year, it could still take over 20 years to achieve the number of doctors relative to population found in continental Western Europe. Competition could be achieved quicker by relaxing the licensing requirements placed on para-medicals (e.g., nurses), and possibly also foreign educated doctors, to compete with U.S. physicians to the degree to which they are qualified.
> 
> If Obamacare is still necessary, the additional demands created by subsidizing even more consumers will require even more supply. Regardless, all major health care policies implemented by the U.S. government after 1965 will likely need to be repealed and the “playing field” leveled so new entrants can compete against previously subsidized and now entrenched providers.
> 
> Supply and demand graphs can illustrate the supply shift needed to balance the demand shift since 1965 (Figure 11). Once consumer demand for quality has been satisfied, the supply shift will result in more quantity of medical care supplied, greater access to medical care, lower prices, increased efficiency and real growth. By the definition of price-inelastic demand, total medical expenditures must decrease (e.g., from spending area I to II).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 11. Graphic Illustration of Increasing the Supply of Doctors to Achieve a Lower Price for Health Care
> 
> During the past 48 years, the U.S. has paid a heavy price for denying potential competitors entry into the health-care marketplace. The nation has likely wasted the equivalent of nearly two trillion dollars per year (in 2012 dollars). The costs are bankrupting the country as the leading contributor to the $16 trillion national debt (through spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Health care is also the number one barrier to America's global competitiveness (according to Edward Deming), and the largest contributor to financial stress and personal bankruptcies.



I'll let the article speak for itself.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Were the 250 fired? Or is it 3000? Maybe it's 150k? Maybe a million?!
> 
> Does anyone really know?


No, theres been lots of evidence that puts the number in a lot of different ranges. However the lowest seems to be 1600.  I appreciate the source is bloomberg but the studies are not associated with them.

These people are now redundant, so we shouldn't praise Trump without acknowledging he's just sent a minimum of 1600 people to the Job centres. Its only fair right?


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> No, theres been lots of evidence that puts the number in a lot of different ranges. However the lowest seems to be 1600.  I appreciate the source is bloomberg but the studies are not associated with them.
> 
> These people are now redundant, so we shouldn't praise Trump without acknowledging he's just sent a minimum of 1600 people to the Job centres. Its only fair right?


I don't think you'd be one advocating for fairness. 

So there is no solid number? Good to know.

Still I don't like people losing their jobs no matter the number.


----------



## CamillePunk

I didn't really want to keep talking about trannies today but when people are WRONG on the internet, duty calls.


AryaDark said:


>


"We're already wasting a bunch of money as it is" is a good argument for* not* wasting more money. Apply the reasoning to your personal finances and you'll see the ridiculousness of this gentleman's position. 



> A blanket ban doesn't help anyone, if a *fully transitioned* trans male or female passes all the relevant tests and is willing to fight for the country, why should we stop them?
> 
> I can't think of any reason to do so.


There is no such thing as a "fully transitioned" transgender person. You can't simply stop taking estrogen or testosterone or else you'll revert back to what you really are. I can see why the US military, which is pretty selective as it is, would not want people in such a state of potential flux in the service. Sure, you could go on a case-by-case basis and investigate every individual's situation and monitor that they're still taking their hormones or whatever...but why the fuck bother? It's such a small number of people, and the military has much more important things to focus on. If our defense was privatized I would not want the defense firm I pay for to waste time doing any of that.

This issue seems to boil down to a matter of fairness, and as an adult, I don't find fairness to be a concept worth spending any time discussing, particularly when it comes to an institution that is supposed to kill people and break stuff in the defense of the country.


----------



## Jay Valero

The mentally ill should never be allowed to hold a gun, but trannies should be able to serve in the military.

#progressivelogicfail


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> The mentally ill should never be allowed to hold a gun, but trannies should be able to serve in the military.
> 
> #progressivelogicfail


"Everybody should be equally allowed to become a member of the institution that kills people and destroys things" - Progressives in 2017 

I dunno, for me, the fewer people eligible for a death machine, the better. Maybe it can regulate itself into something no one wants to be a part of anymore. 

If military recruitment dies as a result of their transphobia, it makes me a happy man :Shrug


----------



## Dr. Middy

Iconoclast said:


> "Everybody should be equally allowed to become a member of the institution that kills people and destroys things" - Progressives in 2017
> 
> *I dunno, for me, the fewer people eligible for a death machine, the better. Maybe it can regulate itself into something no one wants to be a part of anymore.
> *
> If military recruitment dies as a result of their transphobia, it makes me a happy man :Shrug


ROBOT ARMY














































:mark: :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

The day will come when only trans people are allowed in the military. Trans-humans, AKA cyborgs. It'll be inefficient and impractical to use normal humans, who will be seen as stubborn regressives denying themselves the bounties of human progress (think Amish people).


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> These people are now redundant, so we shouldn't praise Trump without acknowledging he's just sent a minimum of 1600 people to the Job centres. Its only fair right?


America doesn't have job centers for anyone except the homeless because we don't really have much of an employment problem. Our unemployment rate is as close as you can get to what economists consider "natural unemployment" which mainly comprises of individuals in transition, those who aren't looking and those who are fine being underemployed.

These people will be able to find other jobs.

Job Centers are just another feature of social welfare economics.


----------



## Vic Capri

Keep America great.

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

I dig the robo-canines.


----------



## deepelemblues

CBO says 15 million people would drop their Obamcare insurance if the individual mandate were repealed.

That is 73% of the number of people the CBO said would not be covered if Obamacare was repealed.

So once again we see the lies about people being denied health insurance if Obamacare is repealed. You can't be denied something you're not interested in. Those people aren't interested in having crappy government-designed health insurance with extremely limited coverage networks and huge deductibles.


----------



## CamillePunk

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @BruiserKC @Miss Sally @Plato @Lumpy McRighteous

Interesting that the Switzerland hybrid healthcare system was brought up earlier, as now that seems to be where Trump may be leaning: 

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



> President Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to introduce his own health care policy, now that both moderate and conservative Republicans have failed to push their own policies through, and Obamacare continues to collapse.
> The “Trump Option” could be a system where the government covers basic health care for all — a yearly checkup, immunizations, emergencies, and minor medical expenses — and optional private insurance covers everything else.
> 
> That would be the inverse of the “catastrophic” plan described by Breitbart News earlier this year, under which the government would cover major, unforeseen medical expenses but leave basic health care to the private insurance market. Insurance companies would be more enthusiastic about participating in the “Trump Option,” because the real profits in health insurance are in covering bigger medical risks, not in covering everyday medical needs.
> 
> A version of the “Trump Option” already exists in the real world. In Australia, the government provides free care in public hospitals, and subsidizes a portion of private health care, with private insurance making up the difference.
> 
> Providing basic health care coverage for all would be simpler and less expensive than Obamacare, and would allow the free market to flourish, outside the ordinary expenditures that provide low margins for insurance companies anyway. It would also fulfill the promise that President-elect Trump made in January to replace Obamacare with “insurance for everybody.”
> 
> Trump has already been considering the Australian model. We know this because he referred to it in May, shortly after the House passed its version of the legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, in a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. “You have better healthcare than we do,” Trump said.
> 
> Though the president has spoken in general terms about cooperating with Democrats, he would not need to bargain with them on the “Trump Option.” Enough of them would support that option to make negotiating a moot point. As President George W. Bush showed in passing Medicare Part D, it is possible to split the opposition with a plan that will demonstrably benefit their core voters.
> 
> With Congress exhausted — as predicted — now is an ideal time for Trump to act.


Of the politically feasible healthcare plans proposed, this would seem to be the best.


----------



## virus21

Dr. Middy said:


> ROBOT ARMY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark:


Is it scary that some of those look like Hunter Killers from Terminator?


----------



## CamillePunk

This was an amazing hire by Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> Is it scary that some of those look like Hunter Killers from Terminator?


Judgement Day is upon us. Frankly we're overdue.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> This was an amazing hire by Trump.


Credit where credits due, thats a pretty good interview, Trump + Spicer was a match made in hell, why on earth he hired that man I'll never know, a disastrous appointment by Trump.

I definitely think it helps that I don't want to punch him in the face when he talks.


----------



## deepelemblues

You can tell people are scared of Scaramucci judging by how much commentary has been put out in the last 48 hours about how he can't possibly succeed, he's full of himself, etc.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Judgement Day is upon us. Frankly we're overdue.


If the robots give me some Gynoids, I'll assist in the mechanical takeover


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

:mark:
:mark:
:mark:

So much :mark:

Donald Trump, Jr., may have to take a seat for :trump's newest son alpha male Anthony Scaramucci.


----------



## MickDX

CamillePunk said:


> Of the politically feasible healthcare plans proposed, this would seem to be the best.


That would be great for US but until Trump is tweeting about it or it becomes official it's just a speculation because he made some references in the past.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon
> 
> :mark:
> :mark:
> :mark:
> 
> So much :mark:
> 
> Donald Trump, Jr., may have to take a seat for :trump's newest son alpha male Anthony Scaramucci.


Holy shit. :banderas

"did not ask for the call to be off the record"

Dance, journo, dance. 

President Trump got sick of the establishment's bullshit and called in another alpha male master persuader to fuck shit up. :banderas

Prepare the body bags.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Holy shit. :banderas
> 
> "did not ask for the call to be off the record"
> 
> Dance, journo, dance.
> 
> President Trump got sick of the establishment's bullshit and called in another alpha male master persuader to fuck shit up. :banderas
> 
> Prepare the body bags.


Same guy wrote this..

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...sians-get-inside-access-to-the-trump-campaign

THE RUSSIANS YA'LL!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @BruiserKC @Miss Sally @Plato @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Interesting that the Switzerland hybrid healthcare system was brought up earlier, as now that seems to be where Trump may be leaning:
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...or-all-private-insurance-for-everything-else/
> 
> Of the politically feasible healthcare plans proposed, this would seem to be the best.


I'm on board with implementing the Aussie / Swiss plan not only because of its effectiveness, especially in comparison to the garbage plans that congress has shat out, but also because it could make Jim Jefferies have an aneurysm. >


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1vAxRNlkjNPxl

Scott Adams discusses Trump putting Jeff Sessions on blast.

Bipartisan Group Of Senators Rebuke Sessions’ Attempt To Ignore Marijuana Laws

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/27/b...ke-sessions-attempt-to-ignore-marijuana-laws/


----------



## Beatles123

:trump2 :trump2 :trump2 :trump2 :trump2 :trump2


----------



## DesolationRow

@CamillePunk and @L-DOPA among others I will endeavor to catch up with the posts in which you mention me. 

I honestly have not listened to or read Scott Adams in the past few days but my own interpretation of the Trump/Sessions brouhaha is that Trump is actively manipulating Democrats into defending Sessions as autonomous force within the U.S. government. Senator Dick Durbin, for instance, along with several other senators and congressmen, has come out defending Sessions from Trump. If it's not a plot on Trump's part it's a happy accident but it just seems too ostentatious to not be a ploy. Trump is actually making Sessions seem like the "good cop," so to speak, to one Democrat in Congress after another, which seemed unthinkable only weeks ago. Or maybe Democrats are just that incompetent and hypocritical; either way, they are either falling into Trump's trap or making one for themselves.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Oh wait, so now you're all on board with my great country's great Aussie Healthcare system because Trump's expressed interest?

Good to know.











But honestly, the cast of Cocoon in congress isn't going to let it through are they?


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> @CamillePunk and @L-DOPA among others I will endeavor to catch up with the posts in which you mention me.
> 
> I honestly have not listened to or read Scott Adams in the past few days but my own interpretation of the Trump/Sessions brouhaha is that Trump is actively manipulating Democrats into defending Sessions as autonomous force within the U.S. government. Senator Dick Durbin, for instance, along with several other senators and congressmen, has come out defending Sessions from Trump. If it's not a plot on Trump's part it's a happy accident but it just seems too ostentatious to not be a ploy. Trump is actually making Sessions seem like the "good cop," so to speak, to one Democrat in Congress after another, which seemed unthinkable only weeks ago. Or maybe Democrats are just that incompetent and hypocritical; either way, they are either falling into Trump's trap or making one for themselves.


Interesting take.  

What Scott Adams basically said was that Trump had three options: 

1) Have a talk with Jeff Sessions, in which nothing realistically would change. Sessions already knows Trump's agenda and views, and has made his choices regardless. It's unlikely he would change anything after meeting with the president. 

2) Fire Sessions, which brings a host of new problems.

3) Surrender and let Sessions do what he wants without any input from the president.

Given all three options are either undesirable or unlikely to be effective, Trump has chosen to go to his boss: The people who voted him in, and let us scrutinize Sessions and decide for ourselves how we feel about what he has done. 

Personally, I'm conflicted on Sessions. He's made great progress in fighting these Mexican gangs and cracking down on illegal immigration. Political realists like you and I realize that immigration is the whole ballgame in American politics, so this isn't something that can be understated as an achievement, albeit one in progress. 

On the other hand, he seems keen to have the federal government go after marijuana users in states where it's legal to use the drug, and he's been trying to expand the state's civil asset forfeiture powers. Maybe even combined these issues aren't comparable to the immigration issue, but they're still black marks in my mind. Although it is unlikely Trump allows the marijuana stuff to go ahead as it would be complete political suicide given the country's current and trending views on marijuana. 

Interestingly enough I just watched Tucker Carlson interview Jeff Sessions on his show down in El Savador, and Sessions took the high road regarding this situation with Trump, saying he's hurt by the comments but believes in the president and will continue to fight for his agenda. Notably, he stood by his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, regardless of the numerous conflicts of interest with those who inherited it, something he didn't actually bring up. 

My expectation is that this will blow over, Sessions will stay in the job, the marijuana stuff will go nowhere, and we'll all be talking about something completely different in a few weeks' time, if not sooner. Something such as Scaramucci putting the scare into the White House staff. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

This new Scaramuchi guy is hilarious - I'm sure he was in The Sopranos at one point.

Saw something on a clip of him refusing to answer a question and whatshisface on CNN was like "What happened to being straight" and 'The Mooch' replied 'I am straightly telling you I'm not going to answer that'. LOL.

Can't wait for his chain of pasta restaurants.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Interesting take.
> 
> What Scott Adams basically said was that Trump had three options:
> 
> 1) Have a talk with Jeff Sessions, in which nothing realistically would change. Sessions already knows Trump's agenda and views, and has made his choices regardless. It's unlikely he would change anything after meeting with the president.
> 
> 2) Fire Sessions, which brings a host of new problems.
> 
> 3) Surrender and let Sessions do what he wants without any input from the president.
> 
> Given all three options are either undesirable or unlikely to be effective, Trump has chosen to go to his boss: The people who voted him in, and let us scrutinize Sessions and decide for ourselves how we feel about what he has done.
> 
> Personally, I'm conflicted on Sessions. He's made great progress in fighting these Mexican gangs and cracking down on illegal immigration. Political realists like you and I realize that immigration is the whole ballgame in American politics, so this isn't something that can be understated as an achievement, albeit one in progress.
> 
> On the other hand, he seems keen to have the federal government go after marijuana users in states where it's legal to use the drug, and he's been trying to expand the state's civil asset forfeiture powers. Maybe even combined these issues aren't comparable to the immigration issue, but they're still black marks in my mind. Although it is unlikely Trump allows the marijuana stuff to go ahead as it would be complete political suicide given the country's current and trending views on marijuana.
> 
> Interestingly enough I just watched Tucker Carlson interview Jeff Sessions on his show down in El Savador, and Sessions took the high road regarding this situation with Trump, saying he's hurt by the comments but believes in the president and will continue to fight for his agenda. Notably, he stood by his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, regardless of the numerous conflicts of interest with those who inherited it, something he didn't actually bring up.
> 
> My expectation is that this will blow over, Sessions will stay in the job, the marijuana stuff will go nowhere, and we'll all be talking about something completely different in a few weeks' time, if not sooner. Something such as Scaramucci putting the scare into the White House staff. :lol


First, the health care issue...the Australian/Swiss hybrid is done here in the States with some people. My in-laws have Medicare and a private supplemental insurance policy to cover what Medicare won't. However, IIRC, in Australia and Switzerland you are required to buy the private insurance. That screams of the mandate with Obamacare. Granted, I know it is considered legal by SCOTUS per it is a tax and is legal regarding commerce (erroneously as far as I'm concerned). But the idea was to keep government out, how can you allow this to be done so it is not single-payer. Basically, that's all this is. 

Now...for Sessions and Mary Jane...and transgender in the military. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/grow-a-pair-a-sex-change-lesson-for-conservative-media

I would like to say I predicted this a few months ago...that at some point the culture wars would once again become active and red hot.  

Trump's attacks on Sessions ran the risk of severely alienating many conservatives...you heard flak from Drudge, Rush, Coulter, Levin, etc. Many of those that he ran the risk of alienating were the social conservative/religious right. They were a group that flocked to Trump in the firm belief that Trump was ordained by God to save this country from the hells of socialism and God's judgment. I know that might be something some of you here don't care about, but the thought process of the religious right is far different. 

To them, part of the reason our country is in the toilet is that our cultural values are shit. They see the family under attack from feminism, divorce, and a society that supposedly endorses promiscuity, etc. Marijuana is a drug that destroys lives, breaks apart families, and is a gateway drug to the harder stuff. The media promotes filth, sex, violence, etc. Homosexuality is flat out wrong. Some call it a medical disorder, others call it a choice. They see the permitting of gays and transgenders in the military as completely wrong. Same-sex marriage is spitting in the eye of God, as to them traditional marriage is between a man and a woman...period. To them, there is no compromise...to them Trump's failure means God will punish and destroy America in much the same way cultures like the Roman Empire fell due to decadence. 

Last month, General Mattis was asking for an extra six months to determine how the transgender situation could be resolved as far as transitional surgery, etc. Congresswoman Vicki Hartzler of Missouri introduced a bill in Congress that would not permit these operations to be paid for by taxpayers using the military health insurance plans. The bill went nowhere, but that no doubt fired up some religious groups. They feel like the GOP has given them nothing but lip service in regards to values. 

The transgender ban is clearly something offered up to the religious right. Today, those sites have people fapping with joy over the idea that transgenders can not serve in the military and they think Trump is just totes adorbs right now. Trump has reignited the culture war, even if that might not have been his intention. 

However, these people aren't satisfied...they want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they want to overturn Obergfell vs. Hodges, they want to ban marijuana. When you see commercials highlighting same-sex couples, they are the ones howling and boycotting. They want at least one more, maybe two more conservative judges so that one day a state rep might call for a ban of abortion or marriage back to being man and woman. 

He also has the Democrats fired up again...a party that was supposedly going to avoid the culture war format has now gotten right back into the game. As a result, the religious are pointing to the Democrats and saying, "See, they still pander to the ********* and the perverts! We can not allow America to become a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah!" 

Again, most of you don't care about the cultural aspects...but this is what some people truly believe.


----------



## Reaper

Not me. 

I want free market healthcare and I'm not budging. 

What we need is a massive overhaul of the structures in place that drive up cost and the first step there is to abolish the mountains of administrative policies and regulations, then go after the patents, then go after the approval process, then go after the crony capitalists. Medicaid needs to be replaced with voluntary charity. And even in the charity circles the amount of money allowed by charities to be consumed as administrative expenses is too damned high. I recently read an article that something like 46 million of the 100 million collected through the ALS challenge was expensed --- and that reeks. 

This is no easy band-aid for our healthcare cost woes. It's free market or bust. Anything in between is going to result in unintended consequences and corruption.



BruiserKC said:


> He also has the Democrats fired up again...a party that was supposedly going to avoid the culture war format has now gotten right back into the game. As a result, the religious are pointing to the Democrats and saying, "See, they still pander to the ********* and the perverts! We can not allow America to become a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah!"


I don't have to agree with the transgender ban to see this as a positive. 

In line with my consistent approach till now where I have been ok with forging unholy alliances (and I'm proud of this pun), if this thrusts the democrats back into the doghouse, then so be it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> First, the health care issue...the Australian/Swiss hybrid is done here in the States with some people. My in-laws have Medicare and a private supplemental insurance policy to cover what Medicare won't. * However, IIRC, in Australia and Switzerland you are required to buy the private insurance*


Incorrect in Australia's case.

There's a tax thing I can't be bothered to look up that you get slugged with IF you earn over about 90K a year and you don't have Health Insurance.

Still even that is nothing close it being mandatory in any way.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> Not me.
> 
> I want free market healthcare and I'm not budging.
> 
> What we need is a massive overhaul of the structures in place that drive up cost and the first step there is to abolish the mountains of administrative policies and regulations, then go after the patents, then go after the approval process, then go after the crony capitalists. Medicaid needs to be replaced with voluntary charity. And even in the charity circles the amount of money allowed by charities to be consumed as administrative expenses is too damned high. I recently read an article that something like 46 million of the 100 million collected through the ALS challenge was expensed --- and that reeks.
> 
> This is no easy band-aid for our healthcare cost woes. It's free market or bust. Anything in between is going to result in unintended consequences and corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to agree with the transgender ban to see this as a positive.
> 
> In line with my consistent approach till now where I have been ok with forging unholy alliances (and I'm proud of this pun), if this thrusts the democrats back into the doghouse, then so be it.


The fact that they are looking at a "skinny repeal" which would still basically keep the body of the ACA just makes me shake my head. If you're going to start over, the full body of the ACA has to be yanked out so we can start over. It can't be that complicated...it should be pretty simple. For years, we were told that this would happen if we gave them the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have all three...and we are still stuck with Obamacare. Un-bleeping-believable! :serious:


----------



## CamillePunk

The mandate would obviously be a hugely undesirable aspect of the plan and one that would hopefully not be included, should the GOP even take up this plan, which it probably won't. 

Obviously I won't be happy with anything but a complete repeal of Obamacare and an unadulterated free market for health insurance, but that seems like a political fantasy at this point. I wish it was otherwise.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Incorrect in Australia's case.
> 
> There's a tax thing I can't be bothered to look up that you get slugged with IF you earn over about 90K a year and you don't have Health Insurance.
> 
> Still even that is nothing close it being mandatory in any way.


OK, I knew in Switzerland you are required to buy it. Thanks for clearing it up. 

Now...serious question...I know in some nations that allow for owning of private insurance in addition to their basic UHC...supposedly you have situations where people wanting to see specialists or have certain procedures done get bumped if they only have the UHC in favor of those with both UHC and private insurance. Is that true?


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> The fact that they are looking at a "skinny repeal" which would still basically keep the body of the ACA just makes me shake my head. If you're going to start over, the full body of the ACA has to be yanked out so we can start over. It can't be that complicated...it should be pretty simple. For years, we were told that this would happen if we gave them the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have all three...and we are still stuck with Obamacare. Un-bleeping-believable! :serious:


It's hard because we've got 10's of millions of people who think that the government being involved in healthcare is the only way to "reduce costs" and are simply not budging from that position. 

We've had 100's of millions of Europeans, Canadians and Aussies who've willingly accepted relative poverty and underemployment, under-performing economies, joblessness, inability to own homes, declining reserves, rising debt and devastated local industries preaching the virtues of government healthcare to our already brainwashed youth ... 

And of course, the politicians also refuse to acknowledge the relationship between the declining standards of living and shrinking middle classes in their countries to their social welfare spending ... so their solution to the poverty and job crisis in their countries is to spend more on welfare and slowly creep up taxes to unsustainable levels driving dozens of industries into having to sellout to further government subsidized oligarchies and monopolies which then keep costs high in order to compensate for the high taxes they pay ultimately transferring the cost back to the consumers. Combine that with rising wages and you've got industries that can barely pay workers so instead of actually paying workers "sustainable wages" they basically get creative and shift around hours, get temps, hire foreigners, lobby for more immigration to get qualified people to work for minimum wage in non-minimum wage jobs keeping huge chunks of their population stuck perpetually on minimum wage labor instead of incentivizing and therefore limiting the true potential of everyone and everything in their countries.

All this .. so that they can _pretend_ to give their people "Free" treatment. 

Yes ... The Western world's descent into social welfare statism is having an impact on how difficult it is becoming in America to not fall victim to the same ridiculous and utter ignorant ideologies. 

So we have a very, very big battle ahead of us and I don't think that there are enough people left in this country to not allow this to happen ... But at least I know what I have to do .. and that is continue to keep voting the few politicians that are principled and understand economics instead of the ones that are completely and utterly ignorant.


----------



## Reaper

When Democrats ask and answer their own question in the space of a book title.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> OK, I knew in Switzerland you are required to buy it. Thanks for clearing it up.
> 
> Now...serious question...I know in some nations that allow for owning of private insurance in addition to their basic UHC...supposedly you have situations where people wanting to see specialists or have certain procedures done get bumped if they only have the UHC in favor of those with both UHC and private insurance. Is that true?


Not that I've heard of no, I seriously doubt it would be any kind of policy that would be allowed. But I'm no expert and of course any unscrupulous policy can go on behind closed doors.

There's going to be longer waiting lines for medicare than there is for private obviously for some procedures if they're applicable for both, that's pretty much unavoidable I think, but as for people losing their spot in the line for the same thing I don't think so.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Oh wait, so now you're all on board with my great country's great Aussie Healthcare system because Trump's expressed interest?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But honestly, the cast of Cocoon in congress isn't going to let it through are they?


Most of us don't want a Government controlled Health Care because, well, it's the Government. The US Government is horrible at keeping things from being bloated, covered in needless red tape and corruption.

A hybrid of the Aussie Health Care system would be better than what the Republicans want, also better than Obamacare which is spiraling out of control.

Is it exactly what most of us want? Probably not but it's better than the other options if we're not going to get the type a lot of us wanted.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Most of us don't want a Government controlled Health Care because, well, it's the Government. The US Government is horrible at keeping things from being bloated, covered in needless red tape and corruption.
> 
> A hybrid of the Aussie Health Care system would be better than what the Republicans want, also better than Obamacare which is spiraling out of control.
> 
> Is it exactly what most of us want? Probably not but it's better than the other options if we're not going to get the type a lot of us wanted.


It needs a bit of work, but I'll take that as an apology.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Most of us don't want a Government controlled Health Care because, well, it's the Government. The US Government is horrible at keeping things from being bloated, covered in needless red tape and corruption.
> 
> A hybrid of the Aussie Health Care system would be better than what the Republicans want, also better than Obamacare which is spiraling out of control.
> 
> Is it exactly what most of us want? Probably not but it's better than the other options if we're not going to get the type a lot of us wanted.


Obamacare was similar to the Swiss model that got vilified but somehow is acceptable to some in the thread because of buzzwords like free market or private care etc. The Swiss system is expensive but provided coverage which should be manageable for America. But instead of improving the ACA, it became political because Democrats passed it instead of Republicans. Democrats refuse to acknowledge there are problems that need addressing and Republicans openly sabotaging it and nothing gets done. Denying credit to the other side and scoring a 'win' is more important than solving the issue. Trumpcare is the result of this as Trump seem more focused on passing something instead of passing something good.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Obamacare was similar to the Swiss model that got vilified but somehow is acceptable to some in the thread because of buzzwords like free market or private care etc. The Swiss system is expensive but provided coverage which should be manageable for America. But instead of improving the ACA, it became political because Democrats passed it instead of Republicans. Democrats refuse to acknowledge there are problems that need addressing and Republicans openly sabotaging it and nothing gets done. Denying credit to the other side and scoring a 'win' is more important than solving the issue. Trumpcare is the result of this as Trump seem more focused on passing something instead of passing something good.


Obamacare was a bastardized model that was first thought up by Republicans before Obama used it. It was projected to eventually fail. It's overly complex, bloated and far to long to sift through. 

Think most people want something better but doubt anything truly worthwhile gets put forth. This would be better than Obamacare but highly doubt it gets through.


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> Interesting take.
> 
> What Scott Adams basically said was that Trump had three options:
> 
> 1) Have a talk with Jeff Sessions, in which nothing realistically would change. Sessions already knows Trump's agenda and views, and has made his choices regardless. It's unlikely he would change anything after meeting with the president.
> 
> 2) Fire Sessions, which brings a host of new problems.
> 
> 3) Surrender and let Sessions do what he wants without any input from the president.
> 
> Given all three options are either undesirable or unlikely to be effective, Trump has chosen to go to his boss: The people who voted him in, and let us scrutinize Sessions and decide for ourselves how we feel about what he has done.
> 
> Personally, I'm conflicted on Sessions. He's made great progress in fighting these Mexican gangs and cracking down on illegal immigration. Political realists like you and I realize that immigration is the whole ballgame in American politics, so this isn't something that can be understated as an achievement, albeit one in progress.
> 
> On the other hand, he seems keen to have the federal government go after marijuana users in states where it's legal to use the drug, and he's been trying to expand the state's civil asset forfeiture powers. Maybe even combined these issues aren't comparable to the immigration issue, but they're still black marks in my mind. Although it is unlikely Trump allows the marijuana stuff to go ahead as it would be complete political suicide given the country's current and trending views on marijuana.
> 
> Interestingly enough I just watched Tucker Carlson interview Jeff Sessions on his show down in El Savador, and Sessions took the high road regarding this situation with Trump, saying he's hurt by the comments but believes in the president and will continue to fight for his agenda. Notably, he stood by his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, regardless of the numerous conflicts of interest with those who inherited it, something he didn't actually bring up.
> 
> My expectation is that this will blow over, Sessions will stay in the job, the marijuana stuff will go nowhere, and we'll all be talking about something completely different in a few weeks' time, if not sooner. Something such as Scaramucci putting the scare into the White House staff. :lol


Exquisitely put, and I agree with your overarching assessment, both of the situation itself and Sessions's tenure as Attorney General. As awful as the federal interventions into states where marijuana use is legal and the dramatic enlargement of civil asset forfeiture, immigration is, as has been said by others, "the national question." If people are serious about the U.S. remaining one political entity for generations to come, it's a situation that requires considerable correction, and even now it may be too little, too late concerning the ramifications of birthright citizenship. As annoying as the other matters are, their being pushed to the backburner in terms of concern is warranted.

And I agree that Trump will probably stand to Sessions's left on marijuana. Civil asset forfeiture laws are an easy sell to "law and order" right-wingers as a whole, but even the most jaundiced views of "potheads" does not equal being okay with federal government overreach into that matter.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> This new Scaramuchi guy is hilarious - I'm sure he was in The Sopranos at one point.
> 
> Saw something on a clip of him refusing to answer a question and whatshisface on CNN was like "What happened to being straight" and 'The Mooch' replied 'I am straightly telling you I'm not going to answer that'. LOL.
> 
> Can't wait for his chain of pasta restaurants.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

LOL, everything about this is fantastic.....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890815543258865664


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


>












Note the kiss. He's a real sweetheart I think.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Scaramucci. :sodone


----------



## FriedTofu

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/19/donald-trump-hiring-people-smarter-than-you-is-a-mistake.html

Just saying.


----------



## BruiserKC

Before everyone here gets into a lather over this...the fact that they had to even go through this "skinny repeal" shows how desperate they were for a win. The skinny repeal was NOT, repeat...NOT REPEAL! This whole thing boils down to keeping the body of the ACA and removing the mandate and other taxes on medical devices, basically not doing shit. It does NOTHING to address the issue of costs and this would have been an even bigger disaster then Obamacare. 

To me, while I don't always agree with McCain, Collins, and Murkowski...they should be thanked. They saved Trump from massive embarrassment down the road. Although, this shows what I have been saying from the beginning...if Trump actually made an attempt to work with the people on his side he would get more done. If he made an attempt to reach out to McCain, maybe the result would have been different. 

At any rate, maybe now they can get something right instead of this piss-poor attempt at just looking for a victory for the sake of a victory. It would have been meaningless.


----------



## nucklehead88

Can't even get things passed with a majority. 7 YEARS! SAD!


----------



## FriedTofu

Orange is the new black.

And in the comments section: 3 baby mommas. :lmao


----------



## Reaper

Bad-Ass 










:lmao 

Trump administration starting to look more and more like a Hollywood production :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

> To me, while I don't always agree with McCain, Collins, and Murkowski...they should be thanked.


People like Murkowski are part of the problem:






*#DrainTheSwamp*

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

France voted for this: 

https://www.ft.com/content/303f7ac2-72d9-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c



> *Macron nationalises shipyard to prevent Italian acquisition*
> 
> _French president’s intervention to defend ‘strategic interests’ earns Rome rebuke
> _
> French President Emmanuel Macron has made his first major intervention in the corporate world by nationalising a shipyard to stop it falling into Italian hands.
> 
> In a move that shows the limits of the new government’s economic liberalism, the finance ministry on Thursday said the state was exercising its pre-emption right to buy out all the shareholders in STX France.
> 
> Bruno Le Maire, the economy minister, said that the decisions had a “single objective”, which was to “defend France's strategic interests in shipbuilding” and guarantee that jobs remain in the country.
> 
> Italian state-owned shipbuilder Fincantieri earlier this year struck a preliminary deal to buy two-thirds of STX France, based in Saint-Nazaire on the French Atlantic coast, which is being sold following the collapse of South Korean parent STX last year.
> 
> Mr Macron subsequently expressed concern about the deal, agreed by the previous government. On Wednesday Mr Macron threatened to nationalise the whole company unless the Italians agreed to a 50/50 ownership split.
> 
> The government is worried about job cuts at the company, which employs more than 2,500 people, and also security issues. The shipyard is the only one in France with facilities large enough to build aircraft carriers.
> 
> The Italians declined the offer of a 50/50 split this week, with the Italian economy minister saying that Mr Macron was failing to live up to the “pro-Europeanism and liberal values” he espoused in his presidential campaign.
> 
> Mr Macron discussed STX in a telephone call with Paolo Gentiloni, Italy’s prime minister, on Thursday, but senior Italian officials were furious..
> 
> “Nationalism and protectionism are not acceptable ways to regulate relations between two great European countries. For shared projects one needs trust and mutual respect,” Pier Carlo Padoan, Italy’s finance minister, and Carlo Calenda, Italy’s economic development minister, said in a joint statement..
> 
> 
> President Emanuel Macron on a visit to the STX France yards in May © AP
> Mr Le Maire on Thursday said that the site was not going to stay under state control, and the government’s move would enable them to negotiate with buyers from a position of strength. Mr Le Maire said they would continue talking to the Italians.
> 
> "The Saint-Nazaire shipyards are not destined to remain under state control," he said, adding he would visit Rome next week. ”The pre-emption decision is temporary and should give us the time to negotiate in the best conditions.”
> 
> Mr Macron, although elected on a liberal and pro-business platform, has throughout his career never been afraid to use the power of the French state to intervene in the corporate world..
> 
> When he was economy minister for the previous Socialist government, Mr Macron delayed the sale of French video start-up Dailymotion to a Hong-Kong company, securing a successful last-minute bid from Vivendi. He also built up a stake in carmaker Renault through the use of derivatives contracts.
> 
> In the case of STX, one cruise industry executive, however, said Paris was concerned about technology transfer to the Chinese with the Italian deal, since Fincantieri has launched a joint shipbuilding project in China this year. But Italian officials dismissed this as a red herring, saying the co-operation with the Chinese was limited and there would be ways to mitigate the risk of any loss of intellectual property..
> 
> Italian commentators were also heavily critical of Mr Macron’s decision. “Shipbuilding is a sector in which Europe is a world leader and there is a need for consolidation: it’s stupid to make everything fall apart because it’s not the French but the Italians in the lead,” said Andrea Goldstein, chief economist at Nomisma, a research firm in Bologna..
> 
> “The more weeks go by, the more Macronism is showing an old face, it’s the usual France with its protectionist, sovereignist, statist,.dirigiste instincts,” wrote Adriana Cerrettelli, in an editorial in Il Sole 24 Ore..
> 
> The nationalisation move comes as Mr Macron is facing falling approval ratings at home — an opinion poll over the weekend showed the second-biggest decline in popularity for a French president so soon after an election..
> 
> His approval ratings fell 10 percentage points to 54 per cent this month, according to pollster Ifop. Only Jacques Chirac in 1995 lost so much ground in such a short time after being elected.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scaramucci calls into CNN while they're talking with the New Yorker journalist who wrote about their crazy conversation.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/28/ice-may-getting-ready-arrest-sanctuary-city-mayors/

:mark:

Throw em all in jail. 



> Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. That one says that any person, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place


Any public official implementing a sanctuary policy is 100% guilty of committing a felony under Code 1324. When they refuse to hold an illegal alien for ICE to pick up and release that illegal alien into the community, they are shielding that illegal alien from detection by ICE. ICE did know they were - in jail. ICE then has to go find (detect) them in the community or wherever they have fled to and arrest them. They are being harbored from ICE by the sanctuary government while in that government's custody. Any public official implementing a sanctuary policy should be hauled off straight to a vacation at Club Fed. And not the nice Club Fed Martha Stewart types get to go to.

Any judges who whine about ICE agents arresting illegals at courthouses should be charged as well, they're attempting to commit precisely the same crime. A nice federal conspiracy charge.


----------



## Headliner

Tony Mooch is a scumbag in the highest order but he's so freaking hilarious and awesome. I hope he stays.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> Tony Mooch is a scumbag in the highest order but he's so freaking hilarious and awesome. I hope he stays.


I wish he talked like Paulie from the Sopranos!


----------



## CamillePunk

I am shipping The Mooch and The Donald so hard you guys don't even know

The way he publicly declares his love for the president on national television every day :mj2 Find someone who loves you the way Tony Scaramucci loves Donald J Trump


----------



## deepelemblues

The Mooch is a classic hatchet man.

:trump should have filled his White House with a hundred of him from the start.


----------



## Jay Valero

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...cgD?ocid=ientp

Now I'm very much the law and order type, but you can fuck right off with this shit.


----------



## Headliner

Miss Sally said:


> I wish he talked like Paulie from the Sopranos!


Every time I see the big Mooch, I picture him saying:

"Hey tell Sammy to dig the fucking hole in Queens because we're going to wack Tommy tonight. And if Pauly and Giovanni got a problem they can go home and get their fucking shinebox."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

This just dawned on me:

















I don't wanna get off this ride. :lmao



CamillePunk said:


> I am shipping The Mooch and The Donald so hard you guys don't even know


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BruiserKC said:


> OK, I knew in Switzerland you are required to buy it. Thanks for clearing it up.
> 
> Now...serious question...I know in some nations that allow for owning of private insurance in addition to their basic UHC...supposedly you have situations where people wanting to see specialists or have certain procedures done get bumped if they only have the UHC in favor of those with both UHC and private insurance. Is that true?


It's kinda way here in the UK. I have private healthcare as well as the NHS and if I need surgery I go to a private hospital that is totally separate from the NHS and will get surgery pretty much immediately. On the NHS you'd have a waiting list to sit on or a few months (more since the current de-funding, maybe up to a year for less urgent surgeries) to get the same surgery. It's not so much that people "get bumped" here but those with private healthcare get to use separate facilities with far fewer patients to deal with.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Iconoclast @Miss Sally @BruiserKC @Plato 

Healthcare is a System, Not a Goal by Scott Adams



> Health Care is a System, Not a Goal
> Posted July 28th, 2017 @ 10:11am in #healch care #ACA #Obamacare #McCain
> 
> Last night, Senator McCain cast the deciding vote to kill the “skinny” version of a proposed health care bill. Notice how he explains it as a failure of process, not a problem with the bill itself:
> 
> “I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict-party line basis without a single Republican vote. We should not make the mistakes of the past that has led to Obamacare’s collapse, including in my home state of Arizona where premiums are skyrocketing and health care providers are fleeing the marketplace. We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people. We must do the hard work our citizens expect of us and deserve.”
> 
> 
> Love him or hate him, McCain did what heroes do. He took a bullet to prevent Congress from ignoring the wishes of half the country. Now we have a chance to do it right. Let in some new voices. Consider some new options. Make it a team effort.
> 
> My optimism for a good health care outcome just hit its peak. Had they passed a bill, it would have limited their options for improvement to the stale ideas we’ve already heard. Now, for the first time, the public and perhaps Democrats can contribute some ideas and broaden the options.
> 
> Today is a very good day disguised as a bad one. If you think in terms of goals, Congress failed to pass a bill last night. But if you think in terms of systems, our options for solving health care just went from limited to plenty. We’re in the best position yet.
> 
> Did you wonder why President Trump seemed somewhat hands-off on health care? I think it’s because his strongest play as a negotiator involved waiting until Congress utterly and completely failed. That almost didn’t happen last night. It took a war hero to finish the job.
> 
> Now it’s our turn to come up with better ideas, or to support better ideas wherever we see them. And if we are smart, we will insist on testing some ideas in limited ways, such as Special Health Care Zones in some states, and that sort of thing.
> 
> And we should be focused on innovation and technology to lower health care costs. There isn’t any other path forward.


I've felt for a while that Trump's twitter cheerleading of Congress Republicans to pass a bill and how he'll "be waiting at my desk with a pen ready to sign" has seemed a little disingenuous. :lol Not to say I don't think he wanted these things to pass, I just doubt he really believed they would. It's good to have multiple ways to win. We know Trump has talked about letting Obamacare fail and then having the Democrats come to the table and collaborating on something new. Personally I don't think Democrats have anything of value to add since they see government as the solution to every problem, but there's an important credibility issue that Adams raises in this article about having a healthcare bill that is only supported by half the country and vehemently opposed by the other half. I think Trump understands that and has a forward-thinking vision for healthcare that he has not tipped his hand on just yet.


----------



## Reaper

More I think about the Healthcare vote, the more I realize that it's a good thing because it's pushing the right farther to the right as many feel betrayed by people like McCain. He does come across as a hero because the center right will move farther right meanwhile center left will move center right as the Democrats are now being seen as obstructionists while the core GOP platform is largely intact. 

2018 will be an interesting year. Can't wait.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Cliffy

The mooch is god

Holy fucking shit!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*This dumbfuck just wasted $1.6 billion OF OUR TAX DOLLARS on the wall after saying he wouldn't, replaced his Chief of Staff via TWITTER, and endorsed police brutality within 24 hours. Amazing.




*


----------



## Arya Dark

*The Mooch knows where the bodies are... and by, "knows where the bodies are" I mean ALL the bodies.*


----------



## Vic Capri

> This dumbfuck just wasted $1.6 billion OF OUR TAX DOLLARS on the wall after saying he wouldn't


So 65 countries including the Vatican can have border walls, but the U.S. cannot improve its own? Gotcha. 

- Vic


----------



## Jay Valero

New CoS, supporting the PD. Trump taking names.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891065434786725889
*Hypocrisy isn't a strong enough word to describe Trump's level of flagrantly contradictory stupidity :lmao.*



Vic Capri said:


> So 65 countries including the Vatican can have border walls, but the U.S. cannot improve its own? Gotcha.
> 
> - Vic


*Way to ignore that you voted for him under the premise that MEXICO would pay for it, in spite if them vehemently denying it multiple times. But hey, he also said he could murder someone and you'd still blindly follow him, which you will, so why would I expect anything different from a Trump supporter?*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Reince is out. :trumpout Mooch!:sodone


----------



## FriedTofu

Should Sessions be worried? :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Reince Priebus sleeps with the fishes.


----------



## virus21

THE FRUMIOUS BANDERSNATCH said:


> Reince Priebus sleeps with the fishes.


Why? Was he going after Hilary?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

virus21 said:


> Why? Was he going after Hilary?


It's just a _Godfather_ reference because of Scaramucci.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

virus21 said:


> Why? Was he going after Hilary?


*He's giving his first interview to CNN instead of Fox News and Republicans are mad about it:*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891063378801766404


----------



## Mister Abigail

Tromp just gave a talk to police and told them to rough up suspects.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891010955215347713

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891016673012199424
Rowling is such an ignorant cunt :lol


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Bahahahahaha. She was wrong. What a shock!


----------



## Stinger Fan

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891010955215347713
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891016673012199424
> Rowling is such an ignorant cunt :lol


This is why I can't stand celebrities who push their political agenda on their fans. They don't care about being right, they care about being mad and wanting to get people to hate politicians on the other team. The thing that bothers me the most is that they don't care about dividing their fans and openly shit on half of them. There's nothing wrong with supporting a team don't get me wrong but celebs need to chill the hell out, especially when they can influence people on something that's false like this non-story


----------



## DesolationRow

The next act of the Trump administration needs to be all-out warfare against the derelict Republican Congress. 

With John F. Kelly being appointed to White House Chief of Staff and Anthony Scaramucci becoming Trump's wartime _consigliere_, further leaking should probably be mitigated. The counter-Trump government within the government will doubtless regroup. The Deep State, stinging from Trump's abandonment of the anti-Assad madness in Syria, will doubtless regroup in short order.

Meanwhile, John McCain continues to be that which he has been for decades, loyal lapdog to his globalist masters: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> This is why I can't stand celebrities who push their political agenda on their fans. They don't care about being right, they care about being mad and wanting to get people to hate politicians on the other team. The thing that bothers me the most is that they don't care about dividing their fans and openly shit on half of them. There's nothing wrong with supporting a team don't get me wrong but celebs need to chill the hell out, especially when they can influence people on something that's false like this non-story


They don't seem to care. I have been calling Hollywood the new Aristocracy for a some time. They really do seem to view us as dumb peasants that need to know our place and listen to our "betters"


----------



## Miss Sally

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891010955215347713
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891016673012199424
> Rowling is such an ignorant cunt :lol


Take away her twitter, ffs she makes a fool out of herself all the time.

Calls PewDiePie a nazi, doesn't even apologize even tho it's not true.

Virtue signals for refugees but when people offer to buy tickets for them to stay with her, goes silent. Even better is she demolished houses next to her to make a privacy hedge.

Calls for open borders and quotes from her book even though her fucking book talks about having a barrier from the "normie" world and basically seals itself off from all outside influence. 

Now this, this woman is a Grade A idiot who wrote a book that's a magical ripoff of Star Wars.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Take away her twitter, ffs she makes a fool out of herself all the time.
> 
> Calls PewDiePie a nazi, doesn't even apologize even tho it's not true.
> 
> Virtue signals for refugees but when people offer to buy tickets for them to stay with her, goes silent. Even better is she demolished houses next to her to make a privacy hedge.
> 
> Calls for open borders and quotes from her book even though her fucking book talks about having a barrier from the "normie" world and basically seals itself off from all outside influence.
> 
> Now this, this woman is a Grade A idiot who wrote a book that's a magical ripoff of Star Wars.


Heck, didn't it rip off the Worst Witch?


----------



## Reaper

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...d-rock-huge-lead-michigan-gop-senate-primary/



> Shock Poll Shows Kid Rock With HUGE LEAD in Michigan GOP Senate Primary


Fucking sticking it to the dems. 

At least Politico has smartened up and taking him seriously.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891033871181021184


----------



## deepelemblues

Human scum McCain told veterans the VA is so great and they shouldn't look for health care anywhere else but is he using the VA? Nope, he went to the Mayo Clinic and now he's off to a top-rated private Arizona hospital. 

John would be laughing his ass off when all his RINO buddies except Collins in Maine lose because conservative voters either stay home for the general Senate election or boot them out in the primaries. I say would because he'll be dead when it happens to most of them in 2020.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

TheNightmanCometh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891033871181021184


If that's true, then it's yet another example of why nothing of value will be lost when brain cancer ends him. :armfold


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

That McCain quote can't possibly be true.


----------



## virus21

McCain is just ass hurt that there isn't going to be another war he can jerk off to


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

The healthcare legislation shows no evidence that Trump actually cares about the country. On the campaign trail and in his first few weeks in office, Trump said he would fight for healthcare where everyone was covered and premiums were much lower. He then admitted he knew nothing about how our healthcare system worked ("Who knew healthcare was so complicated?"), and proceeded to demand that the House pass anything just for a win, which was very publicly celebrated before Trump called the bill "mean" in private, and has subsequently shown support for any version of the BCRA or just a straight repeal or no legislation at all. All he wants is to score wins to say he's done something, because he currently has no legislative victories to his name, just executive orders, many of which it appears he signed without knowing the full contents. You have 6 fulls years saying repeal repeal ,without Anyone in the whitehouse or congress presenting a viable Alternative to Obamacare,the house bill was just a Paul Ayn Ryan Billionare tax cuts added to existing Obamacare cuts to the poor and the Senate Bill by even people who voted yes was called a shitty non bill.


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If that's true, then it's yet another example of why nothing of value will be lost when brain cancer ends him. :armfold


I generally default to a don't trust Posobiec at face value stance.


----------



## CamillePunk

McCain quote is probably bogus. Sounds too tacky and narrative-fitting. Posobiec isn't a reliable source either.

PRIEBUS OUT :mark: Trump tried to play nice with the establishment for the first 6 months but looks like he's going on the attack and to do that needs loyal people around him. Love the move.

Will Ryan backstab yet again?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> I generally default to a don't trust Posobiec at face value stance.


Never heard of Posobiec until now. I found the quote a bit farfetched, even by McCain's standards. But after seeing how surreal this timeline has been, I honestly wouldn't have put it past McCain to say something along those lines.

I still stand by the NOVWL notion, though. :serious:


----------



## Art Vandaley

Being a McCain fan when I was younger and rightwing its immesnsly satisfying seeing his fundamental humanity come through.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> Being a McCain fan when I was younger and rightwing its immesnsly satisfying seeing his fundamental humanity come through.


You gonna still think that way when Obamacare fails and isn't replaced with single-payer health care? Or is that gonna be the Republicans fault?


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You gonna still think that way when Obamacare fails and isn't replaced with single-payer health care? Or is that gonna be the Republicans fault?


Yes it will be their fault because if it fails it will fail because of things done by Republicans to make it fail.


----------



## CamillePunk

Wolf Blitzer asked Reince Priebus on CNN if he was the leaker and he didn't say no. He said he wasn't going to talk about it. 

He was 100% the leaker. Or at least one.

Another interesting thing is he resigned yesterday and we just found out about it today. :mj Yet Trump's private dinner plans are leaked within minutes.


----------



## Beatles123

Mooch is the best thing to happem to the Trump Admin. Never liked Reince too much, but I did understand why he was picked at the time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL is Trump tired of getting his ass kicked yet.

And LOL at this thread and all the delusional Trump supporters still posting their delusional.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes it will be their fault because if it fails it will fail because of things done by Republicans to make it fail.


So, the failure of Obamacare is with Republicans and not the way it was set up in the first place? That's a negative. That's like handing someone a grenade, after pulling the pin, and then getting mad because they didn't throw it in time. What the fuck did you hand them a live grenade for?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...o-many-insurers-are-leaving-obamacare/526137/


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL is Trump tired of getting his ass kicked yet.
> 
> And LOL at this thread and all the delusional Trump supporters still posting their delusional.


Tell us how you really feel, BM.


----------



## Goku

TDS is not incurable :mj2


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, the failure of Obamacare is with Republicans and not the way it was set up in the first place? That's a negative. That's like handing someone a grenade, after pulling the pin, and then getting mad because they didn't throw it in time. What the fuck did you hand them a live grenade for?
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...o-many-insurers-are-leaving-obamacare/526137/





> What's more, some insurers are skeptical that the Trump administration will enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate, so they are raising their rates as a precaution.
> 
> And of course, with the Senate currently debating its own version of the Obamacare repeal bill, the entire future of Obamacare is uncertain. Indeed, “uncertainty” comes up a lot in stories about insurers leaving Obamacare.
> 
> At this rate, Republicans might live to see the Obamacare “death spiral” they have long been prophesying. But insurance markets don’t just collapse on their own. Decisions by states, Congress, and the Trump administration can—and have—given them a hefty nudge.


To quote your article.

If Obamacare fails after all the Republicans have done to try to make it fail we'll never know if it could have worked otherwise.


----------



## nucklehead88

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891091405954797570
That would beeeeeeee taxpayer money, yes?


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890805816806187008
The Mooch is the greatest hiring in the history of West Wing hirings :ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

I have always felt Senator John McCain is an honorable man.


----------



## Vic Capri

Wolf Blitzer being the voice of reason. :lol




Legit Boss said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


"If you like your current health plan, you can keep it." - Barack Obama

if we're going to virtue signal about things politicians said. 




> That McCain quote can't possibly be true.


It wouldn't surprise me. He made it clear he suffers from brain damage.



> Rowling is such an ignorant cunt


Wants open borders. Has yet to shelter a single refugee in any of her mansions. 

- Vic


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*At least John McCain isn't a hypocrite. He used the same reasoning to vote against Obamacare that he did to vote against the repeal: lack of bipartisanship. He just wants both parties to come to a mutual agreement on healthcare reform. Whether I agree with his methods or not, I have to respect them.*



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891091405954797570
> That would beeeeeeee taxpayer money, yes?


*Remember when he bitched endlessly about Obama's golf trips, only to go on MORE golfing trips in under a year? It's funny and sad to watch his supporters either ignore or try to blindly justify the stupid shit he does, after condemning Obama for the same shit on a much lesser scale.*


----------



## Vic Capri

Guys, Vic hurt muh feelings!


----------



## Miss Sally

It's weird seeing the same people who praise McCain bitch about him and his warmongering. It's just strange.


----------



## FriedTofu

McCain's always my guy. Other than when he picked Sarah Palin which opened the floodgates to crazy shit like Trump becoming president.


----------



## FriedTofu

Oh...Trump went another twitter rant again about Senate rules. Almost like he prioritise 'winning' to pass an unpopular bill over whatever North Korea just did. :lmao


----------



## Jay Valero

Fucking JK Rowling, man. I'd like to rip her mailbox out of the ground, jam it up her ass, and then back a van up to her mansion and steal all her stuff. Piss on that stupid twat.

Oh, and Harry Potter is a derivative piece of shit.


----------



## Oxidamus

Laughing at the flip flopping on John McCain. :lmao



Legit BOSS said:


> *Remember when he bitched endlessly about Obama's golf trips, only to go on MORE golfing trips in under a year? It's funny and sad to watch his supporters either ignore or try to blindly justify the stupid shit he does, after condemning Obama for the same shit on a much lesser scale.*


BBR of all people talking about how others are ignoring things. :mj4
You ignore everything. Everyone who says something you don't like and every single thing that disproves you, yet you call others out for doing it.


Good point tho, why are the Trump Thread Usuals not even acknowledging this accusation?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Oxi X.O. said:


> Laughing at the flip flopping on John McCain. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> BBR of all people talking about how others are ignoring things. :mj4
> You ignore everything. Everyone who says something you don't like and every single thing that disproves you, yet you call others out for doing it.
> 
> 
> Good point tho, why are the Trump Thread Usuals not even acknowledging this accusation?


*I ignore people who substitute insults for arguments because they have nothing of value to contribute :cena.*


----------



## Tater

We're so fucked. Shit out of luck. Hardwired to self-destruct.






I feel like this post is totally relevant to the state of the USA.

In related news, I got me a fucking badass Metallica shirt today.


----------



## The Phenom One

Tater said:


> We're so fucked. Shit out of luck. Hardwired to self-destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like this post is totally relevant to the state of the USA.
> 
> In related news, I got me a fucking badass Metallica shirt today.


But where are your arms?


----------



## CamillePunk

Goku said:


> TDS is not incurable :mj2


I haven't seen any cases where it's been cured yet unfortunately. :mj2


----------



## Goku

Once you internalise the two movie (at least two) approach to trump and politics in general, arguing these things loses much of its purpose because common ground is scarily hard to reach. And as I'm on the Trump side i.e. the side which I perceive to be winning, it loses much of its incentive too. I suppose the main reason would be the entertainment but shitposting seems more fun.

:trump4


----------



## Tater

The Phenom One said:


> But where are your arms?


----------



## Dr. Middy

Good on McCain to be a deciding factor and kill this attempt at repealing Obamacare. It seems like logical sense to try and aim for bipartisanship here, because replacing a healthcare system that was only half supported with another healthcare system only have supported doesn't really solve any problems, it just creates equally different ones. Better off to work on a new policy that is just more thorough and better overall, instead of hot-shotting something that isn't much of an improvement.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams laughs at two funny instances of TDS, one of which was replicated by a poster on the previous page of this thread, 6 minute video

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1mrGmmOgzpZGy?t=57


----------



## Draykorinee

JK Rowling showing once again whys shes the queen of twitter.

All this winning Trumps supposed to have done and he still can't repeal one of the most hated (by conservatices) things Obama did, so much winning!



nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891091405954797570
> That would beeeeeeee taxpayer money, yes?


Stop being petty, Trump needs to play golf and travel more than Obama because he's a winner not a loser. Sad.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891091405954797570
> That would beeeeeeee taxpayer money, yes?


I'm very mixed on it: On one hand, it's using taxpayer money. On the other, people that go to his rallies clearly don't give a shit that their tax dollars are being used to host the rallies because they get to see The Man, The Myth, The Legend live and in living color.

Ultimately, if he keeps doing the golf trip silliness, then I'll add it to my list of things that he's done that's really irked me (Syrian air strike, Kushner as an advisor and saying he's a globalist).



Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890805816806187008
> The Mooch is the greatest hiring in the history of West Wing hirings :ha


Dat dere Mooch clearly took a clue from South Park :yoshi:










Snarkiness aside, I'm not surprised (though I nevertheless enjoyed) that he shat on McCain like this. >


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> I have always felt Senator John McCain is an honorable man.


Nothing honorable about that fraud.

Was he honorable when

He blew up that aircraft carrier?
Bombed the wrong target when he was shot down?
He broke his arm and leg incorrectly ejecting from his cockpit?
He spilled every secret he knew to the enemy, earning the nickname songbird?
Returning home, lied about his record in viet nam?
Been in the senate for decades as a republican, voted anything but?
Ran the worst presidential campaign until hillary beat him?

Maybe he is honorable. My list paints him as an incompetent.

And traitor


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

amhlilhaus said:


> Nothing honorable about that fraud.
> 
> Was he honorable when
> 
> He blew up that aircraft carrier?
> Bombed the wrong target when he was shot down?
> He broke his arm and leg incorrectly ejecting from his cockpit?
> He spilled every secret he knew to the enemy, earning the nickname songbird?
> Returning home, lied about his record in viet nam?
> Been in the senate for decades as a republican, voted anything but?
> Ran the worst presidential campaign until hillary beat him?
> 
> Maybe he is honorable. My list paints him as an incompetent.
> 
> And traitor


yeahbaby! was being sarcastic with that post, brah. :hayden3


----------



## Draykorinee

2 tweets from Trump come to mind, one when he blasted Obama for having 3 changes to his staff on 3 years and that was why he can't pass his agenda. Trumps done that in 6 months.
Second one where he had a go at Obama for not passing his agenda even though he had a majority and how pathetic it was.
Let's not forget the golf/travel tweets.
There is a tweet for every occasion with Donny.

That being said JK did fuck up by retweeting an edited video then ranting. Guess even the Queen can of Twitter can make mistakes.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> To quote your article.
> 
> If Obamacare fails after all the Republicans have done to try to make it fail we'll never know if it could have worked otherwise.


"There is one thing Republicans usually leave out of their indictment of Obamacare, though: Insurers might have been less likely to exit if more states had expanded Medicaid under Obamacare."

Ya, stupid Republicans, you were supposed to expand Medicaid under Obamacare so we could eventually usher in single-payer. Totally your fault if Obamacare fails. 

Again, Obamacare was designed to usher in single-payer. The fact Republicans are working to prevent that doesn't mean it's their fault if Obamacare fails. It's Dems fault for lying and pushing a healthcare program with the explicit purpose of failing, so it can be replaced with single-payer. 

The grenade analogy is apropos.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> 2 tweets from Trump come to mind, one when he blasted Obama for having 3 changes to his staff on 3 years and that was why he can't pass his agenda. Trumps done that in 6 months.
> Second one where he had a go at Obama for not passing his agenda even though he had a majority and how pathetic it was.
> Let's not forget the golf/travel tweets.
> There is a tweet for every occasion with Donny.
> 
> That being said JK did fuck up by retweeting an edited video then ranting. *Guess even the Queen can of Twitter* can make mistakes.


All but the bolded part are valid points. There's nothing noble or majestic about that pompous cunt. :quite


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> To quote your article.
> 
> If Obamacare fails after all the Republicans have done to try to make it fail we'll never know if it could have worked otherwise.


Socialism just wasn't tried the right way yet again :mj2


----------



## Draykorinee

So Trump isn't happy with the 60 vote, but he didn't even get 51 or am I wrong?


----------



## Beatles123

Oh hey, the libs are here! I wonder if--mope, just as I thought, no arguments, just "HAW HAW TRUMP IS DONE GUYS!"

Yall should at least talk in the thread more, or are we "Too stupid" to be worth your time?


----------



## MickDX

Beatles123 said:


> Oh hey, the libs are here! I wonder if--mope, just as I thought, no arguments, just "HAW HAW TRUMP IS DONE GUYS!"
> 
> Yall should at least talk in the thread more, or are we "Too stupid" to be worth your time?


With this kind of provocative posts which adds nothing to the thread, you surely aren't worth my time. And this is why people complain about this section, way too many personal attacks. You want personal attacks, you have the Rants section. Call there the "libs" and tell them how you fell about them!

You call liberals having no arguments,yet no Trump supporter has given good arguments for the shit he is pulling recently. Firing chief of staff, criticising the 60 vote or spending a shitload of money for his travels. Of course, Trump supporters have focused on dishing McCain. McCain has been an asshole since forever, always with his war propaganda. Still his vote makes sense for me because a good healthcare bill needs both parties to agree.


----------



## Beatles123

MickDX said:


> With this kind of provocative posts which adds nothing to the thread, you surely aren't worth my time. And this is why people complain about this section, way too many personal attacks. You want personal attacks, you have the Rants section. Call there the "libs" and tell them how you fell about them!
> 
> You call liberals having no arguments,yet no Trump supporter has given good arguments for the shit he is pulling recently. Firing chief of staff, criticizing the 60 vote or spending a shitload of money for his travels. Of course, Trump supporters have focused on dishing McCain. McCain has been an asshole since forever, always with his war propaganda. Still his vote makes sense for me because a good healthcare bill needs both parties to agree.


I would argue many Liberals here I have no qualms with. you included. The whole bottom half of your post is totally fine, You can disagree with our arguments so long as you aren't trying to classify us as lower human beings. Some here have taken that tone. I think however if you look you'll find plenty of civil discussion as to why McCain is a fraud without dehumanizing his cancer issue.

As for his chief of staff, few of us liked him anyway.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reince was an utter failure at stopping leaks out of the white house. Any president would fire a chief of staff who was as incompetent at controlling the white house staff as reince. How much shit was obama pulling when rahm left the white house because people couldn't stand him and he was ineffectual? 

I seem to remember a bunch of criticism of the 60 vote threshold when Scott Brown won the special senate election in massachusetts. And again after the 2010 midterms when the democrats went from 59 votes to 53. How much shit were they pulling then? 

Travel expenses? Oh that fake news that's gone around where the estimated cost of one of obamas 4 day trips to Florida was asserted to be comparable to the cost of a :trump weekend trip to mar-a-lago. Because they don't have actual numbers. And then trying to act like :trump going to florida means he isn't working even though that's clearly bullshit. And theyre trying to say only 97 million was spent on obama travel in 8 years, roflmao. Yeah no. The only way you get to that number is by not counting large numbers of trips because they were "work" trips or something. Even on vacation the president works every day. I'd prefer the president stay in Washington almost 24/7 the way lincoln did but no president is going to not travel constantly anymore.

McCain did precisely what you're accusing :trump of doing, he campaigned against obamacare, voted against it and to repeal it multiple times, then he went back on his word. The rationalizations for his doing so are weak as fuck. He's a scummy liar.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Anthony Scaramucci tweet about McCain was from a parody account. 

Not sure how it can be said no argument was given for firing Reince. He was either leaking himself (seems pretty likely given his response to the leaker question on CNN), or utterly failed to stop leaks coming from his staff. Totally justified to fire him either way.

I'll let the liberals celebrate the failure to repeal Obamacare, which they see as total defeat for Trump rather than a precursor to total victory, which is how I see it. Let's let them relive November 7th while they can. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC @Plato

Crazy story developing with the DNC, members of congress, and the Awan family who were supposedly doing IT work for all them. IT work that for some reason involved the Pakistani-born Awans accessing their data (totally unnecessary for any IT professional to do, I can tell you personally). The Awans were also being paid for several months after their access to the congressional computer system was revoked by the Capitol Police, who have been investigating them. All signs are pointing to more than just the bank fraud Imran Awan has been arrested for (while trying to leave the country mind you), as it is starting to look a lot like mass blackmail of several members of the DNC and congress. These people have been doing this for over a decade apparently. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/imran-awan-house-democrats/index.html 

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...an-schultz-pakistani-computer-guys-bank-fraud 






This is looking like an enormous scandal for the Democrats - one with heaps of evidence as oppose to the one that gets talked about everyday despite no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> 2 tweets from Trump come to mind, one when he blasted Obama for having 3 changes to his staff on 3 years and that was why he can't pass his agenda. Trumps done that in 6 months.
> Second one where he had a go at Obama for not passing his agenda even though he had a majority and how pathetic it was.
> Let's not forget the golf/travel tweets.
> There is a tweet for every occasion with Donny.
> 
> That being said JK did fuck up by retweeting an edited video then ranting. Guess even the Queen can of Twitter can make mistakes.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/245955590147424256

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/376081345891405824

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/250975772083380226

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/263348204068810752


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump threatens to end health care 'bailouts' for insurers, lawmakers. Liberals still complain. :lol



> Trump on track to spend more on travel in 2017 than Obama spent in all 8 years.


You notice whenever they report these high numbers, its from an "anonymous source" and never provide documentation?

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Trump threatens to end health care 'bailouts' for insurers, lawmakers. Liberals still complain. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Trump could cure cancer and they would still complain


----------



## FriedTofu

Vic Capri said:


> Trump threatens to end health care 'bailouts' for insurers, lawmakers. Liberals still complain. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> You notice whenever they report these high numbers, its from an "anonymous source" and never provide documentation?
> 
> - Vic




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/232572505238433794


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC @Plato
> 
> Crazy story developing with the DNC, members of congress, and the Awan family who were supposedly doing IT work for all them. IT work that for some reason involved the Pakistani-born Awans accessing their data (totally unnecessary for any IT professional to do, I can tell you personally). The Awans were also being paid for several months after their access to the congressional computer system was revoked by the Capitol Police, who have been investigating them. All signs are pointing to more than just the bank fraud Imran Awan has been arrested for (while trying to leave the country mind you), as it is starting to look a lot like mass blackmail of several members of the DNC and congress. These people have been doing this for over a decade apparently.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/imran-awan-house-democrats/index.html
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...an-schultz-pakistani-computer-guys-bank-fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is looking like an enormous scandal for the Democrats - one with heaps of evidence as oppose to the one that gets talked about everyday despite no evidence whatsoever.


Heard about this yesterday. While this isn't an explicit example of the unholy alliance between radical leftists and Islamism, it's nevertheless :lmao-inducing because this is the same party that likes to stand on their soapbox and harp on and on and on about shadiness, as well as basically tokenize Muslims, yet has repeatedly been caught with their pants around their ankles when it comes to corruption, with the latest instance of such involving someone from a Muslim-majority country taking them for a ride.

The donkey logo has never been more appropriate for this generation of dems, considering they're the most retarded jackasses in recent memory.

:kobe9


----------



## DesolationRow

A most fascinating story indeed, @CamillePunk. Been monitoring the Awan saga for a while; good to see a strong video made on the subject!


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> Oh hey, the libs are here! I wonder if--mope, just as I thought, no arguments, just "HAW HAW TRUMP IS DONE GUYS!"
> 
> Yall should at least talk in the thread more, or are we "Too stupid" to be worth your time?


I mean its a very clear argument about Trumps tweets where he lambasted Obama for the exact same things he's doing, although actually doing it worse and on a far faster/grander scale than Obama ever did. If I'm willing to accept Trump is doing quite well with the economy and jobs, although on the back of already rising economy and jobs, why is it Trumpers are completely unable to acknowledge that Trump put his massive foot in his mouth with his tweets before getting in power because now he is a massive hypocrite?

I also made an argument that he's complain about the 60 vote when he didn't even get 51, which is ignored.

:hmmm

You won't though, you'll just attempt to invalidate the argument with HAW HAW Trump IS DONE GUYS! Which i've never said. In fact, has a single 'Liberal' said that in the last 10 pages?

Also pretty much all ofthe liberals commenting have been commenting multiple times in the last few weeks.


----------



## Vic Capri

Go, Pickles!

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> I mean its a very clear argument about Trumps tweets where he lambasted Obama for the exact same things he's doing, although actually doing it worse and on a far faster/grander scale than Obama ever did. If I'm willing to accept Trump is doing quite well with the economy and jobs, although on the back of already rising economy and jobs, why is it Trumpers are completely unable to acknowledge that Trump put his massive foot in his mouth with his tweets before getting in power because now he is a massive hypocrite?
> 
> I also made an argument that he's complain about the 60 vote when he didn't even get 51, which is ignored.
> 
> :hmmm
> 
> You won't though, you'll just attempt to invalidate the argument with HAW HAW Trump IS DONE GUYS! Which i've never said. In fact, has a single 'Liberal' said that in the last 10 pages?
> 
> Also pretty much all ofthe liberals commenting have been commenting multiple times in the last few weeks.


Not you, bruh, you're ok.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Trump could cure cancer and they would still complain


TBH, this idea that cancer isn't cured is kind of bunk :Shrug 

Most cancers are curable today and some even have a successful treatment rate as high as 99% :lol 

Anyways, I get your point though. 

TDS needs to be added into the DSM as a mental disorder at this point.

---

I also don't think that people actually understand how the separation of powers works in America. The failure of Congress to agree on something has literally nothing to do with a President's failure or success. Like literally nothing. To equate the two is utter and sheer ignorance. 

It's because these people are used to fascist Prime Ministers who have full majority to push through any legislation the party wants. They don't understand that we have a limited democracy that's based on forcing compromise - not pushing populist policies through acts of majority parliaments. Fascism isn't just a buzz-word like it's turned into. Fascism is literally when a majority party bulldozes populist policies in such a manner where opposition simply doesn't have the power to oppose. 

Our system is intentionally based on creating road-blocks and limiting the power and reach of the government and it's part of the American philosophy to have a government that can't pass absolutely everything without lengthy debate. Even if we're on different sides of the debate.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> TBH, this idea that cancer isn't cured is kind of bunk :Shrug
> 
> Most cancers are curable today and some even have a successful treatment rate as high as 99% :lol
> 
> Anyways, I get your point though.
> 
> TDS needs to be added into the DSM as a mental disorder at this point.
> 
> ---
> 
> I also don't think that people actually understand how the separation of powers works in America. The failure of Congress to agree on something has literally nothing to do with a President's failure or success. Like literally nothing. To equate the two is utter and sheer ignorance.
> 
> It's because these people are used to fascist Prime Ministers who have full majority to push through any legislation the party wants. They don't understand that we have a limited democracy that's based on forcing compromise - not pushing populist policies through acts of majority parliaments. Fascism isn't just a buzz-word like it's turned into. Fascism is literally when a majority party bulldozes populist policies in such a manner where opposition simply doesn't have the power to oppose.
> 
> Our system is intentionally based on creating road-blocks and limiting the power and reach of the government and it's part of the American philosophy to have a government that can't pass absolutely everything without lengthy debate. Even if we're on different sides of the debate.


That's why we have the house of lords. I find this a pathetic excuse, he has a majority throughout and still he failed, he claimed Obama was weak for doing exactly the same. Laughable.

Maybe if the bill was actually a decent one it might have convinced his majority government.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> TBH, this idea that cancer isn't cured is kind of bunk :Shrug
> 
> Most cancers are curable today and some even have a successful treatment rate as high as 99% :lol
> 
> Anyways, I get your point though.
> 
> TDS needs to be added into the DSM as a mental disorder at this point.
> 
> ---
> 
> I also don't think that people actually understand how the separation of powers works in America. The failure of Congress to agree on something has literally nothing to do with a President's failure or success. Like literally nothing. To equate the two is utter and sheer ignorance.
> 
> It's because these people are used to fascist Prime Ministers who have full majority to push through any legislation the party wants. They don't understand that we have a limited democracy that's based on forcing compromise - not pushing populist policies through acts of majority parliaments. Fascism isn't just a buzz-word like it's turned into. Fascism is literally when a majority party bulldozes populist policies in such a manner where opposition simply doesn't have the power to oppose.
> 
> Our system is intentionally based on creating road-blocks and limiting the power and reach of the government and it's part of the American philosophy to have a government that can't pass absolutely everything without lengthy debate. Even if we're on different sides of the debate.


However, the truth is Trump needs to do a WAY better job of selling his message to the American people. That part is on him. I'm not expecting him to hold their hands through the whole process, but the President needs to be out there with his message. No, I'm not talking about rallies either. The most successful Presidents in history have been able to articulate their agenda and sell it to the American people. He's not doing that. 

Say what you want about Obama, for example, and while I disagreed with about 99% of what he stood for he was able to sell to the American people his vision. Reagan, FDR, etc...other examples of Presidents who did the same thing. When talking to the media, when speaking to business owners, governors, etc...he needs to be putting down what he hopes to accomplish, why he feels this is the best direction for the country, and how they stand to benefit. 

Maybe it's not Trump's style to be hands-on, but maybe he needs to do more. Reagan was a President who was more comfortable handing off responsibilities and designating tasks to others, but he knew when he needed to make phone calls, press flesh, and talk to people to get stuff done. He built rapport with people, even those on the other side of the aisle. On Friday nights, Reagan and Nancy were seen in the White House with Tip O'Neill (Democratic Speaker of the House) and his wife, having a few beverages and just shooting the breeze about life. They were as far apart politically as you could be, but stuff got done. A good amount of Reagan's agenda got completed despite the fact the Democrats ran most of Congress through his eight years. Trump needs to start doing more of that with the people who want to work with him. Bouncing around on your views of Obamacare on Twitter and then threatening to take away health care from your legislators ain't the way to do it. In fact, it is going to piss more people off and stiffen their spine. The McCain vote was a perfect example of it. McCain got shit on by Trump, so McCain has made it clear he is under zero obligation to go along to get along. Had Trump been willing to apologize to him, even behind closed doors, maybe McCain would be more willing to work with him. 

I understand what the stakes are, I get that fully. However, right now we have a President who is not doing everything that is within his power to make this happen. He's not doing a very good job of selling what he wants us to buy. No, Congress is not helping matters by putting out garbage that pretends to be repeal...but if Trump isn't doing his job of laying out what he wants that is his fault. It's not a leftist or right-wing thing...it's the truth, Ruth.


----------



## Reaper

He's sold what he's selling to the American Public. I think he needs to sell that to the Democrats. However, we have to keep in mind Democrats used to be center right/center left through till around 2011 when the dramatic shift to the left happened. That timeline also interestingly coincides with Obama becoming a war neocon president --- so he went extreme far left on the social side in order to distract from his administrations wars ---- which the media gave him a complete pass on for no justifiable reason. They're using their far left social politics to cover some really cancerous people within and even on the right we seem to know more about our own RINO's and less about the destructive progressives. 

We also have to keep in mind that (though it's just one poll) that the majority of Democrat constituents are not with their party leaders anymore. 

The obstruction of the democrats at this point is irrational and expecting them to be rational is defeatist. From that perspective, I can understand Trump's bullheadedness as well. That said, the government is very much functional at the moment (more so than people seem to believe) and The President is getting shit done despite the negative press and assumptions that he's not. 

The Democratic Leadership however is pulling away from its own roots as a center left party and they need to get their ass back from democratic socialism before they actually do more damaged than just socialized healthcare. I don't put that as part of Trump's responsibility to the extent that if you've got a rock solid opposition, then selling what he's trying to sell won't take. We've seen bullheaded leftists in our own daily lives. I don't really see much of a difference in circles where they have actual power.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> He's sold what he's selling to the American Public. I think he needs to sell that to the Democrats. However, we have to keep in mind Democrats used to be center right/center left through till around 2011 when the dramatic shift to the left happened. That timeline also interestingly coincides with Obama becoming a war neocon president --- so he went extreme far left on the social side in order to distract from his administrations wars ---- which the media gave him a complete pass on for no justifiable reason. They're using their far left social politics to cover some really cancerous people within and even on the right we seem to know more about our own RINO's and less about the destructive progressives.
> 
> We also have to keep in mind that (though it's just one poll) that the majority of Democrat constituents are not with their party leaders anymore.
> 
> The obstruction of the democrats at this point is irrational and expecting them to be rational is defeatist. From that perspective, I can understand Trump's bullheadedness as well. That said, the government is very much functional at the moment (more so than people seem to believe) and The President is getting shit done despite the negative press and assumptions that he's not.
> 
> The Democratic Leadership however is pulling away from its own roots as a center left party and they need to get their ass back from democratic socialism before they actually do more damaged than just socialized healthcare. I don't put that as part of Trump's responsibility to the extent that if you've got a rock solid opposition, then selling what he's trying to sell won't take. We've seen bullheaded leftists in our own daily lives. I don't really see much of a difference in circles where they have actual power.


Yes I agree to a point. Some things are getting done but there is so much more still on the table. The failure to repeal the ACA is a black eye because they ran on it for years. In the end, Trump threatened rather then persuaded the three GOP defectors and it stiffened their spines. Other legislators are wondering whether Trump will have their backs moving forward. Trump needs to stop campaigning and start leading. 

If they don't want to work with him, ignore them and move forward. If there are people who might be willing to work with him on the other side, reach out and see what is there. But less bluster and more pragmatism will be more effective.


----------



## Reaper

I think that RINO's at this point are not going to help the cause. 

They seem like morally bankrupt people anyways since they too ran on a repeal mandate and voted against it.

How are you going to convince morally bankrupt asswipes?


----------



## virus21

Iconoclast said:


> TBH, this idea that cancer isn't cured is kind of bunk :Shrug
> 
> Most cancers are curable today and some even have a successful treatment rate as high as 99% :lol
> 
> Anyways, I get your point though.


True enough. I was under the impression most people didnt know that.


----------



## BruiserKC

The bill was bankrupt of anything that was remotely close to an actual repeal, anyone who actually paid attention and was not swayed by emotion saw this. The RINOs you speak of I think clearly saw this and put the brakes on what down the road would have been a disaster. The real CINOs that should be called to task are the clowns like Ryan and McConnell who did a horrible job with these bills and tried to feed us that shit sandwich with a side of flies. If Trump signed it, that would have made him a CINO too. 

If we want to restart the process I would reach out to the Democrats and say that we will be willing to look at working together ONLY if the ACA is completely repealed so we can start with a clean slate. They say no, say we are moving on then to other matters and let us know if you change your mind. That's all. Then see what happens. 

I am against capitulation but not opposed to compromise.  But they need to be firm.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> The bill was bankrupt of anything that was remotely close to an actual repeal, anyone who actually paid attention and was not swayed by emotion saw this. The RINOs you speak of I think clearly saw this and put the brakes on what down the road would have been a disaster. The real CINOs that should be called to task are the clowns like Ryan and McConnell who did a horrible job with these bills and tried to feed us that shit sandwich with a side of flies. If Trump signed it, that would have made him a CINO too.


I'm aware that the bill was bad. But another method of getting a workable deal is to get your foot in the door instead of bashing the house down. Say I want a TV that talks to me, plays DVD's, has a Blu-Ray player as well as has no issues working like a PC ... but such a thing simply doesn't exist at the moment. However, the company says that they're working on something like that but to buy their Smart TV that has a built in Blue-Ray player. I'll weigh my options and eventually decide to buy what's on offer. If I say that I won't buy anything at all then I'm basically resorting to accepting what's even less than what exists. 

I was a highly successful salesman for several years. Made a ton of money selling basically TV airtime and website subscriptions. However, my best clients weren't the ones that bought my Premium A package (even though I personally loved them), but my best clients were the ones who first said no and after persistence bought Plan D and eventually graduated to Plan A. 

The other way to look at it is if the people who want to buy plan A and plan A doesn't exist it doesn't mean that they can't buy plan D and plan A would never come into existence so they just say we're not buying anything. You convince them that Plan D does some of what they want but eventually we'll have Plan A when we have the resources. You don't tell them that Plan A will never exist. You say that you'll eventually upgrade them to Plan A. I've sold people on that too. 

Outright bullheadedness across the board creates a situation where nobody gets anything at all. See my point?


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> That's why we have the house of lords. I find this a pathetic excuse, he has a majority throughout and still he failed, he claimed Obama was weak for doing exactly the same. Laughable.
> 
> Maybe if the bill was actually a decent one it might have convinced his majority government.


Not likely. Our two parties want all right or all left.


----------



## BruiserKC

Iconoclast said:


> I'm aware that the bill was bad. But another method of getting a workable deal is to get your foot in the door instead of bashing the house down. Say I want a TV that talks to me, plays DVD's, has a Blu-Ray player as well as has no issues working like a PC ... but such a thing simply doesn't exist at the moment. However, the company says that they're working on something like that but to buy their Smart TV that has a built in Blue-Ray player. I'll weigh my options and eventually decide to buy what's on offer. If I say that I won't buy anything at all then I'm basically resorting to accepting what's even less than what exists.
> 
> I was a highly successful salesman for several years. Made a ton of money selling basically TV airtime and website subscriptions. However, my best clients weren't the ones that bought my Premium A package (even though I personally loved them), but my best clients were the ones who first said no and after persistence bought Plan D and eventually graduated to Plan A.
> 
> The other way to look at it is if the people who want to buy plan A and plan A doesn't exist it doesn't mean that they can't buy plan D and plan A would never come into existence so they just say we're not buying anything. You convince them that Plan D does some of what they want but eventually we'll have Plan A when we have the resources. You don't tell them that Plan A will never exist. You say that you'll eventually upgrade them to Plan A. I've sold people on that too.
> 
> Outright bullheadedness across the board creates a situation where nobody gets anything at all. See my point?


I smell what you're cooking...but at this point the ACA is beyond repair. The Founding Fathers first thought about the Constitutional Convention was to save the Articles of Confederation. However they came to the realization that it would not be feasible and eventually realized they needed to scrap the Articles and start over. 

That is where we are with the ACA. People are not willing to understand that this can't be fixed and at this point the only way to get a true resolution is to start over. Unfortunately we have progressives who are prepared to primary anyone who even considers working with Trump. The right is as bad as I see people screaming about staying home in 2018 if they work with the Democrats. 

Do we really want a solution or is this all posturing on behalf of the voters and our government?


----------



## MrMister

I just read in this thread that cancer is cured.

LMFAO


----------



## Beatles123

If it were my mom would be here


----------



## MrMister

Beatles123 said:


> If it were my mom would be here


Same with my dad.





SHOCKING to hear the Dems are corrupt. Politicians doing things they shouldn't do. SHOCKING. I never would've thought this was possible because I was watching Rachel Maddow and I couldn't see the ground because the road I was on so high. All I could see were the clouds below.


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> Same with my dad.
> 
> SHOCKING to hear the Dems are corrupt. Politicians doing things they shouldn't do. SHOCKING. I never would've thought this was possible because I was watching Rachel Maddow and I couldn't see the ground because the road I was on so high. All I could see were the clouds below.


Not just corrupt but totally compromised by a family with shady ties to Islamic countries. This could be extremely serious, bigger than any political scandal we've had in this country. How might have policy been shaped by what looks like mass blackmail over a period of more than 10 years?


----------



## virus21

> Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said Thursday on Tucker Carlson Tonight that there is now evidence that then-Democratic National Chairwoman and current Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used Imran Awan for "malevolent activities" and "manipulative things" against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary race.
> 
> Shaffer talked about Awan's other brothers who worked on Capitol Hill, family members fleeing the country to Pakistan, and that he got paid 3 times the average Congressional I.T. employee.
> 
> FOX News reported on bank fraud by one of the brothers, how he double-billed the House of Representatives, and the possibility of "putting sensitive House information on the 'cloud' and potentially exposing it to outside sources."
> 
> Awan was arrested at Dulles airport trying to leave the country.
> 
> Entire transcript:
> 
> LAURA INGRAHAM: What happens when a Congressional staffer with close ties to a top Democrat and access to sensitive hard drives gets caught wiring $300,000 to Pakistan and then is arrested trying to flee the country? Sounds like a pretty fascinating story. But if you're in the American media, they're not much interested.
> 
> Former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept Imran Awan on her payroll for months, even as he was being investigated by the Capitol Police for a host of possible crimes. She even tried to hinder that investigation, but our intrepid press has shown little interest in the story.
> 
> Tony Shaffer is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, he joins us, and he has been following this case.
> 
> This is wild. I watched CNN earlier today. I'm jetlagged, so I needed something that would put me to sleep temporarily. So I had it on, and the guy, I don't remember the reporter's name, but he reported it by saying "there were these conspiracy theories out there about this Debbie Wasserman Schultz staffer" who basically is just in trouble for some bad checks, for some bank fraud, it's just a conspiracy theory. Implying that people like you who have been covering this and have been looking into it are the conspiracy theorists.
> 
> LT. COL. TONY SHAFFER, U.S. ARMY (RET): This is more like a Quentin Tarantino movie with everything except a gimp, and I think the gimp will show up... Look, this is complex, but let me try to simplify. Basically, Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed three brothers who are of Pakistani origin at three times the salary of everybody else who does I.T. on Capitol Hill. This all started years ago.
> 
> INGRAHAM: They must be really good at their jobs.
> 
> SHAFFER: Apparently, they failed at working at Best Buy and other places, so I guess if you fail at Best Buy you get to be hired by the Hill.
> 
> INGRAHAM: Were they at Best Buy?
> 
> SHAFFER: I can't remember which one, it was one of those outlets. Now, what happened though is that she has employed those folks, and over the past years, there's been real issues regarding the fact that every other Democrat person they worked for on the Hill fired them. But they were retained by her. Now, what is really key here to remember, Laura, is not about hard drives. It's about the fact that these individuals, during a time they worked for her on Capitol Hill, and her position as a member of Congress --
> 
> INGRAHAM: Three brothers, Pakistani origin, which is not in and of itself a bad thing.
> 
> SHAFFER: -- had massive access to all databases to include e-mail of members of Congress, super user access to the system itself, and most importantly the sensitive information being held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and other committees that they had access to. What this all comes down to is like, okay, you can have all that, but what gets worse is she actually employs these folks apparently to do hideous things behind the scenes.
> 
> There is evidence now that a least one of these brothers was helping her do the Bernie Sanders malevolent activities, trying to manipulative things against him that actually helped her do things like voice change calls, they actually did all other things which and then --
> 
> INGRAHAM: Who are these characters? Who are they?
> 
> SHAFFER: And then they dumped -- then there's evidence some of the information they had access to dumped off into a third database that's actually being called a breach. That's why the Capitol Hill Police rolled in saying there's something wrong here.
> 
> Now the FBI has rolled in and let me give you the big take away here, it looks like a foreign intelligence service may be the recipient of all this. Something called the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> INGRAHAM: Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Muslim Brotherhood and Debbie? They are really going to say it's a conspiracy theory now.
> 
> SHAFFER: It's a conspiracy now, but that's apparently where all of this has been going. That's why the FBI has now been investigating.
> 
> INGRAHAM: These brothers have been kicking around Capitol Hill in various capacities for IT, but they essentially were blacklisted by most of the other Democrats. Correct?
> 
> SHAFFER: That's correct.
> 
> INGRAHAM: Yet she gave him a home. Very interesting.
> 
> SHAFFER: She gave them a home. And they actually suspended most of their access in February of this year and she kept them on anyway.
> 
> INGRAHAM: She's just a very nice person. Apparently, it's a jobs program over there at the DNC.
> 
> SHAFFER: $300,000 being kicked over to Pakistan finally was the straw that broke the camel's back.
> 
> INGRAHAM: The wife is gone, she's safely over there in Pakistan.


http://archive.is/8XHH6#selection-909.0-1037.65


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Goku @BruiserKC

The Turn to “Effective, but we don’t like it.”, by Scott Adams

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/163600884141/the-turn-to-effective-but-we-dont-like-it



> Prior to President Trump’s inauguration, I predicted a coming story arc in three acts. Act one involved mass protests in the streets because Hillary Clinton’s campaign had successfully branded Trump as the next Hitler. Sure enough, we saw mass protests by anti-Trumpers who legitimately and honestly believed the country had just elected the next Hitler. I predicted that the Hitler phase would evaporate by summer for lack of supporting evidence. That happened.
> 
> I also predicted the anti-Trumpers would modify their attack from “Hitler” to “incompetent,” and that phase would last the summer. That happened too. The president’s critics called him incompetent and said the White House was in “chaos.” There were plenty of leaks, fake news, and even true stories to support that narrative, as I expected. Every anti-Trump news outlet, and even some that supported him started using “chaos” to describe the situation.
> 
> Now comes the fun part.
> 
> I predicted that the end of this three-part story would involve President Trump’s critics complaining that indeed he was “effective, but we don’t like it.” Or words to that effect. I based that prediction on the assumption he would get some big wins by the end of the year and it would no longer make sense to question his effectiveness, only his policy choices.
> 
> How does the anti-Trump media gracefully pivot from “chaos and incompetence” to a story of “effective, but we don’t like it”? They need an external event to justify the turn. They need a visible sign of the White House moving from rookie status to professional status.
> 
> They need General John Kelly to replace Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Watch in awe as the anti-Trump coverage grudgingly admits things are starting to look more professional and “disciplined” at the White House. And as the president’s accomplishments start to mount up, you will see his critics’ grudging acceptance of his effectiveness, but not his policy choices. We’re entering that phase now with the help of a new Chief of Staff that even the mainstream media can’t hate. Generals command respect from both sides of the government because they have fought for both sides. No one forgets that.
> 
> Expect to see lots of stories about General Kelly bringing efficiency and effectiveness to the White House. Reporters and pundits don’t want to criticize a four-star general who fought for them. At best, expect the anti-Trumpers to say the Chief of Staff is calling the shots, not the President. That’s the predictable fake news attack. But I don’t think it will stick through the end of the year.
> 
> By year-end, expect “Effective, but we don’t like it.”
> 
> Now for some related fun. I have often said Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers are in the same movie theater but watching different movies on the same screen. You’ve seen lots of evidence of that, but I’m going to give you an experiment you can try at home. It might blow your mind.
> 
> 1. Identify your most lefty, Trump-hating friend or family member.
> 
> 2. Share this link of President Trump’s accomplishments while you are in the same room so you can watch them read it.
> 
> 3. Watch as your lefty friend turns “cognitively blind” to the list of accomplishments as if it is not really there. Your subject will KNOW President has accomplished nothing, and all of his or her friends know it, and the television channels they watch know it. So how-the-hell could there be in existence an extensive list of legitimate accomplishments that make perfect sense and can easily be verified?
> 
> The only way that list of accomplishments can exist in your anti-Trumper’s world is if the anti-Trumper has been in a hallucination for months, duped by the media and everyone they love. The existence of the list of accomplishments will form a crack in their reality. It simply can’t exist. That’s the trigger for cognitive blindness. The list will simply be “invisible,” but not in the literal sense, only the mental sense. If you check back in two days, your anti-Trumper will claim once again no such list exists. Watch their eyes when they say it. It will be freaky.
> 
> Some anti-Trumpers will pick any one or two items from the list, argue that they are not good for the country, and use it as an excuse to see the rest of the list as nonsense. Some will simply tell you Trump has shepherded no “major legislation” through Congress, which is true. It is also true that he intentionally waited for Congress (and Obamacare) to fail hard before he got serious. The harder they fail, and the more dire the situation, the more power the president will have to push creative solutions on a weakened Congress. Keep in mind that President Trump is a predator when it comes to deal-making. He would have been an idiot to enter the fight hard and early when Congress was at full credibility and strength. That gets you nothing but a committee-made crap-law that may or may not have your name on it. By waiting, he accumulates leverage and widens his options. That’s how I would have played it. I would wait for the lobbyists, Congress, and my critics to punch themselves out before I involved the public and put together a plan to shove down Congress’ useless throats with the help of social media.
> 
> I think the President would have been modestly happy with some kind of “skinny” win on healthcare. It would have been good for momentum. But he’ll be much happier with a real health care solution that takes advantage of innovation. (Our constipated Congress ignored innovative solutions, as far as I can tell.)
> 
> Frankly, I don’t know how much the world really needs tax reform or infrastructure spending. The stock market doesn’t seem to move on the news of either thing becoming more or less likely as we go. My prediction is that President Trump’s reelection chances (should he run again) will depend mostly on what happens with health care. If President Trump gets that right, on top of the things already going well, Mt. Rushmore could get crowded.


Some really interesting thoughts here. Something supplemental I'll add as someone who regularly watches Scott's periscopes: Scaramucci's week 1 crazy antics can be seen as a strong "New CEO" move. He went insanely hard at Reince Priebus and seemingly got him replaced. Who's going to cross Scaramucci now? He's also threatened to fire everyone he can in order to stop the leaks. This, in conjunction with having a General as the new Chief of Staff, seems to create an environment where leaks seem a lot less likely, and there will probably be far less "chaos" in the administration. This helps the shift to "effective, but we don't like it". 

I'll predict on my own that, much to my own disappointment, we probably won't see much more craziness from Scaramucci. At least nothing nearly as extreme as we saw in the New Yorker. I think it was a calculated move on his part (I won't speculate the degree of Trump's involvement) rather than the naive "innocent mistake" narrative being pushed by the administration and believed by pretty much everyone.


----------



## Draykorinee

1. Identify your most righty, Trump-loving friend or family member.

2. Share this link of President Trump’s failures while you are in the same room so you can watch them read it.

3. Watch as your righty friend turns “cognitively blind” to the list of failures as if it is not really there. Your subject will KNOW President has won everything, and all of his or her friends know it, and the television channels they watch know it. So how-the-hell could there be in existence an extensive list of legitimate failures that make perfect sense and can easily be verified?

Its almost like this bipartisan thing in America breeds cognitive dissonance.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> 1. Identify your most righty, Trump-loving friend or family member.
> 
> 2. Share this link of President Trump’s failures while you are in the same room so you can watch them read it.
> 
> 3. Watch as your righty friend turns “cognitively blind” to the list of failures as if it is not really there. Your subject will KNOW President has won everything, and all of his or her friends know it, and the television channels they watch know it. So how-the-hell could there be in existence an extensive list of legitimate failures that make perfect sense and can easily be verified?
> 
> Its almost like this bipartisan thing in America breeds cognitive dissonance.


You forgot to include the list.

Scott Adams expanded upon that blog post in this short 12 minute periscope video for those interested:

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1eaJbmDgmyRGX?t=35


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> You forgot to include the list.


So did you, seeing as you posted something without an actual link.:quimby

I mean the list is okay, I find it slightly hilarious that 



> Campaign Promise 15: To crackdown on drug cartels and illegal drugs crossing the border
> Trump signed an Executive Order cracking down on drug cartels


made the list. I mean, he's achieved nothing. Yet.



> There was an increase of 298,000 jobs in February alone (liberals will say that counts in Obama's fiscal year, but we know the truth)


Here is the cognitive dissonance at work. ONly the most blinded of Trumpers will conclude a man did that in one month.



> Campaign Promise 18: Pushing NATO allies to pay their fair share or face the reality of the US possibly leaving
> Trump has put major pressure on the members of NATO to pay their fair and equal share because there are only a handful of countries in NATO who currently pay as much as agreed upon


But not succeeded.

I mean, going through that list it feels like it was written by a 15 year old Trump fan.

Do people realise that writing an executive order isn't achieving the end goal right?

My favourite was probably this.



> Campaign Promise 11: To protect our policemen, the true everyday heroes
> Trump signed an Executive Order protecting our police


:kobefacepalm

I'm happy that I've previously Acknowledged Trump has done well with the economy and Jobs since starting but in reality these are continuations and not a change from previous, but at least he didn't make things worse. I fail to see anything from that list that really makes me want to say he's winning yet. I mean there's no wall, no repeal of ACA, ISIS are still here, no travel ban etc. I like how they attributed the intel factory to Trump when Obama sorted than in 2011.

That list exemplifies why America will have a bipartisan rift for decades to come. Its got truths, half truths, fallacies and a bunch of obnoxious anti-left wing rhetoric. If you want to write a list for a left wing person to take on board, maybe don't spend half the time taking talking shit about Obama, ultimately this isn't an appeal to left wing people its to purpose is to piss them off and turn further away from Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> So did you, seeing as you posted something without an actual link.:quimby


I forgot to link to the blog this time but it's easy to find and the blog post itself does link to the list. You still haven't shown me the list of failures.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I forgot to link to the blog this time but it's easy to find and the blog post itself does link to the list. You still haven't shown me the list of failures.


TBF, if I did supply a list from CNN, New York Post it would probably be met with the same derision that a a Reddit post does.

Lets take these 10, now some are very petty but lets take the drain the swamp one, I can't believe for a second anyone really believes he's done this? The Mexicans paying for the wall, that ain't happening is it? Repealing ACA, total disaster.

Reading the list supplied by Mr Adams is honestly like reading something written by the most ardent Trumper, someone who is unable to see that an executive order to protect police is not a fix to protect police. 
Take this one from the list


> Trump has already saved taxpayers $86 Billion by cutting regulations


Flat out lie, the very slim potential is there if a multitude of unlikely events occur as well as a ton of ambiguity over the actual changes he made and how much red tape he's actually cut. Politifact (I know left wing liberuls) predict it will be a massive amount less. The fact this number comes from AAF, a right wing conservative group just furthers the "Not believable" part.

I mean I could go on, but its not really that relevant, the argument that you could show a clearly biased list to left wingers and expect them to go wooo well done Trump is a bit...sad.

I don't know who this Scott Adams is, but if thats the best he can offer I shall know to ignore him in the future.

That list is about as snide and derisory of the left and Obama as it gets and this is the list to convince left wingers Trump is doing well? This list?



> He has opened the eyes of the American public to just how unbelievably corrupt (pretty believable to most) the Obama Administration was.


Remember, we're not talking about truths or anything, this discussion is about whether or not this list would be taken at face value by left wingers who don't like trump. Now ask yourselves, who has the cognitive dissonance? The one who analysis this list and takes it for truths/half truths or the one who thinks this list COULD convince anyone on the left that Trump is winning?


----------



## BruiserKC

If Trump will allow his people to put out his talking points without the fear of or his actually contradicting himself, then it can work. Trump does this because people love the chaos and cheer whenever he takes a poke at his opponents. It is not lack of discipline, he knows exactly what he is doing. 

Let Kelly and the Mooch do their job and he is fine.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

> MFW I mistook TDS from a few pages ago as "The Daily Show" instead of "Trump Derangement Syndrome":










> MFW I realize that the abbreviation can be used for either one regardless because of how cancerous they are:










Oh and according to Conway, Teflon Don is gonna tend to the Obamacare payments this week: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/30/politics/kellyanne-conway-tom-price-obamacare/index.html


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891431096688271365
So erm...why is wikileaks now becoming Trump propaganda against Robrt Muller?


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> Socialism just wasn't tried the right way yet again :mj2


Thats the fantasy of these intellectuals. 

Socialism hasnt worked yet because THEY havent tried it.

With technology to predict allocation of goods and services, modern socialism is a slam dunk.

Only if those selfish individuals could be made to see the light!

Its in all of OUR interests to try it


----------



## Stinger Fan

Iconoclast said:


>


It's messed up that she refuses to acknowledge she's wrong, wont delete the tweet and apologise and I'm supposed to believe that she's the "better" person out of the two? Not even the mother calling her out will make her acknowledge it, the anti-trumpers are acting so petty its unbelievable. This isn't about defending Trump here, its just so ridiculous how people are acting


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stinger Fan said:


> It's messed up that she refuses to acknowledge she's wrong, wont delete the tweet and apologise and I'm supposed to believe that she's the "better" person out of the two? Not even the mother calling her out will make her acknowledge it, the anti-trumpers are acting so petty its unbelievable. This isn't about defending Trump here, its just so ridiculous how people are acting


It's truly mystifying that she has the initials J.K., yet she's never thought of using them even as a half-assed way to cover for her retarded comments.

Seeing as how she lives in a European country, maybe a run-in with the Truck of Peace will give her a much needed attitude adjustment? >


----------



## virus21

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> It's truly mystifying that she has the initials J.K., yet she's never thought of using them even as a half-assed way to cover for her retarded comments.
> 
> Seeing as how she lives in a European country, maybe a run-in with the Truck of Peace will give her a much needed attitude adjustment? >


She would have to come down from her palace and mingle with the "common people" for that to happen


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> She would have to come down from her palace and mingle with the "common people" for that to happen


No worries. ISIS-chan can easily lure her out with her adorableness, charm and wit. :sk


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891431096688271365
> So erm...why is wikileaks now becoming Trump propaganda against Robrt Muller?


Wikileaks has released info on everyone and everything. They don't follow any political spectrum. 

LOL J.K I was about to link that tweet, that goober is in hiding.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The Harry Potter books were pretty cool though especially all that Voldemort badass flat out murdering children.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> It's messed up that she refuses to acknowledge she's wrong, wont delete the tweet and apologise and I'm supposed to believe that she's the "better" person out of the two? Not even the mother calling her out will make her acknowledge it, the anti-trumpers are acting so petty its unbelievable. This isn't about defending Trump here, its just so ridiculous how people are acting


It's not just J.K. It's a certain kind of specific mindset that's symptomatic of cultish behavior. It's also addiction to social media validation. It's part narcissism. It's lack of maturity. It's misguided empathy. It's extreme boredom born out of extreme privilege. It's deflection of personal responsibility onto the collective - but not the collective one is part of - the collective one opposes as the villain and self as the hero and the ideologies of the collective as the only true way. Everything you see that's wrong with the left is what used to be wrong with organized religion. Partly why you see an unholy alliance between the left and Islam. They can relate to one another extremely well. 

The real problem imo is that there's no real moral core or defining philosophy there for the extreme left but rather a complex web of psychological problems that has created a whole new cancerous ideology based only around opposition and spreading negativity about that opposition at all costs. 

This is why they are incapable of rational thought ... it's not like they really care about the issues they're talking about.

Watch The Circle. They nail leftist bullshit quite well. In fact, so well that the majority of reviewers I read didn't get it.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Wikileaks has released info on everyone and everything. They don't follow any political spectrum.
> 
> LOL J.K I was about to link that tweet, that goober is in hiding.


Releasing the info isn't the problem here. The attempt to discredit Mueller with a misleading header is because most of us won't be deep-diving into all the information released.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

amhlilhaus said:


> Socialism hasnt worked yet


And neither has Austerity,Reaganomics or Libertarianism when those in power have put those into practice. No pure form of anything either the right or left want's has been good economically Federally or at the state level. When Sam Brownback of Kansas gave huge tax cuts to Millionares, what do you know they mostly just saved/hoarded their money and the states took in less revenue and ran up huge debts.


----------



## nucklehead88

CamillePunk said:


> I forgot to link to the blog this time but it's easy to find and the blog post itself does link to the list. You still haven't shown me the list of failures.


I'll write down a few that come to mind

Mexico hasn't/wont pay for the wall
There isn't a wall
Obamacare still fully in place
Has passed no major legislation
Said he would wipe out ISIS in 30 days...hasn't done anything
Is on pace to spend more taxpayer money on travel in one year than Obama did in 8
Is currently running at an approval rate of 37% (30 points lower than Clintons during the Lewinsky scandal)
Is currently under federal investigation
Has had to fire multiple staff members less than 6 months into office


Those are the ones that popped into my head.


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


>


Talk about petty. The amount of rig-moral over her tweets his hilarious. Every time I link a tweet from Trump it gets ignored by everyone in here. She was wrong, she needs to admit she was wrong. Trump has been wrong numerous times and he never admits it.










When will he apologise.

I note your attack on the left and twitter (and they deserve it) but nothing about how bad the right are as well. Double standards and we all know it Reaper.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> Talk about petty. The amount of rig-moral over her tweets his hilarious. Every time I link a tweet from Trump it gets ignored by everyone in here. She was wrong, she needs to admit she was wrong. Trump has been wrong numerous times and he never admits it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will he apologise.
> 
> I note your attack on the left and twitter (and they deserve it) but nothing about how bad the right are as well. Double standards and we all know it Reaper.


I've said this before and I suppose I'll have to say it again, presidents are always "on the job", even while golfing and yes that includes Obama. Does that mean I'd like leaders to spend less time golfing? Sure, but it's not really the end of the world if a president does. I do remember seeing that Bush would often goto his ranch in Texas . 

Are you really comparing his golfing tweets to be blatantly lied about ignoring a disabled kid? Come on , be better than that.


----------



## Reaper

I'm from the rich upper class where "golf" is really just a form of a recreational business trip :Shrug 

I have no problem with presidents or politicans playing golf. They're usually with other leaders, lobbyists (not all lobbyists are innately bad people) or corporate leaders where they can get shit done, tweak deals and make decisions on a clearer head. 

My brother is a corporate HOD and he plays golf every weekend ... but he's actually still working because he plays with colleagues and people of the industry. 

It's only the poor who see golf as "recreation only" since they've never actually been with the kind of company that plays golf. 

And yes, I agree that Trump tweeting about Obama playing golf is not a good look. It's obviously partisan politics. But if you look at it in the context of the lamestream media's tactics of only bitching about it when Republican presidents do it, it makes more sense for Trump to draw attention to it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> I've said this before and I suppose I'll have to say it again, presidents are always "on the job", even while golfing and yes that includes Obama. Does that mean I'd like leaders to spend less time golfing? Sure, but it's not really the end of the world if a president does. I do remember seeing that Bush would often goto his ranch in Texas .
> 
> Are you really comparing his golfing tweets to be blatantly lied about ignoring a disabled kid? Come on , be better than that.


Thats fine, if the point was presidents shouldn't golf as much we'd agree, but the point was Trump used twitter to smash Obama for numerous things that he then went on to do and hasn't apologised for it since. JK should apologise immediately for not properly researching, however she was misled by the dubious editing, I don't think she maliciously lied at all. Her response is wrong though, apologise, delete it and own it. Trump has done nothing except double down on his bashing of Obama.

I do love how vitriolic Piers has gone, really got his teeth and won't let go, looks really petty.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/m...an-had-previous-ice-detainer-13-deportations/

Reason #17545 that :trump will be reelected


----------



## CamillePunk

Yes Trump is a hypocritical partisan re: Obama. I don't think anyone is really on the other side of that.

It's totally irrelevant to seeing Trump's agenda be accomplished which is what the country voted for.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-washington-stalls-company-profits-keep-trucking-1501423201

Reason #17546 :trump will be reelected. It's always the economy, stupid. Economic indicators continue to rise with no end in sight.

Incredible that all it took for business to blast off was a retarded business-hating leftist leaving the Oval Office.

And with MUH RUSSIA collapsing and disappearing from the news after Kushner's testimony to Congress...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/t...giving-the-firm-a-pass/?utm_source=site-share

Is it really a surprise that fake news would impose a blackout on the revelations that Fusion GPS was in bed with the Russian government? The inevitable end to MUH RUSSIA is approaching, when it will be revealed (and ignored by the fake news media) that it was actually the Democrats colluding with the Kremlin.

A good rule of thumb is that when Democrats accuse a Republican of something dodgy, it is actually the Democrats who were engaging in precisely the dodgy behavior they accuse the Republican of.


----------



## Headliner

Anddddd Mooch is no longer Communications Director. That was quick. :sodone


----------



## MrMister

I have to say this movie I'm watching is WAY more confusing than any David Lynch flick.


----------



## Vic Capri

Shame about The Mooch's resignation. He was so entertaining to watch.



> It's messed up that she refuses to acknowledge she's wrong, wont delete the tweet and apologise and I'm supposed to believe that she's the "better" person out of the two? Not even the mother calling her out will make her acknowledge it, the anti-trumpers are acting so petty its unbelievable. This isn't about defending Trump here, its just so ridiculous how people are acting


So quick to criticize the US government and never her own country's. Back in the day, she would've been burned at the stake for writing about witchcraft!

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

The mean streets of Lower Manhattan are no match for a General apparently. John Kelly wanted Mooch out and so Mooch be gone!

Mooch looks like he might be the first one on the list of WH staff Kelly doesn't think he can control so bye-bye. A more regimented and strictly hierarchical WH staff appears to be what we're gonna get with him.


----------



## CamillePunk

Interesting. Scaramucci gave Trump a way to get Spicer and Priebus out without getting his own hands dirty. Guess there wasn't a plan for him beyond that. 

That's too bad, The Mooch was entertaining as hell.


----------



## Headliner

I don't believe he resigned at all. I think Kelly got rid of him. Politco and others on twitter are saying the same thing.

People are saying Kelly told Mooch immediately after Kelly was sworn in that he's gone. Kelly was apparently also disgusted with Mooch interview with the New Yorker and thought he should have been canned then.


----------



## Reaper

I'm really having a hard time keeping up with this administration's reasoning on certain things. This is one of them. 

Old school has no room for deviance - so it's just starting to reek of another pro-establishment move and they are starting to add up a little. 

I'm aware that politics is a give and take relationship, so there might be some long term advantage here. Of course, that's if I'm optimistic. But on this one I'm fairly pessimistic.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Truly a bittersweet day:

A former Army medic in Vietnam who saved a number of his fellow soldiers is finally getting his fair shake by receiving the Medal of Honor.

Yet Scaramucci left us way too soon. R.I.P. in peace, DA MOOCH (2017-2017). :'(


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Truly a bittersweet day:
> 
> A former Army medic in Vietnam who saved a number of his fellow soldiers is finally getting his fair shake by receiving the Medal of Honor.
> 
> Yet Scaramucci left us way too soon. R.I.P. in peace, DA MOOCH (2017-2017). :'(




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892102576388296704
I loled so hard at this one :kobelol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Iconoclast said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892102576388296704
> I loled so hard at this one :kobelol


Too soon, brah. I'm still in mourning over here. :hogan


----------



## Jay Valero

deepelemblues said:


> The mean streets of Lower Manhattan are no match for a General apparently. John Kelly wanted Mooch out and so Mooch be gone!
> 
> Mooch looks like he might be the first one on the list of WH staff Kelly doesn't think he can control so bye-bye. A more regimented and strictly hierarchical WH staff appears to be what we're gonna get with him.


This sounds like a good plan to me. Everybody on the same page following their marching orders.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*THIS IDIOT GOT FIRED WITHIN TWO DAYS :LOL. This administration is EASILY the worst of all time. They make Nixon look like Mother Teresa.*


----------



## Neuron

CamillePunk said:


> Interesting. Scaramucci gave Trump a way to get Spicer and Priebus out without getting his own hands dirty. Guess there wasn't a plan for him beyond that.


This. Mooch served his purpose as the guy to get rid of the rinsed penis.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *THIS IDIOT GOT FIRED WITHIN TWO DAYS :LOL. This administration is EASILY the worst of all time. They make Nixon look like Mother Teresa.*


You're right, firing Scaramucci is worse than slavery, jim crow , water gate or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

This was a strong New CEO move by Kelly, who is going to be difficult for the media to criticize.

The short term picture is chaos, but the long term, with the hostile leaks possibly dealt with and Kelly in charge, could prove to be very stable.


----------



## Draykorinee

It takes a lot for me to literally lol, but when I looked at BBC and saw the Mooch gone I Lol'd. For real.

:frankielel:dead2:uhoh


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Legit BOSS said:


> *This administration is EASILY the worst of all time.*


Warren G. Harding says otherwise, breh. :serious:


----------



## Draykorinee

:rusevyes


----------



## SureUmm

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Warren G. Harding says otherwise, breh. :serious:


I hated Warren G because of all the burdensome regulations.


----------



## Vic Capri

> This administration is EASILY the worst of all time.


Ulysses Grant says hi.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Meanwhile, Steve Bannon is the last man standing from that three-way power struggle. :mj


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Once again, LOL @ Republicans ON Obamacare trying to repeal it :lmao*


----------



## amhlilhaus

I said trump was my pprotest, lol candidate.


I was right, hes been vastly entertaining.

Plus he nominated a rock solid constitutionalist for the sc, his threats have vastly reduced illegal immigration and the economy is picking up.

Imagine what he could do if the republicans would like, actually help him?


----------



## Headliner

amhlilhaus said:


> I said trump was my pprotest, lol candidate.
> 
> 
> I was right, hes been vastly entertaining.
> 
> Plus he nominated a rock solid constitutionalist for the sc, his threats have vastly reduced illegal immigration and the *economy is picking up.
> *
> Imagine what he could do if the republicans would like, actually help him?


Be more specific when you mention economy. What do you mean exactly? Are you giving Trump the credit?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Scaramuch Scaramuch CAN YOU DO THE FANDANGO!

Seeeya pal thanks for coming. Lol at the irony of the official line from the WH saying Trump of all people thought The Mooch's comments were inappropriate for someone in his position.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892138603454844928
:ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

'How you doin, bada boom, realest guys in da room, oh shit I'm fired fuhgeddaboutit'


----------



## FriedTofu

What are the odds that the White House is creating all this chaos in a ratings war with Game of Thrones? :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Scaramuch Scaramuch CAN YOU DO THE FANDANGO!
> 
> Seeeya pal thanks for coming. Lol at the irony of the official line from the WH saying Trump of all people thought The Mooch's comments were inappropriate for someone in his position.


A local talk show host actually played that part of the song today on his show talking about the Mooch. :lol 

Who thought his comments as more inappropriate were Bannon (as he was one of the folks that the Mooch was cussing about in that interview) and Kelly (on the concept that Mooch saying he would answer directly to Trump. 

Meanwhile...Scaramucci lost his marriage for these 10 days he reached for the brass ring.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

Scaramucci sacrificed himself for the good of the country. :mj2 American hero, without question.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Scaramucci sacrificed himself for the good of the country. :mj2 American hero, without question.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> Scaramucci sacrificed himself for the good of the country. :mj2 American hero, without question.


R.I.P. in peace, DA MOOCH (2017-2017).

Gone too soon, but like any real man, he sacrificed himself for God and for country.


----------



## Goku

shitposting aside, that was kind of silly.


----------



## Draykorinee

So JK apologised, although she didn't mention Trump which I think was a bit off, you bashed him for something so he should also get an apology. Still, at least she can now get on and continue being the Queen of twitter.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> So JK apologised, although she didn't mention Trump which I think was a bit off, you bashed him for something so he should also get an apology. Still, at least she can now get on and continue being the Queen of twitter.


Have you seen her twitter posts? No way is she apologizing, she's a hypocrite and people like her never apologize. 

She apologized because everyone called her out for using that kid for her agenda. Queen of Twitter is questionable, she is the Queen of vapid virtue signalling though.


----------



## Art Vandaley

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891998881009061888
Ah there we go, word from the god emperor himself, no whitehouse chaos, Scaramucci's firing is clearly fake news.

Way to buy into the communist news network's narrative yet again sheeple.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Have you seen her twitter posts? No way is she apologizing, she's a hypocrite and people like her never apologize.
> 
> She apologized because everyone called her out for using that kid for her agenda. Queen of Twitter is questionable, she is the Queen of vapid virtue signalling though.


She specifically said "I apologise unreservedly" now I appreciate we can spin things in many directions, but that's a flat out apology. To the boy and his family. Not to Trump, which is what I said.


----------



## Draykorinee

Alkomesh2 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891998881009061888
> Ah there we go, word from the god emperor himself, no whitehouse chaos, Scaramucci's firing is clearly fake news.
> 
> Way to buy into the communist news network's narrative yet again sheeple.












There is no chaos.


----------



## Reaper

Is more concerning that an organization sticks with incompetence than fires a bunch that don't align with the Head's vision. That in and of itself does not represent chaos. 

But then, competence really isn't a consideration for leftists as evidenced by their indiscriminate affirmative action and other policies. At least it's consistent.


----------



## Goku

Trump is trying to present a results metric, which isn't really falsified with the Scaramucci issue.

Alas, the issue itself does raise serious questions about the state of the White House. The timeline of Scaramucci's hiring, Spicer's departure, Priebus being replaced by Kelly, and then Scaramucci's firing is difficult to cloak as anything other than a lack of forethought. Of course, the extreme explanation of Scaramucci being brought in exclusively to effect the changes Trump wanted without taking any of the heat is... extreme.

It's not any huge thing; in fact it's least important, but there's enough room to suggest something is amiss.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> She specifically said "I apologise unreservedly" now I appreciate we can spin things in many directions, but that's a flat out apology. To the boy and his family. Not to Trump, which is what I said.


Yes and I said she wouldn't apologize, apologizing to Trump isn't what people like her do even when dead wrong.

Took her long enough when people within minutes pointed all this shit out to her. Sad it took the boy's Mother to get on Facebook and have make it known even further.


----------



## Goku

why would rowling apologise to the family? She never said anything about them :lmao


----------



## Reaper

Goku said:


> why would rowling apologise to the family? She never said anything about them :lmao


Because she objectified the family and the child as a prop in her virtue signalling. 

Leftist cannibalism.



Goku said:


> Trump is trying to present a results metric, which isn't really falsified with the Scaramucci issue.
> 
> Alas, the issue itself does raise serious questions about the state of the White House. The timeline of Scaramucci's hiring, Spicer's departure, Priebus being replaced by Kelly, and then Scaramucci's firing is difficult to cloak as anything other than a lack of forethought. Of course, the extreme explanation of Scaramucci being brought in exclusively to effect the changes Trump wanted without taking any of the heat is... extreme.
> 
> It's not any huge thing; in fact it's least important, but there's enough room to suggest something is amiss.


 ---- which in an of itself doesn't mean failure to govern. 

Failure to foresee is a problem. However, failure to adapt and change is worse.

Unfortunately, as is the case with all republican governments, the lamestream media overinflates what amounts to be regularly done in most governments. I mean, there were 14+ firings in the Obaba administration in 2015 alone. Obama also started off firing a bunch of holdovers from the previous administration ... then kept culling his own team. He had 3 separate press secretaries during the course of both his terms. He fired something like 197 military commanders within the first 5 years of his presidency. The information is out there. It's just not in the mainstream's consciousness because the media covers it differently. 

I suppose it's not news till the media tells you that it's news. It's interesting that the reality we really exist in is that even the visibility of fire is now determined by partisan politics. :Shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

Goku said:


> why would rowling apologise to the family? She never said anything about them :lmao


Because she used the kid as a prop to bash Trump with?


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> Is more concerning that an organization sticks with incompetence than fires a bunch that don't align with the Head's vision. That in and of itself does not represent chaos.
> 
> But then, competence really isn't a consideration for leftists as evidenced by their indiscriminate affirmative action and other policies. At least it's consistent.


Do you ever get tired of looking at things and just going ah but the leftists? Seems like a pretty sad way to live your life. Its concerning that a man keeps hiring people and then firing them, THATS what is causing the chaos not the firing part. The ridiculous assumption that firing shit people you hired is a positive sounds fucking retarded to me, but then I'm just a lefty.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Do you ever get tired of looking at things and just going ah but the leftists? Seems like a pretty sad way to live your life. Its concerning that a man keeps hiring people and then firing them, THATS what is causing the chaos not the firing part. The ridiculous assumption that firing shit people who you hired is a positive sounds fucking retarded to me, but then I'm just a lefty.


No I don't actually. Because watching ya'all get :triggered in this thread is deeply entertaining to me and I've said that like a dozen times.

However my point is valid. Sometimes you make mistakes when hiring someone. It's not a big deal. It's worse when you force hiring through a colorful lens though and being stuck in a position where you can't fire then because diversity supercedes merit.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> What are the odds that the White House is creating all this chaos in a ratings war with Game of Thrones? :lol



we will know if trump brings it up

Hes definitely entertaining.

He needs to do a full press briefing. The last one he did was incredible


----------



## deepelemblues

Tails they win heads :trump lose. :trump hires someone who rustles lefty tendies and they freak out, he fires that same person and they freak out. 

They haven't figured out yet that :trump wins and they lose because he's not flipping coins he's playing 88D chess keeping his white working class base on his side which means ggnore come election year


----------



## Draykorinee

Iconoclast said:


> No I don't actually. Because watching ya'all get :triggered in this thread is deeply entertaining to me and I've said that like a dozen times.
> 
> However my point is valid. Sometimes you make mistakes when hiring someone. It's not a big deal. It's worse when you force hiring through a colorful lens though and being stuck in a position where you can't fire then because diversity supercedes merit.


Point is not valid, it's not a big deal if you happen to make a mistake once or twice but 7 times in 6 months is laughable. If a manager had that record anywhere else he'd be a laughing stock. Imagine a football manager making 7 highly publicised signings and firing them all in quick succession. He'd be sacked. You give Trump a free ride and them go yeah but liberals.


----------



## Reaper

When you're dealing with a staff of 100s 7 firings isn't a big deal lol.

But please keep educating an MBA with over 10 years of corporate experience and 3 years of running a store what turnover is acceptable and what's unacceptable :mj4

I also said that the same is and was acceptable for Obama too. Every administration goes through similar processes. 

But of course I used the word leftist so here we are. :mj4


----------



## CamillePunk

When it comes to hirings and firings I trust a business executive of over 40 years more than I trust politicians and political pundits, amateur or professional.


----------



## Reaper

Uh oh. Are we circle jerking again


----------



## Vic Capri

Of course, liberals would focus on The Mooch's firing instead of how great the economy is doing. I wouldn't be complaining right now if you have a 401k.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Of course, liberals would focus on The Mooch's firing instead of how great the economy is doing. I wouldn't be complaining right now if you have a 401k.
> 
> - Vic


I didn't see a single post about Imran Awan from leftists either. 

Of course they accuse us of partisan politics because in their reality they're always the heroes.

What a world we inhabit where a few firings in the white house means that the administration is burning down meanwhile a huge actual scandal involving democratic party aides gets buried.

At least thanks to the sheer dominance of the leftist media we get their side of the story too. Meanwhile since they think all right wing media is biased we don't end up with a situation where we're just completely ignorant of what's happening on all sides.


----------



## Revolvermann

Vic Capri said:


> Of course, liberals would focus on The Mooch's firing instead of how great the economy is doing. I wouldn't be complaining right now if you have a 401k.
> 
> - Vic


I am from europe, so it doesnt trigger me directly, but still i am happy that our americian friends are back on track. 

But you realize that the growing economy is the result of some years of dedicated work after the big financial crisis...and has very little to do with the present man in the WH?


----------



## CamillePunk

The Awan family scandal has the potential to bring down the Democratic Party if it gets the kind of reporting it deserves. They were getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to do nothing over more than a decade. It's either blackmail by foreign agents or kickbacks involving top members of the DNC and Democrats in congress. And unlike Russia, there's concrete evidence of foul play.


----------



## Headliner

Trump gets 100% credit for the Stock Market. He gets no credit for the economy. Thanks Obama.


----------



## deepelemblues

Revolvermann said:


> I am from europe, so it doesnt trigger me directly, but still i am happy that our americian friends are back on track.
> 
> But you realize that the growing economy is the result of some years of dedicated work after the big financial crisis...and has very little to do with the present man in the WH?


not having a socialist dumbass in the white house has done wonders for the confidence of business in the future regulatory and tax environment. companies are not sitting on huge cash reserves to quite the degree they were during the socialist dumbass administration.

a large chunk of job growth and savings to consumers and business from 2009-present has come from reduced energy costs thanks to fracking. four things socialists hate: fracking, reduced energy costs, and business and consumers having more money



> Trump gets 100% credit for the Stock Market. He gets no credit for the economy. Thanks Obama.


the socialist dumbass gets credit for the sickening rise in part-time employment caused by his dumbass dumbcare regulations

he gets credit for destroying the socialist party at the state level, leading to republican-owned state governments implementing economic-growth friendly policies in dozens of states while socialist party governments in california and illinois and the northeast implemented policies that have left those states lagging behind and crushed by debt

he gets no credit for trying to play both sides when it comes to energy policy, trying to cater to treehuggers with one hand and business with the other. trying to please both sides ends up pleasing no one.

at the end of the day the socialist dumbass can be praised in whistling past the graveyard fashion all day long, :trump wouldn't be president if people had any confidence in the socialist dumbass economy. they didn't so outside of socialist dumbass HQ california they voted for the candidate who promised to end the socialist dumbass's dumbass economic policies. if you take out socialist dumbass HQ california :trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million. the will of the country outside socialist dumbass HQ california was clear: they'd had enough of the socialist dumbass barack obama and his socialist dumbass economic policies so they BTFO of the candidate who wanted to continue them.


----------



## Revolvermann

deepelemblues said:


> not having a socialist dumbass in the white house has done wonders for the confidence of business in the future regulatory and tax environment. companies are not sitting on huge cash reserves to quite the degree they were during the socialist dumbass administration.
> 
> a large chunk of job growth and savings to consumers and business from 2009-present has come from reduced energy costs thanks to fracking. four things socialists hate: fracking, reduced energy costs, and business and consumers having more money


 I am not a socialist my friend, but i am pretty sure they like reduced energy costs. Besides...are you sure you know whats socialsm means?


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> not having a socialist dumbass in the white house has done wonders for the confidence of business in the future regulatory and tax environment. companies are not sitting on huge cash reserves to quite the degree they were during the socialist dumbass administration.
> 
> a large chunk of job growth and savings to consumers and business from 2009-present has come from reduced energy costs thanks to fracking. four things socialists hate: fracking, reduced energy costs, and business and consumers having more money
> 
> 
> 
> the socialist dumbass gets credit for the sickening rise in part-time employment caused by his dumbass dumbcare regulations
> 
> he gets credit for destroying the socialist party at the state level, leading to republican-owned state governments implementing economic-growth friendly policies in dozens of states while socialist party governments in california and illinois and the northeast implemented policies that have left those states lagging behind and crushed by debt
> 
> he gets no credit for trying to play both sides when it comes to energy policy, trying to cater to treehuggers with one hand and business with the other. trying to please both sides ends up pleasing no one.
> 
> at the end of the day the socialist dumbass can be praised in whistling past the graveyard fashion all day long, :trump wouldn't be president if people had any confidence in the socialist dumbass economy. they didn't so outside of socialist dumbass HQ california they voted for the candidate who promised to end the socialist dumbass's dumbass economic policies. if you take out socialist dumbass HQ california :trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million. the will of the country outside socialist dumbass HQ california was clear: they'd had enough of the socialist dumbass barack obama and his socialist dumbass economic policies so they BTFO of the candidate who wanted to continue them.


Looks like this was taken straight out of Fox News/Breibart.

Trump gets no credit because he has not signed any legislation that has any effect on the economy. And the one or two vague in detail Executive Orders he sign take time to implement. If they ever get implemented because we don't enough know the details of the policy. The orders don't have much detail. The current monthly jobs report and unemployment rates are a continuing trend from 2016. 

Stock markets react to real time hour by hour things which is why Trump is correct in taking credit for the Stock Market. 

I know ya'll have been conditioned to believe that Trump is god and Obama is the anti-christ, but a trip back to reality doesn't hurt every now and then.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Australia Weather Bureau Tampered With Climate Numbers*
> 
> The Daily Caller reports that for the second time in a just a few years the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has been caught red-handed tampering with climate temperatures as a means to make a "slight cooling trend to one of 'dramatic warming' over the past century."
> 
> Back in August of 2014 the Australian BOM claimed that there was no bad faith behind the decision to "modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.” Nevertheless, the effect, according to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who holds a PhD in biology, was a “dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.”
> 
> "Homogenization" is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.
> 
> This latest scandal is even more serious, one in which the BOM has been forced to admit that incorrect temperatures were logged. Naturally, the agency is blaming faulty equipment but Marhosasy is pushing back. According to the Daily Caller she told reporters that the BOM's claims of faulty equipment "are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being 'quality assured' out."
> 
> One meteorologist reported watching the BOM data change in real time. Colder temperatures, or temperatures inconvenient to the theory that our planet is warming, either disappeared entirely or were "homogenized" into a warmer temperature.
> 
> Apparently "faulty equipment" turned a temperature recorded elsewhere at 5.54 degrees into 13 degrees.
> 
> There is simply no question anymore that Global Warming or Climate Change — or whatever these luddites are calling it today — is a massive fraud.
> 
> Why do the people and institutions like CNN, those who tell us the flooding of Manhattan is imminent, remain in Manhattan, or in CNN's case, invest billions of dollars just blocks away from the "endangered coast"?
> 
> Why do these supposedly innocent temperature adjustments always, Always, ALWAYS show the planet is warming. If these were legitimately honest mistakes as opposed to outright tampering, every once in a while wouldn't that mistake result in a mistaken temperature reading that was, you know, lower?


http://www.dailywire.com/news/19211...m_content=080117-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

This isn't an anti-climate change post or anything, but stuff like this doesn't help anything.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Headliner

Didn't a couple of ya'll shill out that Fox News Seth Rich DNC murder conspiracy theory? Its being reported that Fox News and the White House worked together to shill out that bullshit fake story to distract from the Russia investigation. 

Ya'll be looking crazy when shit like this is shilled out. Hannity and the rest of them pieces of trash owe that family an apology.


----------



## Vic Capri

> I am from europe, so it doesnt trigger me directly, but still i am happy that our americian friends are back on track.
> 
> But you realize that the growing economy is the result of some years of dedicated work after the big financial crisis...and has very little to do with the present man in the WH?


Yeah because a billionaire businessman winning the Presidential election wouldn't motivate investors to put in more money or anything.



> Trump gets 100% credit for the Stock Market. He gets no credit for the economy. Thanks Obama.


What the President does affects the stock market which affects the economy.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> Didn't a couple of ya'll shill out that Fox News Seth Rich DNC murder conspiracy theory? Its being reported that Fox News and the White House worked together to shill out that bullshit fake story to distract from the Russia investigation.
> 
> Ya'll be looking crazy when shit like this is shilled out. Hannity and the rest of them pieces of trash owe that family an apology.


what's being reported is a lawsuit has been filed alleging that they worked together

you just can't seem to manage to be any better than semi-accurate with your pathetic reeeeeeeeeeeeing :heston


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> what's being reported is a lawsuit has been filed alleging that they worked together
> 
> you just can't seem to manage to be any better than semi-accurate with your pathetic reeeeeeeeeeeeing :heston


I know part of being a Trump supporter means you live in this X-Files/Twilight Zone/conspiracy world where reality is bullshit and bullshit is reality, but if you really think Fox News, the same people who already had to pull this story off the network is innocent, there's a huge problem in rationale.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Seth Rich story was being reported on and talked about long before Fox News and Hannity picked it up. It remains a highly suspicious event that may never be solved, unfortunately for the family.


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> I know part of being a Trump supporter means you live in this X-Files/Twilight Zone/conspiracy world where reality is bullshit and bullshit is reality, but if you really think Fox News, the same people who already had to pull this story off the network is innocent, there's a huge problem in rationale.


i know part of being you is smearing people here in a laughable half-assed manner over and over again because your tendies are perpetually sore in :trump's america, but if you really think an allegation is a conviction, there's a huge problem in your understanding of claims not being :facts until proven

you are a mirror image of tendy-sore right-wingers during the obama years throwing out allegations against obama and backing the allegations up by wailing "WELL OF COURSE IT'S TRUE BECAUSE OBAMA HE'S THE DEVIL HOW COULD HE BE INNOCENT, HE'S OBAMA HE'S THE DEVIL! excuse me i have some foam running out of the corner of my mouth BUT REMEMBER WHILE I WIPE MY CHIN THAT OBAMA IS THE DEVIL!" 

i couldn't care less if the allegations in the lawsuit are 100% true and :trump did work with fox to shill the story, barack obama did the same thing with friendly news outlets regarding stories that would help him politically, so did george w. bush, so did bill clinton, so did daddy bush, so did reagan, so did carter, so has every president ever cultivated relationships with friendly journalists to coordinate politically advantageous coverage. and - *GASP* - sometimes that coverage also wasn't true! it's just part of the game. if true, it's a molehill in front of the mountains of presidential dishonesty and underhanded dealing. :trump has his own mountain range of lies and shadiness like all the other presidents did.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Revolvermann said:


> I am from europe, so it doesnt trigger me directly, but still i am happy that our americian friends are back on track.
> 
> But you realize that the growing economy is the result of some years of dedicated work after the big financial crisis...and has very little to do with the present man in the WH?


Do tell what the community organizer did to reverse the big financisl crises.

Ill refresh your memory that the arrogant fuck lectured business that 'now is not the time for profits'


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> Didn't a couple of ya'll shill out that Fox News Seth Rich DNC murder conspiracy theory? *Its being reported that Fox News and the White House worked together to shill out that bullshit fake story to distract from the Russia investigation. *
> 
> Ya'll be looking crazy when shit like this is shilled out. Hannity and the rest of them pieces of trash owe that family an apology.


Would you mind posting the link where you saw that being reported?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Would you mind posting the link where you saw that being reported?


I've seen it from about 15 outlets both American and otherwise.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> i know part of being you is smearing people here in a laughable half-assed manner over and over again because your tendies are perpetually sore in :trump's america, but if you really think an allegation is a conviction, there's a huge problem in your understanding of claims not being :facts until proven
> 
> you are a mirror image of tendy-sore right-wingers during the obama years throwing out allegations against obama and backing the allegations up by wailing "WELL OF COURSE IT'S TRUE BECAUSE OBAMA HE'S THE DEVIL HOW COULD HE BE INNOCENT, HE'S OBAMA HE'S THE DEVIL! excuse me i have some foam running out of the corner of my mouth BUT REMEMBER WHILE I WIPE MY CHIN THAT OBAMA IS THE DEVIL!"
> 
> i couldn't care less if the allegations in the lawsuit are 100% true and :trump did work with fox to shill the story, barack obama did the same thing with friendly news outlets regarding stories that would help him politically, so did george w. bush, so did bill clinton, so did daddy bush, so did reagan, so did carter, so has every president ever cultivated relationships with friendly journalists to coordinate politically advantageous coverage. and - *GASP* - sometimes that coverage also wasn't true! it's just part of the game. if true, it's a molehill in front of the mountains of presidential dishonesty and underhanded dealing. :trump has his own mountain range of lies and shadiness like all the other presidents did.


All that text for nothing.

You went into the defensive immediately when I brought the whole thing. Anyone with a brain, no matter what political affiliation should have seen that the story was conspiracy theory bullshit hoaxed up by Hannity and other conspiracy theory deflection idiots. They had no regard for the man's family and their grieving. It was all done for political points and to change the narrative in a false way which is slimy shit.

This has nothing to do with no previous President. This has to do with this topic in particular. No need to move goal posts. They are (and always have been long before this) scumbags for this plain and simple.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Would you mind posting the link where you saw that being reported?


http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/54078...s-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story

That's just one site. Like RickRules said, it's been on multiple sites today.

And here's a long copy of the court/legal papers:
https://www.scribd.com/document/355...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/54078...s-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story
> 
> That's just one site. Like RickRules said, it's been on multiple sites today.
> 
> And here's a long copy of the court/legal papers:
> https://www.scribd.com/document/355...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate


I'm on vaca and using my phone, I don't have time to dig for it. Thanks for making it easy. :smile2:


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/54078...s-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story
> 
> That's just one site. Like RickRules said, it's been on multiple sites today.
> 
> And here's a long copy of the court/legal papers:
> https://www.scribd.com/document/355...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate


I'm confused, the first article says it's a lawsuit. Shouldn't we wait to see what evidence he has, and the veracity of it, before we believe his accusations?

EDIT: I should have added this the first time around, so I'll add it now. I hold the same amount of skepticism that Rich was the leaker as I do that he wasn't.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm confused, the first article says it's a lawsuit. Shouldn't we wait to see what evidence he has, and the veracity of it, before we believe his accusations?


By due process standards, of course. On the flip side, shouldn't the lawsuit and the details of it provide concerns on what's really been happening?


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/vb.153080620724/10159584295995725/?type=2&theater

Is this shit for real? :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> By due process standards, of course. On the flip side, shouldn't the lawsuit and the details of it provide concerns on what's really been happening?


I would say it depends on if the accusations are true. Anyone can make accusations all the live, long day, but the question is whether or not they're true. If you make an accusation it should be held under scrutiny until it's either proven true or false. 

Like as a simple example, I can accuse you of being a Trump supporter. Does my accusation provide a concern that what I'm accusing you of is true? Or, should my accusation be held under scrutiny, and shouldn't I have to prove it?


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I would say it depends on if the accusations are true. Anyone can make accusations all the live, long day, but the question is whether or not they're true. If you make an accusation it should be held under scrutiny until it's either proven true or false.
> 
> Like as a simple example, I can accuse you of being a Trump supporter. Does my accusation provide a concern that what I'm accusing you of is true? Or, should my accusation be held under scrutiny, and shouldn't I have to prove it?


I see the point you are trying to make but in his case, the guy involved is someone that was involved in this nonsense. I know the partisan thing to say would be, well he's just frustrated so he's trying to get revenge and sue, but a real good point to make is that his ethics and basic moral principles came into play.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Can't we all give and take a little bit more and not be so defenso? 

Yes it's great that the stock market has improved under Trump for example, give him credit, AND it's also a bad look that The Mooch was hired and fired within such a short time, it shows a potential lack of judgement of Trump and calls into question the organisation of the WH overall considering the other staffing troubles as well.

To completely try and pretend all the staff troubles the WH doesn't say anything negative about Trump at all is ridiculous.


But I still say the Harry Potter books were great.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> I see the point you are trying to make but in his case, *the guy involved is someone that was involved in this nonsense. I know the partisan thing to say would be, well he's just frustrated so he's trying to get revenge and sue, but a real good point to make is that his ethics and basic moral principles came into play.*


Full disclosure: I didn't read the background portion of the article you linked because I had to go out to eat, so if your response deals in that I haven't read it yet. If your response did, let me know, and I'll go back and read it when I have time later tonight.

I mention this because when you say "someone that was involved in this nonsense", I don't know if you're talking about the accuser or the accused. Same goes for "his ethics and basic moral principles came into play". Not quite sure who you're talking about.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Can't we all give and take a little bit more and not be so defenso?
> 
> Yes it's great that the stock market has improved under Trump for example, give him credit, AND it's also a bad look that The Mooch was hired and fired within such a short time, *it shows a potential lack of judgement of Trump *and calls into question the organisation of the WH overall considering the other staffing troubles as well.
> 
> To completely try and pretend all the staff troubles the WH doesn't say anything negative about Trump at all is ridiculous.
> 
> *
> But I still say the Harry Potter books were great.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Personally, I think all of these organizational changes is a bit more complex than Trump just having a lack in judgement.
> 
> I'm talking my GF to Universal Studios Hollywood in a couple of weeks and they have this special Harry Potter theme going on. I haven't read the books, or seen the movies (I know, blasphemous), but she's excited as shit. She's read all the books and seen all the movies. LOL


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Full disclosure: I didn't read the background portion of the article you linked because I had to go out to eat, so if your response deals in that I haven't read it yet. If your response did, let me know, and I'll go back and read it when I have time later tonight.
> 
> I mention this because when you say "someone that was involved in this nonsense", I don't know if you're talking about the accuser or the accused. Same goes for "his ethics and basic moral principles came into play". Not quite sure who you're talking about.


I'm talking about the guy bringing the lawsuit who is a longtime paid commentator on Fox News.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> I'm talking about the guy bringing the lawsuit who is a longtime paid commentator on Fox News.


Thanks for the clarification. When I get time I'll look more into that aspect of it and respond to what you said.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Can't we all give and take a little bit more and not be so defenso?
> 
> Yes it's great that the stock market has improved under Trump for example, give him credit, AND it's also a bad look that The Mooch was hired and fired within such a short time, it shows a potential lack of judgement of Trump and calls into question the organisation of the WH overall considering the other staffing troubles as well.
> 
> To completely try and pretend all the staff troubles the WH doesn't say anything negative about Trump at all is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> But I still say the Harry Potter books were great.


The market is up because right now businesses are waiting in anticipation for tax reform, especially the lowering of business taxes so that they can add more money to their bottom line and hopefully use that cabbage to create more jobs. Of course, that will depend on getting tax reform done, which they are hoping to do by the end of September. Now, this might be something Trump is more willing to pay attention to and to be truly hands-on in the process per he is a businessman himself.


----------



## CamillePunk

Sarah Huckabee Sanders ending the lives of countless anti-Trump journos :banderas

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ment_sarah_huckabee_destroyed_the_fake_media/


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> Sarah Huckabee Sanders ending the lives of countless anti-Trump journos :banderas
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ment_sarah_huckabee_destroyed_the_fake_media/


press lady is savage :banderas


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't we all give and take a little bit more and not be so defenso?
> 
> Yes it's great that the stock market has improved under Trump for example, give him credit, AND it's also a bad look that The Mooch was hired and fired within such a short time, *it shows a potential lack of judgement of Trump *and calls into question the organisation of the WH overall considering the other staffing troubles as well.
> 
> To completely try and pretend all the staff troubles the WH doesn't say anything negative about Trump at all is ridiculous.
> 
> *
> But I still say the Harry Potter books were great.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Personally, I think all of these organizational changes is a bit more complex than Trump just having a lack in judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's complex dude, but for some Trump fans to act like it was some calculated move or it's not a black mark on the Administration is bullshit plain and simple.
> 
> Any organisation in the world if you have that high a turnover in such a short time it means things ain't right somewhere.
Click to expand...


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Sarah Huckabee Sanders ending the lives of countless anti-Trump journos :banderas
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ment_sarah_huckabee_destroyed_the_fake_media/


Yeah she's like a tank or something that just plows through with that unflappable stone face. She's pretty impressive so far, but I'm calling it now she doesn't make it all the way to the end of the term.


----------



## FriedTofu

OMG I JUST DISCOVERED THIS GEM :ha








> Just days after Sinclair Broadcast Group's chief political analyst Boris Epshteyn released a commentary segment lauding Anthony Scaramucci's new approach as White House communications director, The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump had removed Scaramucci from the role.


https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...approach-and-fresh-perspective-trump-s/217451


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> OMG I JUST DISCOVERED THIS GEM :ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...approach-and-fresh-perspective-trump-s/217451


Boris has tremendous charisma I have to say.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> TheNightmanCometh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's complex dude, but for some Trump fans to act like it was some calculated move or it's not a black mark on the Administration is bullshit plain and simple.
> 
> Any organisation in the world if you have that high a turnover in such a short time it means things ain't right somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so he's not playing 88D chess and he's not incompetent. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground in there, somewhere.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vic Capri

> Sarah Huckabee Sanders ending the lives of countless anti-Trump journos


I love how the TRIGGERED reporters tried to interrupt her. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Sarah Huckabee Sanders ending the lives of countless anti-Trump journos :banderas
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ment_sarah_huckabee_destroyed_the_fake_media/


Wow she buried them, was so brutal to watch. What's interesting is that people don't care Clinton sold uranium to Russians, that there was a whole lot of wrong doing with Haiti involving the Clinton Foundation but this imaginary Russia stuff with Trump is somehow big news.

Even more surprising is people actually think Clinton isn't dirty and how she herself thinks it's because she is a woman and that's why she lost. :laugh:


----------



## Kink_Brawn

Miss Sally said:


> Wow she buried them, was so brutal to watch. What's interesting is that people don't care Clinton sold uranium to Russians, that there was a whole lot of wrong doing with Haiti involving the Clinton Foundation but this imaginary Russia stuff with Trump is somehow big news.
> 
> Even more surprising is people actually think Clinton isn't dirty and how she herself thinks it's because she is a woman and that's why she lost. :laugh:


Not to mention the recent debacle happening with Wasserman Schultz, a close personal friend of Clinton, a Democrat, and a member of Clintons campaign. I hear next to zero reporting on that incident but LOOK OUT!! TRUMP HAD DINNER AT RESTAURANT WHERE SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES SPOKE RUSSIAN!!!!! NEWS AT 11!!!!


----------



## Revolvermann

Kink_Brawn said:


> Not to mention the recent debacle happening with Wasserman Schultz, a close personal friend of Clinton, a Democrat, and a member of Clintons campaign. I hear next to zero reporting on that incident but LOOK OUT!! TRUMP HAD DINNER AT RESTAURANT WHERE SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES SPOKE RUSSIAN!!!!! NEWS AT 11!!!!


I see your point and - even as a light lefty - i think its kind of valid. But: Clinton is not in the WH, she lost and its just, well, it is logical that these things deserve less attention. Trump is now in power and its more important to find out whether he has been involved in dirty business (to ensure that he can not be blackmailed etc.).

Also...If Clinton had won the election, the media would not talk so much about Trump and Clinton's inconsistencies would be in the focus.


----------



## MrMister

Except Clinton would not be dragged over the coals at all. Most of the media acts like a shield for the Democrats. Instead of always being the adversary of government like they should be, they are allies with Dems.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Revolvermann said:


> I see your point and - even as a light lefty - i think its kind of valid. *But: Clinton is not in the WH*, she lost and its just, well, it is logical that these things deserve less attention. Trump is now in power and its more important to find out whether he has been involved in dirty business (to ensure that he can not be blackmailed etc.).
> 
> Also...If Clinton had won the election, the media would not talk so much about Trump and Clinton's inconsistencies would be in the focus.


Should we ignore potentially illegal activity, even as the evidence mounts, because she didn't win the Presidency? I don't think anyone should be above the law, for any reason.


----------



## Revolvermann

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Should we ignore potentially illegal activity, even as the evidence mounts, because she didn't win the Presidency? I don't think anyone should be above the law, for any reason.


Of course not. I did not want to say that i like this "natural media behavior". 

But i also think - (In the spirit of your statement "I don't think anyone should be above the law, for any reason") - that this Trump defending strategy ("Clinton is the devil, way more evil 111!!!") also violates the spirit of your statement.


----------



## Revolvermann

MrMister said:


> Except Clinton would not be dragged over the coals at all. Most of the media acts like a shield for the Democrats. Instead of always being the adversary of government like they should be, they are allies with Dems.


Just asking out of curiosity and ignorance (cause not from the US): Isnt FOX the biggest news network?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> I see the point you are trying to make but in his case, the guy involved is someone that was involved in this nonsense. I know the partisan thing to say would be, well he's just frustrated so he's trying to get revenge and sue, but a real good point to make is that his ethics and basic moral principles came into play.


I went back and read the article, paying close attention to the back story. There is enough there for either side of the ideological aisle to see a smoking gun, or a nothingburger. This is me trying to be as pragmatic as possible on this, i.e. not letting my bias control how I view this story.

On one hand, you Wheeler stating that he has a text message from Butowsky saying that the President has read the story. Yet, in that same article, you have Spicer stating that he is not aware if Butowsky has ever actually had any contact with Trump, and in that same article you have Butowsky stating that he was only kidding about Trump's involvement (which, I can admit looks like a silly thing to joke about). 

There are certainly a lot of angles one could take in drawing a conclusion. Was Trump involved? Were they trying to overshadow Russian allegations? Was Butowsky trying to get more pull in the White House? Was he just trying to get a job in the administration?

That being said, I don't know this Wheeler guy. You say his ethics and moral principles should come into play? What exactly are his ethics and moral principles? I know he's a Trump supporter, so that alone should probably have you thinking he has no ethics or moral character wink2 He could be totally credible, or he could not be. Just because he's involved doesn't mean his telling the truth. He could just be telling the truth as he sees it, which many times can be proven false. I don't want to say he's on one side or the either. I'd rather see how the lawsuit plays out.

There's also the issue of other potentially credible people proclaiming that Seth Rich was the leaker. For example, there's this...



> Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who revealed in 1974 that the CIA was spying on Americans, who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandal – said in a recent phone interview linked by WikiLeaks...that Seth Rich was the leaker.
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ort-shows-it-was-seth-rich-–-not-russians-–-w


Certainly, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has some credibility?

So, in the end, I don't see how anyone, people like you and I, can come to any sort of conclusion either way, at this point. All we can do is wait and see how this lawsuit plays out, and if any important truths come to light. Wheeler is only suing for defamation because some quotes were wrongly attributed to him. He's not suing, claiming that all this "Seth Rich is the leaker" stuff is false. I doubt the lawsuit will actually shed any light on that, TBH. I think what we'll find is that some people got overzealous in their reporting. Again, if the WH was intimately involved, hopefully the lawsuit bears that out.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Revolvermann said:


> Of course not. I did not want to say that i like this "natural media behavior".
> 
> But i also think - (In the spirit of your statement "I don't think anyone should be above the law, for any reason") -* that this Trump defending strategy ("Clinton is the devil, way more evil 111!!!") also violates the spirit of your statement.*


How so? Serious question.


----------



## Revolvermann

TheNightmanCometh said:


> How so? Serious question.


Because i think its just not right to say: We dont have to look at Trumps russian thing, because Hillary is also a bad person and nobody is taking a look on her. This does not correspond to my sense of righteousness. The president should not be above the law, Hillary should not be above the law - right.

But this mindset.....This is how children actually behave. Instead of taking the responsibility for an act, they point with a finger at other people and say "They were also evil".


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> How so? Serious question.


Simple, they're totally unrelated topics. If you steal a stick of gum and your friend steals 2, you can't get out of it by saying "but he took 2 so he's worse." You still both get arrested. It's very common for Trumpeteers to answer any criticism towards trump with "leftists do..." "Hillary did..." "democrats do..." etc. None of it remotely defends Trump at all, it's a deflection. You can't defend Trump by saying Hillary's bad. All you're doing is reiterating that Hillary's bad, don't we already know that? A defence of Trump saying "grab them by the pussy" can't be "well Bill Clinton..etc" that's an avoidance tactic. The defence has to directly relate to the accusation, not deflected by the thinking you score points with "but Hillary" shit don't work like that.


----------



## MrMister

Revolvermann said:


> Just asking out of curiosity and ignorance (cause not from the US): Isnt FOX the biggest news network?


Fox is the most watched cable news channel yes. But they are the counter point. They are not as big as all the others combined.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RavishingRickRules said:


> Simple, they're totally unrelated topics. If you steal a stick of gum and your friend steals 2, you can't get out of it by saying "but he took 2 so he's worse." You still both get arrested. It's very common for Trumpeteers to answer any criticism towards trump with "leftists do..." "Hillary did..." "democrats do..." etc. None of it remotely defends Trump at all, it's a deflection. You can't defend Trump by saying Hillary's bad. All you're doing is reiterating that Hillary's bad, don't we already know that? A defence of Trump saying "grab them by the pussy" can't be "well Bill Clinton..etc" that's an avoidance tactic. The defence has to directly relate to the accusation, not deflected by the thinking you score points with "but Hillary" shit don't work like that.


I find that there's a slight problem with your narrative. Those saying Hillary is bad are being very specific on why she's bad, she broke the law. What law has Trump broken?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I find that there's a slight problem with your narrative. Those saying Hillary is bad are being very specific on why she's bad, she broke the law. What law has Trump broken?


Fuck sake, there was no narrative. It was an example to illustrate the point the dude was making. The point is that you can say absolutely ANYTHING about Hillary and it be 100% fact and it STILL will not do anything to argue "for Trump" when people criticise him. It's a strawman in the most obvious of ways. "Trump is a misogynist" "Clinton's a rapist." In what way does "Clinton's a rapist" disprove Trump is a misogynist. BOTH PEOPLE can be fucked up assholes, they're not mutually exclusive. Do you understand the point now or should I just call it a lost cause and get out of the echo chamber again?

Here, Ill do one with two completely unrelated people. This is a hypothetical conversation.

"Stalin was a monster"

"But Hitler murdered all those Jews."

Does the second statement in any way argue against the first one? No, it doesn't. Just like every single answer to a criticism of Trump that starts "But Hillary" doesn't do shit to answer the criticism of Trump. @Iconoclast is right, the American education system is fucking shit.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> @Iconoclast is right, the American education system is fucking shit.


I'd rather not be dragged into this mess, but this is true. 

The thing however is that Trump isn't a criminal. There has been nothing to prove that he is one. Trump isn't a misogynist. When we really think about it, (like I can see you have your thinking hat on right now) we have no objective and universally acceptable parameters to determine whether someone is a misogynist or not anymore other than groupthink and iffy definitions of misogyny. Trump isn't a racist because of the same reason as why he's not a misogynist. Etc Etc. 

There's no conclusion here that will satisfy everyone.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Iconoclast said:


> I'd rather not be dragged into this mess, but this is true.
> 
> The thing however is that Trump isn't a criminal. There has been nothing to prove that he is one. Trump isn't a misogynist. When we really think about it, (like I can see you have your thinking hat on right now) we have no objective and universally acceptable parameters to determine whether someone is a misogynist or not anymore other than groupthink and iffy definitions of misogyny. Trump isn't a racist because of the same reason as why he's not a misogynist. Etc Etc.
> 
> There's no conclusion here that will satisfy everyone.


My point wasn't "Trump is a misogynist" as I stated, I was talking hypothetically. The only point I was making (which anyone who's literate in English should be able to understand if they look past their partisan triggering) was simply "you cannot argue against a criticism of someone with a criticism of a totally different person." If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" just disprove it. Cool. If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" and you reply with "but Clintons a rar, rar, rar, blah blah, irrelevant crap." You just ignored the criticism and launched into one of your own. That doesn't prove shit other than Clinton's also an asshole. You see what I'm saying? This isn't even aimed at you because you actually do the right thing, it's aimed at all of those who's only response to a criticism of Trump is to criticise anybody they can on the left. Is that a valid defence? Or is it in fact a deflection because they have no defence? (Which is how it appears to anybody like myself who dislikes both parties.)


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> My point wasn't "Trump is a misogynist" as I stated, I was talking hypothetically. The only point I was making (which anyone who's literate in English should be able to understand if they look past their partisan triggering) was simply "you cannot argue against a criticism of someone with a criticism of a totally different person." If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" just disprove it. Cool. If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" and you reply with "but Clintons a rar, rar, rar, blah blah, irrelevant crap." You just ignored the criticism and launched into one of your own. That doesn't prove shit other than Clinton's also an asshole. You see what I'm saying? This isn't even aimed at you because you actually do the right thing, it's aimed at all of those who's only response to a criticism of Trump is to criticise anybody they can on the left. Is that a valid defence? Or is it in fact a deflection because they have no defence? (Which is how it appears to anybody like myself who dislikes both parties.)


I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just addressing the misogynist point and trying to make another point that makes it easier to understand the quality of debate today. Just taking this conversation a little more forward, I think I would like to explain why this debate exists because not everyone is a skilled/trained debater. 

The vitriol against Trump shouldn't exist. This debate shouldn't be happening. The lack of quality of arguments wouldn't exist if the narrative wasn't so incredibly toxic and we know that not all people are skilled in addressing arguments and framing their own point of view. Falling back on otherism is very natural and irregardless of their level of education they do it. 

If everyone just did their job and stuck to the facts we wouldn't be living two completely different realities. 

Thanks for acknowledging that I don't argue poorly at least.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RavishingRickRules said:


> Fuck sake, there was no narrative. It was an example to illustrate the point the dude was making. The point is that you can say absolutely ANYTHING about Hillary and it be 100% fact and it STILL will not do anything to argue "for Trump" when people criticise him. It's a strawman in the most obvious of ways. "Trump is a misogynist" "Clinton's a rapist." In what way does "Clinton's a rapist" disprove Trump is a misogynist. BOTH PEOPLE can be fucked up assholes, they're not mutually exclusive. Do you understand the point now or should I just call it a lost cause and get out of the echo chamber again?
> 
> Here, Ill do one with two completely unrelated people. This is a hypothetical conversation.
> 
> "Stalin was a monster"
> 
> "But Hitler murdered all those Jews."
> 
> Does the second statement in any way argue against the first one? No, it doesn't. Just like every single answer to a criticism of Trump that starts "But Hillary" doesn't do shit to answer the criticism of Trump. @Iconoclast is right, the American education system is fucking shit.


The point that Miss Sally is making is that there is no evidence of legit ties between Trump and Russia, and that's being reported on a daily basis. There's a shit ton of evidence linking Hillary Clinton to criminal activities, and we're seeing nothing. 

Revolverman's response to that was, "Well, she's not in the WH, so it doesn't really matter all that much." But it does matter. Why should she get a free pass? She should get a free pass because Trump is a bad guy because he said "Grab 'em by the pussy", and who potentially has ties to Russia, although there's literally no evidence of it?

His response was to say it would be unrighteous to not look into Trump and to look into Hillary. Wouldn't you say it's unrighteous to look into Trump and not look into Hillary? He then says Trump should not be above the law? Okay, what law has he broken? None of what he said makes any sense to me. 



> Simple, they're totally unrelated topics. If you steal a stick of gum and your friend steals 2, you can't get out of it by saying "but he took 2 so he's worse."


Your example here is weak. Hillary Clinton is being accused of breaking the law, Trump is accused of being an asshole. It's not like stealing gum here. Your scenario would be better if you said, someone took money from foreign agents, gave them kickbacks, and made hundreds of millions of dollars, while the other person said, "Grab 'em by the pussy". It's apples and oranges.

Also, I responded to you once, dude. If you're already losing patience, then maybe you shouldn't try conversing with people until you work on that.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RavishingRickRules said:


> *My point wasn't "Trump is a misogynist" as I stated, I was talking hypothetically. The only point I was making (which anyone who's literate in English should be able to understand if they look past their partisan triggering) was simply "you cannot argue against a criticism of someone with a criticism of a totally different person."* If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" just disprove it. Cool. If someone says "Trump is a misogynist" and you reply with "but Clintons a rar, rar, rar, blah blah, irrelevant crap." You just ignored the criticism and launched into one of your own. That doesn't prove shit other than Clinton's also an asshole. You see what I'm saying? This isn't even aimed at you because you actually do the right thing, it's aimed at all of those who's only response to a criticism of Trump is to criticise anybody they can on the left. Is that a valid defence? Or is it in fact a deflection because they have no defence? (Which is how it appears to anybody like myself who dislikes both parties.)


That was literally not what was happening here. 



> Miss Sally: Wow she buried them, was so brutal to watch. What's interesting is that people don't care Clinton sold uranium to Russians, that there was a whole lot of wrong doing with Haiti involving the Clinton Foundation but this imaginary Russia stuff with Trump is somehow big news.
> 
> Kink_Brawn: Not to mention the recent debacle happening with Wasserman Schultz, a close personal friend of Clinton, a Democrat, and a member of Clintons campaign. I hear next to zero reporting on that incident but LOOK OUT!! TRUMP HAD DINNER AT RESTAURANT WHERE SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES SPOKE RUSSIAN!!!!! NEWS AT 11!!!!
> 
> Revolverman: I see your point and - even as a light lefty - i think its kind of valid. But: Clinton is not in the WH, she lost and its just, well, it is logical that these things deserve less attention. Trump is now in power and its more important to find out whether he has been involved in dirty business (to ensure that he can not be blackmailed etc.).
> 
> Me: Should we ignore potentially illegal activity, even as the evidence mounts, because she didn't win the Presidency? I don't think anyone should be above the law, for any reason.


Someone is saying that they think the Trump/Russian narrative is bullshit, which by simple lack of evidence this certainly can be argued to be true, but the evidence against Hillary is mounting and we get nothing. I think it's a legitimate argument. Plus, as I stated, they don't have to be connected. The MSM can continue their search for the missing link against Trump and also do their jobs by looking deeper into the allegations into Hillary Clinton.

Miss Sally didn't strawman the argument. They brought up a legitimate concern. Whether Miss Sally thinks the Trump/Russia narrative is BS, doesn't mean it's a strawman that she believes Hillary should be investigated more by the MSM.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> The point that Miss Sally is making is that there is no evidence of legit ties between Trump and Russia, and that's being reported on a daily basis. There's a shit ton of evidence linking Hillary Clinton to criminal activities, and we're seeing nothing.
> 
> Revolverman's response to that was, "Well, she's not in the WH, so it doesn't really matter all that much." But it does matter. Why should she get a free pass? She should get a free pass because Trump is a bad guy because he said "Grab 'em by the pussy", and who potentially has ties to Russia, although there's literally no evidence of it?
> 
> His response was to say it would be unrighteous to not look into Trump and to look into Hillary. Wouldn't you say it's unrighteous to look into Trump and not look into Hillary? He then says Trump should not be above the law? Okay, what law has he broken? None of what he said makes any sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Your example here is weak. Hillary Clinton is being accused of breaking the law, Trump is accused of being an asshole. It's not like stealing gum here. Your scenario would be better if you said, someone took money from foreign agents, gave them kickbacks, and made hundreds of millions of dollars, while the other person said, "Grab 'em by the pussy". It's apples and oranges.
> 
> Also, I responded to you once, dude. If you're already losing patience, then maybe you shouldn't try conversing with people until you work on that.


Thanks for proving my point about the reading comprehension you learned during your education. You didn't address a single thing I said and went off on some tangent that didn't remotely apply to the point I was making. And with that I'll leave you to the echo chamber. In this battle of wits, I'm fighting an unarmed man; and that's no fun.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Russia narrative is dead and utterly failed to establish itself as anything more than a witch hunt. I don't see any benefit or need to continue discussing it as someone who supports Trump. Speaking of supporting Trump, here's one of the big reasons why:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892814520942460928
@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC @Plato CIRCLEJERKING SO HARD

This is what our country has needed for decades, and if implemented much earlier our country would be in a far better place today in many ways. Hopefully we can begin to undo some of the catastrophic damage done by the immigration reforms of the 1960s. 

Predictably, the cries of "RACISM!" from the left have rung out. CNN's Jim Acosta has accused the White House of "racial engineering". Of course, wanting English-speaking, skilled people must be racist because only white people speak English and have marketable skills. :lol The true racism of the left continues to shine through the fog.


----------



## Revolvermann

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Revolverman's response to that was, "Well, she's not in the WH, so it doesn't really matter all that much." But it does matter. Why should she get a free pass? She should get a free pass because Trump is a bad guy because he said "Grab 'em by the pussy", and who potentially has ties to Russia, although there's literally no evidence of it?
> 
> His response was to say it would be unrighteous to not look into Trump and to look into Hillary. Wouldn't you say it's unrighteous to look into Trump and not look into Hillary? He then says Trump should not be above the law? Okay, what law has he broken? None of what he said makes any sense to me.


Sorry, but this is not true. I said she is not in the WH, so its at least normal, that she is not so often in the news. Never said it doesnt matter or should not get investigated. Quote: The president should not be above the law, Hillary should not be above the law.

Also..."what law has he broken?" is one of your questions. Well, i simply dont know. And you know what? That is perfectly fine. You dont need bulletproof facts to carry out investigations. You carry them out to find facts (That can prove his guilt or(!) innocence ).


----------



## Kink_Brawn

Stephen Miller just debunked that shitty propagandic poem on the Statue of Liberty to some butt hurt reporters

HOLY SHIT!!

What a time to be alive.....


President Trump's entire team is sometimes like something out of an anti liberal elite fantasy....


----------



## CamillePunk

If Stephen Miller didn't have better things to do I'd want him as Press Secretary. :banderas Dude is body-bagging and red-pilling left and right. Starting to feel like total victory is just around the corner.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Revolvermann said:


> Sorry, but this is not true. I said she is not in the WH, so its at least normal, that she is not so often in the news. Never said it doesnt matter or should not get investigated. Quote: The president should not be above the law, Hillary should not be above the law.
> 
> Also..."what law has he broken?" is one of your questions. Well, i simply dont know. And you know what? That is perfectly fine. You dont need bulletproof facts to carry out investigations. You carry them out to find facts (That can prove his guilt or(!) innocence ).


I'm saying her not being in the WH isn't a valid enough excuse for why she's not often in the news. Journalist's jobs are to report important stories. The controversy surrounding Hillary is an important story, and it's not being reported on. The Wasserman-Shultz story is an important story, and it's not being reported on. Everyone likes to point out that there's smoke behind Trump/Russia, from my POV there's a lot more smoke surrounding Hillary Clinton and her many alleged misdeeds, as well as Wasserman-Shultz's alleged misdeeds. If journalists spent half as much time investigating the allegations behind Hillary and Wasserman-Shultz, than they do Trump/Russia it would better serve the public. We've given the MSM 10+ months to connect the dots and they haven't found the missing link. Maybe it's time to move on and report on more important stories.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RavishingRickRules said:


> Thanks for proving my point about the reading comprehension you learned during your education. You didn't address a single thing I said and went off on some tangent that didn't remotely apply to the point I was making. And with that I'll leave you to the echo chamber. In this battle of wits, I'm fighting an unarmed man; and that's no fun.


Thanks for proving my point that you are piss-poor at holding a respectful conversation. There was a clear, and concise, response to your point about strawmanning, so I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Reaper

The great irony is that most western countries, especially the ones like Australia and Canada that are now pretending to have open borders, or just whinging non-stop about American xenophobia have had a point system-based immigration for decades. (Unless I'm mistaken about Australia)

However, the nightmare in Canada at least is that they keep importing immigrants on a point system and forcing them to work as janitors and cab drivers because those countries simply do not have jobs for the people they're bringing in. Of course, anyone can qualify in a meritbased system but what's the point of qualifying when there's no job waiting for you? It's BROKEN AF. They have a real unemployment rate of about 13-15% and are still bringing in immigrants on their point-based professional visas. Almost all of the immigrants I know work odd jobs or commute to the States and the impression is that Canada really just wants their kids. I have like five uncles who immigrated to Canada after us and only 2 of them have jobs in Canada (1 has a proper job as per his qualification) and 3 are working in the States. 

Another secret about the NAFTA is that it allows Canadian Immigrants to work in America on a tax-sharing basis. It's only after they become US immigrants and severe all primary and secondary ties with Canada that they don't have to pay tax in Canada. It's such a fucking sleazy system. So what they're really doing is that they're bringing in immigrants to Canada where they have no jobs, so Canadian immigrants get jobs in America which the Canadians can then tax. This is one of the greatest tax scams parallel only to Obamacare that I've ever read. All Canadians no matter where they work are forced to pay taxes to Canada if they want to maintain any ties with Canada at all. 

On top of that, you're paying Canadian Tax on a US income, BUT you have to live in Canada for 3 months and prove that you're going to stay in Canada to be eligible for their healthcare :ha 

Such a fucking HUGE scam. :lmao 

I haven't looked at the link yet, but what really needs to be done is the federal government needs to only allow job-based immigration. A merit/point-based system is still broken and we know that from other countries that have it and bring in immigrants that work below their means. My dad went back after trying to find a job in Canada and left us behind - leaving some scars of abandonment - in order to keep being able to send us money from Pakistan. 

No one should be allowed in America unless they have a fixed job, or someone who has a job that can support them. They already have that in place for fiance/marriage visas. They need to expand and improve upon it imo.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> The Russia narrative is dead and utterly failed to establish itself as anything more than a witch hunt. I don't see any benefit or need to continue discussing it as someone who supports Trump. Speaking of supporting Trump, here's one of the big reasons why:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892814520942460928
> @DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC @Plato CIRCLEJERKING SO HARD
> 
> This is what our country has needed for decades, and if implemented much earlier our country would be in a far better place today in many ways. Hopefully we can begin to undo some of the catastrophic damage done by the immigration reforms of the 1960s.
> 
> Predictably, the cries of "RACISM!" from the left have rung out. CNN's Jim Acosta has accused the White House of "racial engineering". Of course, wanting English-speaking, skilled people must be racist because only white people speak English and have marketable skills. :lol The true racism of the left continues to shine through the fog.


I've read that Singapore is a great example of meritocracy done right. Although its high wealth inequality is unfortunate and it's a well-known tax haven, its GDP, unemployment and credit rating are excellent, so I'm very open to the notion of us following their lead.

:kobelol at Acosta, though. That prick *still* being butthurt over losing his "real beauty" status = SAD!

:trump3


----------



## MickDX

So this change is only for green cards? But how many immigrants really receive a green card easily, except for those who received it when marrying an American citizen? In my country is something like a fucking lottery so the guys are chosen randomly which is pretty fucked up. A merit-system is far better than a lottery because at least you know those guys are well educated. I don't get though why US will win "billions" because of this new system.

@Iconoclast there are already some job-based visas like H-1B which is pretty much my only chance if I want to go to US. You need to find a company which sponsors you and helps you through the process.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

MickDX said:


> @Iconoclast there are already some job-based visas like H-1B which is pretty much my only chance if I want to go to US. You need to find a company which sponsors you and helps you through the process.


I'm definitely not woefully unempathetic to the plight of non-Americans really. The reality is however, that if you're truly qualified, a lot of employers will sponsor your immigration once you do make it here too. My wife took out a loan on her 401k to help us with my immigration (which she paid back to herself so it was essentially a 0% loan) and he's sponsoring another one of his workers as a full immigrant. So opportunities for the deserving still exist and will continue to exist even under this system. 

I just think that the solution to your problems isn't to bank on being able to find jobs off-shore, but to slowly start pushing back against poor fiscal policies that have a direct impact on the lack of opportunity. Of course, it's not an acute fix - but seriously it's one of those fixes that needs to be made for the sake of your children at least. 

I don't know how much you've read about my posts on the real impact of social welfare policies on jobs but I've studied this problem extensively, as well as experienced it IRL in over 3 different countries (being a bit of a drifter gives you a nose for opportunity).


----------



## Vic Capri

> I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system


He stole it from Canada, :lol.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

> EXPLOSIVE ADDITIONAL AUDIO: Seymour Hersh CONFIRMS Seth Rich Wikileaks Contact!
> 
> Lucian Wintrich Aug 1st, 2017 5:50 pm —42 Comments
> On July 10, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC about a block from his apartment. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.
> Via Wikipedia: Earlier that night he had been at Lou’s City Bar, a sports pub 1.8 miles from his apartment, in Columbia Heights, where he was a regular customer. He left when the bar was closing, at about 1:30 or 1:45 a.m. Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 a.m. by an automated gunfire locator. Within approximately one minute after the gun shots, police officers found Rich with multiple gunshot wounds, in a conscious and breathing state.[33] He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he later died. According to police, he died from two shots to the back… Rich’s mother told NBC’s Washington affiliate WRC-TV,
> “
> “There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything… They didn’t finish robbing him, they just took his life.”
> NBC 4 reported on the murder:
> “
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0:00
> /
> 2:39
> 
> 
> 
> Share
> ”
> Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.
> Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”
> The Metropolitan police posted a reward for information on Rich’s murder.
> Seth Rich Bloomingdale2
> In August Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.
> Julian Assange also suggested in August that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.
> Via Mike Cernovich:
> YouTube ‎@YouTube
> Follow
> Mike Cernovich ?? ✔
> ‎@Cernovich
> Was Seth Rich, the source of #DNCleaks, murdered? https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Kp7FkLBRpKg …
> 12:15 AM - Aug 10, 2016
> 80 80 Replies 1,128 1,128 Retweets 822 822 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> As reported earlier today— NPR was attempting to stop the inquires into the Seth Rich investigation once and for all. They thought their article, that laid out a lawsuit against Fox News for reporting on the mysterious murder, would end the investigations.
> Previously today Big League Politics reporter, Cassandra Fairbanks, released a leaked audio of Rod Wheeler explaining the Fox coverage of Rich and how Aaron Rich, Seth’s brother, was adamantly trying to stop all inquiries into the WikiLeaks connection.
> If you didn’t think that was enough, now we have journalist Seymour Hersh stating on the record that not only was Seth Rich in contact with WikiLeaks, but that he managed to get his hands on some of the original communications between Rich and Wikileaks!
> We can only wonder how long before NPR has to issue a FULL retraction on their article that attempted to claim there was no connection. In the audio posted below, Hersh confirms that WikiLeaks had DIRECT password access to the protected DropBox where Rich was uploading the files leaked from the DNC.
> Via Big League Politics:
> “
> “There are no DNC or Podesta emails that exist beyond May 21 or 22, last email from either one of those groups. What the report says is that some time in late Spring… he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that’s in his computer,” he says. “Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents — of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC.”
> Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected DropBox where Rich had put the files.
> “All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I’m sure dozens of emails, and said ‘I want money.’ Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox,” he said. They got access to the DropBox.”
> Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had
> “The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that ‘if anything happens to me it’s not going to solve your problems,’” he added. “WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.”


http://archive.is/gdEHq#selection-411.0-1105.235


----------



## MickDX

Iconoclast said:


> I'm definitely not woefully unempathetic to the plight of non-Americans really. The reality is however, that if you're truly qualified, a lot of employers will sponsor your immigration once you do make it here too. My wife took out a loan on her 401k to help us with my immigration (which she paid back to herself so it was essentially a 0% loan) and he's sponsoring another one of his workers as a full immigrant. So opportunities for the deserving still exist and will continue to exist even under this system.
> 
> I just think that the solution to your problems isn't to bank on being able to find jobs off-shore, but to slowly start pushing back against poor fiscal policies that have a direct impact on the lack of opportunity. Of course, it's not an acute fix - but seriously it's one of those fixes that needs to be made for the sake of your children at least.
> 
> I don't know how much you've read about my posts on the real impact of social welfare policies on jobs but I've studied this problem extensively, as well as experienced it IRL in over 3 different countries (being a bit of a drifter gives you a nose for opportunity).


Are you saying that these guys with green cards are getting any social welfare even if they don't get a job after they arrive in US? Then from an US perspective I don't see any real benefit from the program comparing to the job-based visas.

I don't intend to leave my country, as a software engineer I'm doing pretty good atm. If I would ever do it, it will be for my children to have a better education and opportunities.


----------



## Reaper

MickDX said:


> Are you saying that these guys with green cards are getting any social welfare even if they don't get a job after they arrive in US? Then from an US perspective I don't see any real benefit from the program comparing to the job-based visas.
> 
> I don't intend to leave my country, as a software engineer I'm doing pretty good atm. If I would ever do it, it will be for my children to have a better education and opportunities.


Oh. I thought you were talking about something else. My bad. 

Yes, people who just arrive in America can get welfare benefits. I was offered a medicaid evaluation/interview soon as my immigration application was accepted - and I didn't even apply. I declined out of good faith and a sense of superior moral ethics, but I'm sure most don't. I'm personally well off because my wife score 3 times higher than what is legally required as earnings for a sponsor but I was still offered madicaid. It was a curiosity to me because I never applied and I didn't even really know what it was at the time. The American health insurance system was a nightmare to me at the time and it took me a year or more to figure it out. 

Well, the real problem with our immigration system and these visas is that there's not as much enforcement of the policy of deportation as is widely assumed. A lot of people come in and overstay and then find unique ways to get benefits as laws are disparate throughout the country in different states (The states with the biggest illegal and legal immigrant headed families on welfare are Arizona, Texas, California and New York) - Medicaid and Food assistance are the two most widely abused welfare programs by overstaying illegals because many of them get onto the programs before their visas expire and then just stay on. It's a weird situation where say you get accepted into a welfare program a few months before your job expires ---- there's no system created at the moment that warns the government that such and such person is no longer legal. There is a communication gap here that's widely abused. 

The system of entry isn't as bad as the system of determining who's stayed and is abusing the lack of a system of determination of legal status once the immigration has expired. With over 11-20 million illegals and more than 40 million legals spread over 50 odd years, how are you going to keep track when technological advances have made tracking possible only in the last 10-15 years? Don't forget that just 20-25 years ago, everything was on paper - and files get buried or forgotten or over-looked. 

So yes, we do have a significant problem with people coming in and overstaying. Most of the illegal aliens in America are not the ones who actively cross borders illegally but those who overstay after their legal entry duration has expired.

A merit-based / point system can possibly separate the ones who come here with bad intentions from the ones who come here with good intentions and from that POV, I think it's a good plan.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Iconoclast said:


> Oh. I thought you were talking about something else. My bad.
> 
> Yes, people who just arrive in America can get welfare benefits. I was offered a medicaid evaluation/interview soon as my immigration application was accepted - and I didn't even apply. I declined out of good faith and a sense of superior moral ethics, but I'm sure most don't. I'm personally well off because my wife score 3 times higher than what is legally required as earnings for a sponsor but I was still offered madicaid. It was a curiosity to me because I never applied and I didn't even really know what it was at the time. The American health insurance system was a nightmare to me at the time and it took me a year or more to figure it out.
> 
> Well, the real problem with our immigration system and these visas is that there's not as much enforcement of the policy of deportation as is widely assumed. A lot of people come in and overstay and then find unique ways to get benefits as laws are disparate throughout the country in different states (The states with the biggest illegal and legal immigrant headed families on welfare are Arizona, Texas, California and New York) - Medicaid and Food assistance are the two most widely abused welfare programs by overstaying illegals because many of them get onto the programs before their visas expire and then just stay on. It's a weird situation where say you get accepted into a welfare program a few months before your job expires ---- there's no system created at the moment that warns the government that such and such person is no longer legal. There is a communication gap here that's widely abused.
> 
> The system of entry isn't as bad as the system of determining who's stayed and is abusing the lack of a system of determination of legal status once the immigration has expired. With over 11-20 million illegals and more than 40 million legals spread over 50 odd years, how are you going to keep track when technological advances have made tracking possible only in the last 10-15 years? Don't forget that just 20-25 years ago, everything was on paper - and files get buried or forgotten or over-looked.
> 
> So yes, we do have a significant problem with people coming in and overstaying. Most of the illegal aliens in America are not the ones who actively cross borders illegally but those who overstay after their legal entry duration has expired.
> 
> A merit-based / point system can possibly separate the ones who come here with bad intentions from the ones who come here with good intentions and from that POV, I think it's a good plan.


One thing I always wondered about the US actually. How is it that your illegals are claiming welfare/benefits? In the UK you cant do that as an illegal at all, you need papers of some sort whether you're a refugee or anything else to even put in a claim for them. 

I actually accidentally got an illegal caught when I was a teenager. I'd gone into the city to look for a part time job over the summer break and bumped into a friend. He had a foreign friend with him who was looking for work so we took him to the job centre. Within about 5 minutes of talking to someone (which we pushed him to do not realising his issue due to the language barrier) he'd been detained and the police were called. I can't say I'd be upset about the same situation now I'm older but a 19 yr old me felt like a total Judas. 

Giving benefits to illegals is ridiculous though, no wonder you guys have such a problem with people hopping the border if they can show up undocumented and get a free ride in the most developed country on the planet.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> One thing I always wondered about the US actually. How is it that your illegals are claiming welfare/benefits? In the UK you cant do that as an illegal at all, you need papers of some sort whether you're a refugee or anything else to even put in a claim for them.


It's not that cut and dry. America has a problem of anchor babies so there are congressionally approved medicaid programs especially designed for mothers who show up pregnant in America. We have this policy that anyone born on American soil is a US citizen and this policy attracts pregnant, or soon to be pregnant parents

Our government acknowledges this and accepts its social responsibility to these mothers and so there is a significant amount of money set aside for these mothers. 

This has the result of unintended consequences where shuttling in anchor moms has become big business and they usually come with their husbands and then since they just gave birth to a US citizen ... guess what happens. 

That's just one way. The other ways are identity theft, forged papers etc. 

It's a whole black market economy and much of it because of exploiting Americans' humanity. 



> I actually accidentally got an illegal caught when I was a teenager. I'd gone into the city to look for a part time job over the summer break and bumped into a friend. He had a foreign friend with him who was looking for work so we took him to the job centre. Within about 5 minutes of talking to someone (which we pushed him to do not realising his issue due to the language barrier) he'd been detained and the police were called. I can't say I'd be upset about the same situation now I'm older but a 19 yr old me felt like a total Judas.


Sorry to hear that. Something like that may not have happened here though. Most job centers will not ask about your immigration status ... because well job centers here are primarily only for the total homeless wreck that's trying to put his life back on track. Our employment is at the natural perfect level according to economists.

In fact, I don't any would. Most employers don't either. They specify in their job wanted that they will or won't. Usually when it isn't specified, it's basically a signal that you don't need to tell us and we won't ask. That's why we have actual raids by ICE officials, but those raids by and large happen in caddyshack type factories and cottage industry as opposed to major organizations. 

Generally the rule in the vast majority of America is (as it once was in the military) "Don't ask. Don't tell". Asking someone for their legal status is a huge fucking taboo here. HUGE. And it has serious social ramifications. Even after the whole "anti-illegal" Trump stance not much has changed. We have a few outliers here and there, but generally in America we don't care about anyone's legal status. It's not really part of the American consciousness and there's no reason for it to be. There are employers across the country that follow this "don't ask, don't tell" approach because a lot of the times, a lot of good people get kicked out too. 



> Giving benefits to illegals is ridiculous though, no wonder you guys have such a problem with people hopping the border if they can show up undocumented and get a free ride in the most developed country on the planet.


From a humanitarian standpoint since we're on the border of some of the WORST countries known to man (some still are, while others have progressed), I think it makes sense to have these programs or at least at one point it did, but they've become bloated and a drain on the economy since. 

However, it does have unintended consequences and the system does need to be improved ... It's not perfect, it's not completely broken, it's somewhere in betwee. It's just that we are the only country that faces illegal immigration in much the same way as we face drugs. It's a full blown industry.


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I've read that Singapore is a great example of meritocracy done right. Although its high wealth inequality is unfortunate and it's a well-known tax haven, its GDP, unemployment and credit rating are excellent, so I'm very open to the notion of us following their lead.
> 
> :kobelol at Acosta, though. That prick *still* being butthurt over losing his "real beauty" status = SAD!
> 
> :trump3


It is also great example of authoritarian and illiberal democracy done right. :troll


----------



## Jay Valero

1. You said nothing when Obama used drone strikes to execute people abroad.
2. You said nothing about Russia for 50 years until Trump was inaugurated.
3. You said nothing about Hillary’s campaign manager’s brother being paid $175,000 to lift U.S. sanctions on Russia.
4. You said nothing when Obama engaged in military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval.
5. You said nothing Obama greatly expanded presidential power through the use of Executive Orders.
6. You said nothing when Obama filled his White House with lobbyists after he said he wouldn’t.
7. You said nothing when Obama gave 47 of his fundraisers Administration jobs.
8. You said nothing about the murders and rapes at the hands of illegal immigrants.
9. You said nothing when Hillary’s net worth rose over $100 million as Secretary of State, in part, because her husband took money from foreign governments.
10. You said nothing after Obama’s net worth rose over $10 million as President.
11. You said nothing when Obama’s Justice Dept. wiretapped/surveilled reporters such as James Rosen and the AP.
12. You said nothing when Obama restricted immigration 6 times with Executive Orders.
13. You said nothing when Obama set a record for deportations.
14. You said nothing when Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac during the Clinton investigation.
15. You said nothing when Hillary was fed debate questions.
16. You said nothing when Obama and Hillary lied about a video and Benghazi.
17. You said nothing when Obama’s IRS abused the rights of taxpayers.
18. You said nothing when Obama’s White House held meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.
19. You said nothing when Eric Holder sold the guns you hate to criminals and some were used to kill Americans.
20. You said nothing when the Clinton’s took White House property.
21. You said nothing when Hillary laughed off defending a child-rapist.
22. You said nothing when Hillary lied about her private use of a private email server as Secretary of State.
23. You said nothing when Janet Reno, under Bill Clinton, used a tank to kill the Branch Dividians.
24. You said nothing was Elian Gonzales was forcibly deported using guns.
25. You said nothing when George Soros paid protesters to burn parts of Ferguson.
26. You said nothing about states’ rights until Trump's Executive orders on immigration.
27. You said nothing about Obama’s smoking.
28. You said nothing about the record numbers of people on government assistance.
29. You said nothing about the number of part time and low paying jobs under the Obama recovery.
30. You said nothing when Obama had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.
31. You said nothing when Obama claimed that the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.
32. You said nothing about when Obama ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.
33. You said nothing when the national debt doubled under Obama.
34. You said nothing when 9 times the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Obama’s expansive use of Executive Power.
35. You said nothing when Obama dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.
36. You said nothing when Obama released Guantanamo detainees were released and went back to kill Americans.
37. You said nothing when Obama unilaterally changed Congressional law by Executive Order.
38. You said nothing when Obama fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson.
39. You said nothing about the 36 Obama’s executive office staffers that owed $833,970 in back taxes
40. You said nothing when Obama Killed four Americans overseas in counter-terrorism operations without a judicial process.


Now....they won't shut up.


----------



## Draykorinee

A lot of people said a lot of stuff throughout most of those things though. How the hell do you know those things if no one said anything anyway?

Nice copy pasta job.


----------



## Beatles123

Wall-Chan is coming.


----------



## Reaper

Jay Valero said:


> 1. You said nothing when Obama used drone strikes to execute people abroad.
> 2. You said nothing about Russia for 50 years until Trump was inaugurated.
> 3. You said nothing about Hillary’s campaign manager’s brother being paid $175,000 to lift U.S. sanctions on Russia.
> 4. You said nothing when Obama engaged in military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval.
> 5. You said nothing Obama greatly expanded presidential power through the use of Executive Orders.
> 6. You said nothing when Obama filled his White House with lobbyists after he said he wouldn’t.
> 7. You said nothing when Obama gave 47 of his fundraisers Administration jobs.
> 8. You said nothing about the murders and rapes at the hands of illegal immigrants.
> 9. You said nothing when Hillary’s net worth rose over $100 million as Secretary of State, in part, because her husband took money from foreign governments.
> 10. You said nothing after Obama’s net worth rose over $10 million as President.
> 11. You said nothing when Obama’s Justice Dept. wiretapped/surveilled reporters such as James Rosen and the AP.
> 12. You said nothing when Obama restricted immigration 6 times with Executive Orders.
> 13. You said nothing when Obama set a record for deportations.
> 14. You said nothing when Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac during the Clinton investigation.
> 15. You said nothing when Hillary was fed debate questions.
> 16. You said nothing when Obama and Hillary lied about a video and Benghazi.
> 17. You said nothing when Obama’s IRS abused the rights of taxpayers.
> 18. You said nothing when Obama’s White House held meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.
> 19. You said nothing when Eric Holder sold the guns you hate to criminals and some were used to kill Americans.
> 20. You said nothing when the Clinton’s took White House property.
> 21. You said nothing when Hillary laughed off defending a child-rapist.
> 22. You said nothing when Hillary lied about her private use of a private email server as Secretary of State.
> 23. You said nothing when Janet Reno, under Bill Clinton, used a tank to kill the Branch Dividians.
> 24. You said nothing was Elian Gonzales was forcibly deported using guns.
> 25. You said nothing when George Soros paid protesters to burn parts of Ferguson.
> 26. You said nothing about states’ rights until Trump's Executive orders on immigration.
> 27. You said nothing about Obama’s smoking.
> 28. You said nothing about the record numbers of people on government assistance.
> 29. You said nothing about the number of part time and low paying jobs under the Obama recovery.
> 30. You said nothing when Obama had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.
> 31. You said nothing when Obama claimed that the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.
> 32. You said nothing about when Obama ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.
> 33. You said nothing when the national debt doubled under Obama.
> 34. You said nothing when 9 times the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Obama’s expansive use of Executive Power.
> 35. You said nothing when Obama dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.
> 36. You said nothing when Obama released Guantanamo detainees were released and went back to kill Americans.
> 37. You said nothing when Obama unilaterally changed Congressional law by Executive Order.
> 38. You said nothing when Obama fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson.
> 39. You said nothing about the 36 Obama’s executive office staffers that owed $833,970 in back taxes
> 40. You said nothing when Obama Killed four Americans overseas in counter-terrorism operations without a judicial process.
> 
> 
> Now....they won't shut up.


Well, tbf, the reason we have Donald Trump is because half the population of America knows all of this and more. 

Obama didn't win just on the basis of his platform, he too like Trump won on the power of personality. (Of course, was also center left back then so that helped).


----------



## yeahbaby!

In some ways the merit-based immigration system is a good idea to improve the country for obvious reasons, but why not extend the system to US citizens as well?

If there's US citizens that can't prove they're not of any benefit to society, ship them off to a poorer country for an amount of money that's going to be less that keeping those people on welfare. I mean, really, what sort of power should just luckily being born in a 'rich' country give you if you're basically useless and not contributing anything?

It may sound heartless but the ends will justify the means.


----------



## Reaper

If this is what Single-payer looks like, count me out. I'd rather go into debt and pay it off slowly than pay the government for shit service like this just so I can pretend that it's free :woah 








yeahbaby! said:


> In some ways the merit-based immigration system is a good idea to improve the country for obvious reasons, but why not extend the system to US citizens as well?
> 
> If there's US citizens that can't prove they're not of any benefit to society, ship them off to a poorer country for an amount of money that's going to be less that keeping those people on welfare. I mean, really, what sort of power should just luckily being born in a 'rich' country give you if you're basically useless and not contributing anything?
> 
> It may sound heartless but the ends will justify the means.


I really like this plan. Really, really like this plan. Like really. No sarcasm. 

100% supported. In the long run it would be extremely cost-effective to just export all our bums to socialist countries. In fact, we can pay you guys a 1-time fee for each and every one of them. It solves almost all of our socio-economic problems and you're free to have all of them. 

I'm writing this idea to my congressman right now.


----------



## Reaper

@CamillePunk; @Goku; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @TheNightmanCometh; 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/w...-war-after-months-of-russia-bashing-coverage/

So, the russian narrative doesn't just break, it does a full 180 and now the left is back to worrying about starting a new cold war :banderas 



> *WaPo Worries About ‘A New Cold War’ After Months Of Russia Bashing Coverage*
> 
> After months of breathlessly reporting on President Trump’s cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, The Washington Post now claims both countries are on the precipice of another Cold War.
> 
> “The United States and Russia have descended to a new low point in relations, with waves of sanctions and escalating retaliation,” the editorial board wrote Tuesday. “Twenty-five years after the Cold War ended, relations are back in a deep freeze. What happened?”
> 
> The Post’s narrative until now has been that President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart were too close, working in conjunction during the election to give Trump the presidency. But the Post’s piece was largely addressing the actions of Putin, and pitting him against the protestations and actions of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
> 
> “Mr. Putin seethed over Ms. Clinton’s outspoken support for the principle of free speech during the 2011-2013 protests against him” according the the editorial board. “The sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama last December and recently tightened by Congress did not appear out of thin air.”
> 
> The Post took issue with Putin annexing Crimea and then inciting an insurrection in Ukraine’s Danbos after the ousting of their former president and Putin ally, Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
> 
> “Another poor and deliberate choice was to interfere with the U.S. election campaign” according to the board. Russia “cannot escape responsibility” for trying to damage Clinton’s campaign and “perhaps, tip the election to Donald Trump.” Although there is evidence Russia hacking took place during the election, there is no evidence as of yet that said tampering affected the outcome of the election.
> 
> Past engagements between the two leaders have come under intense scrutiny by the media, which is heavily invested in the Trump-Russia meddling narrative, and were framed as being too friendly towards Russia.
> 
> A table-side conversation between Trump and Putin after dinner in July at the G-20 summit was treated as an “undisclosed meeting,” while the administration insists it was simply an “informal conversation.” Trump’s disclosed meeting with Putin and his “persistent overtures toward Russia” are framed as not being tough enough.
> 
> Nowhere in the Post’s piece was Trump’s relationship with Putin addressed, or his administrations approach to dealing with Russia. Strangely, the editorial board concludes their article with some ironic advice: “We have long believed that U.S.-Russian engagement is essential to avert miscalculation, and it remains important for both Washington and Moscow to keep talking.”
> 
> Follow Will Ricciardella on Twitter and Facebook


Trump may not play 4D chess all the time. But his game to not only defeat the Russia narrative but to turn it into a positive has been one of the greatest jobs of news coverage manipulation I have ever seen in my life.


---


Also, Jim Acosta about all dem feels on twitter :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892943689986711552


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@Reaper



> Trump may not play 4D chess all the time. But his game to not only defeat the Russia narrative but to turn it into a positive has been one of the greatest jobs of news coverage manipulation I have ever seen in my life.


New narrative

Democrats: "Trump isn't doing enough to prevent WWIII!!!! He's incompetent!!!!


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> If this is what Single-payer looks like, count me out. I'd rather go into debt and pay it off slowly than pay the government for shit service like this just so I can pretend that it's free :woah



Yeah, because american ED's do such a bang up job lol, and that was before ACA.  Your EDs have and continue to, decline badly because we have an ageing population. This is what happens when people who don't understand healthcare and how it works take a snapshot of a bad spell in ED and go aha its all broken!

Unfortunately this is what happens when you put healthcare in the hands of a right wing government. ED services were running fine under a centre left government. We have an incompetent clown running the NHS, we basically have a similar scenario with the US where a government would prefer a system broke, and have actively put measures in place so it does, so they can replace it than try to fix the current system even if it means people suffer in the meantime.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> It is also great example of authoritarian and illiberal democracy done right. :troll


I'm not denying that, hence why I said that I'm open to a meritocracy like theirs, not their authoritarianism.

Good try, though. :kappa


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, because american ED's do such a bang up job lol, and that was before ACA.  Your EDs have and continue to, decline badly because we have an ageing population. This is what happens when people who don't understand healthcare and how it works take a snapshot of a bad spell in ED and go aha its all broken!
> 
> Unfortunately this is what happens when you put healthcare in the hands of a right wing government. ED services were running fine under a centre left government. We have an incompetent clown running the NHS, we basically have a similar scenario with the US where a government would prefer a system broke, and have actively put measures in place so it does, so they can replace it than try to fix the current system even if it means people suffer in the meantime.


This is actually 100% accurate on our situation right now. The NHS was fine until Jeremy Hunt started deliberately underfunding it so they had an excuse to give their donors a quick payday with a private contract (£1.6 BILLION to Tory donors in the last round of privatisation.) Our health service was doing fine when it was a priority for the "left wing" (actually neo-con but relative left at the time) government. Now that the priority has been making profit for donors, not so much. Since private companies took over services people who were fine with their treatment now face limited services and much longer wait times (if they can even get treated at all in their area.) Privatisation has been killing our healthcare for the last 2 years now. Sorry but it's true.


----------



## Draykorinee

Although I must also point out form a fairness pov that the Blair government sold us out with PPI so we can't give them too much credit. But then Blair is a scumbag who should be in prison.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, because american ED's do such a bang up job lol, and that was before ACA.  Your EDs have and continue to, decline badly because we have an ageing population. This is what happens when people who don't understand healthcare and how it works take a snapshot of a bad spell in ED and go aha its all broken!
> 
> Unfortunately this is what happens when you put healthcare in the hands of a right wing government. ED services were running fine under a centre left government. We have an incompetent clown running the NHS, we basically have a similar scenario with the US where a government would prefer a system broke, and have actively put measures in place so it does, so they can replace it than try to fix the current system even if it means people suffer in the meantime.


You're comparing 9-13 odd hours of wait time to 2 hours? Appointment wait times are like 2 weeks to a month. And this is in a country of over 300 million people. You guys have less than 70. 32 out of 88 hospitals don't meet the 4 hour limit for accident treatment. That's not good at all. The worst hit hospitals in America still average 0-2 hours (max around 3 but they use the triage system and minor patients can have ailments where they can easily wait up to 3 hours) even according to the article. 

America also has significant crime wave problems in some cities where like Chicago they have 30+ shootings a night and natural disasters which overburden the system and bump up the averages. Something not a lot of countries have to deal with. I don't think the UK has tornado, hurricane and blizzard season? Earthquakes? From what I've read it seems you guys have a fairly temperate climate and no major geological threats. 

How typically disingenuous of you.

Did you even bother to read what you posted because what you posted makes American health care sound significantly better and doesn't in any way compare to the shit stain that socialized Healthcare is. 

Look just because you're a nurse in a particular system doesn't mean you have to champion it even if it's broken.

We have great healthcare but our cost structure is broken. This isn't about twisting things to make yourself feel better. Admit what's wrong with something and don't be disingenuous in your comparisons.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Jay Valero said:


> 24. You said nothing was Elian Gonzales was forcibly deported using guns.


Not sure of your age but for those people who were adults or teens when that happened that Elian Gonzales saga was the biggest event on the news for a few weeks in 2000 and couldn't be avoided. I don't think anyone alive was silent on the issue whatever side they took.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> @CamillePunk; @Goku; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @TheNightmanCometh;
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/w...-war-after-months-of-russia-bashing-coverage/
> 
> So, the russian narrative doesn't just break, it does a full 180 and now the left is back to worrying about starting a new cold war :banderas


So this means....


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> You're comparing 9-13 odd hours of wait time to 2 hours? Appointment wait times are like 2 weeks to a month. And this is in a country of over 300 million people. You guys have less than 70. 32 out of 88 hospitals don't meet the 4 hour limit for accident treatment. That's not good at all. The worst hit hospitals in America still average 0-2 hours (max around 3 but they use the triage system and minor patients can have ailments where they can easily wait up to 3 hours) even according to the article.
> 
> America also has significant crime wave problems in some cities where like Chicago they have 30+ shootings a night and natural disasters which overburden the system and bump up the averages. Something not a lot of countries have to deal with. I don't think the UK has tornado, hurricane and blizzard season? Earthquakes? From what I've read it seems you guys have a fairly temperate climate and no major geological threats.
> 
> How typically disingenuous of you.
> 
> Did you even bother to read what you posted because what you posted makes American health care sound significantly better and doesn't in any way compare to the shit stain that socialized Healthcare is.
> 
> Look just because you're a nurse in a particular system doesn't mean you have to champion it even if it's broken.
> 
> We have great healthcare but our cost structure is broken. This isn't about twisting things to make yourself feel better. Admit what's wrong with something and don't be disingenuous in your comparisons.


This is why I really shouldn't bother arguing with you over healthcare because you don't have a clue. In the UK our 4 hour target is based on admission to discharge from ED, in the US its from admission to seeing a doctor. 2 vastly different numbers and one only someone ignorant of healthcare systems would use to argue with.

The median wait time for admission to treatment is 51 minutes in the UK. which is absolutely on par with the US.

The US healthcare system continues to be worse for patients on every measurable level compared to many socialised single payer systems, but don't let these facts concern you (Including the NHS, although the patients health is the one we don't win on...which is kinda important, however our life expectancy - per expenditure far excels the US, which is rock bottom, so you'll live longer in the UK for every £ spent.)

Oh look patients wait an average of 24 days just for an appointent to see a doctor in the US...24 days. Jeez man thats mental.

I don't think you even try anymore.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

:lol hadn't heard about the D's new slogan "A Better Deal". Their marketing people are just absolute shit.


----------



## Draykorinee

Jim Jeffries is great.






Trump knew the Mexicans weren't going to pay for the wall.


----------



## MickDX

draykorinee said:


> Trump knew the Mexicans weren't going to pay for the wall.


Here is the the full link for those transcripts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/?utm_term=.f215c841867b


----------



## CamillePunk

That's simply not what is said in those transcripts. :lol He said they're going to keep negotiating and that in the meantime he'd agree to neither party discussing who is going to fund the wall in public. Maybe the press should show some support for their country and that it actually wants the US to get the best deal possible rather than constantly trying to hurt the president with "gotcha" journalism that undermines our negotiating position.


----------



## Vic Capri

Gov. Jim Justice just announced at President Trump's rally in Huntington, West Virginia he's switching to a Republican tomorrow.

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

draykorinee said:


> Jim Jeffries is great.


Jim Jeffries is shite, and on top of that, a sellout.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The Trump Turnbull transcript is my favorite thing in a long time. 

Turnbull legit pulls the "I'm a businessman you're a businessman" line and Trump asks Turmbull what his problem with boats is.

Awesome.

Btw talking about a negotiating position in regards to Mexico paying for the wall is ridiculous. America have literally 0 leverage, there is absolutely nothing they can give Mexico in return for paying huge sums of money (that they don't even have lol) and so Mexico. Any border tariff would cause inflation in the US, you still wouldn't have your borderwall and anything from Mexico would suddenly cost more.


----------



## deepelemblues

i feel like there are few things more silly and foolish than pointing to a comedian for political insight in our day and age

aristophanes these guys and gals are not


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> i feel like there are few things more silly and foolish than pointing to a comedian for political insight in our day and age


Like electing a reality tv star President?

Also futher reading of the Trump transcript with the Mexican pres reveals that they didn't agree to continue to negotiate about the wall. The Mexican pres says Mexico won't pay for the wall and Trump then asks him to not tell the media that.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Like electing a reality tv star President?


the man was so successful and powerful and had so much cachet with the public as a savvy businessman that he had a reality tv show that basically did little more than showcase how successful and powerful and what a savvy businessman he was. who the hell was even on any of the apprentice seasons? do you remember? i don't. not even the celebrity seasons. but you sure as hell remember :trump was the star of it, don't you? that's right you do. 

this is what you don't understand. when you call him a reality tv star you think you're denigrating him but to a large percentage of the country you look foolishly out-of-touch. He is fabulously wealthy, married to a beautiful and elegant woman, with attractive and intelligent children, is active in his old age, loved what he was doing before he ran for president, loved running for president, became the president when Everybody Who Mattered said he would lose big-time over and over and over again. i suspect he likes being president quite a bit. 

of course not many people would want all of his life, the divorces, lawsuits, affairs, all that shit, but the wealth and fame and power? the ambition? the drive? the stubbornness, the refusal to give up or give in when it comes to making his way in the world? ignore the attractive parts of the president's character and history at your peril. donald :trump is quintessentially american. his story is a quintessentially american story. that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to end in success as far as being president goes by the way.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxi X.O. said:


> Jim Jeffries is shite, and on top of that, a sellout.


Someone had to say it llol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> The Trump Turnbull transcript is my favorite thing in a long time.
> 
> Turnbull legit pulls the "I'm a businessman you're a businessman" line and Trump asks Turmbull what his problem with boats is.
> 
> Awesome.
> 
> Btw talking about a negotiating position in regards to Mexico paying for the wall is ridiculous. *America have literally 0 leverage*, there is absolutely nothing they can give Mexico in return for paying huge sums of money (that they don't even have lol) and so Mexico. *Any border tariff would cause inflation in the US,* you still wouldn't have your borderwall and anything from Mexico would suddenly cost more.





> Trump's wall could save taxpayers money, cut US aid to Mexico
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...rs-money-cut-us-aid-to-mexico/article/2615238
> 
> Eager to help President Trump complete the 1,954-mile wall on the southern border, lawmakers are considering a financing plan that would tax the money that immigrants send home to Mexico and tap State Department foreign aid to the country.
> 
> House and Senate Republicans told Secrets that raiding those two caches of money would offset costs to taxpayers, a key demand of fiscal conservatives, and live up to Trump's promise to make Mexico pay for the wall.
> *
> In focus, according to the lawmakers, is the $23 billion that Mexicans who are legally and illegally in the United States send home every year and the $209 million the government gives Mexico in aid, including money for police, military, food and even Peace Corps programs.*
> 
> Everything from a 10 percent tax on those cash payments to a one-year grab of it has been proposed.
> 
> "A tax on [cash] transmittals could pay that thing off in a reasonable period of time. I would imagine that foreign aid could supplement that payoff," said Rep. Andy Biggs, a newly elected House member who has been on the immigration front lines for years in Arizona. "Walls do work. You pay for the wall with transmittal payments," he said.
> 
> Foreign aid is also a ripe target, though Biggs said the focus would be on cash the Treasury sends to Mexico because it is easier to get than grants that filter through organizations such as the United Nations.
> 
> The State Department said Mexico receives $209 million a year in U.S. aid, or about 37 cents per Mexican.
> 
> Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the committee overseeing the wall, also is considering those targets to fund the wall.
> 
> And Secrets reported this week that by eliminating thousands of illegal immigrants every year, taxpayer-funded services to them would dry up, saving potentially another $64 billion.
> 
> *Out of the mix for now is a tax on goods coming into the United States from Mexico. U.S. officials said that it would spark a trade war, which Mexican officials seem to want.
> *
> *(Clearly, a tariff isn't an idea they've legitimately considered)
> *
> Biggs decried the "bellicosity" from top Mexican officials promising to retaliate if the U.S. raises the trade bar.
> 
> "Nobody is saying anything about trade. I think people want to keep trade. It's important to keep trade. All we're saying is, 'Quit promising people in the country illegally that they can vote, have full citizenship rights in America and Mexico.' Let's have normalized relations. But we can't have normalized relations because you don't recognize the sanctity of our borders like you recognize the sanctity of your own southern border," Biggs said.


Leverage, you say? If they insist on saying they won't pay, there are options.


----------



## FriedTofu

> I don't think anyone during the campaign seriously thought that Mexico will pay for that wall


:hmmm


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Leverage, you say? If they insist on saying they won't pay, there are options.


Trying to take money being transferred out of the country would just lead to it being transferred illegally in the future. 

If the US declared they're taking all the money sent to Mexico for a year, people wouldn't send money back that year, at least not legally/traceably. 

And the wall will cost 15 billion, if the US cut aid to 0 and put every cent into the wall it would take 75 years to fund, not considering maintenance. 

Trump is trying to get something for nothing off the Mexicans and when the President said no Trump didn't ask him to reconsider, he asked him to not tell the press, because Trump knows Mexico will never pay for the wall but he needs to pretend to his domestic audience that they still might.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> Gov. Jim Justice just announced at President Trump's rally in Huntington, West Virginia he's switching to a Republican tomorrow.
> 
> - Vic


Jim Justice? I love it.














Edit: FFS the wall is not going to happen people, it's just not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> i feel like there are few things more silly and foolish than pointing to a comedian for political insight in our day and age
> 
> aristophanes these guys and gals are not


I peek in on this thread and see this and it's why I stopped posting in this thread LOL

The hypocrisy of Trump supporters never ceases to amaze me. Yeah like the huge circle jerk of Trump supporters in this thread that all gush over the political insight if a comic strip writer LOL Its why Trump supporters cant be taken seriously when they say things like this when they do the exact thing they are bashing anti-Trump people for.

I also love how every thing I have been saying about Trump and his admins ties to Russia keep coming true.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> The Trump Turnbull transcript is my favorite thing in a long time.
> 
> Turnbull legit pulls the "I'm a businessman you're a businessman" line and Trump asks Turmbull what his problem with boats is.


I hate the LNP but don't half mind Turnbull as a person. But he has absolutely no backbone. And I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty hilarious to hear that Trump was basically having a fit over what Turnbull was telling him in that call.

:mj4 Sounded like Trump got a bit cucked by Australia's biggest GEEK PM in history.


----------



## Beatles123

BERNIE CAN STILL WIN.

MATCH ME!


----------



## FriedTofu

Oxi X.O. said:


> I hate the LNP but don't half mind Turnbull as a person. But he has absolutely no backbone. And I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty hilarious to hear that Trump was basically having a fit over what Turnbull was telling him in that call.
> 
> :mj4 Sounded like Trump got a bit cucked by Australia's biggest GEEK PM in history.


I cannot believe the official transcript by the White House has Trump saying he is the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. That's SNL level of hilarity.

Turnbull made the mistake of bringing up Obama's name. The dialogue went to shit once Trump's attention went towards Obama being brought up. :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> Jim Jeffries is great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump knew the Mexicans weren't going to pay for the wall.


I never watched his show Legit, but it looked promising. But anything remotely tolerable about him went out the window when Trump rustled his jimmies to the point that he contracted terminal butthurt during his appearance on Maher's show.

And to no one's surprise, Comedy Central is now paying him money to continue acting like a totally insufferable cunt.


----------



## Draykorinee

Oxi X.O. said:


> Jim Jeffries is shite, and on top of that, a sellout.


Aye, I was taking the piss because someone linked him in here having a bash at dems so I thought I'd have him bashing Trump just to even things up a bit!


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> I peek in on this thread and see this and it's why I stopped posting in this thread LOL
> 
> The hypocrisy of Trump supporters never ceases to amaze me. Yeah like the huge circle jerk of Trump supporters in this thread that all gush over the political insight if a comic strip writer LOL Its why Trump supporters cant be taken seriously when they say things like this when they do the exact thing they are bashing anti-Trump people for.
> 
> I also love how every thing I have been saying about Trump and his admins ties to Russia keep coming true.


You cant be taken sseriously either.

You post much anymore in here because theres nothing to celebrate. You support illegal leaks that are painting a false narrative about a desired outcome, one that s not happening.

You finish with russia. That blows all your credibility sky higb, or do you just ignore that democrats made it up?

Mullers gonna dig dig dig, find nothing after 4 years and close down


----------



## Draykorinee

Theres plenty to celebrate, its been a fantastic 2 weeks for both sides. This has probably been the best 2 weeks to celebrate if you're not a Trumpton.


----------



## Vic Capri

CNN said:


> Stephen Miller flipped over a table when he was 16 years old in summer camp.


Slow news day huh?

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Slow news day huh?
> 
> - Vic


Its CNN. Does it matter?


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Theres plenty to celebrate, its been a fantastic 2 weeks for both sides. This has probably been the best 2 weeks to celebrate if you're not a Trumpton.


Yeah those economic numbers are great, and our immigration system will soon be as racist as Australia and Canada's! Great time indeed.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah those economic numbers are great, and our immigration system will soon be as racist as Australia and Canada's! Great time indeed.


exactly my point, both sides have had a great time the last 2 weeks.


----------



## BruiserKC

Trump's RAISE program...I understand what he wants to do. Personally, I have no issue with showing that you have the tools and the skills to contribute to American society and not be a sponge. Many of our ancestors had to do that...my mom's family came from Ireland in 1912...there was no welfare back then. You basically went to work and contributed or you starved...it was that simple. Many other nations' immigration programs are built the same way...you have to show that you can provide for yourself and can make a living or you don't get in. 

Now, I would do this...English needs to be THE official language of the United States. It's common sense...if I go to Mexico to do business or whatever...while there are people there that do know English it would make perfect sense to know Spanish as that is the official language. Now, I would be in favor of doing the best possible to make sure that English classes are available for people to learn the language. 

Now, official English does not mean "English only". There are plenty of times where common sense dictates that other languages need to be used in some forms of communication. For example...documents regarding health issues, commerce, protecting the rights of people involved in criminal proceedings, etc. But, overall, the government needs to do the majority of its business in English. And, IMHO, it would send the message that if you want to be part of what America offers...you need to learn English. 

Now...I think we're trying to do everything in reverse. We still don't have border security, even though illegals are being rounded up and deported. We still have millions of illegals here unanswered for, and I think it's in our best interests to figure out what to do with them first, plus secure our borders and THEN move forward with an immigration plan on how to properly vet and let people in. 

Of course, that would require Congress to pass legislation but it seems like these idiots can't walk and chew gum at the same time.


----------



## Headliner

LOL at people still thinking Trump is responsible for these economic numbers. Thanks Obama.

I thought you guys were smart?


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump taking a 17 day vacation, must be hard work not getting any major legislation passed.
Where's all those tweets about Obama and his vacations...


----------



## Vic Capri

> LOL at people still thinking Trump is responsible for these economic numbers. Thanks Obama.
> 
> I thought you guys were smart?


Pretty entertaining reading all these "Thanks Obama" posts. So let's review the delusional mindset: 

The economy limped along for 8 years under Obama with an anemic GDP and the worse economic recovery period since the 1940's. 

Two days after Trump won the election, the Dow has steadily climbed and skyrocketed nearly 5,000 points in 7 months...but Obama gets the credit. Amazing how Obama's genius economic policies didn't kick in for 8 years, but did so coincidentally as soon as he left office.









P.S. The same people want to give him credit for the economy won't do the same for him doubling the national debt. 

- Vic


----------



## CMPunkRock316

The Myth of Obama needs to be put to bed. He was an AWFUL President. Any economic growth was stagnant. Anyone who understands things should know the US Economy is Cyclical and has ways of working itself both in and out recessions. Granted a President (and Congress/Senate) can either make it easier for Economic Growth or can stand in the way and try to slow/stop it. Obama spent us into oblivion. Screwed us with ACA.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> LOL at people still thinking Trump is responsible for these economic numbers. Thanks Obama.
> 
> I thought you guys were smart?


You can explain the economy without praising Trump. The market expects tax cuts. Nothing to do with either of them tbh :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. 

She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 

And Obama said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Biden said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” But Obama said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 

And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, Obamacare has made you well; go in peace.”

He doesn't get credit for this either, think he also turned water into wine? Dunno but that Obama guy is pretty magical!


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> You can explain the economy without praising Trump. The market expects tax cuts. Nothing to do with either of them tbh :shrug


Stock Market does not equal economy in this situation. Trump is taking credit for an economy (unemployment rate, jobs) that he has had zero effect on. And his cult followers believes everything he says without thinking logically. Again, thanks Obama.

He does get 100% credit for the stock market, but that's based on real time hour by hour responses to promises, behaviors and situations. The promises of tax reform and cuts caused the market to surge, but the announcement of the Mueller grand jury caused stocks to go to shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Trump's RAISE program...I understand what he wants to do. Personally, I have no issue with showing that you have the tools and the skills to contribute to American society and not be a sponge. Many of our ancestors had to do that...my mom's family came from Ireland in 1912...there was no welfare back then. You basically went to work and contributed or you starved...it was that simple. Many other nations' immigration programs are built the same way...you have to show that you can provide for yourself and can make a living or you don't get in.
> Now...I think we're trying to do everything in reverse. We still don't have border security, even though illegals are being rounded up and deported. We still have millions of illegals here unanswered for, and I think it's in our best interests to figure out what to do with them first, plus secure our borders and THEN move forward with an immigration plan on how to properly vet and let people in.
> 
> Of course, that would require Congress to pass legislation but it seems like these idiots can't walk and chew gum at the same time.


This reads like you have no legitimate criticism of Trump on this issue but still don't want to praise him. :lol They're doing it "in reverse"? What? :lol We're doing all of those things you mentioned. The order isn't important and this is a silly post by you Bruiser.

As for making English the official language, if we can pass the RAISE act or something similar and keep the border secure that might not be necessary in the future. :mj Sure the Southwest is probably fucked as it is but we can still save the rest of the country.


----------



## Vic Capri

The lowest its been in 16 years.

*#ThanksDonald*

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Obama went from 10% to 4.6, trump goes from 4.9 to 4.3 and everyone loses their mind.

I remember Trump shitting over the unemployed statistics when it was Obama in power.



> "One in five American households do not have a single member in the labor force. These are the real unemployment numbers," he said. "The five percent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics."


I wonder whether these are fake news or real? I wonder if this 4.3% is one of the biggest hoaxes as well?


----------



## virus21

> A congressional candidate whose claim to fame is whining about being a GamerGate victim recently spent several hours, not appealing to potential voters, but flogging a group of Trump-supporting players in a mobile video game.
> 
> Even worse, the game pay-to-win, which means there’s little in the way of legitimate competition.
> 
> Brianna Wu is a self-proclaimed “software engineer” and would-be politician whose campaign slogan is “She Fought the Alt-Right and Won.” She was previously in the headlines for ranting about moon rocks. This time around, she’s bragging about beating a group of Trump supporters in a Japanese mobile game Final Fantasy XV: A New Empire. Largely known for flashing her status as a “victim” of the GamerGate consumer movement, Brianna Wu is no stranger to making ridiculous statements.
> 
> “Enjoy this fantastic story of a bully getting his,” wrote Wu to her 70k-strong audience on Twitter. “In @FFXVMobile, there’s a lovely guild called ‘MAGA’ with a leader named ‘POTUS.’”
> 
> She shared screenshots of the group’s description, which jokes that “This guild requires that you work and carry your own weight. This is not Canada.”
> 
> Wu appeared to engage in direct messages with the leader of the group. She did not share her side of the conversation, preferring only to share POTUS’ reply. In the screenshot, the player responded aggressively, and allegedly wrote: “Come get grabbed by the pussy anytime you feel frisky.”
> 
> “I don’t use my real name in this game. He has no idea who I am,” Wu wrote, following with a tweet about her ranking in the game.
> 
> “I am the 22nd most powerful player. Only, he didn’t check that before threatening to sexually assault me. I burned MAGA to the ground,” wrote Wu, who bragged that POTUS will not be able to play the game until she releases him.
> 
> In mobile strategy games like Final Fantasy XV Mobile, players are encouraged to spend days, if not weeks building up their virtual bases, and sending their armies out to fight enemy players. The game’s essentially a knock-off of Mobile Strike and Game of War with a new coat of paint. Titles like Clash of Clans are making billions of dollars a year from the amount of money people spend to upgrade their armies and holdings.
> 
> While Wu did not disclose how much time or money she spent reaching her rank, it would be impossible for anyone who plays the game without paying to get there. Most, if not all her opponents are “whales,” or paying customers who spend excessive amounts of money to get ahead in the game.
> 
> Between constantly mentioning GamerGate and her single credential as a one-time game developer, Brianna Wu’s preoccupation with shaming some Trump supporters in a mobile video game should give anyone who’s donated to her Congressional campaign cause for concern.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/dem-hopeful-wastes-weekend-beating-trump-supporters-in-pointless-video-game/


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> The lowest its been in 16 years.
> 
> *#ThanksDonald*
> 
> - Vic


Explain to me how Trump gets credit for this. Explain the Congressional legislation he signed. Explain the Executive Order he signed that gives him credit.

You need to have your ducks in a row. Otherwise you look foolish by believing everything Trump says.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Government action in a mixed market economy takes years to take effect. No way those job numbers are caused by anything done by Trump in the last 6 months.


----------



## Vic Capri

> You need to have your ducks in a row. Otherwise you look foolish by believing everything Trump says.












- Vic


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


So in order words you can't give me proof that Trump is responsible for this. Because he's not and economists have said he's not. 

This is embarrassing. I thought you were better than this.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> So in order words you can't give me proof that Trump is responsible for this. Because he's not and economists have said he's not.
> 
> This is embarrassing. I thought you were better than this.


What would be the point?

No one here on either side has changed their mind once in the hundreds of pages between both Trump threads and now, and you won't be the first. We all believe what we want and that's that.


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> The lowest its been in 16 years.
> 
> *#ThanksDonald*
> 
> - Vic



A bit like his approval ratings.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> This reads like you have no legitimate criticism of Trump on this issue but still don't want to praise him. :lol They're doing it "in reverse"? What? :lol We're doing all of those things you mentioned. The order isn't important and this is a silly post by you Bruiser.
> 
> As for making English the official language, if we can pass the RAISE act or something similar and keep the border secure that might not be necessary in the future. :mj Sure the Southwest is probably fucked as it is but we can still save the rest of the country.


I'm an immigration hardliner. My stance is very simple. If you can come here legally and show you can contribute to our society I will welcome you with open arms. If you are here illegally then you are breaking the law and need to be gone...PERIOD. I am unwilling to budge on that premise. Trump does not go far enough for me on this issue. 

Plus with all the handwringing about illegals taking benefits and jobs, etc..and we are getting a lot of the criminal elements of illegals out of here, we still need to decide what to do with the remaining illegals that are here. Do we give them a path to citizenship, amnesty, a swift kick in the rear out the door? To me we still need to figure that out before settling on new policies moving forward. Not to mention we still have a vetting system that sucks. That needs to be overhauled where we can get people through the process of getting in and keeping undesirables and previously deported out. 

Plus if English is part of the equation and the scoring how do we get them to learn English? Can we move money from other programs to fund ESL classes? Or is it their responsibility to learn before they get here? Also not all immigrants are computer scientists. Many are small business owners and worked hard to get that. There are a lot of details to be sorted out. 

I am not ready to wholeheartedly endorse this without more information on the details. And yes...the order is important. It makes more sense to deal with those that are already here and figure that out before moving forward with new policy. I'm a stickler like that.

As for English... it should be the official language of the country. That should be a no brainer. If I go to Germany for business or leisure I would want to know some of the language. Yes many know English there but they are under no obligation to. If they come here, they should know or learn English. Our government business should also be conducted in English only as well. Exceptions can be made in the case of health and some commerce issues. However, for example, drivers license tests should be English only.


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> What would be the point?
> 
> No one here on either side has changed their mind once in the hundreds of pages between both Trump threads and now, and you won't be the first. We all believe what we want and that's that.


Because if you guys can't defend your stances then you look stupid as fuck. Just like him.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Headliner said:


> Because if you guys can't defend your stances then you look stupid as fuck. Just like him.


You're the one who's openly stated you wont defend yourself :lol


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> You're the one who's openly stated you wont defend yourself :lol


The police thread? There was no need to go further with you because I've debated the same points in the anything section for like 4, 5 years now. What's the point? You are the same exact person as everyone else. It's a tiresome subject. 

In here, all of you act like ya'll know everything and some of you live in a delusional world where you believe every and anything your pathological lying master says. So occasionally I will show up to challenge the delusions and see what happens. In this case, Vic was unable to defend how Trump was responsible for this economy. Because he can't. So now he just exposed himself as a blind follower that don't know shit.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Headliner said:


> The police thread? There was no need to go further with you because I've debated the same points in the anything section for like 4, 5 years now. What's the point? You are the same exact person as everyone else. It's a tiresome subject.
> 
> In here, all of you act like ya'll know everything and some of you live in a delusional world where you believe every and anything your pathological lying master says. So occasionally I will show up to challenge the delusions and see what happens. In this case, Vic was unable to defend how Trump was responsible for this economy. Because he can't. So now he just exposed himself as a blind follower that don't know shit.


Irrelevant, you openly stated you wont defend yourself and refuse to listen to other peoples viewpoints. You've conceded you're unwilling to listen, and its clearly spilled into other topics as well. 

"All of you", clearly you haven't listened to anyone here or are just willfully ignoring people. You've clearly been living under your own delusion if you truly believe everyone here haven't criticized Trump and truly believe every single word he said. Spoiler alert, they haven't. You're showing clear bias while trying to claim others are being biased. 

As for your argument with another poster, you've not once provided any actual proof of your own claim, which as I pointed out is par for the course with you. You just say stuff and refuse to defend yourself on it while accusing others of doing the same, hence me responding to your post.


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> Irrelevant, you openly stated you wont defend yourself and refuse to listen to other peoples viewpoints. You've conceded you're unwilling to listen, and its clearly spilled into other topics as well.
> 
> "All of you", clearly you haven't listened to anyone here or are just willfully ignoring people. You've clearly been living under your own delusion if you truly believe everyone here haven't criticized Trump and truly believe every single word he said. Spoiler alert, they haven't. You're showing clear bias while trying to claim others are being biased.
> 
> As for your argument with another poster, you've not once provided any actual proof of your own claim, which as I pointed out is par for the course with you. You just say stuff and refuse to defend yourself on it while accusing others of doing the same, hence me responding to your post.


Exactly my point. I've gone through the same exact tiring conversation for years on here with the same exact people. You're just upset that I didn't waste the time on you. 

I never said nobody hasn't criticized Trump. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm calling it exactly how it's presented. All of you Trump supporters act like you know everything and some of you are so delusional that ya'll believe everything that comes out of his mouth. I'm sorry truth hurts. Maybe it will inspire you to write another long block of text. 

As far as proof of my claim, here you go:
http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/donald-trump-economy-stock-market-jobs-reports-credit/

But, you guys are smarter than economists so that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> I peek in on this thread and see this and it's why I stopped posting in this thread LOL
> 
> The hypocrisy of Trump supporters never ceases to amaze me. Yeah like the huge circle jerk of Trump supporters in this thread that all gush over the political insight if a comic strip writer LOL Its why Trump supporters cant be taken seriously when they say things like this when they do the exact thing they are bashing anti-Trump people for.
> 
> I also love how every thing I have been saying about Trump and his admins ties to Russia keep coming true.


Of they also ignore the story of the former Mexican President owning his dumbass. There will never be a wall.


----------



## Oxidamus

Vic Capri said:


> The lowest its been in 16 years.
> 
> *#ThanksDonald*
> 
> - Vic





Headliner said:


> Explain to me how Trump gets credit for this. Explain the Congressional legislation he signed. Explain the Executive Order he signed that gives him credit.
> 
> You need to have your ducks in a row. Otherwise you look foolish by believing everything Trump says.


Has he signed anything that defines work differently? 4.6 or 4.3, it's inevitably an underreported number which he even said himself when he was running.

The idea that a rise in stocks created that many jobs is crazy so don't say that. Even if the rise was consistent for months it would probably equal a negligible number if an increase at all.



Beatles123 said:


> What would be the point?
> 
> No one here on either side has changed their mind once in the hundreds of pages between both Trump threads and now, and you won't be the first. We all believe what we want and that's that.


:kobe maybe some people should change their fucking minds then, instead of just believing whatever they want when they're wrong. These aren't subjective topics, someone is wrong.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Headliner said:


> Exactly my point. I've gone through the same exact tiring conversation for years on here with the same exact people. You're just upset that I didn't waste the time on you.
> 
> I never said nobody hasn't criticized Trump. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm calling it exactly how it's presented. All of you Trump supporters act like you know everything and some of you are so delusional that ya'll believe everything that comes out of his mouth. I'm sorry truth hurts. Maybe it will inspire you to write another long block of text.
> 
> As far as proof of my claim, here you go:
> http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/donald-trump-economy-stock-market-jobs-reports-credit/
> 
> But, you guys are smarter than economists so that doesn't mean anything.


You've misunderstood me completely, like I said earlier you've gone out of your way to adamantly refuse to defend your point. That's all that was being talked about. I wasn't talking about your opinion on other topics but rather the fact that you openly stated you refuse to defend what you say. You've only just now defended your point, that was all that was needed but instead you resorted to petty childish arguments and accusations of others simply because you disagree with them politically. 

You continue to lump people together , but if you truly believed in "truth" you wouldn't call me a Trump supporter because I am not a Trump supporter and have mentioned this several times in the past. You live under a delusion that anyone right of center is "super mean", you simply do not care about truth because truth and facts go out the window when you're confronted with it on other topics

Also, you keep saying that I gave credit to Trump over the economy even though I clearly didn't so please stop making crap up about people who may or may not be on another political side that you're on.


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> You've misunderstood me completely, like I said earlier you've gone out of your way to adamantly refuse to defend your point. That's all that was being talked about. I wasn't talking about your opinion on other topics but rather the fact that you openly stated you refuse to defend what you say. You've only just now defended your point, that was all that was needed but instead you resorted to petty childish arguments and accusations of others simply because you disagree with them politically.
> 
> You continue to lump people together , but if you truly believed in "truth" you wouldn't call me a Trump supporter because I am not a Trump supporter and have mentioned this several times in the past. You live under a delusion that anyone right of center is "super mean", you simply do not care about truth because truth and facts go out the window when you're confronted with it on other topics
> 
> Also, you keep saying that I gave credit to Trump over the economy even though I clearly didn't so please stop making crap up about people who may or may not be on another political side that you're on.


Recently defended? By posting the link? LOL I never even made it that far for the link to be posted because the arguments never got to that level where the link needed to be posted. If Vic had actually engaged in debating me, then yes I would have eventually posted the link. Instead he posted an image of a guy yawning because he couldn't provide the necessary evidence required. 

Super Mean? :lol What does that even mean? I don't care if people are right wing/conservative, but quite frankly Trump apologists who believes 100% in all of his lies/misconduct/immature behavior/bullshit are WOAT. Especially because they are too delusional to see that he's a dumpster fire that's ruining the Republican Party.

If I didn't care about truth then I wouldn't be in here occasionally challenging people because this thread is full of Trump exaggerations and apologists straight from Breitbart/Fox News. Places where reality is bullshit and bullshit is reality. 

Did I say Stinger Fan gave credit to Trump for the economy? No, I did not. Did I say, all of you gave Trump credit for the economy? No I did not.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Headliner said:


> Recently defended? By posting the link? LOL I never even made it that far for the link to be posted because the arguments never got to that level where the link needed to be posted. If Vic had actually engaged in debating me, then yes I would have eventually posted the link. Instead he posted an image of a guy yawning because he couldn't provide the necessary evidence required.
> 
> Super Mean? :lol What does that even mean? I don't care if people are right wing/conservative, but quite frankly Trump apologists who believes 100% in all of his lies/misconduct/immature behavior/bullshit are WOAT. Especially because they are too delusional to see that he's a dumpster fire that's ruining the Republican Party.
> 
> If I didn't care about truth then I wouldn't be in here occasionally challenging people because this thread is full of Trump exaggerations and apologists straight from Breitbart/Fox News. Places where reality is bullshit and bullshit is reality.
> 
> Did I say Stinger Fan gave credit to Trump for the economy? No, I did not. Did I say, all of you gave Trump credit for the economy? No I did not.


Yes, that's defending what you said about Obama and the economy. All you did until just now was say Obama was responsible without anything to back up your claim. You did exactly what you were saying Trump supporters were doing about giving him credit for the economy. I don't see how this is difficult to comprehend. 


Oh cut the bullshit already. This is exactly what you said directly responding to me.

"*you guys* are smarter than economists so that doesn't mean anything" and "*In here, all of you* act like ya'll know everything and some of you live in a delusional world where you believe every and anything your pathological lying master says"

So yes you did exactly that, you claimed I was a trump supporter and claimed I was arguing against economists and giving Trump credit for the economy. I simply do not know who is or isn't responsible as I'm not an economist or know much about the economy. I'm not afraid to acknowledge these things.


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> Yes, that's defending what you said about Obama and the economy. All you did until just now was say Obama was responsible without anything to back up your claim. You did exactly what you were saying Trump supporters were doing about giving him credit for the economy. I don't see how this is difficult to comprehend.
> 
> 
> Oh cut the bullshit already. This is exactly what you said directly responding to me.
> 
> "*you guys* are smarter than economists so that doesn't mean anything" and "*In here, all of you* act like ya'll know everything and some of you live in a delusional world where you believe every and anything your pathological lying master says"
> 
> So yes you did exactly that, you claimed I was a trump supporter and claimed I was arguing against economists and giving Trump credit for the economy. I simply do not know who is or isn't responsible as I'm not an economist or know much about the economy. I'm not afraid to acknowledge these things.


And my post clearly stated that there was no reason for me to provide that proof because the conversation never reached that level to where reassurance was needed. 

Answer the question. Did I say all of you gave Trump credit for the economy? No, I didn't. Did I say, you in particular gave Trump credit for the economy? No, I didn't. You can nitpick my words and interpret them to suggest that I did, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> Because if you guys can't defend your stances then you look stupid as fuck. Just like him.


What is the point though? We could present things that we feel justify it and you would never agree. The same way you post your stances and we don't. No one has EVER said, "Wow, this post by X has changed my mind" So why even bother on both sides?


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> What is the point though? We could present things that we feel justify it and you would never agree. The same way you post your stances and we don't. No one has EVER said, "Wow, this post by X has changed my mind" So why even bother on both sides?


You can defend your stances and at least look like you're competent even if there's a disagreement.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> :kobe maybe some people should change their fucking minds then, instead of just believing whatever they want when they're wrong. These aren't subjective topics, someone is wrong.


No one is right OR wrong. The reality is no one on this earth, left right or center REALLY believes in Rock solid objective truth anymore because humanity has decided there is none. Even you on a subconscious level only BELIEVE you know the "Truth". I got news for ya: No one knows shit. Not you, not I, not Reaper, Not Headliner. We have no clue what anything means because we as a race have decided to draw our own unique conclusions, all for the sole purpose of creating a society we THINK would unfuck the world when we're probably just each fucking it over in different ways. Its okay though, cause you know what? in two million years, no one will remember any of it. We'll be a fucking cliffnote on the forward to the texts of what the future will call ancient history.

We're all going to fucking die. We're just pretending for now. We sit here bitching anonymously on the internet thinking it amounts to something when all we are are a bunch of pawns chasing whatever makes us feel smart or important at the end of the day, and that's all we'll ever be.

In short:


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Beatles123 said:


> No one is right OR wrong. The reality is no one on this earth, left right or center REALLY believes in Rock solid objective truth anymore because humanity has decided there is none. Even you on a subconscious level only BELIEVE you know the "Truth". I got news for ya: No one knows shit. Not you, not I, not Reaper, Not Headliner. We have no clue what anything means because we as a race have decided to draw our own unique conclusions, all for the sole purpose of creating a society we THINK would unfuck the world when we're probably just each fucking it over in different ways. Its okay though, cause you know what? in two million years, no one will remember any of it. We'll be a fucking cliffnote on the forward to the texts of what the future will call ancient history.
> *
> We're all going to fucking die. We're just pretending for now. We sit here bitching anonymously on the internet thinking it amounts to something when all we are are a bunch of pawns chasing whatever makes us feel smart or important at the end of the day, and that's all we'll ever be.*
> 
> In short:


Looks like somebody's been reading The Stranger.


----------



## Beatles123

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Looks like somebody's been reading The Stranger.


Nah, just realizing the insignificance of things. :shrug

Should I read The Stranger? How close was the bolded to it?


----------



## Oxidamus

Beatles123 said:


> No one is right OR wrong.


:deandre Yes there is right and wrong when you want to discuss something that is objective. Like whether or not Trump had a significant effect, if any, on the unemployment rate decreasing.

Does wood come from trees? In my opinion it does not and I am not changing my mind. :armfold



> We're all going to fucking die.


:mj4 Faux nihilism.


----------



## AlternateDemise

So can we all agree at this point that electing Trump to be the President has been a terrible idea? Hasn't done anything that in anyway benefits the country, made very little progress on the promises he's made, and every week there seems to be a story about public backlash against the things he has done as President. The only thing he's really done that was major (key word being major) was back out of the Paris Climate Deal, and even then, that doesn't go into effect until 2020, and you could argue that backing out of the deal is a negative for America, but that's not something I'm going to debate.

Honestly, the guy needs to go. This is one of those cases where I think congress can just say "impeach him for being incompetent". This guy might actually go down as being even worse than James Buchanan if he goes a full four years, and that's the guy that gets blamed for starting the American Civil War.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> :deandre Yes there is right and wrong when you want to discuss something that is objective. Like whether or not Trump had a significant effect, if any, on the unemployment rate decreasing.
> 
> Does wood come from trees? In my opinion it does not and I am not changing my mind. :armfold
> 
> 
> 
> :mj4 Faux nihilism.


:homer2 Faux, is it? I wish. In truth, this entire thread--nay, politics in general mean jack and shit. Why, just look at our respective parties. Mine can't give me what I really want and they have the house and senate. Your party had everything you wanted lined up for you on a silver platter with 1960's grandpa. You donated everything. Even as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars at once when that was gonna go toward a fucking super computer (look it up on the Sanders reddit) and even still, 1960's grandpa lost to computer illiterate grandma. :trips4 

Truth is? None of us will ever get what we really desire until the opposing party is wiped off the map. We are each now too dissimilar from each other for any common ground to exist that will bring unity. I ask you though, for what? The politicians will only keep dicking us both over. its pointless.

Unless you believe activism makes a damn bit of difference..."Oh but look at the chaaaaaange we maaaaade!" Naw, you didn't do anything. What you did was piss off your opposing side and drive a wedge deeper between you and the people you hate.

Whether you or I agree or disagree on something doesn't mean shit either/ In the end you either agree with me and the world is still as shitty as it already was, or you disagree with me, and the world is as shitty as it already was. iper1 

Even now, i'm sure you have a multitude of theories as to why I think this way. Maybe it's because you think i'm trolling. Maybe you think i need to just get out more and see all the nice people you supposedly know that have convinced you your way is the right way. Maybe you'd recommend I read a book, watch a movie, do something to open my mind to your point of view. Yes, If i only could see things your way, then that'd fix things wouldn't it. However I achieve it, if I could just stop being the sadsack you see in YOUR mind, i'd be happier, wouldn't I?

But you know what will come out of this post between us?

Not a daaaaaamn thing. :tommy 

You'll have your opinion of what i'm saying and i'll have mine, because in our minds we both are right and we each will not sacrifice that to appease each other. We'll be going around in circles claiming the other one ignores "Da factz" when in our heart of hearts the only "facts" are the ones we hitch our own wagon to. We trust ourselves more than any bullshit link the other provides.

Nihilism? Oh no, my friend. Just me resigning to the inevitable. If this election cycle has taught me anything its that we as a human race are too divided to see much of anything eye to eye anymore. If we do it's only to cover up the differences we have below the surface - at least, when not in our preferred eco-chamber.

Don't like it? Sorry. I've been this way since late 2013 and i'm only just now accepting it. I fully understand. Yer gonna call me deluded, think this is a shitpost, suggest i need help or ignore it entirely. maybe all of the above. Go ahead, I don't care, im used to it by now. I've always told yall no one wants to hear my opinions, well now ya got a little sliver of it. I don't give a shit if you think my view is ass backwards or what. You know what it changes?

Not a daaaaaaaaaaaamn thing. :vince5

Take it how you will, but i'll still be the same as I was yesterday by this time tomorrow and so will you and everyone in the thread. :saul We're all full of shit and none of it matters.


----------



## Oxidamus

AlternateDemise said:


> So can we all agree at this point that electing Trump to be the President has been a terrible idea? Hasn't done anything that in anyway benefits the country, made very little progress on the promises he's made, and every week there seems to be a story about public backlash against the things he has done as President. The only thing he's really done that was major (key word being major) was back out of the Paris Climate Deal, and even then, that doesn't go into effect until 2020, and you could argue that backing out of the deal is a negative for America, but that's not something I'm going to debate.
> 
> Honestly, the guy needs to go. This is one of those cases where I think congress can just say "impeach him for being incompetent". This guy might actually go down as being even worse than James Buchanan if he goes a full four years, and that's the guy that gets blamed for starting the American Civil War.


What the fuck has Trump done that actually puts him in some kind of group with the worst Presidents of all time let alone contention with James Buchanan?


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> So can we all agree at this point that electing Trump to be the President has been a terrible idea?


no



> Hasn't done anything that in anyway benefits the country


Conservative supreme court justice, lllegal immigration way down, stock market record highs, tons of regulations slashed, pipeline deal approved, MS-13 gangs cracked down on bigly, withdrew from terrible Paris agreement that would've hurt the economy and even environmentalists acknowledge would've done next to nothing for the environment. This is off the top of my head. It's been 6 months. I'm thrilled. 



> made very little progress on the promises he's made


Wrong, see above. 



> and every week there seems to be a story about public backlash against the things he has done as President.


Couldn't begin to care. Stop watching fake news that has misinformed you to this degree.


----------



## Oxidamus

Beatles123 said:


> :homer2 Faux, is it?


Yes.

Either this is copypasta I'm unaware of or the most incredible strawman of our generation.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> Yes.
> 
> Either this is copypasta I'm unaware of or the most incredible strawman of our generation.


I see you have chosen the last option. :tommy


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Beatles123 said:


> Nah, just realizing the insignificance of things. :shrug
> 
> Should I read The Stranger? How close was the bolded to it?


Well, I don't wanna spoil it, but it's pretty close.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Oxi X.O. said:


> What the fuck has Trump done that actually puts him in some kind of group with the worst Presidents of all time let alone contention with James Buchanan?


Why don't you try re-reading my post and you'll find out. 



CamillePunk said:


> Conservative supreme court justice, lllegal immigration way down


I should honestly stop here but I'll keep going. 



CamillePunk said:


> stock market record highs


You should probably learn how stock markets work before blindly attributing it to his "brilliance". 



CamillePunk said:


> tons of regulations slashed, pipeline deal approved


And you don't see ANYTHING wrong with those? Nothing wrong in the least bit? 



CamillePunk said:


> MS-13 gangs cracked down on bigly


I actually really like this one, I'll give him that. 



CamillePunk said:


> withdrew from terrible Paris agreement that would've hurt the economy and even environmentalists acknowledge would've done next to nothing for the environment.


Helping the economy at the expense of the earth is one of the most idiotic things you could possibly do. And yes, there are some environmentalists who hated the Paris Agreement. The number itself isn't that large. A lot still think it's a mistake for him to back out of the treaty, and for good reason. 

I personally think he needed to re-negotiate in a way that helps benefit the United States better, because it was pretty bad for its economy. Backing out entirely will prove to be a dumb decision, especially since they can't back out until the year his first (and most likely only) term ends. 



CamillePunk said:


> This is off the top of my head. It's been 6 months. I'm thrilled.


So you've given me a bunch of things that have yet to have a major positive impact on the country and a lot of which have the potential to cause more harm than good, apart from him cracking down on the morons in the MS-13. If this is the best you can give me, then this only helps prove my point. Not to mention, he's demonstrated that he's incapable of owning up to the mistakes he makes, he continues to make lies that are easily disproven on a regular basis, focuses on things he shouldn't be wasting his time on, shown that he is incapable of working with others, and has failed on two of his big promises that he made when he ran for President. And right now, his approval rating is at a historically low rate.

If you are thrilled with this, then I don't know what else to say at this point. Because so far his time as president has been a bust. And it isn't showing any signs of improving. 



CamillePunk said:


> Couldn't begin to care. Stop watching fake news that has misinformed you to this degree.


Don't waste my time with the fake news bullshit. It's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, and it's even worse that people actually are buying into that crap. I'm not denying that there are in fact fake news stories out there, but in this day and age, it's not that hard to figure out what's fake and what isn't, and the amount is much lower than Trump likes to pretend it is. Major news studios aren't purposely going out of their way to try to frame Trump on a weekly basis simply because they don't like him. No news studio would operate that way because even not so important shit could very easily backfire. The fact that you're going by that narrative tells me you're simply blindly following the shit he says. If you want to continue to believe that, by all means, do so, but don't push that bullshit narrative on me. It's not going to work.


----------



## FriedTofu

Is this the real news we should be watching?

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10159619784950725/


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> I should honestly stop here but I'll keep going.


??? You said he wasn't making any progress on keeping his promises. Those are two things he said he'd do that he's done. You were wrong. 



> You should probably learn how stock markets work before blindly attributing it to his "brilliance".


Why are you using quotation marks for something I didn't say? The record highs reflect a huge amount of optimism among investors. If you want to say that has nothing to do with Trump's commitment to cutting regulations and lowering taxes then fine. Most experts seem to disagree, then again a lot of them predicted the stock market would go into a panic if Trump got elected. Perhaps he should get credit for that not happening, at least. 



> And you don't see ANYTHING wrong with those? Nothing wrong in the least bit?


I don't, but you were suggesting that Trump hasn't done anything to benefit the country by some objective standard, hence the "can we all agree?" proposition. Obviously people feel differently about regulations and the pipeline deal than you do, so for them he has done things to benefit the country. Those are also things he promised to do, so your claim he's done nothing to fulfill his promises is objectively incorrect. 

I know you wrote some paragraphs but given your lack of commitment to facts thus far in this post I'm keen to stop here. You have been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Oxidamus

AlternateDemise said:


> Why don't you try re-reading my post and you'll find out.





> So can we all agree at this point that electing Trump to be the President has been a terrible idea? Hasn't done anything that in anyway benefits the country, *made very little progress on the promises he's made*, and *every week there seems to be a story about public backlash against the things he has done as President*. The only thing he's really done that was major (key word being major) was *back out of the Paris Climate Deal*, and even then, that doesn't go into effect until 2020, and you could argue that backing out of the deal is a negative for America, but that's not something I'm going to debate.


So what I bolded is what you constitute as so bad that Trump is among the worst presidents in history and contends for the absolute worst with the most actually incompetent president who is blamed for causing the civil war?

You're aware most politicians tend to promise things and then, well, don't get them done or just can't, right? To compare Aus and the US, at least in the US your president wants to do the things he said he would but he gets voted down. Here they make promises, get in power, and just "forget".


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> Is this the real news we should be watching?
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10159619784950725/


That shit is next level cheesy bullllllllshit. I mean WTF.

_WE LOVE THE LEADER_


----------



## Dr. Middy

FriedTofu said:


> Is this the real news we should be watching?
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10159619784950725/


I'm sure people who really like Trump will have zero problem with this and just call it a joke made towards mainstream news and media and the like. I get that a good bunch of them are just completely hating on Trump no matter what he does and cherrypick information to look bad, but for him to promote his own little news thing that does nothing but give him pats on the back and herald his accomplishments (if all are true) makes him look almost petty. 

Nobody needs more shitty propaganda.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm sure people who really like Trump will have zero problem with this and just call it a joke made towards mainstream news and media and the like. I get that a good bunch of them are just completely hating on Trump no matter what he does and cherrypick information to look bad, but for him to promote his own little news thing that does nothing but give him pats on the back and herald his accomplishments (if all are true) makes him look almost petty.
> 
> Nobody needs more shitty propaganda.


Don't let these hystericals that are nothing but our daily punching bags get to you. 

The White House has been publishing its own news for decades if not centuries. The Whitehouse.gov site has been disseminating white house news since at least 1994 (I've been on the net since then and I've seen similar things). The White House press briefing has historically been about what the white house has been doing in the most positive light since time immemorial. 

The only difference between this and the regular White House news is that this is now in video form ... Since people are too lazy and backwards to actually read newspapers since they aren't in comic book form (which is evidenced by the fact that most of the hystericals on here don't even bother to read the articles they themselves post), they're simply now _aware _of the fact for probably the first time in their lives that the White House is actually a source of pro-Government news. Since they have never realized that the White House has always done this in paper form, therefore they are now spinning tall tales of "state run propaganda" :lol 

This shit is so hilarious. I mean, I was trying to take a hiatus from this thread because it's filled with cancer the last few days, but since you're in here and being swayed by the hystericals, I figured I might as well debunk this new found bullshit.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> Don't let these hystericals that are nothing but our daily punching bags get to you.
> 
> The White House has been publishing its own news for decades if not centuries. The Whitehouse.gov site has been disseminating white house news since at least 1994 (I've been on the net since then and I've seen similar things).
> 
> The only difference between this and the regular White House news is that this is now in video form ... Since people are too ignorant to read newspapers, they're simply now aware of the fact that the White House is actually a source of pro-Government news and therefore spinning tall tales of "state run propaganda" :lol
> 
> This shit is so hilarious. I mean, I was trying to take a hiatus from this thread because it's filled with cancer the last few days, but since you're in here and being swayed by the hystericals, I figured I might as well debunk this new found bullshit.


I think the video form of it is what got to me, the setup just feels so hokey and reeks of Trump patting himself on the back. I never had this feeling when seeing articles and news from the white house in just an article. 

Probably not gonna pay any mind to this anyway when it can be spun whichever way the White House desires :lol Thanks for what basically amounts to a light slap on the face to wake me up, me being tired probably had something to do with it :lol


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I think the video form of it is what got to me, the setup just feels so hokey and reeks of Trump patting himself on the back. I never had this feeling when seeing articles and news from the white house in just an article.
> 
> Probably not gonna pay any mind to this anyway when it can be spun whichever way the White House desires :lol Thanks for what basically amounts to a light slap on the face to wake me up, me being tired probably had something to do with it :lol


Hey don't worry about it. Everyone has their limits --- but this isn't anything new in the sense of the information itself --- It's just a new way of disseminating it. 

FWIW, I think it's contrived - but at the same time - it's one of those "Hey, why didn't they do this before?" I think it cuts right through the pretentious and elite nature of verbal and written press releases and briefings and speaks directly to the common man in layman terms ... Probably why the immediate negative reaction. 

I think we're programmed to the elitest methods of the so-called "educated" elite, so this very mass market approach to debriefings is off-putting to those of us who have become alienated with the common man. 

I for one welcome it. It brings the white house closer to people than ever before. Maybe why the elitists are thumbing their noses at it.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> Hey don't worry about it. Everyone has their limits --- but this isn't anything new in the sense of the information itself --- It's just a new way of disseminating it.
> 
> *FWIW, I think it's contrived - but at the same time - it's one of those "Hey, why didn't they do this before?" I think it cuts right through the pretentious and elite nature of verbal and written press releases and briefings and speaks directly to the common man in layman terms ... Probably why the immediate negative reaction. *
> 
> I think we're programmed to the elitest methods of the so-called "educated" elite, so this very mass market approach to debriefings is off-putting to those of us who have become alienated with the common man.
> 
> I for one welcome it. It brings the white house closer to people than ever before. Maybe why the elitists are thumbing their noses at it.


That's probably the main focus of it now that you mention it. Even with what he has accomplished, there still is a largely negative view of him, so I think Trump feels like he has to fall back on the demographic that supported him the most, which are the lower income white Americans who reside in the more rural areas of the country. Watching the video again, it's done very simply and straight to the point, and easy enough for them to digest it at face value to be happy with his performance, without needing to go and read a ton of different articles that are more complexly written and go more in depth on different sides of the coin.

Still has a similar feel to the North Korea news stuff you see though.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> That's probably the main focus of it now that you mention it. Even with what he has accomplished, there still is a largely negative view of him, so I think Trump feels like he has to fall back on the demographic that supported him the most, which are the lower income white Americans who reside in the more rural areas of the country. Watching the video again, it's done very simply and straight to the point, and easy enough for them to digest it at face value to be happy with his performance, without needing to go and read a ton of different articles that are more complexly written and go more in depth on different sides of the coin.
> 
> Still has a similar feel to the North Korea news stuff you see though.


The big difference being that unlike actual state run media and controlled content at the mass level this is just one in thousands of voices. This isn't the only news. And the common man isn't as uneducated and limited as is widely propagated. 

You're doing what elites do all the time BTW. Think about it. You're kind of also approaching this from the perspective of underestimated value of the lower class. Aren't you?

Pretty sure at this point after seeing the back and forth in the Trump thread you should be more aware of the diversity of demographic that supports Trump. From education level to ethnic diversity. Time to start figuring out why.


----------



## CamillePunk

Reaper said:


> Pretty sure at this point after seeing the back and forth in the Trump thread you should be more aware of the diversity of demographic that supports Trump. From education level to ethnic diversity. Time to start figuring out why.


Who wouldn't want to see the lost cities of Thule and Atlantis risen from the ocean?


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> That shit is next level cheesy bullllllllshit. I mean WTF.
> 
> _WE LOVE THE LEADER_


Sad thing is this is re-election plans for 2020. And we aren't even one year into his presidency. SMH



Dr. Middy said:


> I'm sure people who really like Trump will have zero problem with this and just call it a joke made towards mainstream news and media and the like. I get that a good bunch of them are just completely hating on Trump no matter what he does and cherrypick information to look bad, but for him to promote his own little news thing that does nothing but give him pats on the back and herald his accomplishments (if all are true) makes him look almost petty.
> 
> Nobody needs more shitty propaganda.


The fact that you jumped to a conclusion that many of Trumps supporters might see this as a joke made towards mainstream news media says it all. If it is bad, it is a joke to them anyway.

:lol at the attempt at trying to say this is the same as White House press releases to sway you though. Remember Sean Spicer's rationale for the jobs numbers, "They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.” That's their attitude towards anything that president Trump is doing that contradict what candidate Trump has said before.


----------



## Reaper

Canada's moron-in-chief created Canada's recent illegal alien crisis and now the media is trying to absolve him of all responsibility. 

Media doesn't have to be state-run to have its lips around dear leader's dick.

Of course, Trucuck's tweet was just nothing but virtue signaling BS. If he meant it, Canada would not be trying to get its illegal refugee "problem" under control. They would literally just accept everyone and give them Canadian citizenship. 

Oops.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> The big difference being that unlike actual state run media and controlled content at the mass level this is just one in thousands of voices. This isn't the only news. And the common man isn't as uneducated and limited as is widely propagated.
> 
> You're doing what elites do all the time BTW. Think about it. You're kind of also approaching this from the perspective of underestimated value of the lower class. Aren't you?
> 
> Pretty sure at this point after seeing the back and forth in the Trump thread you should be more aware of the diversity of demographic that supports Trump. From education level to ethnic diversity. Time to start figuring out why.


Eh, I never wanted to insinuate that they're not bright or anything like that. I know people who only have their high school diploma to fall back on, and while they don't seem like the brightest bulbs academically, they're still wise and very street smart, something a decent chunk of my generation seems to have forgotten about. But I think they appreciate this because what Trump tried to do with this is cut out all the bullshit and go straight for the points that matter to that class of people. Sure, he still has a bunch of extremely bright people who support him that crosses all different ethnicities, but I just think these were centered on a specific subset of his base voters. And hey, some of them might not like this either, there might be a growing amount of people within that rural sector who are learning to read more into their news and not take what they are given on tv at face level anymore.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Eh, I never wanted to insinuate that they're not bright or anything like that. I know people who only have their high school diploma to fall back on, and while they don't seem like the brightest bulbs academically, they're still wise and very street smart, something a decent chunk of my generation seems to have forgotten about. But I think they appreciate this because what Trump tried to do with this is cut out all the bullshit and go straight for the points that matter to that class of people. Sure, he still has a bunch of extremely bright people who support him that crosses all different ethnicities, but I just think these were centered on a specific subset of his base voters. And hey, some of them might not like this either, there might be a growing amount of people within that rural sector who are learning to read more into their news and not take what they are given on tv at face level anymore.


If I really come down to it, I would probably stick to my core anti-government stance and not vote as a form of protest since "choice" is grossly limited. I know it appears to be a bit of a twisted ethos to be pro-President in one case and refuse to actually vote when times comes. 

I have my pulse on the class of voter that supports Trump and so far what I've seen is a very diverse group of highly educated constitutionalists, libertarians, fiscal conservatives - none of whom are actually uneducated. There is definitely a big population of uneducated trash but that kind of grouping votes for either party and the split isn't clearly determinable, if you remove the elitist's own definition of educated. 

Education = Degree is very much a BS measure. It includes things like "feminist dance therapy" and "How to shit in a tin can and call it art" degrees. Not taking a jab at you, but I find that calling someone "street smart" is a way of denying an educated and intelligent person their right to own those labels ... 

All through my life I've hung out with elites with college degrees who thumb their collective noses at people who aren't degree holders ... Even individuals like my aunt who's supposedly a PhD in Philosophy and regularly posts Jezebel and Salon articles written by whining 20-25 year old SJW's. I don't think my aunt is educated at all. She's one of the dumbest individuals I've ever met. 

On the other hand, I'm following a ton of Trump supporters on Twitter now and I have yet to come across someone that is well and truly dumb. There are some that are on the fringes, but by and large the binomial distribution based on observation seems to indicate a similar level of intelligence as any other group of voters. 

The other thing that people don't know about modern conservatives today is that they are doing much more reading than your liberal since they actually have to dig deep for conservative news and follow them specifically since the majority of news distributors simply ignore their existence. As you've seen, almost all liberals come in here and just outright call all conservative news media terrible (yes, conservatives do the same in opposite), but the difference is that I've noticed conservatives actually consume liberal news media whereas liberals are too conceited to even read conservative news media.

As a centrist how often do you consume articles from The Daily Caller, Blaze, Fox, Twitchy etc. I mean, I'm not saying they're great or awesome all the time - but at least they're worth the consumption in addition to liberal outlets to determine the veracity. Centrists live by the caveat that "the truth lies in the middle". That requires that you read both left and right. So I hope you're doing it


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reaper said:


> *Canada's moron-in-chief created Canada's recent illegal alien crisis and now the media is trying to absolve him of all responsibility. *
> 
> Media doesn't have to be state-run to have its lips around dear leader's dick.
> 
> Of course, Trucuck's tweet was just nothing but virtue signaling BS. If he meant it, Canada would not be trying to get its illegal refugee "problem" under control. They would literally just accept everyone and give them Canadian citizenship.
> 
> Oops.


No, he didn't. Haitians are crossing into Canada because of stories spread via social media coupled with there being a sizable Haitian population ready to welcome their peers into the French speaking province of Quebec. Here's bits of the article your posted Tweet references:

Misleading social media messages entice Haitian asylum seekers to come to Canada



> Many of the thousands of Haitian nationals streaming across Canada's border from the U.S. may be basing their decision to flee on misleading and false information posted to WhatsApp, Facebook groups and other social media.
> 
> Encouraged by those ambiguous or deceptive posts, many of the 50,000 to 60,000 Haitians living with temporary protected status (TPS) in the U.S. could be interpreting Canada's welcoming attitude towards immigrants as a clarion call.
> 
> 
> 'Canadian consulate' meeting that never was
> 
> In the wake of Trump's announcement, one New York immigration lawyer, Macx L. Jean-Louis, organized a presentation for the Haitian community at a church in New Jersey in June, inviting Toronto lawyer Veronica Wilson to explain how the Canadian immigration system works.
> 
> She said she explained the point system to them, saying skilled workers had a leg up and that many might be able to qualify as immigrants because they could speak French.
> 
> She said there was no discussion of crossing into Canada outside ports of entry at the meeting.
> 
> "The church was packed," Wilson told CBC News. "People were standing in the aisles, and everyone had their phones video recording us, and at the end there was a lineup of questions."
> 
> Wilson has been helping Haitian nationals make applications to come to Canada. She says when they enter the border unofficially, "it's out of fear," and that it's possible they don't realize "there may be legal avenues for them."
> 
> Right after that June 17 meeting, a WhatsApp message began circulating.
> 
> "The Consul of Canada in the USA held a meeting in New Jersey for more than two hours," it states. "It invited and even encouraged all Haitians (with or without TPS) to apply for residency in Canada."
> 
> The message goes on to give the name and an incorrect contact number for Jean-Louis, the New York lawyer who organized the information meeting with Wilson. It also states that the Canadian government will cover any "fees."


A bit more from the above article:



> *'Fake news'*
> 
> The day after that WhatsApp message went out, Jean-Louis says, he received 264 calls.
> 
> He's been flooded with calls ever since, coming from Haitian nationals in the Dominican Republic, Chile, Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America.
> 
> All had received the erroneous WhatsApp message or saw a video of the meeting on Youtube which was mislabelled as having taken place at Canada's consular headquarters in New Jersey.
> 
> Jean-Louis doesn't know where the WhatsApp message originated, but "my understanding is that ... the person lives in Montreal, Canada."
> 
> "He was not even there at the meeting, but he put out the fake news," Jean-Louis said.
> 
> The Toronto lawyer, Veronica Wilson, has also been fielding calls from people who have clearly received the same information, because she's been mistaken for Canadian consular staff.
> 
> She said one of the people who called her in the wake of the meeting, "was speaking to me as if I was a Canadian official, and I had to clearly state, that no [I was not]."



Here's more on the story:

Why are thousands of Haitians streaming into Canada from the U.S.?



> Text messages sent with WhatsApp have been circulated, encouraging Haitian nationals with or without TPS to come to Canada.
> 
> One forwarded to CBC says Canada "invited and even encouraged all Haitians to apply for residence ... the fees will be covered by the Canadian government."



Montreal's Olympic Stadium used to house surge in asylum seekers crossing from U.S.



> *Fear of deportation from U.S.*
> 
> In May, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to withdraw the protective status of Haitians who took refuge in the country following the 2010 earthquake.
> 
> Up to 58,000 people could face deportation back to Haiti in January 2018.
> 
> A woman interviewed Wednesday at Roxham Road, a key point of entry for asylum seekers crossing illegally into Quebec, said she left the U.S. because she was scared.
> 
> "We didn't know what was going to happen," she said.
> 
> "So we checked online and we saw that Canada was going to welcome Haitians, and that's why we come here."
> 
> One man who spoke to reporters from the Olympic Stadium identified himself as Haitian and said he arrived in Canada about a week ago.
> 
> "It feels really good to be in Canada because it's so calm," he said in French.
> 
> ​PRAIDA's Dupuis said Montreal's large Haitian community is a reason why many Haitians are crossing the border into Quebec.
> 
> "Obviously, there is a stronger attraction to coming to Quebec for Haitians than in other provinces," she said.
> 
> "They have the help of their community to get settled."


You never let facts get in the way when spreading misinformation about Canada, do you? Your negative attitude towards a country you lived a good portion of you life in is unusual but whatever fits the agenda, right?


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> No, he didn't. Haitians are crossing into Canada because of stories spread via social media coupled with there being a sizable Haitian population ready to welcome their peers into the French speaking province of Quebec. Here's bits of the article your posted Tweet references:
> 
> Misleading social media messages entice Haitian asylum seekers to come to Canada
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more from the above article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's more on the story:
> 
> Why are thousands of Haitians streaming into Canada from the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montreal's Olympic Stadium used to house surge in asylum seekers crossing from U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> You never let facts get in the way when spreading misinformation about Canada, do you? Your negative attitude towards a country you lived a good portion of you life in is unusual but whatever fits the agenda, right?


And the original source of all of this doesn't fit into your agenda so you hyper rationalize the "real" causes. 

I'm not going to refute what's in there because I can see where the original misleading tweet came from that snowballed into a series of other misleading tweets. Everything has a source and Trudeau virtue signalling started it. 

The fact that Canada thanks to Trudeau put itself directly in the path of Trump's anti-illegal stance by virtue signalling against any American acitivity against illegals created an overall climate that made something that should have been obvious (legal entry) into a situation of having to face a flow of illegals into the country. I still blame the virtue signalling here. I see nothing in the above articles that actually detract from the claim that Trudeau's virtue signalling was completely misleading as well. It filtered down from the top. 

Canadians have been screaming at the top of their lungs and virtue signalling ever since Trump announced his muslim ban that they will take in refugees. The misleading virtue signaling made no mention of "oh we will only take you in if you're legal". It was "implied" and "implication" of "legal course of action" does not seem to matter to refugees. They take whatever opportunities they can get. 

The climate of anti-Trump derangement and opposing his strict stance on illegal immigration without foresight of the consequence of tweeting out "you're all welcome here" created by your Dear Leader is partly responsible for this. It still filtered down from the top. Trudeau's tweet was misleading too. I don't see how you fail to see it. Of course, for the educated the implication about legality and the application process is implied. But refugees that are already illegals don't give a fuck about that. They're illegal in America and you really think that they won't rush to Canada where Dear Leader has been tweeting nonsense like "we will welcome you". Yeah, well that tweet is misleading and that's where the ball started rolling for others to tweet misleading things.

Of course, I'm not anti-Canada. I'm anti-Trudeau. Trudeau and the liberal party's politics are not all that Canada is .. wtf. No idea why you would conflate the two :lol


----------



## MickDX

FriedTofu said:


> Is this the real news we should be watching?
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10159619784950725/


:kobelol

Kayleigh is cute though. Good choice by Trump. 

Although using video is a good idea, it sounds like electoral propaganda presented like this. If you want to present any benefits then show some real numbers.

But the real funny thing are the comments on facebook.


----------



## Art Vandaley

After endlessly criticising Obama for taking too many vacations Trumps now going to have taken 53 days off compared to Obama's 15 at the same point in the presidency. Further proof he's a hypocrite.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reaper said:


> And the original source of all of this doesn't fit into your agenda so you hyper rationalize the "real" causes.
> 
> I'm not going to refute what's in there because I can see where the original misleading tweet came from that snowballed into a series of other misleading tweets. Everything has a source and Trudeau virtue signalling started it.
> 
> The fact that Canada thanks to Trudeau put itself directly in the path of Trump's anti-illegal stance by virtue signalling against any American acitivity against illegals created an overall climate that made something that should have been obvious (legal entry) into a situation of having to face a flow of illegals into the country. I still blame the virtue signalling here. I see nothing in the above articles that actually detract from the claim that Trudeau's virtue signalling was completely misleading as well. It filtered down from the top.
> 
> Canadians have been screaming at the top of their lungs and virtue signalling ever since Trump announced his muslim ban that they will take in refugees. The misleading virtue signaling made no mention of "oh we will only take you in if you're legal". It was "implied" and "implication" of "legal course of action" does not seem to matter to refugees. They take whatever opportunities they can get.
> 
> The climate of anti-Trump derangement and opposing his strict stance on illegal immigration without foresight of the consequence of tweeting out "you're all welcome here" created by your Dear Leader is partly responsible for this. It still filtered down from the top. Trudeau's tweet was misleading too. I don't see how you fail to see it. Of course, for the educated the implication about legality and the application process is implied. But refugees that are already illegals don't give a fuck about that. They're illegal in America and you really think that they won't rush to Canada where Dear Leader has been tweeting nonsense like "we will welcome you". Yeah, well that tweet is misleading and that's where the ball started rolling for others to tweet misleading things.


The problem with your logic is that this specific group - Haitians residing in the US post earthquake - reacted to unofficial video and messages claiming that Canada was extending special immigration status to them and that the government would even pay their legal costs. That has nothing to do with Trudeau. It does, however, have a great deal to do with Montreal's Haitian community, where much of the misinformation originated, and the fact Haitians are French and so is Quebec (as is much of New Brunswick, which has a smaller but growing border-crossing-from-the-US issue). 

The majority of those who have crossed into Canada in recent months are French of either African or Haitian extraction, for who the attraction is obvious, or skilled Middle Eastern workers. They're people who are afraid of being swept up in immigration and refugee reforms being touted, but not acted on as of yet, in the US. They've been influenced by the current US administration's pandering propaganda aimed at those voters for who job-stealing, terrorist foreigners was the big campaign issue. The problem they now face is that Canada considers the US a safe first port of entry for refugees and won't likely allow most of them to bypass the immigration process and stay here. They'd have been better off to apply as standard immigrants if they actually wanted to come north. 



> Of course, I'm not anti-Canada. I'm anti-Trudeau. Trudeau and the liberal party's politics are not all that Canada is .. wtf. No idea why you would conflate the two :lol


You have nothing against Canada? Oh, I believe that since at least half of what you post comes across as words that support a narrative but not as heartfelt beliefs. Still, you have nothing good to say about anything Canadian, from the PM to healthcare to the military to media. 

I live in Canada, and in a French area where this Haitian's-crossing-the-border story gets more press than in English Canada. Posts full of lies and omissions about my country are easy to pick out because I often have first-hand knowledge about the full stories rather than antidotes and press quotes pulled off the internet. I tend to respond to Canada bashing because I can. 

Now as for Trudeau, I didn't vote for him specifically. We don't vote directly for the PM in Canada but for the party and you know that. Trudeau's too centrist for my tastes, plus I find him overly media-savvy and calculated in his image building. Besides, I'm NDP, not Liberal. I did indirectly vote for him by strategy though, since I went with the local Liberal candidate as a vote against the Conservatives, who had been holding power with a minority of national support via the split on the left.


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> The problem with your logic is that this specific group - Haitians residing in the US post earthquake - reacted to unofficial video and messages claiming that Canada was extending special immigration status to them and that the government would even pay their legal costs. *That has nothing to do with Trudeau.* It does, however, have a great deal to do with Montreal's Haitian community, where much of the misinformation originated, and the fact Haitians are French and so is Quebec (as is much of New Brunswick, which has a smaller but growing border-crossing-from-the-US issue).


I disagree. The attitude of the government, mix-signals and sanctuary status adoption by the Montreal Mayor has to be held responsible for dissemination of the eventual fake news. There has been a sharp spike between January 1 to July. You can have a policy in place, but what gets communicated is the PR nonsense and virtue signalling of the politicians so it's extremely easy to mistake their nonsense virtue signalling as their actual policy. That's just part of the overall picture and you simply can't ignore it. 



> The majority of those who have crossed into Canada in recent months are French of either African or Haitian extraction, for who the attraction is obvious, or skilled Middle Eastern workers. They're people who are afraid of being swept up in immigration and refugee reforms being touted, but not acted on as of yet, in the US. They've been influenced by the current US administration's pandering propaganda aimed at those voters for who job-stealing, terrorist foreigners was the big campaign issue.


I'm not going to refute that. I already stated that that's part of the issue and the influx, but so is the exact opposite refugees are welcome pandering of your politicians and public at large. It's part and parcel of the bigger picture view on this. What politicians state is assumed to be policy. 



> *The problem they now face is that Canada considers the US a safe first port of entry for refugees and won't likely allow most of them to bypass the immigration process and stay here.* They'd have been better off to apply as standard immigrants if they actually wanted to come north.


It probably shouldn't. If you wanted to house a homeless guy, expecting your neighbor to house him for you for a bit is kind of a very un-neighborly thing to do. 



> You have nothing against *Canada*? Oh, I believe that since at least half of what you post comes across as words that support a narrative but not as heartfelt beliefs. Still, you have nothing good to say about anything Canadian, from the PM to healthcare to the military to media.


Why would I have anything against *Canada*? Are we coming at this from the angle that in a fascist state, dissent about policies and attitudes about a country and how they impact individual freedoms and lives of Canadians is being unpatriotic or anti-Canada - because I certainly hope that this isn't the case :lmao

Whatever happened to the old attitudes around patriotism where criticizing the state and harmful policies of that state was real patriotism as well. You're getting upset over me bashing the leaders, the Ontario AG, the healthcare system (which in fact would be better if it was privatized and theoretical models have shown this) and the military selling arms to Saudi Arabia as "Canada-bashing". If that's what Canada is about - a plethora of bad policies, then sure, I'm "Canada-bashing". However, I actually give a fuck about the country where my over-qualified sister is now on welfare and why that situation came to pass which is why Canada's current path towards becoming a socialist nightmare worries me. 



> I live in Canada, and in a French area where this Haitian's-crossing-the-border story gets more press than in English Canada. Posts full of lies and omissions about my country are easy to pick out because I often have first-hand knowledge about the full stories rather than antidotes and press quotes pulled off the internet. I tend to respond to Canada bashing because I can.


And yet you haven't actually refuted my stance. All you've done is given a bigger picture scenario which is appreciated, but it doesn't refute the fact that a government's attitude and pandering is part of the misleading message to refugees and asylum seekers to just rush the border. 



> Now as for Trudeau, I didn't vote for him specifically. We don't vote directly for the PM in Canada but for the party and you know that. Trudeau's too centrist for my tastes, plus I find him overly media-savvy and calculated in his image building. Besides, I'm NDP, not Liberal. I did indirectly vote for him by strategy though, since I went with the local Liberal candidate as a vote against the Conservatives, who had been holding power with a minority of national support via the split on the left.


Trudeau is a complete moron. Let's just agree on that at least.


----------



## JustAName

Headliner said:


> LOL at people still thinking Trump is responsible for these economic numbers. Thanks Obama.
> 
> I thought you guys were smart?


I don't believe for a single solitary second that you believe they are smart (majority), I am fairly certain you expect the opposite and only want to put some salt on it. You would have to be rather blind to think the majority of these guys are, if nothing else, politically smart or coherent. Blind is not a word I would use to describe you.

While I may disagree with you on some things I read here and there on different topics/subjects, generally you have a wider and more rational, fact based perspective of a situation than most people I've seen on this forum.

It's a common thing to see people if they don't agree with an actual fact, claim it to be opinion and agree to disagree. It's fairly obvious most people can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact as is evident in close to 90% of posts I see on here(the forum).

I am kind of left with the feeling that most people think it's an opinion as well that banging your head against a brick wall indefinitely is gonna cause damage and not a fact.


----------



## Miss Sally

I don't know much about the Canada situation involving Haitian immigrants but surely Canada can open it's doors to these people?

It should be vastly easier to get into Canada than the US, especial with Canada's current Government.

Perhaps a working model for immigration reform can done based on a working model provided by Canada itself.

I'd suggest instead of deporting back to country of origin, the US simply deport them to Canada. Perhaps they can show the World how their welfare system and their hospitality can indeed maybe bring about a collectivism in which everyone works for the greater good of one's fellow man.

It's certainly worth exploring!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> It should be vastly easier to get into Canada than the US, especial with Canada's current Government.


It's actually not. Canada's immigration system is brutal and takes up to a year or more for even spouses and children to be allowed to enter. In fact, they refuse to even grant spouses of immigrants/citizens that marry abroad visit visas. 

They prefer to keep families apart or out of Canada rather than allow them to come together. I'm ok with this. I'm just saying that it's part of the double-speak we get from Canadian virtue signalling politicians and the reality. Meanwhile, America has a "limbo" system where while your application is being processed, you're legally allowed to stay with your spouse/fiance while your papers are being processed and then they make you legal through adjustment of status without breaking families apart. And yet America is perceived as xenophobic and anti-immigration :lol 

I have experience in both Canadian and American immigrant systems now. Originally we were planning to move to Canada together ... but it turned out that the American system was far more welcoming and easier. Canada was pretty xenophobic in comparison. Also, no jobs except menial labor. Canadians have a point system where they import doctors and lawyers and make them eligible only for retail, cab driving and janitorial labor because* "You have to have Canadian experience".* My parents, both qualified civil engineers in their prime (mid-40's at the time) had at least 3 dozen rejection letters all of which unanimously claimed "you have to have canadian experience". Meanwhile, of course no one wants to admit that that's ultimately super-xenophobic because no one has ever called them out on their bullshit before. 

Canada's immigration system is at least ten times more broken than America's. They just pretend that it isn't and don't get flak for it because Canadian immigrants are a submissive lot that are afraid to indulge in "canada-bashing" unlike yours truly. They buy their silence by giving them "free" healthcare and "social welfare" while forcing imported doctors, lawyers, engineers and even PhD's to work menial jobs. 

They don't have jobs for their own and they still have open borders. The perception amongst immigrants before they land in Canada is that it's a land of opportunity, but when they get there they realize that the only work that's really available for immigrants are all kinds of menial jobs so overtime most start questioning the reason why they moved in the first place.


----------



## Beatles123

Are we shitting on Canada? That's always fun. :vince 

Weedman can go. 

Dunno why anyone would say Reaper isn't heartfelt. His time living in Canada wasn't good. His living there does not demand he be loyal to a country he feels had screwed him over. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Are we shitting on Canada? That's always fun. :vince
> 
> Weedman can go.
> 
> Dunno why anyone would say Reaper isn't heartfelt. His time living in Canada wasn't good. His living there does not demand he be loyal to a country he feels had screwed him over. :shrug


This is Canada in a nutshell. 
















It's an immigrant child heist. I'm sorry. But that's my impression of it. 

I'm still very patriotic about Canada. If I wasn't, I wouldn't give a fuck about anything that happens there. I'm just fed up with their bullshit always getting a free pass without being called out upon. And I get especially passionate when it's mostly foreigners in here never having anything positive to say about America at all while hiding the flaws in their countries by parading their bullshit "Free" stuff which they don't even want to admit isn't "Free" at all.

My whole family was screwed by Canada. A lot of immigrant stories if you actually read them will read like my family's. Parents moved in their prime. Couldn't find jobs. Commuted to either America or returned to their home countries. Worked horrible menial jobs while the kids went to college and eventually found jobs after 10-15 years of struggle --- basically ending up where their highly qualified parents actually left off instead of moving up the success ladder. 

They want your kids, they don't want you and it's very obvious once you get there and try to look for jobs. 

The same just isn't true in America. Immigrants here are welcome and no one gives a fuck about having "american experience". Canadians literally say to an immigrant's face that "they need canadian experience". It's literally the dumbest thing when you think about it because how the fuck is an immigrant supposed to have experience in the country they just fucking moved to. It's literally them saying that "you should work an odd job and it doesn't matter if you ran a hospital where you're from". It's the ultimate in discrimination practices.

There was a site called Notcanada.com that propped up in the mid2000's that incredibly fought the huge Canadian immigration scam tooth and nail. Unfortunately it was eventually shut down, but its content survives. If you want to see how bad Canada is and how poorly it treats qualified people, you should look up its videos. They're still on youtube.

Part of this Canadian immigrant scam is to get people under their tax net. Basically, if you are a Canadian immigrant and you get a job in America or somewhere else, you still have to pay Canadian tax. So they don't care if you get a job within Canada. They just want you to get a job somewhere so you can pay them tax.


----------



## Miss Sally

Beatles123 said:


> Are we shitting on Canada? That's always fun. :vince
> 
> Weedman can go.
> 
> Dunno why anyone would say Reaper isn't heartfelt. His time living in Canada wasn't good. His living there does not demand he be loyal to a country he feels had screwed him over. :shrug


If you're referring to me too then no, I'm saying that for many of us in the US, Canadian systems of doing things seem vague and or nonsensical since our countries are vastly different.

The US isn't like most Western Countries and location and population size matter.

If Canada wants to be used as a model that it's altruistic way of doing things is legit and not virtue signaling, then it would be worth study. People will be more open to seeing is believing than to preaching without actually following through.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/i...g-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/

:deanfpalm


----------



## AlternateDemise

Oxi X.O. said:


> So what I bolded is what you constitute as so bad that Trump is among the worst presidents in history and contends for the absolute worst with the most actually incompetent president who is blamed for causing the civil war?
> 
> You're aware most politicians tend to promise things and then, well, don't get them done or just can't, right? To compare Aus and the US, at least in the US your president wants to do the things he said he would but he gets voted down. Here they make promises, get in power, and just "forget".


You're ignoring the part where I stated "if Trump completes his four years as President". Trump has shown large amounts of incompetence so far into his presidency, but he hasn't done nearly enough to be on the same platform as the historical fuck up that is James Buchanan. But at this point, I would not be surprised if that ended up being the case three and a half years down the road. 

And yes, I am aware that politicians don't always keep their promises. I don't think there's been a single president in the history of the United States that have kept their promises. But when a good amount of your campaign to become President revolves around those very promises, promises that you claim you can "easily make", and you end up failing miserably in that regard, that's a massive failure on your part. And it's worse that he's continuing to blame others for it, rather than himself, for not only being incapable of making said promises, but for not even having a back up plan in-case he couldn't get it done. He went into his presidency assuming he was going to get a wall built with Mexico paying, he assumed he was going to be able to repeal Obamacare. And he thought these were going to be easy and would be met with little resistence. And that alone should have been a red flag. 

I'm not calling Trump a bad person. If there is one thing he has proven to me so far that I can give him credit for, it's that he truly does care deeply for the American people and wants to make America better. The problem with this is that Trump has spent most of his life having things go his way. He had his own business that he could do his own things with, while meeting very little resistance in the process. He's spent his whole life being used to things going his way. And this is a job where 80% of it consists of people telling you "no". And with him being the oldest person to have ever been elected president, he is at the age where you can't really educate him on shit like this. By that point, he lives under the mindset that what he wants is best. How the hell people thought someone like that was qualified for the job still to this day baffles me, and it probably will until the day I die. 

And by the way, remember that conversation we had a while back in the chatbox involving Hilary Clinton being more qualified for the job because of her past experiences? This is why. Even if she's not the best at it, even if she is flawed, she is at the very least capable of being able to work with others to bring out the best solution possible for both sides. Maybe she's corrupt (quite frankly, I have a hard time believing Trump isn't corrupt), but she's not an idiot. She understands how all of this shit works and what being a President is like. Hell, she was the first lady to a President for eight years. She has a husband who has been through it all and knows what it takes to be in that position. That's a very valuable thing that no president in the countries history would have ever had. 

In short, you said some politicians aren't able to make their promises, or simply can't. In Trump's case, no, he cannot, because he's too incompetent to do so. And that's a problem people should have seen coming, and somehow didn't. If people are going to continue to ignore this, then I guess that's the reason I stopped coming to this thread the first time around.

Edit: And now we're shitting on Canada apparently, which is always a shit ton of fun, but I already stated that I'm not going to continue on with this thread. Oh well, sacrifices must be made (looking to you Trump :cudi)


----------



## Reaper

Must watch. 

None of these Haitian men look anything like refugees at all. Some of them have better clothes than even I do. A Syrian man who speaks Spanish :ha :lmao 

"refugees"

These are corrupt criminals gaming any system that they can. And still getting government aid.

So this Canadian cuck at the end is told that some of these criminal refugees actually had criminal records and he says no I still don't fear for my family. 

Eesh. Canada is going to be the next Sweden.

I really think Trump should campaign for a northern border wall in 2020.


----------



## Cliffy

Trump burying Blumenthal on Twitter:bosque 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/e...overing-clinton-lynch-meeting/article/2630650

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/07/h...count-loretta-lynch-used-as-attorney-general/

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to discover that there are more Democrat public officials who were doing weird shady things with their emails.

I am even more SHOCKED that news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post would collude to try to kill a story unsympathetic to their preferred political side. And were having conversations with DOJ officials in which it seems clear that they were fishing for quotes that would help them in their attempts to do so.

I eagerly await Headliner's harangue about government-media collusion. The last one was lovely.


----------



## Reaper

http://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/

Lefties probably should just not bother reading this one since it's a very complex example and evidence of how the free market _attempts _to correct the wrongs of an industry that is being forced to run off equilibrium market prices. 



> When Art Villa found out, after one too many boating accidents, that he needed a total knee replacement, he began asking around to see how much it would cost. The hospital near his home in Helena, Mont., would charge $40,000 for the procedure, he says. But that didn't include the anesthesiologist's fee, physical therapy or a stay at a rehabilitation center afterward. A 2015 Blue Cross Blue Shield study found that one hospital in Dallas billed $16,772 for a knee replacement while another in the same area charged $61,585.
> 
> It was in the midst of this confounding research that Villa, who's 68, heard about the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, whose business model is different from that of most hospitals. There, the all-inclusive price for every operation is listed on the website. A rotator-cuff repair for the shoulder costs $8,260. A surgical procedure for carpal tunnel syndrome is $2,750. Setting and casting a basic broken leg: $1,925.
> 
> The catch is that the whole facility is cash-based. It doesn't take insurance of any kind. Not Aetna. Not Cigna. Not Medicare or Medicaid. Patients or their employers pay whatever price is listed online, period. There are no negotiated rates, no third-party reimbursements and almost no paperwork. "We say, 'Here's the price. Here's what you're getting. Here's your bill,'" says Keith Smith, who co-founded the Surgery Center in 1997 with fellow anesthesiologist Steven Lantier. "It's as simple as that."
> 
> 
> To Villa, the model seemed refreshingly subversive. The Surgery Center would charge $19,000 for his whole-knee replacement, a discount of nearly 50% on what Villa expected to be charged at his local hospital. And that price would include everything from airfare to the organization's only facility, in Oklahoma City, to medications and physical therapy. If unforeseen complications arose during or after the procedure, the Surgery Center would cover those costs. Villa wouldn't see another bill.
> 
> Sometimes called direct pay, and closely related to concierge care, this sort of business model was once seen as the perquisite of rich folks and medical tourists from foreign lands. But nowadays many of the people seeking cash-based care are middle-class Americans with high-deductible insurance plans. For a patient with an $11,000 family deductible, for example, it might make more sense to seek out a cash-based center like the Premier Medical Imaging facility in Minneapolis, which offers a basic MRI for $499, than to cough up the several thousand dollars that the same procedure generally costs at a traditional hospital. Cash payments don't count toward a patient's deductible, but for some it's worth the gamble.
> 
> Self-insured companies, like the trucking and storage firm where Villa is the chief administrative officer, are also fueling the trend. Because such companies pay their employees' medical bills out of their operating budget, it's in their interest to steer everybody to the cheapest option. Villa, for example, says his decision to go to the Surgery Center saved his company money, since his $19,000 bill is less than it would have been charged, even with a negotiated discount, by a traditional hospital. The Oklahoma state public employees' insurance fund, which covers 183,000 people, recently did similar math. In 2015 it announced a new rule: If patients go to a traditional hospital, they pay their deductible and co-payment. If they go to a cash-based provider that meets the fund's criteria, including the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, they pay nothing at all.
> 
> While no organization keeps track of how many cash-based medical centers have cropped up nationwide in recent years, Smith and Lantier say they've witnessed an explosion. In Oklahoma City alone there are roughly three dozen centers that are all or partly cash based, specializing in everything from radiology to oncology. Texas has two dozen such facilities, and in Torrance, Calif., the Ocean Surgery Center posts many of its prices online. Thousands of cash-based primary-care practices have also sprung up across the country.
> This trend may accelerate nationally. With the Affordable Care Act on the chopping block, many experts expect the free-market model to take off. While congressional Republicans have yet to produce a viable replacement for the Obama Administration's health care law, almost any change is likely to result in more Americans' choosing high-deductible insurance plans, which would help fuel the cash-based marketplace for years to come.
> 
> A few days after Villa's knee-replacement operation was completed on Jan. 17, his daughter captured a video of the happy patient, in headphones, "boogying down the hallway," as he put it, of the Marriott Residence Inn in Oklahoma City, where he stayed for a week and a half to recover. After the surgery a physical therapist and a nurse visited Villa in his hotel room, bearing gifts: an ice machine, pain medication, a thermometer and detailed, hands-on instructions for his recovery, all of which were included in his original bill. "I've really never experienced this quality of care," Villa says.
> 
> There is good reason to think Villa's experience could be the shape of things to come. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order instructing the Department of Health and Human Services to begin weakening Obamacare, while standing by his previous promise that any replacement plan will allow Americans with pre-existing conditions to access affordable insurance.
> 
> To meet these goals, Republican leaders have been targeting a series of reforms that President Obama opposed. They will likely allow insurers to sell across state lines, resulting in the sale of more plans with limited coverage of basic health care or prescription drugs. They will also likely scrap the prohibition on bare-bones, high-deductible "catastrophic" plans and eliminate deductible limits entirely. If the final draft includes all or any combination of those provisions, the result will be many more Americans' signing up for low-premium, high-deductible plans--precisely the type of insurance that has driven the rise of cash-based medicine over the past six years.
> 
> But even without a new Republican system, cash-based care has been growing under Obamacare, which required insurers to provide more-comprehensive coverage and to offer plans to anyone who wanted one. Insurers made up for having to cover a more expensive patient population by getting customers to contribute more out of pocket with higher deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance. While Obamacare imposed limits on how high deductibles could be--$7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family--the out-of-pocket contributions rose for many Americans, turning more patients into price hounds. If you're paying cash for that mole removal anyway, why not find the cheapest dermatologist in town? The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, among the first in the country to post its prices online in 2008, saw an uptick in business after Obamacare. "I guess it's ironic that Obamacare created this market for us," Smith says, with a laugh.
> 
> In the health care world, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma's business model is considered radical, in part because the industry, as it's structured now, doesn't lend itself to price transparency. Providers charge different insurance companies different amounts for the same procedures, and in many cases, insurers' contracts explicitly bar hospitals from publicly disclosing their reimbursement rates. That many regions of the U.S. are now dominated by one hospital chain also creates a monopoly problem: if an insurer wants to offer plans in that area, it's got to accept the hospital's rates. Some providers say it's not possible to set prices in the first place, since medical procedures aren't normal consumer products.
> 
> In arriving at their price list, Smith and Lantier did an end run around the whole system. They asked their fellow doctors how much compensation was expected per procedure, factored in necessary expenses like surgical equipment and medical implants, then tacked on a 10% to 15% profit margin. Since their surgery center does not employ the army of administrators that is often required to haggle with insurers and follow up on Medicare reimbursements, their overhead is smaller. The whole operation is 41 people. "Finding an average price doesn't require complicated math," Smith says. "It's arithmetic." Since posting the price list eight years ago, they've adjusted it twice, both times to lower rates.
> 
> One problem with a free-market, cash-based system of health care is that it promises to work really well for people like Villa, whose companies stand to save money by avoiding traditional hospitals, but less well for others. Without safeguards, it threatens to marginalize the poorest and sickest among us, who could not possibly afford, say, a $19,000 knee replacement without help from an employer, the government or a charity. While Americans tend to accept certain inequities as a reality of capitalism--there are always going to be people who succeed and those who fall behind--we are less comfortable with them when it comes to health care. We don't like the idea of families going bankrupt after a cancer diagnosis or losing coverage after a parent loses a job. In poll after poll Americans of both political parties say they support provisions ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions can access health care.
> 
> Twila Brase, president of the conservative Citizens' Council for Health Freedom and one of the most energetic advocates of free-market-based health care, acknowledges the problem. For a direct-pay system to work, she says, providers must be willing to give away care. "Charity has always been part of the medical practice," she says. (Smith and Lantier say they perform charitable operations, although to avoid being inundated with requests, they don't report details.) Another way to make a free-market-based system work is to increase government safeguards: expand Medicare and Medicaid, compel states to create "high-risk" pools to underwrite coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, or require insurance companies to cover everyone. Which explains in part why replacing Obamacare is so vexing for the GOP: all that sounds a lot like Obamacare.Villa, meanwhile, remains a convert. When he returns to work, he says, he's considering helping his company create financial incentives to steer employees to the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. "Even with airfare and hotel stays," he says, "the savings could be huge."


This isn't a permanent fix, nor will it fix what's broken, but it's just one example of how the inflated cost created an affordability gap which then is now being filled up with one low-cost solution. There can be more, if only the market is allowed to correct itself and the government stops throwing regulations and money at the broken system. There are plenty of other examples out there where the healthcare market is trying to desperately correct itself but you've got too much bloat and vested interests at the moment in forcing the market to keep operating at these ridiculous costs.


----------



## deepelemblues

The fact that such companies can make a profit (the Surgery Center of Oklahoma wouldn't be paying for transportation and post-op rehab if they weren't) while offering prices 1/2 to 1/10th (or smaller) than health care institutions completely immersed in the insurer-government money trough (the biggest in history) goes to show something... everybody involved in the provider-insurer-government industrial complex is fucking price-gouging the hell out of everybody else either out of necessity or out of greed. And they're all gouging the consumer. Which, as socialists love to point out, is everybody. 'Everybody needs health care!'

EDIT EDIT EDITTTT










:mark:

that is some fine southern gauntlet-throwing right there.

:trump administration really starting to reveal its very early re-election strategy :hmmm


----------



## Miss Sally

The Surgery Center of Oklahoma isn't even knew, John Stosel did a report on them a while back and talked about their model.

Quite a few Doctors went cash only after Obamacare and many patients stayed.

It's certainly worth looking.


----------



## samizayn

Guys, I've figured it out.

It's not that Trump has launched a propaganda channel for the sake of it, it's that he's trying to diffuse tensions with North Korea by showing that we're not so different, you and I. Genius as always from the pres.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/894661651760377856

the FUCKING SAVAGERY of this ABSOLUTE MADMAN


----------



## Oxidamus

AlternateDemise said:


> You're ignoring the part where I stated "if Trump completes his four years as President". Trump has shown large amounts of incompetence so far into his presidency, but he hasn't done nearly enough to be on the same platform as the historical fuck up that is James Buchanan. But at this point, I would not be surprised if that ended up being the case three and a half years down the road.
> 
> And yes, I am aware that politicians don't always keep their promises. I don't think there's been a single president in the history of the United States that have kept their promises. But when a good amount of your campaign to become President revolves around those very promises, promises that you claim you can "easily make", and you end up failing miserably in that regard, that's a massive failure on your part. And it's worse that he's continuing to blame others for it, rather than himself, for not only being incapable of making said promises, but for not even having a back up plan in-case he couldn't get it done. He went into his presidency assuming he was going to get a wall built with Mexico paying, he assumed he was going to be able to repeal Obamacare. And he thought these were going to be easy and would be met with little resistence. And that alone should have been a red flag.
> 
> I'm not calling Trump a bad person. If there is one thing he has proven to me so far that I can give him credit for, it's that he truly does care deeply for the American people and wants to make America better. The problem with this is that Trump has spent most of his life having things go his way. He had his own business that he could do his own things with, while meeting very little resistance in the process. He's spent his whole life being used to things going his way. And this is a job where 80% of it consists of people telling you "no". And with him being the oldest person to have ever been elected president, he is at the age where you can't really educate him on shit like this. By that point, he lives under the mindset that what he wants is best. How the hell people thought someone like that was qualified for the job still to this day baffles me, and it probably will until the day I die.
> 
> And by the way, remember that conversation we had a while back in the chatbox involving Hilary Clinton being more qualified for the job because of her past experiences? This is why. Even if she's not the best at it, even if she is flawed, she is at the very least capable of being able to work with others to bring out the best solution possible for both sides. Maybe she's corrupt (quite frankly, I have a hard time believing Trump isn't corrupt), but she's not an idiot. She understands how all of this shit works and what being a President is like. Hell, she was the first lady to a President for eight years. She has a husband who has been through it all and knows what it takes to be in that position. That's a very valuable thing that no president in the countries history would have ever had.
> 
> In short, you said some politicians aren't able to make their promises, or simply can't. In Trump's case, no, he cannot, because he's too incompetent to do so. And that's a problem people should have seen coming, and somehow didn't. If people are going to continue to ignore this, then I guess that's the reason I stopped coming to this thread the first time around.
> 
> Edit: And now we're shitting on Canada apparently, which is always a shit ton of fun, but I already stated that I'm not going to continue on with this thread. Oh well, sacrifices must be made (looking to you Trump :cudi)


You can't predict the future though. So making such a statement so quickly is only foolish. Not to mention it's fairly clear that he hasn't actually done any particularly bad things as president so far, so you're basing your skepticism off of... what, exactly? Incompetence? Maybe, but even if he is as incompetent as you say, what bad has it actually done thus far?

You can't say "_I don't really have an example of something really bad, but I expect there to be something really bad in the near future._" and expect it to be some kind of logical stance when there's nothing but skepticism to back it up.

Regarding Trump's promises, I really haven't kept up as much as everyone else here - unsurprisingly - but from my understanding he has done everything he has promised to do. With the exception of actually being able to get others to vote on the proposed changes. Everything he promised, he has proposed to change as leader. The thing is, it's not exactly his fault if he promises to change X and then the democratic party be pissy-pants and completely oppose it because REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST or whatever nonsense reasoning they may have to do so. Which by the way is not out of the realm of realism to assume one of their reasons to oppose Trump is to make him look worse.

I imagine Trump as a multi-billionaire businessman has been told no more times than you or I have been told no. Just because he's successful doesn't mean he hasn't had to endure tonnes and tonnes of lost opportunities or failed projects (which he clearly has) and what have you.


You say Trump is at an age where you can't educate someone but you've been constantly misrepresenting my point regarding Trump and Hillary's level of "qualification" for almost a year because you just don't get it.

You say Trump isn't qualified and Hillary is... I always agreed. But I also said you'd have to define "qualified" because being "qualified" to be a politician is *exactly what a lot of people consider to be the problem*.

It's a problem here, too, so don't think like a lot of the other Americans and be like "_WTF you're not even from here how do you know???_".

Your qualifications as a politician only mean to continue the status quo. Trump was supported primarily because he did not succumb to political status quo. That's literally the entire argument. Corruption, conspiracies, incompetence aside. It all has to do with what defines political qualification, and how an increasing number of people during the election drives did not like what defined it.


----------



## Vic Capri

Canada works on a bullshit points system. If you're not a doctor, lawyer, business owner, don't have years of experience as a manager, or can't speak French, don't bother wasting your time trying to become a citizen.

And don't lie, Border Patrol will snoop through your phone and e-mails.﻿

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Canada works on a bullshit points system. If you're not a doctor, lawyer, business owner, don't have years of experience as a manager, or can't speak French, don't bother wasting your time trying to become a citizen.
> 
> And don't lie, Border Patrol will snoop through your phone and e-mails.﻿
> 
> - Vic


And they don't have any jobs for these experienced professionals. 

Like I stated earlier they simply want to increase their population because of this debunked idea that western population is in decline. 

The more conspiratorial view is that they want people to live in Canada and work in America so they can pay Canadian taxes on American incomes. It's a great tax and baby heist. 

Probably a formalized form of human trafficking. Like where the mafia boss holds your baby and wife hostage under threat of starvation so you have little to no choice but to accept the worst jobs available that other Canadians aren't doing because they choose welfare over working as janitors. 

The Canadian PM is a human trafficking pimp.


----------



## BruiserKC

Washington Post reports that North Korea now has a miniaturized warhead that can now be fitted onto a missile. The rhetoric from Pyongyang is now getting even scarier. Apparently their nuclear program is now much further along than expected. 

For all of you MIC conspiracy theorists out there, we might be running out of options to deal with this diplomatically. While war is a final option, that may change rather quickly. This is a true test of Trump right here.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Washington Post reports that North Korea now has a miniaturized warhead that can now be fitted onto a missile. The rhetoric from Pyongyang is now getting even scarier. Apparently their nuclear program is now much further along than expected.
> 
> For all of you MIC conspiracy theorists out there, we might be running out of options to deal with this diplomatically. While war is a final option, that may change rather quickly. This is a true test of Trump right here.


I think this qualifies as self-defense.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Washington Post reports that North Korea now has a miniaturized warhead that can now be fitted onto a missile. The rhetoric from Pyongyang is now getting even scarier. Apparently their nuclear program is now much further along than expected.
> 
> For all of you MIC conspiracy theorists out there, we might be running out of options to deal with this diplomatically. While war is a final option, that may change rather quickly. This is a true test of Trump right here.


Not a fan. But as CP pointed out, if NK starts getting increasingly aggressive then yeah, it's a violation of peace and can be dealt with. 

Also, I've never been one to keep peace with a shithole like NK. If there is one country where America really needs to deliver "freedom" then that's the country. Several future generations will be saved and the best part is that SK has been making reunification plans for decades. 

There will be no terrorist fallout after those people are freed from their shackles and discover just how far the world has left them behind. There is no ideological/religious cancer that keeps us and them perpetual enemies. The fallout will be short and the recovery swift. That is really the one place where regime change is morally and logically justifiable.

It remains to be seen how China will react however and that's been NK's trump card for decades as well. Can't just move in without China's support or declaration of neutrality.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> And they don't have any jobs for these experienced professionals.
> 
> Like I stated earlier they simply want to increase their population because of this debunked idea that western population is in decline.
> 
> The more conspiratorial view is that they want people to live in Canada and work in America so they can pay Canadian taxes on American incomes. It's a great tax and baby heist.
> 
> Probably a formalized form of human trafficking. Like where the mafia boss holds your baby and wife hostage under threat of starvation so you have little to no choice but to accept the worst jobs available that other Canadians aren't doing because they choose welfare over working as janitors.
> 
> The Canadian PM is a human trafficking pimp.


Where I worked there was a security guard who is an immigrant from India. Back in his home country he was actually a doctor. A Filipino man who works as a cleaner was actually a politician and ran for Mayor in his home town . They both moved for their families. Now, I'm not sure how much they were making or how well their lives were in their home land, but it is surprising who you may find doing those immigrant jobs that people will pass up doing. You'd be surprised at what some people can live off using the governments help in Canada


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Where I worked there was a security guard who is an immigrant from India. Back in his home country he was actually a doctor. A Filipino man who works as a cleaner was actually a politician and ran for Mayor in his home town . They both moved for their families. Now, I'm not sure how much they were making or how well their lives were in their home land, but it is surprising who you may find doing those immigrant jobs that people will pass up doing. You'd be surprised at what some people can live off using the governments help in Canada


India is catching up to the west really, really fast. A doctor in India would definitely make more than a security guard in Canada. He'd have a more respectable life and his children will go to private schools and good colleges. 

I don't know about the filipino, but if he was running for mayor and afforded the move to Canada then he was very well off. 

The other thing that Canadians don't tell you is that they have a financial limit that you also have to meet even if you're qualifying as a professional. Basically, you have to show financial liquidity of 1-2 years of being able to live off of savings ... which when you really think about basically means that Canada literally just wants your babies and your money and have found a very unique way to get your money from foreign banks into their economy. No one moves to Canada with less than 20-30 grand which for many people is their entire life's savings till that point. 

You have to declare financial assets of at least 1-3 years worth of being able to live off savings when you come to Canada). 



Spoiler: How much money canada wants you to transfer















Canada immigration is human trafficking, a financial scam to force foreigners to transfer their savings into the canadian economy, and a way to get incredibly cheap and dedicated labor as well as have children to hold hostage. It's kind of like how cults operate too. They know that most immigrants will eventually leave out of frustration eventually, which is why they need fresh blood coming in every year and they keep adding their children to their cult and tax net. They use up the savings of the fathers and then tax the children. And convince the immigrants that it's for their benefit. 

Perfect heist. 

People are fools for moving there and I pity all the fools who fall for what is one of the biggest immigration scams of the century.


----------



## BRITLAND

> Breaking News: Donald Trump threatens North Korea with "fire and fury" amid reports it has made nuclear weapon advance


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40869319


















Absolutely happening!:
http://imgur.com/tjfPTaR


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Not a fan. But as CP pointed out, if NK starts getting increasingly aggressive then yeah, it's a violation of peace and can be dealt with.
> 
> Also, I've never been one to keep peace with a shithole like NK. If there is one country where America really needs to deliver "freedom" then that's the country. Several future generations will be saved and the best part is that SK has been making reunification plans for decades.
> 
> There will be no terrorist fallout after those people are freed from their shackles and discover just how far the world has left them behind. There is no ideological/religious cancer that keeps us and them perpetual enemies. The fallout will be short and the recovery swift. That is really the one place where regime change is morally and logically justifiable.
> 
> It remains to be seen how China will react however and that's been NK's trump card for decades as well. Can't just move in without China's support or declaration of neutrality.


True...a vote for sanctions against NK in the UN Security Council is one thing...it's different to get them to be on board with military action and either join us or sit this dance out. Especially the fallout of millions of refugees poring into China if there is military action. 

Trump now has an opportunity to be the leader for all Americans. Even his harshest critics are going to look to him to be a strong leader. Hopefully he will stand on the world stage and follow through.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> India is catching up to the west really, really fast. A doctor in India would definitely make more than a security guard in Canada. He'd have a more respectable life and his children will go to private schools and good colleges.
> 
> I don't know about the filipino, but if he was running for mayor and afforded the move to Canada then he was very well off.
> 
> The other thing that Canadians don't tell you is that they have a financial limit that you also have to meet even if you're qualifying as a professional. Basically, you have to show financial liquidity of 1-2 years of being able to live off of savings ... which when you really think about basically means that Canada literally just wants your babies and your money and have found a very unique way to get your money from foreign banks into their economy. No one moves to Canada with less than 20-30 grand which for many people is their entire life's savings till that point.
> 
> You have to declare financial assets of at least 1-3 years worth of being able to live off savings when you come to Canada).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: How much money canada wants you to transfer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada immigration is human trafficking, a financial scam to force foreigners to transfer their savings into the canadian economy, and a way to get incredibly cheap and dedicated labor as well as have children to hold hostage. It's kind of like how cults operate too. They know that most immigrants will eventually leave out of frustration eventually, which is why they need fresh blood coming in every year and they keep adding their children to their cult and tax net. They use up the savings of the fathers and then tax the children. And convince the immigrants that it's for their benefit.
> 
> Perfect heist.
> 
> People are fools for moving there and I pity all the fools who fall for what is one of the biggest immigration scams of the century.


My uncle went through a long arduous and expensive process to immigrate here after he was deported . My grandmother spent at least 20k in fees over like 4-5 year period. He had to move back to Portugal on two separate occasions to wait for paperwork that would last at least 10 months. I don't recall how much money he had to show he had though but I do remember needing a few thousand dollars to put into a bank. While I agree with some aspects of the immigration process, some of it does seem pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> My uncle went through a long arduous and expensive process to immigrate here after he was deported . My grandmother spent at least 20k in fees over like 4-5 year period. He had to move back to Portugal on two separate occasions to wait for paperwork that would last at least 10 months. I don't recall how much money he had to show he had though but I do remember needing a few thousand dollars to put into a bank. While I agree with some aspects of the immigration process, some of it does seem pretty ridiculous.


Yeah. It's absolutely ridiculous and what they're basically doing is is portraying themselves as a first world country when honestly speaking I would say that they are barely first world. 

Canada brings in 250k immigrants annually --- supposedly (because no one really knows the actual number that comes in) and their population does not grow rapidly meaning that there is also a huge outflow of immigrants as well who basically just leave after giving up and spending at least 20k+ before leaving. 

So if they have an inflow of 250k immigrants annually - each spending at least 20k, that's 5 billion taxable "free money" brought into the economy to spread around on just the marketing gimmicks they use to hoodwink people to migrate. A lot of this money goes into "licensing" where pretty much every profession is so UNIQUE in Canada that you cannot do anything without bringing it up to "CANADIAN" standards (another HUGE scam) :lmao 

There are definitely success stories. I'm not saying that everyone goes through shit and that life is a living hell for every single immigrant. But that unfortunately is crippled by the concept of "tradeoffs" where immigrants are already demure about having expectations and literally don't speak up about the hardships and indignity they have to bear. 

The real marketing gimmick here is their "free" healthcare and "Free" education ... but most people coming in are not financially competent enough to realize that the tax burden in Canada is also crippling ensuring that no one breaks out of the working or middle class unless they get a serious opportunity. Everyone is expected to live the socialist dream of "as long as you're alive, you should be happy" and wanting more money is frowned upon culturally as over time they brainwash you and your children to be perfect little compliant socialists...


----------



## GothicBohemian

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Trump? You know, the president who more or less threatened nuclear war with North Korea? Why are a couple of you still going on about pet theories concerning Canadian immigration? Nobody cares enough to fight with you about it Reaper, including me.

The Canada you describe in your posts bears no resemblance to the one I live in. Mind you. I've only lived in BC, Quebec, Nova Scotia and, currently, New Brunswick so perhaps these four provinces are quite different from other areas.


----------



## Reaper

Why would it. You didn't experience life as an immigrant so sure your experience would be closer to my friends. The reason why I bring up the horrendous canadian immigration system is because America is trying to make a similar point-based immigration system and I'm providing personal experience as well as the experience of thousands of canadian immigrants who were robbed by this so-called point-based system that Americans are trying to copy right now. Without knowing the facts that have been obscured and lost in the Canadian system where immigrants are voiceless, we are going to end up making the same kind of sub-human robot class that exists in Canada with more burdened social welfare programs. 

Hopefully, when and if ours does get implemented, it won't be as broken as Canada's. 

Anyways, sure - back to Trump because apparently point-based immigration systems and their fallout isn't relevant :CENA


----------



## Blackbeard

> *They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before*


:woah


----------



## blackholeson

*It has begun. The end is near people.*


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reaper said:


> Why would it. You didn't experience life as an immigrant so sure your experience would be closer to my friends. The reason why I bring up the horrendous canadian immigration system is because America is trying to make a similar point-based immigration system and I'm providing personal experience as well as the experience of thousands of canadian immigrants who were robbed by this so-called point-based system that Americans are trying to copy right now. Without knowing the facts that have been obscured and lost in the Canadian system where immigrants are voiceless, we are going to end up making the same kind of sub-human robot class that exists in Canada with more burdened social welfare programs.
> 
> Hopefully, when and if ours does get implemented, it won't be as broken as Canada's.
> 
> Anyways, sure - back to Trump because apparently point-based immigration systems and their fallout isn't relevant :CENA



"immigrants are voiceless"
"sub-human robot class"

Think you can you make that a little bit more hyperbolic? 

You assume I have no connection to anyone who is either an immigrant or the child of immigrants. That's not true. There are several important people in my life who are not originally Canadian, including a family member. 

I'm involved with my local multicultural association and one of our tasks is helping new immigrants settle in, figure out which credentials they need to re-certify or expand, enrol in language training when needed, find work and generally integrate with their new community. I don't live in a bubble of nothing but five-or-more generation Canadians. I'm well aware of how difficult it is to move between countries and become part of a different culture. I've also been an immigrant of sorts myself, having lived in the US with my then partner. I couldn't legally work the way I wanted and I found it challenging, just as anyone else would.

And hey, if you want to call any Canadians "voiceless", there's First Nations women. You know, the ones who go missing or are murdered and the police have zero fucks to give? But nah, I wouldn't even say we're voiceless, just a little ignored. 

But about Trump:

_It is a tale.
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, (and a little fire and power the likes of which this world has never seen before)
Signifying nothing._

Or I hope it signifies nothing, seeing as he's posturing against an unstable nutter. Until Trump Twitters his fire and fury I'm gonna assume he's not up to anything official yet. I damn well hope he isn't. I don't especially want to die, though a post-apocalyptic world world will probably have a Thunderdome, and that'd be kind of cool.


----------



## amhlilhaus

blackholeson said:


> *It has begun. The end is near people.*


Thank clinton for it


----------



## Dr. Middy

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/everything-need-know-raise-act-without-reading/

So what are people thoughts on this RAISE Act? I mean, I don't really see legal immigration as being that much of an issue right now, although overall illegal immigration is down, I think it makes more sense for Trump to focus on that aspect first, especially the whole sanctuary city idea. I'd rather him worry about having illegal immigrants that might be criminals hiding in big cities like Los Angeles instead of the random person who files all their paperwork correctly and timely, and has proof of an actual reason for coming (say family, work, etc.)

With the act though, I do like getting rid of of the so called "Diversity Lottery Visas." I see no real reason to handout a ton of visas to countries that don't send many immigrants to the US, seems to be that it only encourages those countries to send immigrants that really aren't necessary. Also like the refugee thing, I mean everybody and their uncle has seen what's been going on recently, and taking in less refugees seems like a decent solution for the time being until proper measures are taken to weed out the possible terrorists or ISIS sympathizes to the best of our ability. 

However, not a fan of the idea of eliminating sponsor visas for extended family, mostly because I can't see the reason to decline most members of an otherwise stable family should somebody like a mother have to immigrant. And the points thing seems way too rigid, and really only favors if you happen to be really skilled at something. Not everybody from another country is going to be a doctor well versed in english with a master's degree. Seems like it just gives the finger to less skilled immigrants who do everything right when applying to be an immigrant of the country, but just happen to not be at the level of others. Why shouldn't an older immigrant who didn't get the chance to have a good education, but works hard, be denied immigration for no particular reason? 

It's a decent idea, but I doubt this really goes anywhere in the long run.

Oh and speaking of illegal immigration, Trump's doing well on that front. 

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017...on-crackdown-leads-higher-construction-wages/



> President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is already having a positive impact on American workers through increased wages in the construction industry.
> In a new report by Fox News, Texas construction companies admitted that Trump’s increased enforcement of immigration was forcing them to pay higher wages to U.S. construction workers.
> 
> Fox News reported:
> *
> “Half of the workers in construction in Texas are undocumented,” [Stan Marek, CEO of Marek Construction] said. “We do hear that there are a lot of undocumented workers that are leaving the state, going to other states that don’t have the anti-immigrant sentiment and many of them are going back to Mexico.”
> 
> Ted Wilson with Residential Strategies, Inc. has run the numbers.
> 
> “We’ve seen direct construction costs climb by over 30 percent,” Wilson said, “and a lot of that is directly attributed to what builders are having to pay their subs and trades in wages.”
> 
> Meaning, with so few workers out there, construction companies have had to pay more to attract them, which adds to the cost of a home.*
> 
> The big business lobby and CEOs have long criticized Trump’s immigration crackdown, primarily because their businesses have a direct interest in keeping the pipeline of low-skilled foreign workers coming to the U.S. to drive down the cost of American wages.
> 
> Trump’s most recent endorsement of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) RAISE Act, which would cut legal immigration in half in order to drive up the wages of U.S. workers, has shown a renewed commitment to the economic nationalist agenda that propelled his election.
> 
> Under the RAISE Act, overall legal immigration in the first year would be reduced by 41 percent and in 10 years, immigration would be reduced to 50 percent. It would also prioritize legal immigrants who can speak English and have skills needed for the current U.S. economy.


It's good to have positive news here and there


----------



## Oxidamus

In response to this Canada immigration deal, we have a similar process and in my utter ignorance of it I would say economic migrants have it pretty good.

In response to North Korea I honestly don't think China give a shit about NK.


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> In response to this Canada immigration deal, we have a similar process and in my utter ignorance of it I would say economic migrants have it pretty good.
> 
> In response to North Korea I honestly don't think China give a shit about NK.


You guys are fine because I believe that there just can't be that many roadblocks as there are in Canada because most Canadian road-blocks are simply illogical. 

Do economic migrants receive rejection letters that say "you have to have Australian experience"? Because in Canada they send those letters to people who've only been in Canada a few months. 

I also believe that there isn't a huge network of lawyers and "immigration consultants" that are profiting off this business like they are with Canadian immigration where lawyers literally do not tell migrants that every profession in Canada requires special Canadian licensing and qualifications to practice medicine for example ... because apparently science in Canada is different than science in other countries :lol Or maybe it's worse. Maybe in Canada it's a product of a massive sense of superiority complex that migrant qualifications are inferior to Canadian qualifications innately. 

There is so much wrong in Canada's immigration program that I can't even begin to address all of it.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> You guys are fine because I believe that there just can't be that many roadblocks as there are in Canada because most Canadian road-blocks are simply illogical.
> 
> Do economic migrants receive rejection letters that say "you have to have Australian experience"? Because in Canada they send those letters to people who've only been in Canada a few months.
> 
> I also believe that there isn't a huge network of lawyers and "immigration consultants" that are profiting off this business like they are with Canadian immigration where lawyers literally do not tell migrants that every profession in Canada requires special Canadian licensing and qualifications to practice because .. ya know ... an Aussie body on the inside is different than an Indian body so surgeons who've been practicing for decades have to become doctors all over again?
> 
> Do they do this in Australia? If not, then they're doing it right.


Our current government want to put a bit more strain on the process in the sense that immigrants need to be able to show they will learn English and assimilate better but I don't think even then they'd get some letter saying they're not Australian enough or whatever. :mj4

Idk about doctors but I doubt it. Like the vast majority of GPs in Aus are foreign so they must get fast-tracked in some sense.

You do come off a little crazy here with this sounding like a big conspiracy though. :mj


----------



## Stinger Fan

GothicBohemian said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about Trump? You know, the president who more or less threatened nuclear war with North Korea? Why are a couple of you still going on about pet theories concerning Canadian immigration? Nobody cares enough to fight with you about it Reaper, including me.
> 
> The Canada you describe in your posts bears no resemblance to the one I live in. Mind you. I've only lived in BC, Quebec, Nova Scotia and, currently, New Brunswick so perhaps these four provinces are quite different from other areas.


To be fair, its really a politics thread Trump just happens to be the US president which is kind of why its named after him


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> You do come off a little crazy here with this sounding like a big conspiracy though. :mj


Obviously I don't think it's a massive conspiracy. That's why I said that it's conspiratorial thinking. Duh. 

However, none of what I'm saying about immigrants finding work well below their qualifications is untrue and people getting hundreds of letters saying that employers won't hire them without Canadian experience (which is just a load of bullocks to say to someone who just entered the country) and immigration lawyers lying and Canadians having their overly contrived standards that make these same professionals unqualified soon as they enter the country are lies or exaggerations at all. 

I understand lawyers needing to brush up on local law and passing exams, but forcing engineers, doctors, and teachers, plumbers, mechanical engineers and electricians etc to go through years worth of re-qualification processes is completely batshit insane. 

When my hyperbolies are obvious, then that's what they are. However, what I'm saying about how practically the system is broken and in what ways with specifics isn't.










These numbers are staggeringly high and they're as old as 2004. Things were this bad throughout the 90's as well and they're still just as bad.

America is in danger of creating this sub-human highly qualified, low-income class if we follow the Canadian model. A point system is not a solution. It creates a whole series of unintended consequences, discrmination, professional protectionism etc etc.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Obviously I don't think it's a massive conspiracy. That's why I said that it's conspiratorial thinking. Duh.
> 
> However, none of what I'm saying about immigrants finding work well below their qualifications is untrue and people getting hundreds of letters saying that employers won't hire them without Canadian experience (which is just a load of bullocks to say to someone who just entered the country) and immigration lawyers lying and Canadians having their overly contrived standards that make these same professionals unqualified soon as they enter the country are lies or exaggerations at all.
> 
> I understand lawyers needing to brush up on local law and passing exams, but forcing engineers, doctors, and teachers, plumbers, mechanical engineers and electricians etc to go through years worth of re-qualification processes is completely batshit insane.
> 
> When my hyperbolies are obvious, then that's what they are. However, what I'm saying about how practically the system is broken and in what ways with specifics isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers are staggeringly high and they're as old as 2004. Things were this bad throughout the 90's as well and they're still just as bad.
> 
> America is in danger of creating this sub-human highly qualified, low-income class if we follow the Canadian model. A point system is not a solution. It creates a whole series of unintended consequences, discrmination, professional protectionism etc etc.


Okay well you've cleared it up, nothing in this post is outrageous at all. I figured this is basically normal. Like maybe in the 90s that was a bit of a problem but today? Nah man, why do you care about the employment plight of immigrants when the same things happens to university graduates born in the country? All across the west uni grads have trouble finding work, heaps take low-paying jobs that have nothing to do with their degree. Maybe there are more immigrants who have to do that, sure, I don't know the numbers but that seems likely... but why are they entitled to it?

Or is the problem the false perception that they are entitled to equal treatment, which is pushed by society and government, when they aren't, and that's why it's a scam?


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> Or is the problem the false perception that they are entitled to equal treatment, which is pushed by society and government, when they aren't, and that's why it's a scam?


The problem is an open door policy and an unscientific approach to immigration in the first place consistently creating hardship when that hardship simply need not exist. 

You fix your own problems instead of importing more problems. As Ghotic points out, what about the Canadian First Nations' Women? 

And as you said, what about local graduates not finding jobs. 

EXACTLY. 

What about solving those problems and closing the borders till those problems are sorted out instead of importing even more problems that cause even more problems. 

This isn't xenophobia. This is simply making sure you have your priorities straight. 

What is the point of the point system if it results in professional protectionism, discrimination, low living standards and an overburdened economy. Close the borders and import fewer people ---- 

Or simply just import janitors and laborers like they do in the Middle East on temporary work permits and let them make money that they can send home instead of resettling their entire families. You don't need to import doctors and lawyers and engineers and teachers when the only jobs you have available are menial. Just import only those people that will happily work those kinds of jobs ... This is the model they follow to near perfection within the middle east and it works out great because it helps the labor class in third world countries move up the social ladder instead of down.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> The problem is an open door policy and an unscientific approach to immigration in the first place consistently creating hardship when that hardship simply need not exist.
> 
> You fix your own problems instead of importing more problems. As Ghotic points out, what about the Canadian First Nations' Women?
> 
> And as you said, what about local graduates not finding jobs.
> 
> EXACTLY.
> 
> What about solving those problems and closing the borders till those problems are sorted out instead of importing even more problems that cause even more problems.
> 
> This isn't xenophobia. This is simply making sure you have your priorities straight.
> 
> What is the point of the point system if it results in professional protectionism, discrimination, low living standards and an overburdened economy. Close the borders and import fewer people ----
> 
> Or simply just import janitors and laborers like they do in the Middle East on temporary work permits and let them make money that they can send home instead of resettling their entire families. You don't need to import doctors and lawyers and engineers and teachers when the only jobs you have available are menial. Just import only those people that will happily work those kinds of jobs ... This is the model they follow to near perfection within the middle east and it works out great because it helps the labor class in third world countries move up the social ladder instead of down.


Alright, I get ya and I agree. :ayoade

There's fair proposition to reduce our intake of refugees and immigrants because not only can our economy not keep up, Australia will probably run out of drinkable water in some decades if we bring in too many too fast. :lmao

We kind of have a similar problem with our intake because we have tonnes of people held in offshore centres and there is always awful treatment of human beings being reported.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> I also believe that there isn't a huge network of lawyers and "immigration consultants" that are profiting off this business like they are with Canadian immigration where lawyers literally do not tell migrants that every profession in Canada requires special Canadian licensing and qualifications to practice medicine for example ... because apparently science in Canada is different than science in other countries :lol Or maybe it's worse. Maybe in Canada it's a product of a massive sense of superiority complex that migrant qualifications are inferior to Canadian qualifications innately.


I can confirm all this is true of Australia. For example if I want to practice as a lawyer in the UK I have to do a 3 month course, if a UK lawyer wants to practice they have to do 2 years of courses minimum. 

That said, that's mainly because they don't have a constitution and its hard to understand our system without understanding how constitutions work.


----------



## Draykorinee

Surely there's a better way for Trump and Kim to sort out who has the worst haircut than with a nuclear war?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I can confirm all this is true of Australia. For example if I want to practice as a lawyer in the UK I have to do a 3 month course, if a UK lawyer wants to practice they have to do 2 years of courses minimum.
> 
> That said, that's mainly because they don't have a constitution and its hard to understand our system without understanding how constitutions work.


Your annual intake _currently _is at 190k total with only 68% of that being skilled and 32% being marital sponsorships. That means you guys don't know the skills or care about the skills of 60K people ... That to me is still a very high number for a country with a real unemployment and underemployment rate of around 20%. Even the US limits marriage visas to about 25-40k in a given year. 

Intake numbers should depend on available employment and no other factors. Unless you guys are churning out individuals who are completely unemployable, I think this number is still too high and also contributing to the further unemployability of locals. 

When people say "immigrants are taking our jobs", it's based on a real fear and state of society. 

Again, my point is - if you must have foreign labor then simply invite that labor which is needed in trades that have high turnover or skills that simply don't exist in your society and then give them on the job training and let them get up to speed while they're still employed in low-impact positions in their skilled fields :Shrug ... 

Why take in lawyers and doctors and engineers when even local professionals are struggling to find work in those fields? Canada has this completely wrong - am not sure about you guys, but even if it isn't bad now, with the current inflow it's going to keep getting worse.


----------



## Oxidamus

If @Alkomesh2 starts to say that the immigrants aren't taking our jobs... :subban2


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> I also believe that there isn't a huge network of lawyers and "immigration consultants" that are profiting off this business like they are with Canadian immigration where lawyers literally do not tell migrants that every profession in Canada requires special Canadian licensing and qualifications to practice medicine for example ... because apparently science in Canada is different than science in other countries :lol Or maybe it's worse. Maybe in Canada it's a product of a massive sense of superiority complex that migrant qualifications are inferior to Canadian qualifications innately.
> 
> There is so much wrong in Canada's immigration program that I can't even begin to address all of it.


The thing with immigration lawyers...sometimes they'll take your money and not help you. Going back to my uncle's story, my family had to change lawyers because they stopped helping us and kept asking for more money, and they are one of the biggest firms for Portuguese immigration. They even stopped responding to us which forced us to switch lawyers. Which they actually did their job and did so in a rather quick fashion, even they were annoyed that things were basically stalled because the process wasn't that far off from being complete


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> If @Alkomesh2 starts to say that the immigrants aren't taking our jobs... :subban2


I'm dead against the extension of temporary 457 Visas (or have the liberals renamed them?) to non skilled jobs which the liberals did when first getting in. We need immigration because have too many old people on pensions and not enough young people paying tax if not for immigration. 

Our unemployment rate is 5.6% btw reaper.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> The thing with immigration lawyers...sometimes they'll take your money and not help you. Going back to my uncle's story, my family had to change lawyers because they stopped helping us and kept asking for more money, and they are one of the biggest firms for Portuguese immigration. They even stopped responding to us which forced us to switch lawyers. Which they actually did their job and did so in a rather quick fashion, even they were annoyed that things were basically stalled because the process wasn't that far off from being complete


My brother paid something like Rs 400,000- Rs. 1,000,000 ($4,000 - 10,000) for the filing of the paperwork of his wife to an immigration lawyer because Canada heavily recommends filing paperwork through lawyers. Their paper-work is also complicated in that a laywer is sometimes needed - even for the most educated because people fear that they need to cover all bases in case of potential disqualification through clerical error. Meanwhile my wife and I filled our own applications for the US system and there was plenty of room for making errors and correcting them. It was so laid back that I was surprised as fuck. 

Also at the same time, our newspapers are filled with advertisements placed by immigration consultants. I'll post a few examples here. 














































None of these ads mention ANYTHING about needing to update your qualification and all of them give the impression that if you worked as an engineer in pakistan or india, you'll get to work as one in Canada. It just doesn't happen. There are also "consultants" that will open up bank accounts for you and temporarily deposit the minimum required in your accounts so that it seems like you have money when it's not your money to the CDN Government. 

The last ad is interesting because apparently the salary for an immigration consultant in Pakistan is $200 USD / month :lmao That's as much as maid gets in Florida for a single deep clean of the house. So can you imagine the moral ethos and actual qualification of such a person. 

It's a huge industry in South Asia and now China and western nations are simply not catching onto the fact that they're being flooded with people who are TRAINED to game their system. 

So it's partly the fault of the laid back approach of the Canadian government combined with an entire industry that's developed around it in foreign countries. 

You guys don't have a chance till you close your borders - at least temporarily to get a handle on things.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm dead against the extension of temporary 457 Visas (or have the liberals renamed them?) to non skilled jobs which the liberals did when first getting in. We need immigration because have too many old people on pensions and not enough young people paying tax if not for immigration.
> 
> Our unemployment rate is 5.6% btw reaper.


That's good. :side:
Skilled immigration yes. :side:

Our unemployment rate is higher than reported because of sneaky little things they use to define 'employed', same with the US and the UK. Also we have among the highest if not _the_ (I heard it mentioned but not cited) highest casualised workforce in the world. Never forget those things.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Our unemployment rate is 5.6% btw reaper.


That's why I said unemployed and under-employed. Under-employed should be included in this discussion in particular because the immigration is point and skill-based so if skilled workers are under-employed then why are people not hiring internally and hiring foreign workers instead? It's only exacerbating the problem for local skilled workers. 

Yes, there is a situation of personal responsibility here as well - but the skill gap that's touted to push the immigration agenda could also very well be a myth in that skilled workers are stuck in jobs they're over-qualified for. There should be a co-current push by the government to encourage locals to get into specific trades and re-train themselves instead of the short-cut of importing workers because eventually without retraining your own population, people born in Australia will have fewer and fewer opportunities.


----------



## Miss Sally

So much gloom and doom!

So people were saying the US shouldn't have better relations with Russia, despite being a Super Power.. despite having the opportunity to possibly work with them.. no they're EVIL! We should sanction them! Lots of xenophobic rhetoric coming from the very people spouting "One Love" horse shit.

But no, this is the end right here.. this North Korea thing.. not pissing off the Russians.. No it's going to be NK.. a shit stain on the map that's not a huge threat, that's the one!

Give me a break. 

No matter who was President they were going to have to deal with NK at some point. That President would be tough on them too.

This isn't the end of anything.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> That's why I said unemployed and under-employed. Under-employed should be included in this discussion in particular because the immigration is point and skill-based so if skilled workers are under-employed then why are people not hiring internally and hiring foreign workers instead? It's only exacerbating the problem for local skilled workers.


I wrote that before you'd edited your post from 15% unemployment to 20% underemployment and unemployment. 

Also the US underemployment and unemployment rate is 18%.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I wrote that before you'd edited your post from 15% unemployment to 20% underemployment and unemployment.
> 
> Also the US underemployment and unemployment rate is 18%.


Yes because I figured I'd have to be specific because you lot like to get caught up in specifics instead of doing the research for where the numbers come from yourselves. The assumption here is that the other person is just plain wrong instead of trying to figure out where the number came from because these aren't discussions, but rather a series of gotcha moments. It's annoying. 

The US rate is a problem as well. I don't even know what you're trying to say now because the whole point of my last dozen or so posts IS that US is making a mistake introducing a point-based system.

All metrics eventually point to the same thing - uncontrolled annualized immigration is a terrible idea.


----------



## Oxidamus

The US definitely has a lot more illegal work going around, from cash-in-hand gardening to dealing drugs. The fact that the US has a lower un+underemployment rate than Australia is honestly amazing. Also that link you posted @Reaper cites stats that I've cited before, probably here too.


----------



## yeahbaby!




----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895597450810892288

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895615100316508160

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895598436992647168
"We gave them nuclear reactors and free fuel .... Do you wanna do something when they have their nukes pointed at us ... He better do something now" - Trump 1994

Prophetic.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

@Reaper *Trump hates China and drags them in nearly every speech, so I'm skeptical that there even exists a sector of people who love him there :mj*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> @Reaper *Trump hates China and drags them in nearly every speech, so I'm skeptical that there even exists a sector of people who love him there :mj*


Eh. A google search says otherwise ... enough so that the western media actually has been talking about it :Shrug 










In any case, I'm cool with trolling like this. 

This sort of thing is what makes living in a free society fun ... It's actually very calming to see this sort of thing as opposed to the usual hate and violence on both sides.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Eh. A google search says otherwise ... enough so that the western media actually has been talking about it :Shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, I'm cool with trolling like this.
> 
> This sort of thing is what makes living in a free society fun ... It's actually very calming to see this sort of thing as opposed to the usual hate and violence on both sides.


*As baffling as that is, I'm not one to argue with facts, so carry on :meh*


----------



## Miss Sally

Those tweets/comments were really weak, like low quality WF rants.

I think the chicken looks pretty neat. Mocking or not it's a good design.


----------



## Reaper

That awkward moment when a loser is on the panel of a democrat discussion about how to win mid-terms :kobelol 

I bet the creative solution they come up with is "Let's just throw money at it. Surely that'll solve it."


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> That awkward moment when a loser is on the panel of a democrat discussion about how to win mid-terms :kobelol
> 
> I bet the creative solution they come up with is "Let's just throw money at it. Surely that'll solve it."


You cant make this stuff up.

And liberals think were stupid?

'And the next keynote speaker at the young entrepeneurs forum is john doe, homeless crack addict!'


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> That awkward moment when a loser is on the panel of a democrat discussion about how to win mid-terms :kobelol
> 
> I bet the creative solution they come up with is "Let's just throw money at it. Surely that'll solve it."


Isn't that the Democrat way at this point.


----------



## Stinger Fan

amhlilhaus said:


> You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> *And liberals think were stupid?*
> 
> 'And the next keynote speaker at the young entrepeneurs forum is john doe, homeless crack addict!'


Yes, it's baffling really


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

" Donald J. Trump‏Verified account DonaldTrump

Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!"








Can I ask the people who put all the blame on congress and think Trump is the bee's knees. Doesn't Trump employ the Yugest and smartest minds? If Trump has the smartest people working for him how come he has yet to have anyone in his Admin write 1 single repeal and replace bill despite running on how awful he thought Obamacare is and how it should be repealed and replaced. He also said he would have the greatest Infrastrucure bills as President and yet all those YUGE intellects in his admin or anyone around him has yet to prove 1 single Infratructure bill. Nothing in the consitution prevents Administrations from putting their own bills before congress and using the bully pulpit to then make the case to voters and congress to pass their legislation. Will the buck ever stop with him ?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

Not going to lie. The giant chicken display is hilarious. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> " Donald J. Trump‏Verified account DonaldTrump
> 
> Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask the people who put all the blame on congress and think Trump is the bee's knees. Doesn't Trump employ the Yugest and smartest minds? If Trump has the smartest people working for him how come he has yet to have anyone in his Admin write 1 single repeal and replace bill despite running on how awful he thought Obamacare is and how it should be repealed and replaced. He also said he would have the greatest Infrastrucure bills as President and yet all those YUGE intellects in his admin or anyone around him has yet to prove 1 single Infratructure bill. Nothing in the consitution prevents Administrations from putting their own bills before congress and using the bully pulpit to then make the case to voters and congress to pass their legislation. Will the buck ever stop with him ?


Are you sure you know how the American system even works?


----------



## Miss Sally

BoFreakinDallas said:


> " Donald J. Trump‏Verified account DonaldTrump
> 
> Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask the people who put all the blame on congress and think Trump is the bee's knees. Doesn't Trump employ the Yugest and smartest minds? If Trump has the smartest people working for him how come he has yet to have anyone in his Admin write 1 single repeal and replace bill despite running on how awful he thought Obamacare is and how it should be repealed and replaced. He also said he would have the greatest Infrastrucure bills as President and yet all those YUGE intellects in his admin or anyone around him has yet to prove 1 single Infratructure bill. Nothing in the consitution prevents Administrations from putting their own bills before congress and using the bully pulpit to then make the case to voters and congress to pass their legislation. Will the buck ever stop with him ?


The problem with the Health Care is that Obamacare is near death already, this was predicted when Obama first pushed it. It was never going to last but this isn't about Obama. The biggest problem is not only Congress but the people in the GOP who want to write how the HC goes.

Rand and Trump both had pretty good ideas, Trumps idea of letting insurance companies compete across state lines is actually a pretty good one. The issue is with getting everyone on board, no matter how good of a compromise it maybe Congress probably won't pass it.

Frankly I'd like to see Trump put something forth that's great, Congress fails to pass it and then Trump points out that these politicians don't care about the people. That could shake some trees to get something done on Health Care. Yet you also have to deal with the fact they'll be like McCain and simply stonewall everything and like idiots the people will still vote for the same dipshits next election.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> Are you sure you know how the American system even works?


Administrations writing legislation to then pass to Congress is far from unprecedented.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Administrations writing legislation to then pass to Congress is far from unprecedented.


Why so that you lot can start accusing him of being a fascist dictator? Executive office doesn't lead the way in changing legislation typically and they shouldn't otherwise what's the point of having a separation of powers?

He has been criticized for so much now that none of these criticisms have any weight left in them because that's all they are now disingenuous whining.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> Why so that you lot can start accusing him of being a fascist dictator? Executive office doesn't lead the way in changing legislation typically and they shouldn't otherwise what's the point of having a separation of powers?
> 
> He has been criticized for so much now that none of these criticisms have any weight left in them because that's all they are now disingenuous whining.


No one would accuse Trump of being a dictator for presenting Congress with a bill to consider, it has been done before and isn't particularly controversial.

The executive providing the legislature with a bill to consider isn't a breach of the separation of powers because the executive aren't exercising legislative power they're merely asking the legislature to exercise legislative power.


----------



## nucklehead88

Still hasn't gotten anything done.


----------



## Miss Sally

nucklehead88 said:


> Still hasn't gotten anything done.


Seriously, Justin got weed legalized in Canada so fast. Got to be more like that administration.


----------



## nucklehead88

Miss Sally said:


> Seriously, Justin got weed legalized in Canada so fast. Got to be more like that administration.












Nice whataboutism. Like word for word out of the playbook.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> No one would accuse Trump of being a dictator for presenting Congress with a bill to consider, it has been done before and isn't particularly controversial.
> 
> The executive providing the legislature with a bill to consider isn't a breach of the separation of powers because the executive aren't exercising legislative power they're merely asking the legislature to exercise legislative power.


Considering you pushed the Trump is Hitler narrative, don't get mad if I don't take you seriously on this issue of the executive office pushing a bill and you actually not spinning it as him being a fascist dictator.
@CamillePunk - Alkomesh is the perfect example of Scott Adams prediction where he has gone from Trump is Hitler to Trump is incompetent... And right around fall too.


----------



## Draykorinee

nucklehead88 said:


> Nice whataboutism. Like word for word out of the playbook.


Yeah, but Hillary.

Yeah, but Obama.

Always yeah but with these guys.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Still hasn't gotten anything done.


He's got a lot done. We keep sharing lists everytime you lot feel like trolling this thread. 

Just because you don't know what he's hot done doesn't mean he hasn't gotten anything done.


----------



## nucklehead88

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, but Hillary.
> 
> Yeah, but Obama.
> 
> Always yeah but with these guys.


Whataboutism 101. Someone says something against your side that you can't refute, deflect and distract by pointing out their sides flaws. 

As to Miss Sallys attempt to distract from the point, the legalization of pot has taken longer than expected, but it really isn't a problem because people and police here, dont care. I can smoke a joint on the streets, in front of a cop, and at most, he'll ask me to go around the corner. Hell it's free, and legal to walk into a dispensary , sign a quick forum saying you wont resell it, and they give you a "green card" that allows you to buy and use pot in any way you like as long as you dont sell it. I can walk down the street to my local dispensary, buy $30 of locally grown BC bud, some cookies, and a gram of hash oil, all legally. Hell I had some shatter last week that had me on cloud 9. Hell I was at a bbq 2 weeks ago at a buddies house, who has it growing out in the open in his backyard. The bill isn't top priority because pretty much everyone buys it legally from the government as it is.


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> He's got a lot done. We keep sharing lists everytime you lot feel like trolling this thread.
> 
> Just because you don't know what he's hot done doesn't mean he hasn't gotten anything done.


Name one piece of legislation that has been passed under his admin. Keep in mind, Executive Orders are not bills.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Name one piece of legislation that has been passed under his admin. Keep in mind, Executive Orders are not bills.


Passing legislation is the job of Congress. American isn't the kind if parliamentary dictatorship you foreigners are used to living under. 

Go back and study actual politics instead of trolling this thread which is literally all you're here to do. 

Saying that we shouldn't count what the Executive Office's real job is is like saying that your music teacher didn't do anything because he didn't potty train you :kobelol


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> Passing legislation is the job of Congress. American isn't the kind if parliamentary dictatorship you foreigners are used to living under.
> 
> Go back and study actual politics instead of trolling this thread which is literally all you're here to do.
> 
> Saying that we shouldn't count what the Executive Office's real job is is like saying that your music teacher didn't do anything because he didn't potty train you :kobelol


Ive liked you as a poster, but this time youve gone too far. Posting clear simple pictures? Insane. And the poster still wont understand. Its like sand blasting a soup cracker, well done for the lulz.

Like the time my brother in law was trying to insult me. Finally i said at least ive never been between your moms legs (shes a total bitch)


----------



## amhlilhaus

nucklehead88 said:


> Nice whataboutism. Like word for word out of the playbook.


Whataboutism WORKS in this case though.

NO EVIDENCE ties trump to putin. If there was, IT WOULD BE LEAKED. Sorry for the caps, but leftists whine so much they dont read well.

No evidence on trump, but hillarys corruption is real, its documented and anyone else would be in serious shit over it. Just because the corrupt, incompetent fbi director let her off the hook doesnt mean she didnt seriously fuck up.

You, I, or anyone else who was not a senior democratic official would already be in jail doing serious time for the things hillary did


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> Ive liked you as a poster, but this time youve gone too far. Posting clear simple pictures? Insane. And the poster still wont understand. Its like sand blasting a soup cracker, well done for the lulz.
> 
> Like the time my brother in law was trying to insult me. Finally i said at least ive never been between your moms legs (shes a total bitch)


I can't explain shit any better to people who vote in absolute dictatorships into power year after year :Shrug 

It took me a while to grasp what separation of powers really means when I actually say it in action for the first time living in the states as I too am from countries that vote in full majorities into parliament giving them absolute power over the land .. since of course in totalitarian "demockeries" there's little in the way of the populist government passing whatever they want.

This is Canada for example: 



















Cabinet is basically appointed by the Prime Minister. The PM is also involved in the process of appointing members of the senate. The Prime Minister isn't voted in but is the defacto party leader. The Parliament Ministers are voted in and they control the PM who controls the Cabinet and appoints the Senate - so basically the majority government made up of representatives that vote along party lines control the entire state. This does not sound like a "people's government" to me. The only aspect of government elected by the people are the MP's and then everything is from within. 

I see little to no room for minority viewpoints in a system like this at all ... meanwhile the US Congress and Senate can rarely if ever have a majority voting bloc that can pass what it wants whenever it wants because in reality Congress is free to vote along party lines, or against it - and all members of congress, senate and president are voted in so the representation occurs at the highest levels. Whereas in a parliamentary system, once a clear majority is established, you have what amounts to an "elected" dictatorship in place.


----------



## Draykorinee

That Canada picture is great. Voting, there is no mandatory voting. Who the fucks wants mandatory voting? Its like its supposed to be a negative yet its not. Why does it not have the house of commons? It completely misses out the system of responsible government. A majority government can be formed even with a minority vote - just like Trump then lol. 

Sounds like the creator of that image has a bias and has created something for people to post without any thought going in to it. 

Westminster governments like the UK and Canada are nothing like a dictatorship, to suggest so is braindead. I suggest people do better research before posting biased images. Its probably the most used system of government in the world, republic or monarchy based.


----------



## Draykorinee

nucklehead88 said:


> Name one piece of legislation that has been passed under his admin. Keep in mind, Executive Orders are not bills.


Forget it, you'll have to understand that the god emperor himself blamed Obama when he failed to pass bills yet when its him, its all the democrats fault. 

Never forget



> "Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years," Trump tweeted in 2012. "He can never take responsibility."


Republicans won't take responsibility now, this time its not their fault.

Theres got to be an issue when your elected government can't pass anything that they were elected to do.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> That Canada picture is great. Voting, there is no mandatory voting. Who the fucks wants mandatory voting? Its like its supposed to be a negative yet its not. Why does it not have the house of commons? It completely misses out the system of responsible government. A majority government can be formed even with a minority vote - just like Trump then lol.


That's what's known as biased twisting actually because in a case like America where an electoral process ACTUALLY represents the minority what you have a situation is assuming that somehow fewer voter turnout means minority government. That's kind of stupid because lower turnout could also mean a ton of voters turned out that voted in a majority government. 



> Sounds like the creator of that image has a bias and has created something for people to post without any thought going in to it.


Yes and ignore the fact that the Cabinent, PM and Senate are all controlled by the MP's ... So everything basically rides on the MP's --- so in countries where certain parties have major political clout they basically hand over entire control in one election at a time and then have to wait for the next election. 

Meanwhile in America the congress, senate and president are all voted in separately therefore there's greater representation at all levels of government. 

Which system is less likely to have a fascist government? Whether it's liberal or conservative?



> Westminster governments like the UK and Canada are nothing like a dictatorship, to suggest so is braindead. I suggest people do better research before posting biased images.


Yes, because people get a say in the formation of the government beyond just electing in MP's and hoping that they actually do what they were voted in to do. No elected officials in the cabinet and senate ... makes for a sham democracy. We have similar issues in America but people have control over the Congress so if the person they voted in votes NO on a bill they wanted him/her to vote yes on, they can vote him out of power next time around. 



> The Senate of Canada (French: Sénat du Canada) is a component of the Parliament of Canada, along with the House of Commons and the Monarch (represented by the Governor General). *The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lords and consists of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.[1]* Seats are assigned on a regional basis: four regions—defined as Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces—each receive 24 seats, with the remaining portions of the country—Newfoundland and Labrador and the three northern territories—assigned the remaining 9 seats apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.


Canada's "separation of powers" is grossly limited and their democratic and legislative processes under-developed - leaving too much power in the hands of the MP's who essentially control everything from the PM to Cabinet to Senate. Much less room for debate in such a scenario creating the perfect breeding grounds for totalitarianism. This is not something that I've made up with little research. This is something that is fairly common knowledge. 



> Canada's system of government is based on a parliamentary model quite distinct from the presidential system operating in the United States. *One of our leading constitutional writers said that Canada’s retention of the British system of responsible government is “utterly inconsistent with any separation of the executive and legislative functions;” (Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 1999 student ed., p. 321).* While this is one important view, it has never been approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has made passing reference to the doctrine of the separation of powers in several cases, including Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455, 479 and Provincial Judges Reference, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 108. On occasion, the Court has used muscular language, as in Operation Dismantle v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, 491 when the Court referred to the doctrine as one of the “essential features of our constitution”. In R. v. Power, below, the separation of powers was actually harnessed by the court for use as an operative doctrine to reinforce the independence of Crown Attorney decisions as against judicial interference with prosecutorial decisions. The “rule of law” is a highly textured expression [...] conveying, for example, a sense of orderliness, of subjection to known legal rules and of executive accountability to legal authority.
> 
> *Because Canadian parliamentary democracy increasingly trends towards power concentration in the executive branch – a tendency that has disturbed many observers – it may be time to reconsider the corrective role that could be played by the separation of powers theory in Canadian constitutional doctrine.
> *
> Constitutional Convention, Branch Fusion and the Democratic Deficit
> 
> *First, we need to understand how it is that parliamentary government fuses the legislative and the executive branches. In a parliamentary system the executive springs from the legislature, is part of it and is responsible to it as a confidence chamber.
> *
> The Lieutenant‑Governor is part and parcel of the Legislature (B.N.A. Act, s. 71; the Legislature Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. L‑1, s. 1). He appoints members of the Executive Council and Ministers (B.N.A. Act, s. 63; Executive Power Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. E‑18, ss. 3 to 5) and these, according to constitutional principles of a customary nature referred to in the preamble of the B.N.A. Act as well as in some statutory provisions (Executive Power Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. E‑18, ss. 3 to 5, 7 and 11(1); Legislature Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. L‑1, s. 56(1)), must be or become members of the Legislature and are expected, individually and collectively, to enjoy the confidence of its elected branch. There is thus a considerable degree of integration between the Legislature and the Government; (Blaikie v. A.G. Quebec (No. 2) (1981), 123 D.L.R. (3d) 15 at 122 (S.C.C.)).
> 
> Although Blaikie dealt specifically with the provincial executive power, the Court’s description applies equally to the federal executive. The Court's observations in Blaikie are interesting because the Court focuses on the institutions of parliamentary government established by constitutional convention, particularly the institutions of responsible government. It is at the conventional level that integration between the executive and legislative branches occurs.
> 
> Constitutional convention enhances integration between the legislature and executive in two respects. *First, the formal executive, the Governor General, is controlled by responsible ministers of the Crown, creatures unknown to the formal constitution. Second, the legislature's powers and priorities are in practice controlled by other executive instrumentalities unknown to the formal constitution – the PMO (office of the Prime Minister), PCO (Privy Council Office) and Cabinet. These institutions, particularly PMO and PCO, act as a clutch that meshes the gears of formal constitutional institutions into the full force of operating political power. Donald Savoie, Governing From the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics (1999) describes the real situation.*
> 
> *Central agencies stand at the apex of the machinery of government.... they have a licence to roam wherever they wish and to raise whatever issue they may choose; (p. 5) ... The prime minister alone thus has access to virtually every lever of power in the federal government, and when he put his mind to it he can get his way on almost any issue; (p. 87).
> *
> *In other words, the central agencies, particularly PMO, PCO and, to a lesser extent, Cabinet, are the conventional executive. It is the conventional executive which in practice controls the legislature, and which allows the writers to speak about the integration between the executive and legislature.
> *
> The Queen of Canada is our head of state, and under our Constitution she is represented in most capacities within the federal sphere by the Governor General. The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, democratic principles dictate that the bulk of the Governor General's powers be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government, namely the Cabinet. So the true executive power lies in the Cabinet. And since the Cabinet controls the government, there is in practice a degree of overlap among the terms “government”, “Cabinet” and “executive”. In these reasons, I have used all of these terms, as one or another may be more appropriate in a given context. The government has the power to introduce legislation in Parliament.
> 
> *In practice, the bulk of the new legislation is initiated by the government. By virtue of s. 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a money bill, including an amendment to a money bill, can only be introduced by means of the initiative of the government; (Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, per Sopinka, J.).
> *
> It is at the conventional level, not the formal level or the text of the constitution, *that the operation of Canada’s constitution exhibits a high degree of integration between the executive and legislative branches of government. At the conventional level, where the constitution actually functions, it is accurate to say that Canadian government is characterized by a high degree of control by the executive over the legislative branch, particularly as contrasted with presidential systems. *It is perhaps this situation that was in the mind of the Supreme Court of Canada when it commented that “the Canadian Constitution does not insist on a strict separation of powers;” (Reference Re Secession of Quebec, S.C.C. Aug. 20, 1998, para 15).
> 
> It is also at the level of the operating conventional constitution that the writers observe worrisome signals of a deterioration in accountability and transparency of governmental processes – what is commonly referred to as the democratic deficit. The democratic deficit is enhanced by the extensive use of executive federalism to coordinate the actions of the thirteen governments in the federation. Executive federalism, the negotiation of issues of the day between senior officials and ministers, takes place behind closed doors; it is not visible. For this reason Canadian governance tends to be unduly secretive, and lacking in reliable structures of accountability.
> 
> Given the simultaneous growth of Canada’s democratic deficit and the concentration of political power in somewhat mysterious central agencies, it is not surprising that there should be a renewed interest in the separation of powers. It is at root a concept designed to guard against tyrannical concentrations of power and to protect political liberty.
> 
> The Formal Constitution and Separationism
> 
> The conventional machinery that integrates the executive and legislative branches in Canada obscures the very real structural separation of powers that the text of the constitution ordains. The Constitution Act, 1867 sets out separate and divided powers that, at least textually and formally, has close parallels to presidentialism. Blaikie drew attention to this. After describing the conventional machinery which integrates the legislative and executive branches, the Supreme Court went on to observe:
> 
> The Government of the province is not a body of the Legislature's own creation. It has a constitutional status and is not subordinate to the Legislature in the same sense as other provincial legislative agencies established by the Legislature (Blaikie v. A.G. Quebec (No. 2) (1981), 123 D.L.R. (3d) 15 at 122 (S.C.C.)).
> 
> It is useful to elaborate further on the Court’s observations about formal separation and conventional integration. The Constitution Act, 1867 establishes executive power by ss. 9‑16. These  provisions vest the executive power in the Queen, and call for its exercise by the Governor General and Privy Council. The Constitution Act, 1867 establishes significant power in the executive branch, including, by s. 15, the command of the armed forces. The Constitution Act, 1867 identifies and organizes separate constitutional status as well for the legislature (sections 17‑52) and judiciary (sections 96‑101) and specifies their respective powers and limits.
> 
> This is why it is accurate to say that, at least textually and formally, the Constitution Act, 1867 has close parallels to presidentialism. Although the realities of conventional integration have made Canada’s formal separation of powers little noticed, it is worth remembering that within the text of the Constitution Act, 1867, powers are formally and structurally separated, as we find in presidential systems. This provides a textual basis for any court that in future decides to improvise a separation of powers doctrine specific to Canada’s parliamentary system.
> 
> It is also worth remembering that within the text of the Constitution Act, 1867 the three branches of government are connected functionally “as to give to each a constitutional control over the others.” Parliament is invested with constitutional power to enact all federal laws and to establish federal courts. Parliament is checked by the power of the executive to call the House of Commons into session (s. 38) and by the power of the judiciary to declare laws enacted unconstitutional. Parliament is also checked by power in the executive to reserve Bills passed by the Houses of Parliament and to disallow laws enacted (secs. 55-7). These veto-like powers, designed for British control of Canadian law-making, have long since fallen into disuse, but they still exist in the text and structure of the Constitution. The Judicial branch has constitutional power to try all cases, to interpret the laws in those cases and to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The judiciary is checked by power in the executive to appoint its members; by power in the legislature to enact amendments that overturn judicial decisions, including many constitutional decisions (Charter of Rights, s. 33); and also by the combined power of the executive and legislative branches to remove judges.
> 
> The Constitution of Ceylon is drawn from the same British colonial sources as the Constitution of Canada. It is interesting to observe in that Constitution’s structure a closely similar formal constitutional separation of powers. It was this structural separation, which, setting out executive, legislative and judicial powers in separate chapters that motivated the Privy Council to find “an intention to secure in the judiciary a freedom from political, legislative and executive control.” Because of that intention their Lordships overturned special legislation that would have intruded the legislative power too deeply into the judicial sphere ( Liyanage v. The Queen, [1967 1 A.C. 259). Perhaps this ruling is further evidence that the separation of powers doctrine is capable of more operational development in parliamentary systems, including Canada. Indeed, there is some dicta in this case which shapes Canada’s important doctrine of judicial independence out of separationist language.
> 
> Constitutional Dialogue and the Separation of Powers
> 
> Still, beyond protecting the independence of the judiciary, it is unusual to conceive of the separation of powers doctrine as an operative doctrine that controls any undue mixing of the three branches in parliamentary systems of government. However, it has become common in constitutional doctrine to conceive that the institutions of government have proper roles to play in Canadian democracy. In carrying out their functions, each branch should have proper regard and “mutual respect” for the role of the other branches.
> 
> respect by the courts for the legislature and executive role is as important as ensuring that the other branches respect each others' role and the role of the courts; (Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, para. 136).
> 
> In modern constitutional doctrine, the rise of this mutual respect “gives rise to a more dynamic interaction among the branches of government,” what is also called “a dialogue” between the institutions of government.
> 
> In reviewing legislative enactments and executive decisions to ensure constitutional validity, the courts speak to the legislative and executive branches. ... most of the legislation held not to pass constitutional muster has been followed by new legislation designed to accomplish similar objectives ... By doing this, the legislature responds to the courts; hence the dialogue among the branches; (para. 138).
> 
> An important value of this mutual respect, dynamic interaction and dialogue is that “each of the branches is made somewhat accountable to the other.”
> 
> This dialogue between and accountability of each of the branches have the effect of enhancing the democratic process; (para. 139).
> 
> In Mills, this perspective of dynamic interaction was applied to alter the normal suspicious posture reviewing courts sometimes adopt with respect to legislative acts alleged to be unconstitutional.
> 
> Courts do not hold a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights and freedoms; Parliament also plays a role in this regard and is often able to act as a significant ally for vulnerable groups.... If constitutional democracy is meant to ensure that due regard is given to the voices of those vulnerable to being overlooked by the majority, then this court has an obligation to consider respectfully Parliament’s attempt to respond to such voices; (R. v. Mills, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 668).
> 
> Dialogue and dynamic interaction may be newly minted constitutional doctrine to explain to the citizenry why courts are sometimes obliged to overturn policies enacted into law by the representative branch. This is legitimacy theory, consciously meant to blunt attack on the constitutional review function repeatedly heard from the right and left. It is interesting to note that this theory is wrapped in separationism concepts. Is this really part of the sculpting of a separation of powers theory appropriate to parliamentary systems? To ask the question in other terms, is there anything in this separation of powers talk from the courts that can respond to the real problem that Canadian governance confronts today – democratic deficits being rung up by the fusing of political power in executive agencies?
> 
> Trend Lines
> 
> In the Provincial Judges Reference, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para 139 the Supreme Court observed:
> 
> These different components of the institutional financial security of the courts inhere, in my view, in a fundamental principle of the Canadian Constitution, the separation of powers. As I discussed above, the institutional independence of the courts is inextricably bound up with the separation of powers, because in order to guarantee that the courts can protect the Constitution, they must be protected by a set of objective guarantees against intrusions by the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> The separation of powers requires, at the very least, that some functions must be exclusively reserved to particular bodies: see Cooper, supra, at para. 13. However, there is also another aspect of the separation of powers -- the notion that the principle requires that the different branches of government only interact, as much as possible, in particular ways. In other words, the relationships between the different branches of government should have a particular character. For example, there is a hierarchical relationship between the executive and the legislature, whereby the executive must execute and implement the policies which have been enacted by the legislature in statutory form: see Cooper, supra, at paras. 23 and 24. In a system of responsible government, once legislatures have made political decisions and embodied those decisions in law, it is the constitutional duty of the executive to implement those choices.
> 
> What is at issue here is the character of the relationships between the legislature and the executive on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other. These relationships should be depoliticized. When I say that those relationships are depoliticized, I do not mean to deny that they are political in the sense that court decisions (both constitutional and non-constitutional) often have political implications, and that the statutes which courts adjudicate upon emerge from the political process. What I mean instead is the legislature and executive cannot, and cannot appear to, exert political pressure on the judiciary, and conversely, that members of the judiciary should exercise reserve in speaking out publicly on issues of general public policy that are or have the potential to come before the courts, that are the subject of political debate, and which do not relate to the proper administration of justice.
> 
> To be sure, the depoliticization of the relationships between the legislature and the executive on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other, is largely governed by convention. And as I said in Cooper, supra, at para. 22, the conventions of the British Constitution do not have the force of law in Canada: Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, supra. However, to my mind, the depoliticization of these relationships is so fundamental to the separation of powers, and hence to the Canadian Constitution, that the provisions of the Constitution, such as s. 11(d) of the Charter, must be interpreted in such a manner as to protect this principle.
> 
> This is a more developed idea of the role of the courts as resolver of disputes, interpreter of the law and defender of the Constitution that the Supreme Court explained earlier. In R. v. Beauregard, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56, 73 the Court required that as a result of these functions, the courts be completely separate in authority and function from all other participants in the justice system.


Here's how the Supreme Court justices are appointed: 



> Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council, a process whereby the governor general, the viceregal representative of the Queen of Canada, makes appointments based on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. By tradition and convention, only the Cabinet, a standing committee in the larger council, advises the governor general and this advice is usually expressed exclusively through a consultation with the prime minister. Thus, the provinces and parliament have no formal role in such appointments, sometimes a point of contention.


So, the cabinet, governer general-in-council and PM once again. In this scenario, if a populist government has a long-term run and multiple election wins, basically every branch of government can be filled with ideologues that represent the party in power - from legislative, to supreme court. How can you realistically state that this form of government that has this much centralized power not eventually become totalitarian by committee? 

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Constitutional_Law/Application_of_the_Constitution



> *In the governmental structure of Canada there is no clear separation of powers between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government. *As such, the role of the courts will often overlap into other territories, such as the Supreme Court's advisory role in hearing reference cases. Conversely, the judicial realm can be encroached by other groups, such as the creation of administrative tribunals to hear cases. Nonetheless, there are limits to these sorts of encroachments as can be seen in the issue of justicibility and jurisdiction. Following this, there is the further issue of who is able to apply to the Courts. Namely, what type of individual or group can have proper standing to make a claim to a Court. Lastly, we will look at what sort of remedies are available under the Constitution to a successful claimants.





> *As already mentioned, the jurisdictional division between courts is not clean split. The debate focuses on the application of section 96 which gives the federal government the authority to appoint judges to the Superior Courts.* As the true authority of the Superior Court is said to be inherent, this section has been construed to provide protection for the Superior Courts' jurisdiction. The Superior Court functions as an anchor to which the entire court system radiates from. The issue of jurisdiction can be framed as the carving out of jurisdiction for inferior and statutory courts. To complicate matters, jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive. It is possible for courts to have concurrent jurisdiction where two or more types of court can hear a given case.





draykorinee said:


> Its probably the most used system of government in the world, republic or monarchy based.


That is the weakest defense of something I've ever seen. All muslim countries have made homosexuality illegal therefore there must be something that's right about doing so. Most used system in the world, therefore it must be right. What kind of an argument is this even?


----------



## Miss Sally

nucklehead88 said:


> Nice whataboutism. Like word for word out of the playbook.


I'm sure you'll come up with something else, maybe something about Russia?

I mean really that's all I see mostly from posters here. 

Trump's not been in office a year, how long has Justin been in charge? 

Turnabout is fair play when your own leader hasn't really done shit.

Also ironic you bring up Whataboutism because that's like half the arguments from anti-Trumpers lol

Come back when he actually gets some stuff done and we can compare.



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, but Hillary.
> 
> Yeah, but Obama.
> 
> Always yeah but with these guys.


Except Hilary is corrupt, there is proof of this. 

Obama himself is also part of very real, very big scandals including more evidence of the Government illegally spying on people. 

Yet for these two it's nothing, Obama is a media darling and Hilary is just a victim of "woman hate". You'd actually have a point if these two were clean or if what was said about them wasn't valid. Trump's been in office what half a year? Why don't we come back and have an actual comparison in two because that's how long the Democrats fully controlled the Government with Obama in charge, about 2 and half years until Blue areas went Red because people voted them out.

Maybe you'll actually have a point, maybe Trump will get nothing done and there is a chance that he might not get shit done. Who knows? But let's not pretend this is the 5th year of him being President.


----------



## amhlilhaus

draykorinee said:


> Forget it, you'll have to understand that the god emperor himself blamed Obama when he failed to pass bills yet when its him, its all the democrats fault.
> 
> Never forget
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won't take responsibility now, this time its not their fault.
> 
> Theres got to be an issue when your elected government can't pass anything that they were elected to do.


Nice deflection. Obama had control with every democrat member of congress and the senate ready to blow him at his request, ie they LOVED him.

Trumps faced with half his people hating his guts since hes challenging the status quo, which theyre very comfortable with, and the other half afraid to support because they suck ass.

The democrats are a machine, right down to the bottom. The republicans are like little individuals trying to carve out their own fiefdoms


----------



## wagnergrad96

Watching Election Night 2018 is going to be fun. The #BlueWave2018 is going to be huuuuuuge. Bigly losses for the GOP. You reap what you sow Republicans. You will forever be smelling the Taint of Trump.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> I'm sure you'll come up with something else, maybe something about Russia?
> 
> I mean really that's all I see mostly from posters here.
> 
> Trump's not been in office a year, how long has Justin been in charge?
> 
> Turnabout is fair play when your own leader hasn't really done shit.
> 
> Also ironic you bring up Whataboutism because that's like half the arguments from anti-Trumpers lol
> 
> Come back when he actually gets some stuff done and we can compare.
> 
> 
> 
> Except Hilary is corrupt, there is proof of this.
> 
> Obama himself is also part of very real, very big scandals including more evidence of the Government illegally spying on people.
> 
> Yet for these two it's nothing, Obama is a media darling and Hilary is just a victim of "woman hate". You'd actually have a point if these two were clean or if what was said about them wasn't valid. Trump's been in office what half a year? Why don't we come back and have an actual comparison in two because that's how long the Democrats fully controlled the Government with Obama in charge, about 2 and half years until Blue areas went Red because people voted them out.
> 
> Maybe you'll actually have a point, maybe Trump will get nothing done and there is a chance that he might not get shit done. Who knows? But let's not pretend this is the 5th year of him being President.


Exactly right.

If trump was demonstrably proven to be as corrupt as hillary, no way in fuck would conservatives support him, and we would be in the forefront of the mobs with torches and pitchforks to get him.

The 'worst' thing hes done is say 'i just grab them by the p***y', in an off the record talk with a guy. Leftists, who want men in girls bathrooms suddenly become moral to the core in their outrage. Sexual assault! Disgusting! I know no man who talks like that! 

Get real. The first time you have sex with someone, SOMEONE TOUCHES FIRST. Ive never asked permission, ive never denied permission because its how it goes. Those women who trump grabbed? Im clairvoyant and i assure you, without being there that every one of em spread their legs after he did. Adults know the truth of that, and ignored it.

Ive sked in over a dozen places, with no response: have you ever asked permisson before you made a move?

Pathetic


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> Watching Election Night 2018 is going to be fun. The #BlueWave2018 is going to be huuuuuuge. Bigly losses for the GOP. You reap what you sow Republicans. You will forever be smelling the Taint of Trump.


What exactly will this solve? The same thing the "Red Wave" did after Democrats sat around doing nothing for 2 years?

It's not going to make a lick of difference, not when both parties are full of neocons and people only looking out for themselves.

The biggest issue is Americans just keep voting the same people in all of the time like a revolving door of Politicians.


----------



## Draykorinee

amhlilhaus said:


> Nice deflection. Obama had control with every democrat member of congress and the senate ready to blow him at his request, ie they LOVED him.
> 
> Trumps faced with half his people hating his guts since hes challenging the status quo, which theyre very comfortable with, and the other half afraid to support because they suck ass.
> 
> The democrats are a machine, right down to the bottom. The republicans are like little individuals trying to carve out their own fiefdoms


Thats the first 2 years, after that he had lost the house. Its interesting to note that in Bush's last 2 years he had one of the highest Times index statistics yet Obama had one of the worst. The republicans did everything to stop him.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/11/epa-needs-explain-emergency-seattle/

Corruption at its finest.

Tar. Feathers. A rail to run these people out of town on.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/11/epa-needs-explain-emergency-seattle/
> 
> Corruption at its finest.
> 
> Tar. Feathers. A rail to run these people out of town on.


The democratic explanation in the comments is that they're under emergency because BC has been on fire for 2 years :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Did Donald Trump really thank Putin for saving him money by expelling US staff?


----------



## Mra22

The pentagon said they are ready for a fight tonight....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fight-tonight-as-trump-shows-bomber-pics.html


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Did Donald Trump really thank Putin for saving him money by expelling US staff?


Yes, Donald :trump is the greatest shitposter in history, you already knew that I thought

Shitposting @ Putin and @ the bureaucracy in the State Department in one breath


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> Did Donald Trump really thank Putin for saving him money by expelling US staff?


Proof of Trump working with Putin!


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> What exactly will this solve? The same thing the "Red Wave" did after Democrats sat around doing nothing for 2 years?
> 
> It's not going to make a lick of difference, not when both parties are full of neocons and people only looking out for themselves.
> 
> The biggest issue is Americans just keep voting the same people in all of the time like a revolving door of Politicians.


If dems get the house, trump will get impeached 100%


----------



## Miss Sally

amhlilhaus said:


> If dems get the house, trump will get impeached 100%


They'll be the biggest morons if they do that and then have Mike Pence around.


----------



## Mra22

China warned Trump to not shoot first, this is getting scary


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> They'll be the biggest morons if they do that and then have Mike Pence around.


With the shape the DNC is at this point, they aren't taking anything


----------



## Headliner

amhlilhaus said:


> Nice deflection. Obama had control with every democrat member of congress and the senate ready to blow him at his request, ie they LOVED him.
> 
> Trumps faced with half his people hating his guts since hes challenging the status quo, which theyre very comfortable with, and the other half afraid to support because they suck ass.
> 
> The democrats are a machine, right down to the bottom. The republicans are like little individuals trying to carve out their own fiefdoms


Or maybe other Republicans aren't supporting Trump because they see he's a reckless, unprofessional, immature piece of shit in addition to being a dumpster fire of drama that rubs off on them as a party?

When are we going to give Trump any responsibility here? Why is it always someone's fault or some bullshit conspiracy?


----------



## virus21

Grain of salt



> Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
> The letter reads, in part:
> NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.
> …
> As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.
> Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: “[T]here were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%.
> The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.
> Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.”
> President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled out California as a possible contributor to that margin.
> The Election Integrity Project is a California-based volunteer organization that monitors voting irregularities.


https://archive.is/z10nS#selection-305.0-367.112


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

amhlilhaus said:


> Nice deflection. Obama had control with every democrat member of congress and the senate ready to blow him at his request, ie they LOVED him.
> 
> Trumps faced with half his people hating his guts since hes challenging the status quo, which theyre very comfortable with, and the other half afraid to support because they suck ass.


How loved would Obama have been his by his own parties Senate if he went around calling a Vietnam Vet like Webb or Reed loser's disparaging their war service or suggested that a sitting Senator's father had a hand in trying to kill JFK. If people in Trump's own party don't like him he has no one but his twitter handle and big mouth to blame.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> Or maybe other Republicans aren't supporting Trump because they see he's a reckless, unprofessional, immature piece of shit in addition to being a dumpster fire of drama that rubs off on them as a party?
> 
> When are we going to give Trump any responsibility here? Why is it always someone's fault or some bullshit conspiracy?


He has been reckless and said things, some really dumb shit he shouldn't have. That being said from the get go many Republicans didn't want to work him or give him a chance. The same can be said about Bernie Sanders and the Democrats.

I believe both parties are ran in a WWE type fashion, if you're they're guy they'll do anything for you. If not they'll use any excuse not to work with you and have zero issues fucking themselves over if it means fucking over you too in the process.

Trump just made it easy for some Republicans like this.


----------



## deepelemblues

let's say the dems get the house somehow 

they arent getting 67 votes in the senate or even a majority in the senate. it'll be a major victory for them to lose three seats or less. 

all impeaching :trump would do is, by the time it was over, disgust even more people and alienate them from the political system of the country and the institutions that it consists of 

which plays right into :trump's hands 

it would very much help his re-election, you go for the king you better kill him geez this is the most basic kind of stuff. and the democrats can't possibly kill him through impeachment.

if the people want to get get rid of him they can vote for the other guy or gal in 2020. the biggest cause of :trump being in the oval office is both parties again and again not listening to the people and making major decisions (that usually result in at least semi-enraging failure) not based on a genuine consideration of the people but based on whatever they want to do because they know best what to do because they're the political class.


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> Passing legislation is the job of Congress. American isn't the kind if parliamentary dictatorship you foreigners are used to living under.
> 
> Go back and study actual politics instead of trolling this thread which is literally all you're here to do.
> 
> Saying that we shouldn't count what the Executive Office's real job is is like saying that your music teacher didn't do anything because he didn't potty train you :kobelol


Right....and who's in control of congress? And the Senate? Oh right....Republicans...how's that repeal and replace coming? Also...I said passed under his admin...not passed by him.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Right....and who's in control of congress? And the Senate? Oh right....Republicans...how's that repeal and replace coming?


American parties don't vote along party lines because they're individualistic based on the politics of the individual and constituency expectations and don't act like dictatorial monoliths. 

This is why you guys who are used to totalitarian regimes in your countries have no idea how democracy really works. Even if you're a Republican doesn't mean you have to toe the party line. It's democracy, not fascism.


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> American parties don't vote along party lines because they're individualistic and not acting like dictatorial monoliths. This is why you guys who are used to totalitarian regimes have no idea how democracy really works.


Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and a miss, strike 2. If what you have down there was a real democracy, leaders would be voted for by the most votes. AKA the popular vote. Not the electoral college.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and a miss, strike 2. If what you have down there was a real democracy, leaders would be voted for by the most votes. AKA the popular vote. Not the electoral college.


That's populism, not democracy. Also America is not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word. It's a Republic based on a constitution. Democracies allow for totalitarian regimes. 

Electoral college is made up of the electorate and it's a system based on ensuring that populist leaders can't come into power and that minority states with low populations don't get overrun by states with higher populations. 

Majority rules = mob rule = lynch mobs. 

The electoral system is a better form of democracy than lynch mobs.


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> That's populism, not democracy.
> 
> Electoral college is made up of the electorate and it's a system based on ensuring that populist leaders can't come into power.



From the dictionary:


> Populism is a mode of political communication that is centred around contrasts between the "common man" or "the people" and a real or imagined group of "privileged elites", traditionally scapegoating or making a folk devil of the latter. Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics, and can often be characterised as centrist where populists portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere


I don't think you have the right word.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> From the dictionary:
> 
> 
> I don't think you have the right word.


Don't care about dictionary definitions. When I talk about populist governments, I'm talking about those that get in on the basis of majority rules.

Now that you've resorted to semantics, I'll take that as a concession of the overall argument and stop responding to your low iq statements.


----------



## Miss Sally

Mra22 said:


> China warned Trump to not shoot first, this is getting scary


China is just acting tough as a show for it's allies.

If anything China has a lot to gain, deposing of the leadership in NK would see NK fall under Chinese control, no more dealing with a lunatic and getting access to a huge mineral site as well as lots of slave labor.

If China gains control of NK, at least enough to siphon it's resources and keeps raping Africa, it will have immense access to raw materials and cheap labor that would make the stingiest farming task master blush.


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> Don't care about dictionary definitions. When I talk about populist governments, I'm talking about those that get in on the basis of majority rules.
> 
> Now that you've resorted to semantics, I'll take that as a concession of the overall argument and stop responding to your low iq statements.


You say I'm making low iq statements, yet are disagreeing with what the actual definition of a word is. It's not semantics, you've made up your own definition of a word. How do you expect anyone to have a clue what you're talking about when you make crap up. The term "populist government" has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Populism means anti establishment. It's not a electoral process. Like, you weren't even close.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> You say I'm making low iq statements, yet are disagreeing with what the actual definition of a word is. It's not semantics, you've made up your own definition of a word. How do you expect anyone to have a clue what you're talking about when you make crap up. The term "populist government" has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Populism means anti establishment. It's not a electoral process. Like, you weren't even close.


If only people like you were here for serious discussions instead of your trolling gotcha crap you would actually pay attention to context or try to place the word used. But you don't since the thing you're here for isn't a discussion at all. You're here for gotcha moments because out of a word count of 1000 or so in my last posts, all you contested was 1 word. 

1/1000. That's not a discussion. It's a typical "gotcha!" waste of time. Low IQ individuals do this regularly.


----------



## The5star_Kid

Just as I thought the American lunacy couldnt get worse lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


That's pretty funny lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> That's pretty funny lol


I love the way it makes Kim Jong Un look like a camp interior designer lmao


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> Except Hilary is corrupt, there is proof of this.


And Donald Trump isn't?


----------



## Miss Sally

AlternateDemise said:


> And Donald Trump isn't?


No proof of any collusion with Russia and if he is corrupt with his business then he's not been caught. If there is actual proof of anything with Russia I'll happily add him to the list of corrupt Presidents and Wannabe's like Hilary.


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> I love the way it makes Kim Jong Un look like a camp interior designer lmao


first thing i thought of for both portraits was otho from beetlejuice :lmao



nucklehead88 said:


> Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and a miss, strike 2. If what you have down there was a real democracy, leaders would be voted for by the most votes. AKA the popular vote. Not the electoral college.


i know right

hillary should've been the democratic nominee in 2008, she got more votes in the primaries than barack obama 

and yes the winner of presidential elections is not determined by direct democracy

it is determined by indirect democracy. the direct democracy occurs in 50 separate state contests


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Miss Sally said:


> No proof of any collusion with Russia and if he is corrupt with his business then he's not been caught. If there is actual proof of anything with Russia I'll happily add him to the list of corrupt Presidents and Wannabe's like Hilary.


As a business man he was pretty shitty guy to do business with.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> No proof of any collusion with Russia and *if he is corrupt with his business then he's not been caught.* If there is actual proof of anything with Russia I'll happily add him to the list of corrupt Presidents and Wannabe's like Hilary.


Apparently you've never heard of Trump University or the Trump Foundation.


----------



## virus21

AlternateDemise said:


> Apparently you've never heard of Trump University or the Trump Foundation.


But is that corruption and not just bad business practices?


----------



## DesolationRow

If Trump actually joked to Putin about the U.S. saving money with the 755 bureaucrats from the embassy and consular staff he expelled from Russia following the announcement of new U.S. sanctions... :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

AlternateDemise said:


> Apparently you've never heard of Trump University or the Trump Foundation.


As Virus said that's just bad business. There's no proof the failure of those ventures were part of some nefarious plot to line his pockets, such as I don't know.. be in the Government and sell favors to people?

Just sayin.



deepelemblues said:


> first thing i thought of for both portraits was otho from beetlejuice :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> i know right
> 
> hillary should've been the democratic nominee in 2008, she got more votes in the primaries than barack obama
> 
> and yes the winner of presidential elections is not determined by direct democracy
> 
> it is determined by indirect democracy. the direct democracy occurs in 50 separate state contests


It's set up to protect us from mob rule.

Now how would these popular vote dingbats feel if Far Right lunatics like Richard Spenser got to run the country because they won a popular vote, would they still be like "muh popular vote n democracy!!"?


----------



## AlternateDemise

virus21 said:


> But is that corruption and not just bad business practices?





Miss Sally said:


> As Virus said that's just bad business. There's no proof the failure of those ventures were part of some nefarious plot to line his pockets, such as I don't know.. be in the Government and sell favors to people?
> 
> Just sayin.


Eh, fair enough.


----------



## Stinger Fan

nucklehead88 said:


> Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and a miss, strike 2. If what you have down there was a real democracy, leaders would be voted for by the most votes. AKA the popular vote. Not the electoral college.


If you truly cared about every vote counting, you'd actually be in favor of the electoral college. There's no real justification for why *3* cities should not only speak for the entire country but determine the outcome of every election. I find it hard to believe you'd feel this way if those blue states were red.


----------



## Oxidamus

AlternateDemise said:


> And Donald Trump isn't?


Oh I thought you quit. :mj4

So you just decided to disappear after my post responding to you and then make these comments towards InUtero in the chatbox:


08-13, 06:33	AlternateDemise 
You know what I love? Dipshits like yourself who try to hide their sorrow from people literally fucking them metaphorically online by pretending they're purposely trolling them.

08-13, 06:33	AlternateDemise 
You're like Oxi's retarded brother.


What's with people on this forum accusing other people of trolling because they can't respond to their argument? :hmm:
I guess all you need to do is convince yourself someone is a troll so when you can't fathom a counter-argument you feel like you won, because they're "not serious" or something. :hmm:


----------



## DOPA

In terms of an election system, Proportional Representation would be disastrous in the US. You got to remember the United States is set up in a different way to European countries....or Australia for example where the political system is much more centralized and has much more control from a central vocal point of political power. Westminster for example in the UK pretty much determines policies which effect the whole country in the vast majority of times (still) despite there being more decentralization of power....particularly in Scotland. I'd personally like to change that but it is what it is.

The United States is purposefully set up to have 51 states with autonomous state and local governments who have legislative and fiscal control to a large degree and represent different political viewpoints. Some liberal, some Conservative and some who swing between the two. So all of those states need to be represented in a national election. You can't do that in PR system when two states alone....namely New York and California can outvote the other 49 states. You could essentially have two states dictating how the entire country is run, which is absolutely preposterous. You'd have several red states not represented at all by the way in which they voted simply because they aren't as densely populated. That's why I think in the case of the US, the idea of a PR system is ludicrous.

I mean look at how the states lined in the election, the vast majority were red under Trump. In fact there were only a few states in which the vast majority of those counties voted for Hillary. It would be insidious in this case for Hillary to win simply because she got the most votes in the most populated areas. Clearly in this election by state demographics, the majority voted for Trump. It wasn't even close.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Oxidamus said:


> Oh I thought you quit. :mj4
> 
> So you just decided to disappear after my post responding to you and then make these comments towards InUtero in the chatbox:
> 
> 
> 08-13, 06:33	AlternateDemise
> You know what I love? Dipshits like yourself who try to hide their sorrow from people literally fucking them metaphorically online by pretending they're purposely trolling them.
> 
> 08-13, 06:33	AlternateDemise
> You're like Oxi's retarded brother.
> 
> 
> What's with people on this forum accusing other people of trolling because they can't respond to their argument? :hmm:
> I guess all you need to do is convince yourself someone is a troll so when you can't fathom a counter-argument you feel like you won, because they're "not serious" or something. :hmm:


I did quit. I can't help it when people message me about posts being made in this thread (seriously people, fuck off). 

I didn't even read your response to my argument. I stopped taking you seriously after the last idiotic post you made. It became pretty clear I was wasting my time on you.

And the second comment you brought up wasn't even in regards to this thread. But that's another thread, so I'm not going to bring that into this.

Go away.

Edit: Oh and just an FYI, he WAS trolling us. There was no confirmation needed. He made a fucking thread about it explaining that was exactly what he was doing.


----------



## Oxidamus

AlternateDemise said:


> I did quit. I can't help it when people message me about posts being made in this thread (seriously people, fuck off).
> 
> I didn't even read your response to my argument. I stopped taking you seriously after the last idiotic post you made. It became pretty clear I was wasting my time on you.
> 
> And the second comment you brought up wasn't even in regards to this thread. But that's another thread, so I'm not going to bring that into this.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Edit: Oh and just an FYI, he WAS trolling us. There was no confirmation needed. He made a fucking thread about it explaining that was exactly what he was doing.


He always trolls. My point is however you feel inclined to compare him to me. I am not sure how many times you have been told but I am not the only person on this forum who acts and posts differently in the chatbox than he does in actual threads. I wouldn't waste my time typing a 10 minute response longer than your post just so I could poke fun and laugh at you.

Your attempt at intellectual superiority is exactly the problem (in a societal sense) and exactly the reason why you feel the way you do about politics. You always have something to say about the person who disagrees with you; but you never have something to say about what _they_ said.

I find it kind of funny that the three most outspoken Liberal(-ish) posters on this board all consider me some kind of troll. Especially when @Reaper has probably accurately pinned me as a classical liberal. As far as I'm concerned, when you or Liner or BBR make a dumb post and I respond to it telling you what I think, and your first response is to call me a troll, it's because you literally have nothing better to say. I am probably not the only person to think that.

FWIW I wouldn't blame you if you are sick and tired of getting personal messages about these things, I don't really like it either. :mj
And if you don't have the time or just simply don't feel like responding, that's fine. All you would need to do is say that when someone quotes you like I did. :shrug


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

L-DOPA said:


> In terms of an election system, Proportional Representation would be disastrous in the US. You got to remember the United States is set up in a different way to European countries....or Australia for example where the political system is much more centralized and has much more control from a central vocal point of political power. Westminster for example in the UK pretty much determines policies which effect the whole country in the vast majority of times (still) despite there being more decentralization of power....particularly in Scotland. I'd personally like to change that but it is what it is.
> 
> The United States is purposefully set up to have 51 states with autonomous state and local governments who have legislative and fiscal control to a large degree and represent different political viewpoints. Some liberal, some Conservative and some who swing between the two. So all of those states need to be represented in a national election. You can't do that in PR system when two states alone....namely New York and California can outvote the other 49 states. You could essentially have two states dictating how the entire country is run, which is absolutely preposterous. You'd have several red states not represented at all by the way in which they voted simply because they aren't as densely populated. That's why I think in the case of the US, the idea of a PR system is ludicrous.
> 
> I mean look at how the states lined in the election, the vast majority were red under Trump. In fact there were only a few states in which the vast majority of those counties voted for Hillary. It would be insidious in this case for Hillary to win simply because she got the most votes in the most populated areas. Clearly in this election by state demographics, the majority voted for Trump. It wasn't even close.


Agreed. California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida would basically control the elections by far. They alone have more than a 1/3 of the US population under their grasp. It would take a coalition of the rest of the US states in order to have a chance to sway the elections.

California, Illinois, and New York are traditionally blue states. Florida flip flops, while Texas is the only real red state here.

While the current system may not be perfect, it is possibly one of the best compromises we have considering the circumstances. Five states alone should not have control over what happens with the rest of the forty-five. Oh, and yes, before anyone says otherwise, if the roles were reversed I'd say the same as well.


----------



## DesolationRow

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Agreed. California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida would basically control the elections by far. They alone have more than a 1/3 of the US population under their grasp. It would take a coalition of the rest of the US states in order to have a chance to sway the elections.
> 
> California, Illinois, and New York are traditionally blue states. *Florida flip flops, while Texas is the only real red state here.*
> 
> While the current system may not be perfect, it is possibly one of the best compromises we have considering the circumstances. Five states alone should not have control over what happens with the rest of the forty-five.


For another cycle or two, anyway. :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> American parties don't vote along party lines because they're individualistic based on the politics of the individual and constituency expectations and don't act like dictatorial monoliths.
> 
> This is why you guys who are used to totalitarian regimes in your countries have no idea how democracy really works. Even if you're a Republican doesn't mean you have to toe the party line. It's democracy, not fascism.


Thats...how things work in the rest of the world. You think every vote gets through? Plenty of times the majority party has lost votes in the UK.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

DesolationRow said:


> For another cycle or two, anyway. :mj


My brothers south of the border are gonna change that real soon. :eddie


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> In terms of an election system, Proportional Representation would be disastrous in the US. You got to remember the United States is set up in a different way to European countries....or Australia for example where the political system is much more centralized and has much more control from a central vocal point of political power. Westminster for example in the UK pretty much determines policies which effect the whole country in the vast majority of times (still) despite there being more decentralization of power....particularly in Scotland. I'd personally like to change that but it is what it is.
> 
> The United States is purposefully set up to have 51 states with autonomous state and local governments who have legislative and fiscal control to a large degree and represent different political viewpoints. Some liberal, some Conservative and some who swing between the two. So all of those states need to be represented in a national election. You can't do that in PR system when two states alone....namely New York and California can outvote the other 49 states. You could essentially have two states dictating how the entire country is run, which is absolutely preposterous. You'd have several red states not represented at all by the way in which they voted simply because they aren't as densely populated. That's why I think in the case of the US, the idea of a PR system is ludicrous.
> 
> I mean look at how the states lined in the election, the vast majority were red under Trump. In fact there were only a few states in which the vast majority of those counties voted for Hillary. It would be insidious in this case for Hillary to win simply because she got the most votes in the most populated areas. Clearly in this election by state demographics, the majority voted for Trump. It wasn't even close.


Scrub that I misread it. You're right that PR wouldn't work. I've never liked the idea of PR as a whole. Here in the UK London does not dictate everything, far from it, it was a Labour/Brexit majority and yet both still lost. 

However when it comes down to it, the mjaority of people still wanted Clinton more than Trump, and thats the downside of the US system, the minority of people get the President they wanted. There must be a better system?


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Agreed. California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida would basically control the elections by far. They alone have more than a 1/3 of the US population under their grasp. It would take a coalition of the rest of the US states in order to have a chance to sway the elections.
> 
> California, Illinois, and New York are traditionally blue states. Florida flip flops, while Texas is the only real red state here.
> 
> While the current system may not be perfect, it is possibly one of the best compromises we have considering the circumstances. Five states alone should not have control over what happens with the rest of the forty-five. Oh, and yes, before anyone says otherwise, if the roles were reversed I'd say the same as well.


Just a random thought. Would be it be fair to say that they deserve to have that much vote power since they have that amount of population in the first place? 

If I had a country of 2 cities and 8 towns, but the population of the 2 cities vastly outweighs the population of the towns. If each settlement contained one vote, it would vastly weaken the individual voting power of an individual in the city and in contrast severely over strengthen the individual voting power of a town member. These 8 towns despite having for example not even 10 percent of the total population have 4 times the voting power of the two cities. 10 percent of the population far out influence the 90 percent.

Of course this is an extreme example, but I can't help but think that a similar problem might be happening in the U.S. Sure, you're giving equal power to each state, but does a state which has a fraction the population of another really deserve to have equal voting power? 

Of course, I'm fairly ignorant of how American politics work so its entirely possible for me to miss something. However, I'm genuinely curious if this is a valid complaint of the American election system?


----------



## Vic Capri

Tennessee GOP said:


> The Russia narrative fell apart so now Democrats are back to calling Trump a Nazi & racist? This playbook is getting old.








Introducing Jaimee, one of the President Trump's rare lesbian supporters.

http://www.thegaywhostrayed.com/

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Irish Jet @Miss Sally @Reaper @Tater 

Better be sure to send more U.S. weapons and aid to Ukraine! 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897111168426414080


----------



## amhlilhaus

Stinger Fan said:


> If you truly cared about every vote counting, you'd actually be in favor of the electoral college. There's no real justification for why *3* cities should not only speak for the entire country but determine the outcome of every election. I find it hard to believe you'd feel this way if those blue states were red.


They wouldnt. If it was opposite theyd be screaming to change it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

amhlilhaus said:


> They wouldnt. If it was opposite theyd be screaming to change it.


Exactly. While I understand why someone would feel that way about it, at first upon hearing about the electoral college it baffled me. However, when you actually think about it and take a deeper look at it, it makes the most sense and actually makes votes count. That "Adam Ruins Everything" show kind of explained it to the point of making it look worse than it actually is



Vic Capri said:


> Introducing Jaimee, one of the President Trump's rare lesbian supporters.
> 
> - Vic


It's because of identity politics is why you don't see more women, African american, Latinos or gays being open about supporting right wing politics. They get a ton of blowback from leftists and get attacked in the same way leftists accuse the right of doing. You'll see sexism, racism, homophobia etc etc from leftists because they truly believe if its directed in the right direction its "okay". You lose your "minority status" if you lean right, and its pretty ridiculous. 

You see it when people get on Caitlyn Jenner for supporting Trump. You saw it from Van Jones when he was shocked and questioned why a woman wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton on his show despite being a woman. You saw it with Kellyane Conway getting attacked constantly as well. If Dana Loesch was a Democrat she wouldn't be getting labeled a national security threat for crying out loud.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897079051277537280
Then why did you have him on your council in the first place if he's such a piece of shit?


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897079051277537280
> Then why did you have him on your council in the first place if he's such a piece of shit?


Token black guy?oh


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Token black guy?oh


Whining about tokenism is also a form of racism you know. :CENA

In the past the word for "token black guy" was "spook" and so they PCfied it .. but it still doesn't make it any better. Read "The Spook Who Sat by The Door". 

To accuse someone of being a token black is to reduce their achievement as a consequence of their race. It's bad when the rightists do it, and it's bad with the leftists do it.

The irony here is that I sold Trump hats as a brown man. If I had achieved any kind of fame at one of Trumps' rallies people like you would be calling me a token minority as well and that reflects poorly on you, not Trump. Get over yourselves.

That said, it's true what they say. Everyone has a little bit of racist in them. Even the so-called diversity champions because in order to push their savior narratives they still need to consider groups as collectives instead of individuals.


----------



## Sensei Utero

No matter my personal thoughts on the whole march, it's baffling that it took Trump two days to say it was wrong. That speech he did though was probably the biggest hit he's had on his own far-right supporters.


----------



## samizayn

Donald Trump has shown more furore at Alec Baldwin and Nordstroms than he has at literal Nazis. A proud legacy, indeed.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Whining about tokenism is also a form of racism you know. :CENA
> 
> In the past the word for "token black guy" was "spook" and so they PCfied it .. but it still doesn't make it any better. Read "The Spook Who Sat by The Door".
> 
> To accuse someone of being a token black is to reduce their achievement as a consequence of their race. It's bad when the rightists do it, and it's bad with the leftists do it.
> 
> The irony here is that I sold Trump hats as a brown man. If I had achieved any kind of fame at one of Trumps' rallies people like you would be calling me a token minority as well and that reflects poorly on you, not Trump. Get over yourselves.
> 
> That said, it's true what they say. Everyone has a little bit of racist in them. Even the so-called diversity champions because in order to push their savior narratives they still need to consider groups as collectives instead of individuals.


Its sarcasm...like skill level asian or how black people always die in horror movies, or how the posh white girl is always a bitch. I don't know where you're taking my joke.


----------



## AmWolves10

Did Obama denounce when black people burned down Ferguson and Baltimore? Or when they stopped traffic in Chicago and many other major cities for working class men and women trying to go about their days? Both sides are reluctant to denounce the extremists on their own sides because they want to keep all their supporters.


----------



## Draykorinee

AmWolves10 said:


> Did Obama denounce when black people burned down Ferguson


Yes



> and Baltimore?


Yes

He literally said they're criminals, however in both situations he was slow off the mark and deserves to be called out on that.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/gotcha-politics/



> *Definition of Gotcha Politics*
> 
> 
> What is the definition of the term "gotcha politics"? What does the term "gotcha politics" mean?
> 
> "Gotcha politics" is when you spend most of your time trying to lure your opponent into committing some sort of gaffe or mistake, rather than focusing on building your own campaign.
> 
> Definition of Gotcha Politics - Financial Dictionary - ElectionsFor instance - let's say that there is a Presidential debate. Let's say that instead of extolling the virtues of their own campaigns, the two candidates for President instead focus on trying to lure their opponents into making mistakes. If a mistake is made, campaign advertisements will be focused on pointing out the opponent's mistakes or gaffes.
> 
> Let's look at an example of "gotcha politics":
> 
> During a debate, Democratic candidate Joe Smith asks Republican candidate Mark Jones if he supports the military. Jones is taken aback by the question, and responds "Of course".
> 
> Smith then points out that Jones voted twice against bills that would have improved benefits for veterans. "How can you support the military", Smith says, "if you voted twice to limit benefits to veterans?"
> 
> This is "gotcha politics", as Smith is hoping to put Jones in an uncomfortable position by bringing up Jones' past voting record and comparing it to his words in the debate.
> 
> "Gotcha politics" and negative ads dominate the political landscape these days.


This can be extended to include post election political discussions as well.


----------



## DOPA

I know a few people who that needs to be directed to on this forum @Reaper. And to be honest, I'm not directing it at anyone who is regularly posting in the Trump thread right now from either the left or right. But there are a few people I've noticed who venture into the thread as soon as they feel they can find a way to reduce Trump's credibility by attacking his character....which of course has never worked. You'd think they would have learned by now :lol.


----------



## Vic Capri

> No matter my personal thoughts on the whole march, it's baffling that it took Trump two days to say it was wrong. That speech he did though was probably the biggest hit he's had on his own far-right supporters.


Should he comment on every crime and tragedy committed in America? People complain when he Tweets too much then those same people complain that he took too long (when he was probably briefed and given all the information gathered by his staff about the situation.) to Tweet.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> I know a few people who that needs to be directed to on this forum @Reaper. And to be honest, I'm not directing it at anyone who is regularly posting in the Trump thread right now from either the left or right. But there are a few people I've noticed who venture into the thread as soon as they feel they can find a way to reduce Trump's credibility by attacking his character....which of course has never worked. You'd think they would have learned by now :lol.


Exactly why I posted it. 

But I am directing it at people who are now turning the whole Charlottesville disaster into "he said, she said, she didn't say this, he didn't say that". Yes, yes we know. It's bad. It's terrible. It's a result of many things. Including some things that were said here and others that were said there. BUT, what is the greater thing here ... Is this about whether presidents verbally denounce something, or is this about addressing the cancerous identity politics that have created a massive culture war? Do you remember how much we used to discuss about the coming cultural war and how we all saw the signs that this was coming. I think deep and I actually had SEVERAL (not just one) discussions about the fact that white racists are becoming increasingly mad and that it's only a matter of time that they get violent ... 

I have posted this quote before where I don't remember which philosopher said this but at times it's like a man pointing the sky and people in here start examining his manicure.


----------



## skypod

Vic Capri said:


> Should he comment on every crime and tragedy committed in America? People complain when he Tweets too much then those same people complain that he took too long (when he was probably briefed and given all the information gathered by his staff.) to Tweet.
> 
> - Vic



I'd say as a leader you have a responsibility to comment on anything that's part of the national conversation (in this case it was white supremacy not just general rioting) and you reassure your country. And that news story was the biggest thing going on this weekend.


----------



## Vic Capri

Let's be honest. If the mainstream media didn't pick it up (surprise, surprise another race war story), nobody in general would've cared.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Vic Capri said:


> Let's be honest. If the media didn't pick it up (surprise, surprise another race war story), nobody in general would've cared.
> 
> - Vic


Miss distraction for table everyone. It's amazing how easy it is for politicians to get people to go mental at each other protecting the people who're actually just all fucking us over. #wearesheeplehearusbaa


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Miss distraction for table everyone. It's amazing how easy it is for politicians to get people to go mental at each other protecting the people who're actually just all fucking us over. #wearesheeplehearusbaa


The politician didn't do anything this time. Not saying something specific is not a willfully created distraction on the part of the politician himself no matter how you try to interpret it.


----------



## Sensei Utero

samizayn said:


> Donald Trump has shown more furore at Alec Baldwin and Nordstroms than he has at literal Nazis. A proud legacy, indeed.


Basically this...

and that is worrying.


----------



## Headliner

AmWolves10 said:


> Did Obama denounce when black people burned down Ferguson and Baltimore? Or when they stopped traffic in Chicago and many other major cities for working class men and women trying to go about their days? Both sides are reluctant to denounce the extremists on their own sides because they want to keep all their supporters.


Yes and white sympathizers didn't say a word. Black people got mad at him for that. However white sympathizers were quick to pop shit when he stood up for the problems African Americans face from the police. 

Is this all you guys do? Bring up Obama? BLM? Hilary? Muslims? Hispanics? The agenda is so transparent.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Only thing I wished Trump would have done is included Anifta and the SJW extremists into what he said about the white nationalists, along with it not seemingly been a little after the fact. You don't just shame the violent extremists of one side, you do that to ALL of them equally, because violence shouldn't be accepted period.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> Yes and *white* sympathizers didn't say a word. *Black* people got mad at him for that. However *white* sympathizers were quick to pop shit when he stood up for the problems* African Americans* face from the police.
> 
> Is this all you guys do? Bring up Obama? BLM? Hilary? Muslims? Hispanics? The agenda is so transparent.


You use those words a lot.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Its sarcasm...like skill level asian or how black people always die in horror movies, or how the posh white girl is always a bitch. I don't know where you're taking my joke.


No shit. Bad delivery though. 

Interesting that you missed the point considering that I'm against gotcha moments and yet here I am obviously going for a gotcha moment to prove how fucking annoying they are.


----------



## AmWolves10

Headliner said:


> Yes and white sympathizers didn't say a word. Black people got mad at him for that. However white sympathizers were quick to pop shit when he stood up for the problems African Americans face from the police.
> 
> Is this all you guys do? Bring up Obama? BLM? Hilary? Muslims? Hispanics? The agenda is so transparent.


I'm not a white sympathizer, I'm a humanity sympathizer, I just call a spade a spade. If you're going to call one side out for something, I think you should call out the other. Otherwise we wont get anywhere.


----------



## samizayn

InUtero said:


> Basically this...
> 
> and that is worrying.


No, tbh, we're beyond "worrying." Trump has signaled many times that this is the kind of man he is, the conformation is simply depressing. Legitimately makes your heart sink.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You use those words a lot.


I choose my words carefully. 


AmWolves10 said:


> I'm not a white sympathizer, I'm a humanity sympathizer, I just call a spade a spade. If you're going to call one side out for something, I think you should call out the other. Otherwise we wont get anywhere.


I didn't call you one. 

My second line was directed toward the people in this thread who have a record of doing this in general.


----------



## AmWolves10

Headliner said:


> I choose my words carefully.
> 
> I didn't call you one.
> 
> My second line was directed toward the people in this thread who have a record of doing this in general.


Ok sorry. In general I've seen idiots on both sides, but I think everyone agrees that what happened in Charlottesville was wrong and those people were maniacs especially that dumbass who ran over the lady. I don't like when the rational lefts and rational rights are arguing and in conflict with each other because of the actions of the extremes of each sides. When a crazy democrat or crazy republican goes and kills someone at a convenience store we don't go crazy about it. Neither party supports those actions so why judge them by the actions of a few? They were outliers and not even a fraction of the entire party nor representative of its ideals.

It's a waste of time and we have bigger issues to worry about like rising rent prices with a stagnating median income, healthcare costs, public school system, foreign policy.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

AmWolves10 said:


> Ok sorry. In general I've seen idiots on both sides, but I think everyone agrees that what happened in Charlottesville was wrong and those people were maniacs especially that dumbass who ran over the lady. I don't like when the rational lefts and rational rights are arguing and in conflict with each other because of the actions of the extremes of each sides. When a crazy democrat or crazy republican goes and kills someone at a convenience store we don't go crazy about it. Neither party supports those actions so why judge them by the actions of a few? They were outliers and not even a fraction of the entire party nor representative of its ideals.
> 
> *It's a waste of time and we have bigger issues to worry about like rising rent prices with a stagnating median income, healthcare costs, public school system, foreign policy.*


No one now or decades from now will be able to fix those problems country wide. The only way people would think about them is if the whole US cost to cost just fell apart and became the biggest trash dump of the free world.


----------



## deepelemblues

North Korea has backed down (for now). China wouldn't give them cover at the UN and has (almost certainly temporarily) stopped buying iron and coal from them.


----------



## Stinger Fan

InUtero said:


> No matter my personal thoughts on the whole march, it's baffling that it took Trump two days to say it was wrong. That speech he did though was probably the biggest hit he's had on his own far-right supporters.


Lets be honest, he could have said exactly what people wanted him to say and it still wouldn't be good enough.


----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> Lets be honest, he could have said exactly what people wanted him to say and it still wouldn't be good enough.


No excuse for not trying.


----------



## Beatles123

samizayn said:


> No excuse for not trying.


He's saying your disapproval and anothers approval are immaterial.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stinger Fan said:


> Lets be honest, he could have said exactly what people wanted him to say and it still wouldn't be good enough.


Let's be honest, he said it was wrong on the same day but people ignored it because he didn't conform to the double standard where the Left as a whole gets a pass for any violent excesses of those "on the Left," and their violence is downplayed, rationalized and even sometimes blatantly justified, but the Right as a whole doesn't get enjoy that same advantageous standard.

:trump supporters have been threatened, intimidated, mobbed, and assaulted for a year now. Maced, sucker-punched, chased through parking garages and down streets, beaten with signposts and baseball bats and bike locks. Surrounded and kicked into the ground. Put in the hospital. There have been multiple large riots. There was some half-hearted criticism from the mainstream Left of the widespread violence and general lawlessness of the Berkeley Milo riot, but when riots kept taking place - in Portland, in Los Angeles, at the Dakota Access Pipeline site - they were never portrayed in the media as shaming the entirety of the Left or as some kind of major problem. 

Now the whole political system is convulsed with the complicity of :trump and the Right in general of one asshole who killed someone because of his fucked-up politics. No politician ever said antifa wasn't welcome in California. But the governor of Virginia can say anyone and everyone 'far right' isn't welcome in Virginia because they're so dangerous and awful. Left wing terrorists = not so much of a much. No matter how much they riot, no matter how many people they attack, no matter how much property they destroy, no matter how lucky it is that no one got killed. Like with that Floyd Corkins guy who tried to shoot up the Family Research Center (and planned to go shoot up another conservative group's offices after he killed everyone at the FRC). His first target, building manager Leo Johnson, fought back and disarmed him despite being shot in the arm. If he hadn't successfully fought back, Floyd Corkins might have killed over a dozen people the FRC building alone. Remember that? You probably don't, because left-wing violence gets treated differently from right-wing violence in this country.

Remember,



> The agenda is so transparent.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The poor right wing victims continue to just have it so hard in the modern west apparently, with everyone seemingly against them.

Never let that oh-so comfy victim complex go if it's all you have?


----------



## deepelemblues

Every sneer of the Left increases the appeal of the alt-right. 

Never let go of sneering if it's all you have?


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> No excuse for not trying.


I just think you're blatantly ignoring what he has said in order to fit in a narrative .Trump has disavowed the KKK, David Duke, racism and white supremacy since at least 1991 , long before he was a presidential candidate for the Republicans. How many more times does Trump need to disavow those morons before people are finally satisfied? Look no further than this politifact article about him and David Duke




> Trump, as we previously noted and as he acknowledged himself, renounced Duke just two days before he told Tapper he knew nothing about the white nationalist.
> 
> When a reporter asked about Duke’s support on Feb. 26 (without identifying Duke as a former Klansman), Trump said, "I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right, I disavow, okay?"
> 
> And a few months ago, in August 2015, Trump "repudiated" an earlier expression of support from Duke in a Bloomberg interview:
> 
> John Heilemann: "We’ve heard this week that David Duke — former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan — has come out and said he’s in support of your candidacy. So my first question is why do people like that like Donald Trump? And second, how do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?"
> 
> Trump: "*I don’t know the answer to the first. Who knows why? But I don’t need his endorsement. I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anybody’s endorsement. I’m not looking for*…"
> 
> Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?"
> 
> Trump: "*Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me. And actually I don’t think it was an endorsement. He said I was absolutely the best of all the candidates. But I wouldn’t want him *…"





> *2000 Trump: Duke is ‘a big racist’*
> 
> Fifteen years ago, when Trump was flirting with a White House bid as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke as a cause of concern at least three times.
> 
> In 2000, former wrestler and then-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura broke with the Reform Party because he didn’t want to be associated with the Reform Party’s presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, whom Duke supported.
> 
> "Buchanan is an anti-abortion extremist and an unrealistic isolationist," Ventura told the New York Daily News on Feb. 12, 2000. "*The latest I hear is that he's now getting support from David Duke. I can't be a part of that and I won't be part of that.*"
> 
> Before he called it quits, Ventura said he consulted with Trump. After Ventura left the party, Trump also named Duke as one of the Reform's "biggest problems" on NBC’s Today Show.
> 
> "*Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party*," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000.
> 
> He announced that day that he wouldn’t seek the nomination of the Reform Party, naming Duke as one of his reasons.
> 
> "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan," Trump wrote in a statement. "*So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep*."
> 
> A few days later, Trump himself quit the party and repeated his earlier statement.
> 
> "*Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep*," Trump wrote in a Feb. 19, 2000, New York Times op-ed.





> *1991 Trump: A vote for Duke is ‘an anger vote’*
> 
> Even earlier, Trump appeared on CNN on Nov. 19, 1991, and discussed Duke’s defeat in the Louisiana governor’s race and his possibly running against then-President George H.W. Bush. (Duke declared his candidacy as a Republican about a month after Trump’s interview.)
> 
> Larry King: "Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him. Four hundred New Yorkers contributed."
> 
> Trump: "*I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there's a lot of hostility in this country. There's a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States*."
> 
> King: "Anger?"
> 
> Trump: "*It's anger. I mean, that's an anger vote. People are angry about what's happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they're really in deep trouble. When you talk about the East Coast — it's not the East Coast. It's the East Coast, the middle coast, the West Coast.*"
> 
> King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs, might you see a really divided vote?"
> 
> Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George (H.W.) Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like (Mario) Cuomo runs. I think Cuomo can win the election."
> 
> King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."
> 
> Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/

And this is before his comments after the whole fiasco where he was accused of not wanting to disavow David Duke last year , he's made several comments about white supremacists since then but no one wants to listen. Like I said, he could say exactly what people want and it wont be good enough.


----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> I just think you're blatantly ignoring what he has said in order to fit in a narrative .Trump has disavowed the KKK, David Duke, racism and white supremacy since at least 1991 , long before he was a presidential candidate for the Republicans. How many more times does Trump need to disavow those morons before people are finally satisfied? Look no further than this politifact article about him and David Duke
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/
> 
> And this is before his comments after the whole fiasco where he was accused of not wanting to disavow David Duke last year , he's made several comments about white supremacists since then but no one wants to listen. Like I said, he could say exactly what people want and it wont be good enough.


I think you're trying to shoehorn past soundbites in where they don't matter :/

If I could put it in a more intimate context: say you had a sister. Say some meathead she had been seeing decided to slap her around a little bit, and someone gets on the phone to tell you what happened. The idea that you'd point them to an interview you gave in March of 2000 to get your take on the issue is laughable. Likewise, would you give some half-assed general statement about hitting women being wrong and couples everywhere need to come together to solve the violence that happens "on many sides"? Only if you literally don't give a fuck about your sister/have considerable disdain for her.

Trump is very eager to fight the battles he's passionate about - just look at his twitter where there's reams and reams about the late night TV comics he hates, the clothing stores that are awful, and obviously the LYING FAKE NEWS MEDIA that are the worst thing in the world. We don't need him to be genuine here, no politician is. We just need something from him to cool off the momentum that right-wing extremists are gaining, largely by his assent.


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> I think you're trying to shoehorn past soundbites in where they don't matter :/
> 
> If I could put it in a more intimate context: say you had a sister. Say some meathead she had been seeing decided to slap her around a little bit, and someone gets on the phone to tell you what happened. The idea that you'd point them to an interview you gave in March of 2000 to get your take on the issue is laughable. Likewise, would you give some half-assed general statement about hitting women being wrong and couples everywhere need to come together to solve the violence that happens "on many sides"? Only if you literally don't give a fuck about your sister/have considerable disdain for her.
> 
> Trump is very eager to fight the battles he's passionate about - just look at his twitter where there's reams and reams about the late night TV comics he hates, the clothing stores that are awful, and obviously the LYING FAKE NEWS MEDIA that are the worst thing in the world. We don't need him to be genuine here, no politician is. We just need something from him to cool off the momentum that right-wing extremists are gaining, largely by his assent.


You know what's funny? The media and leftists are very quick to bring up his past remarks....when it suits them like how he's a sexist and physically assaults women left and right for his "grab em by the pussy" remarks that was purposely taken out of context. You're only further proving my point that it doesn't matter what he says, you'll just never be happy . He didn't "try" even though he talked about it over the weekend and he's spoken out against racism in the past as I've shown you but you're best argument is that it's shoe horned in? There's plenty of remarks from 2015, and 2016...your narrative has been busted already its time to move off this topic as you'll never be satisfied. There's plenty to criticize Trump over, like you mentioned his love affair with Twitter. I've mentioned that he needs to lay off of it, less verbal assault about SNL and people who disagree with him and more talk about policy


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> I think you're trying to shoehorn past soundbites in where they don't matter :/
> 
> If I could put it in a more intimate context: say you had a sister. Say some meathead she had been seeing decided to slap her around a little bit, and someone gets on the phone to tell you what happened. The idea that you'd point them to an interview you gave in March of 2000 to get your take on the issue is laughable. Likewise, would you give some half-assed general statement about hitting women being wrong and couples everywhere need to come together to solve the violence that happens "on many sides"? Only if you literally don't give a fuck about your sister/have considerable disdain for her.
> 
> Trump is very eager to fight the battles he's passionate about - just look at his twitter where there's reams and reams about the late night TV comics he hates, the clothing stores that are awful, and obviously the LYING FAKE NEWS MEDIA that are the worst thing in the world. We don't need him to be genuine here, no politician is. We just need something from him to cool off the momentum that right-wing extremists are gaining, largely by his assent.


A perfect example of the double standard. Backed up by an incredibly self-servingly inaccurate analogy. There was violence on both sides in Charlottesville, stop acting like it was all coming from one side. The double standard kicking into gear, ignore the left-wing violence and try to shame the Right for having the temerity to bring it up. There were a lot of street brawls before James Fields decided to run over people. The brawls were started by both sides. 

And look at the conflation of David Duke and Charlottesville. David Duke wasn't at Charlottesville. For all the disgusting nature of his opinions, David Duke hasn't physically attacked people. :trump has talked shit on him multiple times over the years. But for some reason, all of those times don't count. :trump needs to do it again or it means he's not-so-secretly in agreement with David Duke. :trump must ignore the left-wing violence, :trump must denounce only the right-wing violence, or it means he's not-so-secretly okay with the right-wing violence. The double standard never ceases to be in operation.

But nobody ever says that Nancy Pelosi or Keith Ellison or Chuck Schumer or Pocahontas must specifically denounce antifa and only antifa or it means they're not-so-secret supporters of antifa's ideology and antifa's violence. Oh, no. That ain't gonna happen. They get to live under the _privileged_ standard.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Every sneer of the Left increases the appeal of the alt-right.
> 
> Never let go of sneering if it's all you have?


Poor Response.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Poor Response.


It was a response to a poor 100% bait post. No different from someone trying to be snarky about "cucks."


----------



## KingCosmos

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897107711434915842
"B-but what about black on black crime. 

Trump retweeted this btw. Stop with the deflections or at least don't make it so obvious


----------



## deepelemblues

KingCosmos said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897107711434915842
> "B-but what about black on black crime.
> 
> Trump retweeted this btw. Stop with the deflections or at least don't make it so obvious


Stop making it so obvious that you only care about murders that you can use to further your own politics.

People murdered by non-political street violence are just as important as people who are murdered by political violence.

What about black on black crime indeed. It is a horrible thing that leaves millions of black people of all ages living in daily fear for themselves and their families, prisoners in their own neighborhoods. Everything possible must be done to continue the general decline in violent crime seen in this country since 1991, which has resulted in tens of thousands of black people being alive today who would be dead if the murderous urban violence seen in the 80s hadn't decreased. The recent rise in murders in multiple large cities, the victims being overwhelmingly black, must be reversed. All people deserve to live in places where public order and safety are more than just words.


----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> You know what's funny? The media and leftists are very quick to bring up his past remarks....*when it suits them like how he's a sexist and physically assaults women *left and right for his "grab em by the pussy" remarks that was purposely taken out of context. You're only further proving my point that it doesn't matter what he says, you'll just never be happy . He didn't "try" even though he talked about it over the weekend and he's spoken out against racism in the past as I've shown you but you're best argument is that it's shoe horned in? There's plenty of remarks from 2015, and 2016...your narrative has been busted already its time to move off this topic as you'll never be satisfied. There's plenty to criticize Trump over, like you mentioned his love affair with Twitter. I've mentioned that he needs to lay off of it, less verbal assault about SNL and people who disagree with him and more talk about policy


What is the narrative here that you claim has been busted? 

For the record, it's not that Trump needs to stop with his twitter rants. As immature as people find them, they're his thoughts, and he is free to express them on a platform that was created for that exact purpose. 

The problem that I and others foresaw is that he is a man that has to deal with the most important issues the world is facing, so these outbursts frame a very objective scale of how upsetting he finds things. "Fire and fury" at the DPRK was probably almost up there with fake news. But the lukewarm response to this isn't even in the top ten. The one sports team not coming to visit the white house pissed him off more than racists and neo-nazis invoking his name. This much he has made transparent.


----------



## deepelemblues

s


samizayn said:


> What is the narrative here that you claim has been busted?
> 
> For the record, it's not that Trump needs to stop with his twitter rants. As immature as people find them, they're his thoughts, and he is free to express them on a platform that was created for that exact purpose.
> 
> The problem that I and others foresaw is that he is a man that has to deal with the most important issues the world is facing, so these outbursts frame a very objective scale of how upsetting he finds things. "Fire and fury" at the DPRK was probably almost up there with fake news. But the lukewarm response to this isn't even in the top ten. The one sports team not coming to visit the white house pissed him off more than racists and neo-nazis invoking his name. This much he has made transparent.


Whatever happened to all those women who claimed :trump sexually assaulted them? Oh yeah, they all disappeared as soon as their usefulness ended, i.e. when Hillary lost. None of them continued making their claims to the media. None of them continued with their threatened legal action against :trump. They all just... vanished down the memory hole.

So now it's not that :trump isn't denouncing Nazis, it's that he's not denouncing them angrily enough. It never ends. :trump could take a shit on a picture of Hitler on live TV and some of you would say the steaming pile wasn't big enough.


----------



## KingCosmos

deepelemblues said:


> Stop making it so obvious that you only care about murders that you can use to further your own politics.
> 
> People murdered by non-political street violence are just as important as people who are murdered by political violence.
> 
> What about black on black crime indeed. It is a horrible thing that leaves millions of black people of all ages living in daily fear for themselves and their families, prisoners in their own neighborhoods. Everything possible must be done to continue the general decline in violent crime seen in this country since 1991, which has resulted in tens of thousands of black people being alive today who would be dead if the murderous urban violence seen in the 80s hadn't decreased. The recent rise in murders in multiple large cities, the victims being overwhelmingly black, must be reversed. All people deserve to live in places where public order and safety are more than just words.


Friend with all due respect don't reply to me spouting that BS. You know damn well this Mfer doesn't give a fuck about disenfranchised black communities and is simply posting this to deflect from white supremacy which ALSO has fucked Black communities. 

You know damn well you don't give a fuck about it either and just using it as a slick talking point and a gotcha to reply to me. I've been on the corners and talked to them real ones putting in work telling them that ain't the way. I tell them guys pushing packs to stop the violence. So don't you give me a fucking lecture about me only caring about murders that further my political stance. You gonna tell me the same snake that supports stop and frisk, condemns the innocent CP5, Disenfranchised black people with housing discrimination gives a damn about my brothers and sisters killing each other? Please. Yes it's good to genuinely talk about black on black crime. But not when you fucking use it as a deflection for white supremacy so the heat is off your back


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> s


I wish you didn't center your arguments around smileys. 

But then again, I also wish that you had some kind of reaction to violent extreme-right groups celebrating Trump's assent of their demonstrations over the weekend. However I really don't imagine I will find anything worth discussing over someone who is more concerned with how the president is being treated over the nazi demonstrations, than the nazi demonstrations themselves.


----------



## deepelemblues

KingCosmos said:


> Friend with all due respect don't reply to me spouting that BS. You know damn well this Mfer doesn't give a fuck about disenfranchised black communities and is simply posting this to deflect from white supremacy which ALSO has fucked Black communities.


I don't have a crystal ball so I can't read minds. You can't either but you think you can.



> You know damn well you don't give a fuck about it either and just using it as a slick talking point and a gotcha to reply to me. I've been on the corners and talked to them real ones putting in work telling them that ain't the way. I tell them guys pushing packs to stop the violence. So don't you give me a fucking lecture about me only caring about murders that further my political stance. You gonna tell me the same snake that supports stop and frisk, condemns the innocent CP5, Disenfranchised black people with housing discrimination gives a damn about my brothers and sisters killing each other? Please. Yes it's good to genuinely talk about black on black crime. But not when you fucking use it as a deflection for white supremacy so the heat is off your back


You can't read my mind either so don't act like you can. Presumptuous as fuck. Slick talking point my ass. I've lived in "bad" black majority neighborhoods (two of them), not for years or anything, but I've seen the desperation and fear in people's eyes, seen the way their spirits get crushed by the violence. Seen it in friends' eyes. Now that I don't live in those neighborhoods anymore, I see the pain in mothers' eyes on the news, the hopelessness, the realization that no matter what they do the violence seems like it doesn't do anything but get worse. I don't talk to my friends who still live in those neighborhoods about how things are unless they bring it up, why would I want to put such a depressing topic in their minds when it's already there too often anyway. I met black kids in college who were among the friendliest people I've ever met, and then we'd be walking from one frat party to another and some drunk rando asshole would start yelling about n*****s, not even directed at them, just yelling from somewhere down the street or from inside a house, and I'd see the way everything about them suddenly changed. Nobody should be made to feel that way. You can tell me all about the evils of racism all you want, you're not gonna convince me of anything I didn't already know. 

Not that I would need to have lived in "bad" black majority neighborhoods to have some fucking empathy for the unfortunate good people who do. 

You got no evidence for the absolute bullshit you're saying about me, but that's okay. Crystal ball mind-reading is so common it isn't anything special.

Stop and frisk has kept thousands of black people alive who'd have been murder victims otherwise, over the last 25 years. Thousands. 

:trump has had 8 months to enact a major initiative to get things on the right track when it comes to the endemic violence too many black people have to live with, if it doesn't happen I'm gonna be pissed. Black Americans are Americans. I want Americans living well and safely because they're Americans. I don't need the president to tell me that Americans need to not divide themselves and fight and hurt each other in these ways we are seeing, I believed it well before the current president entered office. And before the president before him, and before the president before him, and I was too young to have an opinion on such matters for the president before him.

Why would the heat be on my back, I'm not a white supremacist. I hold no good will towards them. They're losers. When they come up against a free people who don't obsess over hating, they lose. 

I don't want people putting heat on me that I don't deserve, though. Like anyone else would.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> I wish you didn't center your arguments around smileys.
> 
> But then again, I also wish that you had some kind of reaction to violent extreme-right groups celebrating Trump's assent of their demonstrations over the weekend. However I really don't imagine I will find anything worth discussing over someone who is more concerned with how the president is being treated over the nazi demonstrations, than the nazi demonstrations themselves.


I am disappointed that my refusal to say :trump's name ever in this thread and use the smiley instead has disappointed you.

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2219337-right-wingers-come-gather.html#post69530241

You were saying something about my reaction to these Nazi fuckwads (at the time I thought they were just neo-Confederate fuckwads)?

Also this is the second time you've said that :trump gave his "assent" to white supremacists. That never happened. No matter how pretzely you twist your logic, it never happened. I notice that each time you haven't explained how he gave "assent," most likely because you full well know you can't explain how because you know he didn't do that. He denounced the violence on the same day it happened. How did he give his "assent"? I'm sure your explanation for that will be clear, concise, and not barefacedly reliant on leaps of logic and ridiculous inferences. And you can twist this as much as you want, I don't want a president denouncing _anyone_ who is "demonstrating" _for_ demonstrating. Everyone has the right to demonstrate. Even loser Nazis or filthy antifas. They don't have the right to be violent. 

And get the fuck out with that contemptuous you're not worth talking to bullshit. It's a pathetic rhetorical flourish.


----------



## KingCosmos

deepelemblues said:


> I don't have a crystal ball so I can't read minds. You can't either but you think you can.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't read my mind either so don't act like you can. Presumptuous as fuck. Slick talking point my ass. I've lived in "bad" black majority neighborhoods (two of them), not for years or anything, but I've seen the desperation and fear in people's eyes, seen the way their spirits get crushed by the violence. Seen it in friends' eyes. Now that I don't live in those neighborhoods anymore, I see the pain in mothers' eyes on the news, the hopelessness, the realization that no matter what they do the violence seems like it doesn't do anything but get worse. I met black kids in college who were among the friendliest people I've ever met, and then we'd be walking from one frat party to another and some drunk rando asshole would start yelling about n*****s, not even directed at them, just yelling from somewhere down the street or from inside a house, and I'd see the way everything about them suddenly changed. Nobody should be made to feel that way. You can tell me all about the evils of racism all you want, you're not gonna convince me of anything I didn't already know.
> 
> Not that I would need to have lived in "bad" black majority neighborhoods to have some fucking empathy for the unfortunate good people who do.
> 
> You got no evidence for the absolute bullshit you're saying about me, but that's okay. Crystal ball mind-reading is so common it isn't anything special.
> 
> Stop and frisk has kept thousands of black people alive who'd have been murder victims otherwise, over the last 25 years. Thousands.
> 
> :trump has had 8 months to enact a major initiative to get things on the right track when it comes to the endemic violence too many black people have to live with, if it doesn't happen I'm gonna be pissed. Black Americans are Americans. I want Americans living well and safely because they're Americans. I don't need the president to tell me that Americans need to not divide themselves and fight and hurt each other in these ways we are seeing, I believed it well before the current president entered office. And before the president before him, and before the president before him, and I was too young to have an opinion on such matters for the president before him.


Crystal ball mind reading?
Are you really telling me to be stupid and pretend that's not what that tweet was about. It wasn't a deflection? Come on man


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> *I choose my words carefully.
> *
> I didn't call you one.
> 
> My second line was directed toward the people in this thread who have a record of doing this in general.


I know that you do. I just disagree with lumping people into particular groups. I'm white, and I have beliefs that align with BLM, LBGTQ, the religious right, Constitutionalists, Feminism (old school not 3rd wave), nationalism, and a lot of other things. To call me just some sis-white dude, is the shallowest version of myself, and it's inaccurate. 

Let's talk about actual truths, not what we perceive to be the truth. Otherwise, we're really just virtue signaling on the internet, and I think we all can agree that there's nothing sadder than that, right?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

KingCosmos said:


> Crystal ball mind reading?
> Are you really telling me to be stupid and pretend that's not what that tweet was about. It wasn't a deflection? Come on man


Is it a deflection when it's been mentioned over, and over, and over again and yet the left, who are busy right now foaming at the mouth because Trump didn't disavow neo-nazis, up to your ridiculous standards, ignore these facts? One person died, senselessly, and it's all over the media. Dozens of innocent black people die in the inner cities, due to gang violence, every single day. Where's the outrage over that? It's not a deflection, it's a cue to get your fucking priorities straight. 

A person died because of a nut job, be outraged. Be more outraged that hundreds of black children are dying each year, due to gang violence. How much time have you spent online virtue signaling about that?


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I know that you do.* I just disagree with lumping people into particular groups.* I'm white, and I have beliefs that align with BLM, LBGTQ, the religious right, Constitutionalists, Feminism (old school not 3rd wave), nationalism, and a lot of other things. To call me just some sis-white dude, is the shallowest version of myself, and it's inaccurate.
> 
> Let's talk about actual truths, not what we perceive to be the truth. Otherwise, we're really just virtue signaling on the internet, and I think we all can agree that there's nothing sadder than that, right?


Unless it's the LEFT right buddy?


----------



## deepelemblues

KingCosmos said:


> Crystal ball mind reading?
> Are you really telling me to be stupid and pretend that's not what that tweet was about. It wasn't a deflection? Come on man


Any time black on black violence is brought up, the attempts to deflect are immediate and furious :draper2

When both black on black violence and white supremacism are serious problems deserving of the utmost attention and efforts to minimize.

I'm not too familiar with Jack Posobiec other than knowing he is popular with some portions of the internet Right. If he has not really ever talked much about white supremacism / has a pattern of bringing up black people behaving badly in response to criticism of white people behaving badly, then yeah I would change my opinion and say he is deflecting there. If he doesn't, then perhaps he is sick of how some people dial the outrage up to 11 about white people behaving badly, and set the outrage dial at 2 about black people behaving badly.



yeahbaby! said:


> Unless it's the LEFT right buddy?


The LEFT is ALL dirty pinko commies :side:

I just _know it_

Except for the ones I know personally they're not dirty pinko commies

On another note, MUH RUSSIA takes another hit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.d0e966c1c5e8

That :trump is so crafty, he was secretly working with the Russians while putting up a smokescreen by having his subordinates reject some of their obviously staged requests for meetings. The requests were obviously staged so his subordinates could reject the requests and give :trump cover from the collusion charge that hadn't even yet been raised against him by anyone at the time the meetings were rejected. 

Damn this guy is good at ONE MILLION dimensional chess.


----------



## Vic Capri

Anthony Scaramucci said:


> At the end of the day, you got to accept what your fate is and you got to do it without any bitterness and you got to stay humble.


- Vic


----------



## virus21

McResistance:hmm: Sounds right


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> I am disappointed that my refusal to say :trump's name ever in this thread and use the smiley instead has disappointed you.
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2219337-right-wingers-come-gather.html#post69530241
> 
> You were saying something about my reaction to these Nazi fuckwads (at the time I thought they were just neo-Confederate fuckwads)?
> 
> Also this is the second time you've said that :trump gave his "assent" to white supremacists. That never happened. No matter how pretzely you twist your logic, it never happened. I notice that each time you haven't explained how he gave "assent," most likely because you full well know you can't explain how because you know he didn't do that. He denounced the violence on the same day it happened. How did he give his "assent"? I'm sure your explanation for that will be clear, concise, and not barefacedly reliant on leaps of logic and ridiculous inferences. And you can twist this as much as you want, I don't want a president denouncing _anyone_ who is "demonstrating" _for_ demonstrating. Everyone has the right to demonstrate. Even loser Nazis or filthy antifas. They don't have the right to be violent.
> 
> And get the fuck out with that contemptuous you're not worth talking to bullshit. It's a pathetic rhetorical flourish.


His "condemnation" (non-reaction) was taken as such from the people it was directed to? God bless him indeed. Non reaction is assent. Non reaction from an individual who we have seen extremists flock to for exactly this reason, doubly so.

I did not mean that to be spiteful. In this particular instance, I feel that I won't ever find a middle ground with someone that didn't find the speech and its aftermath extremely troubling. Not to imply you don't have good ideas to share.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Irish Jet @Miss Sally @Reaper @Tater
> 
> Better be sure to send more U.S. weapons and aid to Ukraine!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897111168426414080


Gotta help out Ukraine, send more weapons to Rebels..I mean.. "Freedom Fighters"... and send millions of dollars in aid to countries that hate the US. 

Not like our aid and weapons have fallen into terrorist hands or in possession of rogue elements. Nope.


Also N.K backed down, now people can stop crying about "Doomsday" and shivering with fear.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Also N.K backed down, now people can stop crying about "Doomsday" and shivering with fear.


Funny how Kim was all talk until Xi got involved.










- Vic


----------



## DOPA

virus21 said:


> McResistance:hmm: Sounds right


If anyone wants to believe that there's still such a thing as the "anti-war" left, watch this video.

Fact is, there's only a select few people from both sides of the spectrum who are true non-interventionists and want to reduce the military budget.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I can just imagine the conversation where China had to basically say "Listen Jong Un, enough's enough now, you've had your little fun now stop fucking provoking the most powerful nation in the world before you wipe out your own, ok?"

FYI, I'm of the opinion that if it had gone to War that's Kim Jon Un's own dumbass fault for provoking THE superpower. Unlikely any fallout would come back on the West over it as far as I can figure so if they want to be fucking idiots and poke the hornet's nest it's their own stupid fault if they got stung to death.


----------



## DOPA

By the way, just to comment again on the Dore video which everyone needs to watch. The bill that was voted on was even higher in revenue for the defence budget than Trump proposed. The House bill increases the defence budget by almost 20% whilst tax receipts are only increasing by 5.6 to 6%. Essentially if it passes through the senate which I think it will, the defence budget is increasing at three times the rate of the new tax receipts coming into the US treasury this year.

All the while we've had 8 years of Obama accumulating almost 10 trillion dollars worth of new debt which is looking likely to continue under Trump, essentially having military and security spending replacing domestic and welfare spending.

Different president, same old shit with Congress when it comes to fiscal spending.


----------



## virus21

> In what is shaping up to be a contentious battle over privacy rights and free speech, the Department of Justice has formally requested that web hosting firm ‘DreamHost’ turn over 1.3 million IP addresses and other information to ‘unmask‘ visitors to the anti-Trump Antifa website ‘disruptj20.org,’ as part of the investigation into crimes committed on and around January 20 by protesters. DreamHost has challenged the request, claiming the scope of data requested violates the first and fourth amendments because it is too broad.
> 
> 
> 
> DisruptJ20.org was registered in October of 2016 by the ‘DC Anti-fascist Coalition,’ and promoted along with the hashtag #DisruptJ20, as a central resource for anti-Trump protesters to coordinate various plots over social media intended disrupt the presidential inauguration on and around January 20. The website connected users through mailing lists and planned meet-ups, and provided a calendar of anarchistic events as well as resources to help people prepare for the mayhem. The site also provides a ‘legal guide’ for those arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> Of note, organizers Luke Kuhn and Colin Dunn were caught on hidden camera at the infamous Comet Ping Pong Pizza restaurant in Washington DC, where they divulged plans to release butyric acid at the “Deploraball” Inauguration party, as well as “a series of clusterf*ck blockades, blockades of all the major ingress points in the city, shutting down major bridges and highway access points, as well as shutting down metro rail.” (video 1, video 2)
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the undercover sting, both men in the video were arrested along with a third – however after inauguration related chaos, organized and coordinated in large part through the DisruptJ20 website, 230 ‘black-bloc‘ protesters were arrested and subsequently indicted on felony rioting charges after the “anti-fascists” rioted in the streets – smashing storefronts, setting a limousine on fire, and injuring six police officers.
> 
> 
> 
> DOJ Request
> 
> 
> Following the inauguration riots, the Department of Justice served DisruptJ20 website host, DreamHost, with a search warrant – requesting over 1.3 million IP addresses, as well as contact information, emails, photos, and browsing habits of visitors to the Antifa website.
> 
> DreamHost is currently challenging the request in court, and has hearing scheduled for Friday. In its most recent filing, the company claims “That information could be used to identify any individuals who used this site to exercise and express political speech protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment”.
> 
> Unsettling precedent
> 
> While authorities need to be able to gather evidence used in to help prosecute crimes - especially against violent leftists who have committed countless crimes in the name of tolerance, scooping up a shotgun blast of personal information from up to 1.3 million people sets a dangerous precedent – as it effectively opens the door to targeted data collection on all Americans, right down to browsing habits.
> 
> “In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website,” said DreamHost General Council Chris Ghazarian in a legal filing opposing the request.
> 
> Given recent revelations of the Obama administration’s illegal unmasking of thousands of Americans during the 2016 election, people are more aware than ever of the risk of government malfeasance when it comes to collecting, storing, and misusing the information of private citizens and organizations. Even if the Trump administration (packed with holdovers) promises to treat personal information with the utmost discretion, and somehow we could trust that promise – history has shown that the next despot to come along would gladly use it to target groups of people via illegal surveillance, tax records, or court-ordered production of a website’s user data - even the one you're on right now...
> 
> Perhaps the DOJ is attempting to use a hammer when a scalpel would suffice?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-15/doj-demands-13-million-ip-addresses-visitors-antifa-website-used-coordinate-riots-0


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Unless it's the LEFT right buddy?


:tripsscust


----------



## virus21

Russians, Russians everywhere


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

> Correctly states the hate was on many sides in Charlottesville

> Wisely waited for the facts to come in, unlike with the Syria airstrike

> Gets ragged on by the mainstream media regardless because evidently he didn't go hard enough on the white supremacists while actually holding the participating radical leftists accountable










Please die in a fire, MSM. :tripsscust


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I know that you do. I just disagree with lumping people into particular groups. I'm white, and I have beliefs that align with BLM, LBGTQ, the religious right, Constitutionalists, Feminism (old school not 3rd wave), nationalism, and a lot of other things. To call me just some sis-white dude, is the shallowest version of myself, and it's inaccurate.
> 
> Let's talk about actual truths, not what we perceive to be the truth. Otherwise, we're really just virtue signaling on the internet, and I think we all can agree that there's nothing sadder than that, right?


Again, I choose my words carefully. I call things for what they are. If someone gets offended then maybe they should look in the mirror.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> Again, I choose my words carefully. I call things for what they are. If someone gets offended then maybe they should look in the mirror.


I'm offended by your Pink and white Name and title!!!


..I wish I had that.  (The colors that is )


----------



## deepelemblues

The double standard roars into action as :trump points out that left-wing violence has been given a free pass by politicians and the media. People blatantly denying the reality that the left-wing counter-protesters were violent in Charlottesville as well despite myriad video evidence showing they were. 

The lesson is, if you want to assault people in the street in this country and get away with it, don't forget to claim your victims were racists or right-wing. Idiot shills will line up to deny that you even _were_ violent at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at the Trump supporters in this thread making excuses for him. Gotta love how Trump is so quick to say radical Islamic terrorism but he can't called out white national terrorism and people have to twist his arm just to get him to kind of disavow him. The KKK/White Nationist know Trump is one of them and this weekend proved it.

Anyone defending Trump at this point has serious issues.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> If anyone wants to believe that there's still such a thing as the "anti-war" left, watch this video.
> 
> Fact is, there's only a select few people from both sides of the spectrum who are true non-interventionists and want to reduce the military budget.


TBH, the only truly anti-war leftist president I know about was Clinton. 

Which is fascinating considering how much of a war-mongering cunt his wife was.


----------



## Vic Capri

> > Correctly states the hate was on many sides in Charlottesville
> 
> > Wisely waited for the facts to come in, unlike with the Syria airstrike
> 
> > Gets ragged on by the mainstream media regardless because evidently he didn't go hard enough on the white supremacists more while actually holding the participating radical leftists accountable


Now, he's going to get crucified further by the media for defending racists's legalities of freedom of speech and the right to protest. 

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Serial rapist bill clinton was only against wars he would have served in if he hadnt run off to Europe and stayed there to avoid the draft. He bombed serbia. He bombed the sudan. He fully backed american involvement in the colombian governments savagely fought drug war against FARC and other cocaine producers, which included peasant militias that committed brutal war crimes (admittedly in response to the FARCs own brutal war crimes against the peasantry). He maintained the sanctions and no fly zone over iraq with American planes and bombs and missiles. He deepened the american involvement in somalia until the ineptitude of american efforts there got our boys ambushed and killed, then he ran away. He had zero problems with war, as long as he personally didn't have to fight.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Serial rapist bill clinton was only against wars he would have served in if he hadnt run off to Europe and stayed there to avoid the draft. He bombed serbia. He bombed the sudan. He maintained the sanctions and no fly zone over iraq with American planes and bombs and missiles. He deepened the american involvement in somalia until the ineptitude of american efforts there got our boys ambushed and killed, then he ran away. He had zero problems with war, as long as he personally didn't have to fight.


Interesting. Being on the other side of the world at the time, the press made him seem like an all around anti-war president. We didn't get as much news at the time.


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## Phaedra

Firstly, you cannot revise your history no matter how much you might want to try. History is history, we are supposed to look at our history in order to know how to live our future. The monuments that have been raised in the past are a physical embodiment of what we are supposed to reflect on. 

secondly, sorry, Trump is a fucking loose cannon. end of story mate. Just when you think he's come to reason and decided to defuse the situation and try to keep shit calm, facilitating time for people to reflect peacefully, he then turns the next day and turns the divisions up fucking ten fold. Everybody is angry because nobody is listening. Some people need to be educated and some people need to respect opinion and walk away when there is a difference. Opinion is not fact. But opinion presented as fact is really dangerous esp when it comes from one on the biggest platform available in the world. 

Someone needs to sit this man down and say 'child, deal in facts, let everyone else argue out opinion, you're the leader just give facts. opinion is mud, don't roll in the mud kid'


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*To no one's surprise, Trump backed down from his condemnation of the Nazis in less than 24 hours :mj4
This hee haw from yesterday remains valid:*


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the Trump supporters in this thread making excuses for him. Gotta love how Trump is so quick to say radical Islamic terrorism but he can't called out white national terrorism and people have to twist his arm just to get him to kind of disavow him. The KKK/White Nationist know Trump is one of them and this weekend proved it.
> 
> Anyone defending Trump at this point has serious issues.


Because his initial statement wasn't fucking wrong, people on BOTH SIDES were and still are toxic pieces of garbage. Don't get your panties in a knot because he didn't specifically disavow a group of people who only exist at the level they are today because the left caused it.



Legit BOSS said:


> *To no one's surprise, Trump backed down from his condemnation of the Nazis in less than 24 hours :mj4
> This hee haw from yesterday remains valid:*


The Breakfast Club. :mj4
Well known for their political integrity.

Miss me with that propaganda shit.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> Again, I choose my words carefully. I call things for what they are. If someone gets offended then maybe they should look in the mirror.


I should look in the mirror? No. I don't judge you by the color of your skin, I judge you by the content of your character. I believe a great man once said that, or is he no longer great because he thought that way?

If you put too much emphasis on the color of one's skin then you place too much importance on pigmentation. Identity politics is used to divide people, not bring them together. History is replete with examples of people trying to divide a unified group. They use race, religion, sex, etc. It's meant to weaken and if you allow yourself to fall prey to it then you're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter.

No good will come from that kind of thinking.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> Because his initial statement wasn't fucking wrong, people on BOTH SIDES were and still are toxic pieces of garbage. Don't get your panties in a knot because he didn't specifically disavow a group of people who only exist at the level they are today because the left caused it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Breakfast Club. :mj4
> Well known for their political integrity.
> 
> Miss me with that propaganda shit.


You're only wasting your time responding to him. People like that can have exactly what they want said to them and it still wouldn't be good enough.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I should look in the mirror? No. I don't judge you by the color of your skin, I judge you by the content of your character. I believe a great man once said that, or is he no longer great because he thought that way?
> 
> If you put too much emphasis on the color of one's skin then you place too much importance on pigmentation. Identity politics is used to divide people, not bring them together. History is replete with examples of people trying to divide a unified group. They use race, religion, sex, etc. It's meant to weaken and if you allow yourself to fall prey to it then you're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter.
> 
> No good will come from that kind of thinking.


Did I call you a white sympathizer?


----------



## Beatles123

Stinger Fan said:


> You're only wasting your time responding to him. People like that can have exactly what they want said to them and it still wouldn't be good enough.


This. Dunno how what LB posts is any different from what @virus21 posts from Styx, other than his lean left. Yet somehow he claims his are more valid.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> Did I call you a white sympathizer?


I was speaking more in generalities. You haven't accused me of any of those things, but it's prevalent all over the internet and the news. People are being painted with broad brushes, i.e. black, white, gay, straight, trans, immigrants, Muslims, so on and so forth. These labels don't help. We have to evolve past this kind of thinking and move on to bigger issues. If we get bogged down in identity politics, the only people that win are the one's pulling the strings.


----------



## samizayn

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I should look in the mirror? No. I don't judge you by the color of your skin, I judge you by the content of your character. I believe a great man once said that, *or is he no longer great because he thought that way?*
> 
> If you put too much emphasis on the color of one's skin then you place too much importance on pigmentation. Identity politics is used to divide people, not bring them together. History is replete with examples of people trying to divide a unified group. They use race, religion, sex, etc. It's meant to weaken and if you allow yourself to fall prey to it then you're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter.
> 
> No good will come from that kind of thinking.


idk why you're invoking MLK like he wasn't massively into this scene lol. Identity politics do not cause race/sex/xyz-ism, it acknowledges and attempts to eliminate its existence. Not calling an evil out by its name doesn't make it suddenly not exist any more.


----------



## Oxidamus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I should look in the mirror? No. I don't judge you by the color of your skin, I judge you by the content of your character. I believe a great man once said that, or is he no longer great because he thought that way?
> 
> If you put too much emphasis on the color of one's skin then you place too much importance on pigmentation. Identity politics is used to divide people, not bring them together. History is replete with examples of people trying to divide a unified group. They use race, religion, sex, etc. It's meant to weaken and if you allow yourself to fall prey to it then you're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter.
> 
> No good will come from that kind of thinking.





Stinger Fan said:


> You're only wasting your time responding to him. People like that can have exactly what they want said to them and it still wouldn't be good enough.


You guys give BM shit but he's still in this thread arguing his point and has been since the beginning. He's usually wrong and is a total reactionary but he has at least a few times shown some kind of realisation that he was wrong.

The biggest troll on the forum has been an administrator for longer than most of us have even been on the forum and you guys take him seriously. He changed his user-title to something braggadocios because he's getting a reaction out of people. He claims to believe X but uses the political situation to troll on the internet, and of course even used his power to ban people from the threads. Imagine that. I can't think of any more transparent way to flag someone as a total sociopath.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> You guys give BM shit but he's still in this thread arguing his point and has been since the beginning. He's usually wrong and is a total reactionary but he has at least a few times shown some kind of realisation that he was wrong.
> 
> The biggest troll on the forum has been an administrator for longer than most of us have even been on the forum and you guys take him seriously. He changed his user-title to something braggadocios because he's getting a reaction out of people. He claims to believe X but uses the political situation to troll on the internet, and of course even used his power to ban people from the threads. Imagine that. I can't think of any more transparent way to flag someone as a total sociopath.


The thing with BM is he wont admit to being wrong or uninformed on something and if he does its very rarely to the point where I don't think I've seen it on here. He's not someone who truly cares about having a conversation or reaching over to the other "side",rarely compromising or saying "maybe you have a point". He attempts to bully people and claim victory(he liked to say "I destroyed you") often shows how much of a troll he can be to the point of talking down to them and yes throw insults around which have gotten him banned before. He also makes up lies about people and their views on subjects because he never truly attempts to listen to people and what they say. I've lost count how many times he's lied about stuff I never once said 

As for a troll moderator, I'm not sure who you're referencing to be honest.


----------



## Oxidamus

samizayn said:


> Identity politics do not cause race/sex/xyz-ism, it acknowledges and attempts to eliminate its existence. Not calling an evil out by its name doesn't make it suddenly not exist any more.


Do you mean identity politics doesn't _inherently_ cause that? Because even then I'd argue you'd have a tough time to defend that position. If you mean as it is now, you're absolutely wrong. It's a political tool being utilised to essentially brainwash people and force change for the worse. Just look at this thread, it's clear.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the Trump supporters in this thread making excuses for him. Gotta love how Trump is so quick to say radical Islamic terrorism but he can't called out white national terrorism and people have to twist his arm just to get him to kind of disavow him. The KKK/White Nationist know Trump is one of them and this weekend proved it.
> 
> Anyone defending Trump at this point has serious issues.


You got me, i got serious issues

I got serious issues with the lies and misrepresentation of the news

I got serious issues with democrat operatives politizing the fbi, cia and other govermental agencies

I got serious issues with leftists concocting a fake russian narrative to cover for their demonstrably corrupt candidates epic fail

I got serious issues with the lefts hypocrisy

All these issues i got pales with people on the other side and their issues with their guilt, hatred and anger.

And their issues are gonna be even bigger come next presidential election


----------



## samizayn

Oxidamus said:


> Do you mean identity politics doesn't _inherently_ cause that? Because even then I'd argue you'd have a tough time to defend that position. If you mean as it is now, you're absolutely wrong. It's a political tool being utilised to essentially brainwash people and force change for the worse. Just look at this thread, it's clear.


You're gonna have to expand on literally all of this


----------



## CamillePunk

Oxidamus said:


> You guys give BM shit but he's still in this thread arguing his point and has been since the beginning. He's usually wrong and is a total reactionary but he has at least a few times shown some kind of realisation that he was wrong.


I have caught BM outright lying multiple times and he has never owned up to it. Please show me an example of this behavior as I simply don't believe it has ever happened.


----------



## Oxidamus

samizayn said:


> You're gonna have to expand on literally all of this


To engage in identity politics is, by the entire structure of the idea, to attribute things to someone's identity over anything else. It is an inherent opposition to a meritocratic system. They're completely incompatible. It straight up infantilises the idea of an oppressor and the oppressed, which in essence is total communist garbage.

That isn't to say some people are in the position they're in, in a strong part, because of their identity. It's to say it's the only reason. ie it's totally fair to say black people are in ghettos in large part because ghettos were created for them. But to attribute it entirely, or as if there are no other non-identity based factors, is both not true and inaccurate, but that's the doctrine of identity politics.




CamillePunk said:


> I have caught BM outright lying multiple times and he has never owned up to it. Please show me an example of this behavior as I simply don't believe it has ever happened.


I'm like 80% sure at least once, sometime, he agreed with me. :mj


----------



## KingCosmos

Very fine people











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896362757070761984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896238835645915136


----------



## Reaper

I hate defending BM because in the last year he's gone off the deep end, but he has admitted several times to me whereever he has been wrong about Islam. He confuses Muslims for Islam a lot and since he's a reactionary identitarian he struggles with his usual atheist disdain for religion and tries to extend his unsolicited protection to Muslims. When pointed out to him why he's wrong in that case he has admitted defeat a couple of times. 

That's more than I can say about 3-4 other leftists that frequent this thread. I have gotten into the worst arguments with BM and he's one of the worst debaters on here, but he has more credibility than others I've gotten into long discussions with because at least he has humbly admitted to being wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk

KingCosmos said:


> Very fine people


He was being generous to both sides there. I don't see how very fine people could stand alongside people chanting racist slogans and slurs, or alongside masked people with baseball bats and pipes, aka Antifa. I guess he was trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. Seems prudent for a president.

As for me, I think everyone there, on both sides, needs to seriously re-examine their life choices.


----------



## Beatles123

Don't get me started on him.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Beatles123 said:


> Don't get me started on him.


:con4

Let us not. I'm gonna be on you like beans on Spanish rice if you go any further. Your rivalry has already spilled into other threads. Just leave it at this. Both of you have already spoken.


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> He was being generous to both sides there. I don't see how very fine people could stand alongside people chanting racist slogans and slurs, or alongside masked people with baseball bats and pipes, aka Antifa. I guess he was trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. Seems prudent for a president.
> 
> As for me, I think everyone there, on both sides, needs to seriously re-examine their life choices.


He honestly needs a better PR person. The site of Nazi's in America has the nation in a uproar. Saying both sides will make it seem like he is deflecting the issue to the "Alt-Left" . Comparing George Washington to Robert E. Lee didn't help either. He obviously should be getting better advisers. Also bragging the the victims Mother liked him isn't a good look either and really seems shameful


----------



## samizayn

Oxidamus said:


> To engage in identity politics is, by the entire structure of the idea, to attribute things to someone's identity over anything else. It is an inherent opposition to a meritocratic system. They're completely incompatible. It straight up infantilises the idea of an oppressor and the oppressed, which in essence is total communist garbage.
> 
> That isn't to say some people are in the position they're in, in a strong part, because of their identity. It's to say it's the only reason. ie it's totally fair to say black people are in ghettos in large part because ghettos were created for them. But to attribute it entirely, or as if there are no other non-identity based factors, is both not true and inaccurate, but that's the doctrine of identity politics.


Feel like you've stretched it out into something more than what it is. Identity politics is simply the idea that what you are matters. You are also conflating "engaging in identity politics" with "affirmative action." Prejudice in the form of racism/sexism etc has been by far the biggest opponent of meritocracy in our society. 

But I am still unsure why you believe any of this creates racism.


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> Very fine people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896362757070761984
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896238835645915136


^And this is what bias looks like. 

I'm one of the most right-wing people on here and I think that these are disgusting filth. However, at the same time, I saw Trump's words as giving benefit of the doubt to both the extreme left and extreme right. 

However, this extreme left poster intentionally twisted the narrative to suit his biased point of view. This is no longer a "deflection" or "what about" when violent leftists were already there as well in the same place existing in the same time-frame. Whataboutism and deflection would be a valid criticism if Trump had talked about other instances of leftist violence. 

You are not a serious person and your posts have less credibility than you think they do because you expose your bias. Meanwhile, pretty much every right-winger in this thread has pretty vehemently disavowed the racists.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> *His "condemnation" (non-reaction) was taken as such from the people it was directed to?* God bless him indeed. Non reaction is assent. Non reaction from an individual who we have seen extremists flock to for exactly this reason, doubly so.
> 
> I did not mean that to be spiteful. In this particular instance, I feel that I won't ever find a middle ground with someone that didn't find the speech and its aftermath extremely troubling. Not to imply you don't have good ideas to share.


I'm not sure I know what you mean by the bolded part of your quote. 

Are you saying that his initial condemnation of the violence from both sides should be judged by how the Nazi side reacted to it?

I am also not sure how his condemnation was a "non reaction" when the only way it could be a non reaction is if he said nothing at all. He did react to it, he condemned both sides for their violence.

You, and the media, and the political establishment, want him to only condemn one side. You find it extremely troubling that he refuses to only condemn one side.

That is the double standard.


----------



## CamillePunk

KingCosmos said:


> He honestly needs a better PR person. The site of Nazi's in America has the nation in a uproar. Saying both sides will make it seem like he is deflecting the issue to the "Alt-Left" . Comparing George Washington to Robert E. Lee didn't help either. He obviously should be getting better advisers. Also bragging the the victims Mother liked him isn't a good look either and really seems shameful


It's not deflecting though. The media is ONLY mentioning the neo nazis and that's not fair. The violence started when the two sides met and the police were ordered to stand down which is very suspicious. Antifa brought weapons. They were there to fight. They didn't have a permit, while the neo nazis actually did have one. Just blaming neo nazis would be very short sighted and foolish. It's a problem from both ends of the political spectrum. 

He didn't compare George Washington and Robert E Lee, the question was about how Robert E Lee was a slave owner and so shouldn't we take down the statue, and it wouldn't be so egregious if he had seeing as how Robert E Lee was not some villainous person by the standards of his time. He didn't want the South to secede but once it did the choice was fight for your home or betray it. If you feel morally comfortable condemning him for that, go ahead. I don't. Both were slave owners. Both led the armies of a rebellion. The main difference is George Washington won his war and Robert E Lee lost his. I'm not going to pretend one is worse than the other on moral grounds simply because they lost the war and thus didn't get to be the protagonist in history. 

But anyway, Trump's response was perfectly appropriate given the question he was asked, which was about statues for slave owners. History and morality is not so black and white. Personally, I do think the left, and I do mean the mainstream left as well as antifa, will soon reach the point where they want people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson erased. Probably not FDR - even though he interned over 100,000 Japanese Americans - because he's the poster child for the left's social engineering, but it's not going to stop with confederate figures.

Bringing up the mother shows that the person who would be most affected by the statement approved of it and saw it as a call for unity, and contrasts the pearl-clutching left who are acting like he's on Team Nazi. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

KingCosmos said:


> Very fine people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896362757070761984
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896238835645915136


I love that the Trump supporters have come out in support of Trump calling people who took part in a march where they literally did the heil hitler salute in support of a figure commemorating someone who fought to keep african americans in slavery "fine people".


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> ^And this is what bias looks like.
> 
> I'm one of the most right-wing people on here and I think that these are disgusting filth. However, at the same time, I saw Trump's words as giving benefit of the doubt to both the extreme left and extreme right.
> 
> However, this extreme left poster intentionally twisted the narrative to suit his biased point of view. This is no longer a "deflection" or "what about" when violent leftists were already there as well in the same place existing in the same time-frame. Whataboutism and deflection would be a valid criticism if Trump had talked about other instances of leftist violence.
> 
> You are not a serious person and your posts have less credibility than you think they do because you expose your bias. Meanwhile, pretty much every right-winger in this thread has pretty vehemently disavowed the racists.


Why so defensive? Do you feel the need to defend something? All i said was those were very fine people in a sarcastic manner. And Benefit of the doubt? What benefit of the doubt do you give a Neo-Nazi lol. If you think Neo Nazism and Antifa are comparable well then i'm sorry you are wrong


----------



## FriedTofu

I feel like you guys give more thoughts into Trump's actions than Trump himself. He is just lashing out at those he perceive as being against him and defending those who he feels are on his side. :lmao


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> Why so defensive? Do you feel the need to defend something? All i said was those were very fine people in a sarcastic manner. And Benefit of the doubt? What benefit of the doubt do you give a Neo-Nazi lol. If you think Neo Nazism and Antifa are comparable well then i'm sorry you are wrong


I don't need to be defensive at all. I've already condemned the racists. 

Here we go with the hilarious double-standard once again. 

Neo-Nazis and Antifa are incredibly similar. They are both fascist groups that resort to organized violence. They are both identitarians. They both engage in violence. They both encourage violence. They both get involved in violent protests. 

You are the one refusing to condemn the antifa and you have presented no evidence that two groups engaged in violence are not the same other than a simple assertion because that's all you have. 

You guys are the ones with the defensiveness and twisting because you actually identify with the Antifa who are vile and disgusting filth that have been destroying private property and hurting innocents for nearly a year now --- and they've been doing it for nearly two decades - without condemnation ---- because they represent your ideals. Therefore of course you see them as not as bad as Neo-Nazis. They're the militant wing of your political spectrum. Just like the Taliban are the militant wing of moderate Muslims - therefore you get similar kinds of refusals to condemn them from moderates there as well. 

Meanwhile, I have no reason to accept or defend Neo-Nazis. In fact, I didn't even defend them in the post you said I'm being defensive over. 

Of course, low IQ leftists are unfortunately the majority now so we have to live with your ilk even if we don't like it. 

Of course, now you're going to paint me as a neo-nazi sympathizer because that kind of ridiculous argumentation is all the left is left with these days. They have no political capital because they defend violent mobs, support segregation, support violent rhetoric when it suits their political ideology and shy away from even condemning the violence perpetrated by the extremists amongst their midst. You're the violence apologist here. Not me. I hate violence and I hate violent people in general therefore I can not only see the similarities in both violence mobs but also condemn them equally. 

That's called being consistent not defensive.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump holding out the hand of forgiveness and redemption to both Nazis and antifa. :trump2

What a sublime example of Christian charity.

And look at the shameful reactions here to :trump refusing to engage in a Two Minutes Hate against either the Nazis or antifa, two extremely small minorities who would have a very rough time of it if :trump decided to unleash a Two Minutes Hate on them.

You guys need to look into your hearts and realize how hard you have allowed them to become. Nazis and antifa are both human. Many of them _are_ very fine people when they aren't being political. You need to get on :trump's level and realize that going Two Minutes Hate on them will only get their backs up, make them double down on their abhorrent beliefs. We need reconciliation and persuasion for these lost souls, not Two Minutes Hates. 

/:troll


----------



## Reaper

Fine people indeed :eyeroll


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> It's not deflecting though. The media is ONLY mentioning the neo nazis and that's not fair. The violence started when the two sides met and the police were ordered to stand down which is very suspicious. Antifa brought weapons. They were there to fight. They didn't have a permit, while the neo nazis actually did have one. Just blaming neo nazis would be very short sighted and foolish. It's a problem from both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> He didn't compare George Washington and Robert E Lee, the question was about how Robert E Lee was a slave owner and so shouldn't we take down the statue, and it wouldn't be so egregious if he had seeing as how Robert E Lee was not some villainous person by the standards of his time. He didn't want the South to secede but once it did the choice was fight for your home or betray it. If you feel morally comfortable condemning him for that, go ahead. I don't. Both were slave owners. Both led the armies of a rebellion. The main difference is George Washington won his war and Robert E Lee lost his. I'm not going to pretend one is worse than the other on moral grounds simply because they lost the war and thus didn't get to be the protagonist in history.
> 
> But anyway, Trump's response was perfectly appropriate given the question he was asked, which was about statues for slave owners. History and morality is not so black and white. Personally, I do think the left, and I do mean the mainstream left as well as antifa, will soon reach the point where they want people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson erased. Probably not FDR - even though he interned over 100,000 Japanese Americans - because he's the poster child for the left's social engineering, but it's not going to stop with confederate figures.
> 
> Bringing up the mother shows that the person who would be most affected by the statement approved of it and saw it as a call for unity, and contrasts the pearl-clutching left who are acting like he's on Team Nazi. Nothing wrong with that.


Sir...please read what you just said

"They didn't have a permit, while the neo nazis actually did have one. Just blaming neo nazis would be very short sighted and foolish. "

We are talking about Nazi's here. We need a permit to combat Nazism in America? What is the world coming to. 

Me personally i don't care if we take down monuments of Washington either.

" Lee was not some villainous person by the standards of his time. "

He was villainous peroid. Once upon of time Pedophilia was common in greece. In older times it was ok to Rape your wife. That's cultural relativism I don't go "oh well the people that did this were good people during their time" "Well he was a ok person even tho he raped the slaves because back then slaves weren't viewed as fully human". "Well he wasn't a bad person even tho he burned and lynched that slave for running away"
BS dude. I'm a better person than them and you are a better person than them and there is nothing wrong with stating that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Antifa stands for anti fascist lol

Trying to draw a moral equivalent beteen fascism and opposing facism is a stretch and a half.


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> Antifa stands for anti fascist lol
> 
> Trying to draw a moral equivalent beteen fascism and opposing facism is a stretch and a half.


To be fair, they seem more anarchists than anything. Libertarian's final form.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Antifa stands for anti fascist lol
> 
> Trying to draw a moral equivalent beteen fascism and opposing facism is a stretch and a half.


Is this post actually serious

Violent mobs beating political opponents in the street aren't fascist because they say they're anti fascist

Gonna be tough to top that stupidity


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> I don't need to be defensive at all. I've already condemned the racists.
> 
> Here we go with the hilarious double-standard once again.
> 
> Neo-Nazis and Antifa are incredibly similar. They are both fascist groups that resort to organized violence. They are both identitarians. They both engage in violence. They both encourage violence. They both get involved in violent protests.
> 
> You are the one refusing to condemn the antifa and you have presented no evidence that two groups engaged in violence are not the same other than a simple assertion because that's all you have.
> 
> You guys are the ones with the defensiveness and twisting because you actually identify with the Antifa who are vile and disgusting filth that have been destroying private property and hurting innocents for nearly a year now --- and they've been doing it for nearly two decades - without condemnation ---- because they represent your ideals. Therefore of course you see them as not as bad as Neo-Nazis. They're the militant wing of your political spectrum. Just like the Taliban are the militant wing of moderate Muslims - therefore you get similar kinds of refusals to condemn them from moderates there as well.
> 
> Meanwhile, I have no reason to accept or defend Neo-Nazis. In fact, I didn't even defend them in the post you said I'm being defensive over.
> 
> Of course, low IQ leftists are unfortunately the majority now so we have to live with your ilk even if we don't like it.
> 
> Of course, now you're going to paint me as a neo-nazi sympathizer because that kind of ridiculous argumentation is all the left is left with these days. They have no political capital because they defend violent mobs, support segregation, support violent rhetoric when it suits their political ideology and shy away from even condemning the violence perpetrated by the extremists amongst their midst. You're the violence apologist here. Not me. I hate violence and I hate violent people in general therefore I can not only see the similarities in both violence mobs but also condemn them equally.
> 
> That's called being consistent not defensive.


You are assuming i'm agreeing with Antifa's actions yeah pretty bad sure whatever boohoo they hate Nazi's and injustice so they lash out . Even still you have a horribly flawed world view. If i preach genocide and white ethno-state which only can be achieved through force realistically then I am a horrible person. If someone comes and beats my ass because they don't support my genocidal racial ideology that doesn't make them as morally repulsive as me. My question is when i make a post about the very fine people why do you go "LOOK AT ANTIFA THEY ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE PEOPLE WITH GENOCIDAL IDEOLOGIES" Bro i'm talking about the Nazi's keep the focus on them. Why do you feel the need to shine the light on Antifa i know what went on. Let me make my post


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Antifa is trash. They've become the very thing they fight against. Fuck them.

Fuck the Neo Nazis. Fuck Antifa. Fuck 'em both.


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> Is this post actually serious
> 
> Violent mobs beating political opponents in the street aren't fascist because they say they're anti fascist
> 
> Gonna be tough to top that stupidity


Violent protesting isn't facism.....


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Antifa stands for anti fascist lol
> 
> Trying to draw a moral equivalent beteen fascism and opposing facism is a stretch and a half.


:ha 

So they told you that they're anti-fascists in their name ... therefore they're anti-fascists. :mj4 :mj4 

Yeah, because Taliban simply means "Student". So I guess they're JUST STUDENTS. ISIS simply means Islamic State in Iran and Syria ... so I guess that's all it is. 

You know, Oxi once convinced me to be nice to you and I really, really tried. But then you make posts like this ... I can't help but mock you because you literally beg for it.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Violent protesting isn't facism.....


I would accept that if they didn't start supporting an authoritarian state and supporting communism .. which the Antifa currently do. 

It's about modern antifa and their actions.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> To be fair, they seem more anarchists than anything. Libertarian's final form.


Libertarianism _is_ in its final form. Holding their meetings at Dennys and their presidential convention in high school gyms :heston


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> :ha
> 
> So they told you that they're anti-fascists in their name ... therefore they're anti-fascists. :mj4 :mj4
> 
> Yeah, because Taliban simply means "Student". So I guess they're JUST STUDENTS. ISIS simply means Islamic State in Iran and Syria ... so I guess that's all it is.
> 
> You know, Oxi once convinced me to be nice to you and I really, really tried. But then you make posts like this ... I can't help but mock you because you literally beg for it.


In what sense are they facists?


----------



## CamillePunk

KingCosmos said:


> Sir...please read what you just said
> 
> "They didn't have a permit, while the neo nazis actually did have one. Just blaming neo nazis would be very short sighted and foolish. "
> 
> We are talking about Nazi's here. We need a permit to combat Nazism in America? What is the world coming to.


Welcome to America where we have free speech. They had a permit to freely and peacefully assemble, which they did. Antifa showed up with weapons and violence broke out. I find Nazism, socialism, and communism all absolutely abhorrent and responsible for millions of deaths. I don't think people should be attacked or jailed for being proponents of them. I'd rather defeat them with arguments. Logic and reason, not baseball bats and metal pipes. It's called civilization. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Antifa stands for anti fascist lol
> 
> Trying to draw a moral equivalent beteen fascism and opposing facism is a stretch and a half.


:kobe Okay well then I'm pro-truth, disagreeing with me about anything means you're against truth. I gave myself the label so that's all that matters. 

Terrible post by you. Shows your incredible bias.


----------



## Beatles123

Oda Nobunaga said:


> :con4
> 
> Let us not. I'm gonna be on you like beans on Spanish rice if you go any further. Your rivalry has already spilled into other threads. Just leave it at this. Both of you have already spoken.


 ^ This about sums it up  Gotcha boss.


----------



## Reaper

Of course, deflecting from condemning the violence of the Antifa into a discussion about the definition applied by the group to themselves is EXACTLY the sort of deflection you would expect from "moderates" who secretly appreciate the actions of the militant wing of their political spectrum. 

I've seen this before when Muslims used to find unique mental gymnastics to defend the Taliban. They also used to tell me "but they're just students". 

:eyeroll


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Violent protesting isn't facism.....


Man you gotta troll better.

MUCH better.

Like I did last page. 

I strongly suggest you check it out and try to learn. It's the post with the :troll at the end of it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> :kobe Okay well then I'm pro-truth, disagreeing with me about anything means you're against truth. I gave myself the label so that's all that matters.
> 
> Terrible post by you. Shows your incredible bias.


Calling themselves anti fascists is not in itself proof they are not, just as the Nazis calling their ideology a form of socialism doesn't mean it was.

But why do you think they anti facist movement is facist?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> Of course, deflecting from condemning the violence of the Antifa into a discussion about the definition applied by the group to themselves is EXACTLY the sort of deflection you would expect from "moderates" who secretly appreciate the actions of the militant wing of their political spectrum.
> 
> I've seen this before when Muslims used to find unique mental gymnastics to defend the Taliban. They also used to tell me "but they're just students".
> 
> :eyeroll


I didn't think you were gonna bother trying to justify why you think the anti facist movement is facist.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Calling themselves anti fascists is not in itself proof they are not, just as the Nazis calling their ideology a form of socialism doesn't mean it was.
> 
> But why do you think they anti facist movement is facist?


I've already answered your question. Scroll up.



Alkomesh2 said:


> I didn't think you were gonna bother trying to justify why you think the anti facist movement is facist.


Yes, because I've never actually spent time justifying my opinions in the past :eyeroll. 

So, do you condemn antifa violence, or do you want to keep deflecting?


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Calling themselves anti fascists is not in itself proof they are not, just as the Nazis calling their ideology a form of socialism doesn't mean it was.
> 
> But why do you think they anti facist movement is facist?


I don't care if it's fascism or not. They initiate violence and are against freedom of speech. They're an enemy of civilization and should be defeated with arguments in the public square and of course handled by law enforcement where they violate the law. They should not enjoy freedom from criticism by the left-wing media.


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> Welcome to America where we have free speech. They had a permit to freely and peacefully assemble, which they did. Antifa showed up with weapons and violence broke out. I find Nazism, socialism, and communism all absolutely abhorrent and responsible for millions of deaths. I don't think people should be attacked or jailed for being proponents of them. I'd rather defeat them with arguments. Logic and reason, not baseball bats and metal pipes. It's called civilization.
> 
> :kobe Okay well then I'm pro-truth, disagreeing with me about anything means you're against truth. I gave myself the label so that's all that matters.
> 
> Terrible post by you. Shows your incredible bias.


You ignored the bits about Robert E. Lee being a good person. That's ok tho you probably realized he wasnt.

The Nazi's in riot gear and shields certainly couldn't have been the reason why Antifa had weapons. 
You can't defeat Nazi's logically because there is no reason with them.

Tell me how you would reasonably defeat the Nazi's. Tell me what you would say to them to convince them genocide and their views are wrong. If you could talk to hitler how would you reasonably dialogue with him from throwing jews in the oven. When the Overseer on the plantation was cracking that whip on a slaves back tell me what you would say to him and how you would convince him his actions were wrong. Tell me how i sit down and have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks i SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED and tell them they are wrong and convince them with reason. These people are a danger to my LIFE. I have seen COPS endorse this crap. This is why i'm so passionate. Please this is not sarcasm , tell me. I really want to know how we should deal with these people

The FBI has warned about growing white supremacy in LAW enforcement. This isn't some crackpot theory. These people and their Ideas could kill me, my mother, my kids.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> I don't care if it's fascism or not. They initiate violence and are against freedom of speech. They're an enemy of civilization and should be defeated with arguments in the public square and of course handled by law enforcement where they violate the law. They should not enjoy freedom from criticism by the left-wing media.


Suppression of speech by an organized group through violent means. 

Hmm ... Sounds like fascism to me.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

deepelemblues said:


> Libertarianism _is_ in its final form. Holding their meetings at Dennys and their presidential convention in high school gyms :heston


:kurtcry Why you gotta be like that?

Those old farts just don't know how to modernize it for a new audience. They need some new blood.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Libertarianism _is_ in its final form. Holding their meetings at Dennys and their presidential convention in high school gyms :heston


Don't be jealous that leftists libertarians arrive at the final form faster than rightist libertarians.


----------



## Reaper

Speaking of Libertarian Party voters ... There are 100 or so in my entire city ... And my wife is one of them :ha 

She's on the center and I'm on the right, but slowly she's starting to come closer and closer to right. My charms are undeniable :kobe3

Still waiting for a single leftist in this thread to grow a pair and condemn the antifa violence btw.


----------



## CamillePunk

Here's the thing about the neo nazis. They already lost the arguments long ago and were NOTHING until a couple years ago when violence and shouting people down became acceptable tactics for a political movement, through BLM and the anti-Trump protests, which were validated by the mainstream. Anyone remember Punch a Nazi? Did you think they would never punch back? Not to mention the implications of Punch a Nazi when the standards for being a Nazi become increasingly widened. You have people that the alt right HATES (like Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich), and you have gay Jews like Milo (who they also hate), getting called Nazis because they....support Trump and are generally anti-SJW. Meanwhile Trump's daughter married a Jewish person and Trump has him in his freaking administration. The alt right HATES that. 

If you go around calling everyone you disagree with nazis, and you support violence being used against them, yeah, you better strap yourselves in. 

Or we can remember we are supposed to live in a civilization and use our fucking words, stop bastardizing labels and then throwing them on everyone we disagree with, and stop hallucinating that our personal views are equivalent to divine law. It's OK if people don't agree with you. Put the fucking lead pipe down.


----------



## wwe9391

liberals are fuckin losing it tonight.


----------



## Reaper

Interesting. Why is it so hard for leftists to condemn Antifa violence? 

What's going here. Someone help me understand. is it because if they do condemn antifa's violence they would actually be agreeing with Trump on something? Have they become this depraved that they refuse to condemn violence just because it puts them in an agreeable position with Trump. Has it really gotten that bad? 

I'm intentionally provoking and pressuring a response because I want to understand what's going on here.


----------



## CamillePunk

KingCosmos said:


> You ignored the bits about Robert E. Lee being a good person. That's ok tho you probably realized he wasnt.


I never said he was a good person. My instincts told me you were intellectually dishonest and there'd be no point in debating you further. You validated them with this post. I don't waste my time on people like you, sorry.

@Reaper The anti-SJW left does condemn it. As for others, either they like what antifa does or they don't want to provoke them.


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> I never said he was a good person. My instincts told me you were intellectually dishonest and there'd be no point in debating you further. You validated them with this post. I don't waste my time on people like you, sorry.
> 
> @Reaper The anti-SJW left does condemn it. As for others, either they like what antifa does or they don't want to provoke them.


Did you read what you quoted? I didn't say you said he was a good person. Did you not see where i said "That's ok tho you probably realized he wasnt." And then you call me intellectually dishonest because a failure of reading comprehension...fail


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Speaking of Libertarian Party voters ... There are 100 or so in my entire city ... And my wife is one of them :ha
> 
> She's on the center and I'm on the right, but slowly she's starting to come closer and closer to right. My charms are undeniable :kobe3
> 
> Still waiting for a single leftist in this thread to grow a pair and condemn the antifa violence btw.


Not just antifa though, no one was willing to blame the Democrats, Obama or Bernie Sanders for James Hodgkinson(who was a Sanders volunteer)shooting up Republicans. In fact, some people even wished he had better aim and hit more Republicans.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Not just antifa though, no one was willing to blame the Democrats, Obama or Bernie Sanders for James Hodgkinson(who was a Sanders volunteer)shooting up Republicans. In fact, some people even wished he had better aim and hit more Republicans.


I remember that. 

But at least the politicians themselves (mainly Sanders) came out and immediately disavowed. He got bonus points for that ... Though he'll never admit that the natural consequence for socialism's classist language is ALWAYS violence ... I don't think that many leftists are actually capable of internalizing and recognizing that classist warfare has an impact on their rationality because it employs their empathy towards certain humans against others. Implementation through violence and coercion is pretty much central to pretty much all forms of leftist thinking. 

The same is true for anti-fascist leftists because they have no defining non-violent principle guiding their core political ideology - unlike in an-cap/right libertarianism where the NAP is central to our way of thinking about politics. 

However, most leftists in here aren't even half as extreme as the antifa and many of them don't even hold the same ideology ... and yet the refusal to condemn them in this thread is perplexing indeed. In fact, most leftists here are big government social welfare statists and antifa technically hates them as well and won't bat an eyelash when it comes to destroying their businesses.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> I remember that.
> 
> But at least the politicians themselves (mainly Sanders) came out and immediately disavowed. He got bonus points for that ... Though he'll never admit that the natural consequence for socialism's classist language is ALWAYS violence ... I don't think that many leftists are actually capable of internalizing and recognizing that classist warfare has an impact on their rationality because it employs their empathy towards certain humans against others. The same is true for anti-fascist leftists because they have no defining non-violent principle guiding their core political ideology (unlike in an-cap/right libertarianism where the NAP is central to our way of thinking).
> 
> However, most leftists in here aren't even half as extreme as the antifa and many of them don't even hold the same ideology ... and yet the refusal to condemn them in this thread is perplexing indeed.


Disavowing his actions was to be expected, but blame was never given out to anyone . Now, I'm not saying it was Bernie's or the Democrats fault but people will play the blame game had he been a Republican shooting at Democrats. I mean, weren't the Republicans blamed for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords?

Anyway, I don't really view many people on here as "leftists" to be honest. More so people who happen to support the left side more than they do the right , but not exactly full leftist(with the exception of a couple) . Basically, I see the average person more so centre right or centre left but who knows maybe I'm wrong :lol


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Anyway, I don't really view many people on here as "leftists" to be honest. More so people who happen to support the left side more than they do the right , but not exactly full leftist(with the exception of a couple) . Basically, I see the average person more so centre right or centre left but who knows maybe I'm wrong :lol


Aren't you Canadian IIRC? I believe that matters in your perception of people's alignment along the political spectrum :kobe3


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Here's the thing about the neo nazis. They already lost the arguments long ago and were NOTHING until a couple years ago when violence and shouting people down became acceptable tactics for a political movement, through BLM and the anti-Trump protests, which were validated by the mainstream. Anyone remember Punch a Nazi? Did you think they would never punch back? Not to mention the implications of Punch a Nazi when the standards for being a Nazi become increasingly widened. You have people that the alt right HATES (like Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich), and you have gay Jews like Milo (who they also hate), getting called Nazis because they....support Trump and are generally anti-SJW. Meanwhile Trump's daughter married a Jewish person and Trump has him in his freaking administration. The alt right HATES that.
> 
> If you go around calling everyone you disagree with nazis, and you support violence being used against them, yeah, you better strap yourselves in.
> 
> Or we can remember we are supposed to live in a civilization and use our fucking words, stop bastardizing labels and then throwing them on everyone we disagree with, and stop hallucinating that our personal views are equivalent to divine law. It's OK if people don't agree with you. Put the fucking lead pipe down.


Neo Nazis weren't even showing up to this stuff. They didn't start popping up with guys like Spencer until after the 3rd battle of Berkeley. When the Freedom of Speech marchers beat the fuck out of antifa.

After that Spencer started doing his own thing and mostly was small little gatherings. They were never welcomed to the Freedom marches etc. 

They basically showed up as soon as Antifa started doing their bullshit, when fringe groups of BLM were attacking random white people for being white. The violence needs to stop because Antifa asked for Nazis and now they're getting them.

I also don't get why anyone Left leaning avoids talking about Antifa or will denounce them, fuck Nazis, fuck Alt Righters like Spencer. Yet only a few Lefties have said much about Antifa and they're the assholes who started all this bullshit. (There is a few in this forum that have denounced)


----------



## CamillePunk

You know, since just having a vile person agree with you on something is enough to discredit you, I think we have a good opportunity here. Richard Spencer wants government-run universal healthcare and environmental regulations. Clearly this is enough to get the left to realize the evil of their ways re: universal healthcare and the environment.


----------



## deepelemblues

Oda Nobunaga said:


> :kurtcry Why you gotta be like that?
> 
> Those old farts just don't know how to modernize it for a new audience. They need some new blood.


Sorry

I have an ex whose dad was a LP member and they held their meetings at the local Dennys

So every time I think of libertarians I think of meeting at Dennys :lmao


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

deepelemblues said:


> Sorry
> 
> I have an ex whose dad was a LP member and they held their meetings at the local Dennys
> 
> So every time I think of libertarians I think of meeting at Dennys :lmao


I was just joking (with the Kurt smiley), but I actually wasn't joking about the old farts bit. Their image in America is unfortunately antiquated. Their views are not, but their way of going about it and "marketing" themselves is outdated. They need some new blood, though I'm not sure who would fit that bill. :hmm: The Libertarian party needs a young stud (man or woman, don't care) with charisma, someone who understands the party's viewpoints and can make 'em palatable to a new generation. Get out of the Denny's and go to the nearby Starbucks.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Sorry
> 
> I have an ex whose dad was a LP member and they held their meetings at the local Dennys
> 
> So every time I think of libertarians I think of meeting at Dennys :lmao


And my wife got invited to a Libertarian Party "Rally" since she donated some money to the guy (against my will) ... and apparently 6 people and a dog showed up :lmao

There weren't even enough people there for me to be able to post the "dozens of us" meme :mj2



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I was just joking (with the Kurt smiley), but I actually wasn't joking about the old farts bit. Their image in America is unfortunately antiquated. Their views are not, but their way of going about it and "marketing" themselves is outdated. They need some new blood, though I'm not sure who would fit that bill. :hmm: The Libertarian party needs a young stud (man or woman, don't care) with charisma, someone who understands the party's viewpoints and can make 'em palatable to a new generation. Get out of the Denny's and go to the nearby Starbucks.


That sounds like Gary Johnson :kobe3


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Reaper said:


> That sounds like Gary Johnson :kobe3


:tripsscust

Is there no one else? Is the party doomed to obscurity and fighting with the Greens for shares of votes? :kurtcry3


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> You know, since just having a vile person agree with you on something is enough to discredit you, I think we have a good opportunity here. Richard Spencer wants government-run universal healthcare and environmental regulations. Clearly this is enough to get the left to realize the evil of their ways re: universal healthcare and the environment.


And David Duke supports segregated college dorms (I'm not sure if he really does or not, but I'm assuming he's pro-segregation) ... 

Which we all know is something the left is currently fighting for :kobe3


----------



## Reaper

I'm going to exit thread now lest we get accused of circle-jerking. I believe this night is belong to us :trump2

Tomorrow morning shall bring in the daily morning dose of histrionics from the foreigners.


----------



## stevefox1200

Its me, everyone's favorite neo-con remnant (we are are small in number but we will soon form our party called the McCainiacs 2020) here to give my worldly knowledge on the subject before I switch homes and lose the internet for a week

If Trump was not dumb as fuck he know to not play the "What about" game

When the neo-nazi's do something stupid condemn them 

and

When the suburban communists do something stupid condemn them 

Don't mention them when you don't need to as it makes you look like hard-on for them and just want to attack them at any opportunity which makes you look pretty damn petty 

If you want to blame both sides word it in a way that makes you look humble, sort of like "If anything thinks that I am going to try to reduce the rights of minorities or try to make America a white nation than you are mistaken, I that I made you think I would do these things and if you are causing chaos, destruction and harming others to stop or support that rhetoric than please stop"

Classic neutral non-apology but makes you look like the level headed one and them the assholes, you gave to them a clear answer and any actions past that point relies on their own views and judgments (unless you have a raving press conference the next day)

As for Confedrate flags, neo-nazi swag and statues made to please sodbusting scalawags, I personally think its a pain the ass to remove the shit and would just put new "more appropriate" statue someplace nearby, I don't like tearing shit down

My most optimal idea is to create a statue park, i love those, and this is hardly the first time this has happened

Look at Russia and even Germany, after World War 2 and the USSR fell apart that had to go through the pain in the ass effort of taking down their monuments, some were such a pain and the ass that they left them standing and just carved the offensive shit off or, in the case of Russia, re-write history to make it justified

I also wouldn't worry about the neo-nazi's too much, I looked at some of their sites and the hard core George Lincoln Rockwell (funny fact he was friends with Malcolm X as they both supported racial separation) types hate the SS "das Fuer" types as they tend to just get their ass kicked and run around acting like idiots and accomplishing nothing (the drug dealing ghetto trash of the trailer park if you will) 

Personally I think that poor whites and blacks should be friends as they have a lot more in common with each other than the rich and successful member's of their race if they could just get past skin color. I mean they both have single mothers whose teeth are falling out because of drug use, spend more money on putting dumb-ass accessories on their cars than they do on the actual car, get into shirtless fist fights in their front lawns with cops, fail to pay child support, dine of discount store brand food and play annoying as fuck music as loud as possible while drinking cheap beer in their fucking garage at 3 fucking AM with the goddamn lights on while I am trying to listen to some fucking adult-contemporary, perhaps some Sade, before my damn anti-depressants wear off 

I've lived in hicks ville as well as a poor black apartment complex and the stereotypes are the same and both tend to pretty friendly if you don't act like a dick bag 

As for the "the all slave owners were and will forever be evil" 5000 years from now we may discover that plants have sentience and are in pain when when we eat them, that crackers give you cancer and the waves from our computer is causing an ice age on Quadrazian VI

We will look like stupid insane tyrants, also keep in mind your grandma likely fucked around with lead paint, played with mercury and was taught any number of scientific "facts" that have been debunked in the last 20 years

Its doesn't mean she is dumb, it means she did not have all the information. Its easy the right choices when you have all the information but we never do

I personally would have dropped that slavery shit when Europe started to switch the far more moral wage slavery because you don't want to be the only asshole in the room wearing last years fashions, you'll look like a total tool

and on that note I find that if you go looking for a fight you'll sure as hell find one, if your walking around acting like asshole and are trying to make some kind of justifications that you are "a righteous asshole" or "they are assholes too" than you deserve to be treated like any other asshole, which is to say not well, and if you show up to a party and everyone else is acting like assholes and grabbing their white/black hoods, makeshift blunt weapons and handguns while pumping the volume on their Johnny Rebel/Rage Agaisnt the Machine/lynyrd skynyrd/Kendrick than grab a soda and get the fuck out

At the end of the day we don't do the right thing because its practical, because it makes use feel good, because its easy, or because we/they deserve 

we do it because its right and when it comes from a desire to help and build and not harm and destroy you'll know it, which I why I still support the Republic of Vietnam 

godspeed Nguyen Van Thieu godspeed


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

samizayn said:


> idk why you're invoking MLK like he wasn't massively into this scene lol. *Identity politics do not cause race/sex/xyz-ism*, it acknowledges and attempts to eliminate its existence. Not calling an evil out by its name doesn't make it suddenly not exist any more.


When it proposes issues that aren't really issues, then yes, they are causing race/sex/xyz-ism.






It's just not something you're ready to admit to, yet.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Oxidamus said:


> *You guys give BM shit but he's still in this thread arguing his point and has been since the beginning. *He's usually wrong and is a total reactionary but he has at least a few times shown some kind of realisation that he was wrong.
> 
> The biggest troll on the forum has been an administrator for longer than most of us have even been on the forum and you guys take him seriously. He changed his user-title to something braggadocios because he's getting a reaction out of people. He claims to believe X but uses the political situation to troll on the internet, and of course even used his power to ban people from the threads. Imagine that. I can't think of any more transparent way to flag someone as a total sociopath.


One drive-by post a week does not constitute arguing a point.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

samizayn said:


> Feel like you've stretched it out into something more than what it is. *Identity politics is simply the idea that what you are matters. *You are also conflating "engaging in identity politics" with "affirmative action." Prejudice in the form of racism/sexism etc has been by far the biggest opponent of meritocracy in our society.
> 
> But I am still unsure why you believe any of this creates racism.


But, here's the thing. What you are doesn't matter, it's who you are that matters. That's where identity politics has it all wrong. They think the way you dress, the way you look, who you wanna fuck, whether you have a vagina, or not, what skin color you have is what matters, but it doesn't. What matters is if you're a good person, respectful, honest, mature. These are what matter, not any of that other BS.

Not all black people are the same.
Not all white people are the same.
Not all Muslims are the same.
Not all homosexuals are the same.
etc.
etc.

If you can't understand that then you are truly lost.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897208621561499654


----------



## Reaper

I don't know if this is true or not, but if it's true (I tend to believe Cassandra Fairbanks who hasn't been debunked for posting fake news yet), then it proves what we've been saying about the violent rhetoric spun by the media around "Trump not condemning this hard enough". 

I wonder which one of the people in here that claim that "trump wasn't hard enough" on the Nazis is gonna stab their neighbor. Good thing I live in a Red State and an overwhelmingly Red County at that. Otherwise I would be fearing for my life right now too. 

http://bigleaguepolitics.com/man-stabbed-antifa-mob-outside-home-not-condemning-nazis-hard-enough/










Centrists should be vary at this point because they're the ones trying to preach caution. We on the far right are fully aware of the violent threat present in the current political climate. Are you? 

PS. I'll retract this post if it turns out to be fake. But so far, I haven't seen any reason to believe that it is.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> .


:franklol

What even is this?


----------



## samizayn

TheNightmanCometh said:


> But, here's the thing. What you are doesn't matter, it's who you are that matters. That's where identity politics has it all wrong. They think the way you dress, the way you look, who you wanna fuck, whether you have a vagina, or not, what skin color you have is what matters, but it doesn't. What matters is if you're a good person, respectful, honest, mature. These are what matter, not any of that other BS.
> *
> Not all black people are the same.
> Not all white people are the same.
> Not all Muslims are the same.
> Not all homosexuals are the same.*
> etc.
> etc.
> 
> If you can't understand that then you are truly lost.


You are confusing idealogy with reality. In a perfect world, what you are would not matter! Things would happen to you because of things within your control, and you would be assured that these arbitrary traits of yours would never be a barrier for doing what you want. 

Don't you understand the bolded is what's taught in schools for exactly that reason? The deification of historical figures like MLK and the mirroring demonisation of individuals like Hitler are for the same. One stood for this idealogy that is so central to our society, and one stood against, in the most hateful and hideous way. 

Now. It is a righteous ideology but it isn't reality. Despite our best intentions, racism and sexism remain pervasive. This is a fact that can only be acknowledged by engaging identity politics. Similarly, these evils are ones that can only be remedied by engaging identity politics. Unfortunately it's also an inherently uncomfortable because it feels similar to supporting/reinforcing this idea that what you are matters, rather than just pointing out that we are flawed, and haven't embraced this worldview as fully as we ought to have, and believe we have.

Sidenote, that's why so many people have been so baffled by what's gone down in Charlotte. I saw you quoted MLK; I myself have been thinking about another quote of his.


> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the *****'s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice


I think many and possibly most people fall into this category. The ones that were horrified at Charlottesville but believe "all lives matter" is okay to retweet. In this case it comes from the mistaken belief that not using ugly labels is the way to end racism, when all it does is let the status quo linger.





TheNightmanCometh said:


> When it proposes issues that aren't really issues, then yes, they are causing race/sex/xyz-ism.


I'd like you to expand on this.

Now, re: the video, those little emojis that are of people it looks weird if you use the default yellow ones. However the hands that are doing the waving, peace sign etc, anything but default yellow is dumb.


----------



## Vic Capri

Thank God for Mark Dice. 

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> Despite our best intentions, racism and sexism remain pervasive. This is a fact that can only be acknowledged by engaging identity politics. Similarly, these evils are ones that can only be remedied by engaging identity politics. Unfortunately it's also an inherently uncomfortable because it feels similar to supporting/reinforcing this idea that what you are matters, rather than just pointing out that we are flawed, and haven't embraced this worldview as fully as we ought to have, and believe we have.


There's a different kind of identity politics that beats the kind of identity politics you kinda-sorta drag yourself to saying are wrong but also necessary to indulge in to beat those who are indulging in them for bad purposes.

It was the kind of identity politics the English-speaking nations used to defeat the actual German Nazis.

It had nothing to do with race. Or gender. 

It had to do with identifying with _principles_ and savagely defending them. The principles of freedom and liberty and uniting behind those principles, not uniting behind I'm a woman or I'm black or whatever. Engaging in identity politics when the identity is classical liberalism, freedom of the individual, freedom of conscience, and all the other pillars of our society is the way to beat the identity politics of blood and soil whether they come from the far right or the far left.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Lincoln Memorial Vandalized With Spray-Painted Expletive*
> 
> The Lincoln Memorial in Washington was struck by vandals who left an expletive scrawled in red paint Tuesday morning, according to the National Park Service.
> 
> One of the memorial’s columns was spray-painted with red words that appeared to say “fuck law.” The graffiti was discovered around 4.30 a.m., the Park Service said in a statement, adding that a “mild, gel-type architectural paint stripper that is safe for use on historic stone” was being used to remove the scrawl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Park Service spokesman Michael Litterst told The Washington Post that the removal process would be “lengthy,” likely requiring multiple treatments over a week or two.
> 
> Additional graffiti, in silver spray paint, was reportedly found over a map of the Smithsonian museums on nearby Constitution Avenue. That vandalism also is being cleaned up, said the Park Service.
> 
> This is the second time this year that the Lincoln Memorial has been defaced. In February, cryptic messages written in permanent marker ― including “Jackie shot JFK” ― were found at the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial, the D.C. War Memorial and the Washington Monument.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lincoln-memorial-vandalized_us_5993bcc3e4b04b1933616150

I'm not liking where this is going. It's not the first time that Lincoln's memorial was vandalized but with Theodore Roosevelts statue being protested , the confederate statue that was torn down the other day...I don't know when this type of thing is going to end. Are we really going to see more "vigilantes" taking down this type of stuff? This is setting a bad precedence


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lincoln-memorial-vandalized_us_5993bcc3e4b04b1933616150
> 
> I'm not liking where this is going. It's not the first time that Lincoln's memorial was vandalized but with Theodore Roosevelts statue being protested , the confederate statue that was torn down the other day...I don't know when this type of thing is going to end. Are we really going to see more "vigilantes" taking down this type of stuff? This is setting a bad precedence


The statues are objects. Objects can be torn down and rebuilt. Let them tear down the objects and the objects will have to be rebuilt as long as the laws stand against vandalism. 

The war is over ideology and the ideological warriors will eventually lose once they get over their boredom and actually have to start living their lives. The public opinion pretty much always turns against vandals no matter what.


----------



## deepelemblues

[Tinfoil Hat]Interesting that at the very same time that MUH RUSSIA has completely collapsed, with it being reported that :trump campaign higher-ups rejected multiple requests for meetings from Russians, and The Nation magazine reporting that the DNC "hack" was far more likely than not a leak, not a hack - https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ - we have this huge distraction, a moral panic about Nazis, sweeping the nation.[/Tinfoil Hat]


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> The statues are objects. Objects can be torn down and rebuilt. Let them tear down the objects and the objects will have to be rebuilt as long as the laws stand against vandalism.
> 
> The war is over ideology and the ideological warriors will eventually lose once they get over their boredom and actually have to start living their lives. The public opinion pretty much always turns against vandals no matter what.


Just yesterday in Montreal a confederate plaque honoring Jefferson Davis was taken down. Had no idea it was there or that Canada had a base for the confederates.


----------



## deepelemblues

Why is there a plaque in _Montreal_ honoring loser Jeff Davis :mj4


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Why is there a plaque in _Montreal_ honoring loser Jeff Davis :mj4




Though, not exactly why but he does have some ties to Canada early on


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Four Confederate monuments removed in Baltimore overnight*
> 
> Work crews took down four Confederate monuments in Baltimore overnight into Wednesday, days after white nationalists led a deadly protest over the planned removal of a Confederate statue in Charlottesville, Virginia.
> 
> Monuments to Robert E. Lee, commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army in the American Civil War, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, a Confederate general, were dismantled from the city’s Wyman Park Dell after the city council on Monday approved the removal of four statues, the Baltimore Sun reported.
> 
> “It’s done,” Mayor Catherine Pugh told the newspaper on Wednesday. “They need to come down. My concern is for the safety and security of our people. We moved as quickly as we could.”
> 
> The swift dismantling of the monuments, which Pugh said began at 11:30 p.m. EDT on Tuesday (0330 GMT on Wednesday) and finished at 5:30 a.m. EDT (0930 GMT), comes after a rally by white nationalists protesting against plans to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee sparked clashes with anti-racism demonstrators in Charlottesville on Saturday.
> 
> The rally turned deadly when a car rammed into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing a woman and injuring 19 other people.
> 
> “Following the acts of domestic terrorism carried out by white supremacist terrorist groups in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend, cities must act decisively and immediately by removing these monuments,” Baltimore city councilman Brandon Scott wrote in a resolution calling for the removal of the statues, according to the Sun.
> 
> Saturday’s violence appears to have accelerated the drive to remove memorials, flags and other reminders of the Confederate cause across the United States.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com///n.../article35997556/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globefb

More monuments and statues being taken down.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Why is there a plaque in Montreal honoring loser Jeff Davis
> 
> 
> 
> Though, not exactly why but he does have some ties to Canada early on
Click to expand...

Love the randomness. Are they going to remove statues of John Macdonald too? He was a racist. 

- Vic


----------



## Crasp

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.theglobeandmail.com///n.../article35997556/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globefb
> 
> More monuments and statues being taken down.


Holy backfire batman!


----------



## Leon Knuckles

Trump is an idiot and America is in trouble.


----------



## deepelemblues

Leon Knuckles said:


> Trump is an idiot and America is in trouble.


America is in trouble if we descend into an idiotic moral panic over 10,000 people. There's like 5,000 people each on the Nazi side and on the antifa side who are willing to go into the streets and riot/fight. Out of a population of 330,000,000. These groups are incredibly small and weak but they've been pumped up in the media until their size and strength is perceived WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion to what it actually is.

The far left was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more violent and dangerous in the 60s and 70s than it is today. Setting off bombs, stockpiling guns, robbing banks and assassinating cops all over the place. The far right was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more violent and dangerous in the 80s and first half of the 90s than it is today. They were assassinating cops and judges, blowing up the Murrah building in OKC, assassinating Jews and blacks and homosexuals. These Nazi and antifa fucks today can't measure up to their past counterparts.

If the government _did its fucking job_ and used its _overwhelming force_ to prevent these fucks from rioting and going after each other in the street, nobody would give a fuck about either of them. The government has _completely failed_ in its duty to maintain public order and safety.


----------



## Reaper

The only issue I have with people tearing down statues is the fact that Southern States still have open immigration allowing northern people free access to jobs and our economies down here. That's where the real fight is next and I really hope that at some point our politicians get clued into the fact that democrats who vote democrats and get involved in this kind of activity up north (including creating murder-riddled ghettos) should be eventually restricted from moving to red states where they start voting democrats and creating the cycle all over again :shrug

Of course, that's just another pipe dream. Something like that would be unconstitutional.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897630503729336320


----------



## Miss Sally

I want to know where the Cops were when they were tearing down a statue in the middle of the day.

I cannot drive down main roads without some asshole cops setting up speed traps to give out tickets, so where are they when they are needed?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> I want to know where the Cops were when they were tearing down a statue in the middle of the day.
> 
> I cannot drive down main roads without some asshole cops setting up speed traps to give out tickets, so where are they when they are needed?


Most likely being told to stand down. That's what happened in Charlottesville , at least from what I had seen reported


----------



## li/<o

I was pro Trump because I wanted change, but I feel at least on this moment that he is being bias and supporting his class. Of the few things I have heard and recall I have been disappointed by Trumps corporate tax. Getting rid of healthcare and if replacing it with a useless plan. Increase deportation (don't get me wrong if your here in this country and not help it excel get the fuck out....). 

I by all means to deport people that just cause crime and don't help this country. My parents came her as illegals they had no future in their native country, till this date my parents have accomplished what some that are born and raised this country never done. People that are working and helping should stay and get a chance to get at the very least a green card. Deport the ones that just leech through the country and are bad people.

Health care is something that needs to be worked on something affordable something that you pay from you actual pocket, but something reasonable. I don't see why cut the tax that they give the people that make a quarter to half a million dollars to try to support an affordable health care act. If other countries can have that why not us. 

As for corporate tax why are we even cutting taxes to multi billionaire companies maybe cut the tax along with bringing jobs back to the U.S. just dong cut it all of sudden.

Theirs a lot more things to touch, but I supported Trump I want a nation with work returning building a strong economy stop over seizing work etc.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> I want to know where the Cops were when they were tearing down a statue in the middle of the day.
> 
> I cannot drive down main roads without some asshole cops setting up speed traps to give out tickets, so where are they when they are needed?


----------



## Reaper

Col. Sanders is a racist symbol. This is welcomed.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Col. Sanders is a racist symbol. This is welcomed.


Is it not hilarious that I could definitely see them having a "dress up Col Sanders" for kids parties at larger KFC's in the UK? Here he's just seen as "KFC logo man" for the most part.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is it not hilarious that I could definitely see them having a "dress up Col Sanders" for kids parties at larger KFC's in the UK? Here he's just seen as "KFC logo man" for the most part.


What I find really hilarious is that 50 years from now they will be tearing down all Sanders images because he's a symbol of fried chicken and fried chicken is... Well you know. 

Therefore I support tearing this down.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> What I find really hilarious is that 50 years from now they will be tearing down all Sanders images because he's a symbol of fried chicken and fried chicken is... Well you know.
> 
> Therefore I support tearing this down.


I don't get it...fried chicken is...inferior to broasted chicken? Hell if the hot sauce is good I'll eat both happily


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I don't get it...fried chicken is...inferior to broasted chicken? Hell if the hot sauce is good I'll eat both happily


Give it a hundred or so years and my prediction will come true.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Give it a hundred or so years and my prediction will come true.


But did all the black people like the fried chicken?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Give it a hundred or so years and my prediction will come true.


That'll be my breaking point. If SJW's get fried chicken banned for being racist you'll see me as one of those "lone wolf" stories on the interwebz.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> But did all the black people like the fried chicken?


I have a very appropriate response to this but perhaps you can guess.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Give it a hundred or so years and my prediction will come true.







"If you don't like chicken and watermelon, then there's something wrong with you" :lol


----------



## KingCosmos

Email that Trump's lawyer forwarded out


----------



## Miss Sally

How is Col. Sanders a racist symbol? lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> How is Col. Sanders a racist symbol? lol


Not saying he is but the argument would be that he is an example of the "kindly southern gentlemen plantation owner" stereotype which is part of the white washing of the era.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> :franklol
> 
> What even is this?


Real life, unfortunately.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

samizayn said:


> You are confusing idealogy with reality. In a perfect world, what you are would not matter! *Things would happen to you because of things within your control, and you would be assured that these arbitrary traits of yours would never be a barrier for doing what you want. *
> 
> Don't you understand the bolded is what's taught in schools for exactly that reason? The deification of historical figures like MLK and the mirroring demonisation of individuals like Hitler are for the same. One stood for this idealogy that is so central to our society, and one stood against, in the most hateful and hideous way.
> 
> Now. It is a righteous ideology but it isn't reality. *Despite our best intentions, racism and sexism remain pervasive.* This is a fact that can only be acknowledged by engaging identity politics. Similarly, these evils are ones that can only be remedied by engaging identity politics. *Unfortunately it's also an inherently uncomfortable because it feels similar to supporting/reinforcing this idea that what you are matters, rather than just pointing out that we are flawed, and haven't embraced this worldview as fully as we ought to have, and believe we have.*
> 
> Sidenote, that's why so many people have been so baffled by what's gone down in Charlotte. I saw you quoted MLK; I myself have been thinking about another quote of his.
> 
> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the *****'s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
> 
> I think many and possibly most people fall into this category. The ones that were horrified at Charlottesville but believe "all lives matter" is okay to retweet. In this case it comes from the mistaken belief that not using ugly labels is the way to end racism, when all it does is let the status quo linger.
> 
> 
> Now, re: the video, those little emojis that are of people it looks weird if you use the default yellow ones. However the hands that are doing the waving, peace sign etc, anything but default yellow is dumb.


No, life isn't perfect, and I never implied that it was. Everyone has barriers, and some are bigger than others. I mentioned in the other thread that my extended family would be what you would consider "white trash". They didn't get the same opportunities middle-class families did. They didn't go to good schools, they were poor. We all have our issues. Whether you're gay/female/black/Muslim/white, it doesn't matter. We all have issues that we must overcome, and blaming others for those barriers doesn't help, rather it hinders personal growth and responsibility.

The extended family I'm talking about? My grandparents had 6 kids. 3 of them got jobs right out of high school, worked those jobs for 30 years, and in that time rose to the level of middle class. The other 3, barely graduated high school, or didn't, didn't go out and get a job, and 30 years later they're dirt poor, and they rely on government assistance to get by. Which ones do you think took advantage of their opportunities and didn't allow barriers to get in their way? Anecdote aside, this is a common occurrence within poor families. They don't go to good schools, they're poor. What separates the people that rise above their barriers and the one's who don't? It's not white people.

The same goes for any other group. 

You say racism is pervasive, how pervasive is racism? Can you prove that with facts? I’m not talking about “implicit bias”, I’m talking about real racism.

You say it can only be addressed through “identity politics”. What is “identity politics”? a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances. Okay, everyone gets into groups, now what? You say this group is bad, the counter group says you’re wrong, another group says you’re both bad. What’s the point? Why can’t we all just be one unified front and all attack actual, provable, evidences of “isms” when they crop up?

Yes, people are flawed, I never argued against that. I am saying that entire groups of people can’t be labeled as flawed. There are some within the group that are, and there are some that are not. When you start talking about things like "institutional racism", "implicit bias", or if you promulgate debunked arguments like women get paid less than men, so "SEXISM!", then the entire ideology behind identity politics falls apart. 

If you want to say blacks have had it bad, and thus we've seen generations of blacks mired in poverty, I won't argue with you. I just don't agree to the idea that the solution is to say it’s because there are a group of people out there who hate you because of the color of your skin, because you’re gay, because you’re Muslim, because you’re a woman, they’re fighting to the death to keep you subjugated, and not only do they exist, they’re everywhere. 

Again, if you wanna talk about specific instances of "isms", I'll fight those right along with you, every time, but don't tell me this group is this and that group is that. It doesn't solve anything, it's patently false, and that's exactly the narrative that identity politics espouses on a continual basis. 

If you want people to engage in identity politics, then there needs to be better arguments for what you're trying to push for. What I've seen so far has been lacking in facts and abundant in feelings. That style of argument doesn't open the minds of people who think differently than you. That is, after all, who you're trying to engage. 

That MLK quote is interesting, but there's a difference between the context of his quote and what identity politics believers try to argue. What MLK fought was real. At that time, there was actual segregation. It was a clear example of "institutional racism". What institution is racist today? The arguments I see coming from those who claim that it is are built on a "just believe me" attitude, and completely void of facts. We're going around in circles, at least what I'm saying is, and yet I still must point out that, yes, there are people who do racist things, but every day that brush is getting broader and broader. During the time of MLK it was actual segregation, and now it's using black emojis, or posting memes with black people in them, being the same as black face. If you truly believe that there are racist people doing racist things, then you should be pissed off that so many people are trying to push things like "implicit bias" or other such nonsense. It waters down the argument to the point where nobody wants to listen to it anymore. 

Then it comes down to this, what's the end game behind all of this? What's the goal of identity politics? Say you're a black woman, what is the end game here? Can we ever truly root out racism? Can we ever truly root out sexism? No, these are things that exist in people, not in groups. Therefore, it never ends. Plus, it's entirely subjective. What offends one person, doesn't offend another. If you take things to their natural conclusion, the goal of “identity politics” is an argument for something that will never exist. We will never have a world without racists, sexists, bigots, or homophobes. The reason for this is because evil is real. It’s as much a part of life as everything else. In your attempt to rid the world of evil, you are hurting the innocent. 

Ridding the world of evil is not an easy task. First you must define what is evil, then you must find out who’s doing those evil things, and then you must decide what to do with them if they don’t comply. Throughout history, those who didn’t comply were killed.

In my opinion, the better ideology is to admit that there is evil in this world and try to counter-balance it with good. Division, rioting, mayhem, those things aren’t good. Banding together, for the common good between all of us, and fighting true injustices, that’s the goal.

You give me a real injustice and I’ll fight right along with you, but if you spend your time doing that then there’s no time discussing “identity politics”. We’ll be too busy rooting out evil, one at a time, which is the only realistically way to do it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

- George Orwell, 1984


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> Not saying he is but the argument would be that he is an example of the "kindly southern gentlemen plantation owner" stereotype which is part of the white washing of the era.


But he's a real guy who actually looked like that. It's retarded.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
> 
> - George Orwell, 1984


I think we've got a ways to go before historical libraries are burned down etc. 

No one is trying to erase history yet they just don't want to place 'great leaders' from history who may not actually be so great on such high pedestals anymore.


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> I think we've got a ways to go before historical libraries are burned down etc.
> 
> No one is trying to erase history yet they just don't want to place 'great leaders' from history who may not actually be so great on such high pedestals anymore.


History has already been rewritten in the sense that it is not taught in full depth and truth. Very clear with US history. The confederates are evil and the unions freed the slaves, hooray. That covers the idea of book-burning too.

Makes me glad there's little Australian history because that's tough to misconstrue.


----------



## CamillePunk

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ce-monument-mistaking-confederate-symbol/amp/



> Protesters in Atlanta Tear Down ‘Peace Monument’ After Mistaking It for Confederate Symbol
> 
> Protesters vandalized and attempted to take down the Peace Monument in Piedmont Park in Atlanta on Sunday, mistaking it for a pro-Confederate statue.
> 
> The protesters were marching in response to the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday where one woman died after being deliberately hit by a car, and two law enforcement personnel were killed when the helicopter they were in crashed.
> 
> “The Atlanta march traveled from Woodruff Park to Piedmont Park Sunday, where some damaged the Peace Monument, erected in 1911,” a blog on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website said. “The sculpture features an angel standing above a Confederate soldier, guiding him to lay down his weapon.”
> 
> But the memorial attacked by protesters — some dressed in black and wearing masks — was erected to encourage healing and reconciliation:
> 
> “When the Civil War broke out, members of an Atlanta militia called the Gate City Guard were among the first to take up arms against the North,” the AJC blog said. “Afterward, some survivors became part of what would eventually become the Georgia National Guard.”
> 
> “Others, who felt they were too old to fight any longer, took up the cause for reconciliation,” according to AJC.
> 
> “These guys realized a national healing needed to take place,” Thornton Kennedy, a history buff in Atlanta, said about the inspiration or the Peace Monument.
> 
> “They organized a peace tour of the North, which is really remarkable,” Kennedy said. “These were guys who fought in the Civil War, against Union troops.”
> 
> “They would go meet with Union soldiers and began to repair those fissures the war created,” Kennedy said. “It speaks to what we call the Atlanta spirit.”
> 
> “No one, of course, suggests that 1911 Atlanta was the progressive bastion of equality, diversity and inclusion that modern-day Atlanta enjoys,” the blog said. “Jim Crow was the law of the land back then. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was decades away. Women were still nine years from having the right to vote.”
> 
> But those behind the monument seemed to be ahead of their time, the outlet reported.
> 
> According to AJC, “The Peace Monument erected that year was something of harbinger of Atlanta’s reputation during the 1960s Civil Rights era as the ‘City Too Busy to Hate.’”
> 
> “I think Atlanta has done a fairly good job of putting the Civil War in context and moving on from it,” Kennedy said. “I do want everyone to know the history of that statue and know that it truly is a peace monument.”
> 
> “The former Gate City Guard has given way to a civic group called the Old Guard of the Gate City Guard, whose members participate in historic commemorations including an annual rededication of the Peace Monument,” AJC continued.
> 
> Past commandant John Green told the AJC he hopes the Peace Monument will be restored in time for this fall’s ceremony.
> 
> “We would like for people to know what it is,” he said.


dummies


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ce-monument-mistaking-confederate-symbol/amp/
> 
> dummies


Theyre being led. The people are, but tbe leaders are not.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> I think we've got a ways to go before historical libraries are burned down etc.
> 
> No one is trying to erase history yet they just don't want to place 'great leaders' from history who may not actually be so great on such high pedestals anymore.


How many leaders are great in the way you are suggesting?


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> History has already been rewritten in the sense that it is not taught in full depth and truth. Very clear with US history. The confederates are evil and the unions freed the slaves, hooray. That covers the idea of book-burning too.
> 
> Makes me glad there's little Australian history because that's tough to misconstrue.


Oxi, why are you saying so many right things all of a sudden? 

This is absolutely true. The new history of the civil war has been framed as black as white as possible to ensure that the minority voter never votes republican.



virus21 said:


> How many leaders are great in the way you are suggesting?


He doesn't know anything about anything. He's literally in here parroting everything the liberal media tells him to write. He might as while do what BM used to do and just copy-paste a daily dose of CNN.
--


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897796748579655681

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898173609155461120
Leftist terrorism is returning to America. Brace yourselves. There will be attempted bombings next. This is literally how it happens. You have protests>violence>individuals being attacked>shootings>bombs. 

Seen it before.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Oxi, why are you saying so many right things all of a sudden?
> 
> This is absolutely true. The new history of the civil war has been framed as black as white as possible to ensure that the minority voter never votes republican.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't know anything about anything. He's literally in here parroting everything the liberal media tells him to write. He might as while do what BM used to do and just copy-paste a daily dose of CNN.


Right as in correct or right wing? :mj

I am more woke than I was last week. I've pieced all the puzzles together.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Right as in correct or right wing? :mj
> 
> I am more woke than I was last week. I've pieced all the puzzles together.


My post had a couple of puns in it :lol


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> My post had a couple of puns in it :lol


And I chose no better time to name myself this. :mj4 Two days afterwards, I'm ENLIGHTENED! :CENA


----------



## Vic Capri

The globalists want another civil war and that's where we're heading if this shit doesn't cut out.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898195935808950273
Well, since majority rules, I wonder if the left will reject their most cherished value of "mob rules" or start preaching about how A) This poll is just a poll and not representative or B) We need to listen to the minority voices in this particular case because "morality" or some shit like that.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://nyti.ms/2v4dQ89

"The ACLU Needs To Rethink Free Speech"


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> https://nyti.ms/2v4dQ89
> 
> "The ACLU Needs To Rethink Free Speech"


And she's a lawyer :lmao

Good thing that free speech is strictly in the hands of the Supreme Court and they don't give a fuck about feelings so we're good for at least a few more decades at least before we turn into Europe.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> https://nyti.ms/2v4dQ89
> 
> "The ACLU Needs To Rethink Free Speech"


I cannot believe people actually think this is a good idea. Talk about turning on one of our Country's founding principals and abandoning Freedom of Speech in order to appease their morality crisis.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Vigilante Protesters Start To Dig Up Remains Of Confederate General*
> 
> On Tuesday, with respect to tearing down Confederate monuments, President Trump bravely stood before the world and asked, "Where does it end?" The media responded by ridiculing the notion that such a thing could get out of hand. And now we have vigilante protesters starting to dig up the remains of Confederate Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest:
> 
> A group of protesters who want the body of an alleged Ku Klux Klan leader removed from their city have broken the soil over the grave.
> 
> The campaigners claim it has taken officials in Memphis, Tennessee, too long to exhume Nathan Bedford Forrest - who was a lieutenant general in the Confederate States Army. ...
> 
> Members of the protest group, who call themselves the Commission on Religion and Racism, removed only a small patch of grass from the park, but threatened to return with heavy machinery to tear down the wartime symbol.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/19851/year-zero-vigilante-protesters-start-dig-remains-john-nolte

This is what happens when you bow down to people like this,now they're starting to *dig up graves *


----------



## deepelemblues

If rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrracism was so widespread they wouldn't need to target racists who've been dead for 140 years.

I'm sure they also don't know that at the end of his life Forrest changed his mind and promoted what was (for the time, the middle of the 1870s) a radical vision of racial equality and harmony, for which he was bitterly criticized by many whites in the South and North both.


----------



## DOPA

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/19851/year-zero-vigilante-protesters-start-dig-remains-john-nolte
> 
> This is what happens when you bow down to people like this,now they're starting to *dig up graves *


What the fuck is wrong with these people? The person is dead.

And certain people want to defend these cunts just because they oppose the alt-right? :lmao.

Fuck outta here with that bullshit.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> *I think we've got a ways to go before historical libraries are burned down etc. *
> 
> No one is trying to erase history yet they just don't want to place 'great leaders' from history who may not actually be so great on such high pedestals anymore.


You're right, but a line has to be drawn at some point. There is an argument to remove statues of Confederate leaders, I can understand that, but the recent attempts at whitewashing historical figures like Washington and Jefferson, or the removal of greats like Shakespeare, from the halls of Universities, is a step in the wrong direction. We can't sit back and placate people who want to do things like this. While we aren't at the exact place where that quote has been fully realized, there's enough evidence seen today where if we don't put a stop to things, we'll be heading dangerously close to something similar to what that quote states.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> * 'Antifa' Protesters Vandalized Peace Monument They Thought Was a Confederate Statue*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa protesters marched on Piedmont Park in Atlanta, Georgia this week, bent on destroying the "Confederate monument" they said was encouraging racism in their community. But it was only after they'd vandalized and spray-painted the statue that they realized it was a "peace monument" designed to encourage national healing in the wake of the Civil War.
> 
> Monday night, a crowd bearing signs that read "Defend C-ville" marched from one Atlanta park to another, demonstrating against the white supremacists who caused havoc in Charlottesville, North Carolina over the weekend.
> 
> Once they got to Piedmont Park, black-clad members of Antifa, attacked the statue, spraying it with paint, putting a chain around its neck, and attempting, unsuccessfully, to drag the giant statute off its base. When they realized they couldn't topple the behemoth, they disbanded, but not before causing serious damage.
> 
> The Associated Press managed to capture the bold and courageous property damage as it happened.
> 
> Unfortunately for Antifa, who were clearly to busy opposing fascism to read a plaque at the base of the monument (which is printed with the words, "Cease firing, peace is priceless,”) or do any basic Google research, what they thought was a pro-Confederate memorial turned out to be a monument to peace.
> 
> The statue, which depicts an angel guiding a Confederate soldier to lay down his arms, was erected in 1911, well after the Civil War, and a part of an organized effort in Atlanta to encourage peace and healing in the wake of a bloody and destructive era in the state's history.
> 
> “These guys realized a national healing needed to take place,” Thornton Kennedy, a local historian, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, speaking of the citizens who erected the statute at the beginning of the 20th Century. “They organized a peace tour of the North, which is really remarkable,” Kennedy said. “These were guys who fought in the Civil War, against Union troops.”
> 
> But, it looked just a little too much like a Confederate monument for Antifa's taste, so clearly it had to go. According to the A J-C, a member of the group did try to warn the masked vigilantes that the statue wasn't what they thought it was, but that person's statement was met with a chorus of "boos and catcalls."
> 
> In the wake of their huge mistake, All Out Atlanta, the group that organized the vandalism, issued a statement claiming that "liberal America" has "blood on its hands." They said they will continue their crusade against Confederate monuments, but failed to mention if they plan on Googling their intended targets in the future.
> 
> Authorities in Atlanta say the statue suffered major damage in the melee, and they have yet to determine whether they can fix it, or whether it must be removed.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/19861...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

These stories just keep coming out .


----------



## Reaper

I read the whole article. There's nothing worth any salt or merit in there that makes this idea even remotely nuanced or palatable.


----------



## Vic Capri

The Russians would at least cut off the heads of statues that offended them instead of taking them down entirely.



> I read the whole article. There's nothing worth any salt or merit in there that makes this idea even remotely nuanced or palatable.


Vice deleted the Tweet. Good to see they support domestic terrorism.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Vice deleted the Tweet. Good to see they support domestic terrorism.
> 
> - Vic


The article is still up.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Does anyone else think Steve Bannon is bullshitting when he says he thought his interview with Robert Kuttner was off the record. There is no way the guy that ran Breitbart talked to a reporter from a liberal leaning magazine and thought he would be off the record.

His comment on North Korea are interesting. 

Full article for those that haven't read it. Spoilered for length.



> *Steve Bannon, Unrepentant
> 
> Trump’s embattled strategist phones me, unbidden, to opine on China, Korea, and his enemies in the administration.*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss’s continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief. Trump’s defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.
> 
> But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. “They’re wetting themselves,” he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.
> 
> Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon’s assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I’d just published a column on how China was profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon’s boss.
> 
> “In Kim, Trump has met his match,” I wrote. “The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962.” Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?
> 
> I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.
> 
> Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, “It’s a great honor to finally track you down. I’ve followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.”
> 
> *“We’re at economic war with China,” he added. “It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they’re just tapping us along. It’s just a sideshow.”*
> 
> Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.
> 
> Contrary to Trump’s threat of fire and fury, Bannon said:* “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”* Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China’s trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.
> 
> *“To me,” Bannon said, “the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover.”*
> 
> Bannon’s plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. “We’re going to run the tables on these guys. We’ve come to the conclusion that they’re in an economic war and they’re crushing us.”
> 
> But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing’s aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don’t want to mess with the trading system?
> 
> *“Oh, they’re wetting themselves,” he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.*
> 
> *“I’m changing out people at East Asian Defense; I’m getting hawks in. I’m getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and Pacific Affairs] out at State.”*
> 
> But can Bannon really win that fight internally?
> *
> “That’s a fight I fight every day here,” he said. “We’re still fighting. There’s Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying.”
> 
> “We gotta do this. The president’s default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don’t get me wrong. It’s like, every day.”*
> 
> Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.
> 
> There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon’s China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it’s not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything, it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.
> 
> More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump’s election were “Resisting Trump” and “Containing Trump”) and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
> 
> The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He’s probably the most media-savvy person in America.
> 
> I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump’s reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump’s base.
> *
> He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: “Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”
> 
> “These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.
> *
> From his lips to Trump’s ear.
> 
> *“The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”*
> 
> I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness. The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.
> 
> Either the reports of the threats to Bannon’s job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump’s impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.
> 
> The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade. We’ll see if he’s still there.


----------



## Art Vandaley

> “In Kim, Trump has met his match,” I wrote. “The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962.”


Terrifying coming from Bannon.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Terrifying coming from Bannon.


That didn't come from Bannon, it was something the author of the piece had wrote before and was afraid Bannon would call him out on. 

In any case, looks like the narrative that Bannon is some white supremacist is completely blown out of the water, to absolutely no rational thinking person's surprise. I researched Bannon heavily when he got involved with the campaign and there was nothing there.


----------



## Reaper

Assassination of Trump trended on Twitter all day. Led by a US Senator no less. 

But of course only white supremacists are violent.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Assassination of Trump trended on Twitter all day. Led by a US Senator no less.
> 
> But of course only white supremacists are violent.


Yeah, because him being assassinated wouldn't have major repercussions. And a Senator doing this? How dumb is he?


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> That didn't come from Bannon, it was something the author of the piece had wrote before and was afraid Bannon would call him out on.
> 
> In any case, looks like the narrative that Bannon is some white supremacist is completely blown out of the water, to absolutely no rational thinking person's surprise. I researched Bannon heavily when he got involved with the campaign and there was nothing there.



Sorry you're right, seemed wild for Bannon to say, should have read it a bit closer.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Yeah, because him being assassinated wouldn't have major repercussions. And a Senator doing this? How dumb is he?


She was "just frustrated" because normal people want to kill someone when they're "just frustrated".


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> She was "just frustrated" because normal people want to kill someone when they're "just frustrated".


And she's a senator. Someone who is suppose to be cooler under pressure.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And she's a senator. Someone who is suppose to be cooler under pressure.












At least there are some principled Democrats left.

This party is turning into shit otherwise.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Assassination of Trump trended on Twitter all day. Led by a US Senator no less.
> 
> But of course only white supremacists are violent.



And Trump called for Hillary's assignation during the primary if she were to win.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump called for Hillary's assignation during the primary if she were to win.


No he didn't. Still a liar I see.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> No he didn't. Still a liar I see.


LOL Trump supporters still full of shit I see.

Keep defending Trump and lying for him. 

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Yeah that isn't Trump telling the 2nd amendment people they could kill her.


But keep being full of shit its what you do best


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> That didn't come from Bannon, it was something the author of the piece had wrote before and was afraid Bannon would call him out on.
> 
> In any case, looks like the narrative that Bannon is some white supremacist is completely blown out of the water, to absolutely no rational thinking person's surprise. I researched Bannon heavily when he got involved with the campaign and there was nothing there.


Have you researched the Camp of the Saints while doing research on Bannon?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Have you researched the Camp of the Saints while doing research on Bannon?


Is Camp of the Saints to be added to the pyre? :lol


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898147445229719553
Apparently a cop comes out and claims that they were ordered to "stand down" and let the violence happen.

(Don't care about the obaba ties and other shit)


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Is Camp of the Saints to be added to the pyre? :lol


Careful there with your virtue signalling. Don't want to end up a leftist. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898147445229719553
> Apparently a cop comes out and claims that they were ordered to "stand down" and let the violence happen.
> 
> (Don't care about the obaba ties and other shit)


This happened at the battle of Berkeley. Police were told to stand down, tho I think the people who ordered it didn't expect antifa to get wrecked.


----------



## Oxidamus

Police being told to stand down against left-wing groups that get violent is pathetic. It really shows how much of a stranglehold the left has on society. Everyone plays their games and no one but them win.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Iconoclast @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @BruiserKC @Plato @deepelemblues you crybaby

How To Know You're In A Mass Hysteria Bubble, by Scott Adams



> History is full of examples of Mass Hysterias. They happen fairly often. The cool thing about mass hysterias is that you don’t know when you are in one. But sometimes the people who are not experiencing the mass hysteria can recognize when others are experiencing one, if they know what to look for.
> 
> I’ll teach you what to look for.
> 
> A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.
> 
> The most visible Mass Hysteria of the moment involves the idea that the United States intentionally elected a racist President. If that statement just triggered you, it might mean you are in the Mass Hysteria bubble. The cool part is that you can’t fact-check my claim you are hallucinating if you are actually hallucinating. But you can read my description of the signs of mass hysteria and see if you check off the boxes.
> 
> If you’re in the mass hysteria, recognizing you have all the symptoms of hysteria won’t help you be aware you are in it. That’s not how hallucinations work. Instead, your hallucination will automatically rewrite itself to expel any new data that conflicts with its illusions.
> 
> But if you are not experiencing mass hysteria, you might be totally confused by the actions of the people who are. They appear to be irrational, but in ways that are hard to define. You can’t tell if they are stupid, unscrupulous, ignorant, mentally ill, emotionally unstable or what. It just looks frickin’ crazy.
> 
> The reason you can’t easily identify what-the-hell is going on in the country right now is that a powerful mass hysteria is in play. If you see the signs after I point them out, you’re probably not in the hysteria bubble. If you read this and do NOT see the signs, it probably means you’re trapped inside the mass hysteria bubble.
> 
> Here are some signs of mass hysteria. This is my own take on it, but I welcome you to fact-check it with experts on mass hysteria.
> 
> 1. The trigger event for cognitive dissonance
> 
> On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.
> 
> Trump supporters experienced no trigger event for cognitive dissonance when Trump won. Their worldview was confirmed by observed events.
> 
> 2. The Ridiculousness of it
> 
> One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it. Imagine your neighbor telling you he thinks the other neighbor is a witch. Or imagine someone saying the local daycare provider is a satanic temple in disguise. Or imagine someone telling you tulip bulbs are more valuable than gold. Crazy stuff.
> 
> Compare that to the idea that our president is a Russian puppet. Or that the country accidentally elected a racist who thinks the KKK and Nazis are “fine people.” Crazy stuff.
> 
> If you think those examples don’t sound crazy – regardless of the reality – you are probably inside the mass hysteria bubble.
> 
> 3. The Confirmation Bias
> 
> If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, you probably interpreted President Trump’s initial statement on Charlottesville – which was politically imperfect to say the least – as proof-positive he is a damned racist.
> 
> If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble you might have noticed that President Trump never campaigned to be our moral leader. He presented himself as – in his own words “no angel” – with a set of skills he offered to use in the public’s interest. He was big on law and order, and equal justice under the law. But he never offered moral leadership. Voters elected him with that knowledge. Evidently, Republicans don’t depend on politicians for moral leadership. That’s probably a good call.
> 
> When the horror in Charlottesville shocked the country, citizens instinctively looked to their president for moral leadership. The president instead provided a generic law and order statement. Under pressure, he later named specific groups and disavowed the racists. He was clearly uncomfortable being our moral lighthouse. That’s probably why he never described his moral leadership as an asset when running for office. We observe that he has never been shy about any other skill he brings to the job, so it probably isn’t an accident when he avoids mentioning any ambitions for moral leadership. If he wanted us to know he would provide that service, I think he would have mentioned it by now.
> 
> If you already believed President Trump is a racist, his weak statement about Charlottesville seems like confirmation. But if you believe he never offered moral leadership, only equal treatment under the law, that’s what you saw instead. And you made up your own mind about the morality.
> 
> The tricky part here is that any interpretation of what happened could be confirmation bias. But ask yourself which one of these versions sounds less crazy:
> 
> 1. A sitting president, who is a branding expert, thought it would be a good idea to go easy on murderous Nazis as a way to improve his popularity.
> 
> or…
> 
> 2. The country elected a racist leader who is winking to the KKK and White Supremacists that they have a free pass to start a race war now.
> 
> or…
> 
> 3. A mentally unstable racist clown with conman skills (mostly just lying) eviscerated the Republican primary field and won the presidency. He keeps doing crazy, impulsive racist stuff. But for some reason, the economy is going well, jobs are looking good, North Korea blinked, ISIS is on the ropes, and the Supreme Court got a qualified judge. It was mostly luck.
> 
> or…
> 
> 4. The guy who didn’t offer to be your moral leader didn’t offer any moral leadership, just law and order, applied equally. His critics cleverly and predictably framed it as being soft on Nazis.
> 
> One of those narratives is less crazy-sounding than the other. That doesn’t mean the less-crazy one has to be true. But normal stuff happens far more often than crazy stuff. And critics will frame normal stuff as crazy whenever they get a chance.
> 
> 4. The Oversized Reaction
> 
> It would be hard to overreact to a Nazi murder, or to racists marching in the streets with torches. That stuff demands a strong reaction. But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.
> 
> 5. The Insult without supporting argument
> 
> When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.
> 
> For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.
> 
> The mass hysteria signals I described here are not settled science, or anything like it. This is only my take on the topic, based on personal observation and years of experience with hypnosis and other forms of persuasion. I present this filter on the situation as the first step in dissolving the mass hysteria. It isn’t enough, but more persuasion is coming. If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble, you might see what I am doing in this blog as a valuable public service. If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.
> 
> How do I look to you?


Might be the best Scott Adams article to date. Perfectly describes what is going on in the world right now.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump called for Hillary's assignation during the primary if she were to win.


Do you really think promulgating a bold-faced lie is going to do you any good? 

If the goal is to try and get the other side to understand where you're coming from, it would help if you presented factual statements.


----------



## AmWolves10

Oxidamus said:


> Police being told to stand down against left-wing groups that get violent is pathetic. It really shows how much of a stranglehold the left has on society. Everyone plays their games and no one but them win.


It's pathetic. The left asks for special treatment and privileges in the name of "equality". When you call them out on it, they get nasty and violent.


----------



## Headliner

I really don't know why Trump thought it was a good idea to attack Senators from his own party. This is just going to make it harder to get things done in Congress. I'm willing to bet we end 2017 with no major legislation achievement. Immigration reform, tax reform, infrustrature and health care will all fail to pass in Congress.


----------



## Miss Sally

If anyone has heard the leaked Bannon convo, it's pretty good.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Do you really think promulgating a bold-faced lie is going to do you any good?
> 
> If the goal is to try and get the other side to understand where you're coming from, it would help if you presented factual statements.


It is a factual statement but of course, Trump supporters ignore facts and evidence

Trump supporters are so far from reality is not even funny. Now I remember why I stopped posting in this thread.


Here is the quote from Trump AGAIN.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

That is Trump implying to gun owners they can kill her if they wanted to stop her

But once again Trump supporters being uninformed on everything or just lying about what Trump said or did. All you had to do is google it and it would have come up but like most Trump supporters you just put in your in the sand and ignore all the facts




Headliner said:


> I really don't know why Trump thought it was a good idea to attack Senators from his own party. This is just going to make it harder to get things done in Congress. I'm willing to bet we end 2017 with no major legislation achievement. Immigration reform, tax reform, infrustrature and health care will all fail to pass in Congress.


2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached


----------



## Art Vandaley

Headliner said:


> I really don't know why Trump thought it was a good idea to attack Senators from his own party. This is just going to make it harder to get things done in Congress. I'm willing to bet we end 2017 with no major legislation achievement. Immigration reform, tax reform, infrustrature and health care will all fail to pass in Congress.


It's his secret plan, piss of the Republicans, never get any legislation passed, claim the success of Obama's legislative agenda as his own, go down in history as a decent President on the numbers.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FriedTofu

Headliner said:


> I really don't know why Trump thought it was a good idea to attack Senators from his own party. This is just going to make it harder to get things done in Congress. I'm willing to bet we end 2017 with no major legislation achievement. Immigration reform, tax reform, infrustrature and health care will all fail to pass in Congress.


Its simple maths. Trump is unpopular, but both major parties in politics are even more unpopular. Keep attacking anyone less popular than him and his supporters will gloss over his flaws.

Anyway the GOP already got their bargain with a GOP president in getting lifetime conservative appointments in the judiciary branch of government. Even if Trump can't get his reforms done now, they have already laid the foundation for the future. Just hope he hasn't appointed any crazies like in his administrations and at least outsource to reputable conservative think tanks' suggestions.

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/346248-trump-quietly-putting-his-stamp-on-the-courts


----------



## Reaper

Real reason why the Intel CEO bailed on Trump. I had a feeling it had nothing to do with moral outrage considering Intel is one of the top companies in the world with regards to pushing for cheap global labor and contracting out to sweatshops. Suddenly a CEO that contracts to sweatshops doesn't just develop a moral core. They're already so rotten to the core that there's nothing there for them to act like upstanding citizens. 

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017...ring-council-sought-8k-h-1b-workers-u-s-jobs/



> *Intel CEO Who Bailed on Trump Manufacturing Council Sought 8K H-1B Workers for U.S. Jobs*
> 
> A CEO who bailed on President Donald Trump’s now-defunct American Manufacturing Council imported workers to take jobs in the United States.
> Intel CEO Brian Krzanich left Trump’s manufacturing council after he disagreed with the response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
> 
> “I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them,’’ Krzanich wrote in a blog post. “We should honor—not attack—those who have stood up for equality and other cherished American values.’’
> 
> But, as Trump’s manufacturing council was set up to bring back manufacturing and jobs to the U.S., Intel has been doing just the opposite since 2013.
> 
> Since 2013, the Intel Corporation attempted to import more than 8,000 H-1B workers. At the same time, as Breitbart News reported, the company under Krzanich’s direction laid off 12,000 Americans last year.
> 
> The H-1B visa allows corporations to outsource hundreds of thousands of jobs to foreign workers. Each year, more than 100,000 are able to enter the U.S. to take coveted, white-collar jobs.
> 
> *Intel, like other tech outsourcers IBM and Microsoft, moved thousands of American jobs to India in the last two decades as a labor cost-saving measure.
> 
> In Malaysia, where the median income is about $396 U.S. dollars a month, according to the Department of Statistics Malaysia, Intel now employs 9,000 on two locations, making it the corporation’s largest offshore site.
> 
> “This is one of the largest assembly and test facilities and a mature site with multi-functions in manufacturing, design and development and local and global support services,” the Intel posting stated.*
> 
> Pro-American worker attorney Sara Blackwell told Breitbart Texas that Krzanich should be held responsible for not only displacing Americans by replacing them with foreigners, but also accountable for the low-wages Intel pays overseas.
> 
> “I think Brian Krzanich should have to disclose how much his company is paying in India so we can tell if he’s exploiting these workers in violation of human rights so that he can make $19 million a year,” Blackwell said. “And if he doesn’t have this information, for his salary, he should be required to have this.”
> 
> Blackwell said Krzanich had no moral grounds to bail on Trump because of the way Intel used a business model importing H-1B workers and outsourcing to India.
> 
> John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Had a feeling the he would have similar crony capitalist reasons for jumping off. But then virtue signalling to the max :lol 

Elon had his dollars cut off, which is why he was so upset. 

Looks like Trump IS draining the swamp after all. The cronies are scattering like the filthy cockroaches they are. :banderas


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Trump fires Steve Bannon as chief strategist: sources*
> 
> President Donald Trump on Friday fired Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist in the latest high-level White House shake-up, removing a powerful and controversial figure known for far-right political views, two people familiar with the matter said.
> 
> Bannon's ouster comes with the president increasingly isolated over his comments in the aftermath of white supremacist violence in the Virginia college town of Charlottesville.
> 
> A champion of economic nationalism and a political provocateur, Bannon, 63, is a former U.S. Navy officer, Goldman Sachs investment banker and Hollywood movie producer.
> 
> Trump said on Tuesday the anti-racist demonstrators were as responsible for the violence as the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who instigated the protests. On Thursday, he decried the removal in numerous cities of "beautiful" monuments to the pro-slavery Civil War Confederacy.
> 
> Those remarks sparked rebukes from fellow Republicans, top corporate executives and some close allies even as some supporters, including vice president Mike Pence, stood by Trump.
> 
> Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
> 
> Bannon had been in a precarious position before but Trump opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his 2016 election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
> 
> On July 28, Trump replaced his beleaguered White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, installing retired General John Kelly in his place in a major shake-up of his top team. Trump then ousted White House communications chief Anthony Scaramucci on July 31 over an obscene tirade just 10 days after the president named him to the post. Scaramucci's hiring had prompted Sean Spicer, a Priebus ally, to abruptly resign as press secretary.


https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...tain-report/article36027553/?click=sf_globefb

Pretty interesting turn of events


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*BANNON JUST GOT FIRED!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!! :LOL. 
WATCHING THIS RETARDED, RACIST REGIME COLLAPSE IS SO GLORIOUS!!! :drose * http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *BANNON JUST GOT FIRED!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!! .
> WATCHING THIS RETARDED, RACIST REGIME COLLAPSE IS SO GLORIOUS!!! :drose * http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html


Bannon resigned two weeks ago. Before the Charlottesville thing even happened 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898588141686104070
That would explain his recent interview.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Bannon resigned two weeks ago. Before the Charlottesville thing even happened
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898588141686104070
> That would explain his recent interview.


*Every report I've read says he was forced out, but either way, the main thing is that he's gone, and this Retarded Racist Regime is STILL collapsing. Trump already has the highest turnover rate(not total amount, but rate)of all time in under 8 months. He will easily surpass Truman's if he lasts 4 years.*


----------



## Headliner

I read he was originally going to be fired but was given the chance to resign.

So how soon before Breitbart turns on Trump?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Headliner said:


> I read he was originally going to be fired but was given the chance to resign.
> 
> So how soon before Breitbart turns on Trump?


*An hour ago:*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898595085247324161


----------



## Headliner

Legit BOSS said:


> *An hour ago:*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898595085247324161


That's basically what I've been reading. People are plotting apparently. And I'm sure the comments will be filled with bullshit deep state conspiracy theories and the globalists taking over blah blah blah. That site is too filled with bigotry and ignorance for me to visit but we can predict what's about to happen.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

So, if Breitbart and Trump end up at odds with each other who do the "alt right" blindly follow?


----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> So, if Breitbart and Trump end up at odds with each other who do the "alt right" blindly follow?


Looks like Breit, they have the "globalist" card where a lack of evidence of ill intent is evidence in itself

McCainiacs, we can do it, we can fix this party 

McCainiac 2020



Headliner said:


> That's basically what I've been reading. People are plotting apparently. And I'm sure the comments will be filled with bullshit deep state conspiracy theories and the globalists taking over blah blah blah. That site is too filled with bigotry and ignorance for me to visit but we can predict what's about to happen.


They all ready started

Its for the best, I rather have a small and dead republican party than a big fucking stupid one


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberals demanded Bannon be removed. They still complain after he's no longer employed.

- Vic


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals demanded Bannon be removed. They still complain after he's no longer employed.
> 
> - Vic


Who is complaining. People is just lol'ing and disappointed at how much of a shit show this has been. Flynn, Spicer, Prebius, Mooch, Bannon all gone and that doesn't count the people who were fired or quit in other areas under the Executive Branch. It's like every month its something new.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Who is complaining.


You on here every day.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

:maisielol2 Haha, Bannon gone. People will praise Trump for firing dead weight or some shit not thinking he keeps employing the people for this shitshow.


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals demanded Bannon be removed. They still complain after he's no longer employed.
> 
> - Vic


The best part is that this is still a racist regime even though the alt right guy is gone. 

So Trump is racist for employing a racist bur still a racist for firing a racist. 

This is a classic case if continued mass hysteria. Nothing else. 

They're even pre-empting what they think people will talk about... Aka conspiracies... Which in and of themselves are the very same thing. 

Never pleased left showing its true colors. 

This is why Trump is wrong in trying to appease them. They don't care no matter what he does. They simply want chaos and they're programmed now to demand nothing but chaos. No real interest for the country or its future at all.

The foreigners in here are clearly here because they have no lives and they outnumber the local leftists 2-1. It is indeed quite fascinating. 

From my perspective, Bannons resignation matters very little. He seemed to have a bit part anyways and now that he's gone I don't really see it as any kind of a loss except that Trump keeps giving people who want his head more and more ammunition which is not necessary. He has his role to play and for anyone that thinks that Bannon will become disloyal, they're basically just projecting what they themselves will do. I believe that there is a strategic element to Bannon's resignation which we're not aware of. 

---

Meanwhile, Trump knows who he's really talking to:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/656915?unlock=GZTW3EZ94OLSYW8J



> Former Democratic Rep. Steve Israel put it best, writing in Newsday this week about a recent conversation he overheard at a Long Island diner. “Now they’re making a big deal about statues? Who cares about statues!” Israel recounted hearing. It’s why top Democratic strategists have urged their candidates not to talk to voters about impeachment or dwell on the hot-button issues driving media coverage.
> 
> The most surprising finding from the latest polling is how many Americans agree with Trump on the issue of Confederate statues.* A PBS/NPR/Marist poll conducted after the Charlottesville protests found a whopping 62 percent of registered voters preferring to maintain Confederate memorials as a “historical symbol” over removing them “because they’re offensive to some people.” The issue united Republicans (86 percent approved maintaining them and only 6 percent disapproved), while dividing Democrats (47 percent approved removing them and 44 percent disapproved). Even a 44 percent plurality of African-Americans didn’t want to tear them down.*
> 
> The results show there’s a method to Trump’s madness, no matter how divisive and destabilizing his rhetoric may sound to elites. *He leaned into the Confederate controversy on Thursday by tweeting his support for “beautiful” monuments. Democrats responded with outrage, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi even calling for the removal of Confederate statues from the Capitol. All of a sudden, Democrats could find themselves exposed politically for their overreach.*
> 
> *Trump’s decision to blame “both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville—apparently alluding to the radical “antifa” counterprotesters clashing with neo-Nazi demonstrators—also got a surprising degree of support. An automated SurveyMonkey poll found 43 percent of Americans agreeing with Trump, while 53 percent disagreed. That’s hardly an endorsement, but it was far more favorable than the outraged reaction the press conference received from journalists and leaders of his own party. In fact, the number of rank-and-file Republicans agreeing with Trump on his Charlottesville remarks (87 percent) is a bit higher than the number of Republicans who typically approve of Trump’s job performance (which usually hovers around 80 percent).
> *
> Finally, Trump’s overall job-approval rating is virtually unchanged in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Quinnipiac’s new survey found it at 39 percent, up 6 points since its last survey earlier in the month. Gallup now pegs his approval at 38 percent, inching upwards from his all-time low of 34 percent just before the Charlottesville protests. The aforementioned PBS/Marist poll also found his job approval at 38 percent. For context, that’s the same percentage who viewed him favorably on Election Day before he won the presidency.
> 
> *The biggest divide in American society is between the elites who once reliably shaped public opinion and less-privileged voters, who are increasingly tuning out mainstream sources in favor of self-selected information networks. It’s a sobering reminder that the divisions in America are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon, and will probably worsen.*


It is fascinating to see the left's movie play out where the fringe on the left thinks that Trump's world is crashing whereas in reality Trump's actual numbers are improving and his voter base continue to solidify.


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> You on here every day.
> 
> - Vic


Hard truths get people like you in their feelings.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well I guess that's the end of the "President Bannon" narrative the left was spinning. Another leftist lie bites the dust. 

Hate to see him go. Didn't agree with him about everything but we were directionally aligned (and you could say the same about me and Trump) and he was unfairly maligned with lies just like the president. Hopefully this won't lead to a shift in major policies but I'm pessimistic. The globalist influence in the administration seems to be growing and Trump, despite the greatness of condemning Antifa alongside the Neo Nazis, continues to appease people who will hate him and lie about him no matter what he does.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> It is fascinating to see the left's movie play out where the fringe on the left thinks that Trump's world is crashing whereas in reality Trump's actual numbers are improving and his voter base continue to solidify.


Source? Everything I can find has Trump's approval ratings at all time lows tbh.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Source? Everything I can find has Trump's approval ratings at all time lows tbh.


I posted the source in the very post you're quoting. 



> In fact, the number of rank-and-file Republicans agreeing with Trump on his Charlottesville remarks (87 percent) is a bit higher than the number of Republicans who typically approve of Trump’s job performance (which usually hovers around 80 percent).
> 
> Finally, Trump’s overall job-approval rating is virtually unchanged in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Quinnipiac’s new survey found it at 39 percent, up 6 points since its last survey earlier in the month. Gallup now pegs his approval at 38 percent, inching upwards from his all-time low of 34 percent just before the Charlottesville protests. The aforementioned PBS/Marist poll also found his job approval at 38 percent. For context, that’s the same percentage who viewed him favorably on Election Day before he won the presidency.


Here it is again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> I posted the source in the very post you're quoting.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again.


Did you quote the wrong potion of your post for me? That's just whether people agree with his decisions. If his approval rating is at an all time low his "numbers" are still going down, not up, no? Like in business, if I'm selling more coca colas but still losing more profit despite selling more coke, I'm not improving my numbers at all. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Did you quote the wrong potion of your post for me? That's just whether people agree with his decisions. If his approval rating is at an all time low his "numbers" are still going down, not up, no? Like in business, if I'm selling more coca colas but still losing more profit despite selling more coke, I'm not improving my numbers at all. :shrug


What? I don't even know what you're on about when what I quote says specifically that his approval numbers are up in the last week. 



> Finally, Trump’s overall job-approval rating is virtually unchanged in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Quinnipiac’s new survey found it at 39 percent,* up 6 points since its last survey earlier in the month.*





> Gallup now pegs his approval at 38 percent, *inching upwards from his all-time low of 34 percent just before the Charlottesville protests.*





> The aforementioned PBS/Marist poll also found his job approval at 38 percent. *For context, that’s the same percentage who viewed him favorably on Election Day before he won the presidency.*


The aggregate from realclear politics:


Spoiler: large images























Small time-frame, but it corroborates improving numbers since the Charlotte riot happened on the 13th or 14th.


----------



## CamillePunk

Remember when Steve Bannon was an anti-Semite because a Jewish journalist working at Breitbart wrote an article calling Bill Kristol a "renegade Jew"? Remember the outrage and how this tainted the entire Trump administration as anti-Semitic?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.1bd3605b4191

Something tells me WaPo isn't going to be taken to task the same way. :lol 

Then you've got HuffPo publishing the headline "Goy, Bye!" over Bannon resigning. 

The double standards are truly staggering.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Then you've got HuffPo publishing the headline "Goy, Bye!" over Bannon resigning.
> 
> The double standards are truly staggering.


Was just about to post this in here. 










Which they changed to this:










And all this coming from the newsroom that looks like this:










:lmao

White feminists calling for their own doom ... Just like they did in Sweden, France, Germany and the UK.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Headliner said:


> Who is complaining. People is just lol'ing and disappointed at how much of a shit show this has been. Flynn, Spicer, Prebius, Mooch, Bannon all gone and that doesn't count the people who were fired or quit in other areas under the Executive Branch. It's like every month its something new.


*It seems like someone gets fired every other week. Trump is a caricature of himself at this point, and It's fun to watch his blind followers squirm to defend him and spin an all time high turnover rate as good. This RACIST Regime isn't stable by any means.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Some people are about to be very disappointed. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898662033113190401


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

KellyAnne Conway is turning to be the AbiMaria of this administration,how many people thought she would be the annoying person everyone votes off early and they just keep on surviving as everyone else finds a way to exit instead.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> It is a factual statement but of course, Trump supporters ignore facts and evidence
> 
> Trump supporters are so far from reality is not even funny. Now I remember why I stopped posting in this thread.
> 
> 
> Here is the quote from Trump AGAIN.
> *
> “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”*
> 
> That is Trump implying to gun owners they can kill her if they wanted to stop her
> 
> But once again Trump supporters being uninformed on everything or just lying about what Trump said or did. All you had to do is google it and it would have come up but like most Trump supporters you just put in your in the sand and ignore all the facts
> 
> 2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached


I see your confirmation bias is as thick as ever. 

Which quote calls for an assassination attempt:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

-Donald Trump

"I hope Trump is assassinated."

-Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal


----------



## Smarkout

Legit BOSS said:


> *It seems like someone gets fired every other week. Trump is a caricature of himself at this point, and It's fun to watch his blind followers squirm to defend him and spin an all time high turnover rate as good. This RACIST Regime isn't stable by any means.*


Capitalizing words don't actually make them true. In your opinion what is a racist and why is this "regime" racist? Help me understand your POV. 

It's not like the Democrats have done a great job with the inner city schools. Haven't they had enough of a chance to clean the inner cities up? So many of those poor kids just need some more help and guidance and they just haven't gotten it for decades. 

What is the difference between white supremacists and a group of people going around saying "what do we want dead cops when do we want them now"? 

Are both sides really NOT to blame?


----------



## FriedTofu

Why is one resignation a true resignation while another is Trump firing the person?

Why did all the other major resignations get Trump's twitter response and this one radio silence?

Love the attempt at the spin in here though. Needed a laugh. :ha


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> Some people are about to be very disappointed. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898662033113190401


*It's embarrassing that you're proud of this. We've been saying Trump is the figurehead of racism and will plunge this country into a second civil war because his rhetoric empowers white supremacists, and you went from telling us we're reaching and race baiting, to cosigning this stupidity as proof of Bannon's loyalty. There's nothing good about this.*


----------



## Reaper

Press about Romney in 2011










Press about McCain in 2008










Notice a trend here? And notice how both are now democrat darlings for opposing Trump. Filthy hypocrites :lmao 

These tactics have been used before hence they're pretty much not worth the salt or being paid attention to now.

So we've seen this before. Every single opponent of Democrats is racist filth. It's nothing new and their words are as meaningless as the branding on toilet paper.

With each year, the left loses its intellectual capital more and more.


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's embarrassing that you're proud of this. We've been saying Trump is the figurehead of racism and will plunge this country into a second civil war because his rhetoric empowers white supremacists, and you went from telling us we're reaching and race baiting, to cosigning this stupidity as proof of Bannon's loyalty. There's nothing good about this.*


Sorry I'm not inside of the mass hysteria bubble so none of this made any sense to me.

I've seen no evidence of Trump or Bannon being racist or in league with white supremacists. I'm not racist and don't support white nationalism/supremacy. I know you're going to hallucinate that I'm saying something different but that's out of my control.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Legit BOSS said:


> *It seems like someone gets fired every other week. Trump is a caricature of himself at this point, and It's fun to watch his blind followers squirm to defend him and spin an all time high turnover rate as good. This RACIST Regime isn't stable by any means.*


I personally wish Da Mooch stayed because of how amazing he was, but ultimately he served his purpose by being the scapegoat of a catalyst for Spicer's firing (which needed to happen because he was floundering as Press Secretary and was a Priebus ally, who I'm glad is also gone).

That aside, Trump's presidency isn't racist and you know it, brah. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Also there's not going to be a civil war unless Trump is impeached/killed. There's not enough crazy leftists or enough crazy alt-righters for a civil war. There are however enough armed normal right-wing people who don't buy into what the media and left-wing politicians are saying about the president and see them as trying to remove their democratically elected president. THAT can and possibly will result in civil war.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898661139285917696

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898661987927826432
I gotta get to work, where they have more coffee.

:LOL


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> Sorry I'm not inside of the mass hysteria bubble so none of this made any sense to me.
> 
> I've seen no evidence of Trump or Bannon being racist or in league with white supremacists. I'm not racist and don't support white nationalism/supremacy. I know you're going to hallucinate that I'm saying something different but that's out of my control.


*So what the fuck do you think the phrase "GOING TO WAR" means in a time when white supremacists have drawn the line against people of color? You MUST be living in a bubble to flagrantly ignore planned marches and the violent acts committed by Nazis and the KKK since last Saturday.*


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Press about Romney in 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Press about McCain in 2008
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice a trend here? And notice how both are now democrat darlings for opposing Trump. Filthy hypocrites :lmao
> 
> These tactics have been used before hence they're pretty much not worth the salt or being paid attention to now.
> 
> So we've seen this before. Every single opponent of Democrats is racist filth. It's nothing new and their words are as meaningless as the branding on toilet paper.
> 
> With each year, the left loses its intellectual capital more and more.


Bill Maher basically admits that he goes after all Republicans the same way and that its all "end of the world" but with Trump it was "real this time" . He goes on to say that Bush, McCain and Romney were all "honorable men" who he could have lived with being president. It's just the same old leftist tactic to try to discredit any Republican for the simple fact that they' Republican. It doesn't matter who it is, he'd have done the same with Rubio or Cruz


----------



## Reaper

I'm not a fan of the incoming civil war theory at all. 

If Trump is impeached or killed (both unlikely) America will carry on and voters will vote in the next republican candidate. A popular republican president dying would be the death knell for the democrats. 

Also, there's now a strong push within the democrat party leadership to move away from the impeachment rhetoric as well. They know that they've crossed a line and with the losses in the special elections piling up despite framing this current administration as as bad as hitler to no effect, they know that they need to change tactics.



Stinger Fan said:


> Bill Maher basically admits that he goes after all Republicans the same way and that its all "end of the world" but with Trump it was "real this time" . He goes on to say that Bush, McCain and Romney were all "honorable men" who he could have lived with being president. It's just the same old leftist tactic to try to discredit any Republican for the simple fact that they' Republican. It doesn't matter who it is, he'd have done the same with Rubio or Cruz


Because they know that they're bold faced liars who frame a political narrative. They leave themselves room to go back on their words while their sheep keep lapping it up.

Anything about the social conservatism of the mainstream republican party (the core group that's most representative of the greatest population) is a complete and utter bastardization of the truth. The democrats know this. Their more intelligent supporters know this. It's however, the only weapon they have to keep the minority vote. That and of course convincing a big chunk of the minority voter into thinking that everyone that's not a minority that thinks like them is a race traitor or something like that. 

It's amazing that it actually works because if this were a movie, people would reject it as hilariously ridiculous.


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *So what the fuck do you think the phrase "GOING TO WAR" means in a time when white supremacists have drawn the line against people of color? You MUST be living in a bubble to flagrantly ignore planned marches and the violent acts committed by Nazis and the KKK since last Saturday.*


Oh, so you think Steve Bannon meant he's joining up with the white nationalists he called a bunch of clowns and losers the other day. Yeah, I don't see it.

Also I have been commenting on and criticizing the white nationalism stuff so idk where you've been.










OH NO, NOT THE COMMITTEE ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES :lmao

The false claim that Trump has supported or elevated hate groups is so mass hysteria. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

"I don't have any proof, the facts are murky at best but I KNOW something is there!"

Trump's election brought out the inner Alex Jones in many from the Left and Right.

Frogs turning gay from chemicals, kids being turned Autistic by vaccines and boogeymen at every corner of our lives!

What a time to be alive.

:lenny


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Legit BOSS said:


> *So what the fuck do you think the phrase "GOING TO WAR" means in a time when white supremacists have drawn the line against people of color? You MUST be living in a bubble to flagrantly ignore planned marches and the violent acts committed by Nazis and the KKK and Antifa since last Saturday.*


FTFY. :yoshi

Also, if you wish to condemn racists and racism, it's best not to use the term people of color, since that phrase is the same as colored people like how the old tomato = to-mah-toh adage goes. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Vice changes the headline of the same article. Good thing Imgur exists where I have started building an archive of the loony left. 



















But yeah ... No condemnation from the left for the violent rhetoric. Obviously.


----------



## Miss Sally

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> FTFY. :yoshi
> 
> Also, if you wish to condemn racists and racism, it's best not to use the term people of color, since that phrase is the same as colored people like how the old tomato = to-mah-toh adage goes. :lol


Colored People

People of Color

These aren't the exact same terms at all nope. I wonder if this works for anything else...

White Supremacist 

Supremacist for Whites

Woah! What a difference adding in one word and switching the positions of two other words makes!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> FTFY. :yoshi
> 
> Also, if you wish to condemn racists and racism, it's best not to use the term people of color, since that phrase is the same as colored people like how the old tomato = to-mah-toh adage goes. :lol


*The phrase "people of color" is used to refer to a wide spectrum of races. It's not at all the same as saying "********" in the 1960's.*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Legit BOSS said:


> *The phrase "people of color" is used to refer to a wide spectrum of races. It's not at all the same as saying "********" in the 1960's.*


No, it's the same thing as saying colored people. :serious:

And like the term "colored people", it is racially charged terminology that serves no purpose other than to promote the cancer known as identity politics.


----------



## Reaper

http://fox2now.com/2017/08/18/lt-governor-calls-on-missouri-senate-to-expel-maria-chappelle-nadal/



> *Lt. Governor calls on Missouri Senate to expel Maria Chappelle-Nadal*
> 
> JEFFERSON CITY, MO -Lieutenant Governor Mike Parson says he can and will expel State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal from the Missouri legislature if she doesn't resign following comments made about President Trump on Facebook.
> Parson, who’s position also makes him president of the Missouri Senate, is calling for the expulsion Nadal under Article 3 of the Missouri Constitution. But he hopes she will do the responsible thing first.
> 
> Early Thursday morning, Democratic Sen. Chappelle-Nadal wrote a Facebook comment in response to a post that suggested Vice President Mike Pence would try to have Trump removed from office where she said "I hope Trump is assassinated!"
> 
> The comment was later deleted. Chappelle-Nadal later told FOX 2 says she didn't mean what she posted, but was frustrated with the president's reaction to the violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. She has said she has no intention of resigning over the comment.
> 
> “To me there is ways to remove her from office but what I think she should do is take responsibility for her actions in state of Missouri and resign as a state senator,” said Parson.
> 
> Parson adds that her Facebook post hoping that President Trump would be assassinated, takes things to a new level.
> 
> “I have the ability and right to call on my fellow senators to have her expelled from the Missouri Senate, which I plan to do if she does not resign by the veto session.”
> 
> That veto session starts September 15, 2017. Once it does, senators would call for a special session to vote on Nadal’s expulsion. They would need a two-thirds majority of the vote to succeed.
> 
> “I would be disappointed if Missouri senators of this state did not vote to expel her from senate. I do not think that’s the message we want to send to people of Missouri.”
> 
> As far as the historical significance of what Parson intends on doing, he says they are checking but don’t think this has ever been done in Missouri. However, it has been used in other states.
> 
> “You're held to a higher standard if you like it or not. That is what we do. If we don’t hold ourselves to that higher standard, we're doomed to fail.”
> 
> On Friday, Governor Eric Greitens also responded to the Chappelle-Nadal Facebook post, with a statement saying:
> 
> *Senator Chappelle-Nadal said she hopes the President is killed. Republicans and Democrats have called on her to resign. Her response: "Hell no." Last night, in an interview, she refused to apologize twice. If she will not resign, the Senate can vote to remove her. I believe they should.*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Miss Sally said:


> Colored People
> 
> People of Color
> 
> These aren't the exact same terms at all nope. I wonder if this works for anything else...
> 
> White Supremacist
> 
> Supremacist for Whites
> 
> Woah! What a difference adding in one word and switching the positions of two other words makes!


Tried telling my little sister that until I was almost blue in the face, but she wouldn't listen thanks to her mind being debilitated by the cancer known as progressivism.

1 like = 1 prayer :'(


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

1. Claim racism is prevalent in society.
2. Protest in the streets over said racism.
3. Physically attack the people they think are racist.
4. Get upset when the people they call racist start attacking back.
5. Blame them for starting everything.
6. ???


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Tried telling my little sister that until I was almost blue in the face, but she wouldn't listen thanks to her mind being debilitated by the cancer known as progressivism.
> 
> 1 like = 1 prayer :'(


I wonder how many men have lost their sisters to this cancer. I speak as one whose sister is now an out of job PhD who blames racism and sexism for her lack of job prospects ... I tried talking to her about toning down on her feminism (she was basically using her english literature classes as a platform to push 3rd wave feminism) and she and I haven't spoken in about a year as a result.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> I wonder how many men have lost their sisters to this cancer. I speak as one whose sister is now an out of job PhD who blames racism and sexism for her lack of job prospects ... I tried talking to her about toning down on her feminism (she was basically using her english literature classes as a platform to push 3rd wave feminism) and she and I haven't spoken in about a year as a result.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> No, it's the same thing as saying colored people. :serious


*No, it isn't. If you haven't noticed, I'm Black, and educated minorities commonly refer to each other as "people of color" and use the acronym POC on social media. It's an inoffensive blanket term used to avoid naming multiple races during discussions of diversity. Ask literally any Black person on this forum @Empress @Headliner @End Of Days @Wynter @Genesis 1.0*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> I wonder how many men have lost their sisters to this cancer. I speak as one whose sister is now an out of job PhD who blames racism and sexism for her lack of job prospects ... I tried talking to her about toning down on her feminism (she was basically using her english literature classes as a platform to push 3rd wave feminism) and she and I haven't spoken in about a year as a result.


My little sister is still a good egg and we still hang out and talk frequently. Sadly, she's just become a little runny because as the chubby nerdy-type, she was a prime target for progressivism and it's nefarious aim of rounding up as many minorities and atypical people as possible to create a base of political power under the guise of "muh equality".

She's not a total lost cause, though. She was fuming at the DNC for their shafting of Bernie and a month or two ago, she tore up a form she got from them asking for support against Teflon Don Juan.

I know that there's no way that she'll go center / open in her political beliefs, so I'm hoping that she'll once again tell the DNC to get fucked by supporting Tulsi Gabbard.


----------



## xio8ups

God bless Trump, Forr making america "GREAT" every day.


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> My little sister is still a good egg and we still hang out and talk frequently. Sadly, she's just become a little runny because as the chubby nerdy-type, she was a prime target for progressivism and it's nefarious aim of rounding up as many minorities and atypical people as possible to create a base of political power under the guise of "muh equality".
> 
> She's not a total lost cause, though. She was fuming at the DNC for their shafting of Bernie and a month or two ago, she tore up a form she got from them asking for support against Teflon Don Juan.
> 
> I know that there's no way that she'll go center / open in her political beliefs, so I'm hoping that she'll once again tell the DNC to get fucked by supporting Tulsi Gabbard.


Consider yourself lucky my friend. Unfortunately, my family was progressive in Pakistan (very progressive for the country), and so we all were recruited by the SJW / left at one point. However, I was always the anarchist of the family (deep distrust of anything government) so it was easy for me to go from the left to the right but my sister and brother are both big government shills and have no signs of changing whatsoever. There's no hope there at all. All three of us siblings are at odds with both my elders practically disowning me over leaving Islam. At least they're both relatively nice to my wife so there's that. However, the irony is that both constantly post anti-white propaganda regularly and then get their panties in a bunch if I post anything negative about Islam.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Legit BOSS said:


> *No, it isn't. If you haven't noticed, I'm Black, and educated minorities commonly refer to each other as "people of color" and commonly use the acronym POC on social media. Ask literally any Black person on this forum @Empress @Headliner @End Of Days @Wynter @Genesis 1.0*


That's sad if true then, since all you're doing by using that phrase is collectivizing all non-white people together on the silly notion of not being white.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> 1. Claim racism is prevalent in society.
> 2. Protest in the streets over said racism.
> 3. Physically attack the people they think are racist.
> 4. Get upset when the people they call racist start attacking back.
> 5. Blame them for starting everything.
> 6. ???


6. Get more violent


----------



## Empress

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> That's sad if true then, since all you're doing by using that phrase is collectivizing all non-white people together on the silly notion of not being white.


As @Legit BOSS stated, we're all educated and haven't stumbled upon any terms, ideology or reasoning that we haven't put the necessary time, energy and thought into. 

As for this thread, I don't support Trump in any measure at all.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> Consider yourself lucky my friend. Unfortunately, my family was progressive in Pakistan (very progressive for the country), and so we all were recruited by the SJW / left at one point. However, I was always the anarchist of the family (deep distrust of anything government) so it was easy for me to go from the left to the right but my sister and brother are both big government shills and have no signs of changing whatsoever. There's no hope there at all. All three of us siblings are at odds with both my elders practically disowning me over leaving Islam. At least they're both relatively nice to my wife so there's that. However, the irony is that both constantly post anti-white propaganda regularly and then get their panties in a bunch if I post anything negative about Islam.


I'm sorry to hear that they're so firmly entrenched in such identitarian thinking, especially the part where they've basically got Stockholm Syndrome for government. 

The fact that they're quite nice to your wife makes me believe that there's some sliver of hope for them, but maybe I'm just reading too much into that. :serious:


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The fact that they're quite nice to your wife makes me believe that there's some sliver of hope for them, but maybe I'm just reading too much into that. :serious:


It's my very liberal and accepting parents that keeps that in check so at least to some extent the culture is playing an important role. They get a serious scolding everytime they go too far on the anti-American rhetoric since my wife's american. 

Basically my brother and sister both got their higher education in Canada and couldn't fight off the indoctrination like I did ... 

At least that's the only explanation I have considering that I share most of my politics with my parents. If I was to put them on the political spectrum, my dad would be conservative/pro-capitalist libertarian (who complains about taxes all the time) and my mom would be charity-first left libertarian.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Empress said:


> As @Legit BOSS stated, we're all educated and haven't stumbled upon any terms, ideology or reasoning that we haven't put the necessary time, energy and thought into.
> 
> As for this thread, I don't support Trump in any measure at all.


If you say so. I personally can't wrap my head around the blanket acceptance of the term because:

1) Both it and colored people were interchangeable during slavery and up to the Civil Rights era

2) It promotes collectivism based on the notion of not being white, which essentially makes it the non-white counterpart to white nationalism


----------



## Empress

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If you say so. I personally can't wrap my head around the blanket acceptance of the term because:
> 
> 1) Both it and colored people were interchangeable during slavery and up to the Civil Rights era
> 
> 2) It promotes collectivism based on the notion of not being white, which essentially makes it the non-white counterpart to white nationalism


You're entitled to your opinion and what works best for you. As someone who lives in Black skin, I know what works for me and no it is not a shared ideology with white nationalism.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> It's my very liberal and accepting parents that keeps that in check so at least to some extent the culture is playing an important role. They get a serious scolding everytime they go too far on the anti-American rhetoric since my wife's american.
> 
> Basically my brother and sister both got their higher education in *Canada* and couldn't fight off the indoctrination like I did ...
> 
> At least that's the only explanation I have considering that I share most of my politics with my parents. If I was to put them on the political spectrum, my dad would be conservative/pro-capitalist libertarian (who complains about taxes all the time) and my mom would be charity-first left libertarian.


Yet another reason why Canada being nuked would result in nothing of value being lost. :trump3

But it's great to know that your folks are able to somewhat help keep the peace within your family. :sk


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Empress said:


> You're entitled to your opinion and what works best for you. As someone who lives in Black skin, I know what works for me and no it is not a shared ideology with white nationalism.


Fair enough and I'm glad that you're not on board with the collectivism that's been popular on the left and the right as of late.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898755393635012608

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898752042235084800
Obviously Trump was right about the slippery slope. He's probably more rational than America deserves at this point.










Confirmation from the ACLU as well that the police was told to stand down and let the violence happen.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898159995199660033
They're coming for the "moderates" next. They always do.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898755393635012608
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898752042235084800
> Obviously Trump was right about the slippery slope. He's probably more rational than America deserves at this point.


What reason is there to take down Joan of Arc's statue?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> What reason is there to take down Joan of Arc's statue?


Ignorance. You really think that the mob even knows who's the woman in the statue?


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Ignorance. You really think that the mob even knows who's the woman in the statue?


Fair enough


----------



## Dr. Middy

I mean, I think Trump's more brash attitude and general lack of a filter sometimes has resulted in the people who normally remain sheltered come out of the woodwork with their opinions. Granted, the media is pushing this as being a huge chaotic event that could spell the doom of America isn't helping anybody, but that also doesn't mean it isn't an issue. You shouldn't have growing amounts of violence within political based protests, let alone any violence at all. It seems like that there is more of this recently, along with pretty venomous hate speech from both sides now. I've seen people I know on facebook and the like not only shit on Trump, but also shit on anybody who voted or supports Trump at all. 

But the majority of us are smart enough and have enough decency to shame people who are completely blind to their bias toward anything involving their own sides, and especially shame those who even think of using violent acts. So while it does seem bad at times, this isn't the time to start taking the pessimistic road of thinking. Don't let everything they tell you and sensationalize make you freak out and panic over the state that the country is going in.


----------



## Kabraxal

Dr. Middy said:


> I mean, I think Trump's more brash attitude and general lack of a filter sometimes has resulted in the people who normally remain sheltered come out of the woodwork with their opinions. Granted, the media is pushing this as being a huge chaotic event that could spell the doom of America isn't helping anybody, but that also doesn't mean it isn't an issue. You shouldn't have growing amounts of violence within political based protests, let alone any violence at all. It seems like that there is more of this recently, along with pretty venomous hate speech from both sides now. I've seen people I know on facebook and the like not only shit on Trump, but also shit on anybody who voted or supports Trump at all.
> 
> But the majority of us are smart enough and have enough decency to shame people who are completely blind to their bias toward anything involving their own sides, and especially shame those who even think of using violent acts. So while it does seem bad at times, this isn't the time to start taking the pessimistic road of thinking. Don't let everything they tell you and sensationalize make you freak out and panic over the state that the country is going in.


Less panick and more resigned realisation that this country has hit the tipping point that no country has stopped from toppling everything. Sadly, it looks to be theventire wirld and World War 3 is looming just beyond the civil war in the US.

Hopefully Star Trek is accurate beyond that war and it actually does wake this pitiful human race up and force real, lasting change. I use to think such progress was inevitable, but now I think it merely a blip in between chaos and hell.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> What reason is there to take down Joan of Arc's statue?


Isn't it obvious? She was a *straight, white Christian woman* who rose from nothing to become a *canonized saint* in her homeland and a renowned figure across the world because of *her efforts in fighting for God and for country*.

:kappa


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *No, it isn't. If you haven't noticed, I'm Black, and educated minorities commonly refer to each other as "people of color" and use the acronym POC on social media. It's an inoffensive blanket term used to avoid naming multiple races during discussions of diversity. Ask literally any Black person on this forum @Empress @Headliner @End Of Days @Wynter @Genesis 1.0*


Linguistically how is it different?

Assistant baker

Baker's assistant - What are the differences between these titles?

How about..

Inferior person and Person who's inferior. Any difference?

If person A says to you, "Legit, you're one of them inferior peoples aint ya?"

And person B corrects them and says, "No, that's offensive, Legit is a person who's inferior, get it right!" which is less offensive to you, or are they somehow different?

*educated minorities* Here in lies the issue with the acceptance of such a term, white/black professors coined the term and now it somehow comes away different when there is no linguistic difference between the terms. Just white washed progressive nonsense. White Educators say so, so thus it must be so regardless if it makes no sense.

You're someone who's mentioned "Thug" can be used as a new word to say "[email protected]@@@r" and find hidden meanings for words which are "dog whistles" for supremacy etc, yet for something so blatant and in your face as "People of Color" it's missed.

Somewhere I imagine some rich white educated guy is joking about how he got "colored people" to start calling themselves "people of color". 

Colored people is an otherism for people who aren't white, it's not limited to simply blacks. People of color is the same otherism, just somehow an acceptable one. :hmmm


----------



## Genesis 1.0

Legit BOSS said:


> *No, it isn't. If you haven't noticed, I'm Black, and educated minorities commonly refer to each other as "people of color" and use the acronym POC on social media. It's an inoffensive blanket term used to avoid naming multiple races during discussions of diversity. Ask literally any Black person on this forum @Empress @Headliner @End Of Days @Wynter @Genesis 1.0*


I respect what you're trying to do but it's an exercise in futility & I don't have time to waste.


----------



## DOPA

http://theduran.com/julian-assange-asks-us-said-nothing-obama-supported-ukrainian-neo-nazis/



> Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has sent a series of highly apposite Tweets regarding the recent right wing versus left wing protests in Charlottesville that have resulting in one death and multiple injuries.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896777829580517376
> In the above Tweet, Assange has juxtaposed a neo-Nazi torch march in Kiev with the far-right torch march in Charlottesville. Apart from the torches, it is clear that the Ukrainian fascists were far more equipped for violence as they were wearing bullet-proof combat gear and facial coverings.
> 
> Apart from this, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis got scant political coverage in the western media in spite of the fact that their actions included overthrowing a legitimate government as recognised by the United Nations and the installation of a fascist regime which continues to wage a war of aggression on the peoples of Donbass. This war has included the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
> 
> Beyond this, Ukraine is also a bigger nuclear disaster waiting to happen than North Korea. While Pyongyang has stated that its weapons are defensive, the nuclear power stations in Ukraine continue to violate multiple internationally recognised safety standards. The possibility of another Ukrainian nuclear disaster in the place where Chernobyl occurred in 1986 looms heavily over the region.
> 
> However, these facts get even less coverage in western mainstream media than the initial fascist coup in Kiev did in 2014.
> 
> By contrast, the American far-right is far from power and does not have anything close to a political programme capable of putting together let alone overthrowing a government.
> 
> Assange continued by criticising the power of identity politics as a dangerously divisive force which naturally leads to civil strife.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/894558905115844609
> He then used his famously black humour to contrast how the United States actively funds and arms sectarian groups abroad in order to foment civil strife with the reality that in the US such things are entirely funded domestically.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896807600020434944
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896810013821460480
> While in Syria there were never any homegrown ‘moderate rebels’ but instead, gangs of foreign funded Wahhabi extremist terrorists, in the US there literally are moderate rebels whom many find distasteful but who are on the whole non-violent and largely irrelevant.
> 
> If the US really cared about ending sectarian strife it should stop arming it abroad and encouraging it at home.


That moderate rebel tweet is fucking hysterical :lmao!

In all seriousness though, this is not to excuse the abhorrent and disgusting views and actions of white identitarian movements like the Alt Right but to point out a blatant hypocrisy of American politicians denouncing white nationalism at home whilst supporting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to further a political goal.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> That's sad if true then, since all you're doing by using that phrase is collectivizing all non-white people together on the silly notion of not being white.


Only white people think like that.

And youve missed the memo: they can call themselves and everyone else whatever they want, only straight white christian males have to submit to the speech police, and their ever changing, ever sensitive guidelines.


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> http://theduran.com/julian-assange-asks-us-said-nothing-obama-supported-ukrainian-neo-nazis/
> 
> 
> 
> That moderate rebel tweet is fucking hysterical :lmao!
> 
> In all seriousness though, this is not to excuse the abhorrent and disgusting views and actions of white identitarian movements like the Alt Right but to point out a blatant hypocrisy of American politicians denouncing white nationalism at home whilst supporting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to further a political goal.


Didn't the American Government back up these guys in Ukraine? I remember Obama talking about Ukraine and talking about military aid of some sort when the Russians were getting pretty aggressive. 

Those tweets were brutal, I'm sure everyone will avoid them like the plague.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> Linguistically how is it different?
> 
> Assistant baker
> 
> Baker's assistant - What are the differences between these titles?
> 
> How about..
> 
> Inferior person and Person who's inferior. Any difference?
> 
> If person A says to you, "Legit, you're one of them inferior peoples aint ya?"
> 
> And person B corrects them and says, "No, that's offensive, Legit is a person who's inferior, get it right!" which is less offensive to you, or are they somehow different?
> 
> *educated minorities* Here in lies the issue with the acceptance of such a term, white/black professors coined the term and now it somehow comes away different when there is no linguistic difference between the terms. Just white washed progressive nonsense. White Educators say so, so thus it must be so regardless if it makes no sense.
> 
> You're someone who's mentioned "Thug" can be used as a new word to say "[email protected]@@@r" and find hidden meanings for words which are "dog whistles" for supremacy etc, yet for something so blatant and in your face as "People of Color" it's missed.
> 
> Somewhere I imagine some rich white educated guy is joking about how he got "colored people" to start calling themselves "people of color".
> 
> Colored people is an otherism for people who aren't white, it's not limited to simply blacks. People of color is the same otherism, just somehow an acceptable one. :hmmm


*It's baffling that you justify the overtly racist shit this administration does, as you simultaneously question something so small as POC, and then go as far as trying to reach and label it a racial slur. Trump is quick to call Muslims terrorists for jay walking, but a white psycho drives a car through a group of people, killing another white woman, and he does everything in his power to tap dance around calling it terrorism. News flash: the people you wanted banned from this country aren't the ones perpetuating this violence. It's those "mythical" racists that we tin foil hat wearers have been shouting about since election day. They came out of our fairy tales to take "their" country back by force.*


----------



## Vic Capri

What the fuck did Joan Of Arc do wrong? :lol

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

I'm going to channel @DesolationRow for a moment here. 

Georges Clemenceau was the Prime Minister of France during the final year of World War I. The "Tiger" was known for years as the destroyer of governments, he was uncompromising and ruthless in his principles. His stances were pretty much summed up in this one quote: "My home policy, I wage war. My foreign policy, I wage war. All the time, I wage war." 

That quote, fellow WF posters...sums up the stance and thought processes of one Steve Bannon. While some people (and even Bannon himself with his interview with the Weekly Standard) are looking at Bannon's departure and seeing this as a symbol that Trump's presidency will now start down the road towards a more traditional administration...Bannon has no intention of allowing this to happen. What's more, Bannon is no longer restrained by the niceties of politics and diplomacy, he believes he can be an even better force for the nationalist agenda outside the White House. 

These two conservative articles sum up what Bannon is capable of doing with no longer being held on a leash by the likes of Ivanka, Kushner, and Chief of Staff Kelly. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ite-house-get-ready-for-bannon-the-barbarian/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19922/bannon-out-prepare-war-ben-shapiro

Bannon is sending a message to the President...he can be a great friend to him outside the administration. Bannon will no doubt be ready to go after many of the people he despises. At the same time, Bannon is also saying, "I helped you become President...if you go down a path I don't agree with, I have the power to destroy you as well." 

Rumblings have already started on conservative sites like the Federalist, Breitbart, Daily Wire, Newsmax, etc. Some are starting to abandon Trump, they see Bannon's departure (voluntary or forced, who knows) as a sign that the President's administration is now going to become more traditional. There are many folks who voted for Trump because they believed he would tip over the apple cart and burn it. Others welcome Bannon now being on the outside, where he can push his agenda without being handcuffed by diplomatic and political norms. How Bannon responds (and how Breitbart goes along) will be a factor in this moving forward. 

Bannon has made it clear...he will either be Trump's BFF still outside the administration or his worst nightmare.


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's baffling that you justify the overtly racist shit this administration does, as you simultaneously question something so small as POC, and then go as far as trying to reach and label it a racial slur. Trump is quick to call Muslims terrorists for jay walking, but a white psycho drives a car through a group of people, killing another white woman, and he does everything in his power to tap dance around calling it terrorism. News flash: the people you wanted banned from this country aren't the ones perpetuating this violence. It's those "mythical" racists that we tin foil hat wearers have been shouting about since election day. They came out of our fairy tales to take "their" country back by force.*


What's this have to do with what I asked? 

I question it because the term is quite confusing when people who are "woke" don't seem to realize that they're the same exact term. All I'm asking for is what makes it different, that's my intention.

What Trump says about Muslims isn't on trial here with what I asked. Islam is a toxic ideology anyways but Islam nor Trump isn't what's being talked about in my question.

If you want me to call what that dipshit who drove his care into innocent people terrorism, that's fair. It was terrorism. It should be labeled as such as we just seen with Spain, vehicle attacks are a weapon used by Terrorists.

If you want me to call out anything racist the Administration has done, sure though if this is somehow intertwined with Islam well Islam isn't a race and people have gone over the ban, halt, time out - whatever you want to call it several times. I think if you're going to have a ban then the rich Gulf states should be on it, also they should be forced to take in refugees.

Though if we're going to compare White Nationalist violence to Islamic violence well the White Nationalists have a bit of catching up to do. They're short a gay bar, shooting up a place for disabled people and quite a few other attacks. You're right though, if there is going to be an Islamic attack it's going to be homegrown.

If you want to talk about Trump "tap dancing", sure I thought his coming out at first was a little lame. He should have mentioned the Alt-Right/KKK/White Supremacists out by name for their attack and also labeled Antifa as they also were involved in the violence. He should have labeled them all a bunch of ass clowns in my humble opinion.

Now that being said, can you please answer my previous question? As it's perplexing to me, as me and several other non-whites have wondered it a while. Frankly I find it peculiar that it seems white people coined the term and both ways of saying it..


----------



## USAUSA1

Miss Sally said:


> What's this have to do with what I asked?
> 
> I question it because the term is quite confusing when people who are "woke" don't seem to realize that it's they're the same exact term. All I'm asking for is what makes it different, that's my intention.
> 
> What Trump says about Muslims isn't on trial here with what I asked. Islam is a toxic ideology anyways but Islam nor Trump isn't what's being talked about in my question.
> 
> If you want me to call what that dipshit who drove his care into innocent people terrorism, that's fair. It was terrorism. It should be labeled as such as we just seen with Spain, vehicle attacks are a weapon used by Terrorists.
> 
> If you want me to call out anything racist the Administration has done, sure though if this is somehow intertwined with Islam well Islam isn't a race and people have gone over the ban, halt, time out - whatever you want to call it several times. I think if you're going to have a ban then the rich Gulf states should be on it, also they should be forced to take in refugees.
> 
> Though if we're going to compare White Nationalist violence to Islamic violence well the White Nationalists have a bit of catching up to do. They're short a gay bar, shooting up a place for disabled people and quite a few other attacks. You're right though, if there is going to be an Islamic attack it's going to be homegrown.
> 
> If you want to talk about Trump "tap dancing", sure I thought his coming out at first was a little lame. He should have mentioned the Alt-Right/KKK/White Supremacists out by name for their attack and also labeled Antifa as they also were involved in the violence. He should have labeled them all a bunch of ass clowns in my humble opinion.
> 
> Now that being said, can you please answer my previous question? As it's perplexing to me, as me and several other non-whites have wondered it a while. Frankly I find it peculiar that it seems white people coined the term and both ways of saying it..


Islam is toxic? Wtf is wrong with you. You clearly don't get it.


----------



## Miss Sally

USAUSA1 said:


> Islam is toxic? Wtf is wrong with you. You clearly don't get it.


The ideology is toxic, yes.


----------



## virus21

Jesus Christ.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> What's this have to do with what I asked?
> 
> I question it because the term is quite confusing when people who are "woke" don't seem to realize that they're the same exact term. All I'm asking for is what makes it different, that's my intention.
> 
> What Trump says about Muslims isn't on trial here with what I asked. Islam is a toxic ideology anyways but Islam nor Trump isn't what's being talked about in my question.


*It has everything to do with the question because you don't get to tell ME what offends ME. You don't get to tell me POC should be offensive as you justify the overtly racist shit Trump says every day. *



> If you want me to call what that dipshit who drove his care into innocent people terrorism, that's fair. It was terrorism. It should be labeled as such as we just seen with Spain, vehicle attacks are a weapon used by Terrorists.


*Good, we agree.*



> If you want me to call out anything racist the Administration has done, sure though if this is somehow intertwined with Islam well Islam isn't a race and people have gone over the ban, halt, time out - whatever you want to call it several times. I think if you're going to have a ban then the rich Gulf states should be on it, also they should be forced to take in refugees.


*
This isn't about the religion. It's about the racists trying to keep out the Middle Eastern brown people because "they're the bad guys."*



> Though if we're going to compare White Nationalist violence to Islamic violence well the White Nationalists have a bit of catching up to do. They're short a gay bar, shooting up a place for disabled people and quite a few other attacks. You're right though, if there is going to be an Islamic attack it's going to be homegrown.


*
The Orlando shooter was an American. You've already lost. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, NONE of the countries nominated for the ban have committed ANY domestic terrorism in the United States. There's ZERO justification for it.*



> If you want to talk about Trump "tap dancing", sure I thought his coming out at first was a little lame. He should have mentioned the Alt-Right/KKK/White Supremacists out by name for their attack and also labeled Antifa as they also were involved in the violence. He should have labeled them all a bunch of ass clowns in my humble opinion.


*
The people taking down peace statues are dumb, but still don't compare to the KKK, Nazis, alt-right, etc. brutalizing multiple people this week.*



> Now that being said, can you please answer my previous question? As it's perplexing to me, as me and several other non-whites have wondered it a while. Frankly I find it peculiar that it seems white people coined the term and both ways of saying it..


*This tells you everything you need to know, and even differentiates "********" which has the negative connotation from the Civil Rights movement: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color


----------



## Jedah

Looks like a few dumbshits are going to "protest" Donald Trump at SummerSlam.

:lmao

Even off the heels of a good week for these people in terms of narrative warfare, they find a way to ruin themselves. They just can't resist politicizing everything while normal people just want to have a good time, and that's a huge reason why they've been losing public support so rapidly.

As for me, I'm not complaining.


----------



## virus21

And this is why Democrats keep losing


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *It has everything to do with the question because you don't get to tell ME what offends ME. You don't get to tell me POC should be offensive as you justify the overtly racist shit Trump says every day. *


I'm not telling you what to think or feel, though it appears several others have no qualms of doing it. I'm simply stating that linguistically there is no difference and nobody has given a shred of factual evidence otherwise. I've also not really discussed anything Trump related as of late, well besides the HC that's totally crap. 



*Good, we agree.*

:grin2:




> *
> This isn't about the religion. It's about the racists trying to keep out the Middle Eastern brown people because "they're the bad guys."*


As I and other people have pointed out several countries on the list aren't even Middle Eastern or Arab. So this seems to be a little bit of a stretch, mostly I debated the legality of it but as I said before if there is a ban places like Saudi Arabia who support terrorism should be on it.




> *
> The Orlando shooter was an American. You've already lost. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, NONE of the countries nominated for the ban have committed ANY domestic terrorism in the United States. There's ZERO justification for it.*


Did you read the last part? I agree with you that most Islamic terrorism would be homegrown. But my pointing out the Orlando shooting and the San Bernidino stand, the White Nationalists are lagging behind the Islamic terrorists.



> *
> The people taking down peace statues are dumb, but still don't compare to the KKK, Nazis, alt-right, etc. brutalizing multiple people this week.*


Antifa was part of the violence, it's been shown they cause violence no matter where they go. Nowhere did I say that they should be the focus, in fact I said the White Supremacists should have been labeled but Antifa too for their role. Obviously the vehicle terrorist attack was the worst part which is why they should the responsible groups should be labeled but Antifa shouldn't get a free pass for turning up to protests to insight violence. 



> *This tells you everything you need to know, and even differentiates "********" which has the negative connotation from the Civil Rights movement: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color


I appreciate the link, I'll take a gander. My thoughts among several others is that it's the same term put in a differently worded order. I'd ask that if you didn't know the context or if there was not racial context to either, simply from a linguistic viewpoint, would you think they were different? 

Call me paranoid or a cynic but when white people coin a term, claim they're not racist and try to "help" and they're from positions of power, regardless of Political leaning I question it, especially when people simply nod their heads because it came from a "Leftist" professor or source.


----------



## Oxidamus

I refuse to make another post in that awful troll thread. Reposting the Chomsky quote posted by @L-DOPA



> *Noam Chomsky: 'Self-Destructive' Antifa Is 'A Major Gift To The Right'*
> 
> What happened in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend was a tragedy. Last Saturday, White nationalists flooded the city to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Far left Antifa (anti-fascists) protesters also showed up and skirmishes broke out. Scores of people were sent to the hospital.* One woman was killed when a white nationalist plowed through a group of counter demonstrators, 19 others were injured as well. That’s what separates this incident.* Yes, white nationalists and Antifa are violent thugs, but Antifa did not kill anyone last weekend. Donald Trump’s remarks about the incident may have saved the far left from scrutiny with the media, but they will undoubtedly be back in the news. I don’t think what Trump said was wrong; he blamed both sides for political violence. In general—you cannot have a credible condemnation or discussion of toxic political rhetoric without slamming the far left. Again, with Charlottesville, a person died which changes the game. Nevertheless, CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that reporters at Charlottesville were also assaulted by the far left.
> 
> Antifa is just as radical and violent. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg noted that these folks were just as “hate-filled” as the white nationalists who showed up, only to have the progressive Twitter mob force her to retract her previous tweets. That seems in keeping with the very ideology they claim they want to stomp out. The Washington Examiner spoke with linguist and political activist Noam Chomksy, who said the Antifa movement, is a “gift to the right.” He also said it was “self-destructive.”
> 
> The left-wing "Antifa" movement is rising in prominence after clashing with white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., but one progressive scholar says the anti-fascists feed the fire they seek to extinguish.
> 
> "As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were," Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
> 
> Many activists affiliated with the loosely organized Antifa movement consider themselves anarchists or socialists. They often wear black and take measures to conceal their identity.
> Chomsky said, "what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive."
> 
> "When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is," said Chomsky, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
> The violence in Charlottesville ended Saturday when an alleged white supremacist drove a car into a crowd of anti-racism activists, not all of whom were Antifa activists, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring more than a dozen others. The driver has been charged with murder.
> 
> As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut. In this case, it looks like conservatives could agree with Chomsky on something: Antifa is pretty terrible as well.


Has anyone actually even bothered questioning this on the far-left? If a woman wasn't murdered in a heinous act by a heinous person, would this have been such big news? Would this still be considered infinitely worse than anything and everything the left-wing racists and advocates of violence have done, combined?

What if the ANTIFA professor who struck people with a bike lock actually killed someone? Would the guy have been thrown into the media as much as this event as a whole has been?

In fact, I think the amount of coverage the murder has received compared to the event itself is so tiny. A woman died, and people are more concerned about the event as a whole, pinning blame, deflecting blame, etc. It's pathetic that _someone dying is being used as a fall-back excuse_ to say that these are just "false equivalencies".

It's a *very real* ideological war, and moderate people are being brought in by association on both sides. If only they'd actually realise they're being forced to play a game that has no winners.



I'm pimping this podcast again. If you haven't watched it, *WATCH IT*. I don't care if you think I'm a dick, don't like me, or have already seen it... or any other reason. *WATCH IT AGAIN*.






_The most crucial things said happen between approximately 0:09:30 and 1:37:00_.



P.S. Are there ANY well-respected or renowned 'thinkers' like Chomsky speaking on _behalf_ of the left here, at all?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> I refuse to make another post in that awful troll thread. Reposting the Chomsky quote posted by @L-DOPA
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone actually even bothered questioning this on the far-left? If a woman wasn't murdered in a heinous act by a heinous person, would this have been such big news? Would this still be considered infinitely worse than anything and everything the left-wing racists and advocates of violence have done, combined?
> 
> What if the ANTIFA professor who struck people with a bike lock actually killed someone? Would the guy have been thrown into the media as much as this event as a whole has been?
> 
> In fact, I think the amount of coverage the murder has received compared to the event itself is so tiny. A woman died, and people are more concerned about the event as a whole, pinning blame, deflecting blame, etc. It's pathetic that _someone dying is being used as a fall-back excuse_ to say that these are just "false equivalencies".
> 
> It's a *very real* ideological war, and moderate people are being brought in by association on both sides. If only they'd actually realise they're being forced to play a game that has no winners.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pimping this podcast again. If you haven't watched it, *WATCH IT*. I don't care if you think I'm a dick, don't like me, or have already seen it... or any other reason. *WATCH IT AGAIN*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The most crucial things said happen between approximately 0:09:30 and 1:37:00_.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Are there ANY well-respected or renowned 'thinkers' like Chomsky speaking on _behalf_ of the left here, at all?


Antifa basically gets encouraged by the media and politicians. You can be damn sure that if a member of Antifa kills someone, they'll say anything to distance that person from leftwing politics and the Democrats . No one blamed Obama, Bernie Sanders or the Democrats for James Hodgkinson shooting 5 Republican politicians at a baseball game and some people were wishing he had better aim. 

It's not like Antifa(or leftists) haven't been trying to kill people either, attacking people for no reason sometimes. Just the other day in Chicago protesters were at a court house protesting a white supremacist who was facing arraignment , turns out the information they got was wrong . There was no white supremacist there, so what did they end up doing? Attacked police officers, chanting pig and KKK at them while 3 ended up getting arrested in the process. Where's the outrage over that? Oh right, the police are the enemy so its swept under the rug.


----------



## Vic Capri

But I thought all Trump supporters were Nazis?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Din'tcha kno ... They call themselves anti-fascists. Therefore they're the good guys you guys. Stop trying to paint them as something evil :mj2 

THEY'RE CALLED ANTI-FASCISTS! You filthy right-wing supremacists !


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> But I thought all Trump supporters were Nazis?
> 
> - Vic


When you're starting premise is 'the left are saying all Trump supporters are Nazis' you know you're watching an idiot building a strawman argument.


----------



## Oxidamus

Stinger Fan said:


> Antifa basically gets encouraged by the media and politicians. You can be damn sure that if a member of Antifa kills someone, they'll say anything to distance that person from leftwing politics and the Democrats . No one blamed Obama, Bernie Sanders or the Democrats for James Hodgkinson shooting 5 Republican politicians at a baseball game and some people were wishing he had better aim.
> 
> It's not like Antifa(or leftists) haven't been trying to kill people either, attacking people for no reason sometimes. Just the other day in Chicago protesters were at a court house protesting a white supremacist who was facing arraignment , turns out the information they got was wrong . There was no white supremacist there, so what did they end up doing? Attacked police officers, chanting pig and KKK at them while 3 ended up getting arrested in the process. Where's the outrage over that? Oh right, the police are the enemy so its swept under the rug.


Oh fuck yea, I forgot about that shooting entirely. I guess the week or so of mostly minor coverage it got made sure people such as myself wouldn't remember it as well as we should. :mj

It really is super suspicious. I'm not conspiracy theorist but my god, this political landscape seems entirely set up.



Reaper said:


> Din'tcha kno ... They call themselves anti-fascists. Therefore they're the good guys you guys. Stop trying to paint them as something evil :mj2
> 
> THEY'RE CALLED ANTI-FASCISTS! You filthy right-wing supremacists !


Commies are good people okay?! :kurtcry2



draykorinee said:


> When you're starting premise is 'the left are saying all Trump supporters are Nazis' you know you're watching an idiot building a strawman argument.


But guilt by association of agreeing with some points of what some white nationalists believe, or being of white European descent, is acceptable. :hmm:
Wait is this a "false equivalency" that makes me wrong? :hmmm


Also Joey Salads is my man. Dude fakes most of the shit he puts out and has no problem saying it. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> It really is super suspicious. I'm not conspiracy theorist but my god, this political landscape seems entirely set up.


Not quite a conspiracy. There are leaked emails from Podesta that show that the Russian narrative was hand-picked by the democrats and the media ran with it. 

Also, not a conspiracy when you go through the list of donations Hillary received and you see several left-wing colleges, Time Warner (owns CNN) and Microsoft (Owns MSNBC) on them.










The political landscape and current discourse has been controlled by the democrats. The left-wing narrative is spread through a collusion between colleges, compliant corporate media and crony capitalism.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Not quite a conspiracy. There are leaked emails from Podesta that show that the Russian narrative was hand-picked by the democrats and the media ran with it.
> 
> Also, not a conspiracy when you go through the list of donations Hillary received and you see several left-wing colleges, Time Warner (owns CNN) and Microsoft (Owns MSNBC) on them.


This bugs me, how are Colleges donating money? Fund raisers or using Government funds?

It disgusts me businesses can donate to Political campaigns. This counts for both sides, I'm 100% lobbying and businesses or Colleges, especially Colleges donating to any Politician. 

Own a business and want to donate? Cut a personal check.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Din'tcha kno ... They call themselves anti-fascists. Therefore they're the good guys you guys. Stop trying to paint them as something evil :mj2
> 
> THEY'RE CALLED ANTI-FASCISTS! You filthy right-wing supremacists !





Reaper said:


> Not quite a conspiracy. There are leaked emails from Podesta that show that the Russian narrative was hand-picked by the democrats and the media ran with it.
> 
> Also, not a conspiracy when you go through the list of donations Hillary received and you see several left-wing colleges, Time Warner (owns CNN and Time Magazine) and Microsoft (Owns MSNBC) on them.


Oh I'm believing it more and more every day. I just felt inclined to preface my point by saying I'm no conspiracy theorist, as in I don't use the term conspiracy very lightly. But this is crazy. I honestly do not understand what all the people whose money and effort is invested in this expect to get. Total anarchy? It's probably more likely that people are using their money to cause mayhem as a way to prove the negatives of capitalism, to then enforce communist rule... but really, who knows? :argh:

Also maybe James Damore should have looked at that list before trying to make sense of identity politics.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Oh I'm believing it more and more every day. I just felt inclined to preface my point by saying I'm no conspiracy theorist, as in I don't use the term conspiracy very lightly. But this is crazy. I honestly do not understand what all the people whose money and effort is invested in this expect to get. Total anarchy? It's probably more likely that people are using their money to cause mayhem as a way to prove the negatives of capitalism, to then enforce communist rule... but really, who knows? :argh:
> 
> Also maybe James Damore should have looked at that list before trying to make sense of identity politics.


Their plan I believe based on all I've learnt over the last year is to make the Trump administration look as bad as possible so that the democrats come back in power in 2020 and have some gains in congress in 2018. That's really all there is to it. 

However, they were not expecting the strength of the alternative media, nor the loyalty Trump garners so a lot of their narratives have actually backfired.



Miss Sally said:


> This bugs me, how are Colleges donating money? Fund raisers or using Government funds?
> 
> It disgusts me businesses can donate to Political campaigns. This counts for both sides, I'm 100% lobbying and businesses or Colleges, especially Colleges donating to any Politician.
> 
> Own a business and want to donate? Cut a personal check.


Colleges donate from the individuals on their alumni, but of course since they get state and federal funding, this is basically a way of getting the government to donate some its own money back to its chosen campaigners. 

Political campaign funding is a very intricate business. Don't forget that 40% of all donations any charity or foundation receives is expensable and are also allowed to make campaign donations. 

It's an intricate setup and one of the scummiest things in American politics right now. There are almost no laws that prevent any form of government corruption and crony capitalism.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Their plan I believe based on all I've learnt over the last year is to make the Trump administration look as bad as possible so that the democrats come back in power in 2020 and have some gains in congress in 2018. That's really all there is to it.
> 
> However, they were not expecting the strength of the alternative media, nor the loyalty Trump garners so a lot of their narratives have actually backfired.


There is something way more sinister at hand. Considering this ideological line of thinking is dominating just about every western country not named Poland (is western, right?) right now, I think there really is something scary that is intended. :mj2


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> Oh fuck yea, I forgot about that shooting entirely. I guess the week or so of mostly minor coverage it got made sure people such as myself wouldn't remember it as well as we should. :mj
> 
> It really is super suspicious. I'm not conspiracy theorist but my god, this political landscape seems entirely set up.


I struggled to remember that shooting myself. I certainly didn't remember his name until just this week after researching it again . There's definitely a stark contrast in how those 2 situations were handled that's for sure, even if they aren't exactly the same in reasoning behind them. I remember talk around here (cant remember the media much) ended up being a debate on gun control , and even blame towards Republican and pro gun crowd for "bringing it on themselves" basically. Most media outlets are pretty left leaning, but the coverage on that guy didn't get nearly the amount of attention or debate as it should have


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Sessions is at it again. Can't believe I'm siding with the DEA on something. I feel weird.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-at-odds-with-dea-on-marijuana-research-ms-13/2017/08/15/ffa12cd4-7eb9-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?utm_term=.4446c0cb21a0



> *Justice Department at odds with DEA on marijuana research, MS-13*
> 
> The Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions has effectively blocked the Drug Enforcement Administration from taking action on more than two dozen requests to grow marijuana to use in research, one of a number of areas in which the anti-drug agency is at odds with the Trump administration, U.S. officials familiar with the matter said.
> 
> A year ago, the DEA began accepting applications to grow more marijuana for research, and as of this month it had 25 proposals to consider. But DEA officials said they need the Justice Department’s approval to move forward. So far, the department has not been willing to provide it.
> 
> “They’re sitting on it,” said one law enforcement official familiar with the matter. “They just will not act on these things.”
> 
> As a result, said one senior DEA official, “the Justice Department has effectively shut down this program to increase research registrations.’’
> 
> DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said the agency “has always been in favor of enhanced research for controlled substances such as marijuana.’’
> 
> The standoff is the latest example of the nation’s premier narcotics enforcement agency finding itself in disagreement with the new administration. While President Trump and Sessions have vowed a crackdown on drugs and violent crime, DEA officials have publicly and privately questioned some of the administration’s statements and goals.
> 
> Late last month, acting DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg wrote in an email to staff members that Trump had “condoned police misconduct” in remarking to officers on Long Island that they need not protect suspects’ heads when putting them into police vehicles. The acting administrator said he was writing his employees “because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong.” After public criticism, White House officials said the president was joking.
> 
> DEA officials say Sessions and his Justice Department have pressed the agency for action specifically on MS-13 despite warnings from Rosenberg and others at the DEA that the gang, which draws Central American teenagers for most of its recruits, is not one of the biggest players when it comes to distributing and selling narcotics.
> 
> Mexican cartels, DEA officials have warned, will use any gang to sell their drugs, and DEA leaders have directed those in their field offices to focus on the biggest threat in their particular geographic area. In many parts of the country, MS-13 simply does not pose a major criminal or drug-dealing threat compared with other groups, these officials said.
> 
> The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they could face professional consequences for candidly describing the internal disputes.
> 
> “Mexican cartels, Mexican transnational organizations are the greatest criminal threat to the United States,” Payne, the DEA spokesman, said. “There’s no other group currently positioned to challenge them. Whenever drug investigations that we do involve MS-13, we respond, but right now the No. 1 drug threat in the U.S. is the Mexican cartels.’’
> 
> Sessions frequently speaks harshly about marijuana use, and Justice Department officials have been reviewing the policy of his predecessor when it comes to enforcing federal laws on marijuana in states where the drug is legal. Sessions, too, has called medical marijuana “hyped, maybe too much,” and signaled that he is skeptical about the benefits of smoking it.
> 
> “Dosages can be constructed in a way that might be beneficial, I acknowledge that, but if you smoke marijuana, for example, where you have no idea how much THC you’re getting, it’s probably not a good way to administer a medicinal amount. So forgive me if I’m a bit dubious about that,” Sessions said earlier this year.
> 
> The DEA is no shrinking violet when it comes to marijuana enforcement. Last year, Rosenberg declined to lessen restrictions on its use, maintaining its classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance — which means it has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
> 
> But Rosenberg wrote at the time that the DEA would “support and promote legitimate research regarding marijuana and its constituent parts.” The DEA, he wrote, already had approved such research, registering 354 people and institutions to study marijuana and related components, including the effects of smoked marijuana on humans.
> 
> The DEA indicated at the time it was willing to see those studies expand, asking for applications from people who wanted to grow marijuana to be used for research. The only source of marijuana for researchers then was — and is — the University of Mississippi, which has permission to grow and distribute the drug for research.
> 
> One still-waiting applicant is Lyle Craker, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Craker has spent years seeking approval to do research into whether other parts of marijuana plants have medicinal value.
> 
> “I’ve filled out the forms, but I haven’t heard back from them. I assume they don’t want to answer,’’ Craker said. “They need to think about why they are holding this up when there are products that could be used to improve people’s health. I think marijuana has some bad effects, but there can be some good, and without investigation we really don’t know.’’
> 
> Craker submitted his latest application Feb. 14; after getting additional questions from the DEA in March, he supplied additional information in April.
> 
> Brad Burge, spokesman for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, said that the federal government for years has prevented important research into marijuana.
> 
> “That’s a sad state of affairs,’’ he said. “If the DEA is now asking for permission to say yes, then the resistance is now further up the chain of command.’’
> 
> Rosenberg indicated in a call with The Washington Post that he still would support more marijuana research.
> 
> “I stand by what I wrote,” he said.
> 
> Tension between Rosenberg and Trump is perhaps unsurprising. Rosenberg was appointed during the Obama administration, and he had served as chief of staff and senior counselor to James B. Comey, who was the FBI director until Trump fired him earlier this year.
> 
> The Justice Department has not rejected any of the 25 people whose applications to grow marijuana the DEA is considering. Rather, the department is not taking any action at all, officials said. Before approving such applications, DEA officials have to assess each applicant and determine whether their facility is secure and whether they had previously been complying with federal law.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> Sessions is at it again. Can't believe I'm siding with the DEA on something. I feel weird.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-at-odds-with-dea-on-marijuana-research-ms-13/2017/08/15/ffa12cd4-7eb9-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?utm_term=.4446c0cb21a0


Oh golly gee who would have known Mexican Cartels are the biggest threat right now? Could it be they are involved with every sort of kind of trafficking and human exploitation? Could it be their killing of US law enforcement and corrupting law enforcement? Could it be that they're using US based gangs to distribute their goods? Could it be they have zero supervision and a wide open area to operate in because the border is like a wide open door?

Nope, cannot be that. Even with the focus on MS-13, they're still a major pain and it doesn't look like much headway is being made against them. US law enforcement must be either completely corrupt or completely incompetent because the biggest problems are foreign gangs and cartels.

But please Sessions, wage your war on weed because that's soooo going to make a big difference. fpalm


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

amhlilhaus said:


> Only white people think like that.
> 
> And youve missed the memo: they can call themselves and everyone else whatever they want, only straight white christian males have to submit to the speech police, and their ever changing, ever sensitive guidelines.


Kek. Have some rep for enlightening me, fam. :kobe9


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> Antifa was part of the violence, it's been shown they cause violence no matter where they go. Nowhere did I say that they should be the focus, in fact I said the White Supremacists should have been labeled but Antifa too for their role. Obviously the vehicle terrorist attack was the worst part which is why they should the responsible groups should be labeled but Antifa shouldn't get a free pass for turning up to protests to insight violence.


*Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people. I don't mean White Supremacists, either. I'll applaud that. They need their asses beat for wanting to kill people for looking different. I'm talking about Antifa actually seeking out innocent people to attack for no real reason. If you think Heather Heyer's death is the only instance of violence, then you're mistaken. I'm going to start saving each instance of violence for oblivious people like @Oxidamus who try to minimize the severity of this situation by asking shit like "Would anyone care if she didn't die?" Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, the whole country cares about a violent hate group threatening war against anyone who isn't white. It's embarrassing that he even asked that question and I immediately stopped reading beyond that point.*

http://www.theroot.com/white-supremacists-beat-black-man-with-poles-in-charlot-1797790092


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896519908795854848
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/kessler-tweet?utm_term=.ue8MlzwNV2#.wbaljdMeQb



> The Aug. 12 Unite the Right rally has dominated national headlines after a car drove into a group of anti-racist protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others.
> 
> President Donald Trump subsequently caused widespread, bipartisan outrage by saying there were "very fine people on both sides."
> 
> On Friday night, Kessler, who organized the rally, tweeted that Heyer "was a fat, disgusting communist."
> "Looks like it was payback time," he wrote, linking to an article from Daily Stormer, a KKK website.


*You have the organizer of the rally saying she deserved to be murdered for being a communist, but nah, no one would care about this if she didn't die.*





> I appreciate the link, I'll take a gander. My thoughts among several others is that it's the same term put in a differently worded order. I'd ask that if you didn't know the context or if there was not racial context to either, simply from a linguistic viewpoint, would you think they were different?
> 
> Call me paranoid or a cynic but when white people coin a term, claim they're not racist and try to "help" and they're from positions of power, regardless of Political leaning I question it, especially when people simply nod their heads because it came from a "Leftist" professor or source.


*Alright, let me help you put it into perspective. 

Teenage girl says "Boy, you crazy."

65 year old White man with a confederate flag tattoo says "COME HERE, BOY!"

I'm sure you're smart enough to differentiate the context in each situation. The intent of the language holds more weight than the actual word.*


----------



## MOX

Pardon this simple lad not understanding all you clever folks, but can someone explain the reasoning behind shortening the name of the anti-fascist movement to 'antifa' which doesn't really mean anything.

Also, considering what the really quite mean things that fascism represents, surely everyone who is not a fascist is an anti-fascist. If you're not an anti-fascist then that makes you... at least some kind of fascist sympathizer? No? Help!

I dunno. Educate me. 

Also, I'm interested in how the anti-antifa people felt about World War 2 and all those shenanigans. Please inform me for I seek knowledge and understanding of everyone's perceptions.


----------



## Oxidamus

Legit BOSS said:


> *Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people. I don't mean White Supremacists, either. I'll applaud that. They need their asses beat for wanting to kill people for looking different. I'm talking about Antifa actually seeking out innocent people to attack for no real reason. If you think Heather Heyer's death is the only instance of violence, then you're mistaken. I'm going to start saving each instance of violence for oblivious people like @Oxidamus who try to minimize the severity of this situation by asking shit like "Would anyone care if she didn't die?" Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, the whole country cares about a violent hate group threatening war against anyone who isn't white. It's embarrassing that he even asked that question and I immediately stopped reading beyond that point.*


Can't help but make yourself look foolish huh? Admitting you stop reading a post at some point when if you read past it, it would probably explain whatever point you're trying to make. Plus admitting you read my posts and choose not to respond when I make a point you obviously have no decent response to. :mj4

Not to mention, asking for "any instance" of ANTIFA attacking random people, even though I mentioned one case IN THAT POST. :CENA

Of course they also straight up punched Richard Spencer when he was standing there doing an interview. Or did those people not call themselves ANTIFA? Either way you would probably say that's reasonable because he deserves it, no?



Anark said:


> Pardon this simple lad not understanding all you clever folks, but can someone explain the reasoning behind shortening the name of the anti-fascist movement to 'antifa' which doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> Also, considering what the really quite mean things that fascism represents, surely everyone who is not a fascist is an anti-fascist. If you're not an anti-fascist then that makes you... at least some kind of fascist sympathizer? No? Help!
> 
> I dunno. Educate me.
> 
> Also, I'm interested in how the anti-antifa people felt about World War 2 and all those shenanigans. Please inform me for I seek knowledge and understanding of everyone's perceptions.


Ask the Europeans who shortened the name as members themselves, it's not like the people who oppose them picked it.

Surely you can be anti fascist without being ANTIFA, like you can be for gender equality without being a feminist. 

Assuming you're not being facetious, those groups have negative connotations based on their actions and methodology. ANTIFA are dominated by people who, first of all, are mostly communists, and also believe in the idea of 'punching up', where their violence is generally acceptable because the people they attack are oppressors of some kind. It's also based clearly off of a person's perception, which is how the left seems to operate now. Facts don't matter, conversation/debate is a tool of the oppressor. If they perceive you as something - you are that something.

And of course since Nazism is so deplorable and hated, if they call you a Nazi, that validates their assault.

If you can understand why people wouldn't self-identify as a feminist because of the negatives if the movement (I can't see how you couldn't), that can be applied tenfold to ANTIFA.


----------



## ErickRowan_Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people. I don't mean White Supremacists, either. I'll applaud that. They need their asses beat for wanting to kill people for looking different. I'm talking about Antifa actually seeking out innocent people to attack for no real reason. If you think Heather Heyer's death is the only instance of violence, then you're mistaken. I'm going to start saving each instance of violence for oblivious people like @Oxidamus who try to minimize the severity of this situation by asking shit like "Would anyone care if she didn't die?" Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, the whole country cares about a violent hate group threatening war against anyone who isn't white. It's embarrassing that he even asked that question and I immediately stopped reading beyond that point.*
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/white-supremacists-beat-black-man-with-poles-in-charlot-1797790092
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896519908795854848
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/kessler-tweet?utm_term=.ue8MlzwNV2#.wbaljdMeQb


You should watch the whole video instead of just a carefully edited clip.

The black "kid" and his friends knock out one of the "white nationalists" with a stick, and then proceed to pounce on him while he's unconscious. The larger mob outside interferes and starts beating on them.

You reap what you sow.






Plenty of incidents with Antifa assaulting random bystanders (not even Nazis/KKK):












__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896950108708888576
Here's more recent action from "peaceful counter-protesters":


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898983213959393284


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people. I don't mean White Supremacists, either. I'll applaud that. They need their asses beat for wanting to kill people for looking different. I'm talking about Antifa actually seeking out innocent people to attack for no real reason. If you think Heather Heyer's death is the only instance of violence, then you're mistaken. I'm going to start saving each instance of violence for oblivious people like @Oxidamus who try to minimize the severity of this situation by asking shit like "Would anyone care if she didn't die?" Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, the whole country cares about a violent hate group threatening war against anyone who isn't white. It's embarrassing that he even asked that question and I immediately stopped reading beyond that point.*


Got you fam





^ Girl gets pepper sprayed for wearing a "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat.




^Guy gets hit in the head with a lock




^Man puts out a fire and gets assaulted 




^Here's a compliation 


But hey, if it makes you feel better calling everyone a white supremacist then so be it, you won't change your mind. You'll just change goalposts and call everyone a white supremacist so they "deserve it".


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people. I don't mean White Supremacists, either. I'll applaud that. They need their asses beat for wanting to kill people for looking different. I'm talking about Antifa actually seeking out innocent people to attack for no real reason. If you think Heather Heyer's death is the only instance of violence, then you're mistaken. I'm going to start saving each instance of violence for oblivious people like @Oxidamus who try to minimize the severity of this situation by asking shit like "Would anyone care if she didn't die?" Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, the whole country cares about a violent hate group threatening war against anyone who isn't white. It's embarrassing that he even asked that question and I immediately stopped reading beyond that point.*
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/white-supremacists-beat-black-man-with-poles-in-charlot-1797790092
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896519908795854848
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/kessler-tweet?utm_term=.ue8MlzwNV2#.wbaljdMeQb
> 
> 
> 
> *You have the organizer of the rally saying she deserved to be murdered for being a communist, but nah, no one would care about this if she didn't die.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Alright, let me help you put it into perspective.
> 
> Teenage girl says "Boy, you crazy."
> 
> 65 year old White man with a confederate flag tattoo says "COME HERE, BOY!"
> 
> I'm sure you're smart enough to differentiate the context in each situation. The intent of the language holds more weight than the actual word.*


L-DOPA in the other thread has a post with 8 or more videos and descriptions of Antifa violence, it does a far better job than I could. I'd welcome you to take a look at it!

The woman murdered in the terrorist vehicle attack didn't deserve death, I'm not sure who but the sickest people would claim that. Though there are people like this, when the Paris attacks happened there were people doing #fuckparis and that they deserved it. Disgusting people exist everywhere. This would have been a big deal situation without the car attack or not.

Your word comparison doesn't make sense to me because neither statement is similar. I guess if the people said, "Come here, boy" and the other person said "Boy, you come here" it would be more comparable. Still sounds bad either way, obviously the white woman with the confederate flag would be the worst.

I think my example of someone calling someone an "inferior person" and someone correcting them saying to call them "person of inferiority" or "person who's inferior" would be a better word comparison. as I'm using the same words just rearranging them and adding in the extra word. 

I do appreciate you taking the time to try and explain your thoughts on the matter. I cannot fully agree on the sentiment but I do better understand now. I still think that if "person of color" was coined by someone like David Duke and not some white Professor at a College nobody would be using the term. That's just my thinking on it and I do find the whole thing to be brow raising but I'm suspicious of everything.


----------



## Miss Sally

Anark said:


> Pardon this simple lad not understanding all you clever folks, but can someone explain the reasoning behind shortening the name of the anti-fascist movement to 'antifa' which doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> Also, considering what the really quite mean things that fascism represents, surely everyone who is not a fascist is an anti-fascist. If you're not an anti-fascist then that makes you... at least some kind of fascist sympathizer? No? Help!
> 
> I dunno. Educate me.
> 
> Also, I'm interested in how the anti-antifa people felt about World War 2 and all those shenanigans. Please inform me for I seek knowledge and understanding of everyone's perceptions.


Antifa stands for the group called Antifa, who are a pro communist group who operate in Europe and America. 

By not being a fascist and believing in things such as Freedom of speech, equality and the like already makes you against fascism, you don't need to wear black masks and assault people for no reason or for being ideologically different from you. It also doesn't mean I need to be a commie to accomplish this.

Considering Communism has killed a lot more people than Fascism and the fact the Soviets in WWII were raping and rampaging across the land and murdering it's own people I'd have to say Fascists and Communists can both get fucked. If WWII showed us anything is that these two groups cannot exist with oppressing and killing lots of people.

The world doesn't need fascists anymore than it needs communist anti-fascists. It's like curing cancer by drinking a few gallons of battery acid.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> L-DOPA in the other thread has a post with 8 or more videos and descriptions of Antifa violence, it does a far better job than I could. I'd welcome you to take a look at it!


*
If they are assaulting non-violent neutral parties, then they are indeed just as bad. I really don't care about a white supremacist catching an ass whoopin though.*



> The woman murdered in the terrorist vehicle attack didn't deserve death, I'm not sure who but the sickest people would claim that. Though there are people like this, when the Paris attacks happened there were people doing #fuckparis and that they deserved it. Disgusting people exist everywhere. This would have been a big deal situation without the car attack or not.


*
I'm glad you feel that way.*




> Your word comparison doesn't make sense to me because neither statement is similar. I guess if the people said, "Come here, boy" and the other person said "Boy, you come here" it would be more comparable. Still sounds bad either way, obviously the white woman with the confederate flag would be the worst.


*Context is important because the word "Boy" is used in a derogatory fashion by racists to demean Black men, but it's in no way offensive when said in casual conversation amongst friends.*



> I think my example of someone calling someone an "inferior person" and someone correcting them saying to call them "person of inferiority" or "person who's inferior" would be a better word comparison. as I'm using the same words just rearranging them and adding in the extra word.


*It's not at all the same because "********" and "people of color" have completely different meanings due to context. *



> I do appreciate you taking the time to try and explain your thoughts on the matter. I cannot fully agree on the sentiment but I do better understand now. I still think that if "person of color" was coined by someone like David Duke and not some white Professor at a College nobody would be using the term. That's just my thinking on it and I do find the whole thing to be brow raising but I'm suspicious of everything.


*
******** is meant to be derogatory. People of color isn't. It's that simple.*


----------



## Reaper

I hope "person of color" is never used for me because I would feel insulted. I think that it is derogatory as well as self-limiting or a cry to get some sort of special privilege or reduction of the self to skin tone. It's reductionist. 

I don't want to identify with or as a minority. I am working towards becoming a citizen. 

By identifying as a minority or being lumped in with them, I am actually willingly accepted a self-assigned second class status or being pigeonholed into it by people with political agendas to create divisiveness. 

I don't care if minorities in America want to continue to suffer from "Second Class Citizen" syndrome, but I sure don't and won't.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> I hope "person of color" is never used for me because I would feel insulted. I don't want to identify with or as a minority. I am working towards becoming a citizen.
> 
> By identifying as a minority or being lumped in with them, I am actually willingly accepted a self-assigned second class status or being pigeonholed into it by people with political agendas to create divisiveness.
> 
> I don't care if minorities in America want to continue to suffer from "Second Class Citizen" syndrome, but I sure don't and won't.


You lean right amigo, so your "person of color" card was already automatically revoked , you should know this by now! Everyone loses their "minority status" when they're republicans


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> You lean right amigo, so your "person of color" card was already automatically revoked , you should know this by now! Everyone loses their "minority status" when they're *republicans*


You're doing it to  because I'm not a republican but yeah, I would never be caught dead voting democrats no matter what happens. I probably would skip most elections because that's what I've always done up until now since I don't feel fully represented in politics, but I will vote for "republicans" like Trump and even Ted Cruz. 

That said as long as other right-wingers don't label me or judge me on the basis on my skin color or where I'm from I'm fine. And they don't. 

My skin color says nothing about me. People treat me like they would treat anyone else and I live in a county that voted 70% Trump and has a population of 80% whites in the so-called "deep south" where I interact with all sorts of people every day. 

I have even walked around and talked to people selling and displaying confederate flags as well. They're nice people who did not judge me for my accent or my skin tone. Pretty cool experiences so far.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> You're doing it to  because I'm not a republican but yeah, I would never be caught dead voting democrats no matter what happens. I probably would skip most elections because that's what I've always done up until now since I don't feel fully represented in politics, but I will vote for "republicans" like Trump and even Ted Cruz.
> 
> That said as long as other right-wingers don't label me or judge me on the basis on my skin color or where I'm from I'm fine. And they don't.
> 
> My skin color says nothing about me. People treat me like they would treat anyone else and I live in a county that voted 70% Trump and has a population of 80% whites in the so-called "deep south" and yeah, I have walked around and talked to people selling and displaying confederate flags as well. They're nice people who did not judge me for my accent or my skin tone. Pretty cool experiences so far.


That last part was meant in general lol , minorities who vote Republican can get treated pretty poorly by the ones who claim to be on their side . It makes no sense to me and its pretty disappointing. I just really dislike the idea that one team is meant to be the only team for *insert minority here*. Political affiliation shouldn't even be about skin color , gender or religion but alas , its not meant to be it seems 

The relationship people have with the South always made no sense to me. Do people really expect to have most of the South be on their side if they're constantly being called racist inbred ********? Their accents get mocked all the time suggesting they're "unintelligent" etc like...what do people expect? No one wants to get shit on lol


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> That last part was meant in general lol , minorities who vote Republican can get treated pretty poorly by the ones who claim to be on their side . It makes no sense to me and its pretty disappointing. I just really dislike the idea that one team is meant to be the only team for *insert minority here*. Political affiliation shouldn't even be about skin color , gender or religion but alas , its not meant to be it seems


Reducing everything to skin color and pigmentation is used as a way to mask economic and academic illiteracy. 



> The relationship people have with the South always made no sense to me. Do people really expect to have most of the South be on their side if they're constantly being called racist inbred ********? Their accents get mocked all the time suggesting they're "unintelligent" etc like...what do people expect? No one wants to get shit on lol


Some counties and towns are bad, but most are not. When I first came down here I was expecting racism and weird comments and just had a very bad impression of everything and everybody as a result of what I now consider Canada's insecurity of propping itself up at the expense of the American "racism" myth. 

Now I'm not very well traveled in the states so I can't speak for the whole south. But where I live is very much representative of the typical south. Lots of churches, mostly christian, god-fearing, republican voting middle/working class people here. Maybe deep, deep rural america might be bad, but all cities down south are extremely cosmopolitan and much, much more multi-cultural than anything I saw in Canada even.

Of course, before I :triggered another Canadian with my "Canada-bashing", let me make it clear that I use Canada as a point of reference so often because I lived there for 10 years and it upholds itself as the paragon of ethnic acceptance while consistently bashing Americans as comparatively racist. My own experience here basically contradicts the general Canadian impression of America.


----------



## CamillePunk

I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz. He's a slimy, shifty, sweaty warhawk with shady connections. Worst of all, he's Canadian! :side: Build the Northern Wall!


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *Show me specific instances of Antifa assaulting people.*




Posters show a dozen videos, @Legit BOSS doesn't comment on them, but does have the time to respond to someone else's post, in this thread, after the videos were posted.

If something puts your cognitive dissonance at risk, you do one of two things. You either change your view, or you ignore it. We can see which one @Legit BOSS has chosen.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz. He's a slimy, shifty, sweaty warhawk with shady connections. Worst of all, he's Canadian! :side: *Build the Northern Wall!*












:kappa


----------



## Oxidamus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Posters show a dozen videos, @Legit BOSS doesn't comment on them, but does have the time to respond to someone else's post, in this thread, after the videos were posted.
> 
> If something puts your cognitive dissonance at risk, you do one of two things. You either change your view, or you ignore it. We can see which one @Legit BOSS has chosen.


Everyone on that side on this forum does it. Hell, you know what, even if BM says he's right all the time, and that he destroys you all, at least he responds.

Now I understand why this is a circle jerk. :mj
Shout out to @Dr. Middy for being one of the very few people who aligns himself with the left, but doesn't succumb to the dissonance. :drose


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Everyone on that side on this forum does it.


They really do. The Terrorism thread is now literally a compilation and historical record of close to a few hundred global terrorist attacks --- all terrorist attacks irregardless of who commits them. 

However, the only time I've seen leftists grace that thread is when attacks happen against Muslims. Which is fine, but it does show you where their priorities lie and how much they ignore of what's really happening around the world in order to maintain their cosy perspective on their reality about persecuted muslims and that those who fear them are racists/xenophobes.

Just the fact that the terrorism thread had to be created in order to insulate those who consider it a major issue from the rest of the anything section tells you a lot in and of itself. The problem wasn't that "OMG there are so many terrorist attacks in the world" but that "OMG, there are too many threads about terrorist attacks in the anything section". And that did come from the leftists. 

So you see, first they insulate themselves from violence around the world, then they pretend it doesn't happen, then they start believing their delusions and so when people who are following it daily talk about it in terms and language that addresses the daily nature of that violence, they think that the stats are being inflated and the issue is being made out to be greater than it is. The perfect delusion! 

They've done the exact same thing to antifa violence as they did to Muslim violence. I've been tracking and even reporting on both since 1999 and 2001 respectively. Muslim terrorism has been a global threat since the creation of Israel and yet you have people today who think that terrorist attacks don't even happen. Such a cozy life they lead.


----------



## GothicBohemian

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Posters show a dozen videos, @Legit BOSS doesn't comment on them, but does have the time to respond to someone else's post, in this thread, after the videos were posted.
> 
> If something puts your cognitive dissonance at risk, you do one of two things. You either change your view, or you ignore it. We can see which one @Legit BOSS has chosen.





Oxidamus said:


> Everyone on that side on this forum does it. Hell, you know what, even if BM says he's right all the time, and that he destroys you all, at least he responds.
> 
> Now I understand why this is a circle jerk. :mj
> Shout out to @Dr. Middy for being one of the very few people who aligns himself with the left, but doesn't succumb to the dissonance. :drose





Reaper said:


> They really do. The Terrorism thread is now literally a compilation and historical record of close to a few hundred global terrorist attacks --- all terrorist attacks irregardless of who commits them.
> 
> However, the only time I've seen leftists grace that thread is when attacks happen against Muslims. Which is fine, but it does show you where their priorities lie and how much they ignore of what's really happening around the world in order to maintain their cosy perspective on their reality about persecuted muslims and that those who fear them are racists/xenophobes


I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads. 

We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with unnecessary insults and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your references are sketchy. Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel pretending to be a journalist.

There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.

In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Posters show a dozen videos, @Legit BOSS doesn't comment on them, but does have the time to respond to someone else's post, in this thread, after the videos were posted.
> 
> If something puts your cognitive dissonance at risk, you do one of two things. You either change your view, or you ignore it. We can see which one @Legit BOSS has chosen.


*I specifically said if they're harming innocent people, then they're just as bad as the white supremacists. Did you flagrantly ignore that part to push a bullshit agenda like every other Trump apologist in this thread? Do you want me to quote it, red text it, underline, and size 5 it for you? I was having a conversation with @Miss Sally so I responded to Miss Sally. It's that simple.

Let me repeat myself for the third time. I don't condone innocent people being attacked, but if it's a white supremacist, I really don't give a fuck. They've openly expressed that they have every intent to get violent and have shown no concern, and even gone as far as to justify the terrorist attack that lead to Heather's murder. I have no sympathy for them.*


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads.
> 
> We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with unnecessary insults and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your references are sketchy. Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel pretending to be a journalist.
> 
> There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.
> 
> In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.


How dare you insult my intelligence, but let me insult yours because you can't determine whether sources are legit or not because you know, even posted videos of actual violence happening aren't legit :mj

:clap 

Classic leftist delusion and narcissism right there.

----

When you're on Twitter everyday and everyday you see stuff like this while you know that the left is insulating itself from this violence because otherwise they would be rational enough to admit that the current rhetoric and climate of violence has its sources:










Look at this guy's tweet. And then look at his followers. Almost all muslims. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899225875236966401

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871005694174134273









Oh yeah, I guess the time when Twitter allowed a hashtag #hangayaznizami to trend without any repurucssions is also fake news from shoddy sources and conspiracy websites:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/890860800197488640

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855054828002738176

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851670500640251904
Translates to: "No matter how hard you try, we will not forget #hangayaznizami


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851502031227559936
"Translation: Insulting Mohammad comes with a penalty of death #hangayaznizami"

I can go on. But I posted several dozen in the Terrorism thread when it first trended. But of course, none of you had the guts or courage to denounce it - because you pick the assholes you want to call assholes and you pick and choose who you want to put under your protection. That's creating a selective view of reality. 

Almost all right-wingers get death threats regularly. Blaire White - a fairly centrist conservative had her entire family doxxed and her life threatened multiple times:






Joy Villa got death threats for wearing a Trump dress to the grammies: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885536813779222529
Millions of exmuslims live in fear around the world --- EVEN in your PRECIOUS Canada because they no longer have a voice since the leftist mob has entered into an alliance with Muslims because of intersectional feminist brainwashing in colleges. My uncle is an agnostic Muslim, but he's told me privately that he only holds on to the label because he's afraid of the repercussions for coming out. IN CANADA! I know another exmuslim girl who RAN AWAY from her "family" because she fell in love with a white guy and now lives in the states because she's afraid to go back. 

UK has a big problem with muslims killing their own women for disagreeing with Islam, or trying to leave it or have white boyfriends. These are not made up from shoddy sources, this is a problem I've been tracking from a HUGE variety of sources over the years. 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kingston-h...raped-murdered-dating-arab-court-told-1631688










I can post DOZENS of such stories of honor killings in the UK and you won't give a shit nor talk about it. Honor killings were not a thing in the western world for hundreds of years. Muslims brought them over with them. There's no other explanation for them - so of course the left doesn't even want to talk about it. They don't even want to address that it's happening in their countries now. Because talking about it is "Islamophobia" :kobe 

You have YEARS of Pedophile rings in the UK pretty much ALL headed and involving "asians" (which are basically south asians in the UK) and once the news breaks there's absolutely no conversation about the fact that pedophilia is a MASSIVE problem in the Muslim world and has now been exported to the UK en masse. You get whatboustism by people who love to bring up that pedophilies exist in all groups ... of course, we know they do - we talk about ALL pedophiles. You guys downplay the cultural factors that go into creating the muslim pedophile however and still believe that instead of countering existing criminal element in society, it's ok to keep importing more criminal element when you have the CHOICE to say NO. 

Even I've even gotten a few death threats on and off, but I refuse to succumb to the pressure. 

So please don't try to bullshit me about "bad sources". I mean, I live with the threat of being killed for leaving Islam every day so this is quite personal to me when people like you come in and downplay the violent rhetoric from the left who have entered this unholy alliance with muzzies who want people like me dead and call for my head literally every fucking day on every fucking platform without repercussions. 

Even my own family has told me to stop posting on facebook because they're afraid that someone might kill me and because the Government of Pakistan is now in cohoots with Facebook to monitor "blasphemous content" on that platform.

So seriously, wake up get a clue about what the real world is like right now. 

It's dishonest and yes, it is not coming from a base of any actual knowledge. It comes from decades of insulation from reality. The irony of wanting to live in a safe world from assholes while denying that people like me are threatened every day of our lives is so much bullshit and very insulting to your own intelligence. It really is. And I don't care if you think I'm being condescending or insulting or whatever because I've expected better from you and tried to have conversations without my usual mocking tone and have been sorely disappointed at hitting road block after road block of simply blocking out anything that counters your opinion or even now at this point considering it to be true because our sources are shoddy and conspiracy websites --- when I've barely IF EVER posted anything from conspiracy sites without at least checking my sources a dozen times. Even in threads like the recent one about the cops I originally took the stance that the murderer may be a case of mistaken identity but eventually I had to relent because it wasn't. 

Having my intelligence insulted by you of all people is damaging and a claim to make my view/opinion less credible based on a presupposition of my lack of healthy skepticism. I have buried people sources over and over again and have admitted when I've been wrong as well, but constantly getting the typical leftist bullshit thrown in my face after being as careful as I possibly can is a blanket and weak assumption. 

Why don't you actually take the time and discredit my sources, evidence presented and years of knowledge gained through personal experience instead of just assuming that they're from conspiracy sites?


----------



## Oxidamus

GothicBohemian said:


> I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads.
> 
> We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with *unnecessary insults* and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your *references are sketchy*. Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. *A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion*, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel *pretending* to be a journalist.


I never have insulted anyone and I call out the people who do. I also don't believe anything until I see it firsthand. If there's no video proof, I'll always be sceptical and base my thoughts off of what people of multiple opinions tell me. Usually I'll red-flag people who use too many buzzwords either side.

Keyword being "most". The only YouTuber I look to for news and trust without excess scepticism is DeFranco. Who I think is pretty similar to me in the sense he tries to be centred but his views fall towards the left.



GothicBohemian said:


> There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.
> 
> In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.


Weird how we can be so similar in some senses, huh? I'm not big on having money myself either, never have been and probably never will be. It's like when you stop labeling people based off what you *think* they are/believe, you'll find out they're actually *not* like that. Crazy how that works. Like I'm, as some would say, "big" on a welfare state/safety net, to use the phrase you and many people I know use, and I think people should be penalised somehow for incessant trolling in some aspects. I'm very not conservative.

As for the "anyone on the left is a sheep indoctrinated by the elites", please. Is anyone on the left here actually doing anything worthwhile? I asked in the other thread if anyone on the left on this forum has actually done anything but find a way to avoid responding to something that is clearly challenging, or flat-out ignore the posts entirely. Completely void of irony, no one responded to challenge that. Everyone mimics the same thing, repeats the same rhetoric that if you heard it three years ago on the internet, people would say it's "just the fringe internet liberals", which clearly isn't fringe anymore.

To talk about "_bullshit_" while you say "_conservatives insult too much_" especially when you said to *DesolationRow* of all people and myself (who btw you can ask anyone, gets annoyed easily at the dumb "banter" pulled by many here) you weren't going to discuss some "_detached from reality Philosophy major chat over coffee_" is like half the point. The dissonance is at the point where you actually think you're being reasonable by actively avoiding conversing with people who disagree with you. The reasons why are irrelevant, but even if they are relevant, they don't even hold up. Deso doesn't insult people and I'm flat-out against it. :lmao

There are people who support the fact that you brushed off both posts made by myself and Deso with that line, and they think that somehow disproved us, or that you "won" the argument (what argument? And winning???)... How can you not see that bloody dissonance?


TL;DR everything you said in this post cannot be attributed to me (and you can ask any of those exact conservatives, many of whom a] don't agree with me/don't like me, and b] would tell you and me that I'm a lefty anyway)


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Like I'm, as some would say, "big" on a welfare state/safety net, to use the phrase you and many people I know use, and I think people should be penalised somehow for incessant trolling in some aspects. I'm very not conservative.
> 
> TL;DR everything you said in this post cannot be attributed to me (and you can ask any of those exact conservatives, many of whom a] don't agree with me/don't like me, and b] would tell you and me that I'm a lefty anyway)


You're a lefty. You believe in big government and the social welfare state. :cudi

But you're what I would call a rationalist/realist when it comes to the politics of social engineering. Neither left nor right.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> You're a lefty. You believe in big government and the social welfare state. :cudi
> 
> But you're what I would call a rationalist/realist when it comes to the politics of social engineering. Neither left nor right.


I wouldn't support welfare if there were other ways to ensure that the entire population has enough money to subsist.  

If we actually got into super deep economical and maybe future-based debate on welfare I think your opinion would change. But there are clearly much more important discussions to be had right now. :mj


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> I wouldn't support welfare if there were other ways to ensure that the entire population has enough money to subsist.


There is. It's called voluntary charity. Crowd funding is now raising billions of dollars and that's the future. Eventually forced taxation will be a thing of the past. 



> If we actually got into super deep economical and maybe future-based debate on welfare I think your opinion would change. But there are clearly much more important discussions to be had right now. :mj


Unlikely. I was raised to venerate welfare state economics and force-fed Keynes and even given dozens of pro-Marxist lectures, massive amounts of anti-capitalist propaganda during my formative years in Canada and shook it off. I have nearly two decades of thinking about this stuff on some of you guys who have pretty much just started imo. 

In fact, my entire original 3 year degree was nothing but a healthy indoctrination into welfare-state economics.

But you're right, there are bigger issues at them moment.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> There is. It's called voluntary charity. Crowd funding is now raising billions of dollars and that's the future. Eventually forced taxation will be a thing of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely. I was raised to venerate welfare state economics and force-fed Keynes and even given dozens of pro-Marxist lectures, massive amounts of anti-capitalist propaganda during my formative years in Canada and shook it off. I have nearly two decades of thinking about this stuff on some of you guys who have pretty much just started imo.
> 
> In fact, my entire original 3 year degree was nothing but a healthy indoctrination into welfare-state economics.
> 
> But you're right, there are bigger issues at them moment.


A system based on charity is a total pipe dream, especially in regards to paying people to not work, there is simply too much stigma around welfare recipients for it to work. I think the same about drastically reduced tax increasing the workforce. Too much assumption.

When I said change your opinion I meant of what I believe, not that you would come around to be a socialist, but that you would realise my beliefs aren't particularly left wing.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> A system based on charity is a total pipe dream, especially in regards to paying people to not work, there is simply too much stigma around welfare recipients for it to work. I think the same about drastically reduced tax increasing the workforce. Too much assumption.


It's not assumption .. It seems that way because the economics of supply/demand and impact of tax interference as well as the combination of crony capitalism and lobbyist aren't discussed as scientifically as they should as they exist in realms more academically inclined than on here. 



> When I said change your opinion I meant of what I believe, not that you would come around to be a socialist, but that you would realise my beliefs aren't particularly left wing.


I think you're a social welfare-statist who currently can't envision a society where taxation doesn't exist. Pretty sure I'm not wrong about that. 

I will however, use socialist and social welfare statist interchangeably at times when I feel like being a provocateur, but in actuality, I'm well aware of the difference. 

I just don't feel like being lumped in with the more bookish members on here and I'm lazier than them.


----------



## Stinger Fan

GothicBohemian said:


> I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads.
> 
> We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with unnecessary insults and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your references are sketchy. Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel pretending to be a journalist.
> 
> There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.
> 
> In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.


Insulting posters gets you banned on here so I don't see how that's even an argument against talking to people, majority of the conversations are civil. Insulting people won't get anyone anywhere, which is why you don't actually see it happen. Going after someones opinion isn't an insult. I won't speak for everyone here but when I talk about leftists, I mean the far left the Antifa , extreme SJW types. That's why I typically refer to them as leftists and not Democratic voters or liberals. Though I have unwittingly used Democrat and Liberal when referring to leftists. Voting Democrat or left leaning doesn't make you a leftist and I've said several times in the past, I think most people lean one way or another but are not "full blown" one side . 

As for the original post you were talking about, that poster got his responses of innocent people getting attacked and refused to talk about it despite *asking* for it. It had nothing to do "insults" and all to do with being wrong ,which he was. He basically confirms his bias by claiming everyone is just a white supremacist so therefore its okay to physically attack them. You deserve ridicule for believing people deserve to get attack simply for being on another team and that goes for both right wingers and left wingers. I can't stand the "punch a Nazi" crap when the goalposts are so far between eachother as to what constitutes a nazi therefore if you happen to disagree with a left wing policy, you're labeled a Nazi and therefore "deserve" to get beat up. Sorry but that's bullshit


----------



## Oxidamus

Legit BOSS said:


> Let me repeat myself for the third time. I don't condone innocent people being attacked, but if it's a white supremacist, I really don't give a fuck. They've openly expressed that they have every intent to get violent and have shown no concern, and even gone as far as to justify the terrorist attack that lead to Heather's murder. I have no sympathy for them.


"I don't condone innocent people being attacked."
...
"I really don't give a fuck if someone with a disgusting and/or hateful view is assaulted because they are guilty of thoughtcrimes."
:hmm
Not to mention the obvious guilt by association "argument", where not only is *everyone* who was involved a white supremacist, but because many of them did X, they all must do X.



Good on you for bringing up your response to the videos posed by two other posters... without notifying them of it. I at least noticed you did. Except the kicker is - no surprise with you - you didn't address the fact that someone added the _well needed context_ to the video you used as an example of race-bashing. You know, the one you used to try to prove that a bunch of whities were beating on a black kid, but then the context proved that black kid attacked someone else first?

Your problem isn't with ignoring, it's with avoiding admitting you're wrong. You avoid other posts enough as is but you still come back and respond to someone. Which is a reputable act for people sharing your stance on this topic. But for Legit BOSS to admit that he was wrong?

...Well that probably won't happen. :mj4


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

GothicBohemian said:


> I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads.
> 
> We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with unnecessary insults and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your references are sketchy. Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel pretending to be a journalist.
> 
> There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.
> 
> In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.


*You're 100% correct. It's a waste of time arguing with most of them because they deflect any criticism with "WELL LOOK AT THE LEFT!!! THEY'RE BAD TOO!" That has nothing to do with us pointing out how Trump's disgusting rhetoric empowers white supremacists. They also desperately blame everything on Muslims, even though white supremacists in the last week have committed more acts of domestic terrorism than all of the countries they want banned from the US combined. How does this get answered? More deflection by pointing at extremist leftist groups. When you persist on the issue and don't get caught up in their smoke and mirrors, they proceed to throw out tired ass, cliche terms like "snowflake." Well, I'd rather be a snowflake than someone who enables this retarded, racist regime. I'm going to keep saying it and I don't care who's mad about it. A hit dog will bark.*


----------



## GothicBohemian

Oxi, "very fine people", as Trump calls them, do not march with neo-nazis. If they arrive at a protest and see white supremacist paraphernalia and torches, and hear talk around them about "Jewish communists"*** and "criminal n*****s"***, they leave. If they manage to miss all that, once the chants of "Jews will not replace us"*** start, they leave. 

Those who stay and participate are not there with good or fine intentions. If they meet resistance, they asked for it. 

_***source - words from the mouths of the supporters and participants at the Unite the Right rally, captured in the now famous HBO/VICE documentary_


Now about fake mainstream news versus alternative media: 

I'm not being spoon fed my information. The content provided by multiple sources favoured by a large, internet vocal segment of the right? I know that it's bullshit because I've watched and read it. 

You folks may see me as naive or perhaps stupid, but neither are true. I'm able to digest information and separate the reasonable from the garbage. I'm not one to disappear down information rabbitholes; not because I prefer to ignore opinions that contradict my own but because I'm knowledgeable enough to look at opinions masquerading as facts and recognize them for what they are. Ignorance and hate are easy to identify and there's more of both in non-mainstream media than within the msm. 

Regulars itt do not have a monopoly on 'true facts'. No one does, but I'm more inclined to believe more - not all - of what I read, hear and see from those with proven track records than from those who expect me to trust them with nothing to back it up.


----------



## Oxidamus

GothicBohemian said:


> Oxi, "very fine people", as Trump calls them, do not march with neo-nazis. If they arrive at a protest and see white supremacist paraphernalia and torches, and hear talk around them about "Jewish communists"*** and "criminal n*****s"***, they leave. If they manage to miss all that, once the chants of "Jews will not replace us"*** start, they leave.
> 
> Those who stay and participate are not there with good or fine intentions. If they meet resistance, they asked for it.
> 
> _***source - words from the mouths of the supporters and participants at the Unite the Right rally, captured in the now famous HBO/VICE documentary_
> 
> 
> Now about fake mainstream news versus alternative media:
> 
> I'm not being spoon fed my information. The content provided by multiple sources favoured by a large, internet vocal segment of the right? I know that it's bullshit because I've watched and read it.
> 
> You folks may see me as naive or perhaps stupid, but neither are true. I'm able to digest information and separate the reasonable from the garbage. I'm not one to disappear down information rabbitholes; not because I prefer to ignore opinions that contradict my own but because I'm knowledgeable enough to look at opinions masquerading as facts and recognize them for what they are. Ignorance and hate are easy to identify and there's more of both in non-mainstream media than within the msm.
> 
> Regulars itt do not have a monopoly on 'true facts'. No one does, but I'm more inclined to believe more - not all - of what I read, hear and see from those with proven track records than from those who expect me to trust them with nothing to back it up.


I'm tired and going to bed so I won't respond with a dumb ass long post like usual, but you do have a point that most people would be deterred if they're "good". But, I imagine that there is an argument to be made with the desperation of people. Like I said, I advocate on behalf of welfare recipients which means cooperating with people I disagree with, like communists. Obviously communists don't have as much of a bad rep as Nazis (some for good reason, some a bit confusing...) but maybe that speaks volumes. Maybe people initially didn't expect it to be so hate-filled. Maybe a lot of people did leave. Maybe the extremism was overly represented by media?

Who knows, but if we want to talk about why they congregated then we have to discuss some of the views of people at that event that aren't extreme, or bad, like the genuine disdain for identity politics and concern for racism against whites and men, being essentially legal through employment and educational quotas etc. This I find to be *the root issue* for the rise of the so-called alt-right. Also lacking father figures and spending too much time on depraved websites without being able to tell satire and irony from seriousness, but I digress. Their concern in that regard is fair, is it not?

This is essentially the problem with how this is being portrayed.

The only views that matter here are the bad ones. Like the race hate, antisemitism, etc. There's no coverage on the idea that these people have grown substantially in numbers in the past few years for (an abundance of reasons but including) something like a lack of job and education security because of diversity quotas. Why?

It's like what a lot of the right do with BLM. They ignore all the genuine problems BLM protesters bring up because some of the extreme ones advocate violence or murder against police, among other things.

That's the reason people compare the two. Not because of the severity of their actions (which is more debatable than you act like it is) but simply because of the inconsistency of coverage and treatment by the media. But that's already been said a thousand times and there's still an issue with the statement. So I was gonna delete this and respond in the morning but I'll just stop typing and send it now.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Oxidamus said:


> Everyone on that side on this forum does it. Hell, you know what, even if BM says he's right all the time, and that he destroys you all, at least he responds.
> 
> Now I understand why this is a circle jerk. :mj
> Shout out to @Dr. Middy for being one of the very few people who aligns himself with the left, but doesn't succumb to the dissonance. :drose


I lean left a tad, but I'm not really fully a part of the left side or anything :lol Regardless, I like to listen to the arguments on both sides and come to my own conclusions based on what I've given, rather than blindly accept a bunch of ideal from either side. I end up with a pretty wide array of beliefs, which come from both sides 

But I try my best to not to be closed minded :becky2


----------



## Dr. Middy

Legit BOSS said:


> *You're 100% correct. It's a waste of time arguing with most of them because they deflect any criticism with "WELL LOOK AT THE LEFT!!! THEY'RE BAD TOO!" That has nothing to do with us pointing out how Trump's disgusting rhetoric empowers white supremacists. They also desperately blame everything on Muslims, even though white supremacists in the last week have committed more acts of domestic terrorism than all of the countries they want banned from the US combined. How does this get answered? More deflection by pointing at extremist leftist groups. When you persist on the issue and don't get caught up in their smoke and mirrors, they proceed to throw out tired ass, cliche terms like "snowflake." Well, I'd rather be a snowflake than someone who enables this retarded, racist regime. I'm going to keep saying it and I don't care who's mad about it. A hit dog will bark.*


See but the problem here is even if there are certain posters who will just focus on criticizing only the left and do so as one cohesive group (I don't know who they are exactly if there are any), you're now doing exactly what allegedly is angering you about them. I've talked to most of the exact same posters you have, and I'm not on their side exactly either, but I rarely remember ever having the sorts of conversations that really end up going into throwing out cliches like you mention. 

When I see you post in here, and this is me just observing everybody who posts in this thread, your tone comes off as ridiculing and boastful, like you're only here to announce Trump or his party's failures. Like this (where you also blatantly insulted somebody else who didn't really do anything to deserve it) 



Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891065434786725889
> *Hypocrisy isn't a strong enough word to describe Trump's level of flagrantly contradictory stupidity :lmao.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Way to ignore that you voted for him under the premise that MEXICO would pay for it, in spite if them vehemently denying it multiple times. But hey, he also said he could murder someone and you'd still blindly follow him, which you will, so why would I expect anything different from a Trump supporter?*


And then you end up posting this too, which makes no logical sense given the nature of the post above:



Legit BOSS said:


> *I ignore people who substitute insults for arguments because they have nothing of value to contribute :cena.*


In terms of political beliefs and ideas, we share a decent amount. When it comes to Trump, I don't really like and never will like him either for a number of reasons, but I do understand why people voted for him. Not all of them are the stereotypes a decent subset of liberal will say, just like how not all of the left are crazy liberal snowflakes. 

All I'll say is that despite the tone some people may have, and I have specific posters in here who I just disagree with almost all the time and generally don't like how they talk about certain people, I approach everybody with a level head despite whatever I may think about their opinions, and almost all the time, I'm met with respectful conversations and arguments. Might be time to realize how you're sounding to some of them when you complain to them about whatever it may be, just a thought.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Dr. Middy said:


> See but the problem here is even if there are certain posters who will just focus on criticizing only the left and do so as one cohesive group (I don't know who they are exactly if there are any), you're now doing exactly what allegedly is angering you about them. I've talked to most of the exact same posters you have, and I'm not on their side exactly either, but I rarely remember ever having the sorts of conversations that really end up going into throwing out cliches like you mention.


*Then you obviously haven't read the last few pages attacking the left, and generalizing all of them to scream racism every time a Republican is running for office, which is nothing but lame deflection of the current OBVIOUSLY racially charged administration.*



> When I see you post in here, and this is me just observing everybody who posts in this thread, your tone comes off as ridiculing and boastful, like you're only here to announce Trump or his party's failures. Like this (where you also blatantly insulted somebody else who didn't really do anything to deserve it)


*That's not an insult; it's the truth. Blind Trump supporters do exactly that and I stand by it. I'm going to shit on everything he does because he's a shitty president and he has failed to do anything productive while in office. Don't expect me to be polite and give a chance to a douchebag whose intention is to be as divisive as possible, as his minions jump through hoops to justify it.*



> And then you end up posting this too, which makes no logical sense given the nature of the post above:


*
I ignore ad-hominem posts that attempt to demean my intelligence because I won't be baited. If you interpreted the last post as an insult, then too bad, because that's how I feel about blind Trump supporters and I'm not backing down from the stance.*




> In terms of political beliefs and ideas, we share a decent amount. When it comes to Trump, I don't really like and never will like him either for a number of reasons, but I do understand why people voted for him. Not all of them are the stereotypes a decent subset of liberal will say, just like how not all of the left are crazy liberal snowflakes.
> 
> All I'll say is that despite the tone some people may have, and I have specific posters in here who I just disagree with almost all the time and generally don't like how they talk about certain people, I approach everybody with a level head despite whatever I may think about their opinions, and almost all the time, I'm met with respectful conversations and arguments. Might be time to realize how you're sounding to some of them when you complain to them about whatever it may be, just a thought.


*No, I'm good. I'm not going to softly express my distaste for this awful administration. I'm coming at it with all the venom it deserves and puts out into the world its damn self. I don't care if someone wants to respond to it with lame insults, because again, I'll simply ignore it and keep doing what I'm doing.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891065434786725889
> *Hypocrisy isn't a strong enough word to describe Trump's level of flagrantly contradictory stupidity :lmao.*




I always love how there is a Trump tweet for every occasion. Trump is the biggest disaster of a president the US has ever seen.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Legit BOSS said:


> *Then you obviously haven't read the last few pages attacking the left, and generalizing all of them to scream racism every time a Republican is running for office, which is nothing but lame deflection of the current OBVIOUSLY racially charged administration.*


I see a ton of generalizing on both sides sometimes, whether that be legitimate insults or simple terms like "leftists" that have many different interpretations, some which might be taken the wrong way by those who might not have intended to be harsh or insulting.

I've heard you and others call this a racially charged administration, (I remember the tweet Trump made supporting racial profiling), but do you mind explaining your view on this? I'm just genuinely curious on your view of it.



> *That's not an insult; it's the truth. Blind Trump supporters do exactly that and I stand by it. I'm going to shit on everything he does because he's a shitty president and he has failed to do anything productive while in office. Don't expect me to be polite and give a chance to a douchebag whose intention is to be as divisive as possible, as his minions jump through hoops to justify it.*


That's simply your choice. I choose to not go about it that way because I don't really think it accomplishes much myself, but we're different people and I respect that. 


> *
> I ignore ad-hominem posts that attempt to demean my intelligence because I won't be baited. If you interpreted the last post as an insult, then too bad, because that's how I feel about blind Trump supporters and I'm not backing down from the stance.*


You are allowed to have whatever opinion of them you'd like, there really isn't a right or wrong to that (unless it involves violence of any kind, which I find wrong unless violence has already be instigated). I find going out and attacking supporters of Trump, however blind to what it around them as they may be, unproductive as a whole because it doesn't really do anything to change their own opinions. Sometimes it can have the opposite effect when the harshness level it up, and they'll end up only becoming more concrete in their opposing views. 



> *No, I'm good. I'm not going to softly express my distaste for this awful administration. I'm coming at it with all the venom it deserves and puts out into the world its damn self. I don't care if someone wants to respond to it with lame insults, because again, I'll simply ignore it and keep doing what I'm doing.*


Again, that's fine. I never expected what I would say to suddenly change your mind or opinion of anything, it was simply observations I made that might better you when talking about this sort of thing.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

GothicBohemian said:


> I can't and won't speak for Legit BOSS but I can give a general explanation for why "leftists" ignore posts and your politically-charged threads.
> 
> *We often don't bother responding because many, not all, of you pepper your counter-responses with unnecessary insults and, due to the 'fake news' preoccupation, most of your references are sketchy.* Speaking for myself, I don't take much alt-media seriously. A lot of it is no more valid than my own opinion, only I'm not running a blog or a YouTube channel pretending to be a journalist.
> 
> *There's a constant theme that never varies - anyone on 'the left' is a sheep indoctrinated by 'elites'.* I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and I'm not wasting time debating that. It may come as a surprise to a few of you, but there are people with different motivations than yours. For instance, I don't care much about my personal wealth and I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of that, and a bit of my right to do and say anything I wish no matter how it effects others, in order to have a society where there is a safety net for those in need and obvious consequences for being an asshole. I choose to live that way, as do millions of others, because I like it, not because I'm unaware of anything 'better'.
> 
> *In my experience, once politics is involved, a conversation with WF's conservatives is usually an exercise in futility against someone who is going to insult my intelligence, call me names, drag in half-truths and deliberate lies about anything they think could matter to me and then post a wall of either irrelevant information or unverifiable 'news' gathered from what appears, to me, to be largely, though not always, independent far-right and conspiracy sources. It's not a discussion, it's a dismissive lecture. I have no time or interest for that. I have a life to live and little of it is spent online.*


First off, the insults go both ways. BM is famous for insulting posters, and yeahbaby! does the same thing. Don't try to take the moral high ground here. Second, Reaper, L-Dopa, Oxy, and many others post sources that are far from sketchy. If you really take issue with the legitimacy of the sources some use then maybe you should try discrediting them.

Blogs and youtube channels are meant to bring discussion. Typically, they're opinions we share. If you don't like them, challenge them. Don't just sit back and say you don't agree with it because your opinion is just as valid. I'm sure many of us would love to spend time debating the merits of our opinions. Those who lean to the left, on here, don't spend time doing that, and those who do commit so many argumentative fallacies that their opinions end up being devalued, speaking mostly about BM here.

If you don't come here and debate the merits of your opinions, then how do you expect anyone who has a different opinion to question what they think? If anyone here thinks the left are indoctrinated sheep, it's because the left-leaning posters here, and elsewhere, don't do a good enough job at dispelling the thought.

And you are perfectly within your right to give up some of your income, nobody has ever said you couldn't. What people here have said is that you don't have the right to tell us that we have to give up some of our income, like you, and that is a huge ideology of the left.

Maybe you're choosing, who you debate with, poorly.



Legit BOSS said:


> *I specifically said if they're harming innocent people, then they're just as bad as the white supremacists. Did you flagrantly ignore that part to push a bullshit agenda like every other Trump apologist in this thread? Do you want me to quote it, red text it, underline, and size 5 it for you? I was having a conversation with @Miss Sally so I responded to Miss Sally. It's that simple.
> 
> Let me repeat myself for the third time. I don't condone innocent people being attacked, but if it's a white supremacist, I really don't give a fuck. They've openly expressed that they have every intent to get violent and have shown no concern, and even gone as far as to justify the terrorist attack that lead to Heather's murder. I have no sympathy for them.*


You asked for evidence of ANTIFA being violent, and you got near a dozen. You have chosen not to address them. Stop moving goalposts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> First off, the insults go both ways. BM is famous for insulting posters, and yeahbaby! does the same thing. Don't try to take the moral high ground here. Second, Reaper, L-Dopa, Oxy, and many others post sources that are far from sketchy. If you really take issue with the legitimacy of the sources some use then maybe you should try discrediting them.
> 
> Blogs and youtube channels are meant to bring discussion. Typically, they're opinions we share. If you don't like them, challenge them. Don't just sit back and say you don't agree with it because your opinion is just as valid. I'm sure many of us would love to spend time debating the merits of our opinions. Those who lean to the left, on here, don't spend time doing that, and those who do commit so many argumentative fallacies that their opinions end up being devalued, speaking mostly about BM here.
> 
> If you don't come here and debate the merits of your opinions, then how do you expect anyone who has a different opinion to question what they think? If anyone here thinks the left are indoctrinated sheep, it's because the left-leaning posters here, and elsewhere, don't do a good enough job at dispelling the thought.
> 
> And you are perfectly within your right to give up some of your income, nobody has ever said you couldn't. What people here have said is that you don't have the right to tell us that we have to give up some of our income, like you, and that is a huge ideology of the left.
> 
> Maybe you're choosing, who you debate with, poorly.


LOL the people on the left debate the facts all the time, it's the Trump supporters who ignore the facts and just deflect them because they can't defend Trump so they don't even try. They just post bullshit like you just did instead of debating the facts and evidence. But keep staying in your little delusional Trump bubble its what Trump supporters do best on this forum.

You guys think Trump is some huge genius mastermind playing 4D chess when he has been a disaster.

But carry on.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL the people on the left debate the facts all the time, it's the Trump supporters who ignore the facts and just deflect them because they can't defend Trump so they don't even try. They just post bullshit like you just did instead of debating the facts and evidence. But keep staying in your little delusional Trump bubble its what Trump supporters do best on this forum.
> 
> You guys think Trump is some huge genius mastermind playing 4D chess when he has been a disaster.
> 
> But carry on.


:lol

Says the science denier


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Dr. Middy said:


> I've heard you and others call this a racially charged administration, (I remember the tweet Trump made supporting racial profiling), but do you mind explaining your view on this? I'm just genuinely curious on your view of it.


*Trump and his administration heavily advocate for xenophobia, as evidenced through his failed travel ban, eagerness to build a wall to prevent Mexicans from coming in AT OUR EXPENSE, and overall attitude towards African Americans. He's been threatening to call the National Guard on Chicago all year for gang violence, but is scared to even refer to violent white supremacists as terrorists. Six CEOs dropped out from his Manufacturing group, yet he ONLY attacked the Black CEO on Twitter: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/merck-ceo-resigns-from-trumps-american-manufacturing-council.html


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897218560937922564
Where are the 5 other tweets labeling the non-Black CEOs as crooks? They're non-existent, because it doesn't fit his racist agenda.*




> That's simply your choice. I choose to not go about it that way because I don't really think it accomplishes much myself, but we're different people and I respect that.


*The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to expose how stupid Trump is, and how ridiculous it is for anyone to try to justify his intolerant policies.*



> You are allowed to have whatever opinion of them you'd like, there really isn't a right or wrong to that (unless it involves violence of any kind, which I find wrong unless violence has already be instigated). I find going out and attacking supporters of Trump, however blind to what it around them as they may be, unproductive as a whole because it doesn't really do anything to change their own opinions. Sometimes it can have the opposite effect when the harshness level it up, and they'll end up only becoming more concrete in their opposing views.
> 
> 
> Again, that's fine. I never expected what I would say to suddenly change your mind or opinion of anything, it was simply observations I made that might better you when talking about this sort of thing.


*I've been here for over 3 years, Middy. I know for a fact that politely expressing an opinion won't stop assholes from attacking you if they disagree with it, so I started being super blunt about my convictions A LONG time ago. You get the same result, just more of it. You also get an equal amount of people who appreciate that you stand up for what you believe in, without letting anyone deter you from expressing said opinion. That's why I think it's stupid to bitch about negs. I get negged all the time and don't say shit. Just neg back and go about your day, unless they're flaming, then by all means, report them.*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL the people on the left debate the facts all the time, it's the Trump supporters who ignore the facts and just deflect them because they can't defend Trump so they don't even try. They just post bullshit like you just did instead of debating the facts and evidence. But keep staying in your little delusional Trump bubble its what Trump supporters do best on this forum.
> 
> *You guys think Trump is some huge genius mastermind playing 4D chess when he has been a disaster.*
> 
> But carry on.


When you argue hear-say, innuendo, and half-truths as facts, as you did repeatedly in the debate about Trump/Russia collusion, you don't have the authority to determine what are facts and what aren't. Honestly, of all people here who should be taking up the mantle of "Leftist spokesperson" for this board, you're the last person who should be stepping into that role. 

Also, the bold part is why you can't be taken seriously. I have never made the claim that Trump is playing 4D chess, but you have no trouble lumping me in with the posters that do. It's intellectually dishonest, and a flat out lie. If you can't bother to understand where I stand on the issues, why should I respect your opinions?



Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump and his administration heavily advocate for xenophobia, as evidenced through his failed travel ban, eagerness to build a wall to prevent Mexicans from coming in AT OUR EXPENSE, and overall attitude towards African Americans.*


Out of curiosity, in your eyes, is there any argument for the travel ban and the wall that doesn't result in the person being xenophobic? 

Also, do you have any evidence of this "attitude" Trump has towards African Americans?

This right here is where the rubber hits the road. I'm challenging you on your opinions. Let's see how you respond.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Out of curiosity, in your eyes, is there any argument for the travel ban and the wall that doesn't result in the person being xenophobic?


*
No, there isn't.*



> Also, do you have any evidence of this "attitude" Trump has towards African Americans?
> 
> This right here is where the rubber hits the road. I'm challenging you on your opinions. Let's see how you respond.


*
You just cut the answer out of my post. You'd have seen it if you actually read the follow up sentences and subsequent article with the embedded tweet in question from last week. That's the most recent evidence of Trump's attitude towards African Americans. *


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> No, there isn't.*
> 
> 
> *
> You just cut the answer out of my post. You'd have seen it if you actually read the follow up sentences and subsequent article with the embedded tweet in question from last week. That's the most recent evidence of Trump's attitude towards African Americans. *


There isn't? Really? So, I assume you're an advocate for open boarders, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant?

Also, I take it that the fact that the countries listed travel ban are the same countries listed in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, and was signed by Obama, making it the law of the land, would also make Obama a xenophobe? If not, why not?

Lastly, his comment about a CEO, who happens to be black, was only made because he's black? Does your opinion change by the fact that he's gone after more white people than black people? Or is he not allowed to say anything negative about a single black person?


----------



## birthday_massacre

​


TheNightmanCometh said:


> When you argue hear-say, innuendo, and half-truths as facts, as you did repeatedly in the debate about Trump/Russia collusion, you don't have the authority to determine what are facts and what aren't. Honestly, of all people here who should be taking up the mantle of "Leftist spokesperson" for this board, you're the last person who should be stepping into that role.
> 
> Also, the bold part is why you can't be taken seriously. I have never made the claim that Trump is playing 4D chess, but you have no trouble lumping me in with the posters that do. It's intellectually dishonest, and a flat out lie. If you can't bother to understand where I stand on the issues, why should I respect your opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, in your eyes, is there any argument for the travel ban and the wall that doesn't result in the person being xenophobic?
> 
> Also, do you have any evidence of this "attitude" Trump has towards African Americans?
> 
> This right here is where the rubber hits the road. I'm challenging you on your opinions. Let's see how you respond.


If you are still going to claim Trump does not has ties to Russia with all the evidence he, his family and the people in his admin have been proven to have then you keep proving my point. 

The only people who lie are Trump and his supporters. 

but keep ignoring facts and evidence its what people like you do best when it comes to Trump


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> ​
> If you are still going to claim Trump does not has *ties *to Russia with all the evidence he, his family and the people in his admin have been proven to have then you keep proving my point.
> 
> The only people who lie are Trump and his supporters.
> 
> but keep ignoring facts and evidence its what people like you do best when it comes to Trump


What's your definition of "ties"? Particularly Trump's "ties" with Russia?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> What's your definition of "ties"?


Contacts, connections, business dealings, etc.

And why is it they all lie about not having any then it comes out they do or have in the past?


Why do they lie about it?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> There isn't? Really? So, I assume you're an advocate for open boarders, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant?
> 
> Also, I take it that the fact that the countries listed travel ban are the same countries listed in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, and was signed by Obama, making it the law of the land, would also make Obama a xenophobe? If not, why not?


*We went over this months ago and responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Here you are, once again, pointing to the left and twisting facts to justify Trump's overt racism, instead of addressing the issue at hand.

1. The left is irrelevant to this conversation.
2.



On December 18, 2015, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act) became law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016. The Act, among other things, established new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

DHS has updated the ESTA application with additional questions to address the new eligibility requirements under the Act.

Click to expand...

It was never an outright Muslim ban. Feel free to read more about it here to prevent any confusion: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/internat...ement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Contacts, connections, business dealings, etc.
> 
> And why is it they all lie about not having any then it comes out they do or have in the past?
> 
> 
> Why do they lie about it?


How do those relate to the narrative of "The Trump administration worked with the Russians to fix the election"?

Contacts - Which contacts?

Connections - What connections?

Business Dealings - What do those have to do with rigging the election?

Remember, the narrative you've been promulgating has been that Trump, and his campaign, worked with the Russians, with the goal of fixing the election. So take some time and show me how "Contacts, connections, business dealings, etc." were used to do that. If your goal is to change my mind, which I have given you opportunitites in the past to do so, then you'll answer the questions with facts, and not presumptions of guilt. If you don't, then I suppose trying to get a new person on your side isn't that important to you.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *We went over this months ago and responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Here you are, once again, pointing to the left and twisting facts to justify Trump's overt racism, instead of addressing the issue at hand.
> 
> 1. The left is irrelevant to this conversation.
> 2.
> 
> It was never an outright Muslim ban. Feel free to read more about it here to prevent any confusion: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/internat...ement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq*


First off, I'm putting what I believe off to the side, I think it would be intellectually honest for you to do the same. You think Trump is overtly racist. You've seen what he's said and done and have decided that he's a racist. For a moment, put that to the side and let's just discuss the facts. I'm not twisting anything by pointing out that the travel ban included the same countries in the 2015 act. I'm merely pointing out that you said the travel ban is xenophobic, and because Trump wants it, by extension, he's xenophobic as well. I asked you if there's another explanation and you said there is not, so if there isn't, wouldn't that make Obama, who signed the 2015 travel restriction act, using the same countries, also a xenophobe? It's an honest question, that deserves an honest answer.

What I stated isn't irrelevant. If you made your claim, and I said, "The left keeps immigrants in poverty", that would be irrelevant. My comparison is aptly relevant, as it involves a travel restriction of the same countries listed in the travel ban. 

And I know plenty about the travel ban, I want to know what you know.

You cited the travel ban as evidence of Trump's xenophobia, but now you state it's not an outright Muslim ban, if it's not then how was the ban xenophobic?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> How do those relate to the narrative of "The Trump administration worked with the Russians to fix the election"?
> 
> Contacts - Which contacts?
> 
> Connections - What connections?
> 
> Business Dealings - What do those have to do with rigging the election?
> 
> Remember, the narrative you've been promulgating has been that Trump, and his campaign, worked with the Russians, with the goal of fixing the election. So take some time and show me how "Contacts, connections, business dealings, etc." were used to do that. If your goal is to change my mind, which I have given you opportunitites in the past to do so, then you'll answer the questions with facts, and not presumptions of guilt. If you don't, then I suppose trying to get a new person on your side isn't that important to you.


Please quote me where I ever said Trump worked with Russia to rig the election since I NEVER said that even though people like you keep claiming I did even though on a number of occasions I said I never said that.

I have always said Trump's ties to Russia will have an effect on what favors he does for them while he is president.

so go quote me where I said Trump worked with Russia to rig the election

I have also posted Trump's ties to Russia before and I am not going over that again, I've done it at least three times already. 

But here is a newer uncover tie Trump has to teh Russia Mafia

https://newrepublic.com/article/143...ses-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

If you want more here ya go

http://fortune.com/2017/05/17/donald-trump-russia-2/

If you have to out of your way to ignore the evidence of the russia ties Trump has

My favorite is the one by Trumps lawyer when he said Trump has no russian income or debt but with some exceptions lol

Lets not also forget about Eric Trump boasting about how they have access to hundreds of millions of dollars in russian money not to mention how Donald Jr said russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot their assets.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> First off, I'm putting what I believe off to the side, I think it would be intellectually honest for you to do the same. You think Trump is overtly racist. You've seen what he's said and done and have decided that he's a racist. For a moment, put that to the side and let's just discuss the facts. I'm not twisting anything by pointing out that the travel ban included the same countries in the 2015 act. I'm merely pointing out that you said the travel ban is xenophobic, and because Trump wants it, by extension, he's xenophobic as well. I asked you if there's another explanation and you said there is not, so if there isn't, wouldn't that make Obama, who signed the 2015 travel restriction act, using the same countries, also a xenophobe? It's an honest question, that deserves an honest answer.


*
No, because again, Obama's law WAS NOT A TRAVEL BAN. The link flat out states it in the FAQ. Trump wanted to BAN those countries. Obama's law just required countries to get VISAs that previously didn't need them for enhanced homeland security. They're not at all the same.*



> What I stated isn't irrelevant. If you made your claim, and I said, "The left keeps immigrants in poverty", that would be irrelevant. My comparison is aptly relevant, as it involves a travel restriction of the same countries listed in the travel ban.


*Except it isn't the same. You're comparing two different pieces of legislature and saying they're the same because the same countries are listed. Are age of consent laws and marijuana laws the same pieces of legislature if the same states in each piece of legislature have the same laws? No, so this is no different.*



> You cited the travel ban as evidence of Trump's xenophobia, but now you state it's not an outright Muslim ban, if it's not then how was the ban xenophobic?


*
I said Obama's act wasn't an outright Muslim ban. Trump's failed travel ban was intended to be a Muslim ban. I can see how that's unclear since it wasn't expressly written.*


----------



## Dr. Middy

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump and his administration heavily advocate for xenophobia, as evidenced through his failed travel ban, eagerness to build a wall to prevent Mexicans from coming in AT OUR EXPENSE, and overall attitude towards African Americans. He's been threatening to call the National Guard on Chicago all year for gang violence, but is scared to even refer to violent white supremacists as terrorists. Six CEOs dropped out from his Manufacturing group, yet he ONLY attacked the Black CEO on Twitter: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/merck-ceo-resigns-from-trumps-american-manufacturing-council.html
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897218560937922564
> Where are the 5 other tweets labeling the non-Black CEOs as crooks? They're non-existent, because it doesn't fit his racist agenda.*


I will agree with you on the Merck CEO being singled out by Trump, as even though it could see like an odd conscience, it is rather weird of him to go after just one of them out of the 6. Surprised he wouldn't just make a blanket statement against all 6 of them, instead of going after the lone black CEO. It's a terrible move on his part in hindsight regardless if he did or didn't intend to (I don't know enough from either side on this one to make a true opinion).

The travel ban was also something I wasn't a fan of as well, mostly because I don't like the issue of a blanket ban where nobody from said countries are allowed into the US, no matter the circumstance. I would lessen their overall immigration however, and drastically if not cut the Syrian Refugee influx as well until a better solution as to how to combat possible terrorism is created. We've already seen over the past year how countries like England, Germany, and France have just allowed wide open borders and have had tens of thousands of refugees flooding the country, with a good amount refusing to assimilate into those respective countries. Meanwhile, while I hate to make assumptions because there are innocent people among them who simply just wanted to escape the war in Syria, there's been a lot of terrorism and terrorism ideas that have migrated their way into these countries, completely unchecked. It scares me how often we hear about these attacks now, and we have a decent amount of these people now in these countries, god knows where, as a result. 

The wall being promised by Mexico I thought was a complete farce when I first heard it (and I was against the idea of building a giant wall through any environmental area on the border). However, his general attitude on illegal immigration I think actually has been one of the better things he's done, as he's almost built an invisible wall with how they are cracking down on illegals now, and it has resulted in a general decrease in illegal immigration. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-illegal-immigration-down-61-percent-ele/

If he still wants to wall, I'd rather him work on continuing to crack down on illegal immigration, particularly sanctuary cities, and maybe do some analyzing on specific high traffic areas for illegals and focus on those first.

As for the White Supremacy thing, I don't know why he didn't just denounce ALL violence from ANY side right from the get go. It felt like he danced a bit around calling out those violence White Nationalists and White Supremacists, but in reality the message he should give towards this thing should always be a zero-tolerance for any violent political views, regardless of side. That was his mistake for not doing that from the beginning, and he should have done that. 



> *The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to expose how stupid Trump is, and how ridiculous it is for anyone to try to justify his intolerant policies.*


Why do we have to make a blanket statement on everything he does and automatically label it as intolerant and stupid? Sorry, even though I don't like him as a person and I'm not crazy about him as are president, I don't hate everything he's done since he's stepped in office. If you want to, I'm not going to start arguing with you about it, just do what you please on that front. 



> *I've been here for over 3 years, Middy. I know for a fact that politely expressing an opinion won't stop assholes from attacking you if they disagree with it, so I started being super blunt about my convictions A LONG time ago. You get the same result, just more of it. You also get an equal amount of people who appreciate that you stand up for what you believe in, without letting anyone deter you from expressing said opinion. That's why I think it's stupid to bitch about negs. I get negged all the time and don't say shit. Just neg back and go about your day, unless they're flaming, then by all means, report them.*


I don't give a shit if assholes attack me, no matter how nice I end up being. I have an opinion, and if people don't like it and want to attack me for it, they can do as they please. But I'm not one to be overly blunt, it's just my own personality trait I've always had, just like you'd rather be more blunt with your opinions. 

TBF, I can't imagine you as being overly polite now that I think about it. It would be really weird :lol I think I'm used to you being the polarizing dude you are, regardless if I agree with you or not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

If anyone does not see how Trump is a racist by now then I wonder about the person thinking that he's not. and that goes double for Bannon.


----------



## DOPA

To those who still believe that ANTIFA are a peaceful resistance group to Nazism:

First of all, in the Charlottesville thread, I posted a detailed history of just some of the violence ANTIFA has committed against people over the course of several months. This doesn't just include in the States but also at the G20 summit in Germany, because ANTIFA is a world wide group. Just to be clear, this isn't about arguing that one group is worse than the other, rather that both groups use political violence rather than reason and dialogue to get their message across. This isn't a good thing in the slightest, when you have two collectivist fringe groups at each others throats causing a Weimar Republic civil war it not only just effects those groups but also widens the divide politically overall. This is driving Americans apart rather than bringing them together. We should call for dialogue and reason, not more violence in response.

Unfortunately most of the MSM who are at least left leaning are not reporting this. It is mostly alternative news networks that uncovering the violence behind the masks.

Here is the post I made in the Charlottesville thread: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2219337-right-wingers-come-gather-65.html

----------------------------------

Now I understand that even with posting what I have detailed, there may be certain people who will not read it due to the length of the post or simply because they don't want to see it. That's fair enough, I obviously can't force people to see what's in front of them.

So what I will do is post some articles surrounding ANTIFA from today alone. Let's see how people react to this, you of course be the judge. This will be in relation to what has taken place today in Boston:

http://nypost.com/2017/08/19/thousa...s-descend-on-boston-before-free-speech-rally/



> Tensions are mounting in Boston, where 500 police are working to separate dozens of Free Speech Rally-goers from thousands of counter-protesters marching against hate.
> 
> Aerial video showed lines of police officers, some in riot gear and carrying billy-clubs, advancing to push back crowds in Boston Common.
> 
> By 2 p.m., the dozens who had gathered for the Free Speech Rally — who have publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis and white supremacists of Charlottesville — had left the Commons.
> 
> It was unclear whether the protesters were disbanding or planned to rally elsewhere.
> 
> Earlier in the afternoon, there were numerous minor scuffles and shouting matches between the two sides.
> 
> Boisterous counter-protesters chased a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him.
> 
> Other counter-protesters quickly intervened on his behalf, helping the man safely over a fence to where the conservative rally was to be staged.
> 
> Nearby, a shoving match erupted between an American-flag-waving older woman and a counter-protester wearing the black garb of the “Antifa” anti-fascist group.
> 
> Video captured the black-clad protester then trying to run off with the flag as she clung to it and ran after him. She stumbled and fell to the ground, Fox News reported.
> 
> The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized Saturday’s rally, say they are opposed to the white supremacist message and violence that erupted a week ago in Charlottesville.
> 
> Saturday’s speaker roster had included Joe Biggs, formerly of the right-wing conspiracy website Infowars, and Kyle Chapman, a California activist accused of beating counter-protesters at a pro-Trump rally in Berkeley earlier this year.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/19949/innocent-colorado-man-stabbed-over-his-neo-nazi-emily-zanotti#



> Colorado man Joshua Witt was lucky to escape with just three stitches after being attacked by a "confused anti-fascist" brandishing a large knife.
> 
> The 26-year old Witt told his Facebook friends, in a post now shared more than 20,000 times, that he had just pulled in to the parking lot of a Steak & Shake near his home and opened his car door to get out when a man brandishing a knife confronted him, demanding to know whether Witt was "one of them neo-Nazis."
> 
> “All I hear is, ‘Are you one of them neo-Nazis?’ as this dude is swinging a knife up over my car door at me,” Witt wrote in his post.
> 
> “I threw my hands up and once the knife kind of hit, I dived back into my car and shut the door and watched him run off west, behind my car."
> 
> The confrontation left a huge gash in Witt's hand, and the wound required three stitches. The pictures show blood splattered across Witt's clothing, and the inside and outside of his car door
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The dude was actually aiming for my head,” Witt added in the post. “I was more in shock because I was just getting a milkshake.”
> 
> Witt says he is most definitely not a neo-Nazi and that he doesn't have any tattoos or clothing that might have led the confused anti-Nazi activist to start stabbing him randomly. Witt says his friends told him, after his post began to go viral, that it was probably his haircut: Witt wears his hair long on top and short on the sides, in a style reminiscent of alt-right figure Richard Spencer's haircut (but Witt says that's just his own style).
> 
> Since the violent rally in Charlottesville last weekend, some leftists on social media have been openly discussing the morality of doxing and attacking those they deem "white supremacists" or "Nazis." The hashtag #PunchNazis even briefly trended on Twitter, with "anti-Fascist" protesters turning the phrase into a rallying cry.
> 
> Claims of "self-defense" and "incitement to violence aside" (the Left has used both this week to justify any potential acts of violence they may undertake in response to white supremacist activity), poor Joshua Witt's story is a life lesson in the dangers of just randomly punching anyone you believe harbors secret neo-Nazi ties: they might just have a bad haircut and a hankering for a mid-day milkshake.
> 
> As for Witt, he says he'll recover, but that he's definitely going to be changing his hairstyle.


Here is the link to the shared FB post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=497075400637404&id=100010048441847&pnref=story

And here are a few more pictures (sorry if they have been a little graphic, hope I'm not breaking any rules here):





























http://www.dailywire.com/news/19946...-thugs-get-violent-again-amanda-prestigiacomo



> The group leftists quickly compared to brave WWII Allied soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy in the wake of the fatally violent Charlottesville protest last weekend have proved the Left should more deeply consider its "friends."
> 
> On Saturday, Antifa thugs became violent while protesting a small gathering of about 100 people for a free speech rally in Boston, which was reportedly free of any neo-Nazis (though some of the attendees had ties to the alt-right).
> 
> The black-clad "anti-Fascists" were part of a group of nearly 40,000 who counter-protested the rally, but quickly differentiated themselves from the rest of the "peace marchers," taunting police officers, harassing and assaulting rally attendees, and ultimately clashing with law enforcement — all in the name of "stamping out fascism."
> 
> According to the Boston Police Department, protesters threw rocks, urine, and bottles at officers manning the rally.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898995186155626496
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898991076157136898
> An elderly woman holding an apparently offensive American flag was dragged by Antifa thugs.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898939777453400065
> According to an unconfirmed report, a teenage Trump supporter with a “F*** Nazis, F*** Antifa, Donald Trump 2020" sign was surrounded by Antifa before being "rescued" by police officers.
> 
> MSNBC correspondent Garrett Haake reported on Antifa members assaulting pro-life advocates. "Antifa folks just mobbed some anti-abortion protestors w/ posters. Yelled & tore posters til cops came."
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899035786049355777
> In the video below, Antifa members tangle with police officers before one woman threatens to spit on a black police officer. *"Stupid-a** black b*tch," screams the woman, "you're supposed to be on our side!"*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899099024455872512
> And more chaos:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899112575060893700
> The Boston Police Department reported a total of 33 arrests for "disruptive behavior." You can find the names of those arrested here.
> 
> According to NBC News, there were about 40,000 counter-protesters attending the free speech rally, an overwhelming majority of them were peaceful and respectful to the police officers working the event.


http://bpdnews.com/news/2017/8/19/nwez3w61jv5rm1ub2siyofkbizrvki



> *BPD Officers Arrest 33 Suspects for Disruptive Behavior During Rally on Boston Common:* On, Saturday, August 19, 2017, 33 individuals were arrested for failing to behave in a respectful and responsible manner. In the days leading up today’s event, both Mayor Walsh and Commissioner Evans asked, encouraged and urged all those attending today’s events to be on their best behavior and to embrace nonviolence over violence. Thankfully, the majority of those attending did just that. Unfortunately, not everybody understood the importance of good behavior.
> 
> The names of those arrested during today’s events are as follows:
> 
> 1. Zhen XIE, 33, MALDEN, Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 2. Trevor Carey, 24, SHEWSBURY, Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 3. Devante Phillips, 25, DORCHESTER, Disturbing a Public Assembly
> 
> 4. Matthew Krinscherff, 25, BROOKLINE, Disturbing a Public Assembly
> 
> 5. Shawn Vieira, 25, BOSTON, Disturbing the Peace and Unlawfully Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (Knife)
> 
> 6. Delroy Richardson, 25, BROCKTON, Disturbing the Peace and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 7. Thomas Ensley, 36, VERMONT, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest Person and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 8. Joshua Jenkins, 31, PLYMOUTH, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 9. Marlon McCalister, 30, BROOKLINE, Disturbing a Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 10. Ayesha Kazmi, 40, BOSTON, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 11. Victoria Mallada, 24, FITCHBURG, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 12. Kimberly Carlisle, 39, BOSTON, Disturbing A Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 13. Mohammed Eldeb, 23, SOMERVILLE, Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 14. Antwane Strickland, 26, REVERE, Disturbing a Public Assembly
> 
> 15. Tony Massey, 42, BOSTON, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 16. John Lari, 25, Eugene, OR, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 17. Edson Dasilva, 28, QUINCY, Disturbing a Public Assembly, Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 18. 15-year-old female from CAMBRIDGE, Delinquent to wit Assault & Battery by Means of Dangerous Weapon (2 counts), Delinquent to wit Disorderly Conduct
> 
> 19. Timothy Thorley, 32, WEYMOUTH, Disorderly Conduct and Affray
> 
> 20. Casey Gonzalez, 30, LOWELL, Disorderly Conduct and Affray
> 
> 21. Nathan Mizrahi, 38, Norwich, NY, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition
> 
> 22. Adan Daroba, 22, BOSTON, Assault & Battery
> 
> 23. Solomon Clarke, 19, BOSTON, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 24. Roberto Bonila, 20, CHELSEA, Assault & Battery by Means of Dangerous Weapon (Knife)
> 
> 25. Ashla Munroe, 24, SOUTH DENNIS, Affray
> 
> 26. Shaun Petty, 33, TAUNTON, Assault & Battery by Means of Dangerous Weapon (Knife), Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 27. Chase Kroll, 37, SOMERVILLE, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 28. Derek Hanlon, 25, BOSTON, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 29. Siron Cromwell-Harrison, 23, CHELSEA, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 30. William Papagianopoulos, 30, BURLINGTON, Disturbing the Peace
> 
> 31. James Kelley, 39, DORCHESTER, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Public Assembly and Resisting Arrest
> 
> 32. Patrick Richardi, 46, Miami, FL, Drinking Alcohol in Public
> 
> 33. Mark Szczwsuil, 50, TEWKSBURY, Trespassing









Those are the most relevant articles thus far regarding what has transpired today with Antifa. It must be said like in the DailyWire that the majority of the counter protestors to the free speech rally were *peaceful*, as were those who attended for the rally. So thankfully, we didn't see the chaos that ensued at Charlottesville but again, Antifa did show up to cause trouble.

Not only that but they made it plain as day that they were going to show up and cause trouble:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/will-blood-boston-antifa-promises-violence-folk-song/



> If a video posted by the Boston chapter of Antifa is any indication, it’s going to be a long day for law enforcement in that city.
> 
> The group posted a relatively lame folk song on Friday, apparently titled, “Boston Belongs to Us.”
> 
> “Boston belongs to us,” the copy cat of a Bob Dylan copy cat sings about a free speech rally scheduled for this afternoon.
> 
> “Trump supporters are a joke,” he says, “But here comes the punchline,” he adds, holding up his fist.
> 
> “Boston belongs to us, so f*ck all your free speech,” he sings, as “freeze peach” appears in text on the screen, “it’s really just hate speech.”
> 
> While it’s not clear what the group’s intentions are, evidence in Charlottesville and Berkeley indicates they’re out for blood.
> 
> That’s indicated through some of the group’s other tweets, in which they’re notifying activists about where police cameras are:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898649729629913089
> And they’re advising agitators when to show up:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898625008473325568
> And they warn the “pigs” may not be as “useful” to them as they were in Charlottesville, when police reportedly disbursed “white nationalist” protesters right into Antifa forces, ensuring a clash.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898622570253209601
> Local media reports it could be a battle royale among the dregs of American society.
> 
> According to WMUR:
> 
> Thousands of protesters are expected to gather on Boston Common as two opposing demonstrations converge around noon on Saturday.
> 
> The city granted permission for an event that organizers are calling a “Free Speech Rally” but that some people fear is actually a white nationalist rally similar to the one that erupted in violence and left a woman dead in Charlottesville last weekend.
> 
> Barriers will separate participants from a planned counterprotest that its organizers are calling “Fight Supremacy” and a “Racial Justice Solidarity March.” The organizations behind this group, which could number in the tens of thousands, include Black Lives Matter and the Mass Community Action Network.
> 
> “We’ll see who really, really has the guts at this rally,” an Antifa member said.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898636647935258624

One final note before I conclude: I understand to those who may not be familiar may question the DailyWire as pretty much the main source I have used since no mainstream outlets are reporting on this aspect of what has happened in Boston.

To be clear, the DailyWire is the news outlet of one Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish and has been on the receiving end of multiple Anti-Semitic attacks. Simply put, he is no friend of the Alt Right.

He's multiple articles against them, you can google them to find them but here is one example, which is written by himself: http://www.dailywire.com/news/8638/what-alt-right-ben-shapiro



> As one of the leading antagonists of the so-called alt-right, I’m often asked to define the movement. Like all movements, the alt-right actually has several strains – they’re an agglomeration of self-appointed radical culture warriors, disenchanted paleoconservatives, and open anti-Semites and white supremacists. They’re united by a distaste for what they consider to be “political correctness,” although they universally seem to mistake “PC” for “not being a complete ass.” And they consider any resistance to actual racism and anti-Semitism to be “cuck” cowardice and social justice warrior whining.
> 
> Many of the most public members of the alt-right are leftovers from Gamergate, the scandal that rocked the gaming community in which leftist reviewers saw fit to stifle and savage any video game (or science fiction and fantasy book) that didn’t hew to radical leftist tropes. As a way of trolling such leftists, many anti-SJW bloggers began using deliberately offensive language, then celebrating themselves for violating taboo. This has carried over to support for Donald Trump – many of these same people think that Trump’s unfortunate habit of saying terrible things is just high politics’ version of their own trolling, that he’s standing up to the regime of political correctness. He isn’t. He’s just a jerk. And so are they, for following along. The conflation between tweeting hook-nosed Jew cartoons at Jews and fighting against the scourge of political correctness, which prevents honest discussions of serious issues, actually damages the cause of political incorrectness.
> 
> The meme magic warriors, in their ardent desire to “trigger” all of their enemies, have become accustomed to utilizing racist and anti-Semitic imagery regularly in their correspondence and comments. But it’s impossible to distinguish the “mischievous, dissident, trolly” gas chamber posters and David Duke. I know, since I’ve been targeted by all of them, including Duke. And many of the anti-Semites and racists are surely real. Milo Yiannopoulos, popularizer of the alt-right, is the same fellow who tweeted me a picture of a black baby on the day my son was born because, as an anti-Trump conservative, I’m a “cuck” – a man who likes watching his wife have sex with black men. And Milo is one of the “mainstream” alt-right guys – Fox News spent time distinguishing him from the bigots on the alt-right this morning.
> 
> Milo, along with Allum Bokhari, wrote a ridiculous piece talking-up the alt-right at Breitbart.com, which has become, according to new Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon, a “platform for the alt-right.” They claimed that the intellectual foundation of the alt-right rested in the notion that “culture is inseparable from race.” Foreign races include non-whites and Jews, who many alt-righters believe are Fifth Column outsiders inherently connected to the international left and its agenda. They also named intellectual influences ranging from Richard Spencer (“Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence”), Steve Sailer (“Since Jewish predilections play such a massive role in the media, it’s crucial to understand these biases”), and paleoconservative godfather Pat Buchanan.
> 
> All of these people are united by a tribal view of Western civilization: Western civilization isn’t rooted in creed, but in nationalism and European ethnicity. To that end, many of them are warm toward powerful centralized government designed to protect the tribe; they admire Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, for example, because he represents a hypermasculine defense of his own tribe. By the same token, they support isolationist foreign policy, since we must hunker down behind our walls in order to protect the tribe. And finally, they oppose the notion of natural God-given individual rights as described by the founding fathers, because all rights only adhere via the tribe.
> 
> Some more mainstream conservatives are sometimes championed by the alt-right – conservatives who oppose high levels of immigration from cultures that have no history of Judeo-Christian values, for example, are likely to be cheered by the alt-right. So are conservatives who see jihadism as a serious threat to Western civilization. But the race-centric, big government approach of the alt-right distinguishes it from traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism, as I’ve written before, rests on the basis of God-given rights, personal responsibility, and limited government; traditional conservatism believes in e pluribus unum. Alt-right philosophy forcibly rejects virtually all of this: God-given rights accrue thanks to race-based European culture, personal responsibility only works when ethnoculture remains monochromatic (hence the alt-right’s rejection of personal economic responsibility when it comes to free trade), and limited government must be trashed in order to provide for the tribe. E pluribus unum is a fancy fiction, in the alt-right philosophy.
> 
> It’s crucial to understand the alt-right because of its newfound impact under Donald Trump. There’s a reason Trump has gone soft on anti-Semitic attacks on his journalistic opponents – as alt-righters say, he’s fond of dog whistling to them. There’s a reason alt-righters including racists like David Duke celebrate his ascendance and view it as the crowning moment for the alt-right movement. Trump may not be alt-right, but he’s certainly winking at them, and they know it.
> 
> Their philosophy, however, is totally foreign to conservatism. It supposedly champions Western civilization, but in pretending to do so, it tears away at its most foundational principles in favor of a white tribalism that provides an ugly counterpart to the left’s racial divisiveness.


------------------------------

I've placed as much evidence as I can on this *but ultimately it's up to you how you take it.* 

*I would also pay special attention to what Boston ANTIFA themselves have tweeted out. That is them in their own words, with no chance of them being taken out of context.*

What I will say undoubtedly is that if you are a liberal who believes in the fundamental values of Western Democracy then these guys are not your friends, they are not on your side and have made it perfectly clear that they see you as the enemy too.

Ultimately ANTIFA represent the worst in political activism, using violence to push a message instead of dialogue and reason. They have not only attacked the alt right but also police and innocent bystanders, activists who are only there to promote free speech and Trump supporters who are NOT associated with white identitarians.

This may piss off some people here but I'm going to say this anyway: *It is not okay to punch people whom you disagree with personally.* And yes, this includes those who find most abhorrent like White Nationalists or Neo Nazis.

*Yes, that means it is NOT OKAY to punch Nazis.*

Everybody, and I mean everybody has the right to peaceful assembly without fear of being attacked. That is what a supposedly peaceful western democracy based not on violent action but on dialogue and reason is supposed to stand for. It's a shame that some people in the public square with these protests have lost sight of that.

Not only that it's ultimately counter productive, if you use violence then you immediately lose the argument, because you haven't rebutted any of the points made. Worst of all, you give white identitarian groups the opportunity to play victimhood and gain sympathy, thus attracting even more followers. Which is about the last thing you want.

If everyone wants this cultural war to stop, we have to preach dialogue and reason instead of violence. Otherwise this will continue to snowball.

I'd like to thank the likes of @Dr. Middy especially who seems to have taken an objective and open minded approach .


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Dr. Middy said:


> The travel ban was also something I wasn't a fan of as well, mostly because I don't like the issue of a blanket ban where nobody from said countries are allowed into the US, no matter the circumstance. I would lessen their overall immigration however, and drastically if not cut the Syrian Refugee influx as well until a better solution as to how to combat possible terrorism is created. We've already seen over the past year how countries like England, Germany, and France have just allowed wide open borders and have had tens of thousands of refugees flooding the country, with a good amount refusing to assimilate into those respective countries.


*And this is what Obama was trying to do when he created the Visa Waiver Program. He didn't outright ban immigrants from those countries; he just made sure the people who could travel freely to American before, now needed VISAs to do it. There's nothing racist about that, and it accomplishes the same goal of national security.*



> Meanwhile, while I hate to make assumptions because there are innocent people among them who simply just wanted to escape the war in Syria, there's been a lot of terrorism and terrorism ideas that have migrated their way into these countries, completely unchecked. It scares me how often we hear about these attacks now, and we have a decent amount of these people now in these countries, god knows where, as a result.


*Exactly! Generally speaking, the refugees are trying to come here to AVOID the bad people in their respective countries. The bad people aren't leaving because they're too busy terrorizing the citizens with an iron fist.*



> The wall being promised by Mexico I thought was a complete farce when I first heard it (and I was against the idea of building a giant wall through any environmental area on the border). However, his general attitude on illegal immigration I think actually has been one of the better things he's done, as he's almost built an invisible wall with how they are cracking down on illegals now, and it has resulted in a general decrease in illegal immigration.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-illegal-immigration-down-61-percent-ele/
> 
> If he still wants to wall, I'd rather him work on continuing to crack down on illegal immigration, particularly sanctuary cities, and maybe do some analyzing on specific high traffic areas for illegals and focus on those first.


*Yes, his shitty attitude towards immigrants scares them from coming in because they're afraid of what might happen to them, given the racist beliefs of the largest amount of his constituency. I'm not going to applaud him for something slightly positive that came by proxy of being a racist scumbag.*



> As for the White Supremacy thing, I don't know why he didn't just denounce ALL violence from ANY side right from the get go. It felt like he danced a bit around calling out those violence White Nationalists and White Supremacists, but in reality the message he should give towards this thing should always be a zero-tolerance for any violent political views, regardless of side. That was his mistake for not doing that from the beginning, and he should have done that.


(Y)





> Why do we have to make a blanket statement on everything he does and automatically label it as intolerant and stupid? Sorry, even though I don't like him as a person and I'm not crazy about him as are president, I don't hate everything he's done since he's stepped in office. If you want to, I'm not going to start arguing with you about it, just do what you please on that front.


*Because it is :draper2. I get your point about decreasing illegal immigration, but it's his malicious intent and reasoning that bothers me, moreso than the act of reducing federal expenditures on undocumented immigrants.*




> I don't give a shit if assholes attack me, no matter how nice I end up being. I have an opinion, and if people don't like it and want to attack me for it, they can do as they please. But I'm not one to be overly blunt, it's just my own personality trait I've always had, just like you'd rather be more blunt with your opinions.


*I can respect that as well.*



> TBF, I can't imagine you as being overly polite now that I think about it. It would be really weird :lol I think I'm used to you being the polarizing dude you are, regardless if I agree with you or not.


*You would've had a good laugh back in the day. I got yelled at by The Shield girls for wanting to discuss Roman Reigns' actual wrestling ability and career, rather than jacking off to Shield ships all day :lol.*


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

L-DOPA said:


> Not only that it's ultimately counter productive, if you use violence then you immediately lose the argument, because you haven't rebutted any of the points made. Worst of all, you give white identitarian groups the opportunity to play victimhood and gain sympathy, thus attracting even more followers. Which is about the last thing you want.
> 
> If everyone wants this cultural war to stop, we have to preach dialogue and reason instead of violence. Otherwise this will continue to snowball.
> 
> I'd like to thank the likes of @Dr. Middy especially who seems to have taken an objective and open minded approach .


*Alright, cool. If you're such an advocate of non-violent, peaceful protest, then why aren't you showing the side of the left that ONLY does non-violent, peaceful protests? Why aren't you posting articles like these to promote positivity?* http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/us/boston-counterprotest-crowd-video-trnd/index.html



> (CNN)A self-described "free speech" rally on Saturday in downtown Boston was dwarfed by thousands of counterprotesters opposed to the organizers' right-wing views.
> Organizers of the "Boston Free Speech Coalition Rally" expected about 100 people to attend, according to a permit they obtained for the event. A Facebook page for the rally suggested more than 300 people would show up. However, aerial photos and videos show a much smaller number of demonstrators huddled in a gazebo on Boston Common, flanked by counterprotesters on all sides.
> 
> A coalition of mostly left-leaning groups and activists, including the Black Lives Matter movement, organized the counterprotest.
> The actions came one week after white nationalists and other right-wing groups clashed with counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the city's plan to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a city park. One woman was killed and many others injured after a white nationalist allegedly rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters.
> 
> Organizers of Saturday's rally described themselves as a coalition of "libertarians, conservatives, traditionalists, classical liberals, (Donald) Trump supporters or anyone else who enjoys their right to free speech." They also sought to distance themselves from the violence in Charlottesville.
> "We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence," said a statement on the rally's Facebook page.
> The Anti-Defamation League said the Boston rally, as planned, was not a white supremacist event, but its organizers are "in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others."
> Counterprotesters on Saturday made clear to the organizers that their views were not welcome in Boston.
> "The extreme difference of the size of the two groups is a statement in itself," Christopher Marino, who shot a video overlooking Boston Common, told CNN.
> In another video, counterprotesters can be heard chanting "shame."
> 
> Rally organizers shared a photo showing the "people who made it through security" assembled in the park gazebo. Videos shared earlier in the day on social media showed counterdemonstrators jeering at rally goers as they made their way to the event.
> There were no major incidents reported Saturday in Boston, *but police said 33 were arrested -- mostly for disorderly conduct and assaults on police officers. (Yes, "FAKE NEWS" CNN acknowledged the bad eggs too.)*
> 
> Counterprotesters dwarf controversial rally in Boston
> 
> (CNN)A self-described "free speech" rally on Saturday in downtown Boston was dwarfed by thousands of counterprotesters opposed to the organizers' right-wing views.
> Organizers of the "Boston Free Speech Coalition Rally" expected about 100 people to attend, according to a permit they obtained for the event. A Facebook page for the rally suggested more than 300 people would show up. However, aerial photos and videos show a much smaller number of demonstrators huddled in a gazebo on Boston Common, flanked by counterprotesters on all sides.
> A coalition of mostly left-leaning groups and activists, including the Black Lives Matter movement, organized the counterprotest.
> The actions came one week after white nationalists and other right-wing groups clashed with counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the city's plan to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a city park. One woman was killed and many others injured after a white nationalist allegedly rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters.
> 
> Organizers of Saturday's rally described themselves as a coalition of "libertarians, conservatives, traditionalists, classical liberals, (Donald) Trump supporters or anyone else who enjoys their right to free speech." They also sought to distance themselves from the violence in Charlottesville.
> "We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence," said a statement on the rally's Facebook page.
> The Anti-Defamation League said the Boston rally, as planned, was not a white supremacist event, but its organizers are "in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others."
> Counterprotesters on Saturday made clear to the organizers that their views were not welcome in Boston.
> "The extreme difference of the size of the two groups is a statement in itself," Christopher Marino, who shot a video overlooking Boston Common, told CNN.
> In another video, counterprotesters can be heard chanting "shame."
> Rally organizers shared a photo showing the "people who made it through security" assembled in the park gazebo. Videos shared earlier in the day on social media showed counterdemonstrators jeering at rally goers as they made their way to the event.
> There were no major incidents reported Saturday in Boston, but police said 33 were arrested -- mostly for disorderly conduct and assaults on police officers.
> Commenting on the day's competing rallies, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said, "It's clear today that Boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate."
> 
> CNN's Ray Sanchez contributed to this report.


*
It seems to me that your agenda is to be a right wing apologist and talk around the horrible shit they're doing by pointing at the extremists on the left. I've openly said many times that I don't give a fuck if a Nazi gets punched, but I'm not pretending otherwise. If you want more positivity to be shared in the thread, then act like it. Don't try to paint the left as "bad guys too." Not saying you, but to conservatives in general: don't imply that Black Lives Matter is out here looting, robbing, and beating people with weapons, when the leader and its true core heavily advocate for peaceful protest.*


----------



## DOPA

Legit BOSS said:


> *Alright, cool. If you're such an advocate of non-violent, peaceful protest, then why aren't you showing the side of the left that ONLY does non-violent, peaceful protests? Why aren't you posting articles like these to promote positivity?*


I already acknowledged it in my post that the majority of the protestors were peaceful. To quote myself:



L-DOPA said:


> It must be said like in the DailyWire that the majority of the counter protestors to the free speech rally were *peaceful*, as were those who attended for the rally. So thankfully, we didn't see the chaos that ensued at Charlottesville


The reason why I focused on the violent aspects is because of the posters I have seen who are not taking into account the violent actions that have been caused by ANTIFA, both at Charlottesville and in the months that have transpired before.

Ultimately, I believe if we want a *peaceful* resolution to this instead of what has been transpiring then we have to understand what is ultimately going on. *Putting aside the rhetoric or what you think of the views of both groups*, the fact is both of them are fringe collectivist groups that have been thrusted into the spotlight because of the violence they have caused towards each other and to innocent people. They should both be denounced.

Unfortunately I've seen too many instances where one has been blamed more than the other, when both should be accounted for.

That being said, believe me: I'm happy that the majority of the protestors from both sides were peaceful. The last thing we need is a clusterfuck like Charlottesville.






Legit BOSS said:


> *
> It seems to me that your agenda is to be a right wing apologist and talk around the horrible shit they're doing by pointing at the extremists on the left. I've openly said many times that I don't give a fuck if a Nazi gets punched, but I'm not pretending otherwise. If you want more positivity to be shared in the thread, then act like it. Don't try to paint the left as "bad guys too." *



You're very quick to judge people aren't you? :lol.

I think I've explained above why I posted what you quoted in general. It seems as though I can't persuade you that punching Nazis is the wrong way to go about things, so we'll agree to disagree as there's no point in arguing about it.

I won't get into BLM because I was addressing ANTIFA and that was my main concern regarding the post.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

L-DOPA said:


> I already acknowledged it in my post that the majority of the protestors were peaceful. To quote myself:
> 
> 
> The reason why I focused on the violent aspects is because of the posters I have seen who are not taking into account the violent actions that have been caused by ANTIFA, both at Charlottesville and in the months that have transpired before.


*That's valid, though it's a footnote in a stream of negativity.*



> Ultimately, I believe if we want a *peaceful* resolution to this instead of what has been transpiring then we have to understand what is ultimately going on. *Putting aside the rhetoric or what you think of the views of both groups*, the fact is both of them are fringe collectivist groups that have been thrusted into the spotlight because of the violence they have caused towards each other and to innocent people. They should both be denounced.


*Sure, that's fine.*



> Unfortunately I've seen too many instances where one has been blamed more than the other, when both should be accounted for.
> 
> That being said, believe me: I'm happy that the majority of the protestors from both sides were peaceful. The last thing we need is a clusterfuck like Charlottesville.


*We're on the same page then (Y).*





> You're very quick to judge people aren't you? :lol.
> 
> I think I've explained above why I posted what you quoted in general. It seems as though I can't persuade you that punching Nazis is the wrong way to go about things, so we'll agree to disagree as there's no point in arguing about it.


*
Yeah, and I'm just telling you what it looks like.*



> I won't get into BLM because I was addressing ANTIFA and that was my main concern regarding the post.


*
I actually would like to get into BLM discussion because they're incredibly misrepresented in this thread as a violent group, so please, share your thoughts on the matter.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Can we all agree that ANTIFA are pretty much what the ATL right is but on the left.

ANTIFA is pretty much ALT Left.

But lets stop with the BS that ANTIFA are liberals or progressives like I see some people infer.

ANTIFA is just as bad as the Alt right. And both are violent


----------



## Vic Capri

> This may piss off some people here but I'm going to say this anyway: It is not okay to punch people whom you disagree with personally. And yes, this includes those who find most abhorrent like White Nationalists or Neo Nazis.
> 
> Yes, that means it is NOT OKAY to punch Nazis.


Funny how people believe in Freedom Of Speech until it disagrees with them.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Funny how people believe in Freedom Of Speech until it disagrees with them.
> 
> - Vic


You keep posting this, what exactly does that mean?

Free speech also allows you to protest (peacefully) what others free speech, you do understand that right


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> No, because again, Obama's law WAS NOT A TRAVEL BAN. The link flat out states it in the FAQ. Trump wanted to BAN those countries. Obama's law just required countries to get VISAs that previously didn't need them for enhanced homeland security. They're not at all the same.*
> 
> *Except it isn't the same. You're comparing two different pieces of legislature and saying they're the same because the same countries are listed. Are age of consent laws and marijuana laws the same pieces of legislature if the same states in each piece of legislature have the same laws? No, so this is no different.*
> 
> 
> *
> I said Obama's act wasn't an outright Muslim ban. Trump's failed travel ban was intended to be a Muslim ban. I can see how that's unclear since it wasn't expressly written.*


Let's be clear here, it's not just a "ban", it's a "temporary ban". What was the purpose for it given? Does it state that Muslims can't enter the country because their Muslim, or is their a particular reason for it? If I recall correctly, it had something to do with terrorism, and those countries being safe-havens for terrorist cells. Isn't that correct?


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Can we all agree that ANTIFA are pretty much what the ATL right is but on the left.
> 
> ANTIFA is pretty much ALT Left.
> 
> But lets stop with the BS that ANTIFA are liberals or progressives like I see some people infer.
> 
> ANTIFA is just as bad as the Alt right. And both are violent


Agreed, except Antifa don't run people down in cars, thats the alt right and muslims. Well, they don't yet...


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Let's be clear here, it's not just a "ban", it's a "temporary ban". What was the purpose for it given? Does it state that Muslims can't enter the country because their Muslim, or is their a particular reason for it? If I recall correctly, it had something to do with terrorism, and those countries being safe-havens for terrorist cells. Isn't that correct?


*There was increased awareness of terrorism in those locations, therefore, Obama required VISAS to increase homeland security. Nothing about that is racist. Trump accusing ALL Muslims of terrorism and labeling EVERYONE from those countries as "bad guys" IS racist.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Let's be clear here, it's not just a "ban", it's a "temporary ban". What was the purpose for it given? Does it state that Muslims can't enter the country because their Muslim, or is their a particular reason for it? If I recall correctly, it had something to do with terrorism, and those countries being safe-havens for terrorist cells. Isn't that correct?


Its funny since ZERO fatal terrorist attacks by refugees from those countries on Trump's ban list have taken place in the US in decades but he didn't put the most dangerous countries on the list like Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Egypt. And why is that you ask? Because Trump does big business in those countries. It has nothing to do with keeping Americans safe. If it really did that those three countries would be on the list. And people like you fall for Trump's rhetoric.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Please quote me where I ever said Trump worked with Russia to rig the election since I NEVER said that even though people like you keep claiming I did even though on a number of occasions I said I never said that.
> 
> I have always said Trump's ties to Russia will have an effect on what favors he does for them while he is president.
> 
> *so go quote me where I said Trump worked with Russia to rig the election*
> 
> I have also posted Trump's ties to Russia before and I am not going over that again, I've done it at least three times already.
> 
> But here is a newer uncover tie Trump has to teh Russia Mafia
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/143...ses-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
> 
> If you want more here ya go
> 
> http://fortune.com/2017/05/17/donald-trump-russia-2/
> 
> If you have to out of your way to ignore the evidence of the russia ties Trump has
> 
> My favorite is the one by Trumps lawyer when he said Trump has no russian income or debt but with some exceptions lol
> 
> Lets not also forget about Eric Trump boasting about how they have access to hundreds of millions of dollars in russian money not to mention how Donald Jr said russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot their assets.


So, let me get this straight, the evidence your citing right now is a "How to launder money through Trump tower", which gives no evidence of such a thing, just suspicions. It's acceptable to be suspicious, as I always am, but to conclude something, without evidence, is a mistake. Until it is shown that Trump sold apartments to Russians, for the purpose of laundering money, and knew about it, then it's just an accusation. When did accusations start becoming facts? You consistently post articles that prove what you believe and they are consistently devoid of facts. 

What the article proposes is either Trump is a patsy, or he's a man who wants to make money, and isn't disinclined to do so in many different ways. The illegality of this is entirely circumspect.

Direct quotes from the article:



> no one has documented that Trump was even aware of any suspicious entanglements in his far-flung businesses, let alone that he was directly compromised by the Russian mafia or the corrupt oligarchs who are closely allied with the Kremlin. *So far, when it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, there is no smoking gun.*





> *It’s entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters, with his casinos and condos provi*ding easy pass-throughs for their illicit riches. *At the very least, with his constant need for new infusions of cash and his well-documented troubles with creditors, Trump made an easy “mark”* for anyone looking to launder money.


No, you never did anything to further push the "Trump/Russia collusion" narrative...

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2135145-t-r-u-m-p-27.html#post66444457

And, I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but I will again. I don't ignore anything, I just don't put much stock in accusations and assumptions. In this country it is innocent until proven guilty. Accusations and assumptions are not proof, never have been, so I won't ever decide who a person is based on either. Does Trump have a connection with Russia? No doubt, he does. I just fail to see how any of those ties have anything to do with him being President and it effecting his ability to do the job. So far, nothing has been shown that it has had an effect. Didn't Trump just recently sign a bill pushing further sanctions on Russia? Wasn't the narrative that the Trump administration would ease sanctions? Yet, he's furthered sanctions. That's a really weird thing to do, for a guy who's supposedly has ties with the Russian government.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, let me get this straight, the evidence your citing right now is a "How to launder money through Trump tower", which gives no evidence of such a thing, just suspicions. It's acceptable to be suspicious, as I always am, but to conclude something, without evidence, is a mistake. Until it is shown that Trump sold apartments to Russians, for the purpose of laundering money, and knew about it, then it's just an accusation. When did accusations start becoming facts? You consistently post articles that prove what you believe and they are consistently devoid of facts.
> 
> What the article proposes is either Trump is a patsy, or he's a man who wants to make money, and isn't disinclined to do so in many different ways. The illegality of this is entirely circumspect.
> 
> Direct quotes from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you never did anything to further push the "Trump/Russia collusion" narrative...
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2135145-t-r-u-m-p-27.html#post66444457
> 
> And, I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but I will again. I don't ignore anything, I just don't put much stock in accusations and assumptions. In this country it is innocent until proven guilty. Accusations and assumptions are not proof, never have been, so I won't ever decide who a person is based on either. Does Trump have a connection with Russia? No doubt, he does. I just fail to see how any of those ties have anything to do with him being President and it effecting his ability to do the job. So far, nothing has been shown that it has had an effect. Didn't Trump just recently sign a bill pushing further sanctions on Russia? Wasn't the narrative that the Trump administration would ease sanctions? Yet, he's furthered sanctions. That's a really weird thing to do, for a guy who's supposedly has ties with the Russian government.


Where did I say that Russa helped Trump rig the election?

The post you quoted is a post that has links to articles.

So you still have not quoted me saying Trump had Russia rig the election for him.

That is the best you can do is a post of mine with articles.

I am still waiting for you to quote ME saying that.

I have always said Trump has ties to Russia which he does, and that could effect how he deals with Russia, anyone denying that is just ignorant.

And here is a quote from me a few posts after the one you linked




birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at all the spinning Trump supporters are doing on here.
> 
> You guys are such a joke.
> 
> When it comes to Manafort its not speculation its a fact that he worked to aid Putin.
> 
> And you know Manafort the guy who helped run Trumps campaign in 19 states
> 
> 
> And lets not forget how people like Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.
> 
> Then there is Sessions lying as well.
> 
> but yeah keep ignoring the evidence of Trump and his crew ties to Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> As more and more comes out,Trump gets closer and closer to being impeached.
> 
> the more info that comes come the more it shows Trump and his crew have ties to Russia.



My narriative has always been Trump has ties to Russia and you and the Trump supportes kept denying it and now all the ties are being proven as each day passes.

It just pisses you and the other Trump supporters I am right.

His own two idiot sons even admitted it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *There was increased awareness of terrorism in those locations, therefore, Obama required VISAS to increase homeland security. Nothing about that is racist. Trump accusing ALL Muslims of terrorism and labeling EVERYONE from those countries as "bad guys" IS racist.*


So, when you read the term "bad guys" you didn't think that he was referring to terrorists and not all Muslims, and that the only way to ensure that zero terrorists enter the country is to do a blanket ban until better procedures are in place? That never entered your mind as a possibility?

I think it is irresponsible to put words in someone's mouth. Unless you can find a quote where he said all Muslims are bad guys, then you're just projecting what you think he means. After all, aren't you the same person that got bent out of shape when people said your use of the term "people of color" was wrong. You defended it, citing your reasoning for using the term, but you're denying Trump's reasoning for the term "bad guys". Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Where did I say that Russa helped Trump rig the election?
> 
> *The post you quoted is a post that has links to articles.
> *
> *So you still have not quoted me saying Trump had Russia rig the election for him.*
> 
> That is the best you can do is a post of mine with articles.
> 
> I am still waiting for you to quote ME saying that.
> 
> I have always said Trump has ties to Russia which he does, and that could effect how he deals with Russia, anyone denying that is just ignorant.


That you pasted to this board. Why would you do such a thing if you didn't think they had any merit?

I'm still looking. I gotta dig through this thread and the other Trump thread, not as easy as it sounds. If I don't find anything, I'll walk back my statement.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> My narriative has always been Trump has ties to Russia and you and the Trump supportes kept denying it and now all the ties are being proven as each day passes.


And what does Trump signing new sanctions against Russia, without easing any of the other sanctions already in place, do for this narrative you've been pushing for months now?


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

I wish the media would acknowledge that, for his faults, Trump was right about the core issue of the Confederate statues being removed - namely that, to leftist militants, it will be perceived as a sign of weakness and lead to more demands being made.

The collective of anarchists, Trotskyites, and other fringe groups have historically been shown to repeatedly try to engineer history by destroying symbols of the past. And this isn't me being paranoid, it goes back to the French Revolution, when the statues of old Kings were pulled down from Note Dame cathedral and literally used as toilets for the mob.

If you put such people against out-and-out Nazis, I will always support them. But it cannot be ignored that they have bigger goals than just stomping some heads. Namely, that they actively want to purge American culture of everything they judge to be immoral. Against such people, you can't blink and you can't relent, because every concession will just make then hungrier.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And what does Trump signing new sanctions against Russia, without easing any of the other sanctions already in place, do for this narrative you've been pushing for months now?


Trump wants to but congress won't let him.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/28/16055630/congress-trump-russia-sanctions-veto

Trump stands were tied.





TheNightmanCometh said:


> That you pasted to this board. Why would you do such a thing if you didn't think they had any merit?
> 
> I'm still looking. I gotta dig through this thread and the other Trump thread, not as easy as it sounds. If I don't find anything, I'll walk back my statement.


Keep digging, you will never find a quote of me saying Trump had Russia rig the election because I never said that.

I said Trump has ties to russia and people like you turn that into oh I am saying Russia hacked the election. When you dig you will even find a quote by me saying Russia probably did not hack the election, all the did was use propaganda to help Trump win but both sides use propaganda. 

I am sure you have already seen that quote and ignored it because it does not fit your narrative.

So are you going to admit that Trump and his admin (especially the ones who were fired or quit) have ties to Russia?


----------



## virus21

Posted this in the PCGM thread, but it seems more relevant here at the moment


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/848741130040623106


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, when you read the term "bad guys" you didn't think that he was referring to terrorists and not all Muslims, and that the only way to ensure that zero terrorists enter the country is to do a blanket ban until better procedures are in place? That never entered your mind as a possibility?


*No, because this president has set a precedent for his attitude towards Muslims.*



> I think it is irresponsible to put words in someone's mouth. Unless you can find a quote where he said all Muslims are bad guys, then you're just projecting what you think he means. After all, aren't you the same person that got bent out of shape when people said your use of the term "people of color" was wrong. You defended it, citing your reasoning for using the term, but you're denying Trump's reasoning for the term "bad guys". Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?


*Nope, not at all:* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...5a3617c767b_story.html?utm_term=.92dc190bfaa1




> But there’s no such hesitations from Trump when it comes to Muslims. This is the president, after all, who publicly said, “I think Islam hates us.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...and-muslims/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.544f9911f398



> March 30, 2011: For years, Trump publicly questioned then-President Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and place of birth. As he debated running for president in the 2012 election, Trump said in a radio interview: “He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me — and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be — that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way.” (Obama is a Christian, and state records show he was born in Hawaii.)
> 
> Sept. 17, 2015: At a campaign town hall in New Hampshire, a man in the audience shouted out: “We have a problem in this country; it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.” The man mentioned Muslim “training camps” and asked: “When can we get rid of them?” Trump responded: “We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”
> 
> Sept. 20, 2015: On NBC News, Trump was asked if he would be comfortable with a Muslim as president; he responded: “I can say that, you know, it's something that at some point could happen. We will see. I mean, you know, it's something that could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don't know if we have to address it right now, but I think it is certainly something that could happen.”
> 
> Sept. 30, 2015: At a New Hampshire rally, Trump pledged to kick all Syrian refugees — most of whom are Muslim — out of the country, as they might be a secret army. “They could be ISIS, I don't know. This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe,” he said. In an interview that aired later, Trump said: “This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts.”
> 
> [Inside Donald Trump’s strategic decision to target Muslims]
> 
> Oct. 21, 2015: On Fox Business, Trump says he would “certainly look at” the idea of closing mosques in the United States.
> 
> Nov. 16, 2015: Following a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump said on MSNBC that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques. “I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred — the absolute hatred — is coming from these areas,” he said.
> 
> Nov. 20, 2015: In comments to Yahoo and NBC News, Trump seemed open to the idea of creating a database of all Muslims in the United States. Later, he and his aides would not rule out the idea.
> 
> Nov. 21, 2015: At a rally in Alabama, Trump said that on Sept. 11 he “watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”
> 
> Nov. 22, 2015: On ABC News, Trump doubled down on his comment and added: “It was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.” (While there were some reports of celebrations overseas, extensive examination of news clips turn up no such celebrations in New Jersey.)
> 
> [Why Donald Trump might have thought he saw people cheering on 9/11]
> 
> Nov. 30, 2015: On MSNBC, a reporter asked Trump if he thinks Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or if it is an inherently violent religion. Trump responded: “Well, all I can say … there’s something going on. You know, there's something definitely going on. I don't know that that question can be answered.” He also said: “We are not loved by many Muslims.”
> 
> Dec. 3, 2015: The morning after Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called into Fox News and said: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.” (Killing the relatives of suspected terrorists is forbidden by international law.) Later, in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump criticized Obama for not using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” and commented: “There's something going on with him that we don't know about.”
> 
> [What does ‘radical Islam’ actually mean?]
> 
> Dec. 6, 2015: On CBS News, Trump said: “If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something.” Trump also said he didn’t believe the sister of one of the San Bernardino shooters who said she was crestfallen for the victims, saying: “I would go after a lot of people, and I would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.”
> 
> *Dec. 7, 2015: Trump's campaign issued a statement saying: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump read this statement aloud at a rally in South Carolina.*
> 
> [Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric plays well with fans while horrifying others]
> 
> Dec. 8, 2015: On CNN, Trump quoted a widely debunked poll by an anti-Islam activist organization that claimed that a quarter of the Muslims living in the United States agreed that violence against Americans is justified as part of the global jihad. “We have people out there that want to do great destruction to our country, whether it's 25 percent or 10 percent or 5 percent, it's too much,” Trump said.
> 
> Dec. 13, 2015: On Fox News, Trump was asked if his ban would apply to a Canadian businessman who is a Muslim. Trump responded: “There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very sick.”
> 
> Jan. 12, 2016: At a rally in Iowa, Trump shared his suspicions about Syrian refugees and then read the lyrics to Al Wilson’s 1968 song “The Snake,” the story of a “tender woman” who nursed a sickly snake back to health but then was attacked by the snake. Trump often read these lyrics at rallies.
> 
> Feb. 3, 2016: Trump criticized Obama for visiting a mosque in Baltimore and said on Fox News: “Maybe he feels comfortable there … There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” (It was Obama's first visit to a mosque during his presidency, and it was made in an effort to encourage religious tolerance in light of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.)
> 
> Feb. 20, 2016: After Obama skipped the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump tweeted: “I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!” (Obama did pay his respects when Scalia's body lay in repose in the Supreme Court.) That night at a rally in South Carolina, Trump told an apocryphal tale that he would return to repeatedly about U.S. Gen. John J. Pershing fighting Muslim insurgents in the Philippines in the early 1900s and killing a large group of insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood.
> 
> March 9, 2016: On CNN, Trump said: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
> 
> [How President Trump is -- and is not -- changing what it means to be American]
> 
> March 22, 2016: Soon after three suicide bombings in Brussels tied to a group of French and Belgian Muslims, Trump told Fox Business: “We're having problems with the Muslims, and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” Trump called for surveillance of mosques in the United States, saying: “You have to deal with the mosques, whether we like it or not, I mean, you know, these attacks aren't coming out of — they're not done by Swedish people.”
> 
> On NBC News, Trump added: “This all happened because, frankly, there’s no assimilation. They are not assimilating . . . They want to go by sharia law. They want sharia law. They don’t want the laws that we have. They want sharia law.”
> 
> March 23, 2016: In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Trump said that Muslims “have to respect us. They do not respect us at all. And frankly, they don't respect a lot of the things that are happening throughout not only our country, but they don't respect other things.”
> 
> March 29, 2016: During a town hall in Wisconsin, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Trump: “Do you trust Muslims in America?” Trump responded: “Do I what?” Cooper again asked: “Trust Muslims in America?” Trump responded: “Many of them I do. Many of them I do, and some, I guess, we don't. Some, I guess, we don't. We have a problem, and we can try and be very politically correct and pretend we don't have a problem, but, Anderson, we have a major, major problem. This is, in a sense, this is a war.”
> 
> May 20, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims: “They're going to have to turn in the people that are bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft.”
> 
> June 13, 2016: The day after the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Trump declared in a speech in New Hampshire that “radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.” He criticized his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, for refusing to use the term “radical Islam” and for speaking positively of Islam. “Hillary Clinton's catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss. It's deadly — totally deadly,” Trump said. Later he added: “I want every American to succeed, including Muslims — but the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what's going on.”
> 
> June 14, 2016: At a rally in North Carolina, Trump noted that the Orlando shooter’s parents are Muslim Americans who immigrated from Afghanistan. “The children of Muslim American parents, they’re responsible for a growing number for whatever reason a growing number of terrorist attacks,” he said, adding that immigration from Afghanistan has increased five-fold. “… Every year we bring in more than 100,000 lifetime immigrants from the Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. A number of these immigrants have hostile attitudes.”
> 
> [Trump woos women and minorities by pitting one group against another]
> 
> June 15, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims who immigrate to the United States: “Assimilation has been very hard. It's almost — I won't say nonexistent, but it gets to be pretty close. And I'm talking about second and third generation. They come — they don't — for some reason, there's no real assimilation.”
> 
> July 21, 2016: In accepting the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Trump focused heavily on “brutal Islamic terrorism” and promised: “I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”
> 
> July 24, 2016: On NBC News, Trump defended his proposal for a Muslim ban, despite some of his aides insisting he had rolled it back. “People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. ‘Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim,’ " Trump said. "… But just remember this: Our Constitution is great, but it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious — you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently. Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that?”
> 
> Aug. 11, 2016: At a meeting of evangelical leaders in Orlando, Trump said: “If you were a Christian in Syria, it was virtually impossible to come into the United States. If you were a Muslim from Syria, it was one of the easier countries to be able to find your way into the United States. Think of that. Just think of what that means.”
> 
> Aug. 18, 2016: During a rally in North Carolina, Trump said that “all applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who doesn't share our values and love our people.”
> 
> Sept. 19, 2016: At a rally in Florida, Trump reacted to explosions over the weekend in New York and New Jersey and said: “There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in Minnesota and New York City and in New Jersey. These attacks and many others were made possible because of our extremely open immigration system, which fails to properly vet and screen the individuals and families coming into our country. Got to be careful.”
> 
> Jan. 27, 2017: Within a week of becoming president, Trump signed an executive order blocking Syrian refugees and banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. This order goes into effect immediately, prompting mass chaos at airports, protests and legal challenges. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a close adviser to the president, later said on Fox News: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'”
> 
> Feb. 28, 2017: Despite urging from some of his Cabinet members, Trump continues to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” including in a speech to a joint session of Congress.
> 
> March 6, 2017: Trump issues a new travel ban for citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, which is also challenged in the courts.
> 
> April 29, 2017: At a rally celebrating his 100th day in office, Trump once again dramatically read “The Snake.”
> 
> May 17, 2017: At a commencement ceremony, Trump previewed his upcoming overseas trip and said: “I'll speak with Muslim leaders and challenge them to fight hatred and extremism and embrace a peaceful future for their faith. And they're looking very much forward to hearing what we, as your representative, we have to say. We have to stop radical Islamic terrorism.”


*You asked for one quote-I gave you 32, and I'm not even done yet.*



> He preemptively, and incorrectly, blamed a Manila shooting on Muslim terrorism and invented a Muslim terror attack in Sweden that never happened. He falls over himself rushing to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” unlike President Barack Obama, whom he chided for being weak. After the San Bernardino attack, he didn’t praise “very fine” Muslims who have lived in America for over 400 years, but instead made a call for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims from entering the country. After last year’s Orlando shooting, he said that the federal government should begin surveilling mosques. As president-elect he flew to Ohio in December to visit the victims of a Muslim man, allegedly inspired by the Islamic State, who rammed his car into a crowd, injuring 11. Nearly a week after Charlottesville, Trump has yet to visit the family of Heather Heyer. In fact, he was unable to even name her in his Tuesday press conference.
> 
> Also, Trump is unable to name this weekend’s murder an act of domestic terrorism. Even Attorney General Jeff Sessions, criticized by civil rights groups throughout his career, was able to call it an act of terrorism. Instead, Trump is still waiting to see, because, as he mentioned in the news conference, “When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts.” Which explains his promotion of birtherism, or tweeting that Obama surveilled Trump Tower, or making up a video of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks, or pushing the myth that 3 million to 5 million immigrants voted illegally for Hillary Clinton.


*It's over dude. Like I said, there's no justification for this blatant racism. *


----------



## birthday_massacre

ForYourOwnGood said:


> I wish the media would acknowledge that, for his faults, Trump was right about the core issue of the Confederate statues being removed - namely that, to leftist militants, it will be perceived as a sign of weakness and lead to more demands being made.
> 
> The collective of anarchists, Trotskyites, and other fringe groups have historically been shown to repeatedly try to engineer history by destroying symbols of the past. And this isn't me being paranoid, it goes back to the French Revolution, when the statues of old Kings were pulled down from Note Dame cathedral and literally used as toilets for the mob.
> 
> If you put such people against out-and-out Nazis, I will always support them. But it cannot be ignored that they have bigger goals than just stomping some heads. Namely, that they actively want to purge American culture of everything they judge to be immoral. Against such people, you can't blink and you can't relent, because every concession will just make then hungrier.


Taking down racist Confederate statues is not purging American history, it's not like they throw those away most of them go to museums where they belong or go to some private property that is not in front of a state house or court house.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

birthday_massacre said:


> Taking down racist Confederate statues is not purging American history, it's not like they throw those away most of them go to museums where they belong or go to some private property that is not in front of a state house or court house.


I don't care about the Confederate statues. What I am worried about is emboldening leftist iconoclasts who will see the removal of Confederate statues and then turn their attention to monuments of men like Washington and Lincoln - as Washington owned slaves and Lincoln was a segregationist.
You know as well as I do that is their ultimate aim. Can you see the problem with it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

ForYourOwnGood said:


> I don't care about the Confederate statues. What I am worried about is emboldening leftist iconoclasts who will see the removal of Confederate statues and then turn their attention to monuments of men like Washington and Lincoln - as Washington owned slaves and Lincoln was a segregationist.
> You know as well as I do that is their ultimate aim. Can you see the problem with it?


The Confederacy lost they shouldn't have monuments celebrating them especially because they were traitors. Washington and Lincoln were not traitors and did not fight to succeed from the nation.

You act like the only reason why the Confederate statues are being taken down because they owned slaves that is not even close to being the reason. 

There is no evidence taking down Washington and Lincoln statues and that being their ultimate aim, that is just fear mongering.

You may have a few idiots wanting that but don't act like that is a leftist thing.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

birthday_massacre said:


> The Confederacy lost they shouldn't have monuments celebrating them especially because they were traitors. Washington and Lincoln were not traitors and did not fight to succeed from the nation.
> 
> You act like the only reason why the Confederate statues are being taken down because they owned slaves that is not even close to being the reason.
> 
> There is no evidence taking down Washington and Lincoln statues and that being their ultimate aim, that is just fear mongering.
> 
> You may have a few idiots wanting that but don't act like that is a leftist thing.


Are you sure? Because many left-leaning publications routinely simplify American history in terms of "white males". And both Feminist and black supremacist fringe elements both operate on the same logic that the white male demographic, both currently and historically, needs to be edged out of the limelight. Judge that how you will, right or wrong, but that's what they believe.

I'm not accusing the entire left wing of being baby-eating monsters. I am a Social Democrat, myself, after all. But what I am saying is that there is a strain of self-hatred in leftist spheres.

This seeps into all discourse. America's national heroes, the totems of the nation, are therefore routinely under attack. These people do not want to maintain the status quo, their entire objective is to reorder society - both in terms of power dynamics and symbolic cultural elements.

That's not me fear mongering, they often say things to that effect. And it has caused many people to become radicalised, because these elements have degenerated to hate compromise, logic and political centrism.


----------



## AmWolves10

waaaahhhh I failed my SATs and didn't get into college and I'm a failure, it's all because of racism and Donald Trump!!!


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump wants to but congress won't let him.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/28/16055630/congress-trump-russia-sanctions-veto
> 
> Trump stands were tied.
> 
> Keep digging, you will never find a quote of me saying Trump had Russia rig the election because I never said that.
> 
> I said Trump has ties to russia and people like you turn that into oh I am saying Russia hacked the election. When you dig you will even find a quote by me saying Russia probably did not hack the election, all the did was use propaganda to help Trump win but both sides use propaganda.
> 
> I am sure you have already seen that quote and ignored it because it does not fit your narrative.
> 
> So are you going to admit that Trump and his admin (especially the ones who were fired or quit) have ties to Russia?


Interesting, that Vox article appears to concede that all Trump wants to do is improve relations with Russia, which politically is a wise thing to do, but Congress doesn't trust him. The Democrats spent the entire tenure of Obama's presidency trying to improve relations with Russia, but right before he was about to leave office, he pushed a bunch of sanctions.

No doubt Russia didn't care because they thought Trump would try to ease them, as he had already stated that he wanted to improve relations with the country that has claimed that it also wants to defeat ISIS.

Congress preemptively tied his hands behind his back and prevented him from doing something he wanted to do, because of the accusation that he is guilty of something that hasn't been proven. This article doesn't say Trump has done anything guilty, only that it's apparent that members of Congress believe the accusations being levied against him and want to prevent the possibility of sanctions being eased. 

Guilt by association is not a crime. Until you can prove a crime, what exactly is Congress trying to prevent? Have you not asked yourself this question?


----------



## GothicBohemian

@Oxidamus and @Legit BOSS 

I saw you two having a discussion in Rants that called out for some added comments in a more appropriate setting:

Legit BOSS, this first bit is for you:

!) The man who hit Richard Spencer back in January is quite possibly associated with antifa or a separate anarchist group. He could also be independent of any organised protesters and simply be someone who showed up because he doesn't like white nationalists. What he isn't apt to be is someone just wandering around dressed in all black while Spencer is conveniently talking nearby. 

It's not right to punch someone simply because he's a hateful piece of shit but I'm not going to shed any tears for him. Still wasn't the right thing to do though. 

The rest is mainly for Oxi:

2) Antifa has been around since the days of WWI. They didn't "pop up in January" of 2017 somewhere in America. What they are is loosely coordinated activists around the world whose main goal is fighting fascism. Many, possibly most, are neither left or right, not in the American Dem vs Rep sense, but libertarian anarchists, socialists, communists or none of the aforementioned. What separates them from the typical liberal protester is that they will use force, and sometimes they will hit first. They also dox people. They don't belong to the Democrats in particular, though most are on the left of the political spectrum, they're simply partners against a current common foe. Antifa are not an alt-democrat faction. They don't even vote dem. Well, a few might have if Bernie was the candidate but that's not their focus. 

Most democrats see antifa as too radical, most antifa see democrats as too meek. 

3) The alt-right claim themselves to be a new wave within conservative politics. Many, but not all, are Republicans. Some, but again not all, support forming a white ethno-state. White nationalists include neo-nazis, KKK and similar hate groups, some of who focus on jews while others are more across the board hateful towards pretty well anyone not white and straight. They exist both inside and outside the alt-right camp, and though they are not necessarily fiscally conservative if they vote as Americans these days it is usually Republican. These are the folks the antifa have issue with, and wherever they rally or make speeches antifa is apt to be there too. 

4) Antifa come to shout down fascists and may fight with them if provoked. It may not take much to provoke them or, depending on who shows up, it may take quite a lot. Some are more mature than others. Fascists, otoh, come to spread hate and conspiracy theories. Many of them also love to fight and carry weapons. If I have to own one of the two, I much prefer antifa. 

5) Like antifa, BLM is not a branch of the Democrat party but, again like antifa, they don't want fascist pro-white nationalists rallying on their streets. It should be pretty obvious why. 

6) LGBTQ, feminists, environmentalists, all decent human beings and others don't like fascists either. Many of them also don't particularly care for the Trump administration. Expect them to show up and be labelled as "leftists" too, though there are conservative, Republican voting people among them as well who will still protest nazis holding speeches at statues the speakers don't really care much about and are only using as a pretense to spread their word. 

Carry on as you were folks.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@Legit BOSS

I asked for one, you gave me 32, in the hope that I would get overwhelmed and give up. This is going to be a great study of cognitive dissonance, both mine and yours. Let's go through the 32 quotes...

March 30, 2011: For years, Trump publicly questioned then-President Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and place of birth. As he debated running for president in the 2012 election, Trump said in a radio interview: “He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me — and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be — that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way.” (Obama is a Christian, and state records show he was born in Hawaii.)
*
(In Muslim culture, Sharia Law is above the Constitution. That might be a problem for a President who's supposed to treat the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Do you not see an argument where someone could say this and it be an argument about the responsibilities of the Presidency, and not an argument against Islam?)*

Sept. 17, 2015: At a campaign town hall in New Hampshire, a man in the audience shouted out: “We have a problem in this country; it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.” The man mentioned Muslim “training camps” and asked: “When can we get rid of them?” Trump responded: “We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”

*(Do you not see the possibility that he was talking about "training camps" and not Muslims being in the country?)*

Sept. 20, 2015: On NBC News, Trump was asked if he would be comfortable with a Muslim as president; he responded: “I can say that, you know, it's something that at some point could happen. We will see. I mean, you know, it's something that could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don't know if we have to address it right now, but I think it is certainly something that could happen.”

*(This is the same argument from the first quote. Sharia Law and the Constitution cannot both be equal in the Muslim faith. Sharia Law is the Supreme Law of the Land. If you are Muslim then this is not debatable. If a Muslim has to choose between the Constitution and Sharia Law, they are bound by their faith to choose Sharia Law.)*

Sept. 30, 2015: At a New Hampshire rally, Trump pledged to kick all Syrian refugees — most of whom are Muslim — out of the country, as they might be a secret army. “They could be ISIS, I don't know. This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe,” he said. In an interview that aired later, Trump said: “This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts.”
*
(I don't care about the "pledged" part, as that is just the writers opinion. When I look at the quote I see words like "could", "I don't know" and "maybe". It would be intellectually honest to post the article from where that quote came from, for context.)*

[Inside Donald Trump’s strategic decision to target Muslims]

Oct. 21, 2015: On Fox Business, Trump says he would “certainly look at” the idea of closing mosques in the United States.

*(What's the context? Why would he want to look at the idea of closing them? Is it because they are just Muslim, or is it because they have a history of espousing anti-American/terrorist ideologies?)*

Nov. 16, 2015: Following a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump said on MSNBC that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques. “I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred — the absolute hatred — is coming from these areas,” he said.
*
(He prefaced this quote by saying, "I'd hate to do it, but it's something you'd have to strongly consider, because some of the ideas, and the absolute hatred, is coming from these areas", funny how that didn't make it into the quote, and he's not wrong about that.

After he said that, he said this, ""There's already hatred," Trump said. "The hatred is incredible; it's embedded. It's embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands. And it's already there. It's not like, what, you think that they think we're great people? It's already there. It's a very, very sad situation. And I know so many people, Muslims, WHO ARE SUCH UNBELIEVABLY GREAT PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE BEING SO BADLY TARNISHED BY WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. IT'S A SHAME.")*

Nov. 20, 2015: In comments to Yahoo and NBC News, Trump seemed open to the idea of creating a database of all Muslims in the United States. Later, he and his aides would not rule out the idea.

*(Trump has also stated that he never proposed the idea. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ld-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

It all started on Thursday, Nov. 19, when a Yahoo News reporter asked Trump about his position on increased surveillance of American Muslims.

"France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?" the reporter asked.

"We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago," Trump said.

The Yahoo reporter then asked Trump, "Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"

Trump responded, "We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

Here, Trump didn’t reject the idea of a Muslim registry, but he also didn’t give an affirmative "yes" that he wanted to create such a database.)*

Nov. 21, 2015: At a rally in Alabama, Trump said that on Sept. 11 he “watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”

*(What does that have to do with Muslims?)
*
Nov. 22, 2015: On ABC News, Trump doubled down on his comment and added: “It was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.” (While there were some reports of celebrations overseas, extensive examination of news clips turn up no such celebrations in New Jersey.)

*(Are you question if he saw what he says he saw? Okay, prove he didn't see it, LOL. Either way, I don't see how that would make him a xenophobe, or even hint at it.)*

[Why Donald Trump might have thought he saw people cheering on 9/11]

Nov. 30, 2015: On MSNBC, a reporter asked Trump if he thinks Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or if it is an inherently violent religion. Trump responded: “Well, all I can say … there’s something going on. You know, there's something definitely going on. I don't know that that question can be answered.” He also said: “We are not loved by many Muslims.”

*(You offer that as proof? Should I list 32 quotes by radical Muslims who have said how much they don't love America? And when did acknowledging a real threat become xenophobic?)
*
Dec. 3, 2015: The morning after Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called into Fox News and said: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.” (Killing the relatives of suspected terrorists is forbidden by international law.) Later, in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump criticized Obama for not using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” and commented: “There's something going on with him that we don't know about.”

*(Is he talking about terrorists or Muslims? It looks like he's talking about terrorists. Are you implying that all terrorists are Muslim? Because in this quote he's talking about terrorists.)
*
[What does ‘radical Islam’ actually mean?]

Dec. 6, 2015: On CBS News, Trump said: “If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something.” Trump also said he didn’t believe the sister of one of the San Bernardino shooters who said she was crestfallen for the victims, saying: “I would go after a lot of people, and I would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.”

*(Now we're getting into projection quotes, here. He's talking about people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes. Are you denying that such places exist, because they do exist. Ask Reaper, I'm sure he'll speak to such things existing. It's not xenophobic to point out truth.)
*
Dec. 7, 2015: Trump's campaign issued a statement saying: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump read this statement aloud at a rally in South Carolina.

*(Poor choice of words, no doubt. Don't know of any Christian Arabs committing terrorism, though. )*

[Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric plays well with fans while horrifying others]

Dec. 8, 2015: On CNN, Trump quoted a widely debunked poll by an anti-Islam activist organization that claimed that a quarter of the Muslims living in the United States agreed that violence against Americans is justified as part of the global jihad. “We have people out there that want to do great destruction to our country, whether it's 25 percent or 10 percent or 5 percent, it's too much,” Trump said.

*(On CNN, Trump quoted a widely debunked poll by an anti-fascist activist organization that claimed that a quarter of the white people living in the United States agreed that violence against immigrants is justified as part of the global cleansing of immigrants. "We have people out there that want to do great destruction to our country, whether it's 25 percent or 10 percent or 5 percent, its' too much, "Trump said.

If that came out tomorrow, would you consider it anti-white?)*

Dec. 13, 2015: On Fox News, Trump was asked if his ban would apply to a Canadian businessman who is a Muslim. Trump responded: “There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very sick.”

*(Group of people, not all people. Are you saying that terrorists aren't sick people?)
*
Jan. 12, 2016: At a rally in Iowa, Trump shared his suspicions about Syrian refugees and then read the lyrics to Al Wilson’s 1968 song “The Snake,” the story of a “tender woman” who nursed a sickly snake back to health but then was attacked by the snake. Trump often read these lyrics at rallies.

*(Did ISIS, or did they not, claim that they would sneak soldiers in with the groups of refugees, in order to commit terrorist acts? If you're the President, do you ignore this threat?)
*
Feb. 3, 2016: Trump criticized Obama for visiting a mosque in Baltimore and said on Fox News: “Maybe he feels comfortable there … There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” (It was Obama's first visit to a mosque during his presidency, and it was made in an effort to encourage religious tolerance in light of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.)

*(Thinking someone is a Muslim does not make you a xenophobe)
*
Feb. 20, 2016: After Obama skipped the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump tweeted: “I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!” (Obama did pay his respects when Scalia's body lay in repose in the Supreme Court.) That night at a rally in South Carolina, Trump told an apocryphal tale that he would return to repeatedly about U.S. Gen. John J. Pershing fighting Muslim insurgents in the Philippines in the early 1900s and killing a large group of insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood.

*(Again, thinking someone is a Muslim is not xenophobic.)
*
March 9, 2016: On CNN, Trump said: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
*
(He's not wrong. 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/15/do-muslims-around-the-world-really-hate-the-united-states/

In Arab nations, that are predominantly Muslim, more than 50% of Muslims think unfavorably about America.)*

[How President Trump is -- and is not -- changing what it means to be American]

March 22, 2016: Soon after three suicide bombings in Brussels tied to a group of French and Belgian Muslims, Trump told Fox Business: “We're having problems with the Muslims, and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” Trump called for surveillance of mosques in the United States, saying: “You have to deal with the mosques, whether we like it or not, I mean, you know, these attacks aren't coming out of — they're not done by Swedish people.”

*(Ya, he was really talking about peace-keeping Muslims, there.)
*
On NBC News, Trump added: “This all happened because, frankly, there’s no assimilation. They are not assimilating . . . They want to go by sharia law. They want sharia law. They don’t want the laws that we have. They want sharia law.”

*(Being technically correct doesn't make you a xenophobe.)
*
March 23, 2016: In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Trump said that Muslims “have to respect us. They do not respect us at all. And frankly, they don't respect a lot of the things that are happening throughout not only our country, but they don't respect other things.”

*(This is neither a dislike or a fear. This is calling things as he sees them.)
*
March 29, 2016: During a town hall in Wisconsin, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Trump: “Do you trust Muslims in America?” Trump responded: “Do I what?” Cooper again asked: “Trust Muslims in America?” Trump responded: “Many of them I do. Many of them I do, and some, I guess, we don't. Some, I guess, we don't. We have a problem, and we can try and be very politically correct and pretend we don't have a problem, but, Anderson, we have a major, major problem. This is, in a sense, this is a war.”

*(When he said, "some, I guess, we don't. Which ones do you think he was talking about, because "some" is not "all".)
*
May 20, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims: “They're going to have to turn in the people that are bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft.”

*(He's right here. There should be a responsibility in the Muslim community to weed out the criminals. If they don't do it, then America will have to, and countries don't do this peacefully.)
*
June 13, 2016: The day after the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Trump declared in a speech in New Hampshire that “radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.” He criticized his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, for refusing to use the term “radical Islam” and for speaking positively of Islam. “Hillary Clinton's catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss. It's deadly — totally deadly,” Trump said. Later he added: “I want every American to succeed, including Muslims — but the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what's going on.”

*(The part where it says "and for speaking positively about Islam" is projection. He's talking about radical Islam, which exists. Funny you also added the line "I want every American to succeed, including Muslims...", ya he sounds like a pure xenophobe, LOL.)*

June 14, 2016: At a rally in North Carolina, Trump noted that the Orlando shooter’s parents are Muslim Americans who immigrated from Afghanistan. “The children of Muslim American parents, they’re responsible for a growing number for whatever reason a growing number of terrorist attacks,” he said, adding that immigration from Afghanistan has increased five-fold. “… Every year we bring in more than 100,000 lifetime immigrants from the Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. A number of these immigrants have hostile attitudes.”

*(How is this wrong? It is the parents responsibility to raise their kids right. If their are kids growing up, holding anti-American values, due to their religion, it is the parents responsibility to correct this, as long as they live in America.)
*
[Trump woos women and minorities by pitting one group against another]

June 15, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims who immigrate to the United States: “Assimilation has been very hard. It's almost — I won't say nonexistent, but it gets to be pretty close. And I'm talking about second and third generation. They come — they don't — for some reason, there's no real assimilation.”
*
(Pointing out the lack of assimilation is not a hatred or fear of Islam, it's a hatred or fear of Islamic terror. Even you can admit that Islam and terror in the name of Islam are two different things, right?)*

July 21, 2016: In accepting the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Trump focused heavily on “brutal Islamic terrorism” and promised: “I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”

*(Islamic TERRORISM, TERRORISM, TERRORISM. Are you saying that if you're against terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists, you're xenophobic against all Muslims?)
*
July 24, 2016: On NBC News, Trump defended his proposal for a Muslim ban, despite some of his aides insisting he had rolled it back. “People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. ‘Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim,’ " Trump said. "… But just remember this: Our Constitution is great, but it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious — you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently. Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that?”

*(Hey, in Islam we're infidels, a passage in the Quran says "...death to the infidels" and many interpretations make Americans out to be infidels. He may be Quranically retarded, but he's not wrong that there are Muslims who believe this.)
*
Aug. 11, 2016: At a meeting of evangelical leaders in Orlando, Trump said: “If you were a Christian in Syria, it was virtually impossible to come into the United States. If you were a Muslim from Syria, it was one of the easier countries to be able to find your way into the United States. Think of that. Just think of what that means.”

*(Explain how this is xenophobic.)
*
Aug. 18, 2016: During a rally in North Carolina, Trump said that “all applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who doesn't share our values and love our people.”
*
(Radical. Radical. Radical. And "screen out anyone who DOESN'T SHARE OUR VALUES AND LOVE OUR PEOPLE." Our people are Americans, do terrorists care about who they kill? No.)*

Sept. 19, 2016: At a rally in Florida, Trump reacted to explosions over the weekend in New York and New Jersey and said: “There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in Minnesota and New York City and in New Jersey. These attacks and many others were made possible because of our extremely open immigration system, which fails to properly vet and screen the individuals and families coming into our country. Got to be careful.”

*(Are these terrorist attacks in the name of Islam? Yes or no? If they are not, then a healthy fear of IslamicTerrorists, is warranted.)
*
Jan. 27, 2017: Within a week of becoming president, Trump signed an executive order blocking Syrian refugees and banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. This order goes into effect immediately, prompting mass chaos at airports, protests and legal challenges. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a close adviser to the president, later said on Fox News: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'”

*(A xenophobe only bans them for 90 days. Gee, I don't believe Islam is going to go away in 90 days, so maybe, the plan is to have terrorism go away in 90 days, by creating a better process to weed out such terrorists? I don't know, I'm just thinking crazy.)*

Feb. 28, 2017: Despite urging from some of his Cabinet members, Trump continues to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” including in a speech to a joint session of Congress.

*(You think the term "radical Islamic terrorism", terrorism in the name of Islam, is xenophobic? Wow, that's really something.)
*
March 6, 2017: Trump issues a new travel ban for citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, which is also challenged in the courts.

*(And overruled)
*
April 29, 2017: At a rally celebrating his 100th day in office, Trump once again dramatically read “The Snake.”

*(And what's the head of the snake? If you say Muslims then you didn't understand "The Snake".)
*
May 17, 2017: At a commencement ceremony, Trump previewed his upcoming overseas trip and said: “I'll speak with Muslim leaders and challenge them to fight hatred and extremism and embrace a peaceful future for their faith. And they're looking very much forward to hearing what we, as your representative, we have to say. We have to stop radical Islamic terrorism.”

*(OMG, he's working WITH MUSLIMS to fight HATRED AND EXTREMISM. What a motherfucking xenophobe!)
*
There you go, now I expect 32 separate responses.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oh look TheNightmanCometh still defending and making excuses for Trumps racism and bigatory


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look TheNightmanCometh still defending and making excuses for Trumps racism and bigatory


*I'm not even gonna bother. It's laid out in plain text and he's still making excuses for overt racism. I have no tolerance for it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I even red bolded and size 5 texted where it said "DONALD J TRUMP IS CALLING FOR A TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES." End of argument, point blank period. *


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *I'm not even gonna bother. It's laid out in plain text and he's still making excuses for overt racism. I have no tolerance for it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I even red bolded and size 5 texted where it said "DONALD J TRUMP IS CALLING FOR A TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES." End of argument, point blank period. *


While this has been discussed, I don't have a problem with haulting immigration all together be it white, black, Christian, Muslim or otherwise :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

I'm part of a hate group...

I hate people who bring diet soda and low fat ice cream to parties when you ask them to bring drinks and desert.

Sorry, just had a Summer Slam party and some fucking asshole brought 3 2 liters of diet soda and a gallon of low fat ice cream.

I'm ready to throw bricks now!


----------



## Kabraxal

Miss Sally said:


> I'm part of a hate group...
> 
> I hate people who bring diet soda and low fat ice cream to parties when you ask them to bring drinks and desert.
> 
> Sorry, just had a Summer Slam party and some fucking asshole brought 3 2 liters of diet soda and a gallon of low fat ice cream.
> 
> I'm ready to throw bricks now!


I'm on a diet you heathen! *throws non fat soy lattes*


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look TheNightmanCometh still defending and making excuses for Trumps racism and bigatory





Legit BOSS said:


> *I'm not even gonna bother. It's laid out in plain text and he's still making excuses for overt racism. I have no tolerance for it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I even red bolded and size 5 texted where it said "DONALD J TRUMP IS CALLING FOR A TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES." End of argument, point blank period. *


These are called surrender posts. Good job @TheNightmanCometh 

The sad part about Trump calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US is he walked it back. :sad:


----------



## Oxidamus

That feel when you explain something and the person doesn't care, still calls it racism, but doesn't call it racism when the tables are turned because reverse racism isn't real. :kurtcry3


----------



## Draykorinee

People still banging on about Trumps failure to achieve his bigoted goals? We get it, he hates Muslims unless they're rich sadistic, mysoganistic, homophobic terrorist backers who will pay for US weaponry so they can terrorise their populace, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> These are called surrender posts. Good job @TheNightmanCometh
> 
> The sad part about Trump calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US is he walked it back. :sad:


No its calling a spade a spade but keep doing what you do best, defending racism and bigotry.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> No its calling a spade a spade but keep doing what you do best, defending racism and bigotry.


It's good to have my talents appreciated.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *I'm not even gonna bother. *It's laid out in plain text and he's still making excuses for overt racism. *I have no tolerance for it. * This is exactly what I'm talking about. I even red bolded and size 5 texted where it said *"DONALD J TRUMP IS CALLING FOR A TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES."* End of argument, point blank period.


As I suspected, you posted 32 quotes in the hope that I would just give up. I knew if I replied to all of them you'd give up, and you did. You're not interested in debating, understanding, or anything counter to what you think. 

You have no tolerance for it when you get countered, so don't even bother sharing an opinion. You're intellectually lazy.

I believe I replied to your red bolded and size 5 text with...

(Poor choice of words, no doubt. Don't know of any Christian Arabs committing terrorism, though. )

And then of course, he walked it back. I guess he's what you call a "half-committed xenophobe". LOL


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> No its calling a spade a spade but keep doing what you do best, defending racism and bigotry.


Ya, except you're calling a rake a spade and getting mad when people won't agree that a rake is a spade.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> People still banging on about Trumps failure to achieve his bigoted goals? We get it, he hates Muslims unless they're rich sadistic, mysoganistic, homophobic terrorist backers who will pay for US weaponry so they can terrorise their populace, it makes perfect sense.


Hey to be fair there are poor Muslims who are sadistic, mysoganistic homophobic, terrorists and will pay for US weapons. 

There is about 100 groups of them. ISIS being one of the bigger ones. I don't see them being welcomed to the US, though the US did fund and arm ISIS via a new socialist welfare weapons program!



Kabraxal said:


> I'm on a diet you heathen! *throws non fat soy lattes*


They were on some diet kick but it's pretty rude to be in charge of something and bring only stuff you'll like. Luckily a friend had a few 12 packs of soda in his truck and we had a few brownie mixes in the cabinet.

Safe to say won't be inviting that person again!


----------



## Oxidamus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> As I suspected, you posted 32 quotes in the hope that I would just give up. I knew if I replied to all of them you'd give up, and you did. You're not interested in debating, understanding, or anything counter to what you think.


You made the mistake of thinking BBR, and in actual fact many others, think for themselves. They tend to just see an article (or it's shared by a friend or page they like on Facebook) and just regurgitate it.

The types that track all the "bad" quotes and failed promises by Trump are probably the worst, because they don't care to track anyone else. The entire process is cherrypicking.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899272877471670272
*Trump being endorsed by ANOTHER white supremacist? Color me shocked.*



TheNightmanCometh said:


> As I suspected, you posted 32 quotes in the hope that I would just give up. I knew if I replied to all of them you'd give up, and you did. You're not interested in debating, understanding, or anything counter to what you think.
> 
> You have no tolerance for it when you get countered, so don't even bother sharing an opinion. You're intellectually lazy.
> 
> I believe I replied to your red bolded and size 5 text with...
> 
> (Poor choice of words, no doubt. Don't know of any Christian Arabs committing terrorism, though. )
> 
> And then of course, he walked it back. I guess he's what you call a "half-committed xenophobe". LOL


*You've been proven wrong every single time. You tried to say Obama's Visa Waiver Program was the same as Trump's travel ban. You were wrong. You tried to say there's no evidence of him having a shitty attitude towards African Americans. You were proven wrong by his comments targeting the only Black CEO who pulled out of his manufacturing group. You tried to say Trump was never quoted as wanting to ban ALL Muslims. You were proven wrong with a VERBATIM quote saying exactly that, and 30 racist bonus quotes. I said before that argument even started that I'm not wasting time with biased, blind Trump supporters who jump through hoops to defend racism. You're a prime example of that with nothing factual to back your stance. It's all desperate, embarrassing reaching. *


----------



## Oxidamus

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899272877471670272
> *Trump being endorsed by ANOTHER white supremacist? Color me shocked.*


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

"Son of racist is racist because father was racist"


----------



## Beatles123

Never in my life have I heard ANYONE accuse Jerry Falwell of any hate crimes. What the actual fuck?

Also, for as much as certain people who they'd stay out of the thread they sure are spending a lot of time getting scummy ass shots in before doing so. :jericho2


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899272877471670272
> *Trump being endorsed by ANOTHER white supremacist? Color me shocked.*
> 
> 
> 
> *You've been proven wrong every single time. You tried to say Obama's Visa Waiver Program was the same as Trump's travel ban. You were wrong. You tried to say there's no evidence of him having a shitty attitude towards African Americans. You were proven wrong by his comments targeting the only Black CEO who pulled out of his manufacturing group. You tried to say Trump was never quoted as wanting to ban ALL Muslims. You were proven wrong with a VERBATIM quote saying exactly that, and 30 racist bonus quotes. I said before that argument even started that I'm not wasting time with biased, blind Trump supporters who jump through hoops to defend racism. You're a prime example of that with nothing factual to back your stance. It's all desperate, embarrassing reaching. *


TBH fam you think we're blind in the same way we think you're biased in much the same vein :shrug We both go back and forth with each other and we'll never see it each other's way. We're all slaves to the side we pick really.


----------



## Reaper

Did Legit Boss just accuse someone of being a racist just because his father was a racist? 

...

..

I don't even know how to respond to something like this. That's a level of unhinged that belongs in its own class.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> People still banging on about Trumps failure to achieve his bigoted goals? We get it, he hates Muslims unless they're rich sadistic, mysoganistic, homophobic terrorist backers who will pay for US weaponry so they can terrorise their populace, it makes perfect sense.


Yet more intellecutal dishonesty and delusion considering that EVERY Trump supporter in here as openly and vehemently condemned the US's relationship with KSA and wants it to end. 

But you guys have to create these delusions in order to push your comfortable narratives because you're fighting the good fight against Dr Doom's army. 

Sorry, Trump isn't Voldemort, and you aren't Harry Potter and Muslims aren't Muggles.

I had a feeling that Gothic would COMPLETELY ignore everything I said in my response to her. I gave her a lot more credit than she deserves as a fellow intellectual. Won't happen again.


----------



## krtgolfing

Reaper said:


> Did Legit Boss just accuse someone of being a racist just because his father was a racist?
> 
> ...
> 
> ..
> 
> I don't even know how to respond to something like this. That's a level of unhinged that belongs in its own class.


Some people are just ridiculous. My friend posted something yesterday about how the Democrats hates Trump because he is a racist, and that if you hated Obama you were racist. I was like you have got to be kidding me. It did not have anything to do with his policies that he implemented or attempted to implement. :gtfo

Yet you still wonder why you lost.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> TBH fam you think we're blind in the same way we think you're biased in much the same vein :shrug We both go back and forth with each other and we'll never see it each other's way. We're all slaves to the side we pick really.


*You're right, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it if your side didn't want me to be a slave :draper2*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *You're right, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it if your side didn't want me to be a slave :draper2*


lolwut ? :kobelol

This is what a meltdown looks like :ha


----------



## krtgolfing

Reaper said:


> lolwut ? :kobelol


You must be forgetting if you are not on their side your a racist!


----------



## Reaper

krtgolfing said:


> You must be forgetting if you are not on their side your a racist!


I can't be Ray Cis. 

I'm not white :mj

---

Edit: @TheNightmanCometh - That was a great exchange you had with BBR. The thing I would like to add is that Muslims for some crazy ass reason think that Muslim Terrorist, Radical Muslim, Radical Islam and Muslims are all interchangeable and used to make blanket statements about all of Islam and Muslims. They don't have the mental aquity to separate themselves, their morality and their personal relationship with Allah and Islam from the evil aspects of the same ideology because they project their morality onto the collective that they are indoctrinated to belong to. 

The reason for this is that Muslims are encouraged from day 1 to see themselves as a collective and nothing more (I see elements of this in all identitarian groups, but most do not have a violent/reactionary response to criticism that Muslims do which I'll elaborate on at a later time). The idea of individual and personal freedom as well as having a personal relationship with Allah does not exist in Islam the way it does in all other faiths. They're blasted with the message that any attack against any Muslim or Islam is an attack against Islam and that all muslims are brothers and sisters ... therefore no matter how many distinctions are made between terrorists, radicals, extremists etc is seen as a personal attack. They'd rather claim that terrorists are non-muslims than admit that there's something wrong with Islam that creates terrorists - and then they use that to preach to ignorant westerners about their personal morality as though it's taught only to them by Islam ---- while obviously ignoring that people are born and raised with their own moral values depending on how they're raised. They also assume that all atheists are immoral in order to justify the fact that Islam is the only source of their morality ... Hence why the disdain especially for atheists and pagans. They don't have any basic personalized understanding of morality. They believe that all humans are innately evil and it's only through embracing Islam and submitting to Allah that they can restrain their evil/immoral urges. 

Therefore their ideas around personal freedom as well as separation from the group identity of Muslims is grossly underdeveloped. I've seen this within my own family as well as friends. 

They would rather say that ISIS and other Terrorists are NOT Muslims at all rather than say that somehow something is wrong with their overall ideology that creates violent muslims and terrorists -- this is because Islam tells all muslims that it is non-violent and the greatest religion. It's bashed into their heads literally from the time they're born (many may not know this, but Muslims believe that every child born has to have the adhan whispered in his/her ear at the moment of birth). 

So essentially what happens is that if there is a moral/non-violent Muslim what he's really doing is instead of studing Islam, he's basically projecting his personal morality onto Islam elevating it from the horrendous ideology it is ... making it better because he's better as a Muslim but not because Islam is a good religion in and of itself. And then that muslim goes out and preaches his morality as Islam's morality ... which it obviously isn't to those who've actually studied the religion like myself.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

Miss Sally said:


> I'm part of a hate group...
> 
> I hate people who bring diet soda and low fat ice cream to parties when you ask them to bring drinks and desert.
> 
> Sorry, just had a Summer Slam party and some fucking asshole brought 3 2 liters of diet soda and a gallon of low fat ice cream.
> 
> I'm ready to throw bricks now!


Okay, fuck this. You just crossed a line.
You asked them to bring food and drink, and they did! What's the problem? Maybe you should have been more specific in your instructions?
I'm sorry you're too good for low-fat ice cream, your majesty. Perhaps some caviar and quail eggs would be more your thing?


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *You're right, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it if your side didn't want me to be a slave again :draper2*


I don't want that though, but you're already convinced I do because you have a school of thought and you believe in it passionately, As passionately as the others that believe the school of thought you have is full of shit. The best part? Both of our sides have "Facts" Which are, as far as we both are concerned, the truth. There's no way of proving each other right or wrong without making each other feel attacked and hurt in this day and age. See, Oxi seems to think i'm being a meme when I say this? but the truth is we all don't know shit, and we're going to end up blindly causing out own extinction. The outliers on our sides are going to ruin it and radicalize the rest of us till we kill each other and I firmly believe that. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will. Not because of anything I or you wanted, but because we as humans are animals that need an enemy to destroy in order to have an excuse for the shit world we live in. There's no ultimate winning except for the ones who'll write revisionist history against the losing side, which will piss off the remnants, which will ultimately restart the cycle. I dunno about you, but as a southerner, im tired of having to explain to people who assume i'm a racist or sexist how not racist or not sexist i am in the same exact way you probably think "Why won't the right wing get how racist they are?" - I've just concentrated on my own life and tried to realize its all shitty in the end. If you want to believe we're racist or even just willingly ignorant, more power to ya. I'll be dead soon enough and won't get to see who wins in the end to decide what people like me are even really called anyway.

TLDR? We're all fucked.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> I don't want that though, but you're already convinced I do because you have a school of thought and you believe in it passionately, As passionately as the others that believe the school of thought you have is full of shit. The best part? Both of our sides have "Facts" Which are, as far as we both are concerned, the truth. There's no way of proving each other right or wrong without making each other feel attacked and hurt in this day and age. See, Oxi seems to think i'm being a meme when I say this? but the truth is we all don't know shit, and we're going to end up blindly causing out own extinction. The outliers on our sides are going to ruin it and radicalize the rest of us till we kill each other and I firmly believe that. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will. Not because of anything I or you wanted, but because we as humans are animals that need an enemy to destroy in order to have an excuse for the shit world we live in. There's no ultimate winning except for the ones who'll write revisionist history against the losing side, which will piss off the remnants, which will ultimately restart the cycle. I dunno about you, but as a southerner, im tired of having to explain to people who assume i'm a racist or sexist how not racist or not sexist i am in the same exact way you probably think "Why won't the right wing get how racist they are?" - I've just concentrated on my own life and tried to realize its all shitty in the end. If you want to believe we're racist or even just willingly ignorant, more power to ya. I'll be dead soon enough and won't get to see who wins in the end to decide what people like me are even really called anyway.
> 
> TLDR? We're all fucked.


*I don't think you, Beatles123, are a racist. I think the vast majority of Trump supporters are racists and the others are enablers, apologists, and the 1% who will vote Republican regardless of who's on the ballot, just because they want tax breaks. I don't think everyone here is racist, but it's annoying when they try to justify flagrant racism. That makes them just as much of a problem as the racists. You're largely correct about us causing our own demise due to extremist views on both sides. I won't jump through hoops to justify the violent acts Antifa committed, but please don't expect me to break down in tears if a Nazi gets his ass whooped for expressing that he wants my people dead because of how we look.*


----------



## Reaper

Antifa Violence is "Reactionary" and "necessary"

Ask this BLM activist :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899373007621246976
Antifa are domestic terrorists. Anyone downplaying their activities needs to take a long hard look at the trail of violence they've left in their wake since early January.



Legit BOSS said:


> *I won't jump through hoops to justify the violent acts Antifa committed, but please don't expect me to break down in tears if a Nazi gets his ass whooped for expressing that he wants my people dead because of how we look.*


Except Nazis and supremacists aren't the only ones Antifa has targeted. Just look at the video above .. unless you think that that black man is a white supremacist :lol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Antifa Violence is "Reactionary" and "necessary"
> 
> Ask this BLM activist :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899373007621246976
> Antifa are domestic terrorists. Anyone downplaying their activities needs to take a long hard look at the trail of violence they've left in their wake since early January.
> 
> 
> 
> Except Nazis and supremacists aren't the only ones Antifa has targeted. Just look at the video above .. unless you think that that black man is a white supremacist :lol


*Nope, I don't think this is a Dave Chappelle skit, but does this mean that you're conceding that BLM is a peaceful organization and will stop equating them to terrorist groups?*


----------



## krtgolfing

Legit BOSS said:


> *Nope, I don't think this is a Dave Chappelle skit, but does this mean that you're conceding that BLM is a peaceful organization and will stop equating them to terrorist groups?*












No one called them a terrorist group, but they are not a peaceful organization by any means.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Nope, I don't think this is a Dave Chappelle skit, but does this mean that you're conceding that BLM is a peaceful organization and will stop equating them to terrorist groups?*


LolWUT? This is what I think of BLM. 



















This is why I get so annoyed with anyone on the left. Most of you guys don't even bother to give someone the courtesy of trying to find out what someone's position is before spouting out ridiculous assumptions. :kobe

Just fucking get over yourselves. Seriously.


----------



## Oxidamus

I wonder if Local Conservative Jew Ben Shapiro will be accused of defending Nazis... :hmmm






Old video but just saw it in recommended.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> LolWUT? This is what I think of BLM.


*That's fair. *




> his is why I get so annoyed with anyone on the left. Most of you guys don't even bother to give someone the courtesy of trying to find out what someone's position is before spouting out ridiculous assumptions. :kobe
> 
> Just fucking get over yourselves. Seriously.


*Lol no. Just look at the post above you and the post you're replying to. It didn't take long to find examples of the people on your side I'm referring to, because you did it for me. "BLM is dangerous." "BLM isn't peaceful by any means." That ignorant rhetoric is constantly regurgitated in this thread as they justify overt racism. You at least had the decency to acknowledge the few rotten apples don't represent the core values of the organization. I apologize for lumping you in with them, but I'm not apologizing for my attitude towards them.*


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> This is why I get so annoyed with anyone on the left. Most of you guys don't even bother to give someone the courtesy of trying to find out what someone's position is before spouting out ridiculous assumptions. :kobe
> 
> Just fucking get over yourselves. Seriously.


:woah Thanks for screenshotting my post and cutting it off before important context is added.

Trump represents probably about 45-55% of America and the 'vast majority' of those people are "racist". :mj4



Beatles123 said:


> I don't want that though, but you're already convinced I do because you have a school of thought and you believe in it passionately, As passionately as the others that believe the school of thought you have is full of shit. The best part? Both of our sides have "Facts" Which are, as far as we both are concerned, the truth. There's no way of proving each other right or wrong without making each other feel attacked and hurt in this day and age. See, Oxi seems to think i'm being a meme when I say this? but the truth is we all don't know shit, and we're going to end up blindly causing out own extinction. The outliers on our sides are going to ruin it and radicalize the rest of us till we kill each other and I firmly believe that. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will. Not because of anything I or you wanted, but because we as humans are animals that need an enemy to destroy in order to have an excuse for the shit world we live in. There's no ultimate winning except for the ones who'll write revisionist history against the losing side, which will piss off the remnants, which will ultimately restart the cycle. I dunno about you, but as a southerner, im tired of having to explain to people who assume i'm a racist or sexist how not racist or not sexist i am in the same exact way you probably think "Why won't the right wing get how racist they are?" - I've just concentrated on my own life and tried to realize its all shitty in the end. If you want to believe we're racist or even just willingly ignorant, more power to ya. I'll be dead soon enough and won't get to see who wins in the end to decide what people like me are even really called anyway.
> 
> TLDR? We're all fucked.


I think you'll find we actually agree (at least partially) on how we're "fucked" but we disagree to the very extremes on what to do about it. I don't think you're a meme, I just think nihilism is pathetic. The future is bleak for myself and especially humanity, but I'll never be hopeless.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *That's fair. *
> 
> *Lol no. Just look at the post above you and the post you're replying to. It didn't take long to find examples of the people on your side I'm referring to, because you did it for me. "BLM is dangerous." "BLM isn't peaceful by any means." That ignorant attitude is constantly regurgitated in this thread as they justify overt racism. You at least had the decency to acknowledge the few rotten apples don't represent the core values of the organization. I apologize for lumping you in with them, but I'm not apologizing for my attitude towards them.*


Yeah, and a lot of those people are not any of the regular posters that I'm aware of in this thread. We've been discussing Trump for almost a year now and barely anyone has gotten into a circle jerk over condemning BLM ... at least I haven't been part of it and I haven't noticed any blatant BLM hate ... Just the odd connections to some violent rhetoric and that's it. 

Basically, BLM hasn't been relevant in at least a year 

That said, BLM isn't absolved of everything. They may be against violence, but there is a historical record of them inciting violence in the initial stages of their movement but they've done well to distance themselves from violence. 






Of course, as consistent as I am, for me a violent group is one that engages in violence, or recruits violence or is in obvious cohoots with a militant wing that shares their ideology. 

They haven't outright tried to recruit violent people nor have any indication that they themselves have any association to fringe violent groups ... However, the Antifa IS a violent group. They have always been and have been nothing but a violent group since I started following their activities since 1999. They can't hide under the veil of anti-corporatist/anti-government anarchy any longer when they've done nothing but engage in partisan politics since last year in America. 

They lost their right to be considered anti-corporatist because they didn't engage in 1/10th as many protests during the last 10 years in America and they lost their right be considered pro-liberty when they specifically chose the current administration to engage at unprecedented levels. Antifa are clearly now a militant wing of the democratic party based on the targets they choose as well as the timing of their mass engagement. 

They're not to be spoken of in the same vein as BLM from either side - left or right. Antifa ARE domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. 

krt can explain / elaborate on his opinion - don't really want to speak for him. I also don't want to speak for others. They can defend their opinions or they can try, but they won't have much evidence ... not half as much evidence of Antifa's violence which has a track record of decades.



Oxidamus said:


> :woah Thanks for screenshotting my post and cutting it off before important context is added.
> 
> Trump represents probably about 45-55% of America and the 'vast majority' of those people are "racist". :mj4


Well yeah, that happened because I was only screenshotting my post since someone got their panties in a bunch and banned me from the thread (I'm assuming that it was accidental or a glitch because I don't remember any mods being online at the time and a few mods denied their role in this). 

Your post wasn't even being put in here as evidence. Just mine. I just didn't feel like cropping it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> I wonder if Local Conservative Jew Ben Shapiro will be accused of defending Nazis... :hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old video but just saw it in recommended.


Well, he does get called a Neo Nazi so there's that


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, he does get called a Neo Nazi so there's that


The significance of these accusations is at their all-time lowest. 

We're at this point (or at least I am) where I've started wearing accusations of racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, climate change denier etc etc as medals of honor because that means I've argued a point that is irrefutable and the only response left is autistic screeching.

If you can't help but associate me with someone that you think is completely morally reprehensible as a response to an argument you can't counter, then you've basically awarded me with a medal for my efforts.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> The significance of these accusations is at their all-time lowest.
> 
> We're at this point (or at least I am) where I've started wearing accusations of racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, climate change denier etc etc as medals of honor because that means I've argued a point that is irrefutable and the only response left is autistic screeching.
> 
> If you can't help but associate me with someone that you think is completely morally reprehensible as a response to an argument you can't counter, then you've basically awarded me with a medal for my efforts.


They don't understand the gravity of their accusations until they get accused by something themselves. Like when people were trying to "expose" white supremacists and the driver at Charlottesville and accusing the wrong people instead. They don't understand how dangerous something like that can be. When it comes to actual discussion, its really disappointing that people truly don't care and believe they have the grounds to accuse people of such claims. They take any sort of disagreement on something as a personal insult to them and its ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Hey to be fair there are poor Muslims who are sadistic, mysoganistic homophobic, terrorists and will pay for US weapons.
> 
> There is about 100 groups of them. ISIS being one of the bigger ones. I don't see them being welcomed to the US, though the US did fund and arm ISIS via a new socialist welfare weapons program!
> 
> 
> 
> They were on some diet kick but it's pretty rude to be in charge of something and bring only stuff you'll like. Luckily a friend had a few 12 packs of soda in his truck and we had a few brownie mixes in the cabinet.
> 
> Safe to say won't be inviting that person again!


Yeah, but Trump doesn't like those ones!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Over a 1,000 secret service agents have already hit their salary/overtime limit for the year. Apparently some are leaving due to this and the workload.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/



> *Exclusive: Secret Service depletes funds to pay agents because of Trump's frequent travel, large family*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Secret Service can no longer pay hundreds of agents it needs to carry out an expanded protective mission – in large part due to the sheer size of President Trump's family and efforts necessary to secure their multiple residences up and down the East Coast.
> 
> Secret Service Director Randolph "Tex" Alles, in an interview with USA TODAY, said more than 1,000 agents have already hit the federally mandated caps for salary and overtime allowances that were meant to last the entire year.
> 
> The agency has faced a crushing workload since the height of the contentious election season, and it has not relented in the first seven months of the administration. Agents must protect Trump – who has traveled almost every weekend to his properties in Florida, New Jersey and Virginia – and his adult children whose business trips and vacations have taken them across the country and overseas.
> 
> "The president has a large family, and our responsibility is required in law,'' Alles said. "I can't change that. I have no flexibility.''
> 
> Alles said the service is grappling with an unprecedented number of White House protectees. Under Trump, 42 people have protection, a number that includes 18 members of his family. That's up from 31 during the Obama administration.
> 
> Overwork and constant travel have also been driving a recent exodus from the Secret Service ranks, yet without congressional intervention to provide additional funding, Alles will not even be able to pay agents for the work they have already done.
> 
> The compensation crunch is so serious that the director has begun discussions with key lawmakers to raise the combined salary and overtime cap for agents, from $160,000 per year to $187,000 for at least the duration of Trump's first term.
> 
> But even if such a proposal was approved, about 130 veteran agents would not be fully compensated for hundreds of hours already amassed, according to the agency.
> 
> "I don't see this changing in the near term,'' Alles said.
> 
> Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers expressed deep concern for the continuing stress on the agency, first thrust into turmoil five years ago with disclosures about sexual misconduct by agents in Colombia and subsequent White House security breaches.
> 
> A special investigative panel formed after a particularly egregious 2014 White House breach also found that that agents and uniform officers worked "an unsustainable number of hours,'' which also contributed to troubling attrition rates.
> 
> While about 800 agents and uniformed officers were hired during the past year as part of an ongoing recruiting blitz to bolster the ranks, attrition limited the agency's net staffing gain to 300, according to agency records. And last year, Congress had to approve a one-time fix to ensure that 1,400 agents would be compensated for thousands of hours of overtime earned above compensation limits. Last year's compensation shortfall was first disclosed by USA TODAY.
> 
> "It is clear that the Secret Service's demands will continue to be higher than ever throughout the Trump administration,'' said Jennifer Werner, a spokesperson for Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings.
> 
> Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who was the first lawmaker to sound the alarm after last year's disclosure that hundreds of agents had maxed out on pay, recently spoke with Alles and pledged support for a more permanent fix, Werner said.
> 
> "We cannot expect the Secret Service to be able to recruit and keep the best of the best if they are not being paid for these increases (in overtime hours)."
> 
> South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House oversight panel, is "working with other committees of jurisdiction to explore ways in which we can best support'' the Secret Service, his spokesperson Amanda Gonzalez said.
> 
> Talks also are underway in the Senate, where the Secret Service has briefed members of the Homeland Security Committee, which directly oversees the the agency's operations.
> 
> "Ensuring the men and women who put their lives on the line protecting the president, his family and others every day are getting paid fairly for their work is a priority,'' said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, the panel's top Democrat. "I'm committed to working with my colleagues on both sides to get this done.''
> 
> Without some legislative relief, though, at least 1,100 agents – for now – would not be eligible for overtime even as one of the agency's largest protective assignments looms next month. Nearly 150 foreign heads of state are expected to converge on New York City for the United Nations General Assembly.
> 
> Because of the sheer number of high-level dignitaries, the United Nations gathering is traditionally designated by the U.S., as a "National Special Security Event" and requires a massive deployment of security resources managed by the Secret Service.
> 
> That will be even trickier this year. "Normally, we are not this tapped out,'' said Alles, whom Trump appointed to his post in April.
> 
> The agents who have reached their compensation limits this year represent about a third of the Secret Service workforce, which was pressed last year to secure both national political conventions in the midst of a rollicking campaign cycle. The campaign featured regular clashes involving protesters at Trump rallies across the country, prompting the Secret Service at one point to erect bike racks as buffers around stages to thwart potential rushes from people in the crowd.
> 
> Officials had hoped that the agency's workload would normalize after the inauguration, but the president's frequent weekend trips, his family's business travel and the higher number of protectees has made that impossible.
> Banke International director Niraj Masand, far left, poses for a photo with Eric Trump, second left, Banke International director Porush Jhunjhunwala, center, Donald Trump Jr., second right, and DAMAC Properties chairman Hussain Sajwani, during festivities marking the formal opening of the Trump International Golf Club, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Feb. 18, 2017. Two of U.S. President Trump's sons arrived in the UAE for an invitation-only ceremony to formally open the club. Uncredited, AP
> 
> Since his inauguration, Trump has taken seven trips to his estate in Mar-a-Lago, Fla., traveled to his Bedminster, N.J., golf club five times and returned to Trump Tower in Manhattan once.
> 
> Trump's frequent visits to his "winter White House" and "summer White House" are especially challenging for the agency, which must maintain a regular security infrastructure at each – while still allowing access to paying members and guests.
> 
> Always costly in manpower and equipment, the president's jaunts to Mar-a-Lago are estimated to cost at least $3 million each, based on a General Accounting Office estimate for similar travel by former President Obama. The Secret Service has spent some $60,000 on golf cart rentals alone this year to protect Trump at both Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster.
> 
> The president, First Lady Melania Trump and the couple's youngest son Barron – who maintained a separate detail in Trump Tower until June – aren't the only ones on the move with full-time security details in tow.
> 
> Trump's other sons, Trump Organization executives Donald Jr. and Eric, based in New York, also are covered by security details, including when they travel frequently to promote Trump-branded properties in other countries.
> 
> A few examples: Earlier this year, Eric Trump's business travel to Uruguay cost the Secret Service nearly $100,000 just for hotel rooms. Other trips included the United Kingdom and the Dominican Republic. In February, both sons and their security details traveled to Vancouver, British Columbia, for the opening of new Trump hotel there, and to Dubai to officially open a Trump International Golf Club.
> 
> In March, security details accompanied part of the family, including Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner on a skiing vacation in Aspen, Colo. Even Tiffany Trump, the president's younger daughter, took vacations with her boyfriend to international locales such as Germany and Hungary, which also require Secret Service protection.
> Secret Service agents rush Republican presidential
> 
> Secret Service agents rush Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump off the stage at a campaign rally in Reno, Nev., on Nov. 5, 2016. (Photo: John Locher, AP)
> 
> While Alles has characterized the security challenges posed by the Trump administration as a new "reality" of the agency's mission, the former Marine Corps major general said he has discussed the agency's staffing limitations with the White House so that security operations are not compromised by a unusually busy travel schedule.
> 
> "They understand,'' Alles said. "They accommodate to the degree they can and to the degree that it can be controlled. They have been supportive the whole time.''
> 
> Over time, Alles expects the Secret Service's continued hiring campaign will gradually relieve the pressure. From its current force of 6,800 agents and uniform officers, the goal is to reach 7,600 by 2019 and 9,500 by 2025.
> 
> "We're making progress,'' he said.
> 
> For now, Alles is focused simply on ensuring that his current agents will be paid for the work they have already done.
> 
> "We have them working all night long; we're sending them on the road all of the time,'' Alles said. "There are no quick fixes, but over the long term, I've got to give them a better balance (of work and private life) here."


----------



## Reaper

Well maybe if US senators /celebs/domestic terrorists stopped posting death threats and demanding assassinations every day, the costs might be lower. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

> I won't jump through hoops to justify the violent acts Antifa committed, but please don't expect me to break down in tears if a Nazi gets his ass whooped for expressing that he wants my people dead because of how we look.


Its not just Trump supporters, they're attacking police, journalists, and random people now. Pandora's Box has been opened with the justification of violence. 

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, except you're calling a rake a spade and getting mad when people won't agree that a rake is a spade.


More deflection because you are defending racism and bigatory lol.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Well maybe if US senators /celebs/domestic terrorists stopped posting death threats and demanding assassinations every day, the costs might be lower. :mj


*You know damn well it's because he refuses to move his family to the White House and he's forcing them to protect Trump Towers. The excessive vacations and golf trips don't help, either. You know, the vacations he bitched at Obama for taking. You know, the amount of vacations and golf trips that exceeded Obama's within 6 months. Those vacations. Maybe this wouldn't happen if he sat his ass down somewhere and did something productive. *


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899272877471670272
> *Trump being endorsed by ANOTHER white supremacist? Color me shocked.*
> 
> 
> 
> *You've been proven wrong every single time. You tried to say Obama's Visa Waiver Program was the same as Trump's travel ban. You were wrong. You tried to say there's no evidence of him having a shitty attitude towards African Americans. You were proven wrong by his comments targeting the only Black CEO who pulled out of his manufacturing group. You tried to say Trump was never quoted as wanting to ban ALL Muslims. You were proven wrong with a VERBATIM quote saying exactly that, and 30 racist bonus quotes. I said before that argument even started that I'm not wasting time with biased, blind Trump supporters who jump through hoops to defend racism. You're a prime example of that with nothing factual to back your stance. It's all desperate, embarrassing reaching. *





> Also, I take it that the fact that *the countries listed travel ban are the same countries listed in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015*, and was signed by Obama, making it the law of the land, would also make Obama a xenophobe? If not, why not?





> I'm not twisting anything by pointing out that* the travel ban included the same countries in the 2015 act.*


Jesus, your reading comprehension is shit. I said they both list the same countries, which is true. I never said they were the same, that's your confirmation bias telling you shit that isn't true.

Dude, all you see is skin color. A white man can't say anything about a black man, or he's a racists-bigot-xenophobe. You're pathetic.

What are you gonna do when the Supreme Court rules in his favor and he doesn't ban all Muslims? You gonna eat crow? Fuck no, you're gonna twist the shit around to still make him a racist-bigot-xenophobe, because you're completely, and utterly blind to the truth. You're indoctrinated and I feel sorry for you. You're life is going to be filled with misery and hate, and that's just sad.

And this will blow your tits off, I'm not even a Trump supporter. I'm a supporter of liberty and freedom, but when I see someone spreading lies, I'm gonna step in and tell you that you are, which you are.

Trump has done literally nothing to be painted the way you paint him. You can twist quotes around all you want, but he hasn't done anything.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> I can't be Ray Cis.
> 
> I'm not white :mj
> 
> ---
> 
> Edit: @TheNightmanCometh - That was a great exchange you had with BBR. The thing I would like to add is that Muslims for some crazy ass reason think that Muslim Terrorist, Radical Muslim, Radical Islam and Muslims are all interchangeable and used to make blanket statements about all of Islam and Muslims. They don't have the mental aquity to separate themselves, their morality and their personal relationship with Allah and Islam from the evil aspects of the same ideology because they project their morality onto the collective that they are indoctrinated to belong to.
> 
> The reason for this is that Muslims are encouraged from day 1 to see themselves as a collective and nothing more (I see elements of this in all identitarian groups, but most do not have a violent/reactionary response to criticism that Muslims do which I'll elaborate on at a later time). The idea of individual and personal freedom as well as having a personal relationship with Allah does not exist in Islam the way it does in all other faiths. They're blasted with the message that any attack against any Muslim or Islam is an attack against Islam and that all muslims are brothers and sisters ... therefore no matter how many distinctions are made between terrorists, radicals, extremists etc is seen as a personal attack. They'd rather claim that terrorists are non-muslims than admit that there's something wrong with Islam that creates terrorists - and then they use that to preach to ignorant westerners about their personal morality as though it's taught only to them by Islam ---- while obviously ignoring that people are born and raised with their own moral values depending on how they're raised. They also assume that all atheists are immoral in order to justify the fact that Islam is the only source of their morality ... Hence why the disdain especially for atheists and pagans. They don't have any basic personalized understanding of morality. They believe that all humans are innately evil and it's only through embracing Islam and submitting to Allah that they can restrain their evil/immoral urges.
> 
> Therefore their ideas around personal freedom as well as separation from the group identity of Muslims is grossly underdeveloped. I've seen this within my own family as well as friends.
> 
> They would rather say that ISIS and other Terrorists are NOT Muslims at all rather than say that somehow something is wrong with their overall ideology that creates violent muslims and terrorists -- this is because Islam tells all muslims that it is non-violent and the greatest religion. It's bashed into their heads literally from the time they're born (many may not know this, but Muslims believe that every child born has to have the adhan whispered in his/her ear at the moment of birth).
> 
> So essentially what happens is that if there is a moral/non-violent Muslim what he's really doing is instead of studing Islam, he's basically projecting his personal morality onto Islam elevating it from the horrendous ideology it is ... making it better because he's better as a Muslim but not because Islam is a good religion in and of itself. And then that muslim goes out and preaches his morality as Islam's morality ... which it obviously isn't to those who've actually studied the religion like myself.


I dated a Muslim girl for 4 years, so I know a bit about their cognitive dissonance towards Islam. I had to break it off because I couldn't will myself to believe what she needed me to believe. I'm still hurting over it because she's an amazing person and I loved her deeply. I would try to talk to her about stuff that was going on, and she would say the exact things you mentioned, i.e. "They're not true Muslims". I love her, so I didn't go down the slippery slope with her on it, but all the while I firmly believed it was the twisted ideology within Islam that makes terrorists who they are. It's true that there are many good, honest Muslims out there, who just want to live their lives in peace, she, and her family, proved that to me, but they don't accept that their ideology is flawed in many ways, and they refuse to confront it, on a mass scale.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> More deflection because you are defending racism and bigatory lol.


LOL, you accuse me of deflection and then you deflect. Dude, is there a school you can go to to learn about how to hold a conversation?


----------



## Vic Capri

> Over a 1,000 secret service agents have already hit their salary/overtime limit for the year. Apparently some are leaving due to this and the workload.





Randolph Alles said:


> This issue is not one that can be attributed to the current Administration’s protection requirements, but rather has been an ongoing issue for nearly a decade due to an overall increase in operational tempo.


*#LeftThatPartOut*

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> LOL, you accuse me of deflection and then you deflect. Dude, is there a school you can go to to learn about how to hold a conversation?


Keep deflecting because you are defending racism.










Makes me wonder about you.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I dated a Muslim girl for 4 years, so I know a bit about their cognitive dissonance towards Islam. I had to break it off because I couldn't will myself to believe what she needed me to believe. I'm still hurting over it because she's an amazing person and I loved her deeply. I would try to talk to her about stuff that was going on, and she would say the exact things you mentioned, i.e. "They're not true Muslims". I love her, so I didn't go down the slippery slope with her on it, but all the while I firmly believed it was the twisted ideology within Islam that makes terrorists who they are. It's true that there are many good, honest Muslims out there, who just want to live their lives in peace, she, and her family, proved that to me, but they don't accept that their ideology is flawed in many ways, and they refuse to confront it, on a mass scale.


Good thing you did that because she would have converted you at some point or tried to because as a Muslim she is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim. Even if she did, it would have eaten at her if you ever went through marital problems. 

Leaving Islam and deciding to marry an atheist was the best decision I ever made in my life. We have almost no problems at all. Meanwhile there was a bigger cultural barrier between myself and my ex-wife and her family who were both Muslim and Pakistani...supposedly like me.


----------



## THE HAITCH

Reaper said:


> Good thing you did that because she would have converted you at some point or tried to because as a Muslim she is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim. Even if she did, it would have eaten at her if you ever went through marital problems.
> 
> Leaving Islam and deciding to marry an atheist was the best decision I ever made in my life. We have almost no problems at all. Meanwhile there was a bigger cultural barrier between myself and my ex-wife and her family who were both Muslim and Pakistani...supposedly like me.


Has science gone too far?










:trips10


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *You're right, and I wouldn't have such a problem with it if your side didn't want me to be a slave :draper2*


jesus fucking christ this is top kek

Literally no one wants to re-enslave black people. The white nationalists don't even want you to be in whatever new country they would create (lol this will never happen IRL).


----------



## Sensei Utero

Not defending ANTIFA or some of the stuff they've done (beyond awful), but I don't know how folk can defend white supremacists either (not directed at anyone in particular in this thread, just in a general overview of things I've seen online - I actually really like and respect some of the folk in this thread to a high degree.). It's clear that Trump represents these people, even if he does his best to denounce them (though seems to fuck it up by then concentrating on 'the left'). Just seems that anything Trump does is defended at all costs by a large amount of his supporters, and even if he killed someone - it'd probably be the same :shrug same with ANTIFA as well, actually. Oh well. I consider America screwed, so whatever happens will happen no matter who's in charge. Just hope it doesn't spread into the UK/Ireland.


----------



## DOPA

Legit BOSS said:


> I actually would like to get into BLM discussion because they're incredibly misrepresented in this thread as a violent group, so please, share your thoughts on the matter.[/B][/COLOR]


To be honest, BLM haven't been the subject of discussion for a fair few months up until recently with Charlottesville where they have been mentioned a little bit.

But ask and you shall receive.

First of all, let me answer a question: Do I think the BLM can be or should be equated to Antifa?

Well considering that there has been peaceful protests surrounding BLM, the answer is clearly no. The reason being that I've never seen a protest involving Antifa that has not ended up in violence. In short, Antifa is a domestic terrorist group. BLM is not.

Having said that, I would be blind to not acknowledge some of the violent rhetoric and actions that have come from the Black Lives Matter group.

Let me stress clearly that I know not all of BLM have conducted themselves in this manner. Many have not, and we could very well be talking about fringe groups here. But they still do exist and cause problems, I have to be honest and call it how I see it (Reaper has already posted the chants so I won't repeat what has already been posted):





















BLM UK:







It also has not helped when we have seen BLM members hiijack certain events like the Orlando shooting to promote their own agenda, which of course will not help get any sympathy for the movement. Nor has it helped when people associated with BLM have essentially wrote down a list of demands to white people:






https://www.leoweekly.com/2017/08/white-people/



> *White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leader*
> 
> [This article is part of a package covering Louisville’s reaction to Charlottesville. Check out the other pieces, including Ricky Jones’ column “Black People Should Arm Themselves Now!” and Erica Rucker’s “America… where are you going?”]
> 
> Some things I’m thinking about that should change (in that Southern, black grandmama voice):
> 
> 1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.
> 
> 2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.
> 
> 3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.
> 
> 4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
> 
> 5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists assholes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
> 
> 6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.
> 
> 7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the fuck they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.
> 
> 8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.
> 
> 9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.
> 
> 10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.
> 
> #RunUsOurLand #Reparations #YouGonLearnToday #RunUsOurMoney



What is also puzzling going away from the violence that has been associated with BLM, is on the one hand seeing a lot of BLM protests that have been or initially were peaceful and then at the same time seeing internet posts from BLM which have for example praised *Fidel Castro* of all people, a murderous totalitarian dictator:



> *Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante*
> 
> We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.
> 
> From Fidel, we know that revolution is sparked by an idea, by radical imaginings, which sometimes take root first among just a few dozen people coming together in the mountains. It can be a tattered group of meager resources, like in Sierra Maestro in 1956 or St. Elmo Village in 2013.
> Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective. No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over.
> 
> Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America, and North Dakota. We must not only root for each other but invest in each other’s struggles, lending our voices, bodies, and resources to liberation efforts which may seem distant from the immediacy of our daily existence.
> 
> Revolution is rooted in the recognition that there are certain fundamentals to which every being has a right, just by virtue of one’s birth: healthy food, clean water, decent housing, safe communities, quality healthcare, mental health services, free and quality education, community spaces, art, democratic engagement, regular vacations, sports, and places for spiritual expression are not questions of resources, but questions of political will and they are requirements of any humane society.
> Revolution requires that the determination to create and preserve these things for our people takes precedent over individual drives for power, recognition, and enrichment.
> 
> A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era. We are indebted to Fidel for sending resources to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake and attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters. We are thankful that he provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish, regardless of his belief system.
> 
> With Fidel’s passing there is one more lesson that stands paramount: when we are rooted in collective vision when we bind ourselves together around quests for infinite freedom of the body and the soul, we will be victorious. As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!


Supporting the leader of such a brutal regime as Castro's in Cuba is not something I'd consider of moral virtue. The writer of that piece, as we have seen in the comments, should be rightly condemned.

So yes, I have seen problems, violent rhetoric, violent actions and some unsavory people being supported and looked up to in the BLM group. However unlike Antifa, I've also seen this:



























I also don't for example blame Black Lives Matter for the shootings in Dallas, in which a sniper disrupted and ruined what was largely at the time a peaceful protest. That was a tragic incident to say the least.

So ultimately, I see BLM as a mixed bag. I haven't heard of any recent violent protests from BLM, Charlottesville from what I have seen was mostly Antifa vs the Alt Right (and other white identitarian groups). So in that sense, I think BLM are doing a better job than previously from disassociating themselves from the violent rhetoric and thugs that were identifying themselves within the group. I still think there are some idiots within the group, but that's always going to happen when the topics are as sensitive as the ones that are being talked about.

So right now, I have no problems with BLM if they continue to have peaceful assemblies.

Finally, to move away from the question of violence, I'll be honest with you in terms of what I think of BLM as a group in terms of what it is trying to achieve. I think it would be fair at this point to label the BLM a black identitarian movement and when I say that, I'm not putting any negative connotations surrounding the legitimacy of BLM as a group.

However, on a personal level, I hate identity politics of all forms both from the left and the right especially in the last few years. Unfortunately, I believe identity politics overall, essentially group based collectivist politics which focus on the specific issues of a certain group or class of people whether it be BLM, Feminists, White Identitarians, Antifa, SJW's etc. on the whole do more harm and divide people further apart than bring them together. That isn't to say that there aren't good people in some of the groups I have mentioned or that they are all the same in scale. I wouldn't as annoying as they are say that feminists are as bad as Antifa or the alt right because that would be preposterous.

But what I will say with these collectivist groups is that there is unfortunately a tendency for all of these groups to draw a line with the issues in which they are concerned about and that has ultimately in many cases not opened up a line for dialogue and instead has resulted in tensions between those groups either with opposite groups/counter protesters or the general public. And unfortunately with the more extremist elements of each group, it again tends to end up shutting down much needed dialogue concerning really important issues. Not to say that protest can't work or shouldn't happen if they are peaceful, but more often than not it just divides people up on the basis of attributes that we shouldn't be judging people on: that being race, gender, sexual identity etc. That goes for all of the groups that are playing identity politics, I'm not just singling out BLM here.

That is one of the many reasons why I tend to believe in the individual over the collective, that we should be treating people as individuals rather than in groups. And that is pretty hard to do when you have all these different groups who are formed together on the basis of their identity, I'd rather not have to talk about it but that is where we are at right now. Everyone has their own life experiences, their own outlook in life, own priorities and self interests and of course their own political views. I think if we go back to treating people as self autonomous individuals rather than partake in group think then we'd go a long way to healing some of the divides we are seeing now. But that's just one man's opinion.

Ultimately as I have said before, we should be more open to dialogue, reason and listening to one another. That isn't happening particularly with the extreme left and right which is the main reason along with identity politics as a whole as to why the events of Charlottesville took place. At least that is the way I see it.


----------



## virus21

Also, apparently BLM members got into it with some Antifa members in Boston


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting because you are defending racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder about you.


The guy who cries about others posting memes, is posting memes. 

:evans


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*That was an excellent post @L-DOPA :clap. You covered the positives and the negatives of BLM, while acknowledging the negatives as a rogue minority. You also told the whole story instead of spinning it to portray them as a terrorist group. I greatly appreciate that and take no issues with your stance. I'll have to research that list of demands to make sure it's not satire though :hmm.

Sidenote: LOL @ Trump for staring directly at the eclipse :mj4*


----------



## Reaper

While most of America was looking at the sun and the eclipse, the liberals were drawn towards the real shining light on earth to see what he was doing. 

:kobelol


----------



## amhlilhaus

Legit BOSS said:


> *That was an excellent post @L-DOPA :clap. You covered the positives and the negatives of BLM, while acknowledging the negatives as a rogue minority. You also told the whole story instead of spinning it to portray them as a terrorist group. I greatly appreciate that and take no issues with your stance. I'll have to research that list of demands to make sure it's not satire though :hmm.
> 
> Sidenote: LOL @ Trump for staring directly at the eclipse :mj4*



Ridiculous, he just farted


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> Not defending ANTIFA or some of the stuff they've done (beyond awful), but *I don't know how folk can defend white supremacists either *(not directed at anyone in particular in this thread, just in a general overview of things I've seen online - I actually really like and respect some of the folk in this thread to a high degree.). It's clear that Trump represents these people, even if he does his best to denounce them (though seems to fuck it up by then concentrating on 'the left'). Just seems that anything Trump does is defended at all costs by a large amount of his supporters, and even if he killed someone - it'd probably be the same :shrug same with ANTIFA as well, actually. Oh well. I consider America screwed, so whatever happens will happen no matter who's in charge. Just hope it doesn't spread into the UK/Ireland.


LITERALLY WHO

I should write a paragraph about how I don't know how anyone can defend child rapists.

Oh wait, I forgot about #RefugeesWelcome and UK politicians/police. :aryep


----------



## Reaper

And then they wonder why we ridicule leftists :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> And then they wonder why we ridicule leftists :lmao


Hedgehog Lives Matter > Black Lives Matter. :yoshi


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *That was an excellent post @L-DOPA :clap. You covered the positives and the negatives of BLM, while acknowledging the negatives as a rogue minority. You also told the whole story instead of spinning it to portray them as a terrorist group. I greatly appreciate that and take no issues with your stance. I'll have to research that list of demands to make sure it's not satire though :hmm.
> 
> Sidenote: LOL @ Trump for staring directly at the eclipse :mj4*


They might be a minority LB but the thing is they're TOO big. Just like the people in Charlottsvill. I don't personally support any kind of protest designed to silence another party.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899719263363096577

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899721226414735360

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899745863261716480


----------



## Oxidamus

Glorious Sun GOD :drose

Avatars :mj4
















(fitted)


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Oxidamus said:


> Glorious Sun GOD :drose
> 
> Avatars :mj4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (fitted)


If he can master Hamon, he'll finally be able to banish undead scourge like McConnell, Pelosi and Antifa zombies from further defiling this great land.

:trump2


----------



## DesolationRow

The Sun God (King, too, like Louis XIV) President. :sodone :mj2 

For real, though, wish he would pull the plug on the misadventure in Afghanistan. We'll see where he is versus "The Beast" of the military-industrial complex and agents of same in the coming months, but losing Steve Bannon is probably a significant blow to him in these sorts of struggles. Too many in the White House are now singing from the same song sheet.


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> The Sun God (King, too, like Louis XIV) President. :sodone :mj2
> 
> For real, though, wish he would pull the plug on the misadventure in Afghanistan. We'll see where he is versus "The Beast" of the military-industrial complex and agents of same in the coming months, but losing Steve Bannon is probably a significant blow to him in these sorts of struggles. Too many in the White House are now singing from the same song sheet.


Tonight, Trump tried to pacify both sides of the argument. On the one side, there's those of us who understand that the world of 2017 is a far more dangerous place. Afghanistan is in a rough spot right now as the Taliban is once again making inroads to controlling the country again. What's more, we are seeing ISIS and Haqqani joining the cause to bring back the days of Islamic theocracy to that nation. So, that's the justification of sending 4000 more troops to the region, although I do appreciate he did say he is changing the rules of engagement. There were far too many restrictions placed on our troops, let them do their job with little micro-management. 

Meanwhile, we hear the wailings of outrage from the isolationist/pacifist/anti-MIC crowd, they believe Trump has sold them out. They are especially concerned that we are no better off over there after 16 years...that portion is true. The troop number is really a much smaller amount then is going to be needed to really help meet our objectives over there. But he knows sending far more troops gives rise to the accusations of being a warmonger. So, he is trying to get by with the bare minimum to make everyone happy. 

To me, it still boils down to this...are we going to be fully committed to victory in Afghanistan? Do we have a clear plan on what it takes to succeed over there? We need a plan and we need to allow our troops to do that job without all these ridiculous and bullshit restrictions that hemmed them in during the Bush and Obama years. Most importantly, we need a clear-cut end game where we know we have achieved victory and can bring the troops home. If we had that, we could have taken care of business and brought home our soldiers a long time ago. If we can do all this, then I'm willing to sit back and let them do their jobs. If we're not serious about this, then bring the troops home. It's that simple. 

Keep in mind, I am one of those that would be absolutely more than happy to let the rest of the world figure out their own shit and we sit it out. Unfortunately, where the world is now means that's not an option. Many of you here on this site will accept nothing less than complete isolationism, where we absolutely never get involved anywhere for ANY reason. Yet, there are some very dangerous threats out there that if ignored will come knocking on our door (or break the damn door down). A strong America also means that we are willing to send a message to the rest of the world that messing with us militarily or otherwise is a bad idea. Peace through strength.


----------



## Reaper

Expecting Muslims of ANY country to willingly or even forcibly abandon Islamic Theocracy is like expecting a fish to stop swimming. The best you can expect is a secular dictator but that region is so far gone that it needs to be allowed to continue to destroy itself so that through destruction some hope of repair can eventually emerge as it naturally does. Meanwhile you beef up local security and spend that money on ensuring that attacks from that region don't happen instead of continuing military conflict. 

The only option now is to focus exclusively on ending ISIS in Syria (that I can get and stay behind), but let Pakistan and Afghanistan deal with their own problems. 

Once Obama reduced military "aid" and "assistance" to Pakistan, they've shown a MASSIVE decline in terrorist attacks since 2014. This is strong evidence that US was mismanaging the entire conflict, and there's no reason to expect that the same bureaucrats and generals that were fucking it up previously won't start fucking it up again. Pakistan dealt with the Taliban on its own terms and has managed to make more gains alone in the last 3 years than they ever did with US "help" in the 11-13 prior.

Afghanistan is a lost cause. The only hope is to let it completely destroy itself and isolate it from the rest of the world. Just getting yourself out of Afghanistan isn't isolationist. It's pragmatic. You don't need to isolate yourself just by banning or ignoring the existence of one more country. 

It's not like the US is running to save dozens of other countries that are involved in similar upheaval. This selective virtue signaling of neocons is simply designed to pander to a segment of the population that thinks that the sacrifice of their lives is meaningful when it isn't. Do we see any paragons sticking up for the Yemeni? Of course not, because they're the hand-picked enemy of KSA. Do we see any paragons making any posts about how we need to send troops into Africa to save them from Boko Haram? Do we see anyone wanting to send the military to save people in Myanmar? There's terrorists in all these countries and they're also being terrorised. 

The selective nature of the discussion stuck around Afghanistan and Iraq for the last 16 years is very much selective virtue signaling and a pet project of Republicans that they simply just can't give it up while brainwashing their electorate to keep those two conflicts top of mind despite there being dozens of conflicts around the world that are being completely ignored intentionally. Fucking let it go.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Expecting Muslims of ANY country to willingly or even forcibly abandon Islamic Theocracy is like expecting a fish to stop swimming. The best you can expect is a secular dictator but that region is so far gone that it needs to be allowed to continue to destroy itself so that through destruction some hope of repair can eventually emerge as it naturally does. Meanwhile you beef up local security and spend that money on ensuring that attacks from that region don't happen instead of continuing military conflict.
> 
> The only option now is to focus exclusively on ending ISIS in Syria (that I can get and stay behind), but let Pakistan and Afghanistan deal with their own problems.
> 
> Once Obama reduced military "aid" and "assistance" to Pakistan, they've shown a MASSIVE decline in terrorist attacks since 2014. This is strong evidence that US was mismanaging the entire conflict, and there's no reason to expect that the same bureaucrats and generals that were fucking it up previously won't start fucking it up again. Pakistan dealt with the Taliban on its own terms and has managed to make more gains alone in the last 3 years than they ever did with US "help" in the 11-13 prior.
> 
> Afghanistan is a lost cause. The only hope is to let it completely destroy itself and isolate it from the rest of the world. Just getting yourself out of Afghanistan isn't isolationist. It's pragmatic. You don't need to isolate yourself just by banning or ignoring the existence of one more country.
> 
> It's not like the US is running to save dozens of other countries that are involved in similar upheaval. This selective virtue signaling of neocons is simply designed to pander to a segment of the population that thinks that the sacrifice of their lives is meaningful when it isn't. Do we see any paragons sticking up for the Yemeni? Of course not, because they're the hand-picked enemy of KSA. Do we see any paragons making any posts about how we need to send troops into Africa to save them from Boko Haram? Do we see anyone wanting to send the military to save people in Myanmar? There's terrorists in all these countries and they're also being terrorised.
> 
> The selective nature of the discussion stuck around Afghanistan and Iraq for the last 16 years is very much selective virtue signaling and a pet project of Republicans that they simply just can't give it up while brainwashing their electorate to keep those two conflicts top of mind despite there being dozens of conflicts around the world that are being completely ignored intentionally. Fucking let it go.


Unfortunately, isolation of an Islamic Afghanistan didn't work before 9/11. And to just cut and run like we did in Iraq won't work either. Look at what happened the moment we bailed out there. The problem has been we have not been completely dedicated to victory...we are more worried about hurting others feelings or being politically correct. There are people in the world that will hate us no matter what. With what is out there including a nuclear Pakistan (would prefer not to let an Islamist group take over the country and use those nukes), just leaving is not really the best choice. In fact, it's the worst of them IMHO.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Unfortunately, isolation of an Islamic Afghanistan didn't work before 9/11. And to just cut and run like we did in Iraq won't work either. Look at what happened the moment we bailed out there. The problem has been we have not been completely dedicated to victory...we are more worried about hurting others feelings or being politically correct. There are people in the world that will hate us no matter what. With what is out there including a nuclear Pakistan (would prefer not to let an Islamist group take over the country and use those nukes), just leaving is not really the best choice. In fact, it's the worst of them IMHO.


Afghanistan wasn't isolated. Afghanistan Taliban were created and heralded as the solution to Afghanistan after the Russian invasion was quelched. They were accepted by the US at the time as the solution because no one at the time even knew just what they were capable of ... Hating the Taliban is very much based on hindsight and retrospect. 

In any case, what other solution are they going to have or currently have that's better than leaving yet another group of "less" radicalized Afghanis in charge. We certainly can't govern that shithole forever ... and 90% of the population of Afghanistan is extremist muslim now. There is no solution that involves locals anymore not when 90%+ are heavily radicalized uneducated filth. And I'm not exaggerating the facts. Just look at the Pew Research I love to quote all the time. 

Pakistan will be OK because most of our core political parties are still secularist. 

But yeah, in about 50-100 years time we will have something serious to worry about there because Islamist thought that was started by Zia in the 80's is now starting to really take hold as my parent's generation (the boomers of Pakistan) are starting to die off as they were the last true secular humanists of that country. Most have migrated, or been radicalized in the last 20 years so the future there is absolutely terrible ... But the solution isn't to interfere, but rather to let the secularists continue to win locally for as long as possible. Continued interference in Pakistan's sovereignty is a rallying cry for extremists and a major tool for recruitment.

---
Also, relevant.


----------



## DesolationRow

:lmao at that "Depressed" joke, @Reaper. 

The U.S. government just needs to spend MOAR resources and money and lives in Afghanistan! :mark:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899956119409500160


----------



## Miss Sally

Putting troops, money, time and weapons will surely make Afghanistan a better place, it's ripe for change and progress!


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump gazed upon the sun and the moon.

Liberals were then outraged that President Trump gazed upon the sun and the moon.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

I didn't care about the mishap or whatever it was where Melanie Trump's speech at the convention heavily "borrowed" from a Michelle Obama speech...

But seeing the cadre of :trump speechwriters "borrow" so heavily from Barack Obama... Is disquieting. :sad:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899823289912229888

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900006829278756864


----------



## Reaper

I don't need a conspiracy hat to know that both Obama and Trump are being manipulated by Neocons in their administrations. This is why I never questioned Obama's original intentions when he ran on an anti-war platform, and then Trump ... but with Trump I was hoping for a stronger personality than Obama to set things right ... but alas. Not to be.


----------



## Miss Sally

Why are both sides obsessed with putting troops over in the Mid East?!

There's something to be learned from us isolationists, we know that this shit will never end unless we go cold turkey.

Our presence isn't wanted nor needed in the Mid East, it's a money drain, accomplishes nothing on any grand scheme and it just wastes our troops lives.

Sick of the US putting troops in these hell holes which aren't going to change in this century and also sick of playing World Police.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Why are both sides obsessed with putting troops over in the Mid East?!
> 
> There's something to be learned from us isolationists, we know that this shit will never end unless we go cold turkey.
> 
> Our presence isn't wanted nor needed in the Mid East, it's a money drain, accomplishes nothing on any grand scheme and it just wastes our troops lives.
> 
> Sick of the US putting troops in these hell holes which aren't going to change in this century and also sick of playing World Police.


It might be too late to go back now though. 

There must be a lot of actual and soon to be terrorists that are pissed off their world's were literally blown to bits by your World Police, so it may be safer for the US in the long run to stay and fight in order to reduce the chance of those pissed off terrorists flying more planes into buildings.

Not saying black and white it's the US' fault terrorists are out there and hate America, but to deny a considerable amount of their military operations have done more harm than good is also not right.


----------



## Headliner

"They're trying to take away our culture & heritage" is code words white supremacists use. Thanks Trump.


----------



## AustinRockHulk

Why did Trump say the media twisted his words about Charlottesville when they didn't?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> "They're trying to take away our culture & heritage" is code words white supremacists use. Thanks Trump.


It can't mean something else? Like nothing at all? It can't have anything to do with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Liberty, and all that?


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Why are both sides obsessed with putting troops over in the Mid East?!
> 
> There's something to be learned from us isolationists, we know that this shit will never end unless we go cold turkey.
> 
> Our presence isn't wanted nor needed in the Mid East, it's a money drain, accomplishes nothing on any grand scheme and it just wastes our troops lives.
> 
> Sick of the US putting troops in these hell holes which aren't going to change in this century and also sick of playing World Police.





yeahbaby! said:


> It might be too late to go back now though.
> 
> There must be a lot of actual and soon to be terrorists that are pissed off their world's were literally blown to bits by your World Police, so it may be safer for the US in the long run to stay and fight in order to reduce the chance of those pissed off terrorists flying more planes into buildings.
> 
> Not saying black and white it's the US' fault terrorists are out there and hate America, but to deny a considerable amount of their military operations have done more harm than good is also not right.


I don't want to play the world police either, yet people seem to have extremely short memories of what was one of the big catalysts for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. That was our "cut and run" from there, when Obama just pulled all our troops out cold turkey just for the sake of keeping a promise. All that happened with what followed in Iraq and Syria is the direct result of that. I guarantee that we could see the same thing if we just cut and run from Afghanistan tomorrow. This time, however, you could see Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, and other organizations setting up shop over there to create havoc around the world. Inevitably, that would mean an attack over here, and whether or not it would be a 9/11-type attack or more like several San Bernadinos really wouldn't matter. And people would blame Trump for it, much like we rightfully blame Obama for his role in the rise of the Islamic State thanks to shortsighted promise-keeping. Yes, there are times where not keeping a promise is not a bad thing. 

I say give the troops time to do the job, Trump at least is willing to remove restrictions that Bush and Obama put on them to at least be able to do their jobs. He's going to let the military do what is needed. No, you're not going to see Geneva war crimes running rampant, but if you let them do their jobs we might be able to help stabilize things over there. Of course, we also need to sit down with the Afghan government and advise them that it's entirely up to them also to help create a better future for their country. If two years down the road the situation hasn't changed or gets worse, we can re-evaluate things at that point. 

I would prefer not to have another 9/11 happen here, and if we were to just pull out that could be a very real possibility. Better to keep them occupied over there then give them a chance to come back over here.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900242235781861376


----------



## Alco

I'm sure a post of mine calling for a UN-presence in the region can be found somewhere in this thread, but I firmly believe that the US and other countries still active in for example Afghanistan need to GTFO. The UN (and not one single country) has a role to play when one nation attacks another, or when genocide occurs. And even then, not a lot of success stories have come out of that.

As for the US in Afghanistan, it's not working and it'll never work. You're fighting a guerilla war on unknown terrain(amazing as that may sound after being there for 16 years) against an unpredictable enemy in a country that is not even interested in democracy. At least not in the form of democracy "the West" proposes. 99% of Afghan civilians favor Sharia law to be the official law of the country. That statistic in and of itself spells disaster for any foreign intervention.

Bad call on the part of Trump to follow the advice of the neocons in his administration. Although I guess he can put the blame on them when this strategy ultimately fails.


----------



## Draykorinee

AustinRockHulk said:


> Why did Trump say the media twisted his words about Charlottesville when they didn't?


Supposedly they were perfect words. lol.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> I say give the troops time to do the job, Trump at least is willing to remove restrictions that Bush and Obama put on them to at least be able to do their jobs. He's going to let the military do what is needed. No, you're not going to see Geneva war crimes running rampant, but if you let them do their jobs we might be able to help stabilize things over there. Of course, we also need to sit down with the Afghan government and advise them that it's entirely up to them also to help create a better future for their country. If two years down the road the situation hasn't changed or gets worse, we can re-evaluate things at that point.
> 
> I would prefer not to have another 9/11 happen here, and if we were to just pull out that could be a very real possibility. Better to keep them occupied over there then give them a chance to come back over here.


One of the things you keep claiming is that Bush and Obama placed restrictions on the military from "doing the job"? Do you have any evidence of this? 

Considering that I lived in Pakistan and actually got wind of the incompetence of the military through the experience of my military family that worked with the Americans and experienced most of the 50k casualties at the hands of the Taliban while I was still there, combined with news of the US getting its asses kicked while inside Afghanistan because they completely underestimated the Taliban and had no clue how to operate in the mountainous terrian nor realized that they weren't able to understand Musharrafs motives (who milked them for all they were worth) ... my impression of what went wrong in Afghanistan is completely different from yours. 

16 years is long enough. 16 years means that the child that was born when they entered Afghanistan is just 2 years shy of being able to enlist himself in this endless shitshow of incompetence and pride. Sure, a minimal presence may be required to maintain the numbers for another length of time - but there is nothing to put in place as a replacement. Unless it's a full blown occupation with permanent American presence. 

The problem right now is the neocons are too embarrassed to admit defeat and move on.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> One of the things you keep claiming is that Bush and Obama placed restrictions on the military from "doing the job"? Do you have any evidence of this?
> 
> Considering that I lived in Pakistan and actually got wind of the incompetence of the military through the experience of my military family that worked with the Americans and experienced most of the 50k casualties at the hands of the Taliban while I was still there, combined with news of the US getting its asses kicked while inside Afghanistan because they completely underestimated the Taliban and had no clue how to operate in the mountainous terrian nor realized that they weren't able to understand Musharrafs motives (who milked them for all they were worth) ... my impression of what went wrong in Afghanistan is completely different from yours.
> 
> 16 years is long enough. 16 years means that the child that was born when they entered Afghanistan is just 2 years shy of being able to enlist himself in this endless shitshow of incompetence and pride. Sure, a minimal presence may be required to maintain the numbers for another length of time - but there is nothing to put in place as a replacement. Unless it's a full blown occupation with permanent American presence.
> 
> The problem right now is the neocons are too embarrassed to admit defeat and move on.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428756/rules-engagment-need-reform

That story nails it and I know quite a few fellow veterans who saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan who will vouch. When you had to radio permission to get someone and they had to relay it to a lawyer for the military...that didn't help us at all.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> It might be too late to go back now though.
> 
> There must be a lot of actual and soon to be terrorists that are pissed off their world's were literally blown to bits by your World Police, so it may be safer for the US in the long run to stay and fight in order to reduce the chance of those pissed off terrorists flying more planes into buildings.
> 
> Not saying black and white it's the US' fault terrorists are out there and hate America, but to deny a considerable amount of their military operations have done more harm than good is also not right.


Agreed and the area was already a hot bed. I think guys like Assad are horrible people but they keep the even more crazy fucks in line who are waiting in the wings.

When the US "liberated" Iraq and Afghanistan it opened up the flood gates to all these assholes who were waiting for a chance to do what they wanted. The issue is that if the US pulls out the region is fucked, if they don't they're stuck in an unwinnable war and the more time passes the more hostile the locals will get until the nations just become Islamic Fundamentalist States that will be puppets to either Iran or Saudi Arabia and the US is pushed out anyways.

Nobody is going to win in the long run, it just will not work.


----------



## Reaper

:ha

1000 years from now, archaeologists will look back at this time and just burn everything and erase it from history because this time period is even more embarrassing than when we used to dance around fires and think that it would rain.

Leftists have totally destroyed what it means to be a political activist. Even those within the left are too embarrassed to call themselves leftists and engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to get away from the label :lmao 

Well, I suppose if this video is indicative of what the left is, then I suppose I would also be embarrassed as fuck to claim the label :lol

In other good news: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900114701115412480
Now Trump has executive power over this issue as given to him by the people.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It can't mean something else? Like nothing at all? It can't have anything to do with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Liberty, and all that?


No, it can't mean anything else. The New York Times (fake news right) had a article stating that Trump was sympathizing with the non violent protestors who were just celebrating their "heritage" according to white house staffers. These were the same people chanting white lives matter, blood and soil, and you will not replace us. They were protesting the removal of the statue because they wanted to preserve "white heritage".

It's certaintly not my heritage. Or any other minority's heritage.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> :ha.


:lol The dude looked like he got ko'ed


----------



## deepelemblues

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/22/j...ng-erased-from-history/?utm_source=site-share

:mj

The only reason it wasn't a massacre is because Steve Scalise happened to bring his security detail with him to the softball game practice, which he rarely did. 

But down the memory hole it goes!


----------



## Reaper

Melania has been NOTHING but civil against the people criticizing her son. This time the attack on Barron came from The Daily Caller and it was more than ridiculous.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900190933274308608
http://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/08/...-starts-dressing-like-hes-in-the-white-house/



> *It’s High Time Barron Trump Starts Dressing Like He’s In the White House*
> 
> I’ve been on the Barron Trump train from the start, but it’s about time the president’s son starts dressing the part.


Fucking moron. 

Piece of shit. He's an 11 year old. Let him live his life. He didn't ask for any of this.


----------



## deepelemblues

"On Your Mark

SHARK" 

sounds to me like perfectly dressing the part for the :trump White House :draper2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> No, it can't mean anything else. The New York Times (fake news right) had a article stating that Trump was sympathizing with the non violent protestors who were just celebrating their "heritage" according to white house staffers. These were the same people chanting white lives matter, blood and soil, and you will not replace us. They were protesting the removal of the statue because they wanted to preserve "white heritage".
> 
> It's certaintly not my heritage. Or any other minority's heritage.


I mean, technically speaking, it is America's "history" and "heritage". You can argue that America was created by white people, so America's history and heritage are white people's history and heritage, but slavery, Jim Crow, those things are minority's history and heritage too, it's just not a good one. Over 50% of people in this country think the statues should stay. Within that group there are white people, and minorities. To say it's only "white heritage" completely ignores the other possibility, that has merit. You're entitled to your opinion, but, geez, don't you get tired of being so negative?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@Legit BOSS

Remember this?



> Dec. 6, 2015: On CBS News, Trump said: “If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something.” Trump also said he didn’t believe the sister of one of the San Bernardino shooters who said she was crestfallen for the victims, saying: “I would go after a lot of people, and I would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.”
> 
> *(Now we're getting into projection quotes, here. He's talking about people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes. Are you denying that such places exist, because they do exist. Ask Reaper, I'm sure he'll speak to such things existing. It's not xenophobic to point out truth.)*


Do you know who head's a mosque? It's call an Imam. So, you think Trump is xenophobic for entertaining the idea of shutting down mosques that preach a hateful view of America....



> Spain terror suspects say imam was mastermind of deadly attacks
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spain-terror-suspects-say-imam-was-mastermind-of-deadly-attacks/
> 
> A Spanish judicial official says two of the four surviving Barcelona suspects have identified an *imam*, who was killed in an explosion, as *the ideologist* of the extremist cell responsible for carrying out deadly attacks and planning others.
> 
> Only one of the four suspects acknowledged being part of the 12-member cell during proceedings at Spain's National Court on Tuesday.
> 
> Houli Chemlal's testimony is considered key to understanding the motivations of the 12-man cell as he is the lone survivor of a blast Wednesday that destroyed a house in Alcanar, south of Barcelona, where police believe the cell was preparing explosives for an even bigger attack on the city. Over 100 tanks of butane gas and materials to make TATP explosive were found at the house, police say.
> 
> Chemlal told a judge that attackers were preparing bombs for an imam believed to be the leader of the cell to strike monuments in Barcelona, a source with Spain's judiciary said Tuesday.
> 
> The prosecutor has asked for Oukabir to be jailed without bail before trial -- along with the first suspect to testify, Mohamed Houli Chemlal. The other suspects were questioned were Mohammed Aalla and Said el Karib.
> 
> The judicial source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Aalla said his Audi A3 used in last week's attack in Cambrils had been stolen from him. And el Karib, the owner of a cybercafe in Ripoll, was he was only making an economic profit when he bought plane tickets for two members of the cell.
> 
> National Court prosecutor Ana Noe is asking for the four to be sent to prison without bail on preliminary charges of being part of a terrorist organization, homicide, causing havoc and dealing with explosives.
> 
> One suspect told the court that he had rented the vans used in in last week's attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils but thought they were going to be used for a house move, a person who attended the hearing said.
> 
> The person said suspect Driss Oukabir denied being part of the attackers' cell. His brother Moussa was one of the five radicals shot dead Friday by police after a vehicle attack on pedestrians in Cambrils.
> 
> Oukabir was one of four attack suspects quizzed Tuesday at the court in Madrid by Judge Fernando Andreu and prosecutors. Andreu will decide whether the four should be jailed or released.
> 
> The person attending the hearing said Oukabir told the prosecutor his first version of events -- telling police that his documents were stolen by his brother -- was something he had done out of fear. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the hearing.
> 
> Oukabir, Aalla and el Karib were arrested Thursday in the northeastern town of Ripoll and Houli Chemlal in Alcanar for their alleged involvement in planning or carrying out two vehicle attacks on pedestrians -- one Thursday in Barcelona that left 13 dead and another in the nearby town of Cambrils early Friday that killed one person.
> 
> Another person was killed by the alleged Barcelona van attacker as he fled. More than 120 people were injured, most in Barcelona.
> 
> The four were interrogated in the presence of lawyers provided for them by the court.
> 
> The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for both attacks.
> 
> The lone fugitive from the cell -- 22-year-old Younes Abouyaaqoub -- was shot to death Monday after he flashed what turned out to be a fake suicide belt at police who confronted him in a vineyard not far from the city that he terrorized.
> 
> Police said they had "scientific evidence" that Abouyaaqoub drove the van that barreled through Barcelona's crowded Las Ramblas promenade, mowing people down, then hijacked a car and fatally stabbed its driver while making his getaway.
> 
> Abouyaaqoub's brother and friends made up the rest of the 12-man extremist cell. Police said with Abouyaaqoub's death, the group's members were all dead or in custody.
> 
> Chemlal was born in Melilla, one of Spain's two North African coastal enclaves that have borders with Morocco. Spanish media say the other 11 suspects are mostly or all Moroccans that lived in Spain.


You can keep your head in the sand all you want, but stuff like this, it's coming here, if it hasn't already, and some will tell you it already is here. The President has a responsibility to do something about it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900242235781861376


If the politicians and the police won't do anything to stop things like this, voters will just vote in people who will.

The fact that the left doesn't denounce a group like ANTIFA is them just shoveling their own grave.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> In other good news:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900114701115412480
> Now Trump has executive power over this issue as given to him by the people.


You can count me as one of the 250k+. Signed that petition 3 days ago.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> It's not going to make a lick of difference, not when both parties are full of neocons and people only looking out for themselves.
> .


You do realize that "Neocons" are not democrats, right?

Do you even know what a "neocon" is?

It's admirable to have an opinion . . . but . . . .


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You can count me as one of the 250k+. Signed that petition 3 days ago.


Then you have just been christened an official moron. That petition is the certificate you can stick on your fridge.


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> You do realize that "Neocons" are not democrats, right?
> 
> Do you even know what a "neocon" is?
> 
> It's admirable to have an opinion . . . but . . . .


Neocons sit on both sides of the lines which is why both parties overall suck for the most part.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @Legit BOSS
> Do you know who head's a mosque? It's call an Imam. So, you think Trump is xenophobic for entertaining the idea of shutting down mosques that preach a hateful view of America....


Even my dad abandoned going to mosques and had to fire an Imam from an in-house mosque in one of his buildings because he was preaching hate. Imam's are horrible people. I have no respect for any of them. Never did. 

My grandfather had this preacher guy his daughters still go to for advice and it makes me cringe because they've never come back with any decent advice at all. 

---

I don't know how many of you have been keeping up with the Rebel --- who have made some decent videos in the past and launched some good careers ---- BUT, this video is kind of a nail in the coffin for that organization. 

I will watch their vids once in a while still, but damn this is bad.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Even my dad abandoned going to mosques and had to fire an Imam from an in-house mosque in one of his buildings because he was preaching hate. Imam's are horrible people. I have no respect for any of them. Never did.
> 
> My grandfather had this preacher guy his daughters still go to for advice and it makes me cringe because they've never come back with any decent advice at all.
> 
> ---
> 
> I don't know how many of you have been keeping up with the Rebel --- who have made some decent videos in the past and launched some good careers ---- BUT, this video is kind of a nail in the coffin for that organization.
> 
> I will watch their vids once in a while still, but damn this is bad.



Too bad, Rebel Media was one of the most watched channels. Think Gavin and Lauren were their biggest draws too.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @Legit BOSS
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know who head's a mosque? It's call an Imam. So, you think Trump is xenophobic for entertaining the idea of shutting down mosques that preach a hateful view of America....
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep your head in the sand all you want, but stuff like this, it's coming here, if it hasn't already, and some will tell you it already is here. The President has a responsibility to do something about it.


*Ok, lets pass legislation banning entire groups because of the acts of extremists. Lets ban all Trump supporters from protesting because they might be violent white supremacists. Get the fuck out with this logic ut*


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Too bad, Rebel Media was one of the most watched channels. Think Gavin and Lauren were their biggest draws too.


They also fired Faith Goldy recently. I'm looking into why.

--

In my search, I found this guy :lmao 






I think I'm in love :homer

After watching 6 minutes of this beautiful man say stuff, I have no idea what he said :evil

I subbed tho.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> They also fired Faith Goldy recently. I'm looking into why.


She went to Charlottesville despite being told not to go by Ezra Levant and she also went on a Daily Stormer podcast. People claimed she was being sympathetic towards white supremacists also but I don't know about that one . Ultimately, its her fault for getting fired


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> She went to Charlottesville despite being told not to go by Ezra Levant and she also went on a Daily Stormer podcast. People claimed she was being sympathetic towards white supremacists also but I don't know about that one . Ultimately, its her fault for getting fired


I guess I'll have to listen to the podcast in question and decide for myself. You shouldn't fire someone for talking to the "wrong" people anymore than you should fire them for wrong-think. So it really depends on what she said. Also, I'm guessing that they're not really Rebel employees, but more like independent contractors, but we'll have to see what the truth behind that is. 

Based on the previous video I posted though, Levant does not seem like a standup guy at all.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> I guess I'll have to listen to the podcast in question and decide for myself.
> 
> Based on the previous video I posted though, Levant does not seem like a standup guy at all.


Well isn't the Daily Stormer a Neo Nazi website?

As for Ezra Levant, he's been sued a for libel nearly a dozen times over articles he's posted that were false. So that should tell you something about him. He's done some "questionable" things in the past


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Well isn't the Daily Stormer a Neo Nazi website?
> 
> As for Ezra Levant, he's been sued a for libel nearly a dozen times over articles he's posted that were false. So that should tell you something about him. He's done some "questionable" things in the past


Doesn't matter. I'm not one of those people who scream guilt by association unlike some others. 

It's not who you talk to, but what you say which is why I said I would like to listen to that for myself.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *Ok, lets pass legislation banning entire groups because of the acts of extremists.  Lets ban all Trump supporters from protesting because they might be violent white supremacists. Get the fuck out with this logic ut*


You think all Muslims are terrorists, and all Trump supporters are white supremacists. And you say I'm the one with the problem. LOL


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Doesn't matter. I'm not one of those people who scream guilt by association unlike some others.
> 
> It's not who you talk to, but what you say which is why I said I would like to listen to that for myself.


Well, it was enough to get her fired so I don't know. I feel like Guilt with Association might be a little justified in this situation. Especially since what she's said on the podcast wasn't exactly used in her defense by any means. Ultimately, I don't know I didn't listen to it nor do I wish to listen


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Then you have just been christened an official moron. That petition is the certificate you can stick on your fridge.


If you don't believe that ANTIFA is a violent organization that is hell bent on terrorizing innocent people into silence, then by all means continue to act dumb.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, it was enough to get her fired so I don't know. I feel like Guilt with Association might be a little justified in this situation. Especially since what she's said on the podcast wasn't exactly used in her defense by any means. Ultimately, I don't know I didn't listen to it nor do I wish to listen


I'm halfway through it right now and if I didn't know that she was talking to a guy from the Daily Stormer, I wouldn't know what this guy's leanings are or even what his political views are. She's repeating a lot of what she's been saying on the Rebel for as long as I've listened to her. The worst thing I've seen her say is that alt-right people will start running for office and that people will be fools to ignore you. I feel like this was more in context of realizing a new wave / political movement that is being ignored rather than supporting it. Am I also a sympathizer now? 

Anyways, my point is that what was said is what's important to me. Not who it's said by. 

This is why I still read everything from the far left Huffpo to the far right Rebel and others. You cannot limit yourself from talking to anybody no matter who it is and how vile you think they might be. That's just not how I was raised.


----------



## Vic Capri

>


Instant karma. :lol



> Antifa lunged at us leaving the #PhoenixRally. Even punched black Trump supporter in the face for being "Nazi."


A white Antifa member punching a black Trump supporter? There's some irony there for you. 

- Vic


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> LITERALLY WHO
> 
> I should write a paragraph about how I don't know how anyone can defend child rapists.
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot about #RefugeesWelcome and UK politicians/police. :aryep


I wasn't directing it at anyone on here, which I stated. I've seen a load of things elsewhere though. Although I do think Trump has concentrated *too much* on 'the left' as I also said when talking about the whole fiasco over white supremacists and the like.

Also, not all refugees are child rapists. I do agree on here though that more stuff needs to be done to limit the amount of refugees coming in (you can thank @L-DOPA for changing my mind on that! ) and to actual help those in certain countries. I think there could be some sort of system to determine who to let in, but I'm no politician nor too much politically savvy like you or Reap or L-DOPA or BM or whoever else , so I have no clue.

I know I'm left-leaning, but doesn't mean I don't agree with ya (or even Trump voters at times) at times!  I'm actually considering myself centre-left these days :CENA. I'm the biggest political fuck-up side ever I am at times :lol


----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> Neocons sit on both sides of the lines which is why both parties overall suck for the most part.



No. They Don't. Figure out what the "con" part means. Here's a hint: it doesn't stand for "convict" (though maybe it should).


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you don't believe that ANTIFA is a violent organization that is hell bent on terrorizing innocent people into silence, then by all means continue to act dumb.


So you are a fan of Fascism? Apparently. So your level of scum-baggery is off the chart.


Let's see . . . if my choice is between Douchebag fascist white supremacists or a group of Anti-Fascists, the choice of someone with an ounce of Critical thinking and rational thought is not hard.


----------



## Reaper

wagnergrad96 said:


> No. They Don't. Figure out what the *"con" part means.* Here's a hint: it doesn't stand for "convict" (though maybe it should).





wagnergrad96 said:


> So you are a fan of Fascism? Apparently. So your level of scum-baggery is off the chart.
> 
> 
> Let's see . . . if my choice is between Douchebag fascist white supremacists or a *group of Anti-Fascists*, the choice of someone with an ounce of Critical thinking and rational thought is not hard.


There's a recurring theme in these two posts. :mj4 

I guess from this we can conclude that The Taliban are just students.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> So you are a fan of Fascism? Apparently. So your level of scum-baggery is off the chart.
> 
> 
> Let's see . . . if my choice is between Douchebag fascist white supremacists or a group of Anti-Fascists, the choice of someone with an ounce of Critical thinking and rational thought is not hard.


You think ANTIFA is fighting fascism? Wow, you truly are lost.


----------



## MickDX

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You act like the ban is forever and that it was specifically created to ban all incoming Muslims forever, just because they're Muslim. You can't get any more ignorant. From day 1, Trump stated that he would TEMPORARILY halt passage from X number of countries, to work on finding solutions towards a better process to determine good/honest Muslims, from the terrorists trying to pose as good/honest Muslims. If you think it's anything nefarious, you're just flat out blind, and I really don't know what to tell you, except to say that I feel sorry for you.


Did he said forever? Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

The ban is still unjustified given that no big event happened before it. Why not finding better screening solutions in the first place? And why Saudi Arabia gets away when a big share of the terrorism is from there? 

You should get banned for calling people "ignorant", "blind", "dumb", that's why this kind of topics is so toxic, because people like you think they are superior for some reason.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Over 50% of people in this country think the statues should stay. Within that group there are white people, and minorities.


Evidence for this? For me it looks like bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

MickDX said:


> Did he said forever? Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
> 
> The ban is still unjustified* given that no big event happened before it*. Why not finding better screening solutions in the first place? And why not Saudi Arabia gets away when a big a share of the terrorism is from there?
> 
> You should get banned for calling people "ignorant", "blind", "dumb", that's why this kind of topics is so toxic, because people like you think they are superior for some reason.


That's cherry-picking. You basically restrict a "lack of something" between two arbitrarily chosen points and claim that nothing happened, or nothing could happen in order to push a narrative. It's intellectually dishonest to do this.

What happened in Europe and European countries and is still happening there and the fact that they have an uncontrollable home-grown muslim terrorist problem that we are currently witnessing and witnessed before Trump's ban muslim plan is more than enough justification to ban muslim migration to America. 

Anyways, this has been debated to death. The only real response here from the left side of the coin is to restrict sampling to a very narrow, specifically chosen data point to argue this issue. Real honest people look at the entire data point and what's happening around the globe and not just a myopic time-stamp specifically geared towards proving a point that is only true for that chosen time-stamp. 

It's like comparing a movie to a photograph and you guys are just looking at the photograph.


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> Also, not all refugees are child rapists.


:tenay


----------



## Reaper

Your regular reminder that Taxation is Theft. 










:mj


----------



## MrMister

:lmao :lmao :lmao 
@Reaper found The Golden One

:lmao


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> @Reaper found The Golden One
> 
> :lmao


I am not at all ashamed to admit that I have binge-watched more than a dozen of his videos today. 

And I have no idea what his views are. Seems like a red-pilled centre/right nationalist of some sort. 

Bonus!

His channel is still open in my tabs :lmao


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> Your regular reminder that Taxation is Theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mj


My brother used to live in Dallas, like 2 years ago, and he still talks about how great the privately built highways were. True, he had to pay a toll, but he said it was so worth it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

MickDX said:


> Did he said forever? Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
> 
> The ban is still unjustified given that no big event happened before it. Why not finding better screening solutions in the first place? And why Saudi Arabia gets away when a big share of the terrorism is from there?
> 
> You should get banned for calling people "ignorant", "blind", "dumb", that's why this kind of topics is so toxic, because people like you think they are superior for some reason.
> 
> 
> *Evidence for this? For me it looks like bullshit.*


Do you have to explicitly say forever to imply it? No, he's implied it from the start.

Sounds like bullshit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG



> A majority of Americans want to preserve Confederate monuments: Reuters/Ipsos poll
> 
> A majority of Americans think Confederate monuments should be preserved in public spaces, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, a view that is at odds with efforts in many cities to remove them.
> 
> The Aug. 18-21 poll found that 54 percent of adults said Confederate monuments "should remain in all public spaces" while 27 percent said they "should be removed from all public spaces." Another 19 percent said they "don't know."
> 
> Responses to the poll were sharply split along racial and party lines, however, with whites and Republicans largely supportive of preservation. Democrats and minorities were more likely to support removal....


100% of whites didn't support keeping them, and 100% of minorities didn't support removal. So, what I said is far from bullshit.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

virus21 said:


>


I don't agree with like 90% of what he believes in, but at least he's woke.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900186626277748736

*FAKE NEWS!!!! @Chris JeriG.O.A.T*


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I mean, technically speaking, it is America's "history" and "heritage". You can argue that America was created by white people, so America's history and heritage are white people's history and heritage, but slavery, Jim Crow, those things are minority's history and heritage too, it's just not a good one. Over 50% of people in this country think the statues should stay. Within that group there are white people, and minorities. To say it's only "white heritage" completely ignores the other possibility, that has merit. You're entitled to your opinion, but, geez, don't you get tired of being so negative?


America was built on prejudice, racism, xenophobia, bigotry and hate. Which is why I'm extremely cautious of anyone who is very "patriotic". No, those statues aren't apart of my heritage. My heritage is the slaves who had to deal with torment. My heritage are the people who fought against slavery. My heritage are civil rights leaders and others who fought against Jim Crow. Fuck those statues. I don't care if the majority feels that way. These racist pieces of shit don't need to be celebrated. So again and back to my original post, that's white heritage. Not mine. And considering Donald Trump has a record of being a white sympathizer, I knew exactly what he was talking about and it's the same exact code words white nationalists and supremacists use when they talk about preserving their culture. 

I'm not negative. I'm giving you uncomfortable truths that many people here aren't use to hearing so they are quick to disregard. Many of you are use to hearing the same perspective and have been for years which makes it nearly impossible to see a different perspective.


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> No. They Don't. Figure out what the "con" part means. Here's a hint: it doesn't stand for "convict" (though maybe it should).


You don't know much American Politics do you?

That Republicans and Democrats to their very core are different sides of the same coin? Both parties have neocon influence.

Considering you think Antifa is actually about fighting Nazis I'm not surprised.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Headliner said:


> *America was built on prejudice, racism, xenophobia, bigotry and hate. Which is why I'm extremely cautious of anyone who is very "patriotic".* No, those statues aren't apart of my heritage. My heritage is the slaves who had to deal with torment. My heritage are the people who fought against slavery. My heritage are civil rights leaders and others who fought against Jim Crow. Fuck those statues. I don't care if the majority feels that way. These racist pieces of shit don't need to be celebrated. So again and back to my original post, that's white heritage. Not mine. And considering Donald Trump has a record of being a white sympathizer, I knew exactly what he was talking about and it's the same exact code words white nationalists and supremacists use when they talk about preserving their culture.
> 
> I'm not negative. I'm giving you uncomfortable truths that many people here aren't use to hearing so they are quick to disregard. Many of you are use to hearing the same perspective and have been for years which makes it nearly impossible to see a different perspective.


This is why I don't get social conservatives, I get fiscal conservatives but social conservatives, man... To be a conservative by definition means you don't want things to change, so when people of color, lgbt people and women want more equality, want a more progressive society and conservatives push back, to me that says you don't want us to be your equals. Conservatives don't want Mexican immigrants in this country, even though every economic study says that illegals put more money in the economy then they take out, every sociological study says that they commit less crime than citizens and Trump himself has illegals working at Mar-a-lago, to me the only reason to not want them here is because white people don't want to be outnumbered in a "white nation". To me social conservative positions seem inherently bigoted, when Mike Pence wouldn't allow gay marriage in Indiana even after it passed federally, that shit didn't have anything to do with less taxes and smaller government, it was just about keeping a minority group inequal.


----------



## Headliner

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> This is why I don't get social conservatives, I get fiscal conservatives but social conservatives, man... To be a conservative by definition means you don't want things to change, so when people of color, lgbt people and women want more equality, want a more progressive society and conservatives push back, to me that says you don't want us to be your equals. Conservatives don't want Mexican immigrants in this country, even though every economic study says that illegals put more money in the economy then they take out, every sociological study says that they commit less crime than citizens and Trump himself has illegals working at Mar-a-lago, to me the only reason to not want them here is because white people don't want to be outnumbered in a "white nation". To me social conservative positions seem inherently bigoted, when Mike Pence wouldn't allow gay marriage in Indiana even after it passed federally, that shit didn't have anything to do with less taxes and smaller government, it was just about keeping a minority group inequal.


Social conservatives are bigot trash for the most part. No need to sugar coat them.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> America was built on prejudice, racism, xenophobia, bigotry and hate. Which is why I'm extremely cautious of anyone who is very "patriotic". No, those statues aren't apart of my heritage. My heritage is the slaves who had to deal with torment. My heritage are the people who fought against slavery. My heritage are civil rights leaders and others who fought against Jim Crow. Fuck those statues. I don't care if the majority feels that way. These racist pieces of shit don't need to be celebrated. So again and back to my original post, that's white heritage. Not mine. And considering Donald Trump has a record of being a white sympathizer, I knew exactly what he was talking about and it's the same exact code words white nationalists and supremacists use when they talk about preserving their culture.
> 
> I'm not negative. I'm giving you uncomfortable truths that many people here aren't use to hearing so they are quick to disregard. Many of you are use to hearing the same perspective and have been for years which makes it nearly impossible to see a different perspective.


The truths aren't uncomfortable to me. We all have a history, good and bad. For instance, before the advent of slavery, Africans sold other Africans to white people as slaves. That's your history, as a black man, and you have to own it and accept it. Nobody, except maybe a tiny fraction of the country, celebrates what the Confederates did, as far as fighting to keep slavery. Most celebrate Confederates because they stood up for state rights, as misguided as that may be. Others celebrate it because it's our history and we've learned from it using these statues, and men, as reminders of the evils we once inflicted and endured; and how we've learned from those errors. We don't have slavery today, and we don't have Jim Crow laws today. Those are mistakes that we've learned from. Not everyone celebrates the same things for the same reasons.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

My hypothesis is that the political side that is out of power is the one that hallucinates the most – and needs to – in order to keep their worldview intact. For example, when President Obama was in office, I saw all kinds of hallucinations on the right about his intentions to destroy America from the inside because he “hates” it. 

That was a mass hysteria. If President Obama wanted to destroy America, he failed miserably. We’re stronger than ever.

The birther issue started as ordinary political shenanigans to delegitimize the president. I call it ordinary because you see the trick used whenever it is an option, as it was with “Canadian” Ted Cruz in the primaries. Eventually it morphed into a full-blown hallucination that President Obama was a Muslim sleeper cell from Kenya, or something like that. That was mass hysteria. 

Now that Democrats are out of power, we should expect them to hallucinate like crazy (literally) because the election results of 2016 shattered their expectations. Do we see signs of their hallucinations? I’ll walk you through a few examples. 

Hallucination:

Based on President Trump’s tweets and speeches, I can see into his soul, and it is all darkness and racism in there.

Real:

If the President of the United States tries anything racist in the real world, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the voters would shut him down in a heartbeat. For example, the Courts modified President Trump’s immigration ban to remove even the perception of racism. That’s a sensitive filter for racism, and I think we like it that way.

Society’s standard is that you are judged for what you do, not what you privately think. That’s good because humans are terrible at knowing what other people think, while at the same time we think we are good at it. I know this first-hand because dozens of people misinterpret what I write on social media every day. If you don’t have my type of experience – of being routinely misinterpreted – you might think humans are good at reading minds based on subtle clues. We are not good at that. We might be slightly better than random chance, at best. The problem is that we are dead-certain we are champions of evidence-based mindreading. That is a hallucination.

Hallucination:

I can spot a racist by how long it takes them to properly disavow other racists.

Real:

That isn’t a thing. The first rule of communicating is that people only hear what they think you intend to say. They don’t hear what you actually say. If you think someone is a racist, you will perceive their disavowals of racism as too late and too inadequate. If you think someone is not a racist, you might see their statements as politically incorrect and nothing worse. This phenomenon is most pronounced when strong emotions are involved. The topic of racism stirs our strongest emotions. So according to everything we know about brains, we should expect the highest level of hallucinations when racism is the topic. And that is exactly what we observe. 

To be clear, racism itself is very real. The hallucination is limited to seeing it under every bed and behind every couch.

Hallucination:

The president has accomplished nothing!

Real:

The president has accomplished a long list of things.

That said, we are 13% into President Trump’s first term, and Congress has created no major bills worthy of signing. Congress is tasked with working out the details of bills. The president can’t do his job until they do theirs.

We observe that the president has not shown leadership on any major legislation. But keep in mind that Congress produced nothing worthy of leadership. Would any leader be able to fix that? Yes, but I assume it takes longer than simply signing bills that come to your desk. Especially in this hyper-polarized environment.

Hallucination:

President Trump is performing poorly!

Real:

Compared to what? The imaginary president in your head? There is no base case with which to compare any president’s performance. Would Hillary Clinton have passed major legislation with a Republican Congress in less than six months? It seems unlikely. But we can’t know because she isn’t president.

We are terrible at judging how well a stranger performs compared to the imaginary person in our minds. We just think we are good at it. 

Hallucination:

If you thought some “fine people” were marching with Nazis and KKK in Charlottesville, you are a racist.

Real:

I condemn all racists and anyone who marches with them. But It turns out that some non-racists were at the event to support the absolute right of free speech, including the worst kinds of speech. In this one case, President Trump passed the fact-checking but failed miserably on the “saying the right thing” dimension.

He wisely left the facts alone after failing on the empathy.

Hallucination:

This country needs moral leadership and we are not getting it!

Real:

The country does not need moral leadership in 2017. Social media has filled that void. The country is unified (let’s say 98%) in condemning the KKK and other racists in Charlottesville. We did that without moral leadership. We want moral leadership, but there is no evidence we need it.

We would also like to know our president has the right intentions. But hallucinations on that topic are nearly unfixable. Obama never fixed it. Trump will not either.

Hallucination:

The way you worded your statement, you made a moral equivalence between the KKK and people protesting the KKK.

Real:

Literally no one but the KKK and other extreme racists has any trouble understanding that Nazis are worse than the people protesting against hate. It is a hallucination (or political tricksterism) to suggest normal citizens can’t distinguish the moral difference between Nazis and those demonstrating against racism. 

I could go on, but I think you are starting to see the picture. The party out of power has to hallucinate to make their world make sense. The people who think they are smart and morally pure don’t understand why their side lost an election. The simplest fix for that broken worldview is to imagine there are far more “secret racists” than they first assumed, and those people can be identified by the way they accidentally reveal their “moral equivalence” opinions that look exactly like law-and-order opinions to others.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Cognitive dissonance hits the losing team hardest. It has to, because only the losing side need to make sense of it all. The winning side thinks things are going exactly as expected. They have no trigger for hallucinating.

If our next president is a Democrat, expect the Right to do most of the hallucinating. The Left will think things are going as expected.

If you are still confident you can read President Trump’s inner thoughts because of the clear pattern of racist acts he has committed, see if this article about the Central Park 5 shakes your confidence in what you thought you knew.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

Remember, President Trump is not the only person good at persuasion. The opposition is running on all cylinders. 

If you got this far, then you should know that I didn't write this. Scott Adams did. I just wanna see who makes it to the end.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at Trump supporters still trying to pretend Trump isn't racist.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams dead on as usual.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*OH PLEASE blind Trumpers, PLEASE defend THIS FUCKING IDIOT threatening to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT if he can't build his fuckin wall at OUR expense. PLEASE let me know why racism is more important than keeping this country running. You know you fucked up when PAUL RYAN is the voice of reason:*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/paul-ryan-border-security-funding/index.html


> (CNN)Speaker Paul Ryan Wednesday rejected a threat by President Donald Trump to shut down the government to force Congress to approve funding for a border wall with Mexico.
> "I don't think a government shutdown is necessary and I don't think most people want to see a government shutdown, ourselves included," the leader of the Republican-controlled House said at a news conference in Oregon where he was promoting tax reform.
> Ryan argued the House had already passed funding for border security but that the narrowly divided Senate -- where Democrats have considerably more sway over what gets into funding bills -- would need more time to act.
> 
> "The fact is though, given the time of year it is and the rest of the appropriations we have to do, we are going to need more time to complete appropriations process particularly in the Senate," Ryan said.
> Ryan also said a short-term government funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, would probably be needed to keep the government open past September.
> 
> At a raucous rally in Phoenix Tuesday night, Trump said he would insist on the border wall funding.
> "If we have to close down our government, we're building that wall," Trump said.
> Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also warned against a shutdown over the border security issue.
> 
> "If the President pursues this path, against the wishes of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as the majority of the American people, he will be heading towards a government shutdown which nobody will like and which won't accomplish anything," the New York Democrat said in a statement.
> In the current politically polarized environment -- when Trump is battling Republicans on the Hill as hard as he is Democrats -- it's highly uncertain if a government shutdown can be avoided. But GOP leaders on the Hill have made clear their desire to avoid the potentially politically damaging outcome.
> 
> Ryan was asked about Trump's harsh criticism of Arizona's two GOP senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake.
> "I would just say that I think it's important that we all stay unified as Republicans to complete our agenda," Ryan said. "Those two gentlemen are people I respect, know, like and are friends with -- and we disagree on certain issues. I can think of a couple with those gentleman, but nevertheless we have very good working relationship. I think it's important we stay unified but I think the President is employing a strategy he thinks is effective for him."


----------



## CamillePunk

Shutting down the government :drose


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> *OH PLEASE blind Trumpers, PLEASE defend THIS FUCKING IDIOT threatening to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT if he can't build his fuckin wall at OUR expense. PLEASE let me know why racism is more important than keeping this country running. You know you fucked up when PAUL RYAN is the voice of reason:*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/paul-ryan-border-security-funding/index.html


Cant wait to see the shit show this thread will be when Trump gets impeached or is forced to resign. it will be "glorious". 









CamillePunk said:


> Shutting down the government :drose


LOL @ Trump supporters taking a comic writer as a serious political pundit

Then again we shouldn't be surprised since you take a reality tv show host seriously when he is an utter disaster.


----------



## CamillePunk

Let me know when you have any criticisms or rebuttals of Scott Adams' actual arguments instead of just pointing out his success across multiple fields.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *OH PLEASE blind Trumpers, PLEASE defend THIS FUCKING IDIOT threatening to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT if he can't build his fuckin wall at OUR expense. PLEASE let me know why racism is more important than keeping this country running. You know you fucked up when PAUL RYAN is the voice of reason:*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/paul-ryan-border-security-funding/index.html


Why is it a big deal when Trump hints at it? Both sides hint at it all the time.



> It’s Democrats’ Turn to Hint at a Shutdown, Over Border Wall Funding
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/...ll-government-shutdown-democrats.html?mcubz=0
> 
> *A group of Democrats spoke about a possible government shutdown due to Trump’s proposed wall along the boarder of Mexico.* Democrats are in a bind with Republicans having the majority control, and they are intent on reaching an agreement over the wall, particularly over funding. With Trumps 2018 budget priorities being revealed next month, the stakes of reaching an agreement are much higher. In order to build the wall cuts will have to be made in departments such as the State Department, foreign aid, the Internal Revenue Service and the National Endowment for the Arts, but in order to do so Republicans and Democrats will have to come together. Democrats are now publicly taking a stance on the issue, and although they did not agree with the government shutdown during Obamas presidency, they are willing to fight for what they want...


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Cant wait to see the shit show this thread will be when Trump gets impeached or is forced to resign. it will be "glorious".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ Trump supporters taking a comic writer as a serious political pundit
> 
> Then again we shouldn't be surprised since you take a reality tv show host seriously when he is an utter disaster.


If you can't read the other side's arguments, then you're the one with the problem.

Here's the odds of the Dems impeaching, or getting Trump to resign


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you can't read the other side's arguments, then you're the one with the problem.
> 
> Here's the odds of the Dems impeaching, or getting Trump to resign


yeah keep taking a comic strip writers political views seriously lol It's Ironic how conservatives in this thread shit on John Oliver when he bashes Trump yet take Scott Adams seriously. The hypocrisy of the right wingers on this forum never ceases to amaze me.


And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900522067220729856
kek


----------



## Oxidamus

What is wrong with saying the government should be shut down exactly? Trump's just pointing to the fact he can't even implement conservative ideals without major backlash. Sometimes he can't even implement them at all. Surely you can't possibly be so blind as to look at how conservatism is constantly shut down by liberalism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> What is wrong with saying the government should be shut down exactly? Trump's just pointing to the fact he can't even implement conservative ideals without major backlash. Sometimes he can't even implement them at all. Surely you can't possibly be so blind as to look at how conservatism is constantly shut down by liberalism.


It's because Trump is incompetent.The only people that are blind are people supporting Trump that can't see an admit what a disaster he is.

Trump doesn't know shit on how the govt works that is why he is such a failure.

Trump wants to shut down the govt because he can't get his racist way of building a wall that is not even needed.

Trumps priorities are so fucked up. Trump is a racist baby, oh he isn't getting his wall, he is going to shut down the govt.

Trump is the biggest snowflake on the planet.


----------



## Oxidamus

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> This is why I don't get social conservatives, I get fiscal conservatives but social conservatives, man... To be a conservative by definition means you don't want things to change, so when people of color, lgbt people and women want more equality, want a more progressive society and conservatives push back, to me that says you don't want us to be your equals. Conservatives don't want Mexican immigrants in this country, even though every economic study says that illegals put more money in the economy then they take out, every sociological study says that they commit less crime than citizens and Trump himself has illegals working at Mar-a-lago, to me the only reason to not want them here is because white people don't want to be outnumbered in a "white nation". To me social conservative positions seem inherently bigoted, when Mike Pence wouldn't allow gay marriage in Indiana even after it passed federally, that shit didn't have anything to do with less taxes and smaller government, it was just about keeping a minority group inequal.


<<<<< Regressive -------------------- Conservative -------------------- Progressive >>>>>​
Social conservatism is not "taking it back" inherently. Some people would call themselves socially conservative because what we had, maybe like a few years ago before the insane growth of "social justice" was pretty good. Equality at its actual highest, striving to continue that positive trend, not being dominated by ideology trying to force equality by bringing others down, etc. It might tend to lean more to the regressive side but at least being conservative is closer to regressive than progressive is, which makes it really weird when so-called progressives are actually regressive.

Conservatives also very obviously value law and order, so illegals being illegal regardless of how beneficial they are, need to go.



birthday_massacre said:


> It's because Trump is incompetent.The only people that are blind are people supporting Trump that can't see an admit what a disaster he is.
> 
> Trump doesn't know shit on how the govt works that is why he is such a failure.
> 
> Trump wants to shut down the govt because he can't get his racist way of building a wall that is not even needed.
> 
> Trumps priorities are so fucked up. Trump is a racist baby, oh he isn't getting his wall, he is going to shut down the govt.
> 
> Trump is the biggest snowflake on the planet.


So Dave are you trying to move the goalposts because you know conservative policy has a hard time passing because left-wing politics dominates currently?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> <<<<< Regressive -------------------- Conservative -------------------- Progressive >>>>>​
> Social conservatism is not "taking it back" inherently. Some people would call themselves socially conservative because what we had, maybe like a few years ago before the insane growth of "social justice" was pretty good. Equality at its actual highest, striving to continue that positive trend, not being dominated by ideology trying to force equality by bringing others down, etc. It might tend to lean more to the regressive side but at least being conservative is closer to regressive than progressive is, which makes it really weird when so-called progressives are actually regressive.
> 
> Conservatives also very obviously value law and order, so illegals being illegal regardless of how beneficial they are, need to go.
> 
> 
> 
> So Dave are you trying to move the goalposts because you know conservative policy has a hard time passing because left-wing politics dominates currently?


You don't know what you are talking about. The Republicans have a majority, they could pass anything they wanted to. Trump can't even get all the Republicans on his side.

The Republicans control everything and Trump still can't get things passed. Trump is a total and utter joke and a failure.


----------



## Miss Sally

Irony is people pointing out Scott and mocking him as not as legit source for political commentary yet the same people get their info from the Samantha Bees, Trevor Noahs, Colberts and Oliver's of the "Left".

The "Left" just has talking heads and comedians as their source of "Political Wisdom".

This thread always makes me laugh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Irony is people pointing out Scott and mocking him as not as legit source for political commentary yet the same people get their info from the Samantha Bees, Trevor Noahs, Colberts and Oliver's of the "Left".
> 
> The "Left" just has talking heads and comedians as their source of "Political Wisdom".
> 
> This thread always makes me laugh.


Scott Adams is being mocked because the right mocks people like Colbert and Oliver. Its just throwing back their logic in their own faces.

And the right just has comic strip writers and a bunch of racist/bigots for their Political Wisdom".


----------



## Goku

shutting down the government? :banderas

he's so close to completing the system of german idealism, I can feel it in my bones. :trump4


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah keep taking a comic strip writers political views seriously lol It's Ironic how conservatives in this thread shit on John Oliver when he bashes Trump yet take Scott Adams seriously. The hypocrisy of the right wingers on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> 
> And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.


yeah keep one-dimension-ing people to however helps you feel better about being you.

When John Oliver spends the better part of 2 decades studying persuasion, writes 5 books on that topic, writes articles for Time, The Wall Street Journal, among other publications, spends 2 decades as a political commentator, and then writes a blog discussing politics and persuasion for over 10 years, then, and only then can you compare the two.

You keep talking like you're triggered. When neither one of those things happen to Trump, I'll make sure to remind you.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't know what you are talking about. The Republicans have a majority, they could pass anything they wanted to. Trump can't even get all the Republicans on his side.
> 
> The Republicans control everything and Trump still can't get things passed. Trump is a total and utter joke and a failure.


Yes, which is exactly why conservatism is treated as a scourge in the West overall. Education totally isn't corrupted by left-wing ideology either. Kids don't grow up being taught certain facts and beliefs of one kind.

The republicans have a majority 

:kobe


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> yeah keep one-dimension-ing people to however helps you feel better about being you.
> 
> When John Oliver spends the better part of 2 decades studying persuasion, writes 5 books on that topic, writes articles for Time, The Wall Street Journal, among other publications, spends 2 decades as a political commentator, and then writes a blog discussing politics and persuasion for over 10 years, then, and only then can you compare the two.
> 
> You keep talking like you're triggered. When neither one of those things happen to Trump, I'll make sure to remind you.


LOL there you go again with using the word triggered, like how Trump supporters use the word libtard all the time. 

And keep getting your news from a comic strip writer, no wonder you like Trump.

Keep using your lame buzz words.




Oxidamus said:


> Yes, which is exactly why conservatism is treated as a scourge in the West overall. Education totally isn't corrupted by left-wing ideology either. Kids don't grow up being taught certain facts and beliefs of one kind.
> 
> The republicans have a majority
> 
> :kobe


You should learn how the US Govt works Oxi, you have zero clue. The Republicans control everything. The House, the Senate, and have a Republican President.

Trump should be able to pass what ever he wants but he can't even do that.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> You should learn how the US Govt works Oxi, you have zero clue. The Republicans control everything. The House, the Senate, and have a Republican President.


I accidentally forgot to finish the second paragraph because I ordered food. :side:

Still, it isn't about the government. It's about how kids are brought up, to believe one system is right, and another is wrong. They're told left is good, right is bad. It happens in universities.

Consider this:
The majority of people aged 30-50 who studied in university and work in politics/social scapes, are left-leaning.
The majority of people aged 15-30 who are currently studying or recently began work in politics/social scapes, are left-leaning.
The children 4-15 in school are being taught (mostly) by those left-leaning people.
Those politicians have to represent their constituents, the majority of which in many, many places, are left leaning.

Does it make more sense?


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900522067220729856
> kek


The full video is pure brutality... every turn CNN tried to goad and lead to discussion to their bias and every time that group made them look stupid. At least MSNBC and most of Fox News ate bloody honest about their biases. CNN trying to masquerade as unbiased journalists just seeking truth is just laughable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> I accidentally forgot to finish the second paragraph because I ordered food. :side:
> 
> Still, it isn't about the government. It's about how kids are brought up, to believe one system is right, and another is wrong. They're told left is good, right is bad. It happens in universities.
> 
> Consider this:
> The majority of people aged 30-50 who studied in university and work in politics/social scapes, are left-leaning.
> The majority of people aged 15-30 who are currently studying or recently began work in politics/social scapes, are left-leaning.
> The children 4-15 in school are being taught (mostly) by those left-leaning people.
> Those politicians have to represent their constituents, the majority of which in many, many places, are left leaning.
> 
> Does it make more sense?


That is because the right is all about ignorance and bigotry. And people can say well conservativism doesn't equal racism or bigotry but show me a racist or bigot and most times they are conserative. 

It's the right that is against gays and trans people. They don't think gays should be allowed to marry nor do they think they should have to serve them if they don't want to.
The right hides behind its religious beliefs and thinks they should be able to push it on the country which is against the Constitution.

Conservatives are anti-science and anti-education, they think creationism should be taught in science class along side evolution. 
It's also mostly conservatives are who climate change deniers.


The smart people are left leaning and the poorly educated are the ones who are right leaning. The left is all about facts, evidence, logic, and reason where as the right is all about propaganda and myth/fairy tales.

There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are liberal states and the stupid/poorly educated are mostly the southern conservatives

There is a reason why kids that are Christian home schooled are dumb asses. Its always funny how they claim oh getting an education in college is indoctrination. I always laugh when I hear that shit.

Conservativism just makes people dumber and more prejudice. 

Just look at all the racist that have come out of the woodwork because Trump is openly racist/bigoted.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> That is because the right is all about ignorance and bigotry. And people can say well conservativism doesn't equal racism or bigotry but show me a racist or bigot and most times they are conserative.
> 
> It's the right that is against gays and trans people. They don't think gays should be allowed to marry nor do they think they should have to serve them if they don't want to.
> The right hides behind its religious beliefs and thinks they should be able to push it on the country which is against the Constitution.
> 
> Conservatives are anti-science and anti-education, they think creationism should be taught in science class along side evolution.
> It's also mostly conservatives are who climate change deniers.
> 
> 
> The smart people are left leaning and the poorly educated are the ones who are right leaning. The left is all about facts, evidence, logic, and reason where as the right is all about propaganda and myth/fairy tales.
> 
> There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are liberal states and the stupid/poorly educated are mostly the southern conservatives
> 
> There is a reason why kids that are Christian home schooled are dumb asses. Its always funny how they claim oh getting an education in college is indoctrination. I always laugh when I hear that shit.
> 
> Conservativism just makes people dumber and more prejudice.
> 
> Just look at all the racist that have come out of the woodwork because Trump is openly racist/bigoted.


Plenty of people on this forum alone are bigots. Some are even racist. NONE of them are conservative. That's a problem with the left. In the minds of many lefties these days, only the right can be racist. Some go so far as to say you can't be racist towards white people, so that justifies their racially fueled hatred. Do you accept that? I don't think you do.

Some on the right might hate gays and blacks and trans, et cetera. Just like some on the left hate straights and whites and cis people. Hell some on the left would be called Islamophobic by their lefty brethren for saying things like the Burqa should be banned.

You gotta stop this Dave, not every conservative believes what you say they do. Hell I'm not conservative, but the liberals call me conservative and vice versa. @Reaper has said I'm a classical liberal. Sol Katti (who I won't tag because I'll get in trouble) says I'm right-wing.

The smart people are centred. Not centrist per se, but can understand how to be centred. They don't make irrational generalisations like "the conservatives hate blacks", rather they might deduce that the conservatives *seem* to hate black people because they're anti-welfare and take a more militant/extremist approach (e.g. get rid of ALL welfare NOW) which may disproportionately affect black people.

See I probably agree on many things with you and then the same with other posters in this thread. If I were American late last year I'd have voted Trump. If I am now I'd still support Trump. Am I racist? Hell am I even unreasonable?


----------



## Goku

birthday_massacre said:


> That is because the right is all about ignorance and bigotry. And people can say well conservativism doesn't equal racism or bigotry but show me a racist or bigot and most times they are conserative.
> 
> It's the right that is against gays and trans people. They don't think gays should be allowed to marry nor do they think they should have to serve them if they don't want to.
> The right hides behind its religious beliefs and thinks they should be able to push it on the country which is against the Constitution.
> 
> Conservatives are anti-science and anti-education, they think creationism should be taught in science class along side evolution.
> It's also mostly conservatives are who climate change deniers.
> 
> 
> The smart people are left leaning and the poorly educated are the ones who are right leaning. The left is all about facts, evidence, logic, and reason where as the right is all about propaganda and myth/fairy tales.
> 
> There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are liberal states and the stupid/poorly educated are mostly the southern conservatives
> 
> There is a reason why kids that are Christian home schooled are dumb asses. Its always funny how they claim oh getting an education in college is indoctrination. I always laugh when I hear that shit.
> 
> Conservativism just makes people dumber and more prejudice.
> 
> Just look at all the racist that have come out of the woodwork because Trump is openly racist/bigoted.


:lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL there you go again with using the word triggered, like how Trump supporters use the word libtard all the time.
> 
> And keep getting your news from a comic strip writer, no wonder you like Trump.
> 
> Keep using your lame buzz words.


Lame as it may be, it still aptly defines you.



birthday_massacre said:


> *That is because the right is all about ignorance and bigotry. And people can say well conservativism doesn't equal racism or bigotry but show me a racist or bigot and most times they are conserative. *


Dude, read a frickin' book on how to argue. I have had quite a few debates in my life, and you are at the very bottom of the list. Argumentative fallacy after argumentative fallacy.

This is called circular reasoning, which is an argumentative fallacy. It is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. ... Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." 

A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true.

Conservatives are racists because racists are Conservative. Racists are Conservative because Conservatives are racist.

Do you see?

Go get a library card or something.


----------



## Art Vandaley

If the government got shut down while his own party controls all the houses Trump will go down as the most incompetent President in history and damage the Republican vote for decades. 

Please can it happen.


----------



## DOPA

With the adding of 4,000 troops in Afghanistan and the promise of heavier involvement in the region, this represents a significant shift in Trump's foreign policy. And as you can imagine as someone who has talked about this sort of interventionism before, this "isolationist" (a strawman term used by neo-conservatives) is not happy about it at all.

As someone who would have not voted for Trump in the 2016 election (or anyone for that matter after Rand Paul dropped out of the race), the one area I was hoping Trump would do better than his predecessors was foreign policy as his rhetoric was a lot better. And to give Trump credit, for the most part up until now with the one slap on the wrist incident in Syria, he has done a lot better in the Middle East. Of course Yemen still goes on and we still have weapons being sold to Saudi Arabia to the tune of billions of dollars which I am not happy about either, but I wasn't expecting a complete 360 overnight with Trump in the white house. Overall I was pretty optimistic until this point. The biggest win in particular was reversing the Obama policy of arming the so called "moderate syrian rebels" who everyone knows at this point were Al Qaeda and Al Nusra. That would have continued and expanded under Hillary Clinton.

Now I think we're seeing where the neo-con's and the "globalists" are starting to have influence over Trump to move to a more traditional status quo position on foreign policy. Let's put things into perspective:

We....and I can say we because the UK has been heavily involved as well, have been in Afghanistan for 15 years. We've seen thousands of soldiers die and hundreds of billions spent on this project and what have we achieved out of it? The Taliban have more control over the region now than when we began. The war has been a failure and yet Trump has seemingly been advised to do more of the same as before.

The *one* thing, and only thing I can appreciate about this is Trump calling out Pakistan for harboring terrorism, particularly in the case of the Taliban. That I can respect as a strong negotiating move because neither Bush nor Obama had the wherewithal to do that. But other than that, this is a bad move by the Trump administration.

And whilst I can also somewhat appreciate Trump sticking to his line of no nation building, the reality is as Ben Shapiro rightly pointed out is if you are going to not only cripple but keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan then you are going to have to by default engage in nation building because the Afghan's will need a stable government and a military presence to defend themselves. By default the US would be involved in that process, hence nation building. So sorry Trump, you are full of shit when you say you won't be nation building, if you commit to this then you are going to have to nation build.

The big picture once again, not to beat a dead horse but I haven't mentioned it in a while is the fact that the US is $20 trillion in debt, and estimated to have anything up to $150 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the most of which is with medicare, medicaid and social security. More war is not going to bring the US anywhere closer to a balanced budget, wars are notoriously bad for fiscal conservatism because they cost a lot of money and therefore contribute to a deficit. We have seen that with the initial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Bush in actuality before 2002 was operating in surpluses. Since then, the US has not had a single year where they haven't had at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit.

This is why I can never be a Conservative, simply put that Neo-Conservatives who call themselves so called "fiscal conservatives" are hypocrites. On the one hand they will argue that the entitlement programs need cutting and reform (which they at the very least do) and other areas such as domestic spending and the EPA need reducing. Again, I do not disagree. Yet on the other they call for more war, more profiteering for the military industrial complex and a higher defence budget.

Newsflash: If you want a smaller or limited government, advocating for the military industrial complex and more war is a big government action. Multiple interventions in 7 different countries is big government, a bloated military budget is big government. Simply put, stop the facade that you are a small government Conservative, you aren't. You are small government only in the areas you want, you are more than happy for the state to expand if it involves more military and more invasion of privacy via the NSA and Homeland Security.

Furthermore, how long do you exactly what us to be in Afghanistan for example? 5 more years? 10 more years? 50 more years? How many more US and UK soldiers have to die before you say enough is enough and admit it was a mistake to even switch priorities from capturing Bin Laden to fighting the Taliban and trying to build Afghanistan in the West's image? In a country which does not share our values, in a country where western style democracy is a concept that is completely alien to them. Simply put, democracy by force has never worked, so why do you persist in trying?

Last but not least there seems to be a lot of revisionist history in Conservative circles when it comes to foreign policy. It's Obama's fault for pulling out of Iraq? I'm not Obama's biggest fan, far from it but had Bush not intervened in Iraq to begin with then it wouldn't be in the mess that it's in. Have you forgotten what happened months after the initial insurgency? With no proper government in charge, with Saddam's general's dismissed (who ironically was part of the first formation of ISIS, again Obama's fault?) Iraq was in total chaos and in a civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Trump was absolutely right when he said whilst Saddam was a horrible dictator that Iraq provided a counter balance in power in the region to Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran has in recent years been further emboldened with the support of Russia. Again, would not have happened without the initial Bush invasion.

In fact, if you want a history check, let's go back to the first gulf war where the Bush Senior administration decided to not push into Baghdad after defeating Iraq in Kuwait. Here we have one Dick Cheney arguing that the US shouldn't go into Bahgdad. That it would be an utter disaster, there would be no exit strategy and that Iraq would have been left in a vacuum. And guess what? 10-15 years later and still applies today, he was absolutely right. What changed? Well as they say, *follow the money.*











Isolationism caused 9/11?! Do big government Conservatives not learn from history? It was the total opposite. It was in fact the US who was arming an insurgency group (sound familiar?) called the Mujahadeen in order to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan. After the defeat of the Soviet's in Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen split into two groups roughly speaking, can anyone guess who those two groups were? You guessed it, The Taliban and Al Quaeda. The latter being the terrorists who were responsible for the biggest terrorist attack in US history with help from elements of the Saudi government......the regime the US is still arming to the tune of billions of dollars of weapons which are being used to destroy Yemen...

And you wonder why Western foreign policy infuriates me.


----------



## Reaper

Relevant:


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *If 2016 Election Were Held Again, Unaffiliated Voters Would Vote Trump*
> 
> The latest Civitas poll has found that 43 percent of likely North Carolina unaffiliated voters say if the presidential election were held again today, they would vote for Donald J. Trump while just 39 percent of them said they would vote for Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The full text of the question is below.
> 
> If you had a chance to do it all over again, for whom would you vote for President between (RANDOMIZE) Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Gary Johnson?
> 
> 43% Donald Trump, the Republican
> 39% Hillary Clinton, the Democrat
> 9% Gary Johnson, the Libertarian
> 9% Prefer to not state/ Refused
> 
> Civitas President Col. Francis De Luca said, “This result appears to illustrate two things: that Trump voters are sticking with him, and that elections are binary. Despite Donald Trump’s perceived unpopularity, when compared to another actual candidate, he remains ahead.”
> 
> Cross tabs for this question can be found here.
> 
> This poll surveyed 400 registered, likely, unaffiliated voters (30% on cell phones) with a margin of error of +/- 4.90%. This survey was taken August 7-8, 2017.


https://www.nccivitas.org/2017/2016-election-held-unaffiliated-voters-vote-trump/


----------



## Vic Capri

> Must Watch: @CNN didn't expect this answer from their focus group. #Charlottesville #CNNIsFakeNews


CNN = WRECKED! :lol



> OH PLEASE blind Trumpers, PLEASE defend THIS FUCKING IDIOT threatening to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT


Were you outraged when Obama caused the government to shut down? I'm going to guess no. 

*#VirtueSignal*

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

So 57% of voters wouldn't vote for Trump? Small sample size, margin of error being 5% seems pretty big.


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> CNN = WRECKED! :lol
> 
> 
> 
> Were you outraged when Obama caused the government to shut down? I'm going to guess no.
> 
> *#VirtueSignal*
> 
> - Vic


He didn't cause it though did he.


----------



## virus21




----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> You don't know much American Politics do you?
> 
> That Republicans and Democrats to their very core are different sides of the same coin? Both parties have neocon influence.
> 
> Considering you think Antifa is actually about fighting Nazis I'm not surprised.


 

I get it, you're one of those "both sides are equally as bad" people. I do understand. I drank that kool-ade at one time. I was a member of the Libertarian Party for quite a while. 

The thing is I was - and you are - wrong. Very wrong.

The word "antifa" is as much a made up nonsense term as "alt-left." It doesn't really exist.

I strongly believe in the right to free speech - except when that speech extols the supremacy of white people.

However, there also have been too many examples of valid speech being suppressed recently. Berkley comes to mind. We likely agree on that one.

As for whether I "know much American Politics . . . " You might be surprised at my POTUS voting history:

1992 (I was 18): Andre Marrou (libertarian)
1996: Ross Perot
2000: Harry Browne (libertarian)
2004: Michael Badnarik (libertarian)
2008: Barack H. Obama
2012: Gary Johnson (libertarian)
2016: Gary Johnson (libertarian)


----------



## wagnergrad96

Vic Capri said:


> Were you outraged when Obama caused the government to shut down? I'm going to guess no.
> 
> - Vic


Can't have an opinion on something that didn't happen.


----------



## Headliner

draykorinee said:


> He didn't cause it though did he.


Of course he didn't. But Vic doesn't know shit and he's been brainwashed by Fox News/Breitbart and other Obama is the anti-christ conspiracy theory autistic websites.

Even when you prove him wrong he'll just come up with another retarded claim. He's done that already multiple times.

The shutdown happened primarily because the Republican majority in the House tried to defund the ACA in the spending bill and the Democratic led Senate wasn't having it so they removed those provisions and sent it back to the House. Then the House sent back a revised bill trying to delay implementation of the act or possibly another attempt to defund and it wasn't happening.

Tea Party Republicans are cancer. That was their doing. Even other Republicans in Congress were disgusted with them about that. Anyone with a brain knew the Democratic led Senate backed by President Obama wasn't going to tolerate that defunding or delay. Republicans should have played ball and picked their battles better.


----------



## GothicBohemian

wagnergrad96 said:


> The word "antifa" is as much a made up nonsense term as "alt-left." It doesn't really exist.


Thank you. This needs to be said.

People have seized onto the name antifa as a blanket term for _anti-any-controversy-involving-the-current-US-administration_ protesters. I've gone with it here on WF to simplify things, though I'm well aware there's no organized "leftist" resistance but rather a variety of people, representing many political and social views, showing up to events to voice opposition to myriad Trump policies and gaffes. I prefer not to needlessly complicate discussions but, perhaps, in this case I should have.

Anti-facists exist, and they organize though not usually under then name Antifa, but everyone knows they're not the majority of protesters. Not even close to that, and not every young person wearing a mask has a connection to, or understanding of, their goals. Many are only kids looking for a reason to throw stuff and see "fighting racism" as a valid justification now that fighting the 1% has gone out of fashion. 

Such common knowledge doesn't matter any more. Those looking for a deflection usable against white nationalists crawling out from their internet lairs will now scream "But the antifa!" as if that shuts down the discussion. It's much easier to convince yourself, and vulnerable others, that both sides are equally bad if you have an imaginary organized force of chaos coming from the left. 

Were I American, I'd not have voted Trump. I'd have, strategically, cast a vote for Hilary. Not out of support - she's far too hawkish and centre-right for my tastes - but she isn't unstable. She knows how international and domestic politics have to work. She understands the presidential responsibility to act with maturity and grace to keep the peace. Trump is embarrassing and dangerous. He's like a teenage boy at times and a narcissistic, outdated old man at others. He has no idea how to steer a nation. None, and that's why his policies will be the policies of whoever influences him in the immediate moment and his actions are guided by his emotions, not logic. 

Making it worse, he's as oblivious to racism as many of his supporters are. Most Republicans are not racist, they're racism blind. It just doesn't factor into their lives and never becomes a voting issue. Trump doesn't think about the consequences of his words because he doesn't live in a skin where those consequences affect him. That he has many associates, and family even, who are Jewish and yet he still persisted in deflecting blame from neo-nazis is bizarre but in keeping with his right-wing media saturated and wealth-protected worldview. Dogwhistle terms, like "culture and heritage" either fly right over his head or touch on the fears of an aging white man worried the world he knows is changing to a more egalitarian one. 

To those voters who chose Trump to "drain the swamp", taking a burn it down and rebuild approach to government may sound nice on paper but it doesn't work in reality. True communism and libertarianism are the unworkable extremes, experiments that cannot function because human nature gets in the way.


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> I get it, you're one of those "both sides are equally as bad" people. I do understand. I drank that kool-ade at one time. I was a member of the Libertarian Party for quite a while.
> 
> The thing is I was - and you are - wrong. Very wrong.
> 
> The word "antifa" is as much a made up nonsense term as "alt-left." It doesn't really exist.
> 
> I strongly believe in the right to free speech - except when that speech extols the supremacy of white people.
> 
> However, there also have been too many examples of valid speech being suppressed recently. Berkley comes to mind. We likely agree on that one.
> 
> As for whether I "know much American Politics . . . " You might be surprised at my POTUS voting history:
> 
> 1992 (I was 18): Andre Marrou (libertarian)
> 1996: Ross Perot
> 2000: Harry Browne (libertarian)
> 2004: Michael Badnarik (libertarian)
> 2008: Barack H. Obama
> 2012: Gary Johnson (libertarian)
> 2016: Gary Johnson (libertarian)


Are you saying the people who call themselves Antifa, have a flag with the name on are part of our imaginations, they don't exist? Because they sure as shit think they exist.

I believe Free Speech should be kept open to everything, even if we hate it. Good intentions end up leading to loss of freedoms and millions of lives lost. I simply don't trust the Government, any Government nor body of people to dictate what is acceptable speech and what isn't because it would be too easy to change.


----------



## Reaper

Hillary is "stable" ... :lmao 

Apparently the woman directly responsible for the Libyan war and Sryian regime change policies as well as arming syrian "rebels" is stable and a better candidate on foreign policy :woah 

----



> A survey of users on Reddit’s r/socialism board has found that 61% of respondents live with their parents, 48% are unemployed and just 14% support freedom of speech.
> The results of the poll confirmed many of the stereotypes attached to modern day “progressives” – that they are largely dependent on others and have total disregard for bedrock freedoms and the rule of law.
> 
> While a paltry 14% support completely unrestricted free speech, 46% support “violent protest” (otherwise known as rioting).
> 
> The survey also found that 69% of respondents were uneducated.
> 
> “After the results of the poll were posted, members of Reddit’s r/Drama quickly found and posted the numbers to mock /r/socialism. As to be expected, the proponents of socialism were shredded in the comments for fulfilling the exact stereotype that we had long since suspected to be true on the far left – they are unemployed, uneducated communist losers,” comments the Department of Memes blog.
> 
> The survey, conducted via Google Forms, correlates with a study undertaken of left-wing political activists in Berlin which found that a whopping 92% still lived with their parents and one in three was unemployed.


:lol

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900153026631139329
Good news. Looks like Sanders is foreshadowing his retirement from politics #byebyebernie :banderas

--- 

Finally, it's clear that Bannon is going after Tillerson as his first target. Interesting move. Will be very interested to see how all this unfolds over time. 










http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ntradicted-simply-failed-uphold-trump-policy/


----------



## Vic Capri

> tried to defund the *ACA*


And who's idea was that?

- Vic


----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> Are you saying the people who call themselves Antifa, have a flag with the name on are part of our imaginations, they don't exist? Because they sure as shit think they exist.


I would guess that maybe 1% of the people who were protesting the scum bag *********** douchebags had even heard the world "antifa"


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> I would guess that maybe 1% of the people who were protesting the scum bag *********** douchebags had even heard the world "antifa"


They call themselves Antifa..

They have a Twitter, several patreon and cash accounts for money, a flag, presence in Europe and America and are backed up by BAMN and several other groups, including Black Bloc.

These people think they're part of Antifa, they claim to be Antifa so therefore regardless of what you may think they do exist.

They were claimed to be "heroes" now that they've been exposed as anti-free speech hating fuckheads, they now don't exist. They're made up. Ok.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> That is because the right is all about ignorance and bigotry. And people can say well conservativism doesn't equal racism or bigotry but show me a racist or bigot and most times they are conserative.
> 
> It's the right that is against gays and trans people. They don't think gays should be allowed to marry nor do they think they should have to serve them if they don't want to.
> The right hides behind its religious beliefs and thinks they should be able to push it on the country which is against the Constitution.
> 
> Conservatives are anti-science and anti-education, they think creationism should be taught in science class along side evolution.
> It's also mostly conservatives are who climate change deniers.
> 
> 
> The smart people are left leaning and the poorly educated are the ones who are right leaning. The left is all about facts, evidence, logic, and reason where as the right is all about propaganda and myth/fairy tales.
> 
> There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are liberal states and the stupid/poorly educated are mostly the southern conservatives
> 
> There is a reason why kids that are Christian home schooled are dumb asses. Its always funny how they claim oh getting an education in college is indoctrination. I always laugh when I hear that shit.
> 
> Conservativism just makes people dumber and more prejudice.
> 
> Just look at all the racist that have come out of the woodwork because Trump is openly racist/bigoted.


If the left is so smart, why do they want to make the us socialist, when its NEVER wirked anywhere in history and CANT work because of human nature?


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> And who's idea was that?
> 
> - Vic


That has nothing to do with the argument. All this spin and deflection you do makes you look even worse.

If I walk into a hostile racist bar knowing they are going to call me racist names or disrespect me, is it their fault for being racist or my fault for knowing what was going to happen and still going like an idiot? Of course it's my fault. Tea Party Republicans knew what was going to happen and they did it anyway. No excuses.


----------



## Oxidamus

GothicBohemian said:


> Thank you. This needs to be said.
> 
> People have seized onto the name antifa as a blanket term for _anti-any-controversy-involving-the-current-US-administration_ protesters.


Change your post from defending the left to the right and you're called a white supremacist. No one would call those dickheads in black ANTIFA if they didn't themselves go by ANTIFA. Case in point: most people didn't seem to know who or what they were before their self-proclamation.

And you're still acting like mentioning them is some kind of smokescreen despite literally everyone in this thread condemning the white supremacist debacle. :Jim


Also waiting for the day the left realise how racist they actually are, and stop accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being "unknowingly racist". What's next, you want everyone to take the IAT to prove their racism, or lack thereof?


----------



## Vic Capri

> Republicans knew what was going to happen and they did it anyway. No excuses.


And Obamacare was a disaster. They were right. :sleep

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> A survey of users on Reddit’s r/socialism board has found that 61% of respondents live with their parents, 48% are unemployed and just 14% support freedom of speech.
> The results of the poll confirmed many of the stereotypes attached to modern day “progressives” – that they are largely dependent on others and have total disregard for bedrock freedoms and the rule of law.
> 
> While a paltry 14% support completely unrestricted free speech, 46% support “violent protest” (otherwise known as rioting).
> 
> The survey also found that 69% of respondents were uneducated.
> 
> “After the results of the poll were posted, members of Reddit’s r/Drama quickly found and posted the numbers to mock /r/socialism. As to be expected, the proponents of socialism were shredded in the comments for fulfilling the exact stereotype that we had long since suspected to be true on the far left – they are unemployed, uneducated communist losers,” comments the Department of Memes blog.
> 
> The survey, conducted via Google Forms, correlates with a study undertaken of left-wing political activists in Berlin which found that a whopping 92% still lived with their parents and one in three was unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
Click to expand...

:damn sounds like me. Except I don't live with my parents.

The uneducated part makes sense, since one of their largest problems with society is having to pay for education... which is also sensible, since student loans and debts are absolutely insane in the US. Need a more Australian-esque system.


----------



## Reaper

I wouldn't take this seriously. It's really just shit posting.. Part of the meme wars [emoji38]


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> And Obamacare was a disaster. They were right. :sleep
> 
> - Vic


False. There were/are important problems with it but there are also stories of it saving people's lives. Just like it saved one Republican's life who spent years demonizing him and he addressed this when he was the opening speaker for an Obama town hall or address. It's still on youtube. Of course to people like you that makes him a traitor.

Your excuses to spin or deflect this are embarrassing. Maybe if you listened to moderate news TV outlets or websites, you wouldn't come across so delusional. It's seriously pathetic.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Headliner said:


> False. There were/are important problems with it but there are also stories of it saving people's lives. Just like it saved one Republican's life who spent years demonizing him and he addressed this when he was the opening speaker for an Obama town hall or address. It's still on youtube. Of course to people like you that makes him a traitor.
> 
> Your excuses to spin or deflect this are embarrassing. Maybe if you listened to moderate news TV outlets or websites, you wouldn't come across so delusional. It's seriously pathetic.


Ever thought about banning him? He comes off as a troll sometimes.


----------



## krtgolfing

Vic Capri said:


> And Obamacare was a disaster. They were right. :sleep
> 
> - Vic


:bjpenn

Still waiting for that affordable health care.. Oh wait.. I make to much.


----------



## Headliner

The Hardcore Show said:


> Ever thought about banning him? He comes off as a troll sometimes.


He does come off like that but alot of diehard Trump supporters think that way. I can't ban him for being delusional. He hasn't really cross the boundries of being a piece of shit for me to ban him. He's welcome here even with our disagreements.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

The Hardcore Show said:


> Ever thought about banning him? He comes off as a troll sometimes.


Leave your SJW bullshit at home. Mods don't ban people because they find them annoying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Plenty of people on this forum alone are bigots. Some are even racist. NONE of them are conservative. That's a problem with the left. In the minds of many lefties these days, only the right can be racist. Some go so far as to say you can't be racist towards white people, so that justifies their racially fueled hatred. Do you accept that? I don't think you do.
> 
> Some on the right might hate gays and blacks and trans, et cetera. Just like some on the left hate straights and whites and cis people. Hell some on the left would be called Islamophobic by their lefty brethren for saying things like the Burqa should be banned.
> 
> You gotta stop this Dave, not every conservative believes what you say they do. Hell I'm not conservative, but the liberals call me conservative and vice versa. @Reaper has said I'm a classical liberal. Sol Katti (who I won't tag because I'll get in trouble) says I'm right-wing.
> 
> The smart people are centred. Not centrist per se, but can understand how to be centred. They don't make irrational generalisations like "the conservatives hate blacks", rather they might deduce that the conservatives *seem* to hate black people because they're anti-welfare and take a more militant/extremist approach (e.g. get rid of ALL welfare NOW) which may disproportionately affect black people.
> 
> See I probably agree on many things with you and then the same with other posters in this thread. If I were American late last year I'd have voted Trump. If I am now I'd still support Trump. Am I racist? Hell am I even unreasonable?


Yes, they are conservatives LOL WTF are you talking about. Seriously dude gets a clue. 

Like I said not every conservative is racist but if you look at the people that are racists its most likely they are conservative. 

You can defend them all you want but it won't change the facts, you are just being delusional.

The right's policies are geared to be against gays, trans, and minorities that is what makes them racists and bigoted.

The left is for the rights of those groups. If you can't see that difference there is no helping you.

And LOL at you for just adding smart people will say conservatives SEEMS to hate black people when it's the same thing I am saying but I don't sugar code it wth the words seems because of its racism.

If it seems like racism it's racism. 

If you would still support Trump now then it would make me wonder about you. Not even about the racist thing but because Trump is the worst president of all time and most incompetent, and if you would still vote for him now after seeing what a disaster he is it would make me wonder about your intelligence


----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> They call themselves Antifa..
> 
> They were claimed to be "heroes" now that they've been exposed as anti-free speech hating fuckheads, they now don't exist. They're made up. Ok.


You ignored the part where I said that 99% of the people protesting the scum bags at Charlottesville had never heard of the word "Antifa" and focused just on the 1% who did. That's a typical politician answer . . .

How about the 100% of the douchebags who showed up with TIKI torches chanting "Jews Will Not Replace Us." They ALL know exactly what the "alt-right" is about.

BTW, your anime chick has some very nice animated jugs


----------



## krtgolfing

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes, they are conservatives LOL WTF are you talking about. Seriously dude gets a clue.
> 
> Like I said not every conservative is racist but if you look at the people that are racists its most likely they are conservative.
> 
> You can defend them all you want but it won't change the facts, you are just being delusional.
> 
> The right's policies are geared to be against gays, trans, and minorities that is what makes them racists and bigoted.
> 
> The left is for the rights of those groups. If you can't see that difference there is no helping you.
> 
> And LOL at you for just adding smart people will say conservatives SEEMS to hate black people when it's the same thing I am saying but I don't sugar code it wth the words seems because of its racism.
> 
> If it seems like racism it's racism.
> 
> If you would still support Trump now then it would make me wonder about you. Not even about the racist thing but because Trump is the worst president of all time and most incompetent, and if you would still vote for him now after seeing what a disaster he is it would make me wonder about your intelligence


Depends on who he is up against in 2020. If Hilary again well.... :trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *85% Of Americans Think Free Speech More Important Than Political Correctness*
> 
> Nearly 9 out of 10 Americans think freedom of speech is more important than political correctness, and 73% say they'd defend free speech to their deaths, a new poll shows.
> 
> Just 8% think it's most important to "make sure no one gets offended," the Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday found.
> 
> Some 85% agreed that "giving people the right to free speech is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say":
> 
> Seventy-three percent (73%) agree with the famous line by the 18th century French author Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 10% disagree with that statement, but 17% are undecided.
> 
> Among Americans who agree with Voltaire, 93% rate freedom of speech as more important than making sure no one is offended. That compares to just 69% of those who disagree with the French author's maxim.
> 
> Freedom of speech has come back into the headlines with violent protests on Charlottesville and most recently during a speech by President Trump in Phoenix. In both instances, protesters from both sides clashed, resulting in injuries and arrests.
> 
> But Americans don't think they have true freedom of speech now, the poll found. "Just 28% of Americans believe they have true freedom of speech today, and most think the country is too politically correct":
> 
> There is rare partisan agreement on freedom of speech. Most Americans regardless of political affiliation agree that they would defend someone’s right to say something even if they don’t agree with it, although Democrats are slightly less sure than Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party. The majority across the political spectrum also agree that free speech is more important than making sure no one’s offended.
> 
> Generally speaking, most adults across the demographic board agree. Blacks (65%) are just slightly less likely than whites (75%) and other minorities (73%) to say they’d defend to the death someone’s right to free speech if they don’t agree with them.
> 
> Men are more supportive of the statement that women are.
> 
> Voters rate freedom of speech as even more important than other basic constitutional rights such as religious freedom, freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.
> 
> Rasmussen Reports found that 44% of Americans said "there is less freedom of speech on U.S. college campuses today than there has been in the past. Nearly half (47%) also believe most college administrators and professors are more interested in getting students to agree with certain politically correct points of view rather than in a free exchange of ideas."
> 
> And just one in five think it's "better for owners of social media like Facebook and Twitter to regulate what is posted to make sure some people are not offended."


http://www.dailywire.com/news/20162...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


----------



## birthday_massacre

krtgolfing said:


> Depends on who he is up against in 2020. If Hilary again well.... :trump


Trump will be impeached or will be forced to resign by 2020, he will be lucky to even make it to the end of this year


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> *You ignored the part where I said that 99% of the people protesting the scum bags at Charlottesville had never heard of the word "Antifa" * and focused just on the 1% who did. That's a typical politician answer . . .
> 
> How about the 100% of the douchebags who showed up with TIKI torches chanting "Jews Will Not Replace Us." They ALL know exactly what the "alt-right" is about.
> 
> BTW, your anime chick has some very nice animated jugs


If you're gonna cite statistics to make your argument, then you should have to prove your statistics are accurate.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be impeached or will be forced to resign by 2020, he will be lucky to even make it to the end of this year


So, you actually believe either one of two things are going to happen.

1.) Democrats will overwhelmingly win the mid-terms.

2.) Republicans will stab their base in the back.

Those truly are some far reaching, conspiratorially, inept expectations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> So, you actually believe either one of two things are going to happen.
> 
> 1.) Democrats will overwhelmingly win the mid-terms.
> 
> 2.) Republicans will stab their base in the back.
> 
> Those truly are some far reaching, conspiratorially, inept expectations.


Democrats will win back a good number of seats but overwhelmingly? Doubtful because of gerrymandering and the way the lines are currently drawn.

How would Republicans stab their base in the back? Right now their party is in chaos because of Trump. He is a disaster, getting rid of Trump would get them back to their base. Impeaching Trump is not stabbing their base in the back.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats*
> 
> All the signs suggest that 2018 is going to be a very good year for Democrats.
> 
> Midterm elections are historically terrible for the president's party. In 18 of the last 20 midterm elections, the president's party has lost seats. In those 18 elections, the average seat loss is 33. Those numbers are even more daunting for presidents under 50% job approval -- as Donald Trump is right now. Since 1946, the average seat loss in the House in that situation is 36 seats.
> 
> But before Democrats get too delirious about the election to come, they should read this paragraph from David Wasserman's terrific analysis of the 2018 election on FiveThirtyEight:
> "*Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats*."
> 
> That's absolutely stunning. And reflective of the advantages Republicans have going into 2018 -- one, in the House, built on having largely controlled the 2010 redistricting process, and the other, in the Senate, based on how great the 2006 and 2012 elections were for Democrats.
> 
> In the House, there are 23 districts currently held by a Republican that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. (There are 12 seats held by Democrats that Trump won.) Of those 23, just eight went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012 as well.
> 
> Even so, if Democrats won all 23 of the seats Clinton carried that are represented by Republicans -- and lost NONE of the dozen seats Trump won that are held by Democrats -- the party still comes up a seat short of the majority.
> 
> Republicans, quite simply, did a very good job in drawing the congressional lines in states where they controlled the entire process after the 2010 census. Large populations of Democrats are, as Wasserman notes, packed into urban districts while Republican voters are more spread out among suburban and rural seats.
> 
> That reality, coupled with the fact that political tribalism is on the rise, means that there are just far fewer chances for Democrats to make gains than there were a decade or two ago. (In 1996, there were 108 "crossover" districts where the member of Congress was from a different party than the presidential candidate who carried the seat.)
> 
> A good midterm election wouldn't be enough to switch control of the House. Democrats would need a great one. Which is possible -- especially given Trump's dismal approval ratings and the lack of legislative accomplishments for Congress -- but never a certainty.
> 
> On the Senate side, where redistricting isn't a factor, Democrats are a victim of their own successes. Democrats won six Republican seats in the 2006 election. In 2012, Democrats picked up two more seats -- if you include Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. And I do.
> That embarrassment of political riches means that in 2018 there are a whopping 25 Democratic seats up as compared to a meager eight for Republicans. In other words, 52% of all the seats Democrats control are up in 2018 while just 15% of Republicans' seats are up.
> 
> And it's not just the raw numbers. It's where these seats are. Ten of the 25 (40%) are in states Trump won in 2016. TEN.
> 
> Five of those 10 -- North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana -- are states Trump carried by double digits. By contrast, only one Republican up for reelection -- Dean Heller of Nevada -- represents a state that Clinton won last November. Only one other Republican-held state -- Arizona -- was even marginally competitive in the presidential contest. (Trump won Arizona by 3.5 points.)
> 
> In short: The political environment is looking very, very good for Democrats. But the math is unchanging -- and bad -- for them.
> History suggests that political environments can sometimes overwhelm raw numbers. But, for that to happen you need a gale-force wind blowing in one direction. And that is a very rare thing.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/politics/2018-midterms-trump/index.html


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you're gonna cite statistics to make your argument, then you should have to prove your statistics are accurate.


Sure, I'll just take a poll of all the white supremacist scum bags and all of those protesting against them . . . give me a break!

I'm speaking anecdoatally.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Sure, I'll just take a poll of all the white supremacist scum bags and all of those protesting against them . . . give me a break!
> 
> I'm speaking anecdoatally.


Ya, well, speaking anecdotally is biased. Why should I consider whether your argument is rational when you make up statistics to support your argument?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Democrats will win back a good number of seats but overwhelmingly? Doubtful because of gerrymandering and the way the lines are currently drawn.
> 
> How would Republicans stab their base in the back? Right now their party is in chaos because of Trump. He is a disaster, getting rid of Trump would get them back to their base. Impeaching Trump is not stabbing their base in the back.


Well, in order to impeach Trump, they'll need a majority, or you'll have to think that Republicans will stab Trump in the back. Both are near impossible because of the lack of message from the DNC and the desire of the RNC to not lose their base.

At the end of the day, you're just word vomiting a made up scenario because you can't deal with reality and your cognitive dissonance is working on overdrive. You're the same type of person that hoped the Electoral College would defy their duties as electorates and vote for Hillary, instead of Trump. It's quite pathetic that you would allow yourself to get to such a place.


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, well, speaking anecdotally is biased. Why should I consider whether your argument is rational when you make up statistics to support your argument?


Some things are obvious to any rational person and don't need to have a citation.

Here's one: The white supremacist scum who came to Charlottes are loser douchebags spewing venom. 

Do you need a citation for that?

Here's another: Anyone chanting "Jews will not replace us" is very familiar with the "alt-right." They are also a disgrace to the human race.

Here's a third: the overwhelming majority of those protesting against the human filth that converged on Charlottesville have never heard the word "antifa" and could care less about it. it's a word used by the right to make themselves feel better. It's as fake as voter fraud.

You don't need a citation for them. They are self-evident to anyone who lives on Earth


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, in order to impeach Trump, they'll need a majority, or you'll have to think that Republicans will stab Trump in the back. Both are near impossible because of the lack of message from the DNC and the desire of the RNC to not lose their base.
> 
> At the end of the day, you're just word vomiting a made up scenario because you can't deal with reality and your cognitive dissonance is working on overdrive. You're the same type of person that hoped the Electoral College would defy their duties as electorates and vote for Hillary, instead of Trump. It's quite pathetic that you would allow yourself to get to such a place.


Have you not noticed all the Republicans turning against Trump? If you were well informed you would know this.

The projection by you in this post is the funniest thing I have read from you yet.

But keep it up, cant wait until Trump is out as president then you make all your excuses like you always do.


----------



## Crasp

Things would have to get _a lot_ worse before Republicans en masse would stab Trump in the back.

The fact is Trump now holds a relitively small but significant enough portion of Republican voters, that the party would be wary of being overy hostile towards him out of fear that those voters would be lost - not that they'd vote Dem - they just wouldn't vote (a point that is especially poignant for Republicans given how the Democrat vote will be significantly more energized next time in the wake of Trump's time in office).

I don't know that that would be _entirely_ the case - I think a few of them would vote for anyone that wasn't Liberal. But it's enough of a concern for Republicans that they'd rather wait it out than take action, maybe applying pressure in more subtle ways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Crasp said:


> Things would have to get _a lot_ worse before Republicans en masse would stab Trump in the back.
> 
> The fact is Trump now holds a relitively small but significant enough portion of Republican voters, that the party would be wary of being overy hostile towards him out of fear that those voters would be lost - not that they'd vote Dem - they just wouldn't vote (a point that is especially poignant for themt given how the Democrat vote will be significantly more energized next time in the wake of Trump's time in office).
> 
> I don't know that that would be _entirely_ the case - I think a few of them would vote for anyone that wasn't Liberal. But it's enough of a concern for Republicans that they'd rather wait it out than take action, maybe applying pressure in more subtle ways.


It can't get much worse than it is now. The only way it can get worse is if Trump shuts down the Govt because he can't get his wall built.

Trump can't even pass his tax cuts for the rich.

Trump is also turning on everyone that does not kiss his ass or "have his back" like he puts it. There is only so much they will take before they turn on Trump as well.

And this is not even getting into what Mueller may find on Trumps Russia connections and any back door deals he could have with them.

No way Trump makes it to 2020.


----------



## Crasp

birthday_massacre said:


> It can't get much worse than it is now. The only way it can get worse is if Trump shuts down the Govt because he can't get his wall built.
> 
> Trump can't even pass his tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> Trump is also turning on everyone that does not kiss his ass or "have his back" like he puts it. There is only so much they will take before they turn on Trump as well.
> 
> And this is not even getting into what Mueller may find on Trumps Russia connections and any back door deals he could have with them.
> 
> No way Trump makes it to 2020.


Heh, well, I never said he'd make it to 2020!

And I'm pretty confident things can still get a lot worse.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Some things are obvious to any rational person and don't need to have a citation.
> 
> Here's one: The white supremacist scum who came to Charlottes are loser douchebags spewing venom.
> 
> Do you need a citation for that?
> 
> Here's another: Anyone chanting "Jews will not replace us" is very familiar with the "alt-right." They are also a disgrace to the human race.
> 
> Here's a third: the overwhelming majority of those protesting against the human filth that converged on Charlottesville have never heard the word "antifa" and could care less about it. it's a word used by the right to make themselves feel better. It's as fake as voter fraud.
> 
> You don't need a citation for them. They are self-evident to anyone who lives on Earth





> You ignored the part where I said that 99% of the people protesting the scum bags at Charlottesville had never heard of the word "Antifa"


That fact that you call that obvious is mind-numbingly dense. I can't tell if you're being a parody.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Crasp said:


> Heh, well, I never said he'd make it to 2020!
> 
> And I'm pretty confident things can still get a lot worse.


OH so you agree he will be impeached or resign at some point, you just dont think its by the end of the year?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Have you not noticed all the Republicans turning against Trump? If you were well informed you would know this.
> 
> The projection by you in this post is the funniest thing I have read from you yet.
> 
> But keep it up, cant wait until Trump is out as president then you make all your excuses like you always do.


You mean the same Republicans that haven't worked with him since he started?


----------



## Beatles123

People in this thread falling for bait.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Beatles123 said:


> People in this thread falling for bait.


Guilty as charged


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

And I thought BM was delusional!

:maury


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And I thought BM was delusional!
> 
> :maury


Sorry if you cant deal with reality. but you live in Trump land where you think Trump is smart lol

Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Beatles123

"Im staying out of the thread" :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> "Im staying out of the thread" :ha


If you are going to make a comment about me dont cry to the mods when I reply to your posts like you always do.

Because that is what you do best in these threads cry to the mods because you can't take the heat when people hit back.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> If you are going to make a comment about me dont cry to the mods when I reply to your posts like you always do.
> 
> Because that is what you do best in these threads cry to the mods because you can't take the heat when people hit back.


ooh bam!


----------



## CamillePunk

So if luck gets him to 2018, what would get him to 2020? Competence?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> If you are going to make a comment about me dont cry to the mods when I reply to your posts like you always do.
> 
> Because that is what you do best in these threads cry to the mods because you can't take the heat when people hit back.


just pointing out your hypocrisy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> just pointing out your hypocrisy.


Coming from the guy who claims he is going to ignore me because you cry when I tear your posts to shreds.
And you are calling me a hypocrite lol

Ok well gloves are off, dont cry to the mods next time I call you out in your posts.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Coming from the guy who claims he is going to ignore me because you cry when I tear your posts to shreds.
> And you are calling me a hypocrite lol
> 
> Ok well gloves are off, dont cry to the mods next time I call you out in your posts.


You said you were going to stay out of the thread and you're not. I see only one hypocrite here. Thats not arguing, thats me being real. Im calling it like i see it. Now we're done.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> You said you were going to stay out of the thread and you're not. I see only one hypocrite here. Thats not arguing, thats me being real. Im calling it like i see it. Now we're done.


The Trump supporters, like yourself, favorite mantra.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> The Trump supporters, like yourself, favorite mantra.


As usual, you miss the point. This isn't about me and you.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> If you are going to make a comment about me dont cry to the mods when I reply to your posts like you always do.
> 
> Because that is what you do best in these threads cry to the mods because you can't take the heat when people hit back.


If you're going to reply in this thread, don't passive aggressively down vote everything I say.

:wink


----------



## Reaper

/pol/ Doing a fantastic job rounding up these thugs. 

:clap










:eyeroll


----------



## Miss Sally

Woah, just found out there is someone who actually can get evidence of Trump/Russia, Get him impeached, get the US on single payer and make the DNC emails which entail corruption and racism go away.. 



Spoiler: Ultimate ally


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> /pol/ Doing a fantastic job rounding up these thugs.
> 
> :clap


Weaponized autism > Nuclear weapons :kobelol


----------



## Oxidamus

wagnergrad96 said:


> Here's a third: the overwhelming majority of those protesting against the human filth that converged on Charlottesville have never heard the word "antifa" and could care less about it. it's a word used by the right to make themselves feel better. It's as fake as voter fraud.


Oh stop with this fucking nonsense. Are you even reading any of the replies to your posts? These people who propped up in response to Trump's inauguration *called themselves ANTIFA*. Before then, if you were to ask the vast majority of people what ANTIFA was, I'm sure all but a handful would have no idea. They only know *because of the self-proclamation * of the so-called ANTIFA.

As far as "fake" goes, whatever your reasoning, the threat of institutionalising Nazi and white supremacist doctrine and belief is far, far more of a boogeyman than a large group of college aged students masquerading as warriors of social justice while they wish to instil communist belief into western civilisation, which is taught to them by their biased professors.

You're right some things need no citation. Unfortunately that seems to only apply to the right, simply and clearly because people do not grow up being told what is bad about left-wing ideology. Do you question why? Ever?

Fascism is awful but let's forget the near 100 millions of deaths caused by communist rule. Forget the terrors of Stalin and Mao, etc.


Reminder in this and the Charlottesville thread, many people said things along the lines of "_If it looks like [white supremacy], smells like [white supremacy], then it must be [white supremacy]._"

Why can't the same be said about ANTIFA?
And why is it acceptable for you to constantly defend weapon toting thugs who commit actual acts of violence because people think differently to them?

Your and any argument of them not having as much power as those so-called Nazis is fucking dumb. Nothing but fucking dumb. They have way more power. Everyone knows Nazis are bad, even the bloody Nazis. Not everyone knows communism is bad. Some wave the hammer and sickle like something to be proud of.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Oxidamus said:


> Oh stop with this fucking nonsense. Are you even reading any of the replies to your posts? These people who propped up in response to Trump's inauguration *called themselves ANTIFA*. Before then, if you were to ask the vast majority of people what ANTIFA was, I'm sure all but a handful would have no idea. They only know *because of the self-proclamation * of the so-called ANTIFA.
> 
> As far as "fake" goes, whatever your reasoning, the threat of institutionalising Nazi and white supremacist doctrine and belief is far, far more of a boogeyman than a large group of college aged students masquerading as warriors of social justice while they wish to instil communist belief into western civilisation, which is taught to them by their biased professors.
> 
> You're right some things need no citation. Unfortunately that seems to only apply to the right, simply and clearly because people do not grow up being told what is bad about left-wing ideology. Do you question why? Ever?
> 
> Fascism is awful but let's forget the near 100 millions of deaths caused by communist rule. Forget the terrors of Stalin and Mao, etc.
> 
> 
> Reminder in this and the Charlottesville thread, many people said things along the lines of "_If it looks like [white supremacy], smells like [white supremacy], then it must be [white supremacy]._"
> 
> Why can't the same be said about ANTIFA?
> And why is it acceptable for you to constantly defend weapon toting thugs who commit actual acts of violence because people think differently to them?
> 
> Your and any argument of them not having as much power as those so-called Nazis is fucking dumb. Nothing but fucking dumb. They have way more power. Everyone knows Nazis are bad, even the bloody Nazis. Not everyone knows communism is bad. Some wave the hammer and sickle like something to be proud of.


I'm starting to think he played himself, and what he's actually talking about is the term "Alt-Left".

:LOL


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

You wanna know what crazy looks like? It's a person starting a campaign on GoFundMe for $1,000,000,000.



> Donald Trump has done a lot of horrible things on Twitter. From emboldening white supremacists to promoting violence against journalists, his tweets damage the country and put people in harm's way. But threatening actual nuclear war with North Korea takes it to a dangerous new level.
> 
> It’s time to shut him down. The bad news is Twitter has ignored growing calls to enforce their own community standards and delete Trump's account. The good news is we can make that decision for them.
> 
> Twitter is a publicly traded company. Shares = power. This GoFundMe will fund the purchase of a controlling interest in Twitter. At the current market rate that would require over a billion dollars — but that's a small price to pay to take away Trump's most powerful megaphone and prevent a horrific nuclear war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tweets like this are heard around the world. As he uses his biggest platform to escalate the crisis, this could all-too-easily spark a military confrontation that goes nuclear. John Oliver summed this up perfectly:
> 
> "We’ve become accustomed to discounting a large percentage of what comes out of Trump’s face. But North Korea is listening to what he says. And the people there have been primed for decades to believe America is primed for invasion."
> 
> And remember: As commander-in-chief Trump has absolute authority to make good on these threats. The nuclear briefcase follows him everywhere. He can pick up the phone at any moment he can pick and order a nuclear strike. That's why the world takes his words so seriously.
> 
> There’s a real danger that Trump’s tweets could actually start a nuclear war. Let’s delete his account before that happens.
> 
> Trump has fully weaponized Twitter: it’s not something that just happens “online.” Time and again his use of this huge global platform has major consequences in the real world. With a single tweet, he can damage international relationships and alliances, spread fake news like a virus, embolden white supremacists to march in the streets, or send stock markets crashing or soaring.
> 
> Do we want to find out if his tweets can put nuclear missiles in the air, too?
> 
> Trump has already brought us closer to nuclear war than any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. We can’t take Trump's nukes away (yet!), but we can take away his biggest megaphone and stop him from tweeting armageddon.
> 
> Let's #BuyTwitter and delete Trump's account before he starts a nuclear war with it. The whole world will thank us when we do!
> 
> P.S. — Proceeds from this campaign will be used to buy a controlling share of Twitter. If we can't get a majority interest, we'll explore options for buying a significant stake in the company and champion this proposal at the annual shareholder meeting. If that's impossible for any reason or if there is a surplus from this campaign, 100% of the balance of proceeds will be donated to Global Zero, a nonprofit organization leading the resistance to nuclear war.


I feel like this isn't real life anymore.

:CITO


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Miss Sally said:


> Woah, just found out there is someone who actually can get evidence of Trump/Russia, Get him impeached, get the US on single payer and make the DNC emails which entail corruption and racism go away..
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Ultimate ally


There is no offense that is impeachable/unimpeachable.

Someone could leak a tape of Trump saying I in no uncertain commited felonly crimes xyz and unless his approval ratings go under 25% nothing will come of it if enough GOP voters stand by him.

However if someone leaked a video of him doing something entirely legal but creepy like talking about wanting to eat out Ivanka's ass and get pee'ed on by her . If that caused his approval rating to drop around 20-25% he would be impeached.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm starting to think he played himself, and what he's actually talking about is the term "Alt-Left".
> 
> :LOL


Of course, they're all also going to ignore what I just posted about pol catching a guy previously convicted of terrorism caught red-handed in an act of violence. 

Anyone justifying anything the Antifa are doing at this point need to take a long hard look into their politics. 

I'm frankly getting tired of this because I used to hear "Taliban are just a reactionary group to the US Invasion" all the time while they racked up 50 thousand kills. If you're acting as a sympathizer for any violent mob, you're scum. We're a civilized world where all forms of violence need to be denounced. 

Antifa do not act in self-defense. They start the violence and have been since they've existed. This is a form of anarchy that isn't anarchy, but the same mob that used to burn witches at the stake. Their methods are the same even if their political aims are slightly different. Of course, unfortunately the left that has consistently glorified the French Revolution (which I trace back as the primary source of extreme left-wing / anarchist violence) throughout their indoctrination in colleges have no clue that they've been converted into sympathizers for violence because it aligns with their political ideals. 

"Liberty" is just a word that has been used by far too many groups to invoke violence against groups or people they demonize.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Oxidamus said:


> As far as "fake" goes, whatever your reasoning, the threat of institutionalising Nazi and white supremacist doctrine and belief is far, far more of a boogeyman than a large group of college aged students masquerading as warriors of social justice while they wish to instil communist belief into western civilisation, which is taught to them by their biased professors.


You lost me at "communist."

Here are two important things for you

1) It's not 1950 anymore
2) It's very likely you never went to college.


----------



## Oxidamus

wagnergrad96 said:


> You lost me at "communist."
> 
> Here are two important things for you
> 
> 1) It's not 1950 anymore
> 2) It's very likely you never went to college.


It's not the 30s or 40s either, yet we are so worried about Nazis.
I didn't, and even if I did, I'm not American. Nice last bastion defence. "You don't know what it's like!" ... Let us just ignore the evidence and professors who speak out against it, because of that total nonsense reasoning.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Oxidamus said:


> It's not the 30s or 40s either, yet we are so worried about Nazis.
> I didn't, and even if I did, I'm not American. Nice last bastion defence. "You don't know what it's like!" ... Let us just ignore the evidence and professors who speak out against it, because of that total nonsense reasoning.


So any opinion you might have about what might or might not be taught in U.S. College is completely useless (not to mention incorrect). Have a good one!


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> That fact that you call that obvious is mind-numbingly dense. I can't tell if you're being a parody.


The average American - not someone like you and I, who follows this stuff intensely and post politics stuff on wrestling forums, has no idea what "antifa" means.

They do know that they hate white-supremacist scum bags, though.

You seem to take the side of the scum bags. That's too bad.

Maybe you should watch more wrestling and less info wars. Spend more time on GFW you tube page and less time on 4Chan.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> The average American - not someone like you and I, who follows this stuff intensely and post politics stuff on wrestling forums, has no idea what "antifa" means.
> 
> They do know that they hate white-supremacist scum bags, though.
> 
> You seem to take the side of the scum bags. That's too bad.
> 
> Maybe you should watch more wrestling and less info wars. Spend more time on GFW you tube page and less time on 4Chan.


Oh, fuck off with the "You seem to take the side of the scum bags". That's the kind of talk that has us in this mess in the first place. It isn't the white-supremacist scum bags that are why we're here now. It's because of you, and the people like you, who go around generalizing everyone and everything, that has us in this state of division. I didn't come here posting hateful rhetoric, you did. I haven't said a single thing in support of white supremacy. Never have and never will. So, whatever it is you're thinking, is beyond wrong, and if you insist that what you think is the truth then you've allowed yourself to become blind to the actual truth. That's too bad.

And, as someone who did go to college in America, and still keeps up with some of the professors I had; I can tell you that at the college I went to, kids know about ANTIFA.


----------



## Oxidamus

wagnergrad96 said:


> So any opinion you might have about what might or might not be taught in U.S. College is completely useless (not to mention incorrect). Have a good one!


And studying at one college of thousands is only one more than me. I'll take the words of professors who have taught at many, thanks.

Nvm this guy is a troll @TheNightmanCometh


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Oxidamus said:


> And studying at one college of thousands is only one more than me. I'll take the words of professors who have taught at many, thanks.
> 
> Nvm this guy is a troll @TheNightmanCometh


Troll, or someone so deep into his own cognitive dissonance that he can't see reality when it's literally right in front of him?

For now, I'll go with the latter, but claiming that average people don't know who ANTIFA is, is a very solid troll argument.


----------



## Vic Capri

Hates Nazi. Won't hate communists.











> Let's #BuyTwitter and delete Trump's account


Yes, censor The President and see what happens. 

- Vic


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I didn't come here posting hateful rhetoric, you did. I haven't said a single thing in support of white supremacy. Never have and never will.



If calling White Nationalist who chant "jews will not replace" us while carrying Tiki Torches is "scum bags hateful rhetoric, I guess I'm guilty.

All of your posts seem to be attacking those who protest against fascism, so your stance is very clear. You don't have to overtly side with white supremacists. Your posts do that for you.

So you can stop with the high and mighty crap.

Those who protest against Nazi garbage are not all "antifa" (probably a small number are), but those who chant "jews will not replace us" are ALL alt-right, white nationalist, neo Nazis.

The choice is not hard here.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Oxidamus said:


> And studying at one college of thousands is only one more than me. I'll take the words of professors who have taught at many, thanks.
> 
> Nvm this guy is a troll @TheNightmanCometh


Actually I studied at two. Wagner College for my BA (1996) and Cal St U at Dominguez Hills for my Ma (2010).

If you are calling me a Troll, you have a very misguided understanding of it's definition. We have different opinions and we express them forcefully. Neither of us are trolls.

At least we're both Wrestling fans


----------



## Brockamura

LOVE THE DONALD FROM CANADA, HERE STUCK WITH TRUDEAU SUCKS 

#TRUMP2020


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/900694348257517568
The President retweeted this. :done


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> If calling White Nationalist who chant "jews will not replace" us while carrying Tiki Torches is "scum bags hateful rhetoric, I guess I'm guilty.
> 
> All of your posts seem to be attacking those who protest against fascism, so your stance is very clear. You don't have to overtly side with white supremacists. Your posts do that for you.
> 
> So you can stop with the high and mighty crap.
> 
> Those who protest against Nazi garbage are not all "antifa" (probably a small number are), but those who chant "jews will not replace us" are ALL alt-right, white nationalist, neo Nazis.
> 
> The choice is not hard here.


So much fail.

Not a single person here has given a counter definition to those who "chant "jews will not replace" us while carrying Tiki Torches is "scum bags hateful rhetoric". We've all agreed that people who do that are white supremacists, or nationalists.

All of your posts seem to be attacking those who protest against fascism. Wrong. All of my posts point out contradictory information and falsehoods. Nice try, though, claiming I'm in support of white supremacy/nationalism.

Again, not a single person here said every person who protested against the white supremacist/nationalists were with ANTIFA. ANTIFA was there, and they instigated violence while there. These are facts, whether you want to accept them or not, is immaterial.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Actually I studied at two. Wagner College for my BA (1996) and Cal St U at Dominguez Hills for my Ma (2010).
> 
> If you are calling me a Troll, you have a very misguided understanding of it's definition. We have different opinions and we express them forcefully. Neither of us are trolls.
> *
> At least we're both Wrestling fans *


What wrestling do you like? Cause if it's WWE, GTFO! It's puroresu or bust! :wink2:


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> What wrestling do you like? Cause if it's WWE, GTFO! It's puroresu or bust! :wink2:


Kings road


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> What wrestling do you like? Cause if it's WWE, GTFO! It's puroresu or bust! :wink2:


Well, look at my avatar! I was a nitro guy do or die. Then I was a TNA mark. Now I have no choice but to watch Impact.

I do watch Raw and Smackdown, but skip over much.

McMahon is buddies with Darth Trump! How can I be a fan of that? 

Have a good weekend.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Well, look at my avatar! I was a nitro guy do or die. Then I was a TNA mark. Now I have no choice but to watch Impact.
> 
> I do watch Raw and Smackdown, but skip over much.
> 
> McMahon is buddies with Darth Trump! How can I be a fan of that?
> 
> Have a good weekend.


You were a WCW fan and drifted over to TNA? Are you a sadist?


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You were a WCW fan and drifted over to TNA? Are you a sadist?


Say what you like, but the last two episodes of IMPACT have been pretty decent. 

I don't post on weekends, so have a good one . . . .


----------



## deepelemblues

wagnergrad96 said:


> If calling White Nationalist who chant "jews will not replace" us while carrying Tiki Torches is "scum bags hateful rhetoric, I guess I'm guilty.
> 
> All of your posts seem to be attacking those who protest against fascism, so your stance is very clear. You don't have to overtly side with white supremacists. Your posts do that for you.
> 
> So you can stop with the high and mighty crap.
> 
> Those who protest against Nazi garbage are not all "antifa" (probably a small number are), but those who chant "jews will not replace us" are ALL alt-right, white nationalist, neo Nazis.
> 
> The choice is not hard here.


what choice is that

the united states of america ruled by nazis would look the same as the united states of america ruled by antifa, except some of the victims would look different. they'd both be brutal, murderous totalitarian states where the rulers attempted, or at least aspired, to control every facet of behavior and thought down to the tiniest details. 

none of these people are nice people. nazis are nazis, and the closest historical analog to antifa is the red guards of the cultural revolution.


----------



## Reaper

Right on cue after all narratives have crashed I saw an article about some GOP senator questioning Trump's competence. 

Looks like Scott Adams is Nostradamus of our times. 

Might as well start worshipping him. 

Oh. The next liberal narrative will be questions surrounding Trump's mental health. Be forewarned. 

Everyone in here who hasn't posted about it will be a psychological expert with special insight into Trump's mental faculties over the next few weeks.

Would encourage every leftist to make their obligatory "Trump is mentally ill" post so we can get it out of the way. Just get it out of your systems. You know you want to.


----------



## BruiserKC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.561ae3b3ed0b






Yes, it might seem rather petty to talk political ramifications with Hurricane Harvey about to hit the Texas shoreline with the potential to be one of the biggest disasters to ever hit the state...but this is going to be a huge test for the Trump administration. All the more interesting is that they have interim heads of NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, and FEMA. In addition, right now you have an interim head of the DHS since Kelly moved over to be chief of staff. 

Judging from what the news has been stating today, Trump is monitoring the situation and the feds are in contact with state and local authorities. The feds learned their lesson especially for the slow reaction to help recovery after Katrina back in '05 and it's better to overprepare then be caught with their pants down. There's very little right now obviously Trump can do personally, but people will be watching to see how they handle this situation and the aftermath.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Vic Capri said:


> Hates Nazi. Won't hate communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, censor The President and see what happens.
> 
> - Vic


Weren't people just bitching about the President blocking people on twitter and how since he's president it should be against the rules to block people to avoid criticism? Now they want his twitter deleted? Make up your minds


----------



## FriedTofu

Gorka resigned. :harper

Only Miller, Pruitt, Devos and Rick Perry left to kick out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Right on cue after all narratives have crashed I saw an article about some GOP senator questioning Trump's competence.
> 
> Looks like Scott Adams is Nostradamus of our times.
> 
> Might as well start worshipping him.
> 
> Oh. The next liberal narrative will be questions surrounding Trump's mental health. Be forewarned.
> 
> Everyone in here who hasn't posted about it will be a psychological expert with special insight into Trump's mental faculties over the next few weeks.
> 
> Would encourage every leftist to make their obligatory "Trump is mentally ill" post so we can get it out of the way. Just get it out of your systems. You know you want to.


LOL if you think Trump is competent. It just proves even more how clueless you and the Trump supporters in this thread are. 

As for Trump being mentally ill you should hope he is because if he's not, he is even dumber than we though.


----------



## Reaper

[emoji38]


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...n-gorka-resigns-white-house-article-1.3443137

Very disappointed to hear this, considering Gorka's cool, calm and collected manhandling of the MSM was always a treat to watch, since it was essentially the polar opposite of Trump's bombastic (yet also very entertaining) method of taking them down several pegs.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wagnergrad96 said:


> Say what you like, but the last two episodes of IMPACT have been pretty decent.
> 
> I don't post on weekends, so have a good one . . . .


And that's supposed to explain why you've been watching it for 15 years? You've been a loyal follower for the last 15 years because you knew that in 2017 they'd put on two shows that were "pretty decent"?


----------



## Headliner

So, Trump pardons Arpaio who is basically a racist. Anyone going to step up, admit their bigotry and say this is a good move or we going to show some moral decency? :lebron8


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> So, Trump pardons Arpaio who is basically a racist. Anyone going to step up, admit their bigotry and say this is a good move or we going to show some moral decency? :lebron8


And people will still deny Trump is a racist.


----------



## deepelemblues

Can't be disregarding court orders like Sheriff Joe did, that's just bad form chaps.


----------



## Tater

It's somewhat amusing that the people who are ripping Trump for pardoning Arpaio are many of the same people who praised Obama for commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence, not even granting a pardon, after doing nothing for the previous 7 years. Sure, Arpaio might be a piece of shit and Trump may be abusing the presidential pardon by letting him off the hook but Obama standing idly by while an American hero was imprisoned and tortured for 7 years is far, far worse. The lesson learned here is that it's okay to violate the Constitution if you have the right friends but you better fucking not expose the crimes of the United States government.


----------



## DemonKane

birthday_massacre said:


> It's because Trump is incompetent.The only people that are blind are people supporting Trump that can't see an admit what a disaster he is.
> 
> Trump doesn't know shit on how the govt works that is why he is such a failure.
> 
> Trump wants to shut down the govt because he can't get his racist way of building a wall that is not even needed.
> 
> Trumps priorities are so fucked up. Trump is a racist baby, oh he isn't getting his wall, he is going to shut down the govt.
> 
> Trump is the biggest snowflake on the planet.


80% of women crossing the Mexico/US border are raped by Mexicans, tell me again that the wall and additional border control is not needed. I thought you leftists hated rape? 
You haven't put forward any real argument against Trump, just infantile garbage like "he's racist" and "he's bad". Tell us why. All the left does with terrible arguments like this is ensure Trump wins again in 2020.


----------



## DemonKane

I'd also like to point out that Trump really nailed it on Afghanistan and Pakistan the other day, excellent stuff.


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> Can't be disregarding court orders like Sheriff Joe did, that's just bad form chaps.


And Alabama might be going to elect to the Senate Roy Moore...while I appreciate his conservative stances he violated his oath twice in regards to refusing orders to remove the 10 Commandments from his office and then refusing years later to issue same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama. If you disagree with it, fine...don't abuse your position as a judge to make your point.

If I'm going to howl when a liberal judge legislates from the bench, I'm not going to give a conservative one a free pass.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The Arpaio pardon is nothing but a weird pr stunt, he wasn't set to be sentenced until October and was almost certainly just gonna get a fine. 

Courts don't send 85 year olds to jail for a first offence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DemonKane said:


> 80% of women crossing the Mexico/US border are raped by Mexicans, tell me again that the wall and additional border control is not needed. I thought you leftists hated rape?
> You haven't put forward any real argument against Trump, just infantile garbage like "he's racist" and "he's bad". Tell us why. All the left does with terrible arguments like this is ensure Trump wins again in 2020.


I have always put forth real arguments on this but people like you just ignore the facts.

The fact is more illegals are LEAVING the US than entering. Not to mention they are just going to climb over the walls they put up so its a wasting of money. 

Also, Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall but now the US is supposed to pay for it?

but sure keep defending this stupid and racist wall.





Alkomesh2 said:


> The Arpaio pardon is nothing but a weird pr stunt, he wasn't set to be sentenced until October and was almost certainly just gonna get a fine.
> 
> Courts don't send 85 year olds to jail for a first offence.


Its just Trump appeasing his racist base. The most he would have gotten was six months in jail, if he even saw jail time.


----------



## Oxidamus

Does anyone here take any of the bait posts calling people racists seriously? :mj4


----------



## Draykorinee

Nice PR stint by Trumpton, sinks lower and lower.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Oxidamus said:


> Does anyone here take any of the bait posts calling people racists seriously? :mj4


About as seriously as I take your posts tbh :shrug


----------



## Oxidamus

RavishingRickRules said:


> About as seriously as I take your posts tbh :shrug


I wish the staff would ban you trolls but they won't for obvious reasons. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

Even Germany which has become a sinkhole of human depravity thanks to Merkel finally waking up and starting to take action against the Terrorist Organization known as Antifa. 

:hb 

Of course, here comes the "Return of Nazism to Germany" obligatory comments.












Oxidamus said:


> Does anyone here take any of the bait posts calling people racists seriously? :mj4


You learn to tune them out on the basis of not just their bias, but lack of intellectual capital. Meanwhile they keep getting :triggered as a result of their lack of intellectual capital on things that shouldn't even trigger them which is fine by me.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Headliner said:


> So, Trump pardons Arpaio who is basically a racist. Anyone going to step up, admit their bigotry and say this is a good move or we going to show some moral decency? :lebron8


Between this and border patrol officers reportedly maintaining their checkpoints during the lead-up to groundfall of a cat 4 hurricane - many people will not leave the area if worried, correctly or not, that they have to choose between deportation and possible death - I'm losing faith that there isn't a sinister racist component at work. All Republicans aren't racist, most aren't, but there's a chunk of them who are and they seem to have an ally or two in the current administration. 

I've long considered the alt-right a fringe, mostly online, movement but they seem to have picked up sympathizers among working class folks from states dependent on dying industries and manufacturing. It scares me. I live in an urban, diverse, low-unemployment area but much of my province is similar to those states, both in demographics and job opportunities. One wrong politician elected, one charismatic activist and this shit could take hold here, only with the addition of pre-existing strife between anglo and francophone communities. English and French have been at cultural, and at times literal, war with each other for generations. Certain unilingual anglophones blame francophones and bilingualism for their trouble finding quality work; they'd make easy targets for someone peddling promises of turning back the clock to the old days when english was the only language that mattered. My home could easily have a Trump too. 




FriedTofu said:


> Gorka resigned. :harper
> 
> Only Miller, Pruitt, Devos and Rick Perry left to kick out.


This, however, makes me happy. The details, and what sort of resignation or if it's a resignation at all, are still unclear but it seems someone on the inside is trying to put out the dumpster fire in Washington. 



Reaper said:


> Would encourage every leftist to make their obligatory "Trump is mentally ill" post so we can get it out of the way. Just get it out of your systems. You know you want to.


I don't think he's raving insane, just dumb. He's not intelligent, self-aware or disciplined enough for the job he has. People like him find themselves in messes when those who understand how the game is played take advantage of them. Trump's ego, coupled with his false belief that he understands the world around him, leaves him vulnerable, as the Russia investigations and entanglements with white nationalism prove. He's going to end up either led by stronger players within the White House or he's going to get himself, and his country, into an international mess. His savvier allies, like Bannon, understand how steering Trump works and that's why statements about the Trump presidency he campaigned for being over are coming out. World leaders have read Trump now too and they're reacting in their best interests.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Oxidamus said:


> I wish the staff would ban you trolls but they won't for obvious reasons. :mj4


I feel much the same about you pseudo-intellectual wannabes tbh.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> You learn to tune them out on the basis of not just their bias, but lack of intellectual capital. Meanwhile they keep getting :triggered as a result of their lack of intellectual capital on things that shouldn't even trigger them which is fine by me.


This is actually hilarious considering who you're quoting.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> This is actually hilarious considering who you're quoting.


Meh. You aren't one of the people I consider intellectually inept, but I don't understand your attack on Oxi or what it's based on. 

Oxi tries hard and his perspective is much more from a POV of learning to improve his knowledge base than most people I've seen on here who are stuck in their ways so while we disagree on certain fundamental political philosophies, I enjoy reading his posts because they show growth and evolution over time.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Meh. You aren't one of the people I consider intellectually inept, but I don't understand your attack on Oxi or what it's based on.
> 
> Oxi tries hard and his perspective is much more from a POV of learning to improve his knowledge base than most people I've seen on here who are stuck in their ways so while we disagree on certain fundamental political philosophies, I enjoy reading his posts because they show growth and evolution over time.


It's not an attack, simply pointing out how ridiculous it is for someone like that to try and act superior to someone who's basically at the same level of competency over their posts. It gets a little old seeing all the pomposity from people who think they're the next DesolationRow because they learned to write their posts with a condescending voice. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's not an attack, simply pointing out how ridiculous it is for someone like that to try and act superior to someone who's basically at the same level of competency over their posts. It gets a little old seeing all the pomposity from people who think they're the next DesolationRow because they learned to write their posts with a condescending voice. :shrug


People who condescend >>>> People who throw about the "you're ray cis" accusations unironically ITT at any poster on here, so his post calling those people out is perfectly valid. Not sure how that relates to his competency unless you've read everything Oxi's ever written. 

In any case, this thread goes through waves of dumpster fires led by the lamestream media but eventually it loses its steam till the next cockamemy set of accusations the MSM drudges up so for me it's just entertainment at this point.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> People who condescend >>>> People who throw about the "you're ray cis" accusations unironically ITT at any poster on here, so his post calling those people out is perfectly valid. Not sure how that relates to his competency unless you've read everything Oxi's ever written.
> 
> In any case, this thread goes through waves of dumpster fires led by the lamestream media but eventually it loses its steam till the next cockamemy set of accusations the MSM drudges up so for me it's just entertainment at this point.


Nah the "competency" is in response to his failed attempts to intellectualise at me in other threads. I find very little value in pseudo intellectual attention whores who're most known for having bouts of "look at me, I like girls with penises" and getting bodybagged by Shiv and trying to claim they "won." :shrug


----------



## Oxidamus

RavishingRickRules said:


> I feel much the same about you pseudo-intellectual wannabes tbh.


Trying to understand what's going on and why, is being a pseudo-intellectual in today's age. :hogan
@Reaper he's made it clear he doesn't like me cause of rants in the past. I keep forgetting these types think disliking someone means nothing they say is right, or even reasonable.

Also I'm offended at being called condescending. :shockedpunk
I'm only condescending to those who start it or don't deserve to be taken seriously. Which isn't just you and others, it includes people like CamillePunk who also don't like me. I took your post seriously and your response was "you expect me to read all of that for a rhetorical question?" :lol


----------



## Reaper

Rants = Banter. Not sure how anyone can take anything said in there seriously especially as a reflection on the person saying it. 

If someone just saw only what I post in rants, I'm pretty sure no one would ever take me seriously anywhere else either :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Even Germany which has become a sinkhole of human depravity thanks to Merkel finally waking up and starting to take action against the Terrorist Organization known as Antifa.
> 
> :hb
> 
> Of course, here comes the "Return of Nazism to Germany" obligatory comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You learn to tune them out on the basis of not just their bias, but lack of intellectual capital. Meanwhile they keep getting :triggered as a result of their lack of intellectual capital on things that shouldn't even trigger them which is fine by me.



But Antifa doesn't exist and nobody really is part of Antifa Reaper.


----------



## Reaper

Fascinating how when Republicans are in charge that the conversation is about Trump and Republican racism. Having lived through a hurricane myself now (one that was as strong as Harvey) last year, I personally experienced what it's like. There are idiots who stay in low-lying areas, or trailers, or poorly built homes despite the government's best efforts to get them out. People make their own choices. 

The government is not responsible for them. And yeah, Florida also has a serious migrant problem but no one is treated differently. People make their own choice and that is not in any part the fault of any government in charge. The 4 people that died in Florida last year, 3 of them made their own personal choice to stay in broken down homes and trailers and one poor old woman had a heart attack and an ambulance couldn't get to her in time. 

It is sickening to me that this conversation is even taking place ahead of a natural disaster that in non-white countries controlled by the minorities themselves kills thousands especially thousands in the Caribbean, in Africa, South Asia and South East Asia which have nothing to do with white people or white governments, but suddenly when a few people in a western country get displaced (while millions are saved) it's still white people's fault. Ironically, Canada's current illegal immigration problems can be traced directly to the non-white Haitian government's ineptness to take care of their citizens in the wake of natural disasters --- and yet, the focus here is on Trump and Republicans :lmao 

It's a fucking natural disaster. You are going to get inconvenienced and your life _is _under threat. You need to be smart enough to find ways to protect yourself just as much as the government, if not more. 

If non-white people die in non-white countries, it's the fault of white imperialism making sure those countries are poor. If non-white and white people die (where the numbers are usually in just the single-digits) then it's still the fault of white people who are racist towards the minorities .. but of course, white people also die or are displaced. Of course, there is never any conversation about Tornados killing dozens every year in poverty stricken rural America because there isn't anyone to virtue signal on their behalf and talking about white people dying of natural disasters can't be spun into "America is RAY CIS" narrative :no: 

I mean, the dishonesty is evident. It's always white people's fault no matter what happens to anyone. It's actually fascinating how racist the narrative is.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump is literally Hitler.

Obama is a Muslim.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Fascinating how when Republicans are in charge that the conversation is about Trump and Republican racism.
> 
> It is sickening that this conversation is even taking place ahead of a natural disaster that in non-white countries controlled by the minorities themselves kills millions especially millions in Africa, South Asia and South East Asia which have nothing to do with white people or white governments, but suddenly when a few people in a western country get displaced (while millions are saved) it's still white people's fault. If non-white people die in non-white countries, it's the fault of white imperialism making sure those countries are poor. If non-white and white people die (where the numbers are usually in just the single-digits) then it's still the fault of white people who are racist towards the minorities .. but of course, white people also die or are displaced.
> 
> I mean, the dishonesty is evident.


White people (White men) are to political crime real or imagined as to what black men are to local crime real or imagined.

Car stolen, someone raped, something get stolen, dog got kicked, crime went up? Well it was probably a black man!

Can't find a job, your degree is useless, political upheaval which may or may not involve the West, random ethnic genocides? It was white people!

Really there is a bogeyman for everything. 

Just look at the "Left", preaching tolerance and "We're not xenophobic" but they're spouting anti-Russian xenophobic nonsense are every turn and trying to prevent good terms with them.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901145473922289665
Yeah, I get similar reactions from my parents when I tell them that people here think that Trump is Hitler. 

I'm sorry the boomers are dying to be replaced by millennials. What a sad loss of one of the greatest generations humanity has ever known.

Cue: Screeching about how poor millennials can't afford their 90/month cell phones and 60/month Internet and 100/month Cable and can't buy all 4 gaming consoles and every single game at launch because of boomers.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901145473922289665
> Yeah, I get similar reactions from my parents when I tell them that people here think that Trump is Hitler.
> 
> I'm sorry the boomers are dying to be replaced by millennials. What a sad loss of one of the greatest generations humanity has ever known.
> 
> Cue: Screeching about how poor millennials can't afford their 90/month cell phones and 60/month Internet and 100/month Cable and can't buy all 4 gaming consoles and every single game at launch because of boomers.


People are idiots and don't know the meaning behind majority of the words they use.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> People are idiots and don't know the meaning behind majority of the words they use.


Yeah, but they definitely 100% absolutely know that since a group calls themselves Anti-fascists, therefore they're absolutely 100% anti-fascist :kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

Zero outrage from liberals when President Clinton and President Obama pardoned all their crooked friends.

Also, how long did it take President Bush to respond to Katrina? I'll wait.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Boomers gave us this debt laidened world, homophobic, racist and sexist. The sooner they die out the better.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901145473922289665
> Yeah, I get similar reactions from my parents when I tell them that people here think that Trump is Hitler.
> 
> I'm sorry the boomers are dying to be replaced by millennials. What a sad loss of one of the greatest generations humanity has ever known.
> 
> Cue: Screeching about how poor millennials can't afford their 90/month cell phones and 60/month Internet and 100/month Cable and can't buy all 4 gaming consoles and every single game at launch because of boomers.


Eh, Millennials complaining about boomers and boomers complaining about millennials is just one generation vs the other which has gone on for ages now. Both sides hat legitimate arguments, but a lot of it has turned into "X is the result of Y" or "X has killed off this" or just crap like that. 

It's a shame everybody can be more understanding, like the price of college and how it is looked upon. My parents both have associate degrees, and my father made (he's looking for work right now after being laid off) around 100K yearly in the food industry as a general manager in catering, and he was able to get that degree and experience a lot easier than I can. So knowing how much more school is, we compromised and he helped me pay off a good chunk of debt, leaving some of it for me to pay off and making sure that amount wasn't something that was going to result in me having a huge ceiling of worry over my head (like some with 90 to 100K in loans). He understands now that its much different looking for work as well since he got laid off, and how most places really only do online applications, something he never really did. 

Makes me lucky to have boomer parents who acknowledge and recognize the changing generation without being ignorant about it. Same goes for my generation though, who will whine about having those huge loans when they themselves agreed to them by going to fancy private universities (I went to a public SUNY and made sure my grades were kept up for scholarships). Some are nice when you get into a niche study, but a decent majority of the time it isn't necessary. Same goes for what you mention about some of them being privileged and wanting all the bells and whistles. When I lived alone while interning, I just had a simple cable/internet plan and a simple phone plan, and that's really it. I didn't eat out much, choosing to cook the majority of my meals, didn't spend on many things I didn't need, and tried to save my money more than anything, instead of using my paycheck then and there for entertainment or luxuries. 

It's like most things, only the really loud, obnoxious ones are heard most, when the majority of us just want to progress with life as normal. :lol


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Middy. The issue isn't that things are much worse. Things are worse in select cities and counties that correlate directly with Democrat control and their fiscally shitty policies. Life is very different for Millennials in Republican controlled states. 

In just 2 years from now my wife and I will be in a position to buy our first home together and she has a very decent 401k already. She's not even 30 yet. We're already living in our own rental home independently. And she's going to college on top of that. This is achieved on a single income BTW. 

Her brother and his girlfriend live independently on a roofer and waitress income and they're both under 23.

Millennials need to start realizing that it's not the boomers that fucked them over but Democrats and their insane tax and social welfare policies. 

Boomers were fiscally responsible. Xers were not. Especially in blue states. Red States are still doing just fine. 

Just go on sites that show you cost of living differences. Pretty much universally all red states are affordable.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Middy. The issue isn't that things are much worse. Things are worse in select cities and counties that correlate directly with Democrat control and their fiscally shitty policies. Life is very different for Millennials in Republican controlled states.
> 
> In just 2 years from now my wife and I will be in a position to buy our first home together and she has a very decent 401k already. She's not even 30 yet. We're already living in our own rental home independently. And she's going to college on top of that. This is achieved on a single income BTW.
> 
> Her brother and his girlfriend live independently on a roofer and waitress income and they're both under 23.
> 
> Millennials need to start realizing that it's not the boomers that fucked them over but Democrats and their insane tax and social welfare policies.
> 
> Boomers were fiscally responsible. Xers were not. Especially in blue states. Red States are still doing just fine.
> 
> Just go on sites that show you cost of living differences. Pretty much universally all red states are affordable.


This is so retarded. The southern states are the ones most reliant on welfare and they're the fucking fiscal ones. Utter desperation from reaper, lowest cost of living and still needing hand outs and welfare, but yeah red states are doing fine.

It's almost like the cost of living increases in places where there are people with money...or where population density increases...Maybe?


----------



## Reaper

I don't think you understand the concept of consumption power. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theb...st-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/

For a nurse you certainly seem to pretend like you know a ton about economics. 

Maybe you should stick to talking about your expertise and let those who understand economics talk about economics instead.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> I don't think you understand the concept of consumption power.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.theb...st-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/
> 
> For a nurse you certainly seem to pretend like you know a ton about economics.
> 
> Maybe you should stick to talking about your expertise and let those who understand economics talk about economics instead.


Those links don't refute what I said at all. Nor do they support what you said. I don't pretend anything, its basic logic that if you have states using more welfare even with lower cost of living you can't use them as some kind of indicator of good fiscal management.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Those links don't refute what I said at all. Nor do they support what you said. I don't pretend anything, its basic logic that if you have states using more welfare even with lower cost of living you can't use them as some kind of indicator of good fiscal management.


Then it's clear you didn't read anything because The Blaze study pretty much debunks the myth of Red States getting more federal money. I made the claim that millenials have better lives in red states based on things being cheaper here. People on welfare does not disprove that at all. 

Evert article I posted has incredibly valuable information that coroborates my claims. You're too lazy to actually make the connection because you don't have the intelligence to understabd and accept any new information to change your mind. This has been established over the past year of your relentless trolling in this thread. 

Also you made the claim that more people in red states are on welfare, then you need to prove it. Percentages in this case do not count because red states have lower population therefore in terms of overall numbers this means that the burden on federal government is lower. 

If you can't engage in a complex discussion instead of just repeating claims then just go enjoy your life. You seem to be desperate for attention today and if you don't have anything valuable to contribute then I'm done obliging.


----------



## Reaper

Also you're probably not smart enough to recognize the fact that people in red states that are on welfare can and typically vote Democrat. Just because there are welfare recipients in red states does not mean they're Republicans or Republican voters.

http://tino.us/2012/02/are-welfare-recipients-mostly-republican/










This is one of the reasons why I typically ignore you and others.

Maybe next time you have a knee jerk reaction to one of my posts and want to call it retarded maybe you should actually spend some time studying things and thinking about them.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reaper, when you start your _You-leftists-aren't-intelligent-enough-to-understand_ speech then toss around the troll label you sound ridiculous, not intimidating. You know that, right? You aren't chasing folks away with your superior logic, you're annoying them until they leave. Just stop. Please. You're better than this.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901145473922289665
> Yeah, I get similar reactions from my parents when I tell them that people here think that Trump is Hitler.
> 
> I'm sorry the boomers are dying to be replaced by millennials. What a sad loss of one of the greatest generations humanity has ever known.
> 
> Cue: Screeching about how poor millennials can't afford their 90/month cell phones and 60/month Internet and 100/month Cable and can't buy all 4 gaming consoles and every single game at launch because of boomers.


:rudy

Boomers damn well fuck it up for younger generations and don't you ever forget that, my man.

Edit: also people on welfare voting democrat probably isn't surprising, like people on welfare voting labor here because the other big party keep doing shit to make them not vote for them. :serious:


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> :rudy
> 
> Boomers damn well fuck it up for younger generations and don't you ever forget that, my man.
> 
> Edit: also people on welfare voting democrat probably isn't surprising, like people on welfare voting labor here because the other big party keep doing shit to make them not vote for them. :serious:


Nope. They didnt. 

There's a lot of info in the 5 articles I posted. 

Also read up on the housing market policies by Clinton and Bush that led to the housing market crash in America.

None of this had anything to do with the average boomer. They weren't the ones installing Big Government here at least in America. Historically boomers have voted for minimal state interference and they weren't the ones that created the global financial crisis which led to millenials having the issues they currently do.

Also boomers had fewer expenses. Millennials spend more money on luxuries than boomers even had access to. The number is as high as 46% IIRC.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Nope. They didnt.
> 
> There's a lot of info in the 5 articles I posted.
> 
> Also read up on the housing market policies by Clinton and Bush that led to the housing market crash in America.
> 
> None of this had anything to do with the average boomer. They weren't the ones installing Big Government here at least in America. Historically boomers have voted for minimal state interference and they weren't the ones that created the global financial crisis which led to millenials having the issues they currently do.
> 
> Also boomers had fewer expenses. Millennials spend more money on luxuries than boomers even had access to. The number is as high as 46% IIRC.


You're aware countries other than America exist right? Again, if you want to make all encompassing posts about things like an entire generation it may help to look towards other countries - specifically Australia - to see if that evidence from the US holds up everywhere else.

As for luxuries, lol. :kobe
Somehow we have it better because luxuries cost less and necessities cost more? Like I could buy a passport, pay for return flights to Vietnam, and rent there for a month, and come back with more money leftover than I would've spent here on bills and food. Is that good or absolutely fucked? Was it the democrats who made that happen here?

Boomers are largely apolitical and stupid, easily manipulated by media, like every generation. Though they were probably the first to be hit by it without knowing, which explains a lot. Still, decisions made seem to be universally bad.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> You're aware countries other than America exist right? Again, if you want to make all encompassing posts about things like an entire generation it may help to look towards other countries - specifically Australia - to see if that evidence from the US holds up everywhere else.


No idea why you guys assume that if I'm talking about a group of people without specifying which country's group I'm talking about that I'm not talking about Americans. 



> As for luxuries, lol. :kobe
> Somehow we have it better because luxuries cost less and necessities cost more? Like I could buy a passport, pay for return flights to Vietnam, and rent there for a month, and come back with more money leftover than I would've spent here on bills and food. Is that good or absolutely fucked? Was it the democrats who made that happen here?


Well, considering that much of the western world is governed by policies that are similar to the Democrats (especially around tax and spend economics), then yeah ... Actually yes. One of the primary drivers of cost is Taxation as well as Labor. The main cost in every single company is labor, so in countries with strict minimum wage laws the cost of necessities does increase as compared to cost of luxuries because luxuries are being produced in countries with lower labor rates .... Necessities like food, water and housing has astronomical costs in western countries BECAUSE of the Tax and spend and high labor cost regulations ... this doesn't even include the cost of simply making sure that housing itself meets certain standards in and of itself to satisfy the ever increasing number of regulations that need to be met. 

The average boomers didn't do this. The gen X politicians did decades after the marxist revolution of the 30-50's. The boomers were strictly anti-communist and pro-economic freedom .. America's (and much of the western worlds') economic freedom has declined only over the last few decades and it's primarily a result of poor economic policies around tax and labor. The two main drivers of costs. 

As for luxuries, there's a lot of things boomers simply didn't have access to plain and simple. They didn't exist. Cable didn't exist. Internet didn't exist. Phones and tablets and computers didn't exist and so a lot of millennials obviously have much higher costs because they want all of them. Most of them now try to pick and choose, but if they don't have cable, then they have to have internet and if they have internet, they have to have phones and if they have phones they have to have phone plans. It's not just RENT that the millennials are paying. They're paying for the extreme property taxes the landlords pay which are consistently raised to pay for welfare. 

So it's a weird situation. You say that you want to end poverty. So what do you do? You say, the landlord has money. Ok, you tax the landlord. But the landlord says, FU, I'm just gonna get my tenant to pay for this. So the tax burden is shifted from the landlord to the consumer. This doesn't make the landlord a scumbag. Because the landlord is now trying to make his investment worth something to him and he has to. The rent rises. 

Same thing with food, water and electricity. Every single capitalist that makes a certain amount of money is seen as a watering hole, but when you start pumping water from that watering hole, all you're doing is taking money from a single pool and distributing into buckets ... but over time the capitalist's money isn't infinite. It's finite. ALso, when you raise taxes on the rich, you're ALSO raising the costs on the poor because the capitalist HAS to transfer the cost of the raised taxes (and wages) onto the consumer ... who is also the labor. See the problem? There is a certain amount of tax burden that the rich can bear for a certain period of time and eventually the rich stops generating wealth therefore everyone becomes worse off ... and taxes are a huge reason why. Or do I need to explain it in more detail? 

So the government while trying to help the consumer actually FUCKS him over royally in the ass. Welfare is an instrument of poverty. 

A lot of what's termed as "luxury" right now is in a murky area of whether it is a luxury or not. However, this goes back to the fact that western countries have over-burdened their own consumer with their tax and labor policies which is exactly why luxuries are cheaper than necessities. 

But there are also life choices that one still needs to consider. 



> Boomers are largely apolitical and stupid, easily manipulated by media, like every generation. Though they were probably the first to be hit by it without knowing, which explains a lot. Still, decisions made seem to be universally bad.


Not really. Boomers in America continue to vote for small government. Maybe they don't in welfare states (I don't know). They're politically savvy who actually understand the relationship between taxation, high wage rates and the local economy.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> No idea why you guys assume that if I'm talking about a group of people without specifying which country's group I'm talking about that I'm not talking about Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that much of the western world is governed by policies that are similar to the Democrats (especially around tax and spend economics), then yeah ... Actually yes. One of the primary drivers of cost is Taxation as well as Labor. The main cost in every single company is labor, so in countries with strict minimum wage laws the cost of necessities does increase as compared to cost of luxuries because luxuries are being produced in countries with lower labor rates .... Necessities like food, water and housing has astronomical costs in western countries BECAUSE of the Tax and spend and high labor cost regulations ... this doesn't even include the cost of simply making sure that housing itself meets certain standards in and of itself to satisfy the ever increasing number of regulations that need to be met.
> 
> The average boomers didn't do this. The gen X politicians did decades after the marxist revolution of the 30-50's. The boomers were strictly anti-communist and pro-economic freedom .. America's (and much of the western worlds') economic freedom has declined only over the last few decades and it's primarily a result of poor economic policies around tax and labor. The two main drivers of costs.
> 
> As for luxuries, there's a lot of things boomers simply didn't have access to plain and simple. They didn't exist. Cable didn't exist. Internet didn't exist. Phones and tablets and computers didn't exist and so a lot of millennials obviously have much higher costs because they want all of them. Most of them now try to pick and choose, but if they don't have cable, then they have to have internet and if they have internet, they have to have phones and if they have phones they have to have phone plans. It's not just RENT that the millennials are paying. They're paying for the extreme property taxes the landlords pay which are consistently raised to pay for welfare.
> 
> So it's a weird situation. You say that you want to end poverty. So what do you do? You say, the landlord has money. Ok, you tax the landlord. But the landlord says, FU, I'm just gonna get my tenant to pay for this. So the tax burden is shifted from the landlord to the consumer. This doesn't make the landlord a scumbag. Because the landlord is now trying to make his investment worth something to him and he has to. The rent rises.
> 
> Same thing with food, water and electricity. Every single capitalist that makes a certain amount of money is seen as a watering hole, but when you start pumping water from that watering hole, all you're doing is taking money from a single pool and distributing into buckets ... but over time the capitalist's money isn't infinite. It's finite. ALso, when you raise taxes on the rich, you're ALSO raising the costs on the poor because the capitalist HAS to transfer the cost of the raised taxes (and wages) onto the consumer ... who is also the labor. See the problem? There is a certain amount of tax burden that the rich can bear for a certain period of time and eventually the rich stops generating wealth therefore everyone becomes worse off ... and taxes are a huge reason why. Or do I need to explain it in more detail?
> 
> So the government while trying to help the consumer actually FUCKS him over royally in the ass. Welfare is an instrument of poverty.
> 
> A lot of what's termed as "luxury" right now is in a murky area of whether it is a luxury or not. However, this goes back to the fact that western countries have over-burdened their own consumer with their tax and labor policies which is exactly why luxuries are cheaper than necessities.
> 
> But there are also life choices that one still needs to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Boomers in America continue to vote for small government. Maybe they don't in welfare states (I don't know). They're politically savvy who actually understand the relationship between taxation, high wage rates and the local economy.


The Marxists... :subban2
They're worth blaming for everything, I will have to look into this when I get back. :hmm:


----------



## Reaper

Ultimately if you can get an indepth understanding of how taxation and wage costs are directly responsible for our cost of living, then you'll have a much better picture of why I constantly rile on and on about taxation. I understand full well why it does helps people, but taxation is an incredibly inefficient system because no matter how you tax, the cost is always transferred back to the consumer meaning that your dollar is worth less because of it.

It's not all just marxism. There's good old Maynard Keynes as well. The unsung hero of welfare state economics.



> Seventy years ago, on February 4, 1936, the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) published what soon became his most famous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Few books, in so short a time, have gained such wide influence and generated so destructive an impact on public policy. What Keynes succeeded in doing was to provide a rationale for what governments always like to do: spend money and pander to special interests.
> 
> In the process Keynes helped undermine what had been three of the essential institutional ingredients of a free-market economy: the gold standard, balanced gov.ernment budgets, and open competitive markets. In their place Keynes’s legacy has given us paper-money inflation, government deficit spending, and more politi.cal intervention throughout the market.
> 
> It would, of course, be an exaggeration to claim that without Keynes and the Keynesian revolution inflation, deficit spending, and interventionism would not have occurred. For decades before the appearance of Keynes’s book, the political and ideological climate had been shifting toward ever-greater government involvement in social and economic affairs, due to the growing influ.ence of collectivist ideas among intellectuals and policy-makers.
> 
> But before the appearance of The General Theory, many of the advocates of such collectivist policies had to get around the main body of economic thinking which still argued that in general the best course was for gov.ernment to keep its hands off the market, maintain a sta.ble currency backed by gold, and restrain its own taxing and spending policies.
> 
> The classical economists of the eighteenth and nine.teenth centuries had persuasively demonstrated that government intervention prevented the smooth func.tioning of the market. They constructed a body of eco.nomic theory which clearly showed that governments have neither the knowledge nor the ability to direct economic affairs. Freedom and prosperity are best assured when government is, in general, limited to pro.tecting people’s lives and property, with the competitive forces of supply and demand bringing about the neces.sary incentives and coordination of people’s activities.
> 
> During the Napoleonic wars of the early nineteenth century, many European countries experienced serious inflations as governments resorted to the printing press to fund their war expenditures. The lesson the classical economists learned was that the hand of the government had to be removed from the handle of that printing press if monetary stability was to be maintained. The best way of doing this was to link a nation’s currency to a com.modity like gold, require banks to redeem their notes for gold on demand at a fixed rate of exchange, and limit any increases in the amount of such bank notes in cir.culation to additional deposits of gold left in the banks by their depositors.
> 
> They also concluded that deficit spending was a dan.gerous means of funding government programs. It enabled governments to create the illusion that they could spend without imposing a cost on society in the form of higher taxes; they could borrow and spend today, and defer the tax cost until some tomorrow when the loans would have to be repaid. The classical econo.mists called for annually balanced budgets, enabling the electorate to see more clearly the cost of government spending. If a national emergency, such as a war, were to force the government to borrow, then when the crisis passed, the government should run budget surpluses to pay off the debt.
> 
> These were considered the tried and true policies for a healthy society. And these were the policies that Keynes did his best to try to overthrow in the pages of The General Theory. He argued that a market economy was inherently unstable, open to swings of irrational investor optimism and pessimism, which resulted in unpredictable and wide fluctuations in output, employ.ment, and prices. Only government, he believed, could take the long view and rationally keep the economy on an even keel by running deficits to stimulate the econ.omy during depressions and surpluses to rein it in dur.ing inflationary booms. He therefore attacked the notion of annual balanced budgets; instead, government should balance its budget over the “business cycle.”
> 
> To do this job, Keynes said, governments could not be hamstrung by the “barbarous relic” of the gold stan.dard. Wise politicians, guided by brilliant economists like himself, had to have the flexibility to increase the money supply, manipulate interest rates, and change the foreign-exchange rates at which currencies traded for each other. They required this power so they could gen.erate any amount of spending needed to put people back to work through public-works projects and gov.ernment-stimulated private investments. Limiting increases in the money supply to the quantity of gold would only get in the way, Keynes insisted.
> 
> Keynes believed not only that the market economy could not keep itself on an even keel, he also believed that it would be undesirable to allow the market to work. He once said that to have the market determine prices and wages to balance supply and demand was to submit society to a cruel and unjust “economic jugger.naut.” Instead, he wanted wages and prices to be politi.cally fixed on the basis of “what is ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’ as between the [social] classes.”
> 
> The level of wages imposed by trade unions, for example, was to be viewed as sacrosanct, even if many workers were priced out of the market because the level was higher than potential employers thought those workers were worth. The government, instead, was to print money, run deficits, and push up prices to any level needed to make it again profitable for employers to hire workers. In other words, perpetual price inflation was to be the means to assure “full employment” in the face of aggressive trade unions.
> 
> No Check on Spending
> 
> In addition, when the balanced-budget rule was over.thrown there was no longer any check on govern.ment spending. As James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner pointed out in Democracy in Deficit (1977), once government is freed from the restraint of making tax.payers directly and immediately pay for what it spends, every conceivable special-interest group can appeal to the politicians to feed their wants. The politicians, desir.ing votes and campaign contributions, happily offer to satisfy the gluttony of favored groups. At the same time, the taxpayers easily fall prey to the delusion that gov.ernment can give something for nothing to virtually everyone at no cost to them.
> 
> Indeed, politicians can now play the game of offer.ing more and more dollars to special interests, while lowering taxes. The government simply fills the gap by borrowing, imposing a greater debt burden on future generations. Either taxes will have to go up in the years ahead or the government will turn to the printing press to pay what it owes, all the while claiming that it’s being done to generate “national prosperity” and fund the “socially necessary” programs of the welfare state.
> 
> In one of the most famous passages in The General Theory, Keynes said that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is com.monly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authori.ty, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
> 
> Seventy years after the appearance of The General Theory, many practical men of affairs and politicians in authority remain the slaves of defunct economists and academic scribblers. The tragedy for our times is that among the voices they still hear in the air as they cor.ruptly mismanage everything they touch is that of John Maynard Keynes.


^Must read. 

A lot of us blame today's social woes on Marxists (which is fine as well), but Keynes needs to receive his share of the blame as well.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> Middy. The issue isn't that things are much worse. Things are worse in select cities and counties that correlate directly with Democrat control and their fiscally shitty policies. Life is very different for Millennials in Republican controlled states.
> 
> In just 2 years from now my wife and I will be in a position to buy our first home together and she has a very decent 401k already. She's not even 30 yet. We're already living in our own rental home independently. And she's going to college on top of that. This is achieved on a single income BTW.
> 
> Her brother and his girlfriend live independently on a roofer and waitress income and they're both under 23.
> 
> Millennials need to start realizing that it's not the boomers that fucked them over but Democrats and their insane tax and social welfare policies.
> 
> Boomers were fiscally responsible. Xers were not. Especially in blue states. Red States are still doing just fine.
> 
> Just go on sites that show you cost of living differences. Pretty much universally all red states are affordable.


I think it also has to do with just general location as well, since the majority of metro areas also happen to be democratic as well, and typically the prices of homes and the like are much more expensive in these areas as well. I'm in Westchester, right above NYC, and for me to RENT a 1 bedroom apartment is probably going to cost me over $1000, while certain people in the midwest can rent entire homes for that price. So if my parents were to move (which is the plan once my sister graduates in a few years), I'd have to look for some sort of apartment around here in the meantime, which I at least know I could do comfortably. 

I mean technically most people would be able to afford homes in places like the Midwest, but the majority of people don't really want to live there. So you get them staying near this large metro areas of places like LA, San Francisco, NYC, etc. And the result is these high rents and home costs for demand, which less younger people can afford, so it leads to living with roommates.

And I think the whole luxury thing is merely a generational shift. People used to have magazine subscriptions, buy newpapers everyday, collect and buy CDs and records. But I think something largely different is simply just social interaction, which I remember reading is overall less for my generation than the boomers. Instead of people hanging out face to face and this providing entertainment which didn't really cost anything, people are now communicating more on their phones, or on the internet like I am now typing this post. And we're almost raised on the internet, to think we do need it for everything we do everyday, same with our phones and the like. Now, I could easily live without a laptop, television, my record player and sound system, etc. But that's what I also consider my entertainment, since I'm not really a social butterfly that is always going to be out and about, so I would prefer being on the internet or using my cable to watch a baseball game. So in a way, I consider that a cost I am willing to make and in a way, less of a luxury that originally seen. It does kind of feed into your idea of hour luxuries now are murky, especially with phones (since it's really the plans themselves that are the driving costs, not the phone), and how it is difficult to not have a cell phone these days.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I think it also has to do with just general location as well, since the majority of metro areas also happen to be democratic as well, and typically the prices of homes and the like are much more expensive in these areas as well.


There's also this problem of over-regulated areas of land where new development is extremely cost-prohibited. Since my parents are both engineers, I have a very good understanding of just how cost-prohibitive government regulations can be in terms of new development. Red Tape alone adds millions of dollars to the cost, making it so that only the wealthiest real estate developers can foot the bill, so instead of focusing on low-cost/low-rent housing, they want to build homes/condos for only the rich and wealthy in order to receive a return on investment. 

So now the government gets involved and forces low-cost housing in urban areas where they create a situation where price-controlled housing is sub-par and also creates the slum-lord who only wants money at all costs. The crony capitalist gets involved and ultimately the low-cost housing initiative becomes a cesspool for the criminal element. 

The good, clean capitalist stays out of that market because he wants to stay clean and make money the right way. 

At the same time, the government levies astronomical taxes which I've already explained creates the situation where the costs of homes continues to rise ... and then there's HUGE differences between condos for the wealthy and low-cost homes ... there's nothing left in between because there isn't a capitalist left that can develop homes for the middle class. 

Total economic breakdown occurs and we have this situation where millennials end up living longer and longer with their parents and then blame their own poor grandfathers when the real culprit is the government and the crony capitalist. 



> I mean technically most people would be able to afford homes in places like the Midwest, but the majority of people don't really want to live there. So you get them staying near this large metro areas of places like LA, San Francisco, NYC, etc. And the result is these high rents and home costs for demand, which less younger people can afford, so it leads to living with roommates.


In today's world where everything is available with a click of a button, it seems self-limiting to not look at low-cost States for housing. The ones that get over this hump tend to do better financially and build better lives :Shrug 

So that boils down to personal choice. 

Still don't see how this situation can be blamed on the boomers though. (Not saying that you're the one doing it, just that it's become tiresome to see it become a popular rallying cry for the useless leftists ... talking about a specific group of people here not all leftists  )


----------



## deepelemblues

Oxidamus said:


> Does anyone here take any of the bait posts calling people racists seriously? :mj4


There's at least one person who takes them very, very seriously. The one constantly making them :mj


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> No idea why you guys assume that if I'm talking about a group of people without specifying which country's group I'm talking about that I'm not talking about Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that much of the western world is governed by policies that are similar to the Democrats (especially around tax and spend economics), then yeah ... Actually yes. One of the primary drivers of cost is Taxation as well as Labor. The main cost in every single company is labor, so in countries with strict minimum wage laws the cost of necessities does increase as compared to cost of luxuries because luxuries are being produced in countries with lower labor rates .... Necessities like food, water and housing has astronomical costs in western countries BECAUSE of the Tax and spend and high labor cost regulations ... this doesn't even include the cost of simply making sure that housing itself meets certain standards in and of itself to satisfy the ever increasing number of regulations that need to be met.
> 
> The average boomers didn't do this. The gen X politicians did decades after the marxist revolution of the 30-50's. The boomers were strictly anti-communist and pro-economic freedom .. America's (and much of the western worlds') economic freedom has declined only over the last few decades and it's primarily a result of poor economic policies around tax and labor. The two main drivers of costs.
> 
> As for luxuries, there's a lot of things boomers simply didn't have access to plain and simple. They didn't exist. Cable didn't exist. Internet didn't exist. Phones and tablets and computers didn't exist and so a lot of millennials obviously have much higher costs because they want all of them. Most of them now try to pick and choose, but if they don't have cable, then they have to have internet and if they have internet, they have to have phones and if they have phones they have to have phone plans. It's not just RENT that the millennials are paying. They're paying for the extreme property taxes the landlords pay which are consistently raised to pay for welfare.
> 
> So it's a weird situation. You say that you want to end poverty. So what do you do? You say, the landlord has money. Ok, you tax the landlord. But the landlord says, FU, I'm just gonna get my tenant to pay for this. So the tax burden is shifted from the landlord to the consumer. This doesn't make the landlord a scumbag. Because the landlord is now trying to make his investment worth something to him and he has to. The rent rises.
> 
> Same thing with food, water and electricity. Every single capitalist that makes a certain amount of money is seen as a watering hole, but when you start pumping water from that watering hole, all you're doing is taking money from a single pool and distributing into buckets ... but over time the capitalist's money isn't infinite. It's finite. ALso, when you raise taxes on the rich, you're ALSO raising the costs on the poor because the capitalist HAS to transfer the cost of the raised taxes (and wages) onto the consumer ... who is also the labor. See the problem? There is a certain amount of tax burden that the rich can bear for a certain period of time and eventually the rich stops generating wealth therefore everyone becomes worse off ... and taxes are a huge reason why. Or do I need to explain it in more detail?
> 
> So the government while trying to help the consumer actually FUCKS him over royally in the ass. Welfare is an instrument of poverty.
> 
> A lot of what's termed as "luxury" right now is in a murky area of whether it is a luxury or not. However, this goes back to the fact that western countries have over-burdened their own consumer with their tax and labor policies which is exactly why luxuries are cheaper than necessities.
> 
> But there are also life choices that one still needs to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Boomers in America continue to vote for small government. Maybe they don't in welfare states (I don't know). They're politically savvy who actually understand the relationship between taxation, high wage rates and the local economy.


I just read your post and it's another whine about the welfare state boogeyman no one seems to have a rational idea to stop. :eyeroll
"Reduce taxes and let the free market do its thing" isn't a resolution. And neither is "abolishing the minimum wage". Maybe if work was in demand.


----------



## BruiserKC

So far, the President did the right thing regarding Hurricane Harvey by taking an almost unprecedented step by declaring Texas a federal disaster area before the eye of the storm even made landfall. Usually the declaration takes place after the rain and the wind has passed. By doing this ahead of time he can put the federal government to work helping people, especially all of those that are stuck on rooftops in the greater Houston area. 

Yes, Trump has done a lot that has made me shake my head (along with the good things, so everyone just relax), but in this case he has avoided so far mistakes of previous Presidents. Bush was hammered (justly so) for being WAY too slow on reacting to Katrina. Plus he is right now keeping a low profile and letting the focus stay on federal, state, and local authorities doing their job. I will say on this one, "Well done, Mr. President." 

Meanwhile, I send prayers to any of our WF members that might be in the storm's path right now. This storm is especially nasty considering it is just lingering and going to drop rain for at least another few days. Be safe.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> So far, the President did the right thing regarding Hurricane Harvey by taking an almost unprecedented step by declaring Texas a federal disaster area before the eye of the storm even made landfall. Usually the declaration takes place after the rain and the wind has passed. By doing this ahead of time he can put the federal government to work helping people, especially all of those that are stuck on rooftops in the greater Houston area.
> 
> Yes, Trump has done a lot that has made me shake my head (along with the good things, so everyone just relax), but in this case he has avoided so far mistakes of previous Presidents. Bush was hammered (justly so) for being WAY too slow on reacting to Katrina. Plus he is right now keeping a low profile and letting the focus stay on federal, state, and local authorities doing their job. I will say on this one, "Well done, Mr. President."
> 
> Meanwhile, I send prayers to any of our WF members that might be in the storm's path right now. This storm is especially nasty considering it is just lingering and going to drop rain for at least another few days. Be safe.


Well he did handle helping people hit by that storm on his campaign pretty well by bringing in food, supplies and other stuffs.

I kind of figured he would be on this. I'm hoping for the best.


----------



## Oxidamus

The truth about Donald Trump and his German idealism






 @Headliner @Legit BOSS


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*It's not shocking at all that the racist president just pardoned a racist sheriff who was found guilty of multiple counts of racial profiling, but I'm sure some apologist will jump through hoops to tell me why intentionally targeting Mexicans for traffic stops isn't racist.*


----------



## samizayn

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's not shocking at all that the racist president just pardoned a racist sheriff who was found guilty of multiple counts of racial profiling, but I'm sure some apologist will jump through hoops to tell me why intentionally targeting Mexicans for traffic stops isn't racist.*


It's not racist, it's just against the law!!!!


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901793730528763905
Yup. I wouldn't mind if a bunch of loony liberals didn't take survival advice from Trump just to spite Trump.

Darwinism is a valid population control theory.



BruiserKC said:


> So far, the President did the right thing regarding Hurricane Harvey by taking an almost unprecedented step by declaring Texas a federal disaster area before the eye of the storm even made landfall. Usually the declaration takes place after the rain and the wind has passed. By doing this ahead of time he can put the federal government to work helping people, especially all of those that are stuck on rooftops in the greater Houston area.


Rick Scott did the same during Hurricane Matthew last year and we were the better for it. Matthew never made landfall, but we felt its effects. It was a harrowing experience to sleep through the howling winds with rattling windows. Two my neighbors lost their fences and their roofs. 

But, with the advanced warning, the entire state of Florida united and it was just plain amazing to see. The evacuation started a week in advance. Stores were fully stocked. No gas shortage. Only lost power for 8 hours. Almost everyone was restored within 12-16 hours - and the FPL worked through the night during the hurricane :CENA It was simply amazing. We have some of the greatest human resources known to man. They're currently re-enforcing all the power lines in my area for this hurricane season. The cohesion was one of the greatest acts of human cohabitation I have ever seen and will likely ever see again. You guys know how to save lives. In third world countries, the death toll for storms like these is usually between 100 to thousands. In western nations it's usually within single digits. 

But fuck white people, amirite :mj


----------



## BruiserKC

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's not shocking at all that the racist president just pardoned a racist sheriff who was found guilty of multiple counts of racial profiling, but I'm sure some apologist will jump through hoops to tell me why intentionally targeting Mexicans for traffic stops isn't racist.*


Arpaio thumbed his nose at the law and defied a federal courts order to stop. You don't agree with the law, then work to change the law. Don't take the law into your hands. Should be pretty simple. I'm with you on this, this sends the wrong message. 



Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901793730528763905
> Yup. I wouldn't mind if a bunch of loony liberals didn't take survival advice from Trump just to spite Trump.
> 
> Darwinism is a valid population control theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Scott did the same during Hurricane Matthew last year and we were the better for it. Matthew never made landfall, but we felt its effects. It was a harrowing experience to sleep through the howling winds with rattling windows. Two my neighbors lost their fences and their roofs.
> 
> But, with the advanced warning, the entire state of Florida united and it was just plain amazing to see. The evacuation started a week in advance. Stores were fully stocked. No gas shortage. Only lost power for 8 hours. Almost everyone was restored within 12-16 hours - and the FPL worked through the night during the hurricane :CENA It was simply amazing. We have some of the greatest human resources known to man. They're currently re-enforcing all the power lines in my area for this hurricane season. The cohesion was one of the greatest acts of human cohabitation I have ever seen and will likely ever see again. You guys know how to save lives. In third world countries, the death toll for storms like these is usually between 100 to thousands. In western nations it's usually within single digits.
> 
> But fuck white people, amirite :mj


I rail on how big and out of control our government is but there are times when it works efficiently and effectively. This is one of those times. Here in the Midwest it's the same way. I laugh at cities like DC where a couple of inches of snow bring the city to a halt. A foot or more of snow here and we're up and running rather quickly. Only exception is ice, that's a bitch. 

Too bad more people didn't heed the warning to get the hell out when told.


----------



## Reaper

The government can be replaced tho :mj 

But yeah. It's cool to see an organized effort when it actually works and isn't hampered by special interests or corruption.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's not shocking at all that the racist president just pardoned a racist sheriff who was found guilty of multiple counts of racial profiling, but I'm sure some apologist will jump through hoops to tell me why intentionally targeting Mexicans for traffic stops isn't racist.*


Out of curiosity, and I'm not claiming that racial profiling is the only solution, but what solution would you come up with to find out who's an illegal immigrant, and should be deported back to their country, from the legal immigrants.

And, not doing anything isn't a solution.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Out of curiosity, and I'm not claiming that racial profiling is the only solution, but what solution would you come up with to find out who's an illegal immigrant, and should be deported back to their country, from the legal immigrants.
> 
> And, not doing anything isn't a solution.


Keep defending racism.

Racial profiling is against the Constitution, you can't just stop someone because you think they may be an illegal just like you can't stop a black person walking down the street because you want to claim oh you were seeing if they were a criminal or not.

But keep defending this shit


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep defending racism.
> 
> Racial profiling is against the Constitution, you can't just stop someone because you think they may be an illegal just like you can't stop a black person walking down the street because you want to claim oh you were seeing if they were a criminal or not.
> 
> But keep defending this shit












If you can't have a conversation without resorting to name calling, then don't bother responding.



> Out of curiosity, *and I'm not claiming that racial profiling is the only solution*, but what solution would you come up with to find out who's an illegal immigrant, and should be deported back to their country, from the legal immigrants.
> 
> And, not doing anything isn't a solution.


It's not racist to admit that it's a solution. Never said it was correct, or right. Just claimed that it is, technically, a solution. Instead of yelling about how it's the wrong solution, why don't you spend time coming up with a real solution to a real problem.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you can't have a conversation without resorting to name calling, then don't bother responding.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not racist to admit that it's a solution. Never said it was correct, or right. Just claimed that it is, technically, a solution. Instead of yelling about how it's the wrong solution, why don't you spend time coming up with a real solution to a real problem.


Stop defending racism then and you won't be called out for it.

There are already solutions for illegal immigration that is what ICE is for. Not to mention AGAIN there are MORE ILLEGALS LEAVING the US than coming into the country.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Stop defending racism then and you won't be called out for it.
> 
> There are already solutions for illegal immigration that is what ICE is for. Not to mention AGAIN there are MORE ILLEGALS LEAVING the US than coming into the country.


It's not defending racism, it's starting a conversation about solutions. Stop trying to move goal posts in order to derail a potential conversation. If you can't intelligently have a conversation, without name calling, then go post in the wrestling threads.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's not defending racism, it's starting a conversation about solutions. Stop trying to move goal posts in order to derail a potential conversation. If you can't intelligently have a conversation, without name calling, then go post in the wrestling threads.


If you are defending racial profiling then you are defending racism because it's a racist act. And yes it's racist to claim its a solution.

It's not moving the goal posts, it's calling you out. And no I won't stop calling out people defending racism.


----------



## Draykorinee

We need to profile anyone with brown skin, how else can you effectively tell who is illegal and who is legal, there are 50,000 Irish illegals and we all know they're brown.


----------



## MickDX

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Out of curiosity, and I'm not claiming that racial profiling is the only solution, but what solution would you come up with to find out who's an illegal immigrant, and should be deported back to their country, from the legal immigrants.
> 
> And, not doing anything isn't a solution.


Racial profiling a solution? Only for racists perhaps. What about stop caring about race and do your goddamn job? 

Trump pardoning him is a joke , the penalty is really low, why Trump should give a fuck? Trump should focus on real matters, this pardon is another useless thing. But of course he needs those ******** votes for his 2020 election.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901883233205231616
:woah

PS. I haven't verified it, but it could be fake.


----------



## Miss Sally

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Out of curiosity, and I'm not claiming that racial profiling is the only solution, but what solution would you come up with to find out who's an illegal immigrant, and should be deported back to their country, from the legal immigrants.
> 
> And, not doing anything isn't a solution.


There really isn't any solution.

Profiling exists in all forms and probably won't change. In places where biker violence is prominent bikers are harassed, in places where red necks cause trouble, red necks are harassed. 

Arya had discussed this before that where she lived it was mostly whites so certain types of white people were harassed. 

If you go to the Arizona State Fair they pretty much only pat down people who look like gang members because gangs go to these places and cause problems. They didn't bother patting down anyone dressed up like your average joe. 

Arizona has a pretty big problem with illegals, getting hit by an illegal sucks because you're pretty much fucked and the chances of it are pretty high. 

Racial profiling is wrong but when you're a border state next to a country where 99.99% of the illegals are coming from, I can see why the profiling happened.

Still Sheriff Joe should have tried changing the law or coming up with a better way of getting illegals off the street other than targeting loads of random Mexicans.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901935287521050624

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901939367291138049
Berkley reminds me of the Karachi campus riots that destroyed an entire generation of Pakistani youth. 

Of course, police have been called off so these thugs can attack everyone. 

I'm sure a lot of people in here will actually celebrate given that all I've sensed from most non-libertarians is blood-thirst and a lack of desire to put the current violence into proper context.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901935287521050624
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901939367291138049
> Berkley reminds me of the Karachi campus riots that destroyed an entire generation of Pakistani youth.
> 
> Of course, police have been called off so these thugs can attack everyone.
> 
> I'm sure a lot of people in here will actually celebrate given that all I've sensed from most non-libertarians is blood-thirst and a lack of desire to put the current violence into proper context.


The guys in the bottom getting beaten up look Hispanic too. They must be race traitors and thus must be taught a lesson by Antifa.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The guys in the bottom getting beaten up look Hispanic too. They must be race traitors and thus must be taught a lesson by Antifa.


From what I can tell, they just happened to be there. Not even part of any crowd.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901871154364907525










While labeling white people as neo-nazis, self-hating whites are over-looking the real anti-semites racists and violently hateful cunts and letting them not only roam free in their countries, but giving them platforms for their anti-semitism. This woman's tweets are what I've seen from the majority of muslims in my life. This isn't some unique jew hating cunt. Most of them are like this.

Canada wants the Muslims. Let them have them. And then build a Northern Wall. When white flight happens there like it is in many parts of Europe, we can just tell them "Told you so".


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> From what I can tell, they just happened to be there. Not even part of any crowd.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901871154364907525
> While labeling white people as neo-nazis, self-hating whites are over-looking the real anti-semites and letting them not only roam free in their countries, but giving them platforms for their anti-semitism. This woman's tweets are what I've seen from the majority of muslims in my life. This isn't some unique jew hating cunt. Most of them are like this.


I think it makes perfect sense, the people who are the biggest anti-racist/anti-hate are some of the worst self loathers and don't talk to me if you're (this ideology) types.

By getting behind Muslims and various non-whites they can attack everyone with impunity. See a black Republican? Kick his ass! He doesn't know he's a traitor, it's not racist! It's justice!

These people won't join an obvious hate groups to fulfill their hateful needs, they'll just piggyback on others. 

It's a perfect way to justify your actions, get non-whites to "****" themselves to your cause because you're "helping" them. Back up anti-semetic nonsense by being "pro-Islam" and beat up everyone else. Get to live out your racist fantasies without ever getting called out!

Northern wall would be good, rather have legal Mexicans over anyone from Canada. Need hard workers and people who will appreciate things, not people who are used to living on welfare and virtue signaling as a living.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

MickDX said:


> Racial profiling a solution? Only for racists perhaps. What about stop caring about race and do your goddamn job?
> 
> Trump pardoning him is a joke , the penalty is really low, why Trump should give a fuck? Trump should focus on real matters, this pardon is another useless thing. But of course he needs those ******** votes for his 2020 election.


Doing your goddamn job isn't a solution. That's virtue signaling. What a real solution? You have a city overrun with illegal immigrants. What do you do?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> We need to profile anyone with brown skin, how else can you effectively tell who is illegal and who is legal, there are 50,000 Irish illegals and we all know they're brown.


How many Irish illegals are there exactly?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901883233205231616
> :woah
> 
> PS. I haven't verified it, but it could be fake.


I could see it being real for two reasons:

1) Graham and McCain are damn-near attached at the hip :tripsscust

2) Pretty enough to bone Pettibone seems to be legit from what I've seen of her videos with Lauren Southern

Even if it isn't true, my desire for Graham and McCain being fired (from Congress and into the sun) remains firmly intact. :armfold


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> If you are defending racial profiling then you are defending racism because it's a racist act. And yes it's racist to claim its a solution.
> 
> It's not moving the goal posts, it's calling you out. And no I won't stop calling out people defending racism.


Show me where I defended racial profiling, you ignorant twat.


----------



## Reaper

@CamillePunk; @DesolationRow; @TheNightmanCometh .. You guys should start thinking about moving. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...dering-taxing-you-for-drinking-water-n2373503



> So, in the land of progressivism that is the state of California, the legislature could be imposing a tax on drinking water aimed at repairing the state’s public water works. It will be 95¢ a month that is projected to generate $2 billion in revenue over the next 15 years. Surprisingly environmentalists and farmers have forged an alliance on this issue. The farmers want contaminated water cleaned due to the runoff from their farms. Farms will face fees that will total $30 million in revenue annually to help with the needed repairs. This is still going to be a fight in the state legislature, however. And the water companies don’t seem too keen on becoming the state’s tax collector on this issue. Kate Murphy of The Mercury News has all the details about this new measure:
> 
> Senate Bill 623, backed by a strange-bedfellows coalition of the agricultural lobby and environmental groups but opposed by water districts, would generate $2 billion over the next 15 years to clean up contaminated groundwater and improve faulty water systems and wells. The problem is most pervasive in rural areas with agricultural runoff.
> […]
> SB 623 has been moving through the Legislature for months, but was amended Monday to include the tax on water for both homes and businesses. It also imposes fees on farms and dairies, roughly $30 million annually, to address some of the contamination caused by fertilizers and other chemicals. Because it includes new taxes, the proposal will need a two-thirds vote in each house to pass, which supporters concede will be a battle.
> […]
> …water agencies say taxing drinking water sets a dangerous precedent and that the bill would turn them into state tax collectors. “Water is essential to life. Should we tax drinking water? We don’t think so,” said Cindy Tuck, a spokeswoman for the Association of California Water Agencies.
> 
> Sue Stephenson, a spokeswoman for the Dublin San Ramon Services District, said she supported the intent of the proposal — potable drinking water for all — but argued that lawmakers should use the money in existing coffers.
> 
> “The whole purpose of the general fund is to help take care of disadvantaged communities,” she said. “There’s no reason that they could not also fund communities that need access to drinking water.”
> […]
> SENATE BILL 623
> What is it? SB 623, by Sen. Bill Monning, D-Monterey, would generate $2 billion over 15 years for a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, which would provide emergency water and longer-term system fixes for hundreds of communities whose tap water doesn’t meet safe drinking-water standards.
> 
> Where would the money come from? The proposal would generate roughly $110 million per year through a 95-cent monthly fee on home water bills as well as taxes on businesses of up to $10 per month. Another $30 million would come from higher fees on agricultural and dairy businesses, industries whose chemicals contribute to the problem of contaminated groundwater.
> 
> Who’s for it? Who’s against it? The bill is backed by the agriculture and dairy lobbies, as well as by a long list of environmental, social justice and civic groups — an unusual combo. Water districts are against the bill, saying that taxing water users creates a bad precedent and that collecting the money would be burdensome.
> 
> So, what isn’t taxed in California?


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901935287521050624
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901939367291138049
> Berkley reminds me of the Karachi campus riots that destroyed an entire generation of Pakistani youth.
> 
> Of course, police have been called off so these thugs can attack everyone.
> 
> I'm sure a lot of people in here will actually celebrate given that all I've sensed from most non-libertarians is blood-thirst and a lack of desire to put the current violence into proper context.


If not specifically condemning the actions of one group is considered defending, then silence is supporting.

The left support political violence. :hmmm


----------



## glenwo2

Taxing water?

What's next? The air we breathe?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yeah, go ahead and color me not surprised about the violence in those tweets.


----------



## Reaper

I can bury this thread in antifa violence, but I pick my battles wisely. There's so much violence out there perpetrated by them since 1999 at least, that the whiny loonys that defend the antifa (which used to be known as the black bloc exclusive who are now just a part of the antifa) merely betray their insulated world view because outside of their pitstop on WF (which is largely conservative), their primary hangouts are sickeningly liberal and it shows. 

---

I love Kevin Ryan who stays ahead of the curve of mainstream media's BS on economic matters: 



> ARE WE HEADED TOWARD A RECESSION? Part 1: Employment
> by Kevin Ryan
> 
> As I said yesterday, there've been some stories in the news speculating that the economy may be deteriorating. But as we've seen, the media has been less than objective in recent years, so we here at UA decided to look at the numbers for ourselves.
> 
> First up: employment.
> AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS: Usually one of the first things a company will do when the economy slows is to start limiting the hours of its employees. This often happens as a precursor to layoffs, making it a key early warning sign that a recession may be approaching. But, as you can see from the graph, there are no signs this is currently occurring.
> 
> UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Layoffs are an obvious indicator that the economy is deteriorating. This graph shows 6 measures of unemployment, from the most basic measure, to the widest measure, which includes discouraged workers who've given up seeking a job and those who are forced to work part time because they can't find a better job. Although these are also very strong right now, they are just now returning to the levels they were at before the Great Recession hit nearly 10 years ago.
> 
> INITIAL JOBLESS CLAIMS: Initial jobless claims is an obvious indicator of where the economy is headed. It consists of the number of people who've started collecting unemployment benefits in a given week. It's known as a "leading indicator" because it usually starts increasing BEFORE a recession begins. Therefore, it's a good predictor. If you see this number start moving upwards for several months in a row, it's a bad sign. Initial claims have been falling steadily since the recession ended in 2009, an indicator that companies have been hiring. In fact it is now at a more than 40 year low and shows no signs of reversing.
> 
> SOURCES: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=156779&rn=7776
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=183816&rn=998
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=156778&rn=8124


In short, no we're not heading into a recession. All primary indicators actually point to the opposite.

---


----------



## deepelemblues

Mayor of Berkeley Jesse Arreguin and the Berkeley Chief of Police Andrew Greenwood should be indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I can bury this thread in antifa violence, but I pick my battles wisely. There's so much violence out there perpetrated by them since 1999 at least, that the whiny loonys that defend the antifa (which used to be known as the black bloc exclusive who are now just a part of the antifa) merely betray their insulated world view because outside of their pitstop on WF (which is largely conservative), their primary hangouts are sickeningly liberal and it shows.
> 
> ---
> 
> I love Kevin Ryan who stays ahead of the curve of mainstream media's BS on economic matters:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, no we're not heading into a recession. All primary indicators actually point to the opposite.
> 
> ---


I love how Trump supporters have not real defense for all his incompetence, racism, bigotry etc etc so they have to deflect by bringing up other things like antifa.

If you want to keep posting about them why don't you make a thread about antifa. You are just doing the typical Trump thing and trying to get people off topic of what Trump is doing because it's indefensible.


----------



## deepelemblues

I love how the fascists of today try to deflect attention from their proud acceptance of the brownshirt mantle by trying to change the subject to :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Antifa is pretty relevant to Trump. He was criticized harshly for placing partial blame on them for the violence in Charlottesville. He's vindicated, as he often is when he takes controversial positions on things and is criticized for it. :lol As usual, I expect little circling back to be done by his critics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Antifa is pretty relevant to Trump. He was criticized harshly for placing partial blame on them for the violence in Charlottesville. He's vindicated, as he often is when he takes controversial positions on things and is criticized for it. :lol As usual, I expect little circling back to be done by his critics.


Trump wasn't vindicated at all LOL He said the white nationalist has some very fine people. There is no defense to saying that but keep living in your fantasy world where Trump is vindicated. yeah maybe by the KKK and white nationalist he was but if you want to claim that vindication by all means lol


----------



## Reaper

So embarrassed by terrorists that are protesting Trump that leftists don't even want them to be brought up in a thread where they're beating people up as a direct consequence of their hate for Trump. 

This is what real deflection is. 

Of course militants wings of leftists have always been protected by their "moderates". It's how terrorism spreads.

BM would probably support Taliban too at this point if they came out against Trump. His Derangement level is supermaxed.


----------



## Reaper

First Gothic says that Canada's point based immigration isn't relevant to the Trump thread after Trump talks about a point based system for America. Now BM says that antifa who are violently protesting against Trump isn't relevant to the Trump thread. 

Seeing a pattern emerge here.


----------



## MickDX

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901883233205231616
> :woah
> 
> PS. I haven't verified it, but it could be fake.


It's for real. They both tweeted it in January. 



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Doing your goddamn job isn't a solution. That's virtue signaling. What a real solution? You have a city overrun with illegal immigrants. What do you do?


Of course it is. What's so hard for people to treat everyone the same? Use another filter, not race, like location or even pick randomly. Of course this needs to be done using an actual law, not by some rogue sheriff. Why Trump isn't passing orders or proposing something to help the fight against illegal immigration?
Oh, you got banned, perhaps for using too many "sweet" words. Props for that mod, you fully deserved it for your attitude. I haven't reported anything, I don't care enough.


----------



## BruiserKC

MickDX said:


> It's for real. They both tweeted it in January.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. What's so hard for people to treat everyone the same? Use another filter, not race, like location or even pick randomly. Of course this needs to be done using an actual law, not by some rogue sheriff. Why Trump isn't passing orders or proposing something to help the fight against illegal immigration?
> Oh, you got banned, perhaps for using too many "sweet" words. Props for that mod, you fully deserved it for your attitude. I haven't reported anything, I don't care enough.


If they wanted to really solve the issue, they would deport all illegal immigrants regardless of race, national origin, etc. I am pro immigration but anti illegal immigration...huge difference. Both sides provide just lip service to the matter as they would rather just bitch about the problem instead of actually solve it. 

Yes, there is precedent where the government has tried to do just that in the past. It can be done but they don't want to.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> If they wanted to really solve the issue, they would deport all illegal immigrants regardless of race, national origin, etc. I am pro immigration but anti illegal immigration...huge difference. Both sides provide just lip service to the matter as they would rather just bitch about the problem instead of actually solve it.
> 
> Yes, there is precedent where the government has tried to do just that in the past. It can be done but they don't want to.


They don't want to because Mexico is one of the biggest benefitters of illegal immigration with money being sent back and the banks and Government getting a piece of that action.

People get their cheap basically slave labor and they don't have to worry about pesky things such as benefits and following minimum wage laws or well any laws for that matter!

Nobody wants legal immigrants, especially not Republicans or Democrats because these people actually pay attention to what they vote for.


----------



## virus21

And in another example of why the Democrats are doomed come next election


----------



## wagnergrad96

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And that's supposed to explain why you've been watching it for 15 years? You've been a loyal follower for the last 15 years because you knew that in 2017 they'd put on two shows that were "pretty decent"?


That response doesn't really make any sense. Every show has it's ups and downs. Smackdown sucks for a long time. I never watched. Raw goes through bad periods. I never really got into ROH.

IMPACT had years where it was great every week for a long time then hit a rut. It was great a few years ago again then hit another rut. I feel like right now is another upswing. Good shows this year so far.


But this is the TRUMP thread so let me get back to reminding everyone of the absolute inept and unqualified buffoon we have running this great nation . . . .


----------



## wagnergrad96

deepelemblues said:


> what choice is that
> 
> the united states of america ruled by nazis would look the same as the united states of america ruled by antifa, except some of the victims would look different. they'd both be brutal, murderous totalitarian states where the rulers attempted, or at least aspired, to control every facet of behavior and thought down to the tiniest details.
> 
> none of these people are nice people. nazis are nazis, and the closest historical analog to antifa is the red guards of the cultural revolution.


*yawn* . . . . Here's a comparison . . . Of the "alt-right" racist scum bags chanting "jews will not replace us," let's say 99% of them were white supremacists

Of the counter-protesters, let's say 10% were what you call "antifa."

Neither groups are going to "rule" the United States. I will side with any group of people who want to shout down or oppose white nationalist douchebags.


----------



## Reaper

^Of course you would as I already pointed out that people always sympathize with violent mobs that align with their political ideology but this is especially true amongst modern leftists more so than right-wingers who have all condemned Nazis and white supremacists repeatedly with no similar condemnation of the leftist violent mob from the left. It doesn't surprise me. It's just too predictable now to do so. 

---- 

Really sad news coming out of Houston that people were told not to evacuate by their scum-bag mayor who went against the measured calls of the Texas Governor and now hundreds (if not thousands) are trapped in their homes without power or food and the streets flooding. :no: 

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/08/27/houstons-mayor-tell-residents-not-evacuate/

This is why I'm glad that Florida doesn't have local officials who think they know better than State leadership in a time of crisis. They follow what the State tells them to and eventually people are encouraged to move out instead of being told to stay put.


----------



## Oxidamus

wagnergrad96 said:


> *yawn* . . . . Here's a comparison . . . Of the "alt-right" racist scum bags chanting "jews will not replace us," let's say 99% of them were white supremacists
> 
> Of the counter-protesters, let's say 10% were what you call "antifa."
> 
> Neither groups are going to "rule" the United States. I will side with any group of people who want to shout down or oppose white nationalist douchebags.


Who controls how society is run? The white supremacists or the 'leftists'? :hmmm


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Trump just signed an executive order repealing the restrictions Obama put on police to get military equipment such as armored vehicles , grenade launchers bayonets. Big deal or no big deal?


----------



## deepelemblues

wagnergrad96 said:


> *yawn* . . . . Here's a comparison . . . Of the "alt-right" racist scum bags chanting "jews will not replace us," let's say 99% of them were white supremacists
> 
> Of the counter-protesters, let's say 10% were what you call "antifa."
> 
> Neither groups are going to "rule" the United States. I will side with any group of people who want to shout down or oppose white nationalist douchebags.


This is about as irrelevant as you can get.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Oxidamus said:


> Who controls how society is run? The white supremacists or the 'leftists'? :hmmm


You make a false comparison. Those who oppose white supremacists and neo-Nazi scum are a homogenous group comprised not only of your so-called "leftists."

Stop going to infowars and 4chan.


----------



## wagnergrad96

deepelemblues said:


> This is about as irrelevant as you can get.
> 
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.


You can continue your specious argument that there were two sides: alt-right and your so-called "antifa," but you would continue to be wrong.

Trying to equate white supremacist scum garbage with those who oppose racism and neo-Nazi douchebags is just as disgusting when you do it as when the person currently occupying the white house does it.


----------



## Miss Sally

wagnergrad96 said:


> You can continue your specious argument that there were two sides: alt-right and your so-called "antifa," but you would continue to be wrong.
> 
> Trying to equate white supremacist scum garbage with those who oppose racism and neo-Nazi douchebags is just as disgusting when you do it as when the person currently occupying the white house does it.


Well when the anti-racists attack non-whites who don't think like them verbally and physically and only offer the options of thinking like them and following their orders I'd say they're just as bad.

You just have two groups of assholes, one in white, one in black. I'd be more worried about whomever is not being called out for their violence, rhetoric and current actions. 

Maybe I'm just a silly girl but I find people who claim to do good in the name of God, country and or ideology and commit to violence and absolutes tend to be less than pure and their cause not as just as they'd make it seem.


----------



## deepelemblues

http://archive.is/85cU7#selection-1323.225-1323.256



> But antifa protesters — armed with sticks and shields, and clad in shin pads and gloves — largely routed the security checks and by 1:30 p.m. police reportedly left the security line at the Center Street and Milvaia Street entrance to the park. Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood told the AP the decision was strategic — a confrontation was sure to spark more violence between the protesters and police.
> 
> “No need for a confrontation over a grass patch,” Greenwood said.


No need other than _your fucking duty_ to protect the rights and bodies of Americans peacefully voicing their political opinions from a howling fascist mob. 

Again, Berkeley Mayor Arreguin and Chief of Police Greenwood should both be in jail on charges of conspiring to interfere with civil rights.



wagnergrad96 said:


> You can continue your specious argument that there were two sides: alt-right and your so-called "antifa," but you would continue to be wrong.


I would continue to be in touch with reality, unlike you. Unfortunately for your fascist apologia, there is ample video evidence of these various fascist leftist riots and ample evidence of planning and coordination of antifa riots and violence on the internet.



> Trying to equate white supremacist scum garbage with those who oppose racism and neo-Nazi douchebags is just as disgusting when you do it as when the person currently occupying the white house does it.


I don't care what a fascist apologist like you finds disgusting. 

This is the way it goes. See, antifa is only opposing Nazis. It's not violence, it's just opposition. And the ample evidence of them assaulting people who aren't Nazis is dismissed because fascists and their apologists can't handle non-binary thinking.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901924604414836736
Antifa literally mob lynching now. The guy looks like he's a photographer with a camera which is why he is attacked, then dragged into the middle of the mob to be lynched. 

I guess Taliban and Muslims that murder / lynch people for Blasphemy are also just "counter-protesters". I guess when the KKK used to lynch blacks, they were just "counter-protesters" too. 

This thread is so full of apologist cancer, but I'm here to make sure people remain aware of what's really happening. I've literally lived through this kind of vicious cycle of people defending the Taliban and I see no difference here.

I don't need condemnation because I know it won't come. I just need people to watch these videos for themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> So embarrassed by terrorists that are protesting Trump that leftists don't even want them to be brought up in a thread where they're beating people up as a direct consequence of their hate for Trump.
> 
> This is what real deflection is.
> 
> Of course militants wings of leftists have always been protected by their "moderates". It's how terrorism spreads.
> 
> BM would probably support Taliban too at this point if they came out against Trump. His Derangement level is supermaxed.


Oh look yet another straw man from reaper trying to defend Trump lol





The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump just signed an executive order repealing the restrictions Obama put on police to get military equipment such as armored vehicles , grenade launchers bayonets. Big deal or no big deal?


Just Trump undoing another Obama thing just to spite him and undone everything Obama did.


----------



## deepelemblues

Also how many MSM journalists are Nazi garbage scum?

Because at every antifa riot they intimidate and assault journalists. Journalists from local and national papers and TV.

https://twitter.com/LeighMartinezTV/status/901897070092574721
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897977496930570240
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978233479671809
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978814860599296
https://twitter.com/lfrenchnews/status/896950108708888576

etc. etc. There are examples of it at every antifa riot. Journalists being intimidated and assaulted by antifa.

The next time Nazi garbage scum assault a journalist at a political rally in the :trump era will be the first.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Also how many MSM journalists are Nazi garbage scum?
> 
> Because at every antifa riot they intimidate and assault journalists. Journalists from local and national papers and TV.
> 
> https://twitter.com/LeighMartinezTV/status/901897070092574721
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897977496930570240
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978233479671809
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978814860599296
> https://twitter.com/lfrenchnews/status/896950108708888576
> 
> etc. etc. There are examples of it at every antifa riot. Journalists being intimidated and assaulted by antifa.
> 
> The next time Nazi garbage scum assault a journalist at a political rally in the :trump era will be the first.


Trump is the one who started to incite all this violence.






Bur yeah keep ignoring that fact


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the one who started to incite all this violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bur yeah keep ignoring that fact


:heston

Pathetic attempt at deflection from the fascist violence of the left.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> :heston


Sorry if you dont like the facts


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if you dont like the facts


BM admits it's a :fact that the subset of leftists who are violent fascists cannot control themselves. They are incapable of not being violent towards people they oppose politically. The mere words of President :trump have 'incited' these fascist left-wingers to perpetrate widespread political violence.

Thanks for admitting that :fact BM.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> BM admits it's a :fact that the subset of leftists who are violent fascists cannot control themselves. They are incapable of not being violent towards people they oppose politically.
> 
> Thanks for admitting that :fact BM.


And neither can Trump and his supporters but dont get the facts get in the way of your ignorance.

when it comes to political violence the right causes more violence than the left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-left-fact-check.html


"Of the nearly 1,500 individuals in a University of Maryland study of radicalization from 1948 to 2013, 43 percent espoused far-right ideologies, compared to 21 percent for the far left. Far-right individuals were more likely to commit violence against people, while those on the far left were more likely to commit property damage."


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> And neither can Trump and his supporters but dont get the facts get in the way of your ignorance.


Definitely :triggered

So very :triggered


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Definitely :triggered
> 
> So very :triggered


Only ones triggered seem to be you and reaper


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the one who started to incite all this violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bur yeah keep ignoring that fact


TBF it doesn't matter whoever we think started it, the point still stands that using any sort of violence in support of any political ideology one might have is WRONG. This should go for everybody, whether they be somebody like you who strongly opposes Trump and the right, or somebody who leans strongly right and is a huge supporter of the man.

Finger-pointing doesn't really accomplish anything, even if he actually called for violence or not. I can ask somebody to jump off a cliff, and they should have enough logic to think for themselves and not blindly follow what I say. :shrug

I just feel the need to point this out respectfully, because I really don't want anybody to go down that line to defend any of these scum.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Middy said:


> TBF it doesn't matter whoever we think started it, the point still stands that using any sort of violence in support of any political ideology one might have is WRONG. This should go for everybody, whether they be somebody like you who strongly opposes Trump and the right, or somebody who leans strongly right and is a huge supporter of the man.
> 
> Finger-pointing doesn't really accomplish anything, even if he actually called for violence or not. I can ask somebody to jump off a cliff, and they should have enough logic to think for themselves and not blindly follow what I say. :shrug
> 
> I just feel the need to point this out respectfully, because I really don't want anybody to go down that line to defend any of these scum.


Trump supporters need to stop defending Trump by saying well look at what so and so do.

Trump was defending white nationalist and all Trump supporters are doing to defend that is pointing out the violence of antifa.

David Duke came out and praised Trump for defending them (KKK/White Nationalist).

Its funny how Trump is so quick to say Islamic Muslim Terrorist but can't do the same when it comes to the KKK/White Nationalist.

And even when he kind of does it 2 days later, he pretty much takes it back.

There is no defense to Trump defending KKK/white nationalist and then even saying some of them are good people.

But Trump supporters deflect that by saying well look at the violence of antifa.

You never hear Trump talking about violence on both sides when it comes to Radical Islamic terrorist


----------



## CamillePunk

Retweeted by the president:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902144656015671297
Vindication. :trump Everyone trying to defend Antifa in the other thread now look like absolute fools, as they already did to me at the time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Retweeted by the president:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902144656015671297
> Vindication. :trump Everyone trying to defend Antifa in the other thread now look like absolute fools, as they already did to me at the time.


LOL he's not vindicated. Trump still defended the KKK and White Nationalist because Trump is a racist himself.

And again way more violence comes from the right than the left. But keep cherry picking and ignore all the violence that comes from the right.

Its what Trump supporters do best.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> Also how many MSM journalists are Nazi garbage scum?
> 
> Because at every antifa riot they intimidate and assault journalists. Journalists from local and national papers and TV.
> 
> https://twitter.com/LeighMartinezTV/status/901897070092574721
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897977496930570240
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978233479671809
> https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/897978814860599296
> https://twitter.com/lfrenchnews/status/896950108708888576
> 
> etc. etc. There are examples of it at every antifa riot. Journalists being intimidated and assaulted by antifa.
> 
> The next time Nazi garbage scum assault a journalist at a political rally in the :trump era will be the first.


I think this should be something the MSM considers, Antifa and groups like them don't like the MSM. It's odd that the MSM would try to hold back on them considering this but the MSM piggybacking on them only to turn on them later is probably an eventuality.

This should be a warning to all who may not think they're bad, they attack the MSM reporters from every side, they attack people who aren't even Right leaning. They have loyalty onto themselves, that makes them an unpredictable and untrustworthy group.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> I think this should be something the MSM considers, Antifa and groups like them don't like the MSM. It's odd that the MSM would try to hold back on them considering this but the MSM piggybacking on them only to turn on them later is probably an eventuality.
> 
> This should be a warning to all who may not think they're bad, they attack the MSM reporters from every side, they attack people who aren't even Right leaning. They have loyalty onto themselves, that makes them an unpredictable and untrustworthy group.


I see Trump supporters keep saying that people are defending Antifa, who is defending Antifa on this forum exactly?

I know some Trump supporters have claimed I defend Antifa which is total BS. Pretty sure we can all agree that Antifa is pretty much the ALT LEFT like the KKK/White Nationalist are on the ALT RIGHT .


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> I see Trump supporters keep saying that people are defending Antifa, who is defending Antifa on this forum exactly?
> 
> I know some Trump supporters have claimed I defend Antifa which is total BS. Pretty sure we can all agree that Antifa is pretty much the ALT LEFT like the KKK/White Nationalist are on the ALT RIGHT .


Some were in Headliner's thread. Also mostly talking about average people and the MSM people who don't know what Antifa is.

I know you're not a supporter because when Antifa rioted during the Milo talk at Berkeley you were the first to mention it was the work of Black Bloc which at the time wasn't mentioned by the MSM until video came out of black masked people destroying stuff.


----------



## wagnergrad96

deepelemblues said:


> http://archive.is/85cU7#selection-1323.225-1323.256
> 
> I don't care what a fascist apologist like you finds disgusting.


You can't just toss around the word "fascist" and think that you are some deep analytical thinker. You clearly aren't. The first thing you need to do is look up the definition of "fascism." Actually, I'll help you out with that:

FASCISM: (a) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

(b) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.


So calling me a fascist is just laughable. You don't even understand the basics of the side you clearly favor. That, my deluded wrestling fan friend, is laughable and sad at the same time.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Miss Sally said:


> Well when the anti-racists attack non-whites who don't think like them verbally and physically and only offer the options of thinking like them and following their orders I'd say they're just as bad.
> 
> You just have two groups of assholes, one in white, one in black. I'd be more worried about whomever is not being called out for their violence, rhetoric and current actions.
> 
> Maybe I'm just a silly girl but I find people who claim to do good in the name of God, country and or ideology and commit to violence and absolutes tend to be less than pure and their cause not as just as they'd make it seem.


I was ready to compliment you but that before I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about. One in white and one in black? Are we playing chess?


----------



## nucklehead88

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html


> WASHINGTON — A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.
> 
> The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump’s savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his candidacy.
> 
> “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”


----------



## deepelemblues

wagnergrad96 said:


> You can't just toss around the word "fascist" and think that you are some deep analytical thinker. You clearly aren't. The first thing you need to do is look up the definition of "fascism." Actually, I'll help you out with that:
> 
> FASCISM: (a) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
> 
> (b) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
> 
> 
> So calling me a fascist is just laughable. You don't even understand the basics of the side you clearly favor. That, my deluded wrestling fan friend, is laughable and sad at the same time.


:heston

mobbing people and beating them up in the street because you disagree with their political definitions is a textbook definition of fascism. straight out of the blackshirt/brownshirt handbook.

the first thing you need to do is stop embarrassing yourself trying to be condescending, apologist for fascists. i didnt call you a fascist. i called you an apologist for fascists. 

i clearly favor nazis so much that i have repeatedly said they are just as bad as antifa. 

i clearly favor nazis so much that the next time they and antifa decide to fight each other in the streets, i would be just fine with the national guard being on hand and walloping the bejesus out of both sides, with serious federal charges that bring lengthy prison sentences for all the nazi and antifa participants. 

fascist street violence from any side must be met with the overwhelming force of the State, to restore public safety and order. we have seen far more than enough of people being maced, punched, kicked, pepper-sprayed, beat with blunt objects, set upon while lying defenseless on the ground by multiple assailants, etc. 

while you're talking about picking up dictionaries, what you should be doing is picking up a history book. quick, who said this, a communist or a nazi: 



> common use must take precedence over individual use


Survey says... Adolf Hitler.


----------



## CamillePunk

From the same article...


> There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Sater did not appear to have Mr. Peskov’s direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.
> 
> The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.


Is this the end of Drumpf?


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> From the same article...Is this the end of Drumpf?


So the article basically contradicts itself and reads more like the makings for a Novel?


----------



## Reaper

I commend CP for actually wasting the timr to read New York Fantasy Times.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well it's just interesting to me when people post half an article and think they have a smoking gun when the other half of it contradicts their implication...did they just not read or don't really care what the truth is? Well I actually know the answer to that already but it is fine.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> From the same article...Is this the end of Drumpf?


It is always the end for :trump

Always.

The man's had more endings than The Return of the King Extended Edition.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I can't believe they're genuinely still on the Russia thing, it's been fucking forever now.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.facebook.com/pg/FrankSomervilleKTVU/posts/

Third post down. Another journalist threatened to his face and (attempted to be) intimidated by antifa.

Like I said before, none of these Nazis and antifa are nice people. 

None of them deserve defending or support.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902190395152465921









:clap


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Well it's just interesting to me when people post half an article and think they have a smoking gun when the other half of it contradicts their implication...did they just not read or don't really care what the truth is? Well I actually know the answer to that already but it is fine.


All the russia collusion stories do it.

Breathlees headline painting things in the worst possible light

Uses 'anonymous' sources

Cautions at the end to not get too excited over it, knowing their drones and their 30 second attention spans have long given up, after filling their little heads with lies


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I can't believe they're genuinely still on the Russia thing, it's been fucking forever now.


So then you never actually believed it? 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Except the Queen was never investigated by MI5 under rumours of reptilian ancestry as far as I'm aware. All I'm looking for is a general idea on what the letter of the law out there is in the event of a member of the president's "inner circle" colluding with foreign powers during an election tbh. The very fact that the FBI are investigating makes your comparisons a little off-base don't you think? Or is it fake news I'm seeing that there's an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia, the former FBI head appointed as a special counsel and multiple news outlets from around the world reporting that Kushner's named as a target?


:hmmm


----------



## deepelemblues

> Originally Posted by RavishingRickRules View Post
> Except the Queen was never investigated by MI5 under rumours of reptilian ancestry as far as I'm aware. All I'm looking for is a general idea on what the letter of the law out there is in the event of a member of the president's "inner circle" colluding with foreign powers during an election tbh. The very fact that the FBI are investigating makes your comparisons a little off-base don't you think? Or is it fake news I'm seeing that there's an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia, the former FBI head appointed as a special counsel and multiple news outlets from around the world reporting that Kushner's named as a target?


Well if the Queen had been investigated for being a reptile-lizard alien, Set Save her scaley blood-drinking hide, we would never know about it now would we


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> So then you never actually believed it?
> 
> 
> 
> :hmmm


Where did I say that? I'm saying I can't believe they're still flogging the dead horse after every one of these "leads" fizzles into nothing. It's been blatant for a long time that there's been no collusion with Russia. :shrug

edit: sidenote: I honestly wouldn't give a fuck if America wiped Kim Jon Un's dumb ass out. He doesn't give a fuck and he's pushing the issue so fuck him he deserves what he gets.


----------



## Reaper

Well, you did seem to be on the Russia Collusion trail from your earlier interactions with us. Good to see you see the light. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> edit: sidenote: I honestly wouldn't give a fuck if America wiped Kim Jon Un's dumb ass out. He doesn't give a fuck and he's pushing the issue so fuck him he deserves what he gets.


Disagreed. They fired a missile over Japan. Japan can and should handle them and draw their own red lines. Let them fuck him up. They are more than capable. South Korea and Japan are not some helpless damsel in distress. Their combined military strength is more than enough to take NK head on. So fuck 'em.

Japanese are unofficially ranked 7th in the world in terms of their military strength. They're not some prom princess caught with her panties down.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901918372438220800
Antifa attacking more and more reporters. This is the third one I've seen today. 

Lizzie Johnson is a fair reporter btw. According to her the violence did erupt, but police managed to crack down quickly and efficiently. Not sure if there are conflicting reports, or that her vantage point gave her a different perspective.

....










Well that's one hell of a meltdown.


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you for the mention, @Reaper. Yes some of us Californians may have to perform an exodus at some point. :lol

Wait, I thought "antifa" were good guys! :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

President Savage! :lol



> Another journalist threatened to his face and (attempted to be) intimidated by antifa.
> 
> Like I said before, none of these Nazis and antifa are nice people.
> 
> None of them deserve defending or support.


Frank Somerville is the lead news anchor from Oakland and he's not a Trump supporter. The fact even he was being threatened speaks volumes about Antifa!

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> Well that's one hell of a meltdown.


Charitable Humans has deleted its Twitter account :heyman6

And its Facebook page is 'unavailable' :heyman6


----------



## Reaper

Life comes at you fast.

:kobelol


----------



## DesolationRow

"Allred," eh? :mj


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902029038029463552
Update on the reporter who met with peaceful counter protestors.


----------



## Headliner

LOL at when Trump and his supporters bring up people Democratic Presidents pardoned or commuted (just like they bring them up all the time in general to spin the topic) in order to deflect from the topic on pardoning *a racist* who's actions offended Hispanics and have effects on other minorities. Because a white (Italians, etc included) racist isn't just a racist against one group of people. They normally hold fucked up opinions of all minorities. Blacks and Hispanics primarily. Which is why there's been strong pushback from Hispanics, black people and morally mature people in general on this pardon. But, to the racially tone deaf people and white sympathizers, this doesn't effect you so you don't care. Those same people would have lost your minds of Obama pardoned someone like Black Panther Assata Shakur though. 

But, this pardon will sure unite the country after Charlottesville and during these current racial times that Trump helped intensify for the last 2 years by enabling white supremacists and white nationalists with his supremacist rhetoric. 

He didn't own that reporter at all but most sound people know that already.

So yeah, fuck Joe Arpaio, and fuck Trump for further enabling white supremacists with this pardon.


----------



## CamillePunk

I really sympathize with this guy. We should be able to engage in a dialogue without fear of violence in a country where freedom of speech is supposed to be a central value.


----------



## Pratchett

The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump just signed an executive order repealing the restrictions Obama put on police to get military equipment such as armored vehicles , grenade launchers bayonets. Big deal or no big deal?


Potentially a very big deal, imo. This should be getting more people's attention than it is.






Just about a ten minute video, but it gives a little insight into the possible implications. As the violence in our streets continues increasing, and as many of us continue to point fingers at each other trying to figure out who is more to blame for wrongthink, we as a country are getting closer to a precipice we really don't want to go over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Life comes at you fast.
> 
> :kobelol








When Trump says oh if Hillary wins the 2nd amendmenters should do something about it meaning kill her Trump supporters defend Trump and lie oh he never said that or that isn't what he meant, even though its exactly what he said and meant.


----------



## Oxidamus

Miss Sally said:


> I'd be more worried about whomever is not being called out for their violence, rhetoric and current actions.


This is about as simple as it needs to be.

Yet somehow saying this is wrong. Can anyone actually say this is wrong without smokescreening?



Pratchett said:


> Potentially a very big deal, imo. This should be getting more people's attention than it is.


It really should. It's questionable as fuck. Is it necessary? Well, maybe. It should be talked about.

Look at how there is _video evidence_ (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGGUhjoLpM here) the police are standing back allowing ANTIFA et all get into actual violence.

Then just look at the few examples of how the police seem to give these people a pass based on, whatever reason they are probably told, until it gets "too bad" and they have to act. Take Rep's post above:



Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902029038029463552
> Update on the reporter who met with peaceful counter protestors.


Apparently only being helped _afterwards_. I don't entirely believe it without seeing video footage which I'm sure there is some, but I think it's more believable than saying the cops helped immediately at this point.

Then of course you have situations like that one where that mental teacher gets away with attacking a dude because she's a small woman, but as soon as he pushes her away (while pleading with the police) her man friends get involved and force the cops in.

And I genuinely believe the police wouldn't have bothered finding this fucking *CUNT* of a human being if autists on the internet didn't combine their power to find who it was:






So I dunno. It's hard to trust the police these days isn't it? They seem to get told to stand down or being lenient when the left gets violent. And they either let them go all-out of can't gain control over things like the Berkeley riot. So... have to at least talk about it.


----------



## xio8ups

Trump makes america great each time he tweets


----------



## deepelemblues

Pratchett said:


> Potentially a very big deal, imo. This should be getting more people's attention than it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about a ten minute video, but it gives a little insight into the possible implications. As the violence in our streets continues increasing, and as many of us continue to point fingers at each other trying to figure out who is more to blame for wrongthink, we as a country are getting closer to a precipice we really don't want to go over.


I've changed my mind on police having military gear.

It's well past time some heavily armed and armored paramilitarized police deliver a beating to a mob of Nazis and a mob of antifa that they'll never forget. Several such beatings actually, one isn't going to be enough to teach the lesson.


----------



## Goku

antifa rising in the US? :wow


----------



## Miss Sally

Pratchett said:


> Potentially a very big deal, imo. This should be getting more people's attention than it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about a ten minute video, but it gives a little insight into the possible implications. As the violence in our streets continues increasing, and as many of us continue to point fingers at each other trying to figure out who is more to blame for wrongthink, we as a country are getting closer to a precipice we really don't want to go over.


Well I don't trust anyone but I've stated before that this is all part of a greater plan to shutdown Free Speech and to turn the Police more into a military force.

It starts with shutting down speech people don't like, which will get applause from everyone. Well, until the definition of all the speech that isn't allowed is so vague that people left and right are being silenced. 

It continues with stopping most forms of assembly, it will at first be used to target Supremacists, Antifa and the like but move onto all assembly and protest because those people will just be labeled as part of a group that's not supposed to assemble.

The next part will be to make the Police into a Military unit that will crack down on everyone. With the increase in Cartel violence and violence from protesters this will give them the very excuse to do it.

There's a reason why Cops are told to stand down during these protests, why people keep making excuses for groups like Antifa and trying to shut down the Free Speech of others and also why Border violence is ignored and the constant issue of no security. I'd willing to wager it's simply for the fact it needs to get bad enough for the people to demand their rights stripped, by the time people realize what they've asked for it's too late.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> Well, you did seem to be on the Russia Collusion trail from your earlier interactions with us. Good to see you see the light.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed. They fired a missile over Japan. Japan can and should handle them and draw their own red lines. Let them fuck him up. They are more than capable. South Korea and Japan are not some helpless damsel in distress. Their combined military strength is more than enough to take NK head on. So fuck 'em.
> 
> Japanese are unofficially ranked 7th in the world in terms of their military strength. They're not some prom princess caught with her panties down.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/901918372438220800
> Antifa attacking more and more reporters. This is the third one I've seen today.
> 
> Lizzie Johnson is a fair reporter btw. According to her the violence did erupt, but police managed to crack down quickly and efficiently. Not sure if there are conflicting reports, or that her vantage point gave her a different perspective.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's one hell of a meltdown.


Especially considering those most affected are blacks who most likely (90%) vote democrat.


----------



## Reaper

amhlilhaus said:


> Especially considering those most affected are blacks who most likely (90%) vote democrat.


Yeah. Just like that Draykorinee guy thought that just because Red States have more welfare recipients means that people who vote republican get welfare since democrats in Red States don't even exist. 

This is the state of education in 2017. :CENA 

:kobelol



Oxidamus said:


> So I dunno. It's hard to trust the police these days isn't it? They seem to get told to stand down or being lenient when the left gets violent. And they either let them go all-out of can't gain control over things like the Berkeley riot. So... have to at least talk about it.


There is a correlation between minority incarcerations and blue states - and so it's mainly policing in blue states that is a serious problem. Even when it comes to political violence like this. When you look at the northern states and their extremely high black incarceration rates as compared to whites, you'll see where the real racism is. 

I'm fine with trusting police in Red States for the time being :Shrug 



















So if you're in one and a minority in one your experience will be different then if you're in a red state. This is why a lot of southern blacks that make it big have different tales to tale and why southern blacks tend to support republicans more than is commonly believed. Southern States are overall more poverty stricken, but it impacts blacks and whites fairly equally whereas in the north the divide between the rich and poor is greater. 

Which is why I recommend everyone at least READ Dinesh D'souza's "The Big Lie" where he talks about the myth of democrats switching from the Jim Crow party and the myth of the Southern Strategy and makes some reasonable arguments.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Life comes at you fast.
> 
> :kobelol


Same guy says there are no "non racist" white people. So is he admitting that he's a racist? I'm confused


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Same guy says there are no "non racist" white people. So is he admitting that he's a racist? I'm confused


Yeah, these people really do consider themselves racist and that all white people are racist. 






This woman isn't even being ironic, man. She's deathly serious :lmao 

And the white women just sit there taking notes and sipping their water as this is their life affirming moment or somethin' 

:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

Interesting contention from the Instapundit re: the sudden appearance of negative MSM coverage about antifa in the last few days: someone has done some private polling for a Democratic politician or organization that has revealed antifa is poisoning Democrats' chances in the midterms next year. That information has been passed on to the Democratic Party's semi-autonomous propaganda arm, the MSM. So now attempts must be made to neutralize the damage antifa is doing to the Left in the eyes of the overwhelming silent majority who don't think it's okay to riot or to have 6, 7, 8, 10-on-1 beatings of people in the street even if you're doing it to "fight Nazis."


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> How many Irish illegals are there exactly?


50,000, like I said. That's a tiny percentage of total immigrants course.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Yeah. Just like that Draykorinee guy thought that just because Red States have more welfare recipients means that people who vote republican get welfare since democrats in Red States don't even exist.
> 
> This is the state of education in 2017. :CENA
> 
> :kobelol


That wasn't the argument at all. We were discussing state finances, your misrepresentation of a person's position isn't unexpected from some assholes but I did expect better from you. Not once did I make any claim even remotely close to what you just said. Quote where I did or stop lying.

Just went back to reread what I wrote, you're a fucking joke with your lies, is that the best you can do to make a point? Making shit up doesn't make what you're saying valid mate.


----------



## deepelemblues

Berkeley's fascist mayor who should be in jail is calling for UC Berkeley to cancel its "Free Speech Week" because the fascists of antifa will just riot again and make him look (again) like the fascist tool he is when he tells the police not to stop them for the 20th time this year.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> Yeah, these people really do consider themselves racist and that all white people are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This woman isn't even being ironic, man. *She's deathly serious* :lmao
> 
> And the white women just sit there taking notes and sipping their water as this is their life affirming moment or somethin'
> 
> :lmao


Much like her cholesterol and insulin levels are. :kappa

Cancer like this is why I'm strongly considering on having this printed on a plain white (8*D) t-shirt:


----------



## Oxidamus

deepelemblues said:


> Berkeley's fascist mayor who should be in jail is calling for UC Berkeley to cancel its "Free Speech Week" because the fascists of antifa will just riot again and make him look (again) like the fascist tool he is when he tells the police not to stop them for the 20th time this year.


:jim

I was like 50/50 on free speech at the beginning of 2016 and I support it almost as far as blatant hate speech goes now because of shit like THIS.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump supporters still posting about antifa to distract what a disaster and incompetent he has been with the whole flooding natural disaster in Texas.

Gotta love how Trump was all alone at camp David because he decided to go on vacation instead of going to the situation room to run the hurricane efforts instead he let Pence do all the work. Not to mention how just before the storm hit Texas Trump undid Obama's flood regulations for high risk states where they make those states infrastructure more flood proof. You know things that would lessen the impact of storms like Harvey. 

And while the storm was deviating Texas Trump pardoned and tweeted about how great his racist friend Joe Arpaio, he also decided to tweet about Mexico is still going to pay for the wall and how they have one of the biggest crime nations of the world, he also tweeted out a plug for another one of his low life friends David Clarke's books, then he brags about how he is going to Missouri and how much he won by and slams the Democrat from that state because he opposes tax cuts.

But yeah keep distracting from what a disaster Trump is.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> OH look Trump supporters still posting about antifa to distract what a disaster and incompetent he has been with the whole flooding natural disaster in Texas.
> 
> Gotta love how Trump was all alone at camp David because he decided to go on vacation instead of going to the situation room to run the hurricane efforts instead he let Pence do all the work. Not to mention how just before the storm hit Texas Trump undid Obama's flood regulations for high risk states where they make those states infrastructure more flood proof. You know things that would lessen the impact of storms like Harvey.
> 
> And while the storm was deviating Texas Trump pardoned and tweeted about how great his racist friend Joe Arpaio, he also decided to tweet about Mexico is still going to pay for the wall and how they have one of the biggest crime nations of the world, he also tweeted out a plug for another one of his low life friends David Clarke's books, then he brags about how he is going to Missouri and how much he won by and slams the Democrat from that state because he opposes tax cuts.
> 
> But yeah keep distracting from what a disaster Trump is.


Are you seriously suggesting that one of the worst hurricane disaster in years is worth more than his friends new book? You're insane.


----------



## deepelemblues

Is BM really so ignorant and unhinged that he thinks 'undoing flood regulations' 'just before the storm hit' had any impact at all? Like, the Army Corps of Engineers was going to magically build a dozen huge reservoirs and a hundred foot high sea wall in ten days? :trump 'undid' those regulations (which were never fully implemented) on August 15. Harvey hit Texas on the 25th. 

How much 'anti-flood infrastructure' does this guy think would have been built in _ten days_ if those regulations had been in place? The regulations required public infrastructure projects to include flood planning. We're talking about public infrastructure like public schools and other government buildings. Do you think that 'public infrastructure' like reservoirs and dams and levees, things built partially or wholly to be 'anti-flood infrastructure,' did not include FLOOD PLANNING? My God the sheer ignorance of you unhinged :trump haters.

None would have been built because of those regulations, because that isn't the way those regulations even worked. Geez. 

The federal government's response has also been such a disaster that the MSM which hates :trump has somehow failed to report on what a disaster the federal government's response has been. They displayed no such failure with Hurricane Katrina, yet they have with Hurricane Harvey. They hate :trump much worse than they ever hated George W. Bush. What could possibly explain their failure to report on Harvey like they did on Katrina? :hmmm

Of course the real answer is that the response of the Texas and federal governments to Harvey has been much more competent than the response of the Louisiana and federal governments was to Katrina. There is no disaster to report on save a natural one. Don't tell BM that though, he'll get mad and start yelling randomly about ignorance and distraction.



draykorinee said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that one of the worst hurricane disaster in years is worth more than his friends new book? You're insane.


Yeah, the president taking twenty seconds to tweet has crippled the federal government's ability to respond to Harvey. Absolutely crippled it. How many lives could have been saved if those twenty seconds weren't wasted.

The unhinged delusions of you guys are only further guaranteeing :trump's re-election. Please, never stop.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

What the fuck was Trump supposed to do exactly, stand in the ocean waving his arms telling the hurricane to turn back? I've seen some fucking reaches the last few months but "The president was too busy tweeting to save everybody from a hurricane" may be one of the silliest things I've read in my lifetime. smfh...


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> What the fuck was Trump supposed to do exactly, stand in the ocean waving his arms telling the hurricane to turn back? I've seen some fucking reaches the last few months but "The president was too busy tweeting to save everybody from a hurricane" may be one of the silliest things I've read in my lifetime. smfh...


Go to the situation room and do what Pence was doing. HIS JOB, you know act like a President, and not tweet about how he is proud he pardoned a racist, not trying to get into a twitter war with Mexico and Canada, not plug his friend's book etc etc.




deepelemblues said:


> Is BM really so ignorant and unhinged that he thinks 'undoing flood regulations' 'just before the storm hit' had any impact at all? Like, the Army Corps of Engineers was going to magically build a dozen huge reservoirs and a hundred foot high sea wall in ten days? :trump 'undid' those regulations (which were never fully implemented) on August 15. Harvey hit Texas on the 25th.
> 
> How much 'anti-flood infrastructure' does this guy think would have been built in _ten days_ if those regulations had been in place? The regulations required public infrastructure projects to include flood planning. We're talking about public infrastructure like public schools and other government buildings. Do you think that 'public infrastructure' like reservoirs and dams and levees, things built partially or wholly to be 'anti-flood infrastructure,' did not include FLOOD PLANNING? My God the sheer ignorance of you unhinged :trump haters.
> 
> None would have been built because of those regulations, because that isn't the way those regulations even worked. Geez.
> 
> The federal government's response has also been such a disaster that the MSM which hates :trump has somehow failed to report on what a disaster the federal government's response has been. They displayed no such failure with Hurricane Katrina, yet they have with Hurricane Harvey. They hate :trump much worse than they ever hated George W. Bush. What could possibly explain their failure to report on Harvey like they did on Katrina? :hmmm
> 
> Of course the real answer is that the response of the Texas and federal governments to Harvey has been much more competent than the response of the Louisiana and federal governments was to Katrina. There is no disaster to report on save a natural one. Don't tell BM that though, he'll get mad and start yelling randomly about ignorance and distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the president taking twenty seconds to tweet has crippled the federal government's ability to respond to Harvey. Absolutely crippled it. How many lives could have been saved if those twenty seconds weren't wasted.
> 
> The unhinged delusions of you guys are only further guaranteeing :trump's re-election. Please, never stop.



If anyone is unhinged or delusional is Trump supporters defending him. 

Your whole post was a bunch of nonsense and the hoops Trumps supporters jump through is getting pretty pathetic.

You know I am talking about future storms like Harvey but of course to defend Trump you have to lie and claim I am talking about this storm. But that is the stuff Trump supporters need to do to defend him because that is how far gone you guys are.

Trump supporters are way past delusional, they are just a parody now.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> What the fuck was Trump supposed to do exactly, stand in the ocean waving his arms telling the hurricane to turn back? I've seen some fucking reaches the last few months but "The president was too busy tweeting to save everybody from a hurricane" may be one of the silliest things I've read in my lifetime. smfh...


He's in Texas right now. And he's been tweeting about the storm for days.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902503724274331653




































Now there's that one tweet. 





































It's definitely top of his mind and has been for a while. I mean it's obvious if we're looking at tweets alone to talk about his focus that pretty much 95% of his entire focus is on Texas.

Looney liberals pick up 2 or 3 tweets out of DOZENS to whine about :mj4
@RavishingRickRules is starting to sound like he's been red-pilled recently.


----------



## Vic Capri

*CNN BREAKING NEWS*: President Trump sneezed today! Liberals are outraged he didn't use enough Kleenex.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump supporters once again proving they will defend him for anything. LOL

They can't even admit he should not be tweeting about that stuff during a national disaster.

But why I am not surprised.


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> *CNN BREAKING NEWS*: President Trump sneezed today! Liberals are outraged he didn't use enough Kleenex.
> 
> - Vic


How dare he use Kleenex and not a no-name brand! He's advertising for Kleenex. IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

:mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> How dare he use Kleenex and not a no-name brand! He's advertising for Kleenex. IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
> 
> :mj4


Keep deflecting, its what you guys do best.

You know Trump has no defense so you deflect, go post more about antifa so you can ignore what a disaster Trump is.


----------



## deepelemblues

BM has scooped literally all the news media on the entire planet with his shocking revelation that the federal response to Harvey has been an incompetent disaster and three tweets of :trump's are to blame. 

The 14 different Pulitzer Prize categories for journalism have their next winner, no need to consider anyone else. A clean sweep for BM, congratulations!


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> BM has scooped literally all the news media on the entire planet with his shocking revelation that the federal response to Harvey has been an incompetent disaster and three tweets of :trump's are to blame.
> 
> The 14 different Pulitzer Prize categories for journalism this year have their winner, no need to consider anyone else. A clean sweep for BM, congratulations!


Pence is the one who was heading up all the efforts with the rest of the WH in the situation room while Trump was just tweeting away about stupid shit. Everyone was doing his job for him.

But keep defending Trump and making non-sensual remarks. It's your bread and butter


----------



## deepelemblues

Can BM explain how he managed to uncover the story that no news media organization on earth was unable to uncover? The New York Times failed. The Washington Post failed. The Wall Street Journal failed. The London Times failed. The LA Times failed. Der Spiegel failed. The Chicago Tribune failed. The Atlantic failed. Buzzfeed failed. CNN failed. Newsweek failed. TIME magazine failed. Vox failed. The New Yorker and New York Magazine failed. ABC, CBS and NBC all failed. The BBC failed. The AP and Reuters failed. Agence France-Presse failed. The Houston Chronicle failed despite the "incompetent disaster" of the federal government's response unfolding right before its very eyes! Only BM had the right stuff to succeed and report this earth-shattering story. Just so impressive. 

And what is he going to spend all that Pulitzer Prize money on? 14 Pulitzers at once is a very nice chunk of change.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Can BM explain how he managed to uncover the story that no news media organization on earth was unable to uncover? The New York Times failed. The Washington Post failed. The Wall Street Journal failed. The London Times failed. The LA Times failed. Der Spiegel failed. The Chicago Tribune failed. The Houston Chronicle failed despite the "incompetent disaster" of the federal government's response unfolding right before its very eyes! The New Yorker and New York Magazine failed. Only BM had the right stuff to succeed and report this earth-shattering story. Just so impressive.
> 
> And what is he going to spend all that Pulitzer Prize money on? 14 Pulitzers at once is a very nice chunk of change.


Are you really claiming everything I said isn't true ?

What exactly did i say that was not true?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Looney liberals pick up 2 or 3 tweets out of DOZENS to whine about :mj4
> @RavishingRickRules is starting to sound like he's been red-pilled recently.


My political leanings or beliefs haven't changed one iota tbh. I've said all along "I have no horse in this race" and I've never remotely been a Hillary or Democrat supporter. I still dislike Trump, and don't think he's come near to his promises so far but I also can't be fucked with idiots reaching for nonsense. 

As far as I can see it, Trump is a bit of an idiot, an inexperienced politician and in over his head a little in so much as he seemed to have thought it was more like running a business. Alongside that though, he doesn't seem to be particularly destructive as a President either. He's ineffective, but that was obvious as he stands outside of the mainstream in politics. I don't like that he tried to sugar coat for the nazis, and in general I think he'd do a lot better if he let someone else pretty up his words because he comes across to me a lot like the old boys in the pub who aren't really that bigoted but the language has all changed so much since their youth that they're literally out of touch with social convention so come across far worse than they intend. In the same stroke, I think he does have some questionable perspectives on things. 

But again, I gave him a fair shake of the stick. To me he honestly seems no different from any other politician in terms of his effectiveness, but that's the system I suppose. It's become evidently clear that all the "Russia collusion" and all that crap was bollocks. Early on when you hear about investigations etc you wait for the results, when they come up clean you drop it. At least if you're rational. My biggest gripe is that he's fuelling the flames of division with his language, and that to me is poor leadership. He could fix that if he stopped winging his public appearances and dare I say it, showed himself in a more "Presidential" light. Until he ACTUALLY does something bad/great though, he's just another politician trying to pull something out of the middle of a bunch of over-privileged babies in order to get anything done. As far as I can see he's been more "average" than anything else in terms of things he's done. Nothing terrible, nothing particularly great/impressive (regardless of how he describes it lol.)

edit: If I were to describe how I feel most of the time when politics comes up on this forum I could do so with a quoted lyric "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."


----------



## Reaper

^He's tried to pretty up his language - Didn't work. Listen to the State of the Union Address and he has attempted that several times both through voice and through action. 
^He has repeatedly denounced Nazis and racists at least on 8 different occasions and the looneys still want more because they outright lie. 

The system is flawed. I already know that. 

Don't worry, when the lefties come for you moderates (and they will), we righties will protect you. We're going to stand up against leftist fascism. :mj 

---

Anyways, a very interesting take on the Ethics of Price-Gouging. It's an argument I've never read before and I kind of like it on the basis of pure economics. 



> THE MISLEADING CLAIM: "Price-gouging after a natural disaster is reprehensible and should strictly be outlawed.”
> 
> THE REALITY: Such restrictions negatively affect the supply of goods, exacerbating shortages. As professor of economics and finance Mark J. Perry states, "Anti-price gouging laws are really ‘pro-shortage’ laws."
> This is an issue most decent-hearted people simply misunderstand. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman's infamous research on the matter indicated that 80% of surveyed people said raising prices after a severe weather emergency was unfair. * Meanwhile, only 7-8% of surveyed ECONOMISTS agreed. [c] This isn’t as much about ethics as it is about knowledge. Most people agree that victims shouldn’t be harmed. What the general public isn’t aware of, however, is that anti-price gouging laws ARE harmful.
> 
> From the paper “The Ethics of Price Gouging,” Associate Professor of Philosophy Matt Zwolinski explains:
> 
> “Holding prices low, voluntarily or by regulation, may seem to achieve justice in the microcosm, but it does so at the cost of keeping the microcosm static, and preventing the influx of supply that would alleviate concerns…” [d] He recounted the following story:
> 
> “In 1996, Hurricane Eran struck North Carolina, leaving over a million people in the Raleigh-Durham area without power. Without any way of refrigerating food, infant formula, or insulin, and without any idea of when power would be restored, people were desperate for ice, but existing supplies quickly sold out. Four young men from Goldsboro, which was not significantly affected by the storm, rented refrigerated trucks, bought 500 bags of ice for $1.70 per bag, and drove to Raleigh. The price they charged for the ice was $12 per bag—more than seven times what they paid for it.
> 
> …The four men …were probably not moved to drive to Raleigh by altruistic motives. But in doing so, they did something to help ALLEVIATE THE SHORTAGE of ice that Raleigh was facing.” Unfortunately, these men were arrested for price gouging and the ice was left to melt. This means, rather than paying $12 per bag for ice, helpless citizens who desperately needed refrigeration to accommodate the needs of the sick, young, or elderly, instead paid $0 for NO ice. Let’s be clear about this, the prolonged shortage of ice was the result of anti-gouging laws, not greed. Imagine your own helpless relative and ask, does NO ICE sound better than EXPENSIVE ice?
> 
> Another well-known gouging case involves the actions of John Shepperson. “After the Hurricane Katrina disaster, John bought 19 generators, rented a U-Haul truck, and drove 600 miles from Kentucky to Mississippi. In return for his efforts and risk, he hoped to sell the generators at double his purchase price. Instead, he was arrested for price gouging, spent 4 days in jail, and the generators were confiscated. It’s a tricky issue: while Mr. Shepperson’s morality can be debated, his initiative would have unequivocally added supply and made some people better off. We all are charitable, of course, but how many of you would have rented a truck and driven twelve hundred miles round trip to sell generators for the price you purchased them?” [e]
> 
> This is something even the leftist publication Slate understands. Speaking out against the dangers of anti-gouging laws, Matthew Yglesias attempts to guide Slate’s largely left-leaning audience with the following explanation:
> 
> “These laws are hideously misguided. Stopping price hikes during disasters may sound like a way to help people, but all it does is exacerbate shortages and complicate preparedness.” [f]
> “The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn’t vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time: They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn’t a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well.” [f]
> 
> "More price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse." [f]
> 
> "Declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity: It doesn’t create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first." [f]
> When disasters hit, they literally destroy or damage regional suppliers. That means suppliers from OTHER regions have to ship further than normal in order to meet the demands of the impacted region. That obviously comes with additional facilitation costs. To not understand this is to deny basic math. Greater distance plus greater time does not magically equal “nothing.” Prices NEED to adjust to compensate adequately.
> 
> For instance, hurricane Katrina "shut down 95% of the crude oil production in the Gulf Coast, 13% of the refining capacity in the United States, and major pipelines, particularly those bringing supplies from the Gulf Coast to the mid-Atlantic seaboard. When Rita hit the next month, the combined impact of the two storms was to knock out 25% of U.S. refining capacity. Given the reduction in the amount of gasoline available for consumption, additional supplies needed to be DIVERTED to affected regions, actual consumption HAD TO DROP, or BOTH."
> 
> What's important to focus on, then, is not necessarily what happens to the price, but what happens to the SUPPLY. If not allowed to increase, shipments have little reason to divert from ordinary routes and consumers have little reason to cut back or conserve. Raise the prices, however, and you help alleviate both the shortage of supply AND the prioritization/conservation of limited resources. This ensures that the person desperate enough to spend $10 a gallon for generator fuel, necessary to keep their child's insulin refrigerated, finds fuel for sale, due in part because the increased price previously discouraged a group of college students - interested only in keeping their beer cold - from purchasing it.
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> It’s truly sad that the vast majority of the population, from left to right, support banning the very practice that would alleviate disaster related shortages. Please spread the word and caution others on the dangers of these laws.
> *


*

---*


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Is BM really so ignorant and unhinged that he thinks 'undoing flood regulations' 'just before the storm hit' had any impact at all? Like, the Army Corps of Engineers was going to magically build a dozen huge reservoirs and a hundred foot high sea wall in ten days? :trump 'undid' those regulations (which were never fully implemented) on August 15. Harvey hit Texas on the 25th.
> 
> How much 'anti-flood infrastructure' does this guy think would have been built in _ten days_ if those regulations had been in place? The regulations required public infrastructure projects to include flood planning. We're talking about public infrastructure like public schools and other government buildings. Do you think that 'public infrastructure' like reservoirs and dams and levees, things built partially or wholly to be 'anti-flood infrastructure,' did not include FLOOD PLANNING? My God the sheer ignorance of you unhinged :trump haters.
> 
> None would have been built because of those regulations, because that isn't the way those regulations even worked. Geez.
> 
> The federal government's response has also been such a disaster that the MSM which hates :trump has somehow failed to report on what a disaster the federal government's response has been. They displayed no such failure with Hurricane Katrina, yet they have with Hurricane Harvey. They hate :trump much worse than they ever hated George W. Bush. What could possibly explain their failure to report on Harvey like they did on Katrina? :hmmm
> 
> Of course the real answer is that the response of the Texas and federal governments to Harvey has been much more competent than the response of the Louisiana and federal governments was to Katrina. There is no disaster to report on save a natural one. Don't tell BM that though, he'll get mad and start yelling randomly about ignorance and distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the president taking twenty seconds to tweet has crippled the federal government's ability to respond to Harvey. Absolutely crippled it. How many lives could have been saved if those twenty seconds weren't wasted.
> 
> The unhinged delusions of you guys are only further guaranteeing :trump's re-election. Please, never stop.


It's about common sense, tweeting about your friends book during a crisis just doesn't come across well at all. I'm pretty sure you now that but then maybe not.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting, its what you guys do best.
> 
> You know Trump has no defense so you deflect, go post more about antifa so you can ignore what a disaster Trump is.


Deflection or his most recent one which is making shit up to suit his narrative.


----------



## deepelemblues

I'm sure it does look bad to those who have been consumed and unhinged by their hatred.

To normal people it is completely irrelevant. Because they're not deluded enough to think spending 20 seconds on a tweet has an effect on anything.

And making shit up while BM made shit up about 'regulations' he was so ignorant of he had zero understanding of them. So ignorant he apparently thinks you can build huge anti flooding works like levees and dams and seawalls and reservoirs (and all the channels that would direct water to the reservoirs) in less than two weeks :heston


----------



## Vic Capri

The fact CNN and whiny musicians are more focused on The President than Hurricane Harvey speaks volumes.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

If the only thing the loonies have to left to whine about during this massive disaster is Trump talking about a book on Twitter that takes like 10 seconds, then that means that Trump passed the test with flying colors :trump 

He's currently in Texas giving interviews right now and personally helping manage efforts. What a great guy :trump2


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902579600454283265
10 days before the storm even hit, Trump's cabinet was already in touch with the Governor of Texas :clap

Fucking CNN receiving the SHIT they deserve. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902589793619599360
Seriously, reporters --- as an ex-assistant producer, one of the things were always told was to never shove a microphone in the face of someone without checking with them first.


----------



## GothicBohemian

@birthday_massacre

President's don't do anything important during natural disasters other than sign off on emergency funding and authorization, which Trump did. He loves signing stuff, that's his thing. 

There's a million legitimate problems with the man but FEMA's response to Harvey isn't one of them. He's tweets about books and Arpaio and the election are tone-deaf, and typical of him, but not making the situation worse for anyone. 

His compulsion to erase all things Obama is worth criticizing but understand the Trump crowd think that's a good thing, each for their own reasons. You and I, and others, don't feel that way but expect people itt to claim you think undoing flood regulations had an effect with Harvey rather than it being something that's a worry for the future.
@RavishingRickRules

I agree that Trump's leadership qualities are, well, lacking doesn't even cover it. That's one reason I'm so perplexed by his rabid supporters. He doesn't seem like he knows what he's doing or even how to communicate like an adult. I'm not as generous toward him as you are - I do think he's a danger, both from incompetence and impulsivity - but some of the criticism is reaching. I get why this happens though; it's because he's polarizing. Those who see and hear news about him daily are either pleased or enraged without much middle ground. Like you, I'm not living in the US so it's a different perspective on the whole situation - from the outside he looks more dumb than anything to a lot of people. 

Oh, and the "Russia investigation" continues quietly. There won't be much aside from occasional leaks about communications among those suspected of involvement and similar small news until it finishes. Looking at who has been brought in and what their legal specialties are I think this will centre more on money laundering involving Russian oligarchs than the sort of collusion people think it's all about. Very illegal, but not as headline grabbing. Trump's biggest concerns in all this could end up being his attempts to slow or halt the digging into his finances and business partners over this, which is considered obstruction of justice, and laws at state level in New York where he and his partners could find themselves in serious legal trouble. There's talk that the Arpaio pardon had two motivations; one, appealing to his base and two, letting people know he will use his pardon if they're loyal to him when indicted over Russian money connections. The theory makes sense to me.


----------



## Reaper

Obama released even Terrorists from GITMO, he wasn't appealing to his terrorist base ... or was he :hmmm 

OMG, I brought OBAMA up. MUST DISCREDIT IMMEDIATELY. *reeee*. 

I've actually been holding off doing this because the narrative spin has become increasingly toxic around it as I was expecting it to go away on its own. But since it's not, then I think at this point it's fair to bring this up simply because of the disingenuous nature of allegories like the above. What the fuck do you mean pandering to his base? If presidents have ever pardoned any criminal before does that mean that they're pandering to that specific criminal base?

Obama released hundreds of crack dealers and drug traffickers ... does that make him one? Does that mean that his voter base is full of crack dealers and drug traffickers? What a flight of fancy. What amazing logic fpalm 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e5479715b54_story.html?utm_term=.0196d94e5610



> *At least 12 released Guantanamo detainees implicated in attacks on Americans*
> 
> An American flag flies behind the barbed and razor wire at the Camp Delta detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Brennan Linsley/AP)
> By Adam Goldman and Missy Ryan June 8, 2016
> The Obama administration believes that at least 12 detainees released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have launched attacks against U.S. or allied forces in Afghanistan, killing about a half-dozen Americans, according to current and former U.S. officials.
> 
> In March, a senior Pentagon official made a startling admission to lawmakers when he acknowledged that former Guantanamo inmates were responsible for the deaths of Americans overseas.
> 
> The official, Paul Lewis, who oversees Guantanamo issues at the Defense Department, provided no details, and the Obama administration has since declined to elaborate publicly on his statement because the intelligence behind it is classified.
> 
> But The Washington Post has learned additional details about the suspected attacks, including the approximate number of detainees and victims involved and the fact that, while most of the incidents were directed at military personnel, the dead also included one American civilian: a female aid worker who died in Afghanistan in 2008. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, declined to give an exact number for Americans killed or wounded in the attacks, saying the figure is classified.
> 
> [Pentagon official: Release of Guantanamo detainees has led to American deaths]
> 
> Lewis’s statement had drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers see the violence against Americans as further evidence that the president’s plans for closing the prison are misguided and dangerous. They also describe the administration’s unwillingness to release information about the attacks as another instance of its use of high levels of classification to avoid discussion of a politically charged issue that could heighten political opposition to its plans.
> 
> One U.S. official familiar with the intelligence said that nine of the detainees suspected in the attacks are now dead or in foreign government custody. The official would not specify the exact number of detainees involved but said it was fewer than 15. All of them were released from Guantanamo Bay under the administration of George W. Bush.
> 
> The official added: “Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight.”
> 
> Military and intelligence officials, responding to lawmakers’ requests for more details, have provided lawmakers with a series of classified documents about the suspected attacks. One recent memo from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which was sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committee after Lewis’s testimony, described the attacks, named the detainees involved and provided information about the victims without giving their names.
> 
> But lawmakers are prohibited from discussing the contents of that memo because of its high classification level. A similar document provided last month to the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), a vocal opponent of Obama’s Guantanamo policy, was so highly classified that even her staff members with a top-secret clearance level were unable to read it.
> 
> “There appears to be a consistent and concerted effort by the Administration to prevent Americans from knowing the truth regarding the terrorist activities and affiliations of past and present Guantanamo detainees,” Ayotte wrote in a letter to Obama this week, urging him to declassify information about how many U.S. and NATO personnel have been killed by former detainees.
> 
> [Cuba wants the base at Guantanamo back. The U.S. isn’t budging.]


The focus on what Trump does is fine. It should be there. But the fact that we're supposed to not EVEN compare his current actions to his predecessor because it becomes "deflection" is a farce created by people who don't want to admit that Presidents do shit we don't like or agree with.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> It's about common sense, tweeting about your friends book during a crisis just doesn't come across well at all. I'm pretty sure you now that but then maybe not.


It's also about priorities, Trump thought it was more important to tweet about pardoning a racist, his friends book, and talking about the stupid wall and Mexico paying for it than to focus on the hurricane.

But Trump supporters will defend anything at this point. 




Reaper said:


> Obama released even Terrorists from GITMO, he wasn't appealing to his terrorist base ... or was he :hmmm
> 
> OMG, I brought OBAMA up. MUST DISCREDIT IMMEDIATELY. *reeee*.
> 
> I've actually been holding off doing this because the narrative spin has become increasingly toxic around it as I was expecting it to go away on its own. But since it's not, then I think at this point it's fair to bring this up simply because of the disingenuous nature of allegories like the above. What the fuck do you mean pandering to his base? If presidents have ever pardoned any criminal before does that mean that they're pandering to that specific criminal base?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e5479715b54_story.html?utm_term=.0196d94e5610
> 
> 
> 
> The focus on what Trump does is fine. It should be there. But the fact that we're supposed to not EVEN compare his current actions to his predecessor because it becomes "deflection" is a farce created by people who don't want to admit that Presidents do shit we don't like or agree with.


Keep deflecting


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting


:lol 

Presidents release pieces of shit all the time. It's littered throughout our history irrespective of who that president is. I mean, we at one point had an administration and national media that was LITERALLY sympathetic towards Hitler of all people. Did that make everyone Nazis for doing so? 

I'm referring to the logic of "he's racist therefore he released a racist". Therefore if this logic is true, then "Obama's a terrorist because he released terrorists". 

Simple logic. Don't care if you think it's a deflection. But the logic I'm using to destroy this BS narrative is perfectly valid and bringing it up in this scenario is perfectly valid. 

Comparisons are going to be made. I don't give a fuck if you people want to pretend that similar shit didn't happen in previous administrations. Your bubble is full of toxic farts. Needs to be burst.


----------



## birthday_massacre

GothicBohemian said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> President's don't do anything important during natural disasters other than sign off on emergency funding and authorization, which Trump did. He loves signing stuff, that's his thing.
> 
> There's a million legitimate problems with the man but FEMA's response to Harvey isn't one of them. He's tweets about books and Arpaio and the election are tone-deaf, and typical of him, but not making the situation worse for anyone.
> 
> His compulsion to erase all things Obama is worth criticizing but understand the Trump crowd think that's a good thing, each for their own reasons. You and I, and others, don't feel that way but expect people itt to claim you think undoing flood regulations had an effect with Harvey rather than it being something that's a worry for the future.
> 
> @RavishingRickRules
> 
> I agree that Trump's leadership qualities are, well, lacking doesn't even cover it. That's one reason I'm so perplexed by his rabid supporters. He doesn't seem like he knows what he's doing or even how to communicate like an adult. I'm not as generous toward him as you are - I do think he's a danger, both from incompetence and impulsivity - but some of the criticism is reaching. I get why this happens though; it's because he's polarizing. Those who see and hear news about him daily are either pleased or enraged without much middle ground. Like you, I'm not living in the US so it's a different perspective on the whole situation - from the outside he looks more dumb than anything to a lot of people.
> 
> .


I NEVER said undoing flood regulations had an effect with Harvey that was just a strawman claim by blues. I said it was fucked right before the storm Trump undoes flooding regulations and I even said it would lessen the impact of storms like Harvy because it would make those states make their infrastructure flood proof, meaning in the future. But blues has to play ignornat and pretend I am talking about this storm and not in the future even though its clear I am talking about taking precautions in the future.





Reaper said:


> :lol
> 
> Presidents release pieces of shit all the time. It's littered throughout our history irrespective of who that president is. I mean, we at one point had an administration and national media that was LITERALLY sympathetic towards Hitler of all people. Did that make everyone Nazis for doing so?
> 
> I'm referring to the logic of "he's racist therefore he released a racist". Therefore if this logic is true, then "Obama's a terrorist because he released terrorists".
> 
> Simple logic. Don't care if you think it's a deflection. But the logic I'm using to destroy this BS narrative is perfectly valid and bringing it up in this scenario is perfectly valid.
> 
> Comparisons are going to be made. I don't give a fuck if you people want to pretend that similar shit didn't happen in previous administrations. Your bubble is full of toxic farts. Needs to be burst.


Trump is a racist, you can't honestly claim he is not at this point.


----------



## Reaper

OMG. They're now WHINING about Melania's SHOES ! :lmao :lmao :lmao 



















First Tweets and now Shoes and then they want us to take them seriously :kobelol 

:sodone
@Vic Capri - Your post about the Kleenex wasn't far off after all :lmao :lmao :lmao

The fact that they're whining about stuff like this means that Trump's administration has done an amazing job. roud:

---

Just another example of a loony anti-Trumper showing us just how empathic she really is:










I haven't donated anything because I don't trust many organizations (if someone has one that they trust, pls PM me the link because I would like to donate). 

We have here an example of a woman not donating because she literally wants Trump Supporters to suffer. 

Cancer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> OMG. They're now WHINING about Melania's SHOES ! :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Tweets and now Shoes and then they want us to take them seriously :kobelol
> 
> :sodone
> @Vic Capri - Your post about the Kleenex wasn't far off after all :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> The fact that they're whining about stuff like this means that Trump's administration has done an amazing job. roud:
> 
> ---
> 
> Just another example of a loony anti-Trumper showing us just how empathic she really is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't donated anything because I don't trust many organizations (if someone has one that they trust, pls PM me the link because I would like to donate).
> 
> We have here an example of a woman not donating because she literally wants Trump Supporters to suffer.
> 
> Cancer.


LOL at you thinking Trump's admin has done an amazing job. You are so far gone you are never coming back to reality.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trumps administration doing an amazing job? Proof cognitive dissonance is alive and well on both sides.


----------



## Stinger Fan

You can always tell who has reading comprehension skills in here...


----------



## Reaper

Considering that the only thing that believers in the Russian Collusion theory like yourselves could come up with is a Tweet about a book and you've been basically spending every minute in this thread. If there was something he hadn't done, or failed in any way at all, I'm sure you'd be plastering it all over this thread. :kobelol 

You guys have nothing. 

You guys are whining about a tweet and the media is whining about Melania's shoes. :kobelol 

That's all the evidence you need that this administration did what it was supposed to do during this disaster. 

But yea, keep reaching and making assertions without backing anything up at all. I love how some other moderates are now trying to create distance between themselves and the extremists that troll this thread :mj4


----------



## Brockamura

TRUMP WILL WIN IN 2020 :fact :trump4


----------



## Reaper

Can we have one example of the administration's incompetence in dealing with Hurricane Harvey please? 

I'm actually seriously looking and I haven't found anything. It seems to be universally well-handled at least from the Federal and State government level. 

The only thing I've seen that's a problem is the scum-bag Mayor of Houston told people to stay put instead of encouraging even voluntary evacuations --- but he's far from part of Trump's administration as he's a democrat.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Trumps administration doing an amazing job? Proof cognitive dissonance is alive and well on both sides.


Did you and BM collaborate on breaking a story all the media in the whole world failed to uncover?

How are you going to split the Pulitzer money? 50-50?

How did all these news organizations that hate :trump fail to notice that he's fucked up the response to Hurricane Harvey? How is it that they didn't notice but you and BM did?


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Did you and BM collaborate on breaking a story all the media in the whole world failed to uncover?
> 
> How are you going to split the Pulitzer money? 50-50?
> 
> How did all these news organizations that hate :trump fail to notice that he's fucked up the response to Hurricane Harvey? How is it that they didn't notice but you and BM did?


Everybody is deluded and delusional but them , didn't you know?


----------



## Reaper

Deep --- He make Tweet. 

IMPEACH. IMPEACH. IMPEACH!

--

More loonyism from anti-Trumpers


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902617701419503617
Apparently these paragons of virtue and human empathy are actually going to protest during a massive hurricane relief effort. 

It reminds me of that God Hates **** group that protests soldier's funerals and rightfully gets called scum-bags for it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I have a lot of friends in Houston actually, the ONLY person I'm seeing anger towards is Joel Osteen. I'm seeing a lot of love for Les Alexander (Houston Rockets owner) who donated $4m to the relief fund but absolutely no complaining about the administration. I should add that all of my friends are Trump hating Democrats too to give context.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I have a lot of friends in Houston actually, the ONLY person I'm seeing anger towards is Joel Osteen. I'm seeing a lot of love for Les Alexander (Houston Rockets owner) who donated $4m to the relief fund but absolutely no complaining about the administration. I should add that all of my friends are Trump hating Democrats too to give context.


I saw that too. Joel Osteen is kind of in the middle/murky area where his own megachurch was flooded and so after clearing it out, he's opened it up. My twitter follows do a pretty great job of keeping me up to date in really quick time too. 

While sure, Prosperity Christians should get shat upon because they live in huge homes and stuff, but at the same time, he was in some part (not completely) a victim of misinformation. 

Fuck me for defending a prosperity tv evangalist though. But unfortunately with the way things are, it needs to be done.

Matt Walsh from The Blaze wrote a very good article about Joel Osteen. Probably should read that if you're interested.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> I saw that too. Joel Osteen is kind of in the middle/murky area where his own megachurch was flooded and so after clearing it out, he's opened it up.
> 
> While sure, Prosperity Christians should get shat upon because they live in huge homes and stuff, but at the same time, he was in some part (not completely) a victim of misinformation.
> 
> Fuck me for defending a prosperity tv evangalist though. But unfortunately with the way things are, it needs to be done.


I've seen a lot of photos and videos that'd dispute that flooded church that're circling amongst the local community. That's where the beef's coming from I guess. A lot of my friends are pretty religious and already didn't like the guy so they're all whipped into a fury. Especially with how it must be out there I can imagine nerves/tempers are flaring. Hopefully the city will weather the storm and they can put their lives back together, it must be heartbreaking.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've seen a lot of photos and videos that'd dispute that flooded church that're circling amongst the local community. That's where the beef's coming from I guess. A lot of my friends are pretty religious and already didn't like the guy so they're all whipped into a fury. Especially with how it must be out there I can imagine nerves/tempers are flaring. Hopefully the city will weather the storm and they can put their lives back together, it must be heartbreaking.


Fair enough. Let's call the claims disputable, but at least we can say that he gave into the pressure even if he didn't want to even if his motives aren't pure. It happened. Sometimes outrage works :shrug 

Having experienced a hurricane myself last year where our governor was on top of it from the get go and made sure we had access to information, road maps, plans, evacuation route, emergency supplies, designated shelters stocked and ready ... with stores full stocked, gas pumps fully stocked and the FPL (the florida power company) literally working through the night during the worst of the hurricane was amazing. I'm guessing you're hearing similar things from your friends too. I think we were hit by the outskirts of a Cat 3-4 which came to about 20 KM's of where we live. A LOT of damage happened in my city, but a lot of people have hurricane coverage so repairs in my city were done within days. 

We weren't hit as bad as Texas, but our low lying areas were flooded. 

Definitely a lot of lessons were learned from Katrina and I have to admit that our governments (non-partisan here) have learned a lot from that disaster.

I mean, at the end of the day, it IS a natural disaster. People's lives will be impacted. That's a given. And most of the recovery efforts come from locals and people who drive from other states. Like they're planning a relief party at my wife's work. We're sending stuff .. and this is happening at a mass scale. 

Politics can be discussed in a situation like this, but on the ground they matter very little. People trying to spin *something* negative to complain especially when there isn't enough cause to actually claim real incompetence is just scummy imo.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Fair enough. Let's call the claims disputable, but at least we can say that he gave into the pressure even if he didn't want to even if his motives aren't pure. It happened. Sometimes outrage works :shrug
> 
> Having experienced a hurricane myself last year where our governor was on top of it from the get go and made sure we had access to information, road maps, plans, evacuation route, emergency supplies ... with stores full stocked, gas pumps fully stocked and the FPL (the florida power company) literally working through the night during the worst of the hurricane was amazing. I'm guessing you're hearing similar things from your friends too.
> 
> We weren't hit as bad as Texas, but our low lying areas were flooded.
> 
> Definitely a lot of lessons were learned from Katrina and I have to admit that our governments (non-partisan here) have learned a lot from that disaster.


Yeah the stories sound very similar actually. It seems that some parts of the city it's just rain and no real flooding so those guys are fine (the Church is in one of those areas as well according to the people posting lol) just kind of in limbo as the city's scrambling to help those who are in actual danger. The response both from the city and the community seems incredible though, it certainly doesn't seem like a broken community as much as a strong community going through a tragedy tbh.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah the stories sound very similar actually. It seems that some parts of the city it's just rain and no real flooding so those guys are fine (the Church is in one of those areas as well according to the people posting lol) just kind of in limbo as the city's scrambling to help those who are in actual danger. The response both from the city and the community seems incredible though, it certainly doesn't seem like a broken community as much as a strong community going through a tragedy tbh.


Americans get shat upon a lot in the media and self-criticism is a national past-time (which has reached unfettered extremes this year). But honestly, what I saw during the hurricane last year, I was simply blown away and made me fully appreciate what it means to be American. The way people help each other and do things for each other. It's not something I've ever seen anywhere else. 

Katrina was unusual for American standards and for more than a decade it has defined how people view America for the rest of the world. That was an anomaly and there's blame to be placed everywhere in that disaster. 

But I was pretty confident that Texas being a richer state kinda like how we are would be able to get through this on just the strength of each other and it seems like they are. 

Frankly speaking, THIS is the norm for America, not Katrina.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Did you and BM collaborate on breaking a story all the media in the whole world failed to uncover?
> 
> How are you going to split the Pulitzer money? 50-50?
> 
> How did all these news organizations that hate :trump fail to notice that he's fucked up the response to Hurricane Harvey? How is it that they didn't notice but you and BM did?


Please quote me where I said he fucked up his response. Is this a thing you and reaper do now, make up your own arguments?

Feel free to place that on BM, but don't make shit up about me.

Fake news from reaper and deepemblem.


----------



## Reaper

Obvious comment in context to Trump's amazing job is obvious. 



Reaper said:


> The fact that they're whining about stuff like this means that Trump's administration has done an amazing job. roud:





draykorinee said:


> Trumps administration doing an amazing job? Proof cognitive dissonance is alive and well on both sides.


"making up arguments". 

No you triggered snowflake. :lol Your snarkiness was obviously in response to what I said which was obviously framed in such a way so as to imply that based on you two whining about a tweet and having nothing real to whine about proves from my perspective that Trump is doing an amazing job during this hurricane. 

That's more than reasonable for this particular post because anyone with half a brain knows exactly what I'm actually doing in this post. 

It's not so bad. I mean, you might get your gotcha moment some day. 

But it is not today. If you can actually get your head out of your anti-Trump ass, you might actually get taken seriously as a poster. But till then, you're right there with BM. Don't worry though, I take you seriously sometimes. Just when it comes to your TDS, you lose all sensibilities. No idea why Trump triggers you so much in particular.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Obvious comment in context to Trump's amazing job is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "making up arguments".
> 
> No you triggered snowflake. :lol Your snarkiness was obviously in response to what I said which was obviously framed in such a way so as to imply that based on you two whining about a tweet and having nothing real to whine about proves from my perspective that Trump is doing an amazing job during this hurricane.
> 
> That's more than reasonable for this particular post because anyone with half a brain knows exactly what I'm actually doing in this post.
> 
> It's not so bad. I mean, you might get your gotcha moment some day.
> 
> But it is not today. If you can actually get your head out of your anti-Trump ass, you might actually get taken seriously as a poster. But till then, you're right there with BM. Don't worry though, I take you seriously sometimes. Just when it comes to your TDS, you lose all sensibilities. No idea why Trump triggers you so much in particular.


Lol, you take me so seriously you posted about me days later, made shit up and when I called you out you failed to defend yourself. You're not even man enough to own your lies.

Also, triggered snowflake? Go back to r/Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Obvious comment in context to Trump's amazing job is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "making up arguments".
> 
> No you triggered snowflake. :lol Your snarkiness was obviously in response to what I said which was obviously framed in such a way so as to imply that based on you two whining about a tweet and having nothing real to whine about proves from my perspective that Trump is doing an amazing job during this hurricane.
> 
> That's more than reasonable for this particular post because anyone with half a brain knows exactly what I'm actually doing in this post.
> 
> It's not so bad. I mean, you might get your gotcha moment some day.
> 
> But it is not today. If you can actually get your head out of your anti-Trump ass, you might actually get taken seriously as a poster. But till then, you're right there with BM. Don't worry though, I take you seriously sometimes. Just when it comes to your TDS, you lose all sensibilities. No idea why Trump triggers you so much in particular.


Anyone with half a brain knows how bad and incompetent Trump is as president. The only ones who can't get their heads out of their asses are Trump supporters. You are the ones who are not taken seriously in the real world. You don't live in reality. You just think because you all circle jerk each other about Trump in this thread that you are right when you are so far gone from reality.

But keep living in your little Trump world why the rest of the world points and laughs what a joke Trump and his supporters are.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Anyone with half a brain knows how bad and incompetent Trump is as president. The only ones who can't get their heads out of their asses are Trump supporters. You are the ones who are not taken seriously in the real world. You don't live in reality. You just think because you all circle jerk each other about Trump in this thread that you are right when you are so far gone from reality.
> 
> But keep living in your little Trump world why the rest of the world points and laughs what a joke Trump and his supporters are.


You're quoting a guy who uses triggered snowflake as an insult in the same post as taking people seriously. I'm sure most of us see the irony.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Lol, you take me so seriously you posted about me and made shit up and when I called you out you failed to defend yourself. You're not even man enough to own your lies.
> 
> Also, triggered snowflake? Go back to r/Trump.


You are a triggered anti-Trumper and probably one of the worst of the lot if you wasted your time talking about a Tweet in the wake of an American disaster. Literally didn't even come up with that on your own and just got led around by the scum-bag anti-Trump MSM that preys upon people like you all the time. 

If I go back to that conversation you'll find that you didn't respond with anything to do with *state expenditures* while I was talking about cost of living in GOP states being lower than democrat ones because of their shitty fiscal and social welfare policies. 

Here's the entire exchange: 



Reaper said:


> *Middy. The issue isn't that things are much worse. Things are worse in select cities and counties that correlate directly with Democrat control and their fiscally shitty policies. Life is very different for Millennials in Republican controlled states. *
> 
> In just 2 years from now my wife and I will be in a position to buy our first home together and she has a very decent 401k already. She's not even 30 yet. We're already living in our own rental home independently. And she's going to college on top of that. This is achieved on a single income BTW.
> 
> Her brother and his girlfriend live independently on a roofer and waitress income and they're both under 23.
> 
> Millennials need to start realizing that it's not the boomers that fucked them over but Democrats and their insane tax and social welfare policies.
> 
> Boomers were fiscally responsible. Xers were not. Especially in blue states. Red States are still doing just fine.
> 
> *Just go on sites that show you cost of living differences. Pretty much universally all red states are affordable.*


Pretty clear that I'm talking about cost of living differences here. And this is the shit you responded with to something that wasn't even a topic of conversation:



draykorinee said:


> This is so retarded.* The southern states are the ones most reliant on welfare and they're the fucking fiscal ones.* Utter desperation from reaper, lowest cost of living and still needing hand outs and welfare, but yeah red states are doing fine.
> 
> It's almost like the cost of living increases in places where there are people with money...or where population density increases...Maybe?


You specifically state "welfare" here in response to me talking about social welfare. You said NOTHING about "State expenditures" at all. 

Here you are still talking about welfare: 



draykorinee said:


> Those links don't refute what I said at all. Nor do they support what you said. *I don't pretend anything, its basic logic that if you have states using more welfare even with lower cost of living you can't use them as some kind of indicator of good fiscal management.*


Even IF you were talking about State Expenditures, one of the links I posted actually included that conversation in them but you never bothered to read the article as I thought you wouldn't

This is directly from one of those articles I linked: 



> However, after TheBlaze noted this trend, a few readers argued that this was because “red” states typically receive the lion’s share of federal funding.
> 
> Do they really?
> 
> In a word: No. In fact, since 2000, solid “blue” states have received far more in federal funding than solid “red” states, a Blaze analysis finds.
> 
> But first, let’s define the what we mean by “red” state, “blue” state, “purple” state, etc.:
> 
> Red: Republican presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996
> Pink: Republican presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996
> Purple: This state has been won twice by a Republican presidential candidate and twice by a Democrat presidential candidate since 1996
> Light Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996
> Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996
> A quick word on our use of 1996: Because most pre-’96 electoral maps involve different color schemes, we felt it would be best to start with President Clinton’s second run for office, the year the “red” state/”blue” state map configuration we’re all familiar with became standardized (although it would take another four years for it to become a widely used election year tool).
> 
> Now it should be pointed out that federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. Moreover, a state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid. The argument is that “red” states receive more funds than anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can clearly see, there’s a difference in the distribution of federal funds among the states. In fact, if you combine “strong GOP” with “likely GOP,” the amount is still less than then amount “strong Dem” states have received in the last 12 years.
> 
> Now some argue that certain states spend their federal funds differently, giving more back to the “pie” than others, and that this somehow changes everything.
> 
> Again, that’s not the argument. The original argument claims “red” states receive more federal funds than anyone else, leading to things like an uptick in income growth. But as the above clearly indicates, “red” states simply don’t get more in fed funds.
> 
> Now we’re sure you’re want to know which states have received the most since the turn of the new millennium. We’re glad you asked. It just so happens that we have a list prepared for you.
> 
> Here are the top ten states that have received the most federal funding since 2000, their estimated populations in 2011 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the amount of federal spending per capita in 2011 (the population estimate divided by total federal spending in FY2011), and their electoral map color (based on the last four election cycles):


I even urged you to pay special attention to this particular article: 



Reaper said:


> *Then it's clear you didn't read anything because The Blaze study pretty much debunks the myth of Red States getting more federal money.* I made the claim that millenials have better lives in red states based on things being cheaper here. People on welfare does not disprove that at all.


I don't like to use the word :buried 

But I'm sorry, you :buried yourself because I was going to let this go and pretend that it never happened because sometimes I don't like to bury people and other times I do.

Of course, it's sad watching you cozy up with BM once more like the time you and him got so :triggered that you called me a pedophile. Of all the disingenuous and dishonest people to cozy up to :mj4 

You can do better than this, or maybe I am giving you far too much credit. You're not here for rational discussion. You're here because Trump's existence and presidency :triggered you.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Because if I go back to that conversation you'll find that you respinded with something to do with state expenditures while I was talking about cost of living in GOP states being lower than democrat ones because of their shitty fiscal policies.
> 
> Here's the entire exchange:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty clear that I'm talking about cost of living differences here. And this is the shit you responded with to something that wasn't even a topic of conversation:
> 
> 
> 
> You specifically state "welfare" here in response to me talking about social welfare. You said NOTHING about "State expenditures" at all.
> 
> Here you are still talking about welfare:
> 
> 
> 
> Even IF you were talking about State Expenditures, one of the links I posted actually included that conversation in them but you never bothered to read the article as I thought you wouldn't
> 
> This is directly from one of those articles I linked:
> 
> 
> 
> I even urged you to pay special attention to this particular article:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to use the word :buried
> 
> But I'm sorry, you :buried yourself because I was going to let this go and pretend that it never happened because sometimes I don't like to bury people and other times I do.
> 
> Of course, it's sad watching you cozy up with BM once more like the time you and him got so :triggered that you called me a pedophile
> 
> You can do better than this, or maybe I am giving you far too much credit.


Lol, and where did I once make any claim about democrats not getting welfare? Thanks for proving you're a liar, at least you made it obvious to all to see. Now, one last time, where did I make any claim about democrats not taking welfare and only Republicans taking it?


> . Yeah. Just like that Draykorinee guy thought that just because Red States have more welfare recipients means that people who vote republican get welfare since democrats in Red States don't even exist.


 :Wat?

Also did I really call you a pedo? That is probably another misrepresentation but I can't be 100% sure, then again I'm talking to a guy who can't do maths...

There nothing sadder than seeing a person clamor for some kind of victory on a user forum when his only threshold for said victory is self declaration.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> *Lol, and where did I once make any claim about democrats not getting welfare? Thanks for proving you're a liar, at least you made it obvious to all to see. Now, one last time, where did I make any claim about democrats not taking welfare and only Republicans taking it?*


The train of conversation simplified so that maybe you can understand what has actually transpired:

1. I am talking to Middy about how social welfare and fiscally poor policies have created a situation in blue states where costs of living is higher than red states
2. To this you response with claiming that red states receive more in welfare

To this I respond with WHY cost of living is lower in Red States and also include a study which shows that blue states DO INDEED receive more in federal funding than red states - which actually makes perfect sense. 

Nowhere do you acknowledge or admit that welfare recipients in red states have anything to do with democrats in red states also receiving that welfare or that maybe even the divide can be better examined at the county level. Perhaps I should have done that too but I figured that we laid that conversation to a rest after I brought up the fact that democrats in red states exist. At the American state level you also have counties where are split between red/blue so ultimately what we should conclude is that we need to go into far more detail than we did. 

However, none of what you said contained enough nuance to have a rational conversation over - despite the fact that I was trying to have one. Your knee-jerk reaction was to immediately toss in the idea --- without doing research I might add --- that and I quote:



> This is so retarded. The southern states are the ones most reliant on welfare and they're the fucking fiscal ones. Utter desperation from reaper, lowest cost of living and still needing hand outs and welfare, but yeah red states are doing fine.


You are, if not worse, just as bad as BM. I have tried several times to have decent conversations and that conversation between us could have gone a lot better, but you called something retarded without even having enough information on the subject

An idea that was debunked in The Blaze article which you never read which I urged you to read ... but since you never read it, you still harped on the whole "state expenditures" thing later on. 

The interesting thing here is that since you're not actually sure about what it is you're really saying/suggesting, you make half claims in non-clear words. 

If you had bothered to read the article I posted, you would have changed your mind about republican states receiving more welfare because it is untrue. 

Finally, what else, if not implying that republicans receive the major chunk of welfare spending were you actually even doing in that half-baked comment? 



> Also did I really call you a pedo? That is probably another misrepresentation but I can't be 100% sure, then again I'm talking to a guy who can't do maths...





draykorinee said:


> *I'm so glad Reaper and Trump won't be anywhere near my 7 year old daughter, can you imagine me walking in to school with my kids and saying to another parent, oh you're daughters going to be a looker, I think I'll marry her one day. Grim.*
> 
> The ignore function sucks, I have to read all that garbage in quotes.


I don't know who this sneakiness of yours works on, but you're not fooling anyone. The implication here is clear and it's pathetic. 

This is one of the main reasons why I consider you a BSer/Troll in this thread.

If win/loss doesn't matter to you, then you'd actually attempt to have rational debates like so many others do with me instead of turning it into a pissing contest --- without even reading the articles I ask you to read so that we can have an actual/proper discussion which was my full desire at that point. 

There are plenty on here that I have very decent discussions with. Both on the left, middle and right. You and BM are the only ones that actually turn things into a waste of time and energy. This is why you're both trolls. I'm done with trying to have conversations with you. Won't happen again.


----------



## deepelemblues

If :trump is a pedo it'll just make 4chan love him even moar


----------



## Reaper

This is the level of insanity we're dealing with amongst the SO-CALLED EDUCATED. If this is the kind of voter that's "educated" and votes democrat, then democrats have the most illiterate "educated" voter base in the country. 

In urdu we have a couple of sayings for people like this. "Parha-likha jahil" and "Phira hua dimagh" (A nice play on PhD). Feel free to go look them up. 

It has reached levels that you couldn't possibly imagine they would ever reach. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...trump-is-relieved-of-teaching-duties-n2374706



> Florida Prof Who Said Texas Deserved Hurricane Over How They Voted Has Been 'Relieved of His Duties'
> 
> The professor who said Texas deservedHurricane Harvey because of how the state voted has been “relieved of his duties,” the University of Tampa announced Tuesday.
> 
> "On Sunday, Aug. 27, visiting assistant professor of sociology Kenneth Storey made comments on a private Twitter account that do not reflect UT's community views or values. We condemn the comments and the sentiment behind them, and understand the pain this irresponsible act has caused," the statement read.
> 
> "Storey has been relieved of his duties at UT, and his classes will be covered by other sociology faculty. As Floridians, we are well of the destruction and suffering associated with tropical weather. Our thoughts and prayers are with all impacted by Hurricane Harvey," the university concluded.
> 
> Storey tweeted Sunday that he doesn’t “believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them.”
> 
> One Twitter user replied, saying, “I guess since we’re a Red state we deserve some bad karma too, right.”
> 
> “Yep, those who voted for him [Trump] here deserve it as well,” he responded.
> 
> The backlash to his tweets was swift, forcing Storey to issue an apology.
> 
> “I apologize for the the tweets,” he told ABC Action News reporter Michael Paluska. “My intention was never to offend anyone. This was a series of tweets taken out of context. I was referring to the GOP denial of climate change science and push to decrease funds from agencies that can help in a time like this. I hope all affected by the storm are safe and recover quickly. I also hope this helps the GOP realize the need to support climate change research and put in place better funding for agencies like NOAA and FEMA.
> 
> “I've been clear with that through various tweets that followed the initial tweet. It is hard to express one's full thoughts in 140 characters and I realize that taken out of context some tweets may sound extremely off-putting. I never intended it to be that.”
> 
> Too little, too late.


Of course, he's also a sociologist. Makes me embarrassed to have ever considered that as my first choice degree.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> This is the level of insanity we're dealing with amongst the SO-CALLED EDUCATED. If this is the kind of voter that's "educated" and votes democrat, then democrats have the most illiterate "educated" voter base in the country.
> 
> In urdu we have a couple of sayings for people like this. "Parha-likha jahil" and "Phira hua dimagh" (A nice play on PhD). Feel free to go look them up.
> 
> It has reached levels that you couldn't possibly imagine they would ever reach.
> 
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...trump-is-relieved-of-teaching-duties-n2374706
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, he's also a sociologist. Makes me embarrassed to have ever considered that as my first choice degree.


Nice to see that the worm is turning as it were. Maybe this regressive left/SJW crap is ending at last


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Nice to see that the worm is turning as it were. Maybe this regressive left/SJW crap is ending at last


I certainly hope so. But given that just today people are whining about a singular trump tweet and melania wearing high heels, I sincerely doubt it. There was a time when everyone unanimously agreed that that kind of shit was horrible, but now we have millions viewing that kind of criticism legit. 

The SJW/regressive left disaster is here to stay and it's not a "fringe" anymore. It's mainstream.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> I certainly hope so. But given that just today people are whining about a singular trump tweet and melania wearing high heels, I sincerely doubt it. There was a time when everyone unanimously agreed that that kind of shit was horrible, but now we have millions viewing that kind of criticism legit.
> 
> The SJW/regressive left disaster is here to stay and it's not a "fringe" anymore. It's mainstream.


That was mostly the media doing that, wasn't it?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> That was mostly the media doing that, wasn't it?


Nope. FLOTUS is trending because of her high-heels.

Here's the Ann Frank Centre


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902637630378139649
More than shameful.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Nope. FLOTUS is trending because of her high-heels.


Ehhh, I don't count Twitter that much these days.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Ehhh, I don't count Twitter that much these days.


Well, sure, but it's still full of the so-called thought influencers so it does actually matter. The sheep are bleating their tune and won't stop.

Give it half a day or so, and there will be someone at least in here bringing it up unironically.

That said, there is a positive to all this bullshit. More and more people are joining conservative ranks daily. I think that leftists who are innately rational are probably really puzzled by all this and that trickle might get them to at least start reading the other side and over time realizing that it's not a bunch of hateful ignorant ********.


----------



## CamillePunk

Twitter is where it all goes down.


----------



## Reaper

Personally, I think her being able to rock those heels on wet pavement is kind of admirable. I've only ever seen women look up at women who can do shit in heels with awe. So I'm sure she inspired millions today without even attempting to do so :trump


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Personally, I think her being able to rock those heels on wet pavement is kind of admirable. I've only ever seen women look up at women who can do shit in heels with awe. So I'm sure she inspired millions today without even attempting to do so :trump


I've tried on heels because I took the piss out of some female friends for always taking their shoes off at the end of a night out...Women are fuckin crazy tbh. Not only do you have to have the balance of a cheetah it's like deliberately destroying your ankles and balls of your feet for fashion sake. I don't get it.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've tried on heels because I took the piss out of some female friends for always taking their shoes off at the end of a night out...Women are fuckin crazy tbh. Not only do you have to have the balance of a cheetah it's like deliberately destroying your ankles and balls of your feet for fashion sake. I don't get it.


It's not just fashion. 

It flexes the calf muscles, tightens the ass and makes them look taller all in one go. 

It's part of their mating ritual.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> It's not just fashion.
> 
> It flexes the calf muscles, tightens the ass and makes them look taller all in one go.
> 
> It's part of their mating ritual.


It's still fucking crazy lol.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's still fucking crazy lol.


Yah. My wife stopped wearing them regularly 2 years into marriage :mj2 

But when she does wear them :homer


----------



## Reaper

The Washington Post :kobelol 

This is the sort of shit that used to be on Tabloid stands. And then they whine when called #fakenews


----------



## FriedTofu

Screw Trump and his product placement during Harvey. Screw liberals for using Harvey to attack Trump.

But can we all come together and agree it was great to see everyone bashing Ted Cruz and Texas GOP congressmen for their response during Hurricane Sandy?


----------



## Reaper




----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

What are "scarcely shoes"

Is it too much to ask of these virtue signaling losers for them to use the English language at a level higher than that of a 4 year old


----------



## Reaper

Imagine being so vile that you not only come up with this idea in your head but actually manage to have it published. 

The loonys are so desperate and used to spouting hate that it feels like it's hurting them that something good is happening in the wake of a national disaster. 

American unity cohesion and the spirit of goodwill is torture to these people. 










You can see the pain and hurt of this individual in their headline... 

So much suffering.


---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902643833577627648
They look more like homeless thugs and junkies than educated anti-fascists who would know anything at all about the politics they're fighting for. 

Something is off about these "protestors".


----------



## deepelemblues

^ Read the actual column, it is about 95% incoherent gibberish :heyman6

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ton_doesn_t_showcase_america_at_its_best.html


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> ^ Read the actual column, it is about 95% incoherent gibberish :heyman6
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ton_doesn_t_showcase_america_at_its_best.html


Yeah... I figured it would be. Read enough of this crap in the past to waste my click on them and add to their revenue.

---

Trump as always weell ahead of every one in Washington


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902676213231108096
And this is why Trump won and the Dems are losing every battle. 

He's ahead of the curve when it comes to politics and his Street smarts ensure that his pulse is on reality before others catch on. 

The antifa should now be registered as the terrorists they are and shipped off to GITMO.


----------



## Art Vandaley

#allcitiesmatter


----------



## deepelemblues

For your "all the editors at Slate were busy huffing nitrous with the woman who wrote this piece" reading pleasure:



> Why It’s Misleading to Say That Houston Showcases “America at Its Best”
> 
> Natural disasters shouldn’t be used for the purpose of national mythmaking.
> 
> With the debilitating rain in Houston fell a rain of inspiriting images. Everywhere on Twitter, in the papers, in internet slideshows, we saw Texans improvising rescue canoes and gathering scared dogs in their arms, bearing them away to safety. First responders waded into the water-choked arteries of the city and dragged people out of cars. Uniformed men hoisted grandmothers on their backs (like Jason fording the river with the goddess Hera on his shoulders) while, elsewhere in the country, beer companies filled cans with fresh water and celebrities spearheaded donation drives.
> 
> The flood, the animals: It all felt so mythic. In coverage of Harvey, the word hero is almost as ubiquitous as the stills of intrepid reporters, their rain slickers swirling like capes, and hunky National Guardsmen in life jackets. During a speech to the press on Monday, President Donald Trump noted that crisis showcases “the best in America’s character—strength, charity, and resilience.” (This was a reprieve from his popcorn-gobbling tweets about Harvey’s unprecedented, riveting destruction.) The Washington Times echoed Trump with a piece spotlighting the many Clark Kents and Diana Princes vaulting into action: “Hurricane Harvey Brings Out the Best in America.” There is an adage that “adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.” *<- these two introductory paragraphs are the only part that isn't incoherent gibberish*
> 
> But does catastrophe illustrate, or does it transform? *<- the column never actually tells us if it illustrates, or transforms* What if America is less a glorious nation of do-gooders awaiting the chance to exercise their altruism than a moral junior varsity team elevated by circumstance? *<- another question the column never answers. Plus, she is describing the exact same thing as if it is two different things. a "moral junior varsity team" that does the moral thing can hardly be described as a moral junior varsity team, dumbass* In her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster, Rebecca Solnit argues that emergencies provoke from us a conditional virtue. They create provisional utopias, communities in which the usual—selfish, capitalistic—rules don’t apply. *<- the threat of thousands of people suffering and dying creates a 'provisional utopia.' Good God* “Imagine a society,” Solnit writes, “where the fate that faces [people], no matter how grim, is far less so for being shared, *<- the fate of the people in southeast Texas or in any disaster is no less grim because everybody is trying to help them. Again, Good God* where much once considered impossible, both good and bad, is now possible or present, and where the moment is so pressing that old complaints and worries fall away, where people feel important, purposeful, at the center of the world.”
> 
> The point here is obviously not to diminish the bighearted men and women who rose to the occasion when Harvey, a “once-in-a-lifetime” storm with a spiraling death toll, slammed into Texas. *<- don't contradict your thesis. Geez* But it is misleading to characterize Houston as an exhibition of the “best of America” when what it represents is a contingent America, a “paradise” specific to the “hell” around it. *<- yes, the most charitable people on the face of the earth and in all of human history are acting very strangely by being extremely charitable towards those suffering and in danger in Texas* These waterlogged suburbs have become zones of exemption, where norms hang suspended and something lovelier and more communal has been allowed to flourish in their place. *<- got that, people? eight feet of water on the ground that wasn't there a week ago allows something lovelier and more communal to flourish* Disaster scientists have repeatedly punctured the myth, perpetuated by Hollywood and the media, that cataclysm awakens our worst selves. Rather, disruptive events loosen our mores just enough to permit new kinds of compassion. As Slate reported in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, researchers at the University of Colorado–Boulder discovered “that panic is not a problem in disasters; that rather than helplessly awaiting outside aid, members of the public behave proactively and prosocially to assist one another; that community residents themselves perform many critical disaster tasks, such as searching for and rescuing victims; and that both social cohesiveness and informal mechanisms of social control increase during disasters, resulting in a lower incidence of deviant behavior.”
> 
> These findings put a frame around the cooperative society that has lately emerged in Houston: It is a beautiful anomaly, a liquid note of silver momentarily liberated from its sheath of rust. *<- it's not America's problem that you're so ignorant of the strength of America's civil society and unity, lady.* The inverse of such a phenomenon is the bystander effect, by which individuals might walk past someone prone in the street without offering aid. We rarely feel responsible for a stranger’s suffering if others around us seem unmoved or if we can comfortably assume that some nearby person will step in to help instead. Humans may possess inherent goodness, but that goodness needs to be activated. Some signal has to disperse the cloud of moral Novocain around us. Some person, or fire, or flood, has got to say: now. *<- maybe for this pathetic woman it has to, but for the 99.99999% of the population that doesn't write for the web's most prominent amateur webzine, Slate, we don't need the 'signal' of a humongous disaster to help others and providing that help isn't an anomaly. Also, who decided this was a good concluding paragraph? A 9th grade English teacher would 'provisionally' give this garbage a D and investigate whether most or all of it was plagiarized from multiple sources, considering the polished language but awful structure and non-existent logic*


I'm fairly certain the writer is a sociopath.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> You're quoting a guy who uses triggered snowflake as an insult in the same post as taking people seriously. I'm sure most of us see the irony.


That is his go to phrase when he cants defend Trump. The only people I never see get triggered in this thread are Trump supporters when people call out Trumps BS.




deepelemblues said:


> ^ Read the actual column, it is about 95% incoherent gibberish :heyman6
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ton_doesn_t_showcase_america_at_its_best.html


Oh so you mean like your posts


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> The train of conversation simplified so that maybe you can understand what has actually transpired:
> 
> 1. I am talking to Middy about how social welfare and fiscally poor policies have created a situation in blue states where costs of living is higher than red states
> 2. To this you response with claiming that red states receive more in welfare
> 
> To this I respond with WHY cost of living is lower in Red States and also include a study which shows that blue states DO INDEED receive more in federal funding than red states - which actually makes perfect sense.
> 
> Nowhere do you acknowledge or admit that welfare recipients in red states have anything to do with democrats in red states also receiving that welfare or that maybe even the divide can be better examined at the county level. Perhaps I should have done that too but I figured that we laid that conversation to a rest after I brought up the fact that democrats in red states exist. At the American state level you also have counties where are split between red/blue so ultimately what we should conclude is that we need to go into far more detail than we did.
> 
> However, none of what you said contained enough nuance to have a rational conversation over - despite the fact that I was trying to have one. Your knee-jerk reaction was to immediately toss in the idea --- without doing research I might add --- that and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You are, if not worse, just as bad as BM. I have tried several times to have decent conversations and that conversation between us could have gone a lot better, but you called something retarded without even having enough information on the subject
> 
> An idea that was debunked in The Blaze article which you never read which I urged you to read ... but since you never read it, you still harped on the whole "state expenditures" thing later on.
> 
> The interesting thing here is that since you're not actually sure about what it is you're really saying/suggesting, you make half claims in non-clear words.
> 
> If you had bothered to read the article I posted, you would have changed your mind about republican states receiving more welfare because it is untrue.
> 
> Finally, what else, if not implying that republicans receive the major chunk of welfare spending were you actually even doing in that half-baked comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who this sneakiness of yours works on, but you're not fooling anyone. The implication here is clear and it's pathetic.
> 
> This is one of the main reasons why I consider you a BSer/Troll in this thread.
> 
> If win/loss doesn't matter to you, then you'd actually attempt to have rational debates like so many others do with me instead of turning it into a pissing contest --- without even reading the articles I ask you to read so that we can have an actual/proper discussion which was my full desire at that point.
> 
> There are plenty on here that I have very decent discussions with. Both on the left, middle and right. You and BM are the only ones that actually turn things into a waste of time and energy. This is why you're both trolls. I'm done with trying to have conversations with you. Won't happen again.


Wow a whole post without saying triggered? 

So in actual fact I never said what you originally claimed and took the piss out of me for, so you lied. I had laid that conversation to rest because I didn't really have the knowledge to carry on and i couldn't be arsed to research it, so in a way you 'win' that one. Then to drag it out days later and completely lie about and not even bother to put it in mentions is shitty and you can't even admit you did it.

I forgot that I implied you'r point of view was akin to a paedo, now I remember doing it and I completely stand by it, you may not be a pedo but if you look at a child and think you want to marry them you're sure as hell thinking like one, and I don't want you anywhere near my daughter.


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> Screw Trump and his product placement during Harvey. Screw liberals for using Harvey to attack Trump.
> 
> But can we all come together and agree it was great to see everyone bashing Ted Cruz and Texas GOP congressmen for their response during Hurricane Sandy?


Isn't there a sense of irony that you're using Harvey to bash both sides? I don't think the nature of the disaster should impede criticism of how it's handled surely? Whether the criticism of Trump is justified is another matter, for the record despite deepemblems post, I don't have an issue with the handling. I whole heartedly agree with the ted Cruz baashig though, he's a disaster.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> Isn't there a sense of irony that you're using Harvey to bash both sides? I don't think the nature of the disaster should impede criticism of how it's handled surely? Whether the criticism of Trump is justified is another matter, for the record despite deepemblems post, I don't have an issue with the handling.


I've bashed both sides all the time in this thread. Tell me what was wrong in my statements about both side's conduct.


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> I've bashed both sides all the time in this thread. Tell me what was wrong in my statements about both side's conduct.


I already did, the nature of a disaster does not negate being critical of its handling. Overly politicizing tragedies are something both sides do, you only have to look at that Charlie kid dying and the right wing nutjobs using it to attack single payer health care., sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not. IF Trump was handling Harvey wrong then it would absolutely be justified to attack him.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> I already did, the nature of a disaster does not negate being critical of its handling. Overly politicizing tragedies are something both sides do, you only have to look at that Charlie kid dying and the right wing nutjobs using it to attack single payer health care., sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not. IF Trump was handling Harvey wrong then it would absolutely be justified to attack him.


You have no issue with how he is handling Harvey. So why are you having issue with me bashing liberals for using Harvey to bash Trump?


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> You have no issue with how he is handling Harvey. So why are you having issue with me bashing liberals for using Harvey to bash Trump?


I was under the impression you were using the nature of the disaster and not the validity of the criticism, it's probably my misreading it. People always use the don't politicize X, I must have mistook your original post.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> I was under the impression you were using the nature of the disaster and not the validity of the criticism, it's probably my misreading it. People always use the don't politicize X, I must have mistook your original post.


No biggie. Even my jab at Ted Cruz was from politicians politicising Harvey. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

Some people actually complaining President Trump came to Texas *too soon!* What the fuck did they expect him to do?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Apparently this is fine and acceptable on Twitter.


----------



## CamillePunk

Holy shit I love this image. :lol



Spoiler: white guilt


----------



## Reaper

@DesolationRow 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902329501035634688
:kobelol

---

And there you have it. The SCUMBAG Berkley Mayor has sympathies towards terrorists: 



Spoiler: multiple large images





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855457030190092288




















This explains Berkley.

--
@RavishingRickRules --- As suggested yesterday, SK and Japan need to draw their own red lines and looks like the response was swift. 

Maybe I should be a political strategist :hmmm 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4831230/North-Korea-launches-missile-Japan.html



> Within hours of Kim's missile launch, South Korea had responded with an 'overwhelming show of force' by bombing a shooting range near its border to the North as part of a military drill, launching footage which contained a stern warning to Kim Jong-Un.
> 
> Seoul dropped eight Mark 84 bombs with four F15K fighter jets near Taebaek, Gangwon-do province, and released footage of the drill along with a video of its own ballistic missile tests conducted last week.
> 
> 'If North Korea threatens the security of the South Korean people and the South Korea-US alliance with their nuclear weapons and missiles our air forces will exterminate the leadership of North Korea with our strong strike capabilities,' South Korean Colonel Lee Kuk-no warned in the video.
> 
> A statement from Seoul later on Tuesday echoed this sentiment, saying South Korea is 'fully ready for any threat from the North'.
> 
> 'We strongly condemn the North's yet another provocation despite a grave message sent through Resolution 2371 adopted by the international community in the wake of its repeated strategic provocations,' the government said in a statement published by Yonhap news.
> 
> 'We are fully ready for any threat from the North and will make unwavering efforts to protect the lives of our people and the security of our nation,' it said.
> In the wake of the launch, Trump spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
> 
> According to a readout released by the White House, 'The two leaders agreed that North Korea poses a grave and growing direct threat to the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, as well as to countries around the world.'


America should stay out of this for as long as is possible and offer strategic help instead of going in guns blazing themselves imo.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reaper said:


> Obama released even Terrorists from GITMO, he wasn't appealing to his terrorist base ... or was he :hmmm
> 
> OMG, I brought OBAMA up. MUST DISCREDIT IMMEDIATELY. *reeee*.
> 
> I've actually been holding off doing this because the narrative spin has become increasingly toxic around it as I was expecting it to go away on its own. But since it's not, then I think at this point it's fair to bring this up simply because of *the disingenuous nature of allegories like the above. What the fuck do you mean pandering to his base? If presidents have ever pardoned any criminal before does that mean that they're pandering to that specific criminal base?*


Arpaio is known to be popular among Trump supporters, often elevated to folk hero status. What's wrong with admitting that? An Arpaio pardon was wanted, expected even, and Trump delivered for them. 

But there's more to the Arpaio pardon; he's not just a symbol for a certain approach to crime, he's a loyal Trump ally. Is there an active investigation into financial connections between Trump and several iffy investors, both foreign and domestic, with clear ties to Russia's seedier monetary world? Yes. Has Trump tried, rather ineptly since he appears to think politics works like the business world, to squash it? Yes. Are his associates being subpoenaed and, in at least one known case, having their properties searched? Yes. Does Trump have a reputation as a man who demands loyalty and may, if that loyalty includes throwing yourself under the bus for him, reward that? Yes. Would he want to prove that right now? I'm not a mind reader but it's safe to assume that yes, he most definitely would want to. 

Look, presidential pardons happen. I don't think they should, but it's one of those odd things US presidents are allowed to do that confuse me. There's a political component to nearly all presidential pardons, including this most recent one from Trump, a president who is promoting himself as hard on crime to a point of advocating abusive use of force. His comments, both in speeches and online, and several of those he's chosen as advisers add a racial and nationalistic component to his crime-and-punishment stance. Arpaio is a symbol for both. This was a precisely timed and planned pardon.



Reaper said:


> Obama released hundreds of crack dealers and drug traffickers ... does that make him one? Does that mean that his voter base is full of crack dealers and drug traffickers? What a flight of fancy. What amazing logic fpalm
> 
> The focus on what Trump does is fine. It should be there. But the fact that we're supposed to not EVEN compare his current actions to his predecessor because it becomes "deflection" is a farce created by people who don't want to admit that Presidents do shit we don't like or agree with.


I don't know, maybe because pardons are not all the same? I'm sure its been said already, but _Ok, but what about him?_ is the argument children use. It's pointless and goes nowhere. 

But why am I even responding to this? For one, it's not directed at me. Second, I can't have a discussion with you. Once a person has proven they don't see the world as you do, and won't potentially come around to your viewpoint, you go into dismissive and rude mode. Rather than exasperation at idiots as claimed, it comes across as a fear response, as if, once you recognize someone who isn't going to "red pill", you want us out of your safe space before our heretical ideas infect any true believers. 

I'm not a troll and I'm not a cunt. I'm not the enemy. I'm not deceived or naive. I'm not stupid or lazy either. I'm well-read and well-informed, just as much and quite possibly more so than you, though that shouldn't be interpreted as arrogant and isn't intended as such. However, I'm not a conservative thinker and I'm certainly not an advocate for Trump or his politics. With the exception of condemning Trump's horrid "very fine people" statement, I wander in here once in a while out of curiosity, the same reason I sometimes read comments on sites like Breitbart - it gives me a peek into a world I don't understand. My curiosity is sated for now so I'll leave you to your ranting about "leftists". Have fun.


----------



## Draykorinee

GothicBohemian said:


> Arpaio is known to be popular among Trump supporters, often elevated to folk hero status. What's wrong with admitting that? An Arpaio pardon was wanted, expected even, and Trump delivered for them.
> 
> But there's more to the Arpaio pardon; he's not just a symbol for a certain approach to crime, he's a loyal Trump ally. Is there an active investigation into financial connections between Trump and several iffy investors, both foreign and domestic, with clear ties to Russia's seedier monetary world? Yes. Has Trump tried, rather ineptly since he appears to think politics works like the business world, to squash it? Yes. Are his associates being subpoenaed and, in at least one known case, having their properties searched? Yes. Does Trump have a reputation as a man who demands loyalty and may, if that loyalty includes throwing yourself under the bus for him, reward that? Yes. Would he want to prove that right now? I'm not a mind reader but it's safe to assume that yes, he most definitely would want to.
> 
> Look, presidential pardons happen. I don't think they should, but it's one of those odd things US presidents are allowed to do that confuse me. There's a political component to nearly all presidential pardons, including this most recent one from Trump, a president who is promoting himself as hard on crime to a point of advocating abusive use of force. His comments, both in speeches and online, and several of those he's chosen as advisers add a racial and nationalistic component to his crime-and-punishment stance. Arpaio is a symbol for both. This was a precisely timed and planned pardon.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe because pardons are not all the same? I'm sure its been said already, but _Ok, but what about him?_ is the argument children use. It's pointless and goes nowhere.
> 
> But why am I even responding to this? For one, it's not directed at me. Second, I can't have a discussion with you. Once a person has proven they don't see the world as you do, and won't potentially come around to your viewpoint, you go into dismissive and rude mode. Rather than exasperation at idiots as claimed, it comes across as a fear response, as if, once you recognize someone who isn't going to "red pill", you want us out of your safe space before our heretical ideas infect any true believers.
> 
> I'm not a troll and I'm not a cunt. I'm not the enemy. I'm not deceived or naive. I'm not stupid or lazy either. I'm well-read and well-informed, just as much and quite possibly more so than you, though that shouldn't be interpreted as arrogant and isn't intended as such. However, I'm not a conservative thinker and I'm certainly not an advocate for Trump or his politics. With the exception of condemning Trump's horrid "very fine people" statement, I wander in here once in a while out of curiosity, the same reason I sometimes read comments on sites like Breitbart - it gives me a peek into a world I don't understand. My curiosity is sated for now so I'll leave you to your ranting about "leftists". Have fun.


We're all trolls eventually to him, won't be long and he'll go in to fill GIF mode and post how triggered you are.

No one is as fevered about the left than the reaper.


----------



## krtgolfing

Reaper said:


> Apparently this is fine and acceptable on Twitter.


Apparently there are a lot of assholes. Yet republicans are the bad people I thought. I loved the teacher at University of Tampa got fired for saying Texas deserved to be hit with the hurricane. I would never wish harm to anyone because of their political party. But hey Democrats seem to like to bitch and moan over every little thing. Even bitched because the shoe choice of Mrs. Trump. But I guess when you are earning welfare you have nothing better to do.


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> Arpaio is known to be popular among Trump supporters, often elevated to folk hero status. What's wrong with admitting that? An Arpaio pardon was wanted, expected even, and Trump delivered for them.


You mean a guy whose name was barely ever tossed out before the actual pardon is popular amongst Trump supporters? By what measure are you determining his popularity or loyalty? 



> But there's more to the Arpaio pardon; he's not just a symbol for a certain approach to crime, he's a loyal Trump ally. Is there an active investigation into financial connections between Trump and several iffy investors, both foreign and domestic, with clear ties to Russia's seedier monetary world? Yes. Has Trump tried, rather ineptly since he appears to think politics works like the business world, to squash it? Yes. Are his associates being subpoenaed and, in at least one known case, having their properties searched? Yes. Does Trump have a reputation as a man who demands loyalty and may, if that loyalty includes throwing yourself under the bus for him, reward that? Yes. Would he want to prove that right now? I'm not a mind reader but it's safe to assume that yes, he most definitely would want to.


More Russia delusion. Doing business with Russia or having ties with Russian businessmen is not illegal. Illegal things have not happened otherwise after 8 months of extreme scrutiny, evidence would have been presented. But keep waiting and thinking that there's a smoking gun somewhere. It doesn't make you pragmatic. It makes you delusional. 



> Look, presidential pardons happen. I don't think they should, but it's one of those odd things US presidents are allowed to do that confuse me. There's a political component to nearly all presidential pardons, including this most recent one from Trump, a president who is promoting himself as hard on crime to a point of advocating abusive use of force. His comments, both in speeches and online, and several of those he's chosen as advisers add a racial and nationalistic component to his crime-and-punishment stance. Arpaio is a symbol for both. This was a precisely timed and planned pardon.


There is nothing wrong with nationalism. There's nothing wrong with having a tough on crime stance. There's nothing wrong with targeting the most violent communities -- which in America have a weirdly racial component to them, out of a series of events and structures that also need to be broken down - which I believe that the communities are responsible for doing themselves. 

None of the people in Trump's administration have actually had any kind of racist past nor advocacy of any kind of policy that would even be remotely construed as having a racial component. Not a single policy or bill has been pushed by the executive office that has a racial component to it. Not one. In 8 months of this so-called racist administration being in power. 

Stop using nationalism like it's some sort of a dirty word because ultimately that is the kind of thinking that makes me think you're indoctrinated, because other than a simple assertion that nationalism is innately evil, the kind of nationalism Trump advocates and is advocating through his America-first ideology (which actually gets tempered in his real policy positions) is not toxic. 

Toxic nationalism has not existed in the western world for decades since the end of WWII. Western civilization has already learnt its lesson and at this point the toxic nationalist that you seem to be alluding to exists in groups (that are actually neither left, nor right except on the basis of some very creative propaganda) that in America are so deeply infiltrated and discredited that they barely have any power to push any kind of anti-liberty/fascist ideology. 

What we have is pro-liberty/small government freedom first nationalism which relies largely on pushing policies that favor American businesses and that is a perfectly valid form of nationalism. There's nothing wrong with it. 



> I don't know, maybe because pardons are not all the same? I'm sure its been said already, but _Ok, but what about him?_ is the argument children use. It's pointless and goes nowhere.


As I already said, "whataboutism" is largely brought up when an equivalence is made that is unpalatable and restrictive to the narrative pushing of one side over the other. If there is an actual equivalence to be made --- especially in this case, then whataboutism in and of itself isn't a logical fallacy. 

It then becomes a form of repressive, one-sided limited thinking that does not take the larger context into perspective. It's ultiamtely myopic in world-view formation. If you only consider one president's single pardon, then you end up with the kind of narrative you're pushing about the racial/pandering nature of this one particular presidential pardon and miss the context like I was suggesting. 



> But why am I even responding to this? For one, it's not directed at me. Second, I can't have a discussion with you. Once a person has proven they don't see the world as you do, and won't potentially come around to your viewpoint, you go into dismissive and rude mode. Rather than exasperation at idiots as claimed, it comes across as a fear response, as if, once you recognize someone who isn't going to "red pill", you want us out of your safe space before our heretical ideas infect any true believers.


Irony overload. I've pointed this out before. And here it is again. 


> I'm not a troll and I'm not a cunt. I'm not the enemy. I'm not deceived or naive. I'm not stupid or lazy either.


Didn't think you are. I just think that you are dismissive of posts that challenge you. 



> *I'm well-read and well-informed, just as much and quite possibly more so than you,** though that shouldn't be interpreted as arrogant and isn't intended as such. *However, I'm not a conservative thinker and I'm certainly not an advocate for Trump or his politics. With the exception of condemning Trump's horrid "very fine people" statement, I wander in here once in a while out of curiosity, the same reason I sometimes read comments on sites like Breitbart - it gives me a peek into a world I don't understand. My curiosity is sated for now so I'll leave you to your ranting about "leftists". Have fun.


That's very contradicting. You admit that you venture once in a while out of curiousity but it's obvious that you don't actually immerse yourself into the deepest parts of the nuanced conversation happening on the right ... and claim that you're more well-read than I am. 

This is not what I claim at all. I have admitted several times when I've been wrong about stuff. In fact, my entire existence before Trump came along was defined wholly and solely of leftist politics like yourself. From 1999-2010 I was an anarcho-anti-capitalist (not something I'm proud to admit) so I immersed myself into all forms of leftist thought. As late as 2015 I was advocating for climate change, social welfare and even sympathetic to BLM. 

I read and quoted Chomskey, idolized Michael Moore, was pro-feminist, appreciated Canada's social welfare systems, applauded Pierre Trudeau for his amazing programs and advocated Keynesian economics --- but that was before I even knew the kind of conversation happening with pro-capitalist/small government circles since my advocacy was much like yours. Deeply one-sided --- without having a deeper understanding of capitalist/laissez faire economics and the ills of big government. 

Eventually, I deconstructed them and kept on deconstructing them. I didn't understand right wingers at first either, but then I immersed myself into them. The best way to learn about a group is to become part of the group and not just sit there as an observer with a passing curiosity. Knowledge is one thing. Experiential knowledge is an entirely different beast altogether. I'm not just a physical nomad and drifter, I'm also an ideological one. Immersion is key to understanding. 

I don't care if hard-liners like yourself don't ever see things my way. I know first-hand how hard it is to break away from the indoctrination. I've broken away from two different sets of indoctrinated beliefs (one in religion and the other in lefist anti-capitalist politics) and reshaped my entire existence and lifestyle. 

In other words, don't call me arrogant when you are full of pride in how "probably more well-read you are than I am". This is what makes me rude in conversations with you and others. While I'm self-aware of my arrogance (trust me, I know. I've been called arrogant since I was just a wee 9 year old) and actively project it intentionally, I don't hide behind a false bravado of faux humility.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Holy shit I love this image. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: white guilt


:grin2:

That girl's face is hilarious.


----------



## Reaper

This is SO fucking relevant in light of the conversation above :lmao 

Remove the race-baiting from this and it's actually quite relevant to discourse and how we have it overall! 

http://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com..._source=theroot_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow



> *Polite White People Are Useless*
> 
> I’m not quite sure if Glory is a great movie. I know that I enjoy watching it. I know that it featured one of the greatest movie scores of all time. (So great that the then-11-year-old me actually went out and bought the soundtrack on a cassette tape. Which probably explains why I didn’t have a girlfriend.) I know that Denzel’s tear deserved its own special Oscar. But considering that the entire movie was told from the perspective of Matthew Broderick’s Robert Gould Shaw instead of the runaway slaves-turned-solders making up the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts—which probably would have made for a much more compelling movie—I’m not quite sure if it could (or should) still be considered great.
> 
> It did, however, have many great individual scenes. Including one when the 54th crosses paths with an all-white Union regiment that just lost a battle. Words are exchanged, and a small skirmish begins. During the altercation, Morgan Freeman’s Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins attempts to break up a couple of fights. One of the white solders notices the stripes on Rawlins’ uniform—indicating that he’s an officer—and quips, “Stripes on a ......? That’s like tits on a bull.” Of course, the root of the solder’s insult was that a black officer is a paradox. What blackness meant to him and what being an officer meant to him were such opposing and incongruous concepts that a black man with stripes was obscene, absurd and ultimately useless.
> 
> Polite white people—specifically, polite white people who call for decorum instead of disruption when attempting to battle and defeat bias and hate—aren’t as paradoxical as tits on a bull. But they’re just as useless. They provide no value, they move no needles, they carry no weight (metaphysically and literally) and they ultimately just get in the way. They’re humanity’s tourists: the 54-mile-per-hour drivers in the left lane refusing to get the fuck out of the way so others can pass. And if you get enough of them in one place, they cause accidents.
> 
> Unfortunately, they’re every-fucking-where. They’re on Facebook threads and sitting behind you at work. They’re your neighbors and (sometimes) your family members. They’re Academy Award-nominated actresses on Twitter and college professors named “Mark Lilla” peddling terribly premised books about identity politics. Sometimes they ask for level heads, lest we become what we’re fighting against. Which is like saying, “Hey, don’t kill that fly, man, because you’re going to turn into a fly.” Sometimes they misquote MLK. Or Gandhi. Or Mother Teresa. Or Papa fucking Smurf. But you can always find them somewhere, attempting to defeat violence with the devil’s advocacy and danishes.
> 
> Of course, these are not bad people. At least not Martin Shkreli bad. They’re just so goddamn inert, and that inertia is dangerous. It’s unwise to mistake their lack of movement with futility. Because this type of idling does make a difference. Just the wrong kind of difference. It can be seductive and sublime. Who doesn’t want to believe that love bombs are enough to devastate hate? Who wouldn’t want to know that good manners win if the manners are good enough? Think about how much less stress battling white supremacy and police brutality would induce if all you needed to do to defeat it was drink a bottle of Pepsi.
> 
> Ultimately, this laser focus on niceness and decorum is just a way of policing behavior. Politeness in the face of violence, and terror is a privilege exclusive to them. They just don’t have as much to lose if everyone stays polite and kind and sober. If things happen to change while we’re nice as fuck to each other, great! If not, well, great, too. It’ll still be Wednesday. And bulls still won’t have tits.


He's so obviously not on my side of the political spectrum, but I feel like he's preaching on my behalf :lol 

*Fuck civility. It's just another form of repressive/oppressive discourse policing. * 

Part of why I love Trump. He don't give no shits about fee fees. Just as I never have.


----------



## krtgolfing

Reaper said:


> This is SO fucking relevant in light of the conversation above :lmao
> 
> Remove the race-baiting from this and it's actually quite relevant to discourse and how we have it overall!
> 
> http://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com..._source=theroot_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
> 
> 
> 
> He's so obviously not on my side of the political spectrum, but I feel like he's preaching on my behalf :liquor
> 
> *Fuck civility. It's just another form of repressive/oppressive discourse policing. *
> 
> Part of why I love Trump. He don't give no shits about fee fees. Just as I never have.


I guess I will go kill myself since I am useless and provide to benefit to society.. :gun


----------



## Reaper

krtgolfing said:


> I guess I will go kill myself since I am useless and provide to benefit to society.. :gun


:woah there Nelly. 

Everybody is useful. Even the #useful idiots that remind us why we shouldn't put certain public policies into place.


----------



## Oxidamus

Idk anything about this Arpaio situation except what I saw on a recent episode of *PHIL DEFRANCO'S SHOW ON YOUTUBE* ( :drose ) so I'll gladly admit I don't know what I'm talking about, but from what I did hear, I get the problem, but at the same time I see his point of view. What he was pardoned for is basically something that should be debated properly in regards to legality (it's obviously not legal but... maybe it should be), but it's shut down before that is able to happen. So... I dunno. Plus, the guy's old and didn't commit a violent crime (did he?) so no point having him be held in any way, whether that be in jail, house arrest, or being unable to travel to certain areas.


----------



## krtgolfing

Reaper said:


> :woah there Nelly.
> 
> Everybody is useful. Even the #useful idiots that remind us why we shouldn't put certain public policies into place.


I am good. IDC what the media says about stupid shit like this. When we have people making fun of the people who voted for Trump during this hurricane it just comes to show me where we are in this society. I help design heat exchanges/ steam generators/ etc. for power plants and other manufacturing facilities. Your welcome America. I also volunteer with a pet organization in the area. A lot of more fun than dealing with humans!


----------



## deepelemblues

After KTVU anchor Frank Somerville shared his experience of being targeted by antifa, it appears that the MSM floodgates have opened and the pile-on of antifa has commenced... although I still think the real reason is that the MSM is getting vewwwwy concerned that antifa is going to wreck the Democratic Party's chances in 2018. 

The Washington Post published an almost totally unequivocally negative article about them.

Then the LA Times.

Then The Atlantic.

Now it's Bloomberg's turn...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...osal-for-america-s-fascists-and-anti-fascists

After several weeks of trying to rationalize their violence and portray them as morally superior to Nazis, even analogous to GIs invading Nazi-occupied France in 1944, the MSM turn on antifa has been swift and savage. 

:trump showing he's just ahead of the curve once again, the MSM is now parroting his remarks in the post-Charlottesville press conference that the MSM went insane over. :trump3

A good rule would be to withhold judgment of any :trump remarks for a minimum of 2 weeks, because it's 100% guaranteed that after those 2 weeks all the Very Important Media People condemning :trump for those remarks will *suddenly* be tacitly acknowledging :trump was right all along...


----------



## Reaper

Looks like today's viral news about the scumbag Berkley mayor got him to reverse his stance too. Asshat is now denouncing them.

Looks like Pelosi at least has one good advisor and it's now clear with the media narrative shifting as well who controls the media.

Trump is king. He is the god emperor of this reality. Everyone follows him. Even those who hate him. 

Guess the fucking RINOs are now the only ones that look like losers. :kobelol

American politics are shaping up nicely. 

But I'm not sick of winning yet. I need more. 

:trump


----------



## deepelemblues

The WaPo pile-on continues, although it is presented that antifa's real crime is that their violence only helps Nazis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.78d5a07649a8

The MSM is super concerned at the damage antifa is doing to the Left in general and to the Democratic Party in the eyes of the great unwashed masses: CONFIRMED.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.6563831e500b
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-antifa-kass-met-0830-20170829-column.html


----------



## virus21

Not surprised. The MSN realize how toxic Antifa are and how the bulk of people, left and right, view them as out of control thugs. Right now Antifa are starting to devolve in there MO and it will get to the point that any ally they have is going to turn on them and we are seeing it.


----------



## DOPA

@Reaper @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Oxidamus @deepelemblues @Fringe @Dr. Middy @krtgolfing


Over the last few days I've seen a noticeable shift among some in the MSM and on leftist outlets who are now openly denouncing Antifa. This of course is positive news, the more outlets who openly condemn and denounce Antifa then the more people will be informed about this groups violent rhetoric and actions it has committed for over a year and a half. 

I've seen the LA times report recently about the events that occurred at Berkeley with less than flattering analysis of the far left. I've seen MSNBC of all outlets not only denounce Antifa but criticize Berkeley for not protecting free speech :CENA and call Antifa the real fascists :CENA. The latest of course now being that Nancy Pelosi coming out and condemning Antifa which is a huge piece of news to say the least.

I'm of course pleased by all of this but MSNBC in particular took me completely off guard with how much of a firestorm response they had towards Antifa. Pleasantly surprised. I remember when Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, someone who I've lost a tonne of respect for in recent months was bitching and crying about MSNBC hiring more "Conservative" reporters. Well if it means that they actually do some decent reporting eventually and actually analyze what is actually happening on the ground then you won't get any complaints from me.

Having said all this, I'm also not stupid and can see quite clearly that there are ulterior motives as to why the MSM and left wing outlets would now suddenly turn the corner on Antifa. It's been pretty clear from the start that the MSM and left wing media supporting Antifa would do nothing but hurt their cause for both the mid terms coming up in 2018 and most importantly in defeating their now arch nemesis in Trump. By either ignoring or outright promoting a domestic terrorist group like Antifa all they would have done in the long term is drive moderates and center left people into the arms of Trump. Not because they agree with Trump at all but because of how insane a significant element of the left have become. 

This is also significant because of how they have handled political violence from the left or collectivist groups in the past. When there were riots being committed by Black Lives Matter for example in Milwaukee the MSM brushed it aside as protests than what it actually was which was a violent riot. That was just one example and the MSM continued to support BLM despite all of this. The main difference of course being that there were a tonne of peaceful protests within BLM along with a significant amount of violence. So the MSM could in this case ignore the violent elements of BLM and act like it was nothing to do with the group itself. Antifa on the other hand, there is no way to spin what is happening with that group and I think some of the corporate elites have started to realize this and reel it in before it's too late.

Now do I think it's all of the reason for this turn? No I don't. I'm sure there are individuals in the outlets who have turned the corner on Antifa or had always not supported them but were too busy focusing on the other end of the spectrum, that being the white identitarian groups. On the other hand, you can't tell me that speech from Pelosi was of her own volition considering her history. If I had to guess, I'd say a member of her staff team advised her to do this and if so it was very smart move at this particular moment.

What's funny is how long it has taken some of these outlets to finally come around and condemn Antifa. The left absolutely threw a fit because in their view, Trump didn't disavow from the white nationalists and white supremacists fast enough after Charlottesville. It took him a day to do so by name. I do agree Trump could have handled it better, I think the speech was too tepid and wasn't like Trump at all and he should called them all out by name including Antifa. But it does once again show a cognitive dissonance and a hypocrisy among the left and Trump's critics. They complained Trump took too long to condemn the white identitarian groups yet it has taken *3 weeks* since Charlottesville for any of the MSM or left wing outlets to disavow and condemn the political violence on their side, that being Antifa. Not only that but it's the months before that where Antifa have shown up and beaten not only "far right" activists but general Trump supporters, free speech activists and now as we have seen with the latest at Berkeley: liberals and Anti-Marxists.

I mean, could I now for example claim that the likes of the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The Independent, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Democratic Party etc. have all aided and embedded Communists and are Communist sympathizers? Because using the logic of some leftists who said the exact same thing of Trump supporters and Republicans *despite* the vast majority of them disavowing and completely condemning the actions of the alt right I could certainly flip that round and say that.

I'm not going to though, because unlike some people on the left, I realize some truths: Antifa are not at all a reflection of the Democratic Party at large and neither are the Alt Right a reflection of the Republican Party. They are two fringe racial collectivist groups who should be vehemently opposed by anyone who has a shred of belief in Individualism as opposed to collectivism.

What is interesting though is that a lot of key republican politicians immediately came out and condemned the white supremacists and this got further backed up later as the Republican Party formally denounced White Supremacist groups: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...AAqHYkL?li=AA59G3&%252525253Bocid=mailsignout



> NASHVILLE — The Republican National Committee passed a resolution denouncing white supremacy Friday afternoon, an extraordinary attempt to exclude racist groups from the Republican Party in the wake of violence in Charlottesville, Va., and the mixed messages that followed from President Trump.
> 
> The RNC resolution says that the “racists beliefs of Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists and other like-minded groups are completely inconsistent with the Republican Party’s platform.” It was part of a package of 12 statements, and all passed together on a voice vote. There was no public opposition.
> 
> “There is very strong language in that resolution. It all happens to be true,” said Morton Blackwell, the RNC committee member from Virginia, who was the only member to discuss the resolution on the floor before it passed. “I’m pleased to say, I think obliged to say, that every person who came to Charlottesville that day intending violence was evil.”
> 
> Ron Kaufman, a RNC member from Massachusetts, said the party wanted to be clear that hate groups do not have a home in the GOP.
> 
> “What we were worried about — are worried about — is that some of these hate groups are trying to steal our identity,” Kaufman said after the vote. “We wanted to be very clear that these people have no place in the Republican Party.
> 
> The White House reviewed all of the resolutions passed by the RNC, including the one condemning white supremacy. A spokesperson for Trump didn’t immediately respond to a question about whether the White House suggested any modifications.
> 
> After a woman was killed in Charlottesville on Aug. 12, Trump condemned hatred and bigotry on “many sides,” prompting immediate criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans who felt he was drawing a moral equivalency between white supremacists and the counterprotesters.
> 
> White nationalist groups celebrated Trump’s words, pleased that the president didn’t immediately condemn them.
> 
> Two days later, Trump read a more traditional statement from the Diplomatic Room of the White House where he denounced the KKK and white nationalists by name. But the following day, during a free-wheeling news conference at Trump Tower in New York, Trump defended his initial remarks.
> 
> Trump’s equivocating on hate groups prompted chief executives from top US companies to resign from White House business councils, leading Trump to dissolve the councils. The response has also caused multiple charity groups to cancel galas at Trump’s Mar-a-lago resort in Florida.
> 
> Gary Cohn, the president’s top economic adviser, who is Jewish, considered leaving the administration over the president’s response and even drafted a letter of resignation, according to The New York Times. He ultimately decided to stay in his role.


Yet we have yet to see the Democrats formally denounce the extreme far left collectivist groups on their side, namely Antifa. And whilst we have seen individuals like Nancy Pelosi who I give credit to for coming out and speaking against Antifa, we also have other democrats like Elizabeth Warren who refuse to openly condemn Antifa: http://www.dailywire.com/news/20264/elizabeth-warren-wont-condemn-antifa-any-frank-camp



> On Wednesday, during an interview with WBSM, a New Bedford radio station, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) condemned violent behavior from groups like Antifa, but did so in a way that wouldn't alienate those groups in 2020.
> 
> Here's her exchange with host Tim Dunn:
> 
> DUNN: After specifically condemning the KKK, neo-Nazis, and other white supremacist groups following Charlottesville, President Trump drew criticism from some suggesting that both sides were responsible for the violence on Saturday. Absent the presence of white nationalists, left-wing protesters threw bottles of urine and rocks at police officers. The same occurred last night in Phoenix following the president's rally. Are you prepared to condemn violence on that part of the left-wing agitators, such as Antifa, as you have the right-wing, white nationalist group? “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon,” “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” are some of the things they've chanted. Do you care to comment on that?
> 
> WARREN: Violence is not the way to go. Violence is not the way to advance our interests. But let's be really clear about what Donald Trump did. He said that there were a lot of good people marching with Nazis and white supremacists. Those are not good people when they march with Nazis and white supremacists, period.
> 
> DUNN: Is Antifa, those people we saw on the Boston Common, are they good people?
> 
> WARREN: I didn't see them marching. What I saw were people who are Nazis and white supremacists. And Donald Trump said those are good people marching with them. They are not good people.
> 
> DUNN: But referring to the Boston Common, I mean, 40,000, the peaceful demonstrators versus the very littl e—
> 
> WARREN: People who march with Nazis and white supremacists are not good people.
> 
> You can listen to the exchange here (the pertinent portion begins at the 5:38 mark):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senator Warren did commendable work here posturing for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Rather than answer the questions asked of her, she virtue-signaled by repeating what everyone already knows (white supremacists = bad), and she offered a general condemnation of leftist violence without getting too specific.
> 
> Warren can't condemn Antifa with any degree of specificity because many in the progressive movement have openly praised the violent tactics of the militant reprobates. Following Charlottesville, mainstream media figures compared the actions of Antifa to the Allied Forces storming the beaches of Normandy during WWII.
> 
> Further, as Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro wrote at National Review:
> 
> In the pages of the Washington Post, historian Mark Bray of Dartmouth University gushed over antifa’s “willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence” Professor N. D. B. Connolly of Johns Hopkins University called for Americans to “start throwing rocks” at white supremacists.
> 
> Physical violence in response to disagreeable speech is quickly becoming acceptable in more mainstream progressive circles, and groups like Antifa are being lionized as vigilante protectors.
> 
> In order to avoid alienating an increasingly prominent voting block, Warren must virtue-signal, and speak in light generalities when asked to condemn the behavior of Antifa. If she missteps even a little, she can kiss the 2020 crown goodbye.


Now personally, I don't believe that people in general have to keep denouncing groups as a form of virtue signalling that you are a good person because your actions in general will speak for you. But this is the standard that the MSM and leftists have now set themselves in their treatment of Trump and the GOP. My main point isn't to defend Trump or the GOP, I honestly don't care about either and only like certain individuals from both parties. 

What I don't like is hypocrisy and that is what we are seeing here. One standard for the corporate MSM, the Democrats and the leftists and another for the rest of us. We have to adhere to a moral standard in which they don't have to, and this is why you didn't see any of them come out and criticize Antifa until now.

But unlike them, I'm not going to throw a fit because it took them three weeks. Better late than never is all I can say to MSNBC, Pelosi and the LA Times. At least you have the integrity to tell the truth.


----------



## Reaper

Pelosi isn't just anybody. She's the leader if the Democratic party and unlike the Republicans she speaks for her party

Nancy Pelosi made a smart move to divide Republican base as she saw them pansy ass motherfuckers tooting the Democrats tune. 

It was a well time assault and the Republican base is furious at their RINOs for falling behind Nancy in this case. 

Now that some of the RINO morons have openly defended the antifa, Republicans are more divided than ever and Democrats have once again reasserted their political dominance over a hapless party of cowards. 

It's a great play. And it's worked. Going into 2018 Republicans will be weak as fuck. Their political capital is eroding and so is voter confidence. Note that it also comes at a time when Trump did an amazing job during Hurricane Harvey and solidified his voter base even more. Shrewd play by Pelosi and the Democrat media. Trump is more isolated than ever and Republican voters are furious.

Love it from a political strategy POV. 

:clap


----------



## Miss Sally

It only takes a 5 minute Google search to know what Antifa is.

This is just a ploy to protect themselves in the upcoming elections and if they had kept supporting Antifa and one of those lunatics kills someone you can kiss all the moderates goodbye.

Maybe they seen the last videos where Antifa members attacked a few Hispanics who were just in the area.

In the end it doesn't matter, they called them out and that's good enough for me. 

Maybe now people will stop trying to put extremist groups in a positive light.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> Because Nancy Pelosi made a smart move to divide Republican base as she saw them pansy ass motherfuckers tooting the Democrats tune.
> 
> It was a well time assault and the Republican base is furious at their RINOs for falling behind Nancy in this case.
> 
> Now that some of the RINO morons have openly defended the antifa, Republicans are more divided than ever and Democrats have once again reasserted their political dominance over a hapless party of cowards.
> 
> It's a great play. And it's worked. Going into 2018 Republicans will be weak as fuck.


The GOPe isn't going to be running midterm efforts, :trump will be after several RINOs like Jeff Flake crash and burn in their primaries.

Just like they eventually did in 2016 the RNC, RNCC, RNSC etc. will get in line. They certainly aren't going to not use the cash advantage they have and are going to have on the Democrats. 

Nancy Pelosi will most likely still be around as the best conservative voter turnout operative since 2004 Karl Rove.

The insane structural weaknesses of the Democratic Party are being ignored by the media in favor of the narrative of :trump and :trumpers splitting the Republican Party. This happens every election, the Republican president or putative leader of the Party is presented as so extreme or in possession of some other negative quality (or qualities) that he is turning some large faction of Republican voters off to the Party and it will spell disaster. Doesn't happen more often than it does.

All the GOP has to do is pass one major legislative item and, along with the consuming desire of all conservatives to keep Nancy Pelosi from being Speaker and the added desire of :trumpers to keep her from trying to impeaching :trump, :trumpers and non-:trumper conservatives will show up to vote next year. 

Tax reform is about to be attempted, succeed at passing something and the Democrats won't be able to overcome their own weaknesses.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> It only takes a 5 minute Google search to know what Antifa is.
> 
> This is just a ploy to protect themselves in the upcoming elections and if they had kept supporting Antifa and one of those lunatics kills someone you can kiss all the moderates goodbye.
> 
> Maybe they seen the last videos where Antifa members attacked a few Hispanics who were just in the area.
> 
> In the end it doesn't matter, they called them out and that's good enough for me.
> 
> *Maybe now people will stop trying to put extremist groups in a positive light.*


I hope so but I don't have much faith with some people to be honest.


----------



## Vic Capri

There's a bunch of people protesting President Trump in Houston because you know fuck helping your fellow man / woman. :lol



> Looks like today's viral news about the scumbag Berkley mayor got him to reverse his stance too


Remember when Headliner said he didn't believe in deep state conspiracy theories? Life comes at you fast. 

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> There's a bunch of people protesting President Trump in Houston because you know fuck helping your fellow man / woman. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Gee I wonder why when Trump goes to TX and he talks about how big the crowd size is and how the turnout is instead of just focusing on the people of TX of course Trump had to make it about him.


----------



## Oxidamus

L-DOPA said:


> Over the last few days I've seen a noticeable shift among some in the MSM and on leftist outlets who are now openly denouncing Antifa. This of course is positive news, the more outlets who openly condemn and denounce Antifa then the more people will be informed about this groups violent rhetoric and actions it has committed for over a year and a half.


Too fucking late man. People are still arguing about how bad the white nationalist (umbrella term) shit in Charlottesville was without mention of ANTIFA whatsoever. *STILL*.

I agree at least in part with @Miss Sally but I'd have to see it all unfold with my own eyes, something I can't do because Straya, which is why everything is in retrospect for me.

We'll see the next step. The MSM to challenge the leftist indoctrination of students as young as four? If so, steps are being made. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

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

- Vic


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> Remember when Headliner said he didn't believe in deep state conspiracy theories? Life comes at you fast.
> 
> - Vic


Correct because I actually have sense.


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you for the mention, @Reaper. Yes Berkeley city politics are... A bit on the Soviet side. :lol It's deeply unfortunate but not surprising.

And an excellent post from @L-DOPA; thank you for your mention as well. 

I have met Frank Somerville and he is as kind and milquetoast a liberal fellow as one could find, pleasant and generally well-informed as local news anchors go. Even if he were a raving madman, however, nothing would excuse or rationalize his being attacked by antifa "protesters." This is a bit reminiscent of how media reacted to riots in the 1960s, whether they were perpetrated by antiwar radicals, militant blacks or, in some instances, police officers: media members who are assaulted tend to stand out like neon lights and attract universal sympathy from media while those responsible for the violence are finally cast as cretinous brutes. 

It seems that presently the times, they are a-changin'... :aryep 

And I look forward to seeing :trump trample the "RINOs" like Jeff Flake and others in 2018 as per @deepelemblues's prognostications. :banderas :dance :dance


----------



## deepelemblues

DesolationRow said:


> Thank you for the mention, @Reaper. Yes Berkeley city politics are... A bit on the Soviet side. :lol It's deeply unfortunate but not surprising.
> 
> And an excellent post from @L-DOPA; thank you for your mention as well.
> 
> I have met Frank Somerville and he is as kind and milquetoast a liberal fellow as one could find, pleasant and generally well-informed as local news anchors go. Even if he were a raving madman, however, nothing would excuse or rationalize his being attacked by antifa "protesters." This is a bit reminiscent of how media reacted to riots in the 1960s, whether they were perpetrated by antiwar radicals, militant blacks or, in some instances, police officers: media members who are assaulted tend to stand out like neon lights and attract universal sympathy from media while those responsible for the violence are finally cast as cretinous brutes.
> 
> It seems that presently the times, they are a-changin'... :aryep
> 
> And I look forward to seeing :trump trample the "RINOs" like Jeff Flake and others in 2018 as per @deepelemblues's prognostications. :banderas :dance :dance


He's down 47-21 to Kelli Ward of all people :lmao


----------



## Reaper

Very cool as these two States are the most deeply divided in the country in terms of their politics. 

Loving the National unity right now.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Correct because I actually have sense.


:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

deepelemblues said:


> He's down 47-21 to Kelli Ward of all people :lmao


Amazing. :banderas :lol :trump

The coattails are real. :woo


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> :lol


You know what's funny? You Trump supporters love to call liberals or anyone on the left "snowflakes", but let's explore snowflake behavior shall we? You got so much in your feelings when I shitted on your deceitful, fiction, lying ass post about Obama being the blame for shutting down the government in 2013, that you reported my post for flaming. I ask the staff if they seen any flaming in the post and the response was no. Because there wasn't any. Was I mean? Yes, because it was necessary. Flaming and being mean are not the same thing. 

So then, someone comes in this thread and says I should ban you for trolling. I actually come to your defense by telling him that even though you're quite frankly delusional, you are welcome on this forum. Only for me to get a notification hours later that you had PM'd another admin to ask for the admins to remove me as an admin. Of course that failed.

So what's funny now? You can keep up with your delusional posts. You can keep laughing because you think you know something. I'll continue to be here to check you on your toxic posts when I feel it's necessary. Now go ahead and PM a different admin to ask for my removal and see if you get somewhere this time.










-Headliner


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> You know what's funny? You Trump supporters love to call liberals or anyone on the left "snowflakes", but let's explore snowflake behavior shall we? You got so much in your feelings when I shitted on your deceitful, fiction, lying ass post about Obama being the blame for shutting down the government in 2013, that you reported my post for flaming. I ask the staff if they seen any flaming in the post and the response was no. Because there wasn't any. Was I mean? Yes, because it was necessary. Flaming and being mean are not the same thing.
> 
> So then, someone comes in this thread and says I should ban you for trolling. I actually come to your defense by telling him that even though you're quite frankly delusional, you are welcome on this forum. Only for me to get a notification hours later that you had PM'd another admin to ask for the admins to remove me as an admin. Of course that failed.
> 
> So what's funny now? You can keep up with your delusional posts. You can keep laughing because you think you know something. I'll continue to be here to check you on your toxic posts when I feel it's necessary. Now go ahead and PM a different admin to ask for my removal and see if you get somewhere this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Headliner


As each day passes you can see the Trump supporter snowflakes in this thread melting. They are all coming unhinged, it's pretty amusing to watch, to be honest.


----------



## Pratchett

Oxidamus said:


> Idk anything about this Arpaio situation except what I saw on a recent episode of *PHIL DEFRANCO'S SHOW ON YOUTUBE* ( :drose ) so I'll gladly admit I don't know what I'm talking about, but from what I did hear, I get the problem, but at the same time I see his point of view. What he was pardoned for is basically something that should be debated properly in regards to legality (it's obviously not legal but... maybe it should be), but it's shut down before that is able to happen. So... I dunno. Plus, the guy's old and didn't commit a violent crime (did he?) so no point having him be held in any way, whether that be in jail, house arrest, or being unable to travel to certain areas.


Razorfist did an interesting video on Arpaio. As he lives in Arizona I found his take to be relevant. I would link it for you but currently on my phone and can't be arsed. You are smart enough to find it anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Idk anything about this Arpaio situation except what I saw on a recent episode of *PHIL DEFRANCO'S SHOW ON YOUTUBE* ( :drose ) so I'll gladly admit I don't know what I'm talking about, but from what I did hear, I get the problem, but at the same time I see his point of view. What he was pardoned for is basically something that should be debated properly in regards to legality (it's obviously not legal but... maybe it should be), but it's shut down before that is able to happen. So... I dunno. Plus, the guy's old and didn't commit a violent crime (did he?) so no point having him be held in any way, whether that be in jail, house arrest, or being unable to travel to certain areas.


Arpaio violated the constitution and ignored a court of law telling him to stop. You think that is ok? So you think if a crime isn't violent then it should just be let go? Really dude?

The Trump apologists in this thread never cease to amaze me. Of course, the right doesn't care when it's violating minorities, gay or women's rights but the second anyone even thinks about changing gun laws you all cry about it and stream SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Yeah, violating peoples, civil rights isn't a big deal


I can't even take Trump, apologist, seriously.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> You know what's funny? You Trump supporters love to call liberals or anyone on the left "snowflakes", but let's explore snowflake behavior shall we? You got so much in your feelings when I shitted on your deceitful, fiction, lying ass post about Obama being the blame for shutting down the government in 2013, that you reported my post for flaming. I ask the staff if they seen any flaming in the post and the response was no. Because there wasn't any. Was I mean? Yes, because it was necessary. Flaming and being mean are not the same thing.
> 
> So then, someone comes in this thread and says I should ban you for trolling. I actually come to your defense by telling him that even though you're quite frankly delusional, you are welcome on this forum. Only for me to get a notification hours later that you had PM'd another admin to ask for the admins to remove me as an admin. Of course that failed.
> 
> So what's funny now? You can keep up with your delusional posts. You can keep laughing because you think you know something. I'll continue to be here to check you on your toxic posts when I feel it's necessary. Now go ahead and PM a different admin to ask for my removal and see if you get somewhere this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Headliner


I realize you think that, but people here think the oposite about you. Your second last sentence can easily be flipped around as a response to your own posts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I realize you think that, but people here think the oposite about you. Your second last sentence can easily be flipped around as a response to your own posts.


Just because more people in a Trump thread agree doesn't mean anything. You can go to a Christian forum and they can all agree that evolution is wrong or that bible (genesis) is right, it doesn't mean what they are agreeing on is correct.

They're things called facts something Trump supporters love to ignore. Maybe you will learn that one day.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Just because more people in a Trump thread agree doesn't mean anything. You can go to a Christian forum and they can all agree that evolution is wrong or that bible (genesis) is right, it doesn't mean what they are agreeing on is correct.
> 
> They're things called facts something Trump supporters love to ignore. Maybe you will learn that one day.


I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> I realize you think that, but people here think the oposite about you. Your second last sentence can easily be flipped around as a response to your own posts.


You think I don't know that? You think I give a fuck? Honestly. I'm never in the dark about anything here.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> Arpaio violated the constitution and ignored a court of law telling him to stop. You think that is ok? So you think if a crime isn't violent then it should just be let go? Really dude?
> 
> The Trump apologists in this thread never cease to amaze me. Of course, the right doesn't care when it's violating minorities, gay or women's rights but the second anyone even thinks about changing gun laws you all cry about it and stream SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
> 
> Yeah, violating peoples, civil rights isn't a big deal
> 
> 
> I can't even take Trump, apologist, seriously.


Dave stop fucking purposely misrepresenting the points. I said because he's an old ass dude and not a danger to society he shouldn't be jailed in any definition of the word. Just like I would say about literally every non-violent criminal. I also acknowledged what he did was illegal but it should be discussed instead of being swept under the Rug of Liberalism.

The same thing with the gays. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage, which is a huge issue in Australia right now, but I do *NOT* support the idea that everyone who opposes it is necessarily a homophobe.

Also, you know who it is right? Oxi? The Australian? Why would I give a shit about conservative America's obsession over their "rights" like gun control? I don't even fully support their idea of free speech. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Dave stop fucking purposely misrepresenting the points. I said because he's an old ass dude and not a danger to society he shouldn't be jailed in any definition of the word. Just like I would say about literally every non-violent criminal. I also acknowledged what he did was illegal but it should be discussed instead of being swept under the Rug of Liberalism.
> 
> The same thing with the gays. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage, which is a huge issue in Australia right now, but I do *NOT* support the idea that everyone who opposes it is necessarily a homophobe.
> 
> Also, you know who it is right? Oxi? The Australian? Why would I give a shit about conservative America's obsession over their "rights" like gun control? I don't even fully support their idea of free speech. :lmao



He is a danger to society unless you don't think that minorities count. He broke the law, he violated civil rights, the courts told him to stop and he ignored it. He should be held accountable. 

The guy is a racist and was illegally profiling Latinos. That is a huge deal and like I said is against the Constitution. But Trump wanted to pardon his racist friend for doing Trumps racist bidding. 

If you are against gay marriage you are a bigot, put what ever label you want on it. 

And yes I know who you are and I will call you out when it's warranted, I don't care what your stances are on other issues. You even admitted you did not know much about this case, so you probably should not even be commenting on it since you don't seem to have all the info.

But if you think its ok to break the Constitution as long as it's not violent then I guess you don't care about anyone's civil rights being violated as long as there is no violence against them. If you really think that then you are way too far gone over the deep end.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> You think I don't know that? You think I give a fuck? Honestly. I'm never in the dark about anything here.


All im saying is there's more than your own side of a discussion and none of us on any side are heralded crusaders of justice. We only believe ourselves to be so. Hence, I don't get why you think it matters. We're all still gonna call each other full of shit.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> He is a danger to society unless you don't think that minorities count. He broke the law, he violated civil rights, the courts told him to stop and he ignored it. He should be held accountable.
> 
> But if you think its ok to break the Constitution as long as it's not violent then I guess you don't care about anyone's civil rights being violated as long as there is no violence against them. If you really think that then you are way too far gone over the deep end.


He's a danger with power. Without power, what is he going to do? Accountable, sure, but how are you going to hold an 85 year old accountable without putting them in jail? Fine him and take some excess funds if he has any, but other than that... put an 85 year old man in jail for non-violent crimes? No I don't agree with that. I also disagree with putting someone of that age in financial hardship, especially in the US with that healthcare.

It's not ok to break the constitution, but it's ok to find loopholes, abuse them, have states and politicians do exactly that, and rewrite them? Exactly why it needs to be talked about. Just like almost everything in politics. Stop blanketing everything.


----------



## nucklehead88

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903044918100316165
When you're losing Fox News...


----------



## birthday_massacre

nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903044918100316165
> When you're losing Fox News...


Trump cant stop winning can he LMAO


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> He's a danger with power. Without power, what is he going to do? Accountable, sure, but how are you going to hold an 85 year old accountable without putting them in jail? Fine him and take some excess funds if he has any, but other than that... put an 85 year old man in jail for non-violent crimes? No I don't agree with that. I also disagree with putting someone of that age in financial hardship, especially in the US with that healthcare.
> 
> It's not ok to break the constitution, but it's ok to find loopholes, abuse them, have states and politicians do exactly that, and rewrite them? Exactly why it needs to be talked about. Just like almost everything in politics. Stop blanketing everything.


He was breaking the law the courts order him to stop and he didn't, they gave him a chance and he kept violating peoples civil rights, he should have gone to jail. Age should have no bearing on if you should go to jail or not, the crime is all that matters.

You keep going on about this non-violent crime thing, its not like it was for pot, he was violating Latinos civil rights, that is a huge offense. It's against the constitution.

No its not ok to find loopholes and exploit them especially when it comes to civil rights. You have to be kidding me Oxi.

Also not sure how I am blanketing anything, we are talking about one issue here. 

The guy was a racist and abuse his power, he should be in jail.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> He was breaking the law the courts order him to stop and he didn't, they gave him a chance and he kept violating peoples civil rights, he should have gone to jail. Age should have no bearing on if you should go to jail or not, the crime is all that matters.
> 
> You keep going on about this non-violent crime thing, its not like it was for pot, he was violating Latinos civil rights, that is a huge offense. It's against the constitution.
> 
> No its not ok to find loopholes and exploit them especially when it comes to civil rights. You have to be kidding me Oxi.
> 
> Also not sure how I am blanketing anything, we are talking about one issue here.
> 
> The guy was a racist and abuse his power, he should be in jail.


Well that's where we just disagree then, no one's really right or wrong. I don't think an 85 year old man who isn't a threat to society should go to jail. You think he should. Your reason is fine, I just don't agree. Yes it's the law but I disagree with law.

I think it's ironic though, usually the liberal type are the ones that are anti-law and order and open to challenging the status quo but you're being very conservative-ish in your stance. By that I mean, supporting the status quo and being pro-law and order, which is a conservative mindset.


----------



## DOPA

Tim Pool educating RINO morons on Antifa.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> Well that's where we just disagree then, no one's really right or wrong. I don't think an 85 year old man who isn't a threat to society should go to jail. You think he should. Your reason is fine, I just don't agree. Yes it's the law but I disagree with law.
> 
> I think it's ironic though, usually the liberal type are the ones that are anti-law and order and open to challenging the status quo but you're being very conservative-ish in your stance. By that I mean, supporting the status quo and being pro-law and order, which is a conservative mindset.


He was never going to go to jail btw realistically he was getting a fine. 

He wasn't going to be sentenced until October, Trump's action was identity politics through and through.

The President pardoning someone who for breaching the constitution is potentially unconstitutional. The pardon power comes from the constitution, so it theoretically can't be used to overrule other parts of the constitution. Not 100%, but if it went to the Supreme Court it'd be a fascinating decision.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> He was never going to go to jail btw realistically he was getting a fine.
> 
> He wasn't going to be sentenced until October, Trump's action was identity politics through and through.
> 
> The President pardoning someone who for breaching the constitution is potentially unconstitutional, because pardon power comes from the constitution it theoretically can't be used to overrule other parts of the constitution. Not 100%, but if it went to the Supreme Court it'd be a fascinating decision.


I didn't think he was anyway. I think the crux of this entire thing is Trump wants to make what Arpaio did legal. And I mean, maybe it should be. At least put yourself in the position of someone who wants a hard crackdown on illegal immigration. You live on a state bordering Mexico where Mexicans come from, you wouldn't stop whites or blacks (maybe Asians by accident) to check their status, would you? Random checks would be pointless at have no result. 

I don't even really think I agree, I can just see the point. You might say it's discrimination though, but we discriminate every day, against every thing. The difference is fair or unfair, and this is both.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> I didn't think he was anyway. I think the crux of this entire thing is Trump wants to make what Arpaio did legal. And I mean, maybe it should be. At least put yourself in the position of someone who wants a hard crackdown on illegal immigration. You live on a state bordering Mexico where Mexicans come from, you wouldn't stop whites or blacks (maybe Asians by accident) to check their status, would you? Random checks would be pointless at have no result.
> 
> I don't even really think I agree, I can just see the point. You might say it's discrimination though, but we discriminate every day, against every thing. The difference is fair or unfair, and this is both.


That Trump wants to make something unconstitutional legal is exactly the problem though.

The answer to that is a referendum to change the constitution, the President can't and shouldn't be able to change/overrule the constitution.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> That Trump wants to make something unconstitutional legal is exactly the problem though.
> 
> The answer to that is a referendum to change the constitution, the President can't and shouldn't be able to change/overrule the constitution.


They said that about the travel ban too, which was a lie. But can you more clearly define it for me? I don't know or care to know the constitution of the US and I'm not being facetious.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> They said that about the travel ban too, which was a lie. But can you more clearly define it for me? I don't know or care to know the constitution of the US and I'm not being facetious.


The Supreme Court just refused to rule on the travel ban effectively, the idea it was ruled constitutional isn't true. They put the date they'd consider it after the date it was supposed to end. 

Basically the rule being used here isn't that complicated, "the law" has to treat everyone equally and Arpaio in his position as Sheriff ie " the law" was openly treating people differently based on their skin colour. If you were white you wouldn't get stopped, if you were brown you would.


----------



## Reaper

Open this tweet and read the entire thread by Victor. It's fascinating reading. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/902626403467661312
I feel bad for children in this environment. 

These are well-meaning children who have been heavily radicalized through a combination of "interdisciplinary" training that has entirely focused on beating the idea into their heads that there are winners and losers in society and that there are massive conspiracies and "institutions" in place that need to be destroyed in order to have no "losers". It's an amazing tale of the "HAVES" telling other "HAVES" they themselves are part of the system that is creating a society of losers based on bunk theories, quasi-anti-scientific intellectual sounding theories in indoctrination centers. 

Most universities now have "Social Justice Studies" programs whose only goal is to convert children into "Warriors", "activists" community organizers and government lobbyists. 

For example from University of Miami: 










Kansas: 












> The primary goal of social justice is to ensure all groups have the opportunity to receive resources equally.


That is literally the most basic definition of communism. Equal distribution of resources. 

No matter which Social Justice Study program you look at, the core value there is always going to be equal redistribution of resources. It's repackaged Communism. Sociology programs are Marxist content heavy (I'm one such graduate) and the entire structure is designed to inculcate the idea in people's heads the inequality in and of itself is evil and that no one should have more than someone else. Without ever recognizing that people end up having unequal resources at times as a result of their ability, opportunity and the will to work hard. Etc etc, but that debunking is essentially the same as debunking all of communism. 

Social Justice Warrior is an interesting choice of words too because while some of these kids don't go too far, they're actually convinced that they are warriors and therefore others do internalize the Warrior word and sees himself/herself as nothing BUT a real fighter. 

Now I'm coming to my real point. There is a connection here I've been noticing a lot in the actions of the Social Justice Warriors and radicalized Muslims. Similarities. But obviously no conspiracy. The similarity is primarily in promoting action over ideological debate which is where the Antifa comes in. Almost all members of Antifa are college educated to some degree. If not, then they're being led by those who are college educated and recruited by them via social media. This is a tactic currently being employed by ISIS and has also worked with the Taliban - who were once the Social Justice Warriors of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just with different ideologies and goals ... but how they were created is very similar to how Western Social Just Warriors are being created and how they're becoming ripe for recruitment by terrorist groups like Antifa. 

In this case recruitment by terrorist groups is a simple matter of organizing. The indoctrination has happened at the "medressah". 

It's interesting evolution in western society where the Islamist concept of the "medressah" has been replicated (probably as an unintended accident) and they're ALSO turning out the "student terrorist". 

Really quite fascinating - but also incredibly dangerous. Antifa needs to be snuffed out before it resorts to bombs and gun violence. Thankfully these are children who haven't gotten legit military training unlike Islamist terrorists otherwise we would be fucked. However, the problem lies in much the same way as it does in Muslim terrorism ... in the Medressah. 

This is quite literally why most of the warring is happening at colleges themselves. 

@DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @Plato; @Oxidamus


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> All im saying is there's more than your own side of a discussion and none of us on any side are heralded crusaders of justice. We only believe ourselves to be so. Hence, I don't get why you think it matters. We're all still gonna call each other full of shit.


There is a difference between being politically different and factually wrong. Which he normally is.


----------



## Reaper

This moron :mj4


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> This moron :mj4


There are so many characters in the republican party. It's like the the most retarded wrestling fed. Paul Ryan is like a caricature of the most oblivious man in politics, he can't understand that people can see that all he does is kiss ass. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> There are so many characters in the republican party. It's like the the most retarded wrestling fed. Paul Ryan is like a caricature of the most oblivious man in politics, he can't understand that people can see that all he does is kiss ass. :mj4


He's literally the very definition of a RINO though. 

He's not "republican" simply because he calls himself one. His condemnation coming after Pelosi's is just another feather in his dunce cap of shame.


----------



## Reaper

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/c...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> *College Giving Students Up To $1500 To Fund Protests*
> 
> Kalamazoo College’s Arcus Center is giving funds to students and staff to teach them about social justice issues and provide them money for protests.
> 
> The grants are meant to “provide opportunities to learn about a variety of social justice and human rights issues, develop new skills in organizing and leadership, *and take action on the issues that prospective applicants care most about,”* according to its website.
> 
> Grants range from $50 to $1,500 and go towards social justice trainings, conferences, protests, and *rallies*. Earlier this year, students received financial support to *attend an immigration rally in Washington, D.C., to advocate for “comprehensive immigration policies.”*
> 
> Past grants have also gone to an “Out of Work” conference which “focused on preparing LGBTQ individuals for participation in the job market after graduation from college” and to ERAC training, which included “over 40 Kalamazoo College students participat[ing] in a 2.5 day anti-racism workshop.”
> 
> *A Kalamazoo spokesman told Campus Reform Tuesday that the Arcus Center provided grants for students to “travel to and from organized events such as the Women’s March on Washington.”
> *
> *The spokesman did not reply to inquiries about why the “non-partisan” Center had funded Women’s Marchers but had not given grants to conservative and pro-life women who had requested grants to attend events like the March For Life.
> *
> Follow Grace on Twitter.


Funded partisan liberal issue only protests at an institution that's supposed to be bi-partisan.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> There is a difference between being politically different and factually wrong. Which he normally is.


I don't know what you two are/were arguing about but you did defend his right to speak here.

@Vic It's true, someone here asked/suggested why not Headliner just ban you and Headliner defended your right to post and speak here even if you guys disagree.

This is why Headliner is one of my favorite people here, don't always agree with him. Sometimes my brow raises at things said but Headliner is a good person who really does believe in allowing everyone to speak in this thread and in general.


----------



## Reaper

Sally is right. I don't like many of Liner's views and the way he's developed an almost unyielding rigid stereotype of conservatives (btw, for those leftists reading this and going "HYPOCRITE!", I actually don't have any stereotypes of you, but I do like provoking you because to me that's entertainment and I've made that known previously as well). 

I will simmer down on that voluntarily from now on. There's really no point. Time to be serious. :trump 

At the end of the day, what matters is that the kind of stuff most of us get to say on here would get us banned elsewhere. So in terms of respect for freedom of speech, this forum ranks amongst the highest on the internet. 

The debates we can have here are non-existent in many other forums. 

---

Final nail in the coffin for Bernie. 

DNC literally defends the case by saying that they didn't have to be fair in the selection process, and the judge agreed :lmao 










Apparently there are no fairness laws that can control rigged elections :lmao

That awkward realization that REALITY has folded into one GIANT The Onion article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-lawsuit-against-dnc/?utm_term=.9a86fcda37a7



> “We have a wealth of information that was released by WikiLeaks that comes from emails from officials of the DNC, as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign, which really, I think, flesh out and fill in the detail of this really seminal internal document that Guccifer released,” Jared Beck said. “These additional leaks have shown that DNC officials participated in creating and disseminating media narratives to undermine Bernie Sanders and advance Hillary Clinton.”
> 
> Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn’t really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses.
> 
> *“The party has the freedom of association to decide how it’s gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party,” said Spiva. “Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I’ll put it that way.”*
> 
> In the corners of the media where the lawsuit was covered most, that answer became infamous — proof that the defeated Democrats did not respect the will of the voters. “The DNC reportedly argued that the organization’s neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a ‘political promise,’ and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process,” a reporter for Newsweek wrote.


Bye Bye DNC voters. You guys are nothing but weapons to fund their corruption :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

> @Vic It's true, someone here asked/suggested why not Headliner just ban you and Headliner defended your right to post and speak here even if you guys disagree.


This is why the Ignore button was invented. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> That is literally the most basic definition of communism. Equal distribution of resources.


So social justice is akin to communism and radicalism? You are worse than the guys who think Trump is literally Hitler. Conflating the desire for a lack of inequality by cherry picking quotes from a paragraph is such a cheap tactic, one expects that from the 'literally Hitler' brigade, I guessed your anti-left wing agenda would get the better of you eventually and the Left wing would literally be communism...

Antifa are not about Social Justice.

All that you said about Social Justice is able to be turned around to those who are on the right. I would have given your post more credit had you discussed the dual aspect, but you didn't you just focused on the liberuls. I understand in a way this is the whataboutism that the right love to do and its slightly ironic, but I fundamentally disagree with your communism/radicalsim aspect anyway. 




Vic Capri said:


> This is why the Ignore button was invented.
> 
> - Vic


The ignore function does not stop you from seeing quotes, I used the ignore function but when you have people post 3 or 4 posts a page and half of them get quoted because they're so ludicrous\good its a useless function.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> So social justice is akin to communism and radicalism? You are worse than the guys who think Trump is literally Hitler. Conflating the desire for a lack of inequality by cherry picking quotes from a paragraph is such a cheap tactic, one expects that from the 'literally Hitler' brigade, I guessed your anti-left wing agenda would get the better of you eventually and the Left wing would literally be communism...
> 
> Antifa are not about Social Justice.
> 
> All that you said about Social Justice is able to be turned around to those who are on the right. I would have given your post more credit had you discussed the dual aspect, but you didn't you just focused on the liberuls. I understand in a way this is the whataboutism that the right love to do and its slightly ironic, but I fundamentally disagree with your communism/radicalsim aspect anyway.


I'm talking about SOCIAL JUSTICE STUDIES PROGRAMS AND THEIR CONTENT as well as their desire to create activists as communist in their nature, content and eventual beliefs as well as policy pushing. The idea of distribution of wealth by taking it from one class and redistributing it in other classes is about as marxist as you can get - which is one of the primary public policies pushed by Social Justice Warriors. 

Also I never said that all social justice warriors are ANTIFA. I said that they're easily recruitable because their heads are filled with nonsense that makes them vulnerable for recruitment. The programs push activism and promote going to rallies which are heavily left-biased and non-partisan and it makes them easy targets for recruiters and disorganized leftist terrorist groups. The similarity there is with the Muslim medressahs and there's no denying that at all which I see you haven't as that is the overall context of my hypothesizing. 

I am pro-social justice as long as the reasons for it are valid and not based on indoctrination received in colleges which have a heavy marxist leaning in their teachings. 

The modern social justice warrior that is being churned out from universities is very much a communist. If you look at the content of the curriculum of the programs themselves, you'll see that they're marxist/socialist heavy and rely on indoctrinating children into class warfare which is innately marxist/communist. Most social welfare advocacy takes its roots in the core marxist philosophies of class warfare and from the few to the many ideology through seizure of private assets (and that includes taxation).


----------



## Reaper

Here's examples from just one of the Social Justice Studies programs: 

The required courses list: 










The content of these courses:



> Central analytical problems in the study of social movements; *dynamics and significance of social movements in contemporary US politics and society.*





> SOCJ 201
> SOCJ 201 - INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE STUDIES
> 
> Various ways of conceptualiziang social justice; how the social sciences can be used to understand questions of social justice; *case studies in collective action*


 for social justice.



> *Americans generally don't like to talk or think about social class, and until quite recently we've been especially allergic to "working class" as a term or label. In the 2008 presidential election, the term "working class" was used quite a lot, but usually only to refer only to *white men in blue-collar jobs (who were assumed to be good at bowling!), rather than to the multiracial, mixed gendered, diverse occupations of the 21st Century American working class. Working-Class Studies is an emerging academic field that attempts to address this situation, in academic research and teaching and in our public discourse. This course will introduce Roosevelt students to this emerging field by focusing on a handful of issues in the social sciences of economics, political science and sociology (with only fleeting reference to work in the arts, humanities, and history), and then asking students to decide for themselves on the relevance of studying the working class in the ways presented.


Indoctrination into class warfare with a heavy negative tilt towards "whiteness" as evident in just the course description alone. 



> *Globalization and global economic crises have become household words, yet what do they really mean, who benefits, and who loses? This interdisciplinary course examines the phenomenon of globalization using economic, sociological, and feminist analyses to explore controversial themes of the globalization debate, some of which include: offshoring, economic development, international migration, sweatshops, transnational corporations, the Global South, and gender equity.* We will examine both the benefits and costs that have resulted from the opening and crossing of international boundaries and borders and examine how these changes have impacted people from both rich and poor countries throughout the world.


From the course description you can already realize that this is an anti-capitalist course. I actually took globalization courses during my sociology degree and that content is what made me anti-capitalist in the early 2000's. These courses are heavily anti-capitalist in nature --- which is an ideology that is HEAVILY shared by the anti-fascists and black bloc and therefore SJW's are easy pickings for them ... and we're already seeing that. A LOT of very well-meaning kids have ended up in the arms of anti-capitalist movements across the western world and economic freedoms are already being restricted and they're being pushed to be reduced more. 

I'm sure I can break down other courses and programs in a similar fashion. The content is there for everyone to see since it's publicly accessible. 

I'm not assuming things. I mean, I did have an anti-fascist /anti-capitalist past myself as a result of my sociology degree earned in 2001 so I kinda know what I'm talking about. 

All I'm saying is that I see a connection between Social Justice Warriors and leftist terrorism as a direct consequence of their brainwashing and indoctrination into marxist thinking in colleges.

As early as 2004. I'm so glad I found this article again:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social Justice-Code for Communism.htm



> *Social Justice: Code for Communism*
> By Barry Loberfeld
> FrontPageMagazine.com | February 27, 2004
> 
> The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?
> 
> To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.
> 
> This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable).
> 
> "The history of all existing society," he and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf ... oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a "society of status" to a "society of contract." Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History's class struggle -- "capitalism" -- with its own combatants: the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoisie." The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx's "classes" were not political castes but occupations.
> 
> Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."
> 
> *Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism -- the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources -- as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune while Jones is still stuck in that subway, it's not because of the "class" into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. That's why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others can't even get published. It is the choices of the masses ("the market") that create the inequalities of fortune and fame -- and the only way to correct those "injustices" is to control those choices.
> *
> Every policy item on the leftist agenda is merely a deduction from this fundamental premise. Private property and the free market of exchange are the most obvious hindrances to the implementation of that agenda, but hardly the only. Also verboten is the choice to emigrate, which removes one and one's wealth from the pool of resources to be redirected by the demands of "social justice" and its enforcers. And crucial to the justification of a "classless" society is the undermining of any notion that individuals are responsible for their behavior and its consequences. To maintain the illusion that classes still exist under capitalism, it cannot be conceded that the "haves" are responsible for what they have or that the "have nots" are responsible for what they have not. Therefore, people are what they are because of where they were born into the social order -- as if this were early 17th century France.
> 
> Men of achievement are pointedly referred to as "the priviliged" -- as if they were given everything and earned nothing. Their seeming accomplishments are, at best, really nothing more than the results of the sheer luck of a beneficial social environment (or even -- in the allowance of one egalitarian, John Rawls -- "natural endowment"). Consequently, the "haves" do not deserve what they have. The flip side of this is the insistence that the "have nots" are, in fact, "the underpriviliged," who have been denied their due by an unjust society. If some men wind up behind bars, they are (to borrow from Broadway) depraved only because they are "deprived." Environmental determinism, once an almost sacred doctrine of official Soviet academe, thrives as the "social constructionist" orthodoxy of today's anti-capitalist left. The theory of "behavioral scientists" and their boxed rats serviceably parallels the practice of a Central Planning Board and its closed society.
> 
> The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between "social justice" and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, we've noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law -- the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of "class" (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in "class" between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek's observation that if "we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position." The irresistable conclusion is that "the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically]" -- precisely the conclusion that the advocates of "social justice" themselves have always reached.
> 
> In the nations that had instituted this resolution throughout their legal systems, "different" political treatment came to subsume the extermination or imprisonment of millions because of their "class" origins. In our own American "mixed economy," which mixes differing systems of justice as much as economics, "social justice" finds expression in such policies and propositions as progressive taxation and income redistribution; affirmative action and even "reparations," its logical implication; and selective censorship in the name of "substantive equality," i.e., economic equality disingenuously reconfigured as a Fourteenth Amendment right and touted as the moral superior to "formal equality," the equality of political freedom actually guaranteed by the amendment. This last is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists that includes Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the "law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country." Interestingly, Hayek had continued, "Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other" -- a pronouncement that evidently draws no dissent.
> 
> Hayek emphasized another conflict between the two conceptions of justice, one we can begin examining simply by asking who the subject of liberal justice is. The answer: a person -- a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes of violence (robbery, rape, murder) against other citizens. Conversely, who is the subject of "social justice" -- society? Indeed yes, but is society really a "who"? When we speak of "social psychology" (the standard example), no one believes that there is a "social psyche" whose thoughts can be analyzed. And yet the very notion of "social justice" presupposes a volitional Society whose actions can (and must) be held accountable. This jarring bit of Platonism traces all the way back to Marx himself, who, "despite all his anti-Idealistic and anti-Hegelian rhetoric, is really an Idealist and Hegelian ... asserting, at root, that [Society] precedes and determines the characteristics of those who are [its] members" (R.A. Childs, Jr.). Behold leftism's alternative to liberalism's "atomistic individualism": reifying collectivism, what Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification."
> 
> Too obviously, it is not liberalism that atomizes an entity (a concrete), but "social justice" that reifies an aggregate (an abstraction). And exactly what injustice is Society responsible for? Of course: the economic inequality between Smith and Jones -- and Johnson and Brown and all others. But there is no personified Society who planned and perpetrated this alleged inequity, only a society of persons acting upon the many choices made by their individual minds. Eventually, though, everyone recognizes that this Ideal of Society doesn't exist in the real world -- leaving two options. One is to cease holding society accountable as a legal entity, a moral agent. The other is to conclude that the only practicable way to hold society accountable for "its" actions is to police the every action of every individual.
> 
> *The apologists for applied "social justice" have always explained away its relationship to totalitarianism as nothing more than what we may call (after Orwell's Animal Farm) the "Napoleon scenario": the subversion of earnest revolutions by demented individuals (e.g., Stalin, Mao -- to name just two among too many). What can never be admitted is that authoritarian brutality is the not-merely-possible-but-inevitable realization of the nature of "social justice" itself.
> 
> What is "social justice"? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism. And what is "socialism"? Domination by the State. What is "socialized" is state-controlled. So what is "totalitarian" socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything? And what is that but the absence of a free market in anything, be it goods or ideas? Those who contend that a socialist government need not be totalitarian, that it can allow a free market -- independent choice, the very source of "inequality"! -- in some things (ideas) and not in others (goods -- as if, say, books were one or the other), are saying only that the socialist ethic shouldn't be applied consistently.
> *
> This is nothing less than a confession of moral cowardice. It is the explanation for why, from Moscow to Managua, all the rivalries within the different socialist revolutions have been won by, not the "democratic" or "libertarian" socialists, but the totalitarians, i.e., those who don't qualify their socialism with antonyms. "Totalitarian socialism" is not a variation but a redundancy, which is why half-capitalist hypocrites will always lose out to those who have the courage of their socialist convictions. (Likewise, someone whose idea of "social justice" is a moderate welfare state is someone who's willing to tolerate far more "social injustice" than he's willing to eliminate.)
> 
> What is "social justice"? The abolition of privacy. Its repudiation of property rights, far from being a fundamental, is merely one derivation of this basic principle. Socialism, declared Marx, advocates "the positive abolition of private property [in order to effect] the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being." It is the private status of property -- meaning: the privacy, not the property -- that stands in opposition to the social (i.e., "socialized," and thus "really human") nature of man. Observe that the premise holds even when we substitute x for property. If private anything denies man's social nature, then so does private everything. And it is the negation of anything and everything private -- from work to worship to even family life -- that has been the social affirmation of the socialist state.
> 
> *What is "social justice"? The opposite of capitalism. And what is "capitalism"? It is Marx's coinage (minted by his materialist dispensation) for the Western liberalism that diminished state power from absolutism to limited government; that, from John Locke to the American Founders, held that each individual has an inviolable right to his own life, liberty, and property, which government exists solely to secure. Now what would the reverse of this be but a resurrection of Oriental despotism, the reactionary increase of state power from limited government to absolutism, i.e., "totalitarianism," the absolute control of absolutely everything? And what is the opposite -- the violation -- of securing the life, liberty, and property of all men other than mass murder, mass tyranny, and mass plunder? And what is that but the point at which theory ends and history begins?
> *
> And yet even before that point -- before the 20th century, before publication of the Manifesto itself -- there were those who did indeed make the connection between what Marxism inherently meant on paper and what it would inevitably mean in practice. In 1844, Arnold Ruge presented the abstract: "a police and slave state." And in 1872, Michael Bakunin provided the specifics:
> 
> 
> [T]he People's State of Marx ... will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker -- the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads "overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!
> 
> *It is precisely this "new class" that reflects the defining contradiction of modern leftist reality: The goal of complete economic equality logically enjoins the means of complete state control, yet this means has never practically achieved that end. Yes, Smith and Jones, once "socialized," are equally poor and equally oppressed, but now above them looms an oligarchy of not-to-be-equalized equalizers. The inescapable rise of this "new class" -- privileged economically as well as politically, never quite ready to "wither away" -- forever destroys the possibility of a "classless" society. Here the lesson of socialism teaches what should have been learned from the lesson of pre-liberal despotism -- that state coercion is a means to no end but its own. Far from expanding equality from the political to the economic realm, the pursuit of "social justice" serves only to contract it within both. There will never be any kind of equality -- or real justice -- as long as a socialist elite stands behind the trigger while the rest of us kneel before the barrel.
> *
> Further Reading
> The contemporary left remains possessed by the spirit of Marx, present even where he's not, and the best overview of his ideology remains Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, which is complemented perfectly by the most accessible refutation of that ideology, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx. Hayek's majestic The Mirage of Social Justice is a challenging yet rewarding effort, while his The Road to Serfdom provides an unparalleled exposition of how freedom falls to tyranny. Moving from theory to practice, Communism: A History, Richard Pipes' slim survey, ably says all that is needed.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Also I never said that all social justice warriors are ANTIFA. I said that they're easily recruitable because their heads are filled with nonsense that makes them vulnerable for recruitment. The programs push activism and promote going to rallies which are heavily left-biased and non-partisan and it makes them easy targets for recruiters and disorganized leftist terrorist groups. The similarity there is with the Muslim medressahs and there's no denying that at all which I see you haven't as that is the overall context of my hypothesizing.


This is exactly how the right work too though, to the letter. You could easily have removed the social justice part and written modern day left/right groups. The only reason you went with a left leaning ideology was because demonising the left is your shtick, what you have accurately described is how all modern day activist or interest groups work, to tarnish this method as a 'radical muslim' method is reaching at best.
This has a chicken or the egg vibe about it, do Muslims not use western right/left wing group tactics or do right/left wing groups use Muslim tactics? Why the assertion that the left are similar to radical Islam in ways instead of radical Islam being similar to the Trump rally organisers?

This is an honest question but what drives you to demonise the left solely here?



Reaper said:


> Here's examples from just one of the Social Justice Studies programs:
> 
> The required courses list:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The content of these courses:
> 
> 
> 
> for social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> Indoctrination into class warfare with a heavy negative tilt towards "whiteness" as evident in just the course description alone.


Nothing negative about 'whiteness' just a factual description of the 2008 white working class discussions, there a tons of papers/articles on the net about this. I don't see the problem.



> From the course description you can already realize that this is an anti-capitalist course. I


I don't think you can deduce that from the description personally, but we don't have to agree all the time.


----------



## Draykorinee

I've always wanted the Russia rumours to be true but seeing as the US have just gone even more anti-Russia I can't help but feel like they're a load of bollocks. Russia certainly don't seem to be profiteering much, although maybe they wanted Trump because they realised ho much of a negative reaction he'd get from outside the US?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> This is exactly how the right work too though, to the letter. You could easily have removed the social justice part and written modern day left/right groups. The only reason you went with a left leaning ideology was because demonising the left is your shtick, what you have accurately described is how all modern day activist or interest groups work, to tarnish this method as a 'radical muslim' method is reaching at best.
> This has a chicken or the egg vibe about it, do Muslims not use western right/left wing group tactics or do right/left wing groups use Muslim tactics? Why the assertion that the left are similar to radical Islam in ways instead of radical Islam being similar to the Trump rally organisers?


The sameness of the two groups does not mean that we cannot talk about another group in isolation. I don't mind you bringing up the other group, but then at the same time this does not mean that what I've stated about the similarity and connections between SJW's, leftist terrorism and Islamist terrorism are wrong. It just means that this is a connection I'm talking about in the now. The conservative/right wing group is authoritarian in its own respects and many of the conservatives that are small government, but ALSO push for government control are also drawing many of their totalitarian principles from socialist / totalitarian schools. And make no mistake, some definitely do actually ascribe to many communist ideologies themselves without realizing it. This is why I'm an advocate for 0 government of any kind whatsoever and why I believe that the only freedom is complete and total individual freedom. I don't however consider every single state or form of government fascist in nature unless it ties to assert its control over my personal freedoms that I have not voluntarily given up based on my own moral system. All we need in society is a legislative branch based on the constitution. (While I agree that the US constitution actually promotes minarchism and not total anarchocapitalism). 

This is a part where I even disagree with @L-DOPA and I poke fun at him even for being a filthy minarchist  But it's all in good fun because for me this thread and political discussions are partly information and partly entertainment. I call it infotainment. 

For example, if the state says "do not destroy property", I do not see it as a fascist request because it's based on the moral principle of do no harm. If the state tells me "you can't marry another guy", then I see it as infringement. However, gay marriage gets convoluted because the state has no business controlling this anyways. If the state says "pay me taxes for protection from me", then yes, that is a fascist state and needs to be opposed --- but again, through non-violent means. Once violence of any kind (including obstruction of people on the streets) happens, then the non-fascist has become the fascist. This applies to the left or the right. 

I've already talked at length about right-wing terrorism and while the sameness exists, which you acknowledge essentially means that what I've written about the connection here isn't wrong because of that. 



> Nothing negative about 'whiteness' just a factual description of the 2008 white working class discussions, there a tons of papers/articles on the net about this. I don't see the problem.


The problem here is in the association of class with race where no such association actually exists and has not been established. The refutations to those articles also exists. The problem is with the one-sided approach in universities. When universities introduce feminist ideology into a course and call it interdisciplinary, what they're talking about is basically feminist intersectionality theory which has several debunked and poorly made arguments about white superiority and oppression of non-whites. That is not based on fact or well-reasoned arguments, but a deception of the causes behind class distinctions within society and trying to toss race and oppression in there without establishing it. 

Class>Race>Oppression and ways to end that oppression or perceived injustices does not mean that those injustices or the causes of them are accurate. 

However, the fact that this conversation exists within the paradigm of injustice and acting to end the injustice and promote "equality" (which is also a perception of what equality means) ... All of this is essentially the hallmarks of communism. 

Communism was never JUST about the total seizure of all assets. This is what I would call communism-lite - but it is still derived from Marx's core ideas about class inequality. 



> I don't think you can deduce that from the description personally.


Yeah, I've taken those courses myself. I know the content. Funny you ignore that. The course contents haven't changed much. The overall crux of Sociological economic courses is basically and very simply to tell students that capitalism created colonial powers which gave rise to global income inequality in poorer countries because they were colonized by the richer countries and that their labor and resources are exploited. The key here is in the terminology used to describe what is essentially neutral trade and a process of voluntary capitalism spun to make it seem like a system of oppression of poorer nations in and of itself. Sociologists have converted global trade and capitalism into yet another form of oppression - just on a global scale by larger (incidentally white dominated countries) on smaller countries who are poor as a result of capitalism. This combined with race because a strong implication of "the white man is stealing from everybody" 

As you can see from this:

https://www.thoughtco.com/globalization-definition-3026071



> THE CREATION OF GLOBAL FORMS OF GOVERNANCE
> The globalization of the world international economy and of political structures was led by wealthy, powerful nations made rich by colonialism and imperialism, including the U.S., Britain, and many Western European nations. From the mid-twentieth century on, leaders of these nations created new global forms of governance that set the rules for cooperation within the new global economy. These include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Group of Twenty, the World Economic Forum, and OPEC, among others.
> 
> CULTURAL ASPECTS OF GLOBALIZATION
> The process of globalization also involves the spread and diffusion of ideologies—values, ideas, norms, beliefs, and expectations—that foster, justify, and provide legitimacy for economic and political globalization. History has shown that these are not neutral processes and that it is ideologies from dominant nations that fuel and frame economic and political globalization. Generally speaking, it is these that are spread around the world, becoming normal and taken for granted.
> 
> The process of cultural globalization happens through the distribution and consumption of media, consumer goods, and the Western consumer lifestyle.
> 
> It is also fueled by globally integrated communication systems like social media, disproportionate media coverage of the world’s elite and their lifestyles, the movement of people from the global north around the world via business and leisure travel, and the expectations of these travelers that host societies will provide amenities and experiences that reflect their own cultural norms.
> 
> Because of the dominance of Western and Northern cultural, economic, and political ideologies in shaping globalization, some refer to the dominant form of it as “globalization from above.” This phrase refers to the top-down model of globalization that is directed by the world’s elite. In contrast, the “alter-globalization” movement, composed of many of the world’s poor, working poor, and activists, advocates for a truly democratic approach to globalization known as “globalization from below.” Structured this way, the ongoing process of globalization would reflect the values of the world’s majority, rather than those of its elite minority.


In sociology, "west" is interchangeable with "white" - and so is the North. In conversations in these courses, they never actually talk about China as anything but part of the exploited and simply ignore Japan and South Korea as though they don't exist. 

Again, we come back to anti-capitalism and the elevation of the poor .. more class-based conversation this time pitting the provider of resource (labor) in a position of an unequal relationship with the receiver of the resource (capitalist) ... but now on a global scale. The language used in these courses is to inculcate an overall distaste for capitalism and instead of framing it as a neutral process, it's framed as an unequal and oppressive system.

Sociology and Social Justice is Communism ... or for the less inclined to reasonable hyperbole - Communism-Lite.

Again, just to re-iterate as I've done many times in cbox now. A lot of the times when I say leftists etc etc, it's just to grind people's gears. On a deeper/more intellectual level, I don't actually give that much of a shit about left vs right. The only thing I truly care about is individuality, personal and economic freedom - and opposition of the fascist state. Therefore I support privatization and deregulation. The left is terrible when it comes to economic freedoms and hence the left gets more bashing from me. The left on social issues is now filled up with ridiculous class-based theories that are based around "who's the most oppressed" and "perceived and projected victimshood" instead of actual "equality".

The right has its issues too and they're significant ones. But that is not something I care to criticize like some of the other moderates on here, but I do it in an actual discussion with someone on the right who I obviously disagree with. This is why only a select few have major issues with my posts as they haven't been able to figure this out. I'm not here to debate rightists most of the time. When I feel the need to do so, I do it. But generally, I don't care that much to denounce every wrong thing by everybody all the time.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> That is literally the most basic definition of communism. Equal distribution of resources.


Well, no. The key word is opportunity. Equal access to resources is certainly communism, but equal opportunity to access resources is what America prides itself on being (and sadly isn't yet.)


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Well, no. The key word is opportunity. Equal access to resources is certainly communism, but equal opportunity to access resources is what America prides itself on being (and sadly isn't yet.)


I think you might be paying too much attention to the word opportunity here and associating it with equality of opportunity. I don't think that emphasis here is on equality of opportunity, but rather of access to. 

The reason why I say this is that in light of the other courses, combined with the sociological understanding of global economics (which they've conveniently also redefined into have an oppressor and an oppressee), this doesn't refer to the equality of opportunity edict of free-market capitalism the way it defines it. 

And yes, I agree - America itself is very much communism-lite as well with our mountains and mountains of economic restrictions. On an economic freedom scale, we're actually surprisingly low. America is nowhere near the beacon of laissez-faire that they project themselves as. We're very low on the list. 

As opposed to communism, in free-market capitalism, the unequal distribution of resources is acceptable and even necessary in order to continue to grow. There's a long lecture here too, but I'll save it as my hands are starting to hurt.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> I've always wanted the Russia rumours to be true but seeing as the US have just gone even more anti-Russia I can't help but feel like they're a load of bollocks. Russia certainly don't seem to be profiteering much, although maybe they wanted Trump because they realised ho much of a negative reaction he'd get from outside the US?


It was always extremely unlikely that two ultra alpha males with yuuuuge egos like putin and :trump were going to get along.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Communism is state control over the means of production not equality. 

If you believe in equality but not state control of the means of production you aren't a communist.


----------



## Oxidamus

draykorinee said:


> So social justice is akin to communism and radicalism? You are worse than the guys who think Trump is literally Hitler. Conflating the desire for a lack of inequality by cherry picking quotes from a paragraph is such a cheap tactic, one expects that from the 'literally Hitler' brigade, I guessed your anti-left wing agenda would get the better of you eventually and the Left wing would literally be communism...
> 
> Antifa are not about Social Justice.
> 
> All that you said about Social Justice is able to be turned around to those who are on the right. I would have given your post more credit had you discussed the dual aspect, but you didn't you just focused on the liberuls. I understand in a way this is the whataboutism that the right love to do and its slightly ironic, but I fundamentally disagree with your communism/radicalsim aspect anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignore function does not stop you from seeing quotes, I used the ignore function but when you have people post 3 or 4 posts a page and half of them get quoted because they're so ludicrous\good its a useless function.


Why is it so shockingly difficult for people to see what the social justice movement in schooling is? Teachers can pick and choose what they tell you. What do you think happens when the majority of them and the board(s) of education are left-wing?

Who are you going to listen to when they tell you education is dominated and engineered by left-wing ideologues? Regular people? No. Students? No. Teachers? No. Professors? No. Politicians? No.

Would you use your own eyes to see how liberal young people are compared to past generations? Or to see how many schools etc have massive protests? What about statistics that say X% of university students are liberal?

I mean, these are all things I see and hear, and I can reflect on my own education and see a few red flags, why can't you? Why is it easier to believe white supremacists, Neo Nazis and KKK members have some semblance of political power in today's age, than to believe those who teach impressionable kids might teach them things they want them to know, for political reasons?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Why is it so shockingly difficult for people to see what the social justice movement in schooling is? Teachers can pick and choose what they tell you. What do you think happens when the majority of them and the board(s) of education are left-wing?
> 
> Who are you going to listen to when they tell you education is dominated and engineered by left-wing ideologues? Regular people? No. Students? No. Teachers? No. Professors? No. Politicians? No.
> 
> Would you use your own eyes to see how liberal young people are compared to past generations? Or to see how many schools etc have massive protests? What about statistics that say X% of university students are liberal?
> 
> I mean, these are all things I see and hear, and I can reflect on my own education and see a few red flags, why can't you? Why is it easier to believe white supremacists, Neo Nazis and KKK members have some semblance of political power in today's age, than to believe those who teach impressionable kids might teach them things they want them to know, for political reasons?


The reason more and more people are going liberal is because that is where reason, logic, and science is based unlike on the right who wants to pretend climate change isn't real and wants shit like creationism taught in science class while rejecting evolution. Not to mention it's the right who is against same sex marriage and equality for gays and trans people. The right loves to pretend the bible is like a science text book. 

There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are left/liberal while the least educated are right/conservative leaning.


----------



## Goku

and if there's anything we know for certain it's that adolescents are way more reasonable, scientific and worldwise than older people.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> The reason more and more people are going liberal is because that is where reason, logic, and science is based unlike on the right who wants to pretend climate change isn't real and wants shit like creationism taught in science class while rejecting evolution. Not to mention it's the right who is against same sex marriage and equality for gays and trans people. The right loves to pretend the bible is like a science text book.
> 
> There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are left/liberal while the least educated are right/conservative leaning.


if you want to see bigotry this is it

it's like the right = the sudan or somalia or something

a benighted people, worthless barbarians


----------



## Draykorinee

Oxidamus said:


> Why is it so shockingly difficult for people to see what the social justice movement in schooling is? Teachers can pick and choose what they tell you. What do you think happens when the majority of them and the board(s) of education are left-wing?
> 
> Who are you going to listen to when they tell you education is dominated and engineered by left-wing ideologues? Regular people? No. Students? No. Teachers? No. Professors? No. Politicians? No.
> 
> Would you use your own eyes to see how liberal young people are compared to past generations? Or to see how many schools etc have massive protests? What about statistics that say X% of university students are liberal?
> 
> I mean, these are all things I see and hear, and I can reflect on my own education and see a few red flags, why can't you? Why is it easier to believe white supremacists, Neo Nazis and KKK members have some semblance of political power in today's age, than to believe those who teach impressionable kids might teach them things they want them to know, for political reasons?


I do see the red flags, I see it in the idiot anti-vaccers and the religious love fest that makes people think Islam is a religion of peace or that school kids should be allowed to pray before a football match. 
I'm not 100% sure thats a school education thing though, I have zero knowledge of schools in the US when it comes to liberal teaching, all I know is the UK and I know I got my liberal values from my parents, my school teaching was apolitical, we leave school with no knowledge of politics or how to manage every day life challenges like finances. So I can't form an opinion on what you guys do in the US or whether its a concern.

I always fail to see the boogeyman in the rise of liberal values, I know we're edging close to a kind of tipping point where people want 9 different genders and 'safe spaces' or whatever, but I still don't see that being as big an issue as its made out to be.



deepelemblues said:


> if you want to see bigotry this is it
> 
> it's like the right = the sudan or somalia or something
> 
> a benighted people, worthless barbarians


Data and statistics do back up the idea that the most educated are more likely to be liberals. Isn't that one of the concerns we're addressing right now in this thread? That those in education are becoming more liberal?


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> if you want to see bigotry this is it
> 
> it's like the right = the sudan or somalia or something
> 
> a benighted people, worthless barbarians


Sorry if you don't like facts. What did I say with my post that was not true? And LOL at calling it bigoted. 

I have posted the stats time and time again, the top educated states are always mostly liberal blue states where as the least educated states are usually mostly conservative red states.

You didn't even try to refute what I said, you just made some snowflake post because you know you can't refute it.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> The reason more and more people are going liberal is because that is where reason, logic, and science is based unlike on the right who wants to pretend climate change isn't real and wants shit like creationism taught in science class while rejecting evolution. Not to mention it's the right who is against same sex marriage and equality for gays and trans people. The right loves to pretend the bible is like a science text book.
> 
> There is a reason why the most well-educated states in the country are left/liberal while the least educated are right/conservative leaning.


It's not actually natural to be liberal, unless you're taught to be but whatever, that's not the point. I'm not gonna bother.


----------



## Reaper

Children are generally anti-authority, fiscally responsible and possessive of their private property until they're forced to learn things like "you must always listen to authority", "sharing is caring" and "homosexuality is a sin". When you force a child to give up his toy to some other child, you're not teaching them to be generous, you're teaching them that their right to their property is tenuous and any authority figure can determine who has rights on their property. This makes them easier to tax as adults. 

Children are most closely associated with having pro-liberty "me-first" values at birth before we turn them into democrats/liberals/republicans and that happens at school. Since schools have an unhealthy left-wing bias in faculty leaning, therefore there are more "liberal-minded" indoctrinated children and this gets progressively worse. Obviously there are more children that are favorable to communism in China, just as there are more children that stick with their parents' religion in muslim countries. Christians raise christian kids etc etc. However, school teaches them a lot more than they need to know in terms of liberal politics. 

It's all about that indoctrination.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Trump's constituency, ladies and gentlemen :mj


















I'd also like to point out that they're blissfully unaware that Trump has ALREADY taken more golf trips and vacations than Obama. *


----------



## nyelator

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump's constituency, ladies and gentlemen :mj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also like to point out that they're blissfully unaware that Trump has ALREADY taken more golf trips and vacations than Obama. *


Please give us this number of vacations if you don't mind.


----------



## Miss Sally

Does well-educated mean intelligent?

Because it seems like quite a lot of College kids and even the Professors spout nonsense.

This highly educated must be like the Religious people who consider themselves very moral because they go to Church and read holy books.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

nyelator said:


> Please give us this number of vacations if you don't mind.


*I'd be glad to ositivity* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-at-leisure-as-obama/?utm_term=.4ff66e1bd292




> In mid-August 2011, then-non-politician Donald Trump levied a critique of President Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/103158206498476032
> This was one of dozens of tweets criticizing Obama for playing golf. (Here’s another classic.) It was one of a handful that also dinged Obama for taking a vacation.
> 
> On the campaign trail, Trump was adamant: He would rarely play golf — “I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” he once said — and he certainly wasn’t going to take a lot of vacation. (“There’s just so much to be done,” he told “60 Minutes,” “so I don’t think we’ll be very big on vacations.”)
> 
> On Friday, Trump will head to his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., for a 17-day vacation. That’s nearly twice as long as the vacation Obama took in August during his first year in office, when he went to Martha’s Vineyard.
> 
> In 2010, Factcheck.org’s D’Angelo Gore figured that the Vineyard trip was Obama’s second that month, including a weekend trip to Arizona and Colorado during which Obama and his family visited the Grand Canyon. Obama did some work while he was there, but he made time for recreation, too, including fly-fishing. By Gore’s count, those were the second and third vacations of Obama’s presidency, counting a four-day trip to the family’s home in Chicago for Valentine’s Day.
> 
> If trips like that count — brief getaways to a personal property to recharge — then Trump has taken a lot of vacation. Before this month, Trump had made 11 such trips to his properties in Palm Beach and New Jersey. On occasion, he would wrap in some work, as Obama did when he was out West. Often, though, he didn’t. (He also spent one weekend in June at Camp David, Md.)
> 
> By our count, by the end of August, Trump will have spent all or part of 53 days in office at leisure, compared with 15 days for Obama through August 2009. What’s more, Trump will have played at least 33 rounds of golf, nearly double Obama’s 17 rounds — and that’s even before Trump gets to his vacation spot, an actual golf course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There’s certainly subjectivity to this. Perhaps you don’t view Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago as vacations. Perhaps you don’t count partial days. Perhaps you have another metric you would like to use. Fair enough.
> 
> For a presidential candidate who pledged to take little vacation and play next to no golf, though, the apples-to-apples comparison above is striking.
> 
> Especially given Trump’s habit of laying down markers that he himself is likely to surpass.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/227407409939877889


----------



## krtgolfing

I wonder who the better golf is. :hmmm I would gladly take money from both of them!


----------



## Miss Sally

krtgolfing said:


> I wonder who the better golf is. :hmmm I would gladly take money from both of them!


Obama/Trump golf tournament could bank millions!

Be the event of the year, no, decade!


----------



## Reaper

Are we doing comparisons now because please tell me we're doing comparisons now. I've been itching to post about how Obama recently became the most expensive ex-president in America's history, or how his followers went crazy happy over him at some random food bank thinking that it was their Dear Leader in Texas too. 

And that Trump donated $1 million of his own money to help Texas victims while continuing to refuse to take a government salary for a job he's doing for free even though the constitution actually forces him to take the money at the moment. 

Oh well, I guess I'll rise above it and accept that these metrics are irrelevant and petty :trump

Yes, they're petty and irrelevant when everyone does it.



Miss Sally said:


> Obama/Trump golf tournament could bank millions!
> 
> Be the event of the year, no, decade!


That's a great idea. It would draw close to what Mayweather and McGredor drew. I'll pay to watch. Great way to raise money for Texas.


----------



## Vic Capri

The fact liberals cared more about Melania's shoes than hurricane victims speak volumes.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Data and statistics do back up the idea that the most educated are more likely to be liberals. Isn't that one of the concerns we're addressing right now in this thread? That those in education are becoming more liberal?


don't deflect from BM's display of bigotry pls

presidential vacations :lmao

:trump has taken 0 vacations as president

obama took 0 vacations as president

bush and clinton and daddy bush and reagan and carter and ford and nixon and LBJ and JFK and eisenhower and truman and etc. took 0 vacations as president

it's not a vacation if you're doing work and every president 'on vacation' is still getting his daily briefings and talking with congresscritters and bureaucrats and all the rest

when was the last vacation any of us took where we still worked every day of it

all the vacations i've ever taken i've worked precisely 0 seconds while on any of them


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Are we doing comparisons now because please tell me we're doing comparisons now. I've been itching to post about how Obama recently became the most expensive ex-president in America's history, or how his followers went crazy happy over him at some random food bank thinking that it was their Dear Leader in Texas too.
> 
> And that Trump donated $1 million of his own money to help Texas victims while continuing to refuse to take a government salary for a job he's doing for free even though the constitution actually forces him to take the money at the moment.
> 
> Oh well, I guess I'll rise above it and accept that these metrics are irrelevant and petty :trump
> 
> Yes, they're petty and irrelevant when everyone does it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea. It would draw close to what Mayweather and McGredor drew. I'll pay to watch. Great way to raise money for Texas.












I had the same idea right before I took a bath! Came back and seen you posted it. 

I think it would be a great way to raise funds for the flood, not to mention ease some tension going on Political wise and really help a lot of people out who really need it.

Someone should tweet this at Trump!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Are we doing comparisons now because please tell me we're doing comparisons now. I've been itching to post about how Obama recently became the most expensive ex-president in America's history, or how his followers went crazy happy over him at some random food bank thinking that it was their Dear Leader in Texas too.
> 
> And that Trump donated $1 million of his own money to help Texas victims while continuing to refuse to take a government salary for a job he's doing for free even though the constitution actually forces him to take the money at the moment.
> 
> Oh well, I guess I'll rise above it and accept that these metrics are irrelevant and petty :trump
> 
> Yes, they're petty and irrelevant when everyone does it.


*Trump just caused the secret service to run out of money two weeks ago, so it won't be hard for him to break Obama's record when it's all said and done. The main point of that post is that Trump supporters were so :triggered by Obama HELPING in Houston that they asked where he was during Katrina. Uhh, he was in Chicago, under his first term as a Senator. They then went as far as to accuse him of vacationing and playing golf as president when again, he wasn't president for over 3 years, and while Trump, the guy they voted for, has already taken more vacations than Obama during his first term as president. 

So to conclude, that post was much less about the act of golfing, and more about Trump and his supporters shitting on Obama for something Trump himself is doing much more often. It greatly exposes their stupidity and hypocrisy, which I simply can't resist doing here :hunter*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump just caused the secret service to run out of money two weeks ago, so it won't be hard for him to break Obama's record when it's all said and done. The main point of that post is that Trump supporters were so :triggered by Obama HELPING in Houston that they asked where he was during Katrina. Uhh, he was in Chicago, under his first term as a Senator. They then went as far as to accuse him of vacationing and playing golf as president when again, he wasn't president for over 3 years, and while Trump, the guy they voted for, has already taken more vacations than Obama during his first term as president.
> 
> So to conclude, that post was much less about the act of golfing, and more about Trump and his supporters shitting on Obama for something Trump himself is doing much more often. It greatly exposes their stupidity and hypocrisy, which I simply can't resist doing here :hunter*


Trump is on par (pun) to spend more on golf in one year than Obama did in 8 years combined. Trump has already surpassed Obama in Obamas first 8 months.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump just caused the secret service to run out of money two weeks ago, so it won't be hard for him to break Obama's record when it's all said and done. The main point of that post is that Trump supporters were so :triggered by Obama HELPING in Houston that they asked where he was during Katrina. Uhh, he was in Chicago, under his first term as a Senator. They then went as far as to accuse him of vacationing and playing golf as president when again, he wasn't president for over 3 years, and while Trump, the guy they voted for, has already taken more vacations than Obama during his first term as president.
> 
> So to conclude, that post was much less about the act of golfing, and more about Trump and his supporters shitting on Obama for something Trump himself is doing much more often. It greatly exposes their stupidity and hypocrisy, which I simply can't resist doing here :hunter*


I have no issues with your ribbing at all. 9 times out of 10 I'm on fb or twitter going wtf at Trump supporters. 

But let's be honest here. They both have their idiot supporters and to me personally these comparisons are petty. 

I just bring em up cuz I know how stupid both sides are. I'm no blind Trump supporter. There's plenty I don't like about him and there's plenty I don't like about Obama either.


----------



## Miss Sally

I find this Vacation stuff to be petty and dumb.

Trump brought World Leaders to his place to work with them, I don't call that a Vacation.

I'm sure anyone who's ever had to wine and dine a client or higherups at their job doesn't consider it leisure time when they're trying to get something done.

Frankly if Obama was golfing and working out something with someone that's fine. Some people are more open to negotiation if you invite them into your home or do an activity with them.

Let's put it this way, if Obama took a few world leaders to a giant water park, had hotdogs and hamburgers and then they all tore up a giant oreo ice cream cake and managed to get some shit done, I don't call it a vacation. I call that smart business.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> I have no issues with your ribbing at all. 9 times out of 10 I'm on fb or twitter going wtf at Trump supporters.
> 
> But let's be honest here. They both have their idiot supporters and to me personally these comparisons are petty.
> 
> I just bring em up cuz I know how stupid both sides are. I'm no blind Trump supporter. There's plenty I don't like about him and there's plenty I don't like about Obama either.


*Well, hopefully you now understand why I come in this thread mad as hell. Those Trump supporters make up 90% of my perception of the average Trump supporter because it's all I see polluting the internet. Like I've said in the past, I recognize that there are friendly and peaceful Trumpers like @DesolationRow who would vote Republican regardless if it was Yosemite Sam on the ballot promising tax breaks, but the outspoken, racist, and uneducated ones make up the majority of the visible voters.*


----------



## deepelemblues

*yawn*

are we back to generalizing and smearing people without quotes or any kind of rigorous statistical analysis again


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Has the Secret Service Gone 'Broke' Paying Agents to Protect the Trump Family?*
> 
> *CLAIM*
> As of August 2017, the Secret Service had run out of money for the year due to the demands of protecting President Trump and his family.
> 
> *RATING*
> MOSTLY FALSE
> 
> *WHAT'S TRUE*
> The Secret Service Director estimates that a significant proportion of employees will exceed federal limits on overtime pay by the end of 2017.
> 
> *WHAT'S FALSE*
> The Secret Service has not run out of money: The agency can hire and pay more employees; they simply cannot pay individual employees above the current salary cap. Congress could provide a short-term solution by temporarily lifting the pay caps for the Secret Service, as it did in 2016.
> 
> *WHAT'S UNDETERMINED*
> The precise proportion of Secret Service overtime hours that are attributable to protecting President Trump and his family.


http://www.snopes.com/secret-service-broke-trump/

I'm baffled that people actually believed this


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Are we doing comparisons now because please tell me we're doing comparisons now. I've been itching to post about how Obama recently became the most expensive ex-president in America's history, or how his followers went crazy happy over him at some random food bank thinking that it was their Dear Leader in Texas too.
> 
> And that Trump donated $1 million of his own money to help Texas victims while continuing to refuse to take a government salary for a job he's doing for free even though the constitution actually forces him to take the money at the moment.
> 
> Oh well, I guess I'll rise above it and accept that these metrics are irrelevant and petty :trump
> 
> Yes, they're petty and irrelevant when everyone does it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea. It would draw close to what Mayweather and McGredor drew. I'll pay to watch. Great way to raise money for Texas.


So Obama costs 100k more than Bush after 8 years as president, Bush costs 100k more than Clinton after 8 years as a president...Seems to be a theme here guys. That one certainly is irrelevant.

I mean, refusing to take a state salary when you're worth billions seems like a nice thing to do.



Miss Sally said:


> I find this Vacation stuff to be petty and dumb.


I doubt most people would care how many golf trips Trump had had the guy not been a massive hypocrite and lambasted Obama for it. Basically - Trump started it.


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> I have no issues with your ribbing at all. 9 times out of 10 I'm on fb or twitter going wtf at Trump supporters.
> 
> But let's be honest here. They both have their idiot supporters and to me personally these comparisons are petty.
> 
> I just bring em up cuz I know how stupid both sides are. I'm no blind Trump supporter. There's plenty I don't like about him and there's plenty I don't like about Obama either.





Legit BOSS said:


> *Well, hopefully you now understand why I come in this thread mad as hell. Those Trump supporters make up 90% of my perception of the average Trump supporter because it's all I see polluting the internet. Like I've said in the past, I recognize that there are friendly and peaceful Trumpers like @DesolationRow who would vote Republican regardless if it was Yosemite Sam on the ballot promising tax breaks, but the outspoken, racist, and uneducated ones make up the majority of the visible voters.*


WF is pretty tame, this is really the kiddie pool compared to other sites. You go to a site like WorldNetDaily, and anyone gets hammered that pretty much did not refer to Obama as that "dirty Muslim from Kenya". Shit, I get hammered at those sites for ANY criticism of Trump, they want to send me to one of those Agenda 21esque re-education camps. :lol 

The truth is Trump has gotten a few things done, but for the most part not much else is getting done. I appreciate a conservative SCOTUS justice (although again it shows our system is broken with conservative and liberal justices), the ending of the Trans-Pacific agreement...otherwise that's mostly it. Most everything else is being done by executive order. Yes, I blame Congress also for sitting on their hands (which is a miracle considering they have their heads up their asses as well), but Trump is still acting a lot of the time like he is back on the campaign trail. I keep saying he just needs to stop with the rallies, put away the Twitter except for maybe announcements and his itinerary for the day (telling us about lunch with the Secretary of Labor, meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, etc), and just put his head down and get to work. 

I'm not going to bring the hammer down yet...other Presidents have had rough stretches at the start and turned things around. But, ultimately his success or failure is not going to be because of the Deep State, the Military Industrial Complex, the Mainstream Media, or Divine Intervention. It will ultimately be on him whether his Presidency is a success or not. 

Meanwhile...I won't give the media a free pass here. Yes, Trump has done some stupid stuff, but the media was so far over the top with EVERY little criticism of him on a lot of stupid stuff that when the big stuff came down the pike (like having to be pushed into condemning the KKK and white supremacists and even then David Duke and Richard Spencer are so happy they are giving each other the Dutch Rudder) Trump could just simply say the media is out to get him. He is managing to cushion himself from the criticism because of how insane they have been. Sorry, it doesn't matter if the FLOTUS is wearing high heels or Air Jordans in Texas. 




Miss Sally said:


> I find this Vacation stuff to be petty and dumb.
> 
> Trump brought World Leaders to his place to work with them, I don't call that a Vacation.
> 
> I'm sure anyone who's ever had to wine and dine a client or higherups at their job doesn't consider it leisure time when they're trying to get something done.
> 
> Frankly if Obama was golfing and working out something with someone that's fine. Some people are more open to negotiation if you invite them into your home or do an activity with them.
> 
> Let's put it this way, if Obama took a few world leaders to a giant water park, had hotdogs and hamburgers and then they all tore up a giant oreo ice cream cake and managed to get some shit done, I don't call it a vacation. I call that smart business.


At the bank I work at...one time we took a potential client out for dinner. He was a fairly wealthy guy but he wanted pizza. I took him to a local place that serves Chicago-style deep dish, he loved it and I was a hero for saving the company a ton of money. 

To be honest, there are some people who would have an issue with Obama doing that...probably complain the hot dogs were not Hebrew National or Nathan's.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> I doubt most people would care how many golf trips Trump had had the guy not been a massive hypocrite and lambasted Obama for it. Basically - Trump started it.


I'm sure there would be people that care - Remember the two scoops of ice cream fiasco? lol

I do agree with you though. Trump shouldn't have criticized Obama for it. 

I don't count any trips that involved working with foreign leaders or in the interests of the US as vacations. Not a defense of Trump as I feel the same way about any President doing it. Trump's a business man I'm sure his negotiations involved stuff like this all the time. Just like I'm sure it was easier for Obama to work out things playing golf so people feel relaxed.

@BruiserKC Exactly! You had pizza but it wasn't like it was all fun, had you screwed up you would have got hell for it. For the client it's nice for the person trying to make everything go right it's hell!


----------



## Oxidamus

"Taxation is theft!" :mj4 please stop.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> I doubt most people would care how many golf trips Trump had had the guy not been a massive hypocrite and lambasted Obama for it. Basically - Trump started it.


TEKHNICKELLY 

it started with democrats criticizing Dubya for spending time at his ranch in Crawford TX

or maybe it started with republicans criticizing clinton for taking vacations inside monica's butthole i dunno :draper2


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> "Taxation is theft!" :mj4 please stop.


One European country give people the option to pay voluntary tax. They collected something like 1200 dollars or so. 










https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...ax-plan-as-expected-fails-miserably-in-norway

If taxation is voluntary people won't pay it. Since it isn't voluntary it is theft. There's really no way to spin this. Either you deny that it's theft or pretend that people give it willingly. Both positions are based on a delusion.


----------



## BruiserKC

Oxidamus said:


> "Taxation is theft!" :mj4 please stop.





Reaper said:


> One European country give people the option to pay voluntary tax. They collected something like 1200 dollars or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...ax-plan-as-expected-fails-miserably-in-norway
> 
> If taxation is voluntary people won't pay it. Since it isn't voluntary it is theft. There's really no way to spin this. Either you deny that it's theft or pretend that people give it willingly. Both positions are based on a delusion.


I accept the fact that I am going to pay taxes and I want to take advantage of all the deductions, etc...to pay as little as possible. What irritates me is that I feel our government mis-spends the money I give them, then they are begging for me to give them more of my hard-earned cash. If you are going to not spend my dough wisely, why do I have to give you more? Makes little sense to me. :serious:


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> I accept the fact that I am going to pay taxes and I want to take advantage of all the deductions, etc...to pay as little as possible. What irritates me is that I feel our government mis-spends the money I give them, then they are begging for me to give them more of my hard-earned cash. If you are going to not spend my dough wisely, why do I have to give you more? Makes little sense to me. :serious:


My point is a little different. It's not whether we should or should not pay taxes (we shouldn't) but when libertarians say taxation is theft, we're talking about voluntarism. There's no such thing as a person who pays tax willingly. 

The simplest argument for this is around fairness and that's a concept we're innately driven to strive for. If taxation was voluntary and say you paid 20 bucks and I paid nothing you would call me a bum. So they tried to come up with a universal tax... However there is no such thing as fairness within the tax system we developed. Even in a system where there is no such thing as voluntarism, there is also no fairness. So we end up living under mafia rules. The Don decides what he does with the money.

And he gets to use his paid goons to threaten, intimidate and put you in jail if you refuse all with your own money. 

It's interesting that you are halfway there with your argument around government nit providing fair exchange for what you consider money paid for services rendered. Interestingly when applied to any other corporation if they stopped providing you with satisfaction for money you'd stop giving them money.

It would be like Pizza Hut telling that you have to buy their pizza but then not giving you pizza and then throwing you in jail for refusing to pay for the pizza you never got.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-welcomes-expansion-of-asset-forfeiture-i-love-that-program/



> *Sessions welcomes restoration of asset forfeiture: "I love that program"*
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions welcomed the restoration of the practice of asset forfeiture Friday in a speech at a law enforcement conference in Alabama.
> 
> "I love that program," Sessions said. "We had so much fun doing that, taking drug dealers' money and passing it out to people trying to put drug dealers in jail. What's wrong with that?"
> 
> Sessions, reviewing some of the steps the DOJ has taken recently under his watch, went off script from his prepared remarks to express his excitement about the restoration of the controversial practice. Asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property suspected to be connected to a crime, even without an indictment. During former President Barack Obama's administration, then-Attorney General Eric Holder restricted the ability of the federal government to share in the assets local authorities seized. But Sessions in July brought the program back in full swing, allowing police to seize assets, even in states that have outlawed asset forfeiture, if they give some of the proceeds to the federal government. That practice of "adoption" has been used to seize $1 billion in assets over the last decade.
> 
> Sessions' decision to reinstate the program triggered bipartisan backlash, but his mention of the program's return to law enforcement personnel Friday elicited applause. Sessions recognized that some critics don't like the program, although he said he didn't understand why.
> 
> "Well, they don't like it. I'm amazed, these people don't get it. We had a reform in early 2001," Sessions said, mentioning he reached a legislative deal for some reforms to the program with Sen. Chuck Schumer when he was also a senator.
> 
> That legislation, "made some things that tightened it up, relieved some of the concerns from our libertarians, I thought," Sessions added. "But here they're back again, and actually curtailed this program for the last several years, but we're going to keep it out there and as long as we can, we will be doing it.
> 
> "And I know you'll do it in an honorable and effective way and not abuse the system," Sessions added. "But taking ill-gotten gains from drug dealers is the right thing, as far as I'm concerned, and we're going to emphasize that in every way that's appropriate."
> 
> Asset forfeiture has long been criticized by civil liberties advocates on constitutional grounds. The program is also criticized because people who have their homes, cars or cash seized wrongly have a difficult time getting those assets back. The DOJ's own watchdog also recently found that many local police departments depend on the funding from seized assets.
> 
> Sessions also praised the return of a program that allows police forces to use excess military equipment, such as tanks and artillery. Obama's DOJ had also curtailed that program.


Does he really not get why people are against asset forfeiture or is he just full of shit?


----------



## Draykorinee

Great, so they can nick your stuff to afford more weapons to kill black people with.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Rogan*: Isn't that another fantastic sign of chaos - I say fantastic not in the positive way - but that Donald Trump is our president now, _the_ president who has had the biggest problem with the truth, that we've ever experienced. We've never experienced a president like this, where we _know_ that he has a problem with _the_ truth. And it's open. It doesn't seem to phase us.

_*Peterson*_: It's funny, he has an unstructured problem with the truth... He was preferred as a candidate to someone who had a structured approach to untruth. So, it's like, pick your type of lie. You can pick the ideology power-aiming lie...

*Rogan*: Or a new kind of lie...

_*Peterson*_: ...or a more personal lie, say, if you're going to be cynical about it.

*Rogan*: Well a new kind of lie too that didn't fit the standard structure that we're accustomed to and felt very disenchanted with.

_*Peterson*_: Yea, or maybe a nakedly self-serving lie. It's like "(mockingly) oh thank God that's such a relief after the totalitarian ideology lies."

:wow


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> One European country give people the option to pay voluntary tax. They collected something like 1200 dollars or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...ax-plan-as-expected-fails-miserably-in-norway
> 
> If taxation is voluntary people won't pay it. Since it isn't voluntary it is theft. There's really no way to spin this. Either you deny that it's theft or pretend that people give it willingly. Both positions are based on a delusion.


Well that sounds like the worst idea ever.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904160894661296130


----------



## Headliner

Disgusting to see so many happy go lucky black folks around that white supremacist enabling piece of shit who tweeted fake black crime stats in an effort to criminalize us (while enabling white nationalists/surpramacists) and wouldn't apologize when that ****** Bill O'Reilly gave him the chance too. It's always fuck him all day everyday.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904162038569549826


----------



## virus21

Complete lack of awareness


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> Disgusting to see so many happy go lucky black folks around that *white supremacist enabling* piece of shit who tweeted fake black crime stats in an effort to criminalize us (*while enabling white nationalists/surpramacists*) and wouldn't apologize when that ****** Bill O'Reilly gave him the chance too. It's always fuck him all day everyday.


Except he's denounced white supremacists repeatedly during his 2016 campaign, his presidency and even way back in 2000 during his flirtation with the Reform Party.

:serious:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Except he's denounced white supremacists repeatedly during his 2016 campaign, his presidency and even way back in 2000 during his flirtation with the Reform Party.
> 
> :serious:


He really hasn't, the only few times he so called denounced them is when he was forced to. White supremacist even cheer that Trump is on their side and that he defends them which he does. 

Trump pretended he didn't know who David Duke was because he did not want to denounce him, even though they are friends. He said the KKK has some very fine people FFS. He blamed the ALT LEFT for the violence in Charlottesville at first until he got major shit for it.

Anyone who pretends Trump is not a racist at this point is just lying to themselves or being dishonest on purpose.


Trumps actions speak louder than his fake words. You can't seriously claim Trump isn't a racist at this point. The only person you are fooling is yourself


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Except he's denounced white supremacists repeatedly during his 2016 campaign, his presidency and even way back in 2000 during his flirtation with the Reform Party.
> 
> :serious:


It doesn't matter when his rhetoric over the last two years enabled them. The damage has been done.


----------



## Oxidamus

When you're so racist you think people should have the same thought processes based on what race they are :hogan


----------



## Headliner

Oxidamus said:


> When you're so racist you think people should have the same thought processes based on what race they are :hogan


I have not one racist bone in my body. You've been a try hard for years and your opinions change more than you change your underwear which is why most people don't take you seriously. Please get off my dick and come with facts before approaching me.


----------



## Oxidamus

Headliner said:


> I have not one racist bone in my body. You've been a try hard for years and your opinions change more than you change your underwear which is why most people don't take you seriously. Please get off my dick and come with facts before approaching me.


What opinions change? I think I've been pretty steady in consistency and changing my thoughts based on the evidence given. :hmmm

Is it a bannable offense to call someone racist here?


----------



## Headliner

Oxidamus said:


> What opinions change? I think I've been pretty steady in consistency and changing my thoughts based on the evidence given. :hmmm
> 
> Is it a bannable offense to call someone racist here?


lol no need to act brand new like you've suddenly been rock steady in your opinions for years. 

It's not a bannable offense, but you have continuously attempted to bait me in the chatbox and here in the last few weeks. I have let a lot of it slide and didn't even respond to some of it. I'm strongly suggesting you move wisely.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> He really hasn't, the only few times he so called denounced them is when he was forced to. White supremacist even cheer that Trump is on their side and that *he defends them which he does.*
> 
> Trump pretended he didn't know who David Duke was because he did not want to denounce him, *even though they are friends. He said the KKK has some very fine people FFS.* He blamed the ALT LEFT for the violence in Charlottesville at first until he got major shit for it.
> 
> Anyone who pretends Trump is not a racist at this point is just lying to themselves or being dishonest on purpose.
> 
> 
> Trumps actions speak louder than his fake words. You can't seriously claim Trump isn't a racist at this point. The only person you are fooling is yourself


Except that Trump didn't defend them, as evident by him correctly blaming them and Antifa for both being at fault for the Charlottesville debacle.

And he's not friends with David Duke, otherwise he would've stayed in the running for the Reform Party's nomination back in '00 even in spite of Duke throwing his support behind Trump.

As for him alleging back in 2016 that he didn't know who Duke was, I wouldn't be surprised if he had actually forgotten about Duke, considering the last time he was remotely relevant to Trump was over a decade and half ago.

Not knowing who the Klan are is :Wat?-inducing. But then again, Trump is a masterful IRL shitposter, so getting a rise out of people is in his nature.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> It doesn't matter when his rhetoric over the last two years enabled them. The damage has been done.


The only damage that's been done has been thanks to Antifa destroying property, de-platforming people and physically assaulting people left and right.


----------



## Oxidamus

Headliner said:


> lol no need to act brand new like you've suddenly been rock steady in your opinions for years.
> 
> It's not a bannable offense, but you have continuously attempted to bait me in the chatbox and here in the last few weeks. I have let a lot of it slide and didn't even respond to some of it. I'm strongly suggesting you move wisely.


I think I have mostly, you're telling me I haven't, I'd like to know how.

Everyone gets baited in the chatbox, and you let shit fly that'd get you banned in the WWE section in this thread so plz don't step on my FREEZE PEACH :CENA


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The only damage that's been done has been thanks to Antifa destroying property, de-platforming people and physically assaulting people left and right.


So threatening to ban Muslims from the US, tweeting false black crime stats with zero apology and popping shit about Mexicans means nothing right? That's why he has the white nationalist/supremacist base he has. He helped enable them. Not to mention the bullshit this administration has already been pushing. Antifa has nothing to do with this. Please don't deflect to them. That's a right wing tactic. Deflect, spin, etc. 


Oxidamus said:


> I think I have mostly, you're telling me I haven't, I'd like to know how.
> 
> Everyone gets baited in the chatbox, and you let shit fly that'd get you banned in the WWE section in this thread so plz don't step on my FREEZE PEACH :CENA


Why so you can make lengthy posts about how you don't understand and don't see a difference? No thanks. 

It's been more than the chatbox. Continue to think you know everything. I gave you the warning. Whether you choose to listen is your decision.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> It doesn't matter when his rhetoric over the last two years enabled them. The damage has been done.


They have to twist his arm to denounce it then when it does days after he should have, he walks it back saying, like I said, well some of them are good people. How are some KKK people good people lol

When they have to force him to do something, we know it's not genuine and he is just doing it because he has to. Just look at all the racist he put in his cabinet. 

I dont get why some people defend Trump on this.


----------



## CamillePunk

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Except he's denounced white supremacists repeatedly during his 2016 campaign, his presidency and even way back in 2000 during his flirtation with the Reform Party.
> 
> :serious:


The denouncements don't count because the media first have to give a platform to people who have zero political power and too little relevance for Trump to know who they are in the first place, then when he denounces them it's far too late and used as evidence that he is a secret sympathizer, and the Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to fuel itself. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> The denouncements don't count because the media first have to give a platform to people who have zero political power and too little relevance for Trump to know who they are in the first place, then when he denounces them it's far too late and used as evidence that he is a secret sympathizer, and the Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to fuel itself. :lol


Trump's actions show he is a KKK/White Nationalist sympathizer.

Trump being forced to denounce the KKK is like when a parent forces their child to apologize to someone for doing something. Not to mention AGAIN Trump saying oh some of them (KKK/White Nationalist) are great people is all you need to know.

The only reason he had to make a statement two days later is because he got called out for not denouncing them. And the KKK/White Nationalist even admit Trump is on their side.

I really hope you are not trying to defend Trums racism.

Trump called Arpaio a patriot for racial profiling against Latinos.

How is that not racist.


----------



## Oxidamus

Maybe the reason the right are quick to condemn the KKK etc is also because they have a clear understanding about what is "too far" whereas the left actually don't see much wrong with what their extremists are doing, so they don't condemn. :hmmm


----------



## CamillePunk

President Dr. Donald J Trump retweeted this. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904162667547549696
Loving this timeline so much. :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Maybe the reason the right are quick to condemn the KKK etc is also because they have a clear understanding about what is "too far" whereas the left actually don't see much wrong with what their extremists are doing, so they don't condemn. :hmmm


The right does not condemn the KKK quickly LOL Plus a lot of them are racist and white nationalist. But keep spouting your lies. There is a reason why the red states rae mostly racist. But don't let the facts get in your way.


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> President Dr. Donald J Trump retweeted this.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904162667547549696
> Loving this timeline so much. :banderas


omg :lmao

:trump


----------



## Reaper

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nt-want-to-hear-us-criticizing-the-president/



> *Nancy Pelosi: The Voters ‘Don’t Want to Hear Us Criticizing the President’*
> 
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on Wednesday that American voters elected President Donald Trump and they don’t want to hear Democrats criticizing him, which “disrespects” their decision.
> “(The voters) don’t want to hear us criticizing the president,” Pelosi said. “This was a choice; they made a decision.”
> 
> “And to criticize the president personally is to disrespect their judgment,” Pelosi said. “So I say to my members, ‘This is about what we’re going to do.’ ”
> 
> Pelosi, who was speaking to the editorial board and reporters at the Denver Post about the Democrat economic agenda before she attended a “progressive women’s event” in Denver, weighed in on a number of issues.
> 
> Pelosi said it’s too early to judge Trump on the response to tropical storm Harvey.
> 
> “We haven’t seen it. He’s been gracious, he went to Corpus Christi, which is sort of appropriate for him to do, because in the heart of the storm. It would be a challenge to accommodate a president,” Pelosi said, adding that she is worried about Trump’s proposed cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in his fiscal year 2018 federal budget.
> 
> “You can’t do that,” Pelosi said, adding that the issue will be on the table when Congress reconvenes in just a few days.
> 
> After the violence perpetrated by Antifa activists in recent weeks, Pelosi finally issued a statement condemning them and told the Denver Post violent acts should be “prosecuted.”
> 
> “I think if there’s some people who are acting in a violent way, that they should be prosecuted,” Pelosi said. “I don’t care who they are, where they are, whatever organization they belong to.”
> 
> “You’re talking (about) some individuals,” Pelosi said. “You’re not talking about the far left of the Democratic Party — they’re not even Democrats.”
> 
> “A lot of them are socialist or anarchist or whatever,” Pelosi said. “Violence by anybody is to be rejected and dealt with, but that’s not who we are.”
> 
> Pelosi said she vows to “fight the Republicans on what they want to do on the tax bill” and praised Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Ohio Gov. John Kasich for their healthcare proposal.
> 
> Pelosi also said Democrats running in upcoming elections should not “worry” about her future as a House leader.
> 
> “I just say to people, ‘Just win your election. Don’t worry about me; you just win your election,’ ” Pelosi said, while acknowledging that Republicans have used her as an issue on the campaign trail.
> 
> “She suggested that Democrats should turn the question around and ask whether Republicans will support House Speaker Paul Ryan,” the Denver Post reported.
> 
> “When Republicans pose that question,” Pelosi said, “you know they’re talking about their own political bankruptcy.”


This woman is so senile that it took her 8 months to come to this epiphany that criticizing Trump the way this shithead and her party and voter base has done is bad for business. :lol

Also, senile enough to openly admit that the only reason why the antifa condemnation came is because they know they're not voters, but rather the worst kind of bum element of society that should rightfully be discarded and tossed aside like the pariahs they are. She literally admitted that they're not voters :kobelol If they had been, there would be no condemnation at all. But of course, they're actually Democrats ... They many not have been a year ago, but they are now. 

If democrats here want republicans to admit that KKK votes republican, then they are delusional if they think that antifa don't or won't vote democrat at this point in time.

----

Meanwhile anti-Trumpers sound like this: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904240831690924036
They're living out a fantasy of death squads and wide-spread rape, murder and racism in their heads :lmao 

It almost makes me feel like they are WISHING that things were this bad and that it physically hurts them to walk out in public and just have a normal ass day like every other day in their boring and unimportant lives.

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904144408572043264
Changing one's opinion is a sign of maturity.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904035843194724352
Props to CNN for finally some positive coverage.


----------



## Draykorinee

Wonder how I lord emperor will handle the news that Korea now have a 'H-bomb'


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> When you're so racist you think people should have the same thought processes based on what race they are :hogan


what does that even mean lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Except that Trump didn't defend them, as evident by him correctly blaming them and Antifa for both being at fault for the Charlottesville debacle.
> 
> And he's not friends with David Duke, otherwise he would've stayed in the running for the Reform Party's nomination back in '00 even in spite of Duke throwing his support behind Trump.
> 
> As for him alleging back in 2016 that he didn't know who Duke was, I wouldn't be surprised if he had actually forgotten about Duke, considering the last time he was remotely relevant to Trump was over a decade and half ago.
> 
> Not knowing who the Klan are is :Wat?-inducing. But then again, Trump is a masterful IRL shitposter, so getting a rise out of people is in his nature.


The reason why Trump pretended he did not know who David Duke was is because he didn't want to lose the supporter of his base the white nationalist/KKK, not to mention Trump is racist and he loves that base.

You seriously can't really believe Trump "forget" who David Duke was.

And again yes Trump defended them by not coming out and denouncing them by name right away like Trump does with his favorite phrase, radical Islamic terrorism. And once again let's not forget Trump said there are some very good people on the KKK/White nationalist side when he was so called denouncing them. Also only one side killed someone with a car in Charlottesville, and we all know what side that was.

Can you imagine if when Trump calls out radical Islamic terrorism if he said oh there is violence on many sides.


----------



## Headliner

birthday_massacre said:


> what does that even mean lol


It doesn't mean anything because he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> So threatening to ban Muslims from the US, tweeting false black crime stats with zero apology and popping shit about Mexicans means nothing right? That's why he has the white nationalist/supremacist base he has. He helped enable them. Not to mention the bullshit this administration has already been pushing. Antifa has nothing to do with this. Please don't deflect to them. That's a right wing tactic. Deflect, spin, etc.


- The Muslim ban was brought about because their culture is vastly inferior to western culture and their track record in regard to assimilating to western culture has been abysmal in the last decade.

- Trump also retweeted a quote from Mussolini and repeatedly claimed on twitter that Obama's birth certificate was false, so no one should be surprised that he has a tendency to tweet crazy shit. Regardless, I think he should've apologized for the misrepresented black crime data, but considering how he lives and dies by an IDGAF mentality, no one should be surprised that he didn't back-track on it.

- He was ragging on *illegal immigrants*, especially *violent* ones from Mexico, not legal immigrants. And if you wanna say that the Muslim ban is still a slight against legal immigrants, just remember that the ban is temporary and simply a protective measure because, again, Muslim culture is drastically inferior to western culture and they have an abysmal track record in regard to assimilation with non-Muslim cultures.

White nationalists aren't my cup of tea whatsoever, but prior to Charlottesville, the overwhelming majority of their members did a surprisingly capable job of not compulsively feeling the need to set a high score in regard to assaulting people who have different opinions.

And deflection works on both sides, regardless of affiliation.



birthday_massacre said:


> The reason why Trump pretended he did not know who David Duke was is because he didn't want to lose the supporter of his base the white nationalist/KKK, not to mention Trump is racist and he loves that base.
> 
> You seriously can't really believe Trump "forget" who David Duke was.
> 
> And again yes Trump defended them by not coming out and denouncing them by name right away like Trump does with his favorite phrase, radical Islamic terrorism. And once again let's not forget Trump said there are some very good people on the KKK/White nationalist side when he was so called denouncing them. Also only one side killed someone with a car in Charlottesville, and we all know what side that was.
> 
> Can you imagine if when Trump calls out radical Islamic terrorism if he said oh there is violence on many sides.


If I had billions of dollars in the bank and a notable media presence, I'm pretty sure that I'd also forget that one Klansman who was a blip on my political radar 15+ years ago. But that's just me. Ask Trump yourself by tweeting him.

He denounced both the white nationalists and antifa because *both sides were at fault*, as evident by antifa looking for a fight at a rally that had a legal permit and that crazy nationalist for running over that woman.

If Trump wants to give praise to some white nationalists, he's entitled to his opinion, regardless of how repugnant it is. Same goes for Obama with Jeremiah Wright, Bush with Dick Cheney and so on and so forth.

And considering how radical Islamic terrorism has only had a track record of starting shit because of their ass-backwards culture, why wouldn't Trump take the piss out solely from them and them alone? Oh wait, he already has.



CamillePunk said:


> The denouncements don't count because the media first have to give a platform to people who have zero political power and too little relevance for Trump to know who they are in the first place, then when he denounces them it's far too late and used as evidence that he is a secret sympathizer, and the Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to fuel itself. :lol


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> - The Muslim ban was brought about because their culture is vastly inferior to western culture and their track record in regard to assimilating to western culture has been abysmal in the last decade.
> 
> - Trump also retweeted a quote from Mussolini and repeatedly claimed on twitter that Obama's birth certificate was false, so no one should be surprised that he has a tendency to tweet crazy shit. Regardless, I think he should've apologized for the misrepresented black crime data, but considering how he lives and dies by an IDGAF mentality, no one should be surprised that he didn't back-track on it.
> 
> - He was ragging on *illegal immigrants*, especially *violent* ones from Mexico, not legal immigrants. And if you wanna say that the Muslim ban is still a slight against legal immigrants, just remember that the ban is temporary and simply a protective measure because, again, Muslim culture is drastically inferior to western culture and they have an abysmal track record in regard to assimilation with non-Muslim culture.
> 
> White nationalists aren't my cup of tea whatsoever, but prior Charlottesville, the overwhelming majority of their members have a surprisingly capable job of not compulsively feeling the need to set a high score in regard to assaulting people who have different opinions.


He said word for word. He was calling for a ban of Muslims from entering the United States. That's white nationalist/supremacist rhetoric. I'm not talking about the actual ban he did. I'm talking about what he said on the campaign. 

Also, he claimed that a Mexican judge couldn't be fair because he's Mexican. And Trump's clarification for it was that he was building a wall at the border of Mexico. Again, white nationalist rhetoric. Building a wall builds on the xenophobic characteristics of alt right/white nationalists/supremacists. You can talk about strengthening border security without supremacist talk. 

Now, Trump did say that some Mexicans were good people but others were rapists and killers. In theory there's nothing wrong with what he said. Because every race has good and bad apples. The problem is, white surpramacists/nationalists thrive on criminalizing entire minority groups. Not just some people in each group. Everyone in each group. So while Trump may not have meant to create this, he indirectly enabled them to run with the narrative that all Mexicans are criminals and need to go back to their own country. Do I need to post videos of some of the craziness that was happening at his rallies with his supporters? 

Similar to how Trump has been criminalizing illegal immigrants by being sure to mention the suspect/killer was an illegal immigrant as if to say a U.S born citizen wouldn't have committed the same crime. Again, further enabling the xenophobic/racist rhetoric that has enabled these groups. 

The code word is that they are "other". It's a way of discrediting and demonizing. He did the same thing with the President Obama birther thing. Which of course, far right conservatives (who are basically the white sympathizers and the mini-racists) and other supremacist groups fed off that. 

I see Trump very different from 100% of Trump supporters. And it's not because I'm different politically. Because I have no problem with moderate Conservatives. Far right Conservatives can eat a dick though.

It's primarily because I've been through things that none of them have ever been through and they are too racially tone deaf to understand why I feel the way I do because their instinct is to downplay, spin and deflect. He will forever be a piece of shit to me.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/3/trump-administration-wants-to-tie-harvey-relief-mo/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS



> *Trump administration wants to tie Harvey relief money to debt ceiling*
> 
> The Trump administration signaled Sunday it wants to attach funding for the Hurricane Harvey recovery to a bill to lift the debt ceiling, putting it at odds with House conservatives who specifically warned GOP leaders not to do that.
> 
> The White House is requesting nearly $8 billion as a down payment on federal assistance for flood-ravaged Houston and other parts of Texas inundated by the storm. Ultimately, the price tag for the recovery could exceed $100 billion.
> 
> Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he can’t reassure conservatives who want to divorce the Harvey money from efforts to lift the government’s borrowing limit.
> 
> “Quite the contrary,” Mr. Mnuchin told “Fox News Sunday.” “The president and I believe that it should be tied to the Harvey funding. Our first priority is to make sure that the state gets money. It is critical. And to do that, we need to make sure we raise the debt limit.”
> 
> Days ago, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows told The Washington Post that Harvey money is important, yet attaching it to the debt ceiling would “send the wrong message.”
> 
> The archconservative group frequently spars with leadership and has regularly pushed for spending cuts in conjunction with measures to extend borrowing authority.
> 
> Indeed, the debt limit has become another political quagmire ahead of a jam-packed September calendar, with Democrats signaling they will put the onus on the GOP majority to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill.


Will the Freedom Caucus try to block it? If they do, will the rest of the Rs work with the Ds to get it passed? Will the Ds go for it even though they've reportedly been cool to the idea over the past week? Will Trump get criticized by fisacal conservatives for tying the relief aid to it? Will Rs get criticized if they don't vote for the relief aid because of the debt limit tied to it? Will Ds be criticized as hypocrites for not raising the debt ceiling when they criticized Cruz for doing the same thing during the Obama administration?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> He said word for word. He was calling for a ban of Muslims from entering the United States. That's white nationalist/supremacist rhetoric. I'm not talking about the actual ban he did. I'm talking about what he said on the campaign.
> 
> Also, he claimed that a Mexican judge couldn't be fair because he's Mexican. And Trump's clarification for it was that he was building a wall at the border of Mexico. Again, white nationalist rhetoric. Building a wall builds on the xenophobic characteristics of alt right/white nationalists/supremacists. You can talk about strengthening border security without supremacist talk.
> 
> Now, Trump did say that some Mexicans were good people but others were rapists and killers. In theory there's nothing wrong with what he said. Because every race has good and bad apples. The problem is, white surpramacists/nationalists thrive on criminalizing entire minority groups. Not just some people in each group. Everyone in each group. So while Trump may not have meant to create this, he indirectly enabled them to run with the narrative that all Mexicans are criminals and need to go back to their own country. Do I need to post videos of some of the craziness that was happening at his rallies with his supporters?
> 
> Similar to how Trump has been criminalizing illegal immigrants by being sure to mention the suspect/killer was an illegal immigrant as if to say a U.S born citizen wouldn't have committed the same crime. Again, further enabling the xenophobic/racist rhetoric that has enabled these groups.
> 
> The code word is that they are "other". It's a way of discrediting and demonizing. He did the same thing with the President Obama birther thing. Which of course, far right conservatives (who are basically the white sympathizers and the mini-racists) and other supremacist groups fed off that.
> 
> I see Trump very different from 100% of Trump supporters. And it's not because I'm different politically. Because I have no problem with moderate Conservatives. Far right Conservatives can eat a dick though.
> 
> It's primarily because I've been through things that none of them have ever been through and they are too racially tone deaf to understand why I feel the way I do because their instinct is to downplay, spin and deflect. He will forever be a piece of shit to me.


Why are you complaining about his campaign promise when it wound up not being as severe as the actual ban he implemented since taking office? And how can the ban be based in white nationalism / supremacy when it doesn't prevent immigrants coming in from Israel and the overwhelming majority of Afircan and Asian countries?

If anything, the ban is simply nationalist, because it aims to ensure that western culture is preserved as the status quo in a western country. And honestly, that is perfectly reasonable, because it's been the most beneficial culture in human history.

Like the black crime data gaffe, Trump goofed by taking aim at Curiel and saying that his Mexican heritage would affect his judgement. And again, no one should've expected him to apologize because, again, he has a tendency to not give a fuck about potentially ruffling feathers.

You don't have to like white nationalists / supremacists, but they're entitled to their opinions thanks to free speech, regardless of how repugnant they are. Just like everyone else, if they commit violence, such as in regard to their ideology, they're dealt with appropriately. Trump's rallies get fired up for two reasons:

1) The man is charismatic 

2) Protestors that infiltrate his rallies and get obnoxious about it are booted immediately after

Illegal immigrants are indeed criminals, regardless of how much they've kept their noses clean, because they're in a country *illegally*.

Otherism is used by both sides, just like deflection. Much like how the alt-right is overwhelmingly populated by straight whites, the alt-left does the opposite by being overwhelmingly populated by every single color and non-heterosexual identity except for self-hating heterosexual whites. And just so we're clear, republican politicians aren't the only ones who have a tendency to throw their weight being identity politics, as evident by democrat politicans being silent regarding antifa's violence until like a week ago.

Personally, far righters and far lefters can both get fucked. And I'm sorry to hear that you've run into roadblocks when it comes racial issues, but to be honest, that just goes to show that one's merits should always take precedence over one's color, sexuality, etc.


----------



## DOPA

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/3/trump-administration-wants-to-tie-harvey-relief-mo/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS
> 
> 
> 
> Will the Freedom Caucus try to block it? If they do, will the rest of the Rs work with the Ds to get it passed? Will the Ds go for it even though they've reportedly been cool to the idea over the past week? Will Trump get criticized by fisacal conservatives for tying the relief aid to it? Will Rs get criticized if they don't vote for the relief aid because of the debt limit tied to it? Will Ds be criticized as hypocrites for not raising the debt ceiling when they criticized Cruz for doing the same thing during the Obama administration?


This is a fucking shitty move from the Trump administration. They are essentially politicizing the Harvey storm by trying to tie it to the debt ceiling and use it as leverage so that no reform on the payment of the debt takes place. A deliberate political move at that.

If the freedom caucus votes it down then they look like horrible people who are denying Texas relief funds and at the same point by tying it to the debt ceiling, it ensures the issue of spiraling out of control debt is kicked down the road yet again without any spending reforms.

They know exactly what they are doing and I do not like it one bit.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> The right does not condemn the KKK quickly LOL Plus a lot of them are racist and white nationalist. But keep spouting your lies. There is a reason why the red states rae mostly racist. But don't let the facts get in your way.


Several Republican politicians denounced the white identitarians the day that Charlottesville happened. About a week later as I already linked in this thread, the Republicans formally denounced the White Nationalists in a party conference and as an official statement.

It took Democrat politicians and the MSM 3 weeks to even acknowledge that there was another group being violent. Nancy Pelosi only denounced Antifa a few days ago and the MSM only changed their tune towards Antifa recently. Again it took 3 weeks after Charlottesville for stations like MSNBC to criticize Antifa after they attacked liberals and free speech activists of all people at an Anti-Marxist rally. The Democrats haven't even formally disavowed Antifa and the left wing extremist groups as a party, the closest we have gotten is Pelosi's speech. And to the contrary, one of your heroes Elizabeth Warren when asked about the group, refused to outright condemn Antifa's part in the violence at Charlottesville.

I agree Trump could and should have been more proactive in denouncing both the white nationalists and Antifa, his original statement was tepid and it took him a day to come back and formally condemn the white identitarian groups. 

But this is the hypocrisy I talked about earlier, if you are going to create an environment where if you don't formally disavow from an extremist group that means you are a bad person and you condone that groups views and conduct (which I don't agree with personally anyway) then you have to be consistent. Why isn't all the outrage you've personally shown towards Trump and Trump supporters (though the majority at least here immediately denounced the alt right after Charlottesville) also directed towards the Democrats and the MSM who didn't take a day but *three weeks *to denounce Antifa?

This isn't just a group who attacks "far right" activists which would be bad enough anyway because you shouldn't physically attack someone just because you find their views abhorrent, but also attacking Conservatives, free speech activists, police and liberals. So it should have been easy for the Democrats and the MSM to formally disavow Antifa according to your and their standards but they took weeks, not a day, weeks.

I saw a lot of left leaning posters get outraged at Trump for not denouncing white identitarian groups quick enough, but you guys have been awfully silent about the left wing media, MSM and the Democrats taking an incredibly long time to denounce what Homeland Security have confirmed now to be a Domestic Terrorist group.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Why are you complaining about his campaign promise when it wound up not being as severe as the actual ban he implemented since taking office? And how can the ban be based in white nationalism / supremacy when it doesn't prevent immigrants coming in from Israel and the overwhelming majority of Afircan and Asian countries?


Just because it doesn't prevent immigrants from other countries does not mean it's not white nationalist rhetoric. Hatred does not come absolute. It can come in parts. A white supremacist does not have to practice racism against all races 100% of the time to be a racist. 



> If anything, the ban is simply nationalist, because it aims to ensure that* western culture is preserved as the status quo in a western country.* And honestly, that is perfectly reasonable, because it's been the most beneficial culture in human history.


This is literally what white nationalists believe. Except it's at the expense of other minorities and it's the preservation of white culture. The rejection of multiculturalism. "Taking their culture back." It's the same rhetoric they use with a discriminatory tone. 



> Like the black crime data gaffe, Trump goofed by taking aim at Curiel and saying that his Mexican heritage would affect his judgement. And again, no one should've expected him to apologize because, again, he has a tendency to not give a fuck about potentially ruffling feathers.


That's his problem and he wonders why people don't fuck with him. Because he's quick to pop shit about radical Islamic terrorism and illegal immigrants but can't apologize for the way he's offended minorities. 


> Trump's rallies get fired up for two reasons:
> 
> 1) The man is charismatic
> 
> 2) Protestors that infiltrate his rallies and get obnoxious about it are booted immediately after


Yes. Or because a good portion of them are bigots, white sympathizer, white nationalist and white supremacist trash that hold fucked up opinions of minorities. Again, do I need to post the videos where peaceful protesters were called the n word? Where Hispanics were told to go back to their country not even knowing if they were US citizens or not? 

I remember posting the videos here last year and the reaction was exactly how I expected it to be. 



> Illegal immigrants are indeed criminals, regardless of how much they've kept their noses clean, because they're in a country *illegally*
> Please do not try to equate a literal definition of criminal in comparison to how white supremacists criminalize and demonize all minority groups. The literal definition you are referring to is a "lawbreaker" form of a criminal. White supremacists criminalize minority groups by labeling them as villainous criminals. Two completely different things. The problem is, those lawbreakers are then demonized and labeled as villainous criminals which enable supremacists to commit hate crimes against them through their hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherism is used by both sides, just like deflection. Much like how the alt-right is overwhelmingly populated by straight whites, the alt-left does the opposite by being overwhelmingly populated by every single color and non-heterosexual identity except for self-hating heterosexual whites. And just so we're clear, republican politicians aren't the only ones who have a tendency to throw their weight being identity politics, as evident by democrat politicans being silent regarding antifa's violence until like a week ago.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that otherism on the far right side tends to get mixed with bigotry.
> 
> I'm fully aware of the identity politics that Democrats play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, far righters and far lefters can both get fucked. And I'm sorry to hear that you've run into roadblocks when it comes racial issues, but to be honest, that just goes to show that one's merits should always take precedence over one's color, sexuality, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has done nothing to earn my respect. He will forever be a scumbag white sympathizer (he's got slick/questionable tweets in the past) and white supremacist enabler. Fuck him. :toomanykobes
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Middy

L-DOPA said:


> This is a fucking shitty move from the Trump administration. They are essentially politicizing the Harvey storm by trying to tie it to the debt ceiling and use it as leverage so that no reform on the payment of the debt takes place. A deliberate political move at that.
> 
> If the freedom caucus votes it down then they look like horrible people who are denying Texas relief funds and at the same point by tying it to the debt ceiling, it ensures the issue of spiraling out of control debt is kicked down the road yet again without any spending reforms.
> 
> They know exactly what they are doing and I do not like it one bit.


That really makes him look shady as hell if he does this. It's a shame because I thought that he's handled everything with the Harvey disaster quite well, going down to visit people in the destruction, and generally provide them with support while being humble about it. It's one of the most presidential and professional things I've seen him do since taking office. 

If they end up twisting disaster relief funds to facilitate their own political agenda, it's just in terrible taste, and completely erases any good he did to me down there. I hope they reconsider.


----------



## CamillePunk

We're *never* paying down the debt. :lol It's an impossible dream. My only hope at this juncture is that the inevitable economic collapse occurs under a Democrat president so the goldfish masses blame the left instead of the right, when truly the financial ruin of this country has been a bipartisan effort for the last hundred years. It'd be nice of course if, rather than engaging in a political blame game, people took the time to understand the facts and learn how not to repeat the same mistakes of the last century, but speaking of impossible dreams... :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> Just because it doesn't prevent immigrants from other countries does not mean it's not white nationalist rhetoric. Hatred does not come absolute. It can come in parts. A white supremacist does not have to practice racism against all races 100% of the time to be a racist.
> 
> 
> This is literally what white nationalists believe. Except it's at the expense of other minorities and it's the preservation of white culture. The rejection of multiculturalism. "Taking their culture back." It's the same rhetoric they use with a discriminatory tone.
> 
> 
> That's his problem and he wonders why people don't fuck with him. Because he's quick to pop shit about radical Islamic terrorism and illegal immigrants but can't apologize for the way he's offended minorities.
> 
> Yes. Or because a good portion of them are bigots, white sympathizer, white nationalist and white supremacist trash that hold fucked up opinions of minorities. Again, do I need to post the videos where peaceful protesters were called the n word? Where Hispanics were told to go back to their country not even knowing if they were US citizens or not?
> 
> I remember posting the videos here last year and the reaction was exactly how I expected it to be.
> 
> Please do not try to equate a literal definition of criminal in comparison to how white supremacists criminalize and demonize all minority groups. The literal definition you are referring to is a "lawbreaker" form of a criminal. White supremacists criminalize minority groups by labeling them as villainous criminals. Two completely different things. The problem is, those lawbreakers are then demonized and labeled as villainous criminals which enable supremacists to commit hate crimes against them through their hatred.
> 
> 
> The problem is that otherism on the far right side tends to get mixed with bigotry.
> 
> I'm fully aware of the identity politics that Democrats play.
> 
> 
> Trump has done nothing to earn my respect. He will forever be a scumbag white sympathizer (he's got slick/questionable tweets in the past) and white supremacist enabler. Fuck him. :toomanykobes


Muslims aren't a race. Also, multiculturalism is cancer because it undermines unity under a national identity.

His IDGAF attitude is indeed a double-edged sword, but it's not a deal breaker, as evident by it being pivotal for him becoming president.

Like I said, you don't have to like the opinions of white nationalists, but they're entitled to their opinions regardless because that's the beauty of free speech. The protestors knew what to expect when they went to his rallies. If they didn't, then that's their problem. And if any rally attendees get violent in response, they'd be handled appropriately, as evident by that old man sucker punching that black dude with the dreads.

A "law breaker" form of criminal is still a criminal. Therefore, they're still subject to the rule of law for the crime they've committed, not because of their race, creed, sexuality, etc.

If you were fully aware that the democrats' version of otherism, you'd know that they're bigoted like the republicans' version of otherism, as shown by the likes of Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin and former DNC chair candidate Sally Boynton Brown.

And yes, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you hate Trump, brah. :lol


----------



## xwmstormx

Headliner said:


> Hatred does not come absolute. It can come in parts. A _human being_ does not have to practice racism against all races 100% of the time to be a racist.


FTFY. 

Cheers.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Muslims aren't a race. Also, multiculturalism is cancer because it undermines unity under a national identity.


They are a minority group. It doesn't undermine unity under a national identity because too many things separate us to have a national identity no matter how much previous Presidents have tried to present a national identity. The inclusion of minority groups should never be shot down, but bigot trash thrive on knocking it down. Diversity and growth are built on the quantity and strength of ideas coming from a vast number of different places. Different perspectives. Different cultures. Different experiences. 



> but it's not a deal breaker, as evident by it being pivotal for him becoming president.


It's only not a deal breaker because of a)white privilege, b)Bigot trash love shit like that. If President Obama did 1/10th of what Trump has done they'd be ready to do a public lynching and the tone of people here would be *very* different. Which is why far right trash nitpicked and trashed him on irrelevant shit like wearing a tan suit (which was fly as fuck btw) and chewing bubblegum during a D-Day event. 



> A "law breaker" form of criminal is still a criminal. Therefore, they're still subject to the rule of law for the crime they've committed, not because of their race, creed, sexuality, etc.


You're still trying to equate it under the same umbrella after I already explained why that's not fair because of the consequences of it. 



> If you were fully aware that the democrats' version of otherism, you'd know that they're bigoted like the republicans' version of otherism, as shown by the likes of Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin and former DNC chair candidate Sally Boynton Brown.


You can't equate those two to someone like Congressman Steve King or former Illinois state House member Joe Walsh. It's not the same and you know that. You can't lump things together under the same umbrella like you've been doing. Its not correct clarification.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Several Republican politicians denounced the white identitarians the day that Charlottesville happened. About a week later as I already linked in this thread, the Republicans formally denounced the White Nationalists in a party conference and as an official statement.
> 
> It took Democrat politicians and the MSM 3 weeks to even acknowledge that there was another group being violent. Nancy Pelosi only denounced Antifa a few days ago and the MSM only changed their tune towards Antifa recently. Again it took 3 weeks after Charlottesville for stations like MSNBC to criticize Antifa after they attacked liberals and free speech activists of all people at an Anti-Marxist rally. The Democrats haven't even formally disavowed Antifa and the left wing extremist groups as a party, the closest we have gotten is Pelosi's speech. And to the contrary, one of your heroes Elizabeth Warren when asked about the group, refused to outright condemn Antifa's part in the violence at Charlottesville.
> 
> I agree Trump could and should have been more proactive in denouncing both the white nationalists and Antifa, his original statement was tepid and it took him a day to come back and formally condemn the white identitarian groups.
> 
> But this is the hypocrisy I talked about earlier, if you are going to create an environment where if you don't formally disavow from an extremist group that means you are a bad person and you condone that groups views and conduct (which I don't agree with personally anyway) then you have to be consistent. Why isn't all the outrage you've personally shown towards Trump and Trump supporters (though the majority at least here immediately denounced the alt right after Charlottesville) also directed towards the Democrats and the MSM who didn't take a day but *three weeks *to denounce Antifa?
> 
> This isn't just a group who attacks "far right" activists which would be bad enough anyway because you shouldn't physically attack someone just because you find their views abhorrent, but also attacking Conservatives, free speech activists, police and liberals. So it should have been easy for the Democrats and the MSM to formally disavow Antifa according to your and their standards but they took weeks, not a day, weeks.
> 
> I saw a lot of left leaning posters get outraged at Trump for not denouncing white identitarian groups quick enough, but you guys have been awfully silent about the left wing media, MSM and the Democrats taking an incredibly long time to denounce what Homeland Security have confirmed now to be a Domestic Terrorist group.



The Antifa violence was such a small minority, unlike the KKK violence, especially how the KKK KILLED SOMEONE. I love how the right likes to act like the Antifa was even close to the same level as the KKK/White Nationalist violence. The Antifa is always a super small group at these protests, and of course, people like you and the right love to focus on that more than the real problem that was teh KKK/white nationalist who again you know KILLED SOMEONE.

You can bitch about the left wing media all you want, they are not the president. I bash the left wing media enough especially CNN.

Stop trying to deflect on Trump. 

As for Antifa being a domestic terrorist group funny they didn't do that for the KKK/White Nationalist when they KILLED SOMEONE. You never hear Trump or anyone from the right call the KKK domestic terrorist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> *Muslims aren't a race. *Also, multiculturalism is cancer because it undermines unity under a national identity.
> 
> His IDGAF attitude is indeed a double-edged sword, but it's not a deal breaker, as evident by it being pivotal for him becoming president.
> 
> Like I said, you don't have to like the opinions of white nationalists, but they're entitled to their opinions regardless because that's the beauty of free speech. The protestors knew what to expect when they went to his rallies. If they didn't, then that's their problem. And if any rally attendees get violent in response, they'd be handled appropriately, as evident by that old man sucker punching that black dude with the dreads.
> 
> A "law breaker" form of criminal is still a criminal. Therefore, they're still subject to the rule of law for the crime they've committed, not because of their race, creed, sexuality, etc.
> 
> If you were fully aware that the democrats' version of otherism, you'd know that they're bigoted like the republicans' version of otherism, as shown by the likes of Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin and former DNC chair candidate Sally Boynton Brown.
> 
> And yes, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you hate Trump, brah. :lol


I always hate when people use this BS line oh Muslims aren't a race so it's not racist when people hate on Muslims. You are just taking semantics because it's not Muslims people are hating on its Arabs. Its just like when people say oh Mexican isn't a race, they are hating on Latinos.

When people see someone that looks Arab they hate on them harass them etc etc, that is racism. People need to stop trying to be all cute with their racism (not saying you) and go well Mexican isn't a race or Muslim isn't a race.

Arabs that are not even Muslim or people that just look Arab get harassed all the time because of how they look, how is that not racism?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> They are a minority group. It doesn't undermine unity under a national identity because too many things separate us to have a national identity no matter how much previous Presidents have tried to present a national identity. The inclusion of minority groups should never be shot down, but bigot trash thrive on knocking it down. Diversity and growth are built on the quantity and strength of ideas coming from a vast number of different places. Different perspectives. Different cultures. Different experiences.
> 
> 
> It's only not a deal breaker because of a)white privilege, b)Bigot trash love shit like that. If President Obama did 1/10th of what Trump has done they'd be ready to do a public lynching and the tone of people here would be *very* different. Which is why far right trash nitpicked and trashed him on irrelevant shit like wearing a tan suit (which was fly as fuck btw) and chewing bubblegum during a D-Day event.
> 
> 
> You're still trying to equate it under the same umbrella after I already explained why that's not fair because of the consequences of it.
> 
> 
> You can't equate those two to someone like Congressman Steve King or former Illinois state House member Joe Walsh. It's not the same and you know that. You can't lump things together under the same umbrella like you've been doing. Its not correct clarification.


1.3 billion people =/= a minority group. Also, quality > quantity. Western culture isn't perfect, but seeing as how it's successfully:

- Espoused liberty within lawful reason
- Improved the health and wealth of numerous nations via industrialization
- Wound up having the least corrupt countries in the entire world

I'm gonna have to say those are sufficient reasons as to why it's far and away the most effective culture to ever grace God's green Earth. Don't you find it curious that refugees from war-torn Islamic countries are making beelines for Western countries instead of stable Islamic countries, or even Eastern countries?

There's no such thing as white privilege. You either have privilege or you don't. How you go about obtaining is a different story, since you can either be born into it and potentially lose it, or vice versa.

Obama denounced Jeremiah Wright's words, but not Wright himself. And yet there weren't any calls by civilized people for him to be publicly lynched. The far righters that complained about what he ate for lunch or what brand of toilet paper he wiped his ass with are just like the far lefters who currently complain that there are more than two genders and that you should be penalized for not using proper pronouns: they're a very vocal fringe that won't hold any real political power.

The law is fair to those who adhere to it, not to those who break it. Laws will be applied as necessary for what crime was committed and thankfully, laws can be amended as necessary.

And sure I can equate those two with King and Walsh: all four are ideological pieces of shit that had no business holding office.



birthday_massacre said:


> I always hate when people use this BS line oh Muslims aren't a race so it's not racist when people hate on Muslims. You are just taking semantics because it's not Muslims people are hating on its Arabs. Its just like when people say oh Mexican isn't a race, they are hating on Latinos.
> 
> When people see someone that looks Arab they hate on them harass them etc etc, that is racism. People need to stop trying to be all cute with their racism (not saying you) and go well Mexican isn't a race or Muslim isn't a race.
> 
> Arabs that are not even Muslim or people that just look Arab get harassed all the time because of how they look, how is that not racism?


Just because you hate it doesn't negate that it's true. Muslims are *not* a race. They are adherents to the religion of Islam. People are entitled to talk shit and be bigoted against others because they have the right of free speech to do so. However, if they take it to the point of inciting violence, then they will of course be held liable for their actions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Just because you hate it doesn't negate that it's true. Muslims are *not* a race. They are adherents to the religion of Islam. People are entitled to talk shit and be bigoted against others because they have the right of free speech to do so. However, if they take it to the point of inciting violence, then they will of course be held liable for their actions.


AGAIN the racist are being bigoted against Arabs that is racist. They don't even know if the person they are being racist against is even Muslim if someone just looks Arab they harass them and are bigoted toward them. 

And sure people have the "right" to be racist but they are still racist. Stop trying to sugarcoat their racism. Not sure why people try to downplay it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

People are still bitching about the non-existent Muslim ban? For christ takes, the words Islam and Muslim weren't even in the executive order.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> People are still bitching about the non-existent Muslim ban? For christ takes, the words Islam and Muslim weren't even in the executive order.


Trump called it a Muslim ban repeatedly. But sure ignore Trumps words


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump called it a Muslim ban repeatedly. But sure ignore Trumps words


No where on the executive order does it say the words "Islam" or "Muslim".


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> No where on the executive order does it say the words "Islam" or "Muslim".


You have zero credibility if you are going to claim it's not a Muslim ban when Trump said over and over he was going to do an EC for a ban no Muslims then wrote that EC.

Did or didn't Trump say he was going to do a ban on Muslims?

Just say yes or no.

He even asked Rudy how to legally do a ban on Muslims. And the way they tried doing it is taking out the word Muslim. its all about intent.

If you are going to claim the intent of the EC was not to ban Muslims from those countries then you are lying


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> You have zero credibility if you are going to claim it's not a Muslim ban when Trump said over and over he was going to do an EC for a ban no Muslims then wrote that EC.
> 
> Did or didn't Trump say he was going to do a ban on Muslims?
> 
> Just say yes or no.


No where on the executive order does it say the words "Islam" or "Muslim".

Do I need to say it again? It's a *90 day* halt on Travel between 6-7 countries that are Muslim majority. This is not a permanent executive order by any means. It is not a ban on Islam or Muslims as they will be allowed to come in as refugees afterwards. I do not see what is so difficult to comprehend but alas, you've managed to outdo yourself. 

I find it odd you'd say I have no credibility seeing as people like you have discredited Trumps past remarks about white supremacists , David Duke and the KKK but I suppose only some past remarks(according to you) count while others don't as it won't fit with your narrative


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> No where on the executive order does it say the words "Islam" or "Muslim".
> 
> Do I need to say it again? It's a *90 day* halt on Travel between 6-7 countries that are Muslim majority. This is not a permanent executive order by any means. It is not a ban on Islam or Muslims as they will be allowed to come in as refugees afterwards. I do not see what is so difficult to comprehend but alas, you've managed to outdo yourself.
> 
> I find it odd you'd say I have no credibility seeing as people like you have discredited Trumps past remarks about white supremacists , David Duke and the KKK but I suppose only some past remarks(according to you) count while others don't as it won't fit with your narrative


Keep deflecting and dodging the question. The reason you refuse to answer the direct question is that you know exactly that is a Muslin ban but you refuse to admit it.






Also keep defending Trump racism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting and dodging the question. The reason you refuse to answer the direct question is that you know exactly that is a Muslin ban but you refuse to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also keep defending Trump racism.


All I did was show your blatant hypocrisy and lack of credibility by showing you your own history of ignoring past remarks made by Trump because they don't fit with your narrative. This has nothing to do with "dodging" your question, but rather making a clear point about you as a poster, which I've done. You don't care about what Trump says or has said int he past as long as it doesn't suit your narrative so you'll ignore it or discredit it. Thus showing your lack of credibility and being objective about what you criticize in regards to Trump. That coupled with your blatant lying about posters here and what they say and feel as well....You still haven't shown that the executive order says the words "Islam" or "Muslim" :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> All I did was show your blatant hypocrisy and lack of credibility by showing you your own history of ignoring past remarks made by Trump because they don't fit with your narrative. This has nothing to do with "dodging" your question, but rather making a clear point about you as a poster, which I've done. You don't care about what Trump says or has said int he past as long as it doesn't suit your narrative so you'll ignore it or discredit it. Thus showing your lack of credibility and being objective about what you criticize in regards to Trump. That coupled with your blatant lying about posters here and what they say and feel as well....You still haven't shown that the executive order says the words "Islam" or "Muslim" :lol


I care about what Trump DOES not what is forced to say after he does not do so on his own. You really think Trump didn't know who David Duke was when he was repeatedly asked to denounce him? Trump acted like he did not know who he was because he did not want to denounce his base.

You can keep making excuses all you want for Trump, it just proves more and more how Trump posters can't deal with facts or the truth.

But keep living in your delusional Trump world. It's laughable anyone would claim Trump isn't a racist at this point.


----------



## xwmstormx

Ok, I'm a bit bored so thought I'd get into this a little bit. I didn't read the whole thread so I'm starting out here a bit late. Plus, I can't promise to answer everything heading my way. I'm trying to catch up on things so maybe you all can help me out here.

Lets start from the last page!



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump called it a Muslim ban repeatedly. But sure ignore Trumps words


Can you please provide some video of what you are referencing to? From Trump, not from others.

(Clipped some next parts out here)


birthday_massacre said:


> You really think Trump didn't know who David Duke was when he was repeatedly asked to denounce him?


I know who David Duke is. Who repeatedly asked Trump to denounce David Duke?

Not attacking you here B_M. It just some things I read on the last page I was on and wanted to chat about.

Edit: If you don't want to chat about them then that is fine. Everyone else is welcome to chat about them if they so desire.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> AGAIN the racist are being bigoted against Arabs that is racist. They don't even know if the person they are being racist against is even Muslim if someone just looks Arab they harass them and are bigoted toward them.
> 
> And sure people have the "right" to be racist but they are still racist. Stop trying to sugarcoat their racism. Not sure why people try to downplay it.


You were complaining about me saying that Muslims are not a race even though that's true. I'm not denying that Arabs getting harassed for how they look, regardless of their religious affiliation, is racist. Again, people have the right to be racist because, *again*, it counts as free speech and, *again*, the law will hold them accountable if their racism leads to violence.


----------



## deepelemblues

I don't understand.

Bigotry against whites is okay because whites are bigoted right.

Well guess what boys, Arabs are tied with East Asians for the most bigoted people on earth. So... don't Arabs deserve it or something stupid like that?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904484186291089408
Join the echo chamber where the popular vote matters and Hillary Clinton is the rightful president today! :lol SAD!


----------



## Reaper

So they lost the debate on every platform despite all kinds of blocking tactics and are now escaping into their own safe spaces.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Do people who don't like Trump or the GOP in general even have a place in the US anymore or should they all sit down and shut the fuck up?


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> Do people who don't like Trump or the GOP in general even have a place in the US anymore or should they all sit down and shut the fuck up?


I know right it's so popular and safe to be openly pro-Trump


----------



## The Hardcore Show

CamillePunk said:


> I know right it's so popular and safe to be openly pro-Trump


What I am trying to say here is you share a lot of his views on things right? You have no interest in seeing him work with the other side unless they come crawling to him with their tails between their legs right?

What I find scary is how so many of you in this thread kind of want a country that is up and down conservative on almost every part of human life. Just like it won't work if this country tried to be liberal up and down.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Hardcore Show said:


> Do people who don't like Trump or the GOP in general even have a place in the US anymore or should they all sit down and shut the fuck up?


If they choose of their own free will to sit down and shut the fuck up that would be kewl :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> What I am trying to say here is you share a lot of his views on things right? You have no interest in seeing him work with the other side unless they come crawling to him with their tails between their legs right?
> 
> What I find scary is how so many of you in this thread kind of want a country that is up and down conservative on almost every part of human life. Just like it won't work if this country tried to be liberal up and down.


Conservatives want a conservative government, liberals want a liberal government. That is generally how it goes with politics. 

I'm sorry you're scared.


----------



## xwmstormx

The Hardcore Show said:


> Do people who don't like Trump or the GOP in general even have a place in the US anymore or should they all sit down and shut the fuck up?


How can anyone say that someone doesn't have a place in the US (legally) to live here/there? I might see where you are going here though. I don't believe that people should 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Nor do I believe that people should get violent during protests. 

The news media would NEVER report on a protest where people sat down, had signs and were silent. They would only show that protest if it became violent.

Correct me if I am wrong because I am learning new things about the constitution and the bill of rights recently.

So, from what I gather so far: Every legal citizen of the US has the privilege to live in the US. Much like a driver's license. You have the privilege to drive but that can be taken away if you fuck up too much. They can both be revoked can they not?


----------



## Reaper

xwmstormx said:


> So, from what I gather so far: Every legal citizen of the US has the privilege to live in the US. Much like a driver's license. You have the privilege to drive but that can be taken away if you fuck up too much. They can both be revoked can they not?


If you're a citizen and/or immigrant, all the rights awarded to you under the constitution cannot be revoked. As long as you're a citizen of the US, your rights as defined by the constitution cannot be revoked. Your citizenship cannot be revoked under any circumstances (except in extreme cases like espionage, treason, attempt to overthrow etc) unless you weren't born here and there's some fraud in your paperwork that gets caught later on. Your citizenship and rights under the constitution are not privileges and shouldn't be confused as such - otherwise that gives too much power to the state over its subjects. 

If you're not a citizen/legal immigrant of the US, then the constitutional rights do not apply to you and you are at the mercy of the ruling party. You have no rights. All you have is certain guarantees by the government - which are awarded to the said government by itself without constitutional authority, and only awarded to illegals by extension of the mercy of the ruling government. None of the rights of illegals are actually part of the constitution and all laws that grant "rights and privileges" to illegals are unconstitutional by nature. 

Anyways, I think the ONLY way you can have your rights revoked is for high treason and even then denial of American citizenship will likely not happen because then it would need to be ruled upon by the SC. 

Your rights if you're legal are guaranteed. No government can infringe upon them. That's what I've gleaned from the constitution reading I've done since I got here.

Interestingly, trying to violently overthrow the current US government as the antifa is currently doing can get them charged with high treason (conspiracy to overthrow a government) and that should be interesting if the Supreme Court goes in that direction. But I'm guessing they won't.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> The Antifa violence was such a small minority, unlike the KKK violence


fpalm Dave you are the worst poster here.




birthday_massacre said:


> You never hear Trump or anyone from the right call the KKK domestic terrorist.


From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
"Antifa are a grouping of autonomous far-left militant organisations classified by the Obama-era U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigations as entities engaged in violent domestic terrorism activities since at least early-2016."

The KKK is also listed there, and there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Ku_Klux_Klan ) are many mentions of the word 'terror' in the Wikipedia page for the KKK here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Later_Klans:_1946.E2.80.93present

It's CLEAR the only reason people don't make a fuss about the KKK every week is because they are such a fringe movement condemned by just about every person in America that they barely do anything, with the only thing the KKK has seemingly done in recent times is be a part of Charlottesville, whereas ANTIFA make a show up at every protest or university campus in the country.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> 1.3 billion people =/= a minority group. Also, quality > quantity. Western culture isn't perfect, but seeing as how it's successfully:
> 
> - Espoused liberty within lawful reason
> - Improved the health and wealth of numerous nations via industrialization
> - Wound up having the least corrupt countries in the entire world
> 
> I'm gonna have to say those are sufficient reasons as to why it's far and away the most effective culture to ever grace God's green Earth. Don't you find it curious that refugees from war-torn Islamic countries are making beelines for Western countries instead of stable Islamic countries, or even Eastern countries?


In the US they are a minority group. That's what I'm referring too. None of those excuses are reasons for the rejection of other cultures.



> There's no such thing as white privilege. You either have privilege or you don't. How you go about obtaining is a different story, since you can either be born into it and potentially lose it, or vice versa.


White privilege is literally intertwined with racism. Please don't tell me white privilege doesn't exist when I've seen it with my own eyes and experienced it first hand numerous times. 



> Obama denounced Jeremiah Wright's words, but not Wright himself. And yet there weren't any calls by civilized people for him to be publicly lynched. .


That's because what Obama did wasn't worthy of the outrage. That doesn't even measure up to what I was saying. And I was clearly exaggerating with the public lynching line in order to make a point.



> And sure I can equate those two with King and Walsh: all four are ideological pieces of shit that had no business holding office.


King and Walsh are racist trash. The other two are too much into their SJW gimmick and it's created this weird intolerance mini bigot behavior. I'd take them over racist trash any day of the week. Twice on sundays.


----------



## Pratchett

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904484186291089408
> Join the echo chamber where the popular vote matters and Hillary Clinton is the rightful president today! :lol SAD!





> With the essence of American democracy at stake, 65.8 million people saw through the lies and smears and made a wise, patriotic choice. But they continue to be marginalized and harassed. Verrit’s purpose is to become their trusted source of political information and analysis; to provide them (and anyone like-minded) sanctuary in a chaotic media environment; to center their shared principles; and to do so with an unwavering commitment to truth and facts.


Sweet Jesus that isn't an echo chamber it's a religious cult :trumpwoah


----------



## Miss Sally

Pratchett said:


> Sweet Jesus that isn't an echo chamber it's a religious cult :trumpwoah


We're seeing more ideological movements slowly turning into Religious like cults, all based on feelings and "faith" and the "good of all" over facts and discussion. 

We've seen it with 3rd wave Feminism, Social Justice and topics of forms of Governments.

The same can be said with all these Identiarian movements and Identity Politics.. Slogans, hand gestures, near uniform like clothing, marches, empty platitudes as old as time, otherisms, overstated oppression and questionable "facts". Yet these people don't really help their own, it's just noise. 

These past five years have given rise to division, the demonizing of others and denial of obvious truths. 

What's more scary is the fact that people think "safe spaces" and segregation is actually a healthy and good thing.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> In the US they are a minority group. That's what I'm referring too. None of those excuses are reasons for the rejection of other cultures.
> 
> 
> White privilege is literally intertwined with racism. Please don't tell me white privilege doesn't exist when I've seen it with my own eyes and experienced it first hand numerous times.
> 
> 
> That's because what Obama did wasn't worthy of the outrage. That doesn't even measure up to what I was saying. And I was clearly exaggerating with the public lynching line in order to make a point.
> 
> 
> King and Walsh are racist trash. The other two are too much into their SJW gimmick and it's created this weird intolerance mini bigot behavior. I'd take them over racist trash any day of the week. Twice on sundays.


They're actual results, not excuses. And western culture is obviously inclusive of other cultures. Otherwise, millions of people wouldn't have flocked to western countries for opportunities more promising than in their own home countries.

What you saw was simply racism, not white privilege. Minorities holding office, becoming millionaires and having relevance in pop culture are the biggest pieces of proof that privilege knows no color, creed or gender.

So if Obama disowning Wright's words but not Wright himself wasn't worthy of outrage, the same can be said for Trump's disowning of white nationalists' words and actions but not white nationalists themselves.

And if you hate racism that much, then you should hold Boynton to the same level of disdain as King and Walsh, since her basically shitting on white people is internalized racism (and self-hatred) due to her being white. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> We're seeing more ideological movements slowly turning into Religious like cults, all based on feelings and "faith" and the "good of all" over facts and discussion.
> 
> We've seen it with 3rd wave Feminism, Social Justice and topics of forms of Governments.
> 
> The same can be said with all these Identiarian movements and Identity Politics.. Slogans, hand gestures, near uniform like clothing, marches, empty platitudes as old as time, otherisms, overstated oppression and questionable "facts". Yet these people don't really help their own, it's just noise.
> 
> These past five years have given rise to division, the demonizing of others and denial of obvious truths.
> 
> What's more scary is the fact that people think "safe spaces" and segregation is actually a healthy and good thing.


Absolutely, when your presidents communication team bans the media from your briefings you know you've got a country fully of people needing safe spaces.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> Absolutely, when your presidents communication team bans the media from your briefings you know you've got a country fully of people needing safe spaces.


While I agree media shouldn't be banned I'll also point out that the media should be acting more professional and stop with the misrepresentation of facts, acting like children and outright lying. It goes both ways. 

ut


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Pratchett said:


> Sweet Jesus that isn't an echo chamber it's a religious cult :trumpwoah


The person who wrote that sounds mentally unstable, which is what happens when you live in your own little bubble. My favorite part is how this person claims that Democrats are marginalized , its as if they forgot who won the last 2 elections


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904420567369048065
Give us money to end violence ... otherwise we'll act like the violent mob we are. 

Sounds familiar.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> While I agree media shouldn't be banned I'll also point out that the media should be acting more professional and stop with the misrepresentation of facts, acting like children and outright lying. It goes both ways.
> 
> ut


The way you describe the media is very similar to Trump, you're right it does go both ways.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> The way you describe the media is very similar to Trump, you're right it does go both ways.


The media has covered and criticized Trump and how he eats his steak, how many scoops of ice cream he gets ,whether or not Trump is scared of stairs and what shoes his wife wears

The media is pretty insane


----------



## birthday_massacre

xwmstormx said:


> Ok, I'm a bit bored so thought I'd get into this a little bit. I didn't read the whole thread so I'm starting out here a bit late. Plus, I can't promise to answer everything heading my way. I'm trying to catch up on things so maybe you all can help me out here.
> 
> Lets start from the last page!
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide some video of what you are referencing to? From Trump, not from others.
> 
> (Clipped some next parts out here)
> 
> 
> I know who David Duke is. Who repeatedly asked Trump to denounce David Duke?
> 
> Not attacking you here B_M. It just some things I read on the last page I was on and wanted to chat about.
> 
> Edit: If you don't want to chat about them then that is fine. Everyone else is welcome to chat about them if they so desire.


If you were a bit bored you could have used google and found the answers pretty quickly

Trump during the election talking about how he was going to implement a Muslim ban






he also had it on his website for months until a reporter asked him about it then it got taken down

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...an-deleted-from-campaign-site-after-reporters

And that was while he was president, it was still on is a website.

As for not denouncing KKK and David Duke





Trump doesn't know who the KKK and David Duke are? You really believe that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> fpalm Dave you are the worst poster here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
> "Antifa are a grouping of autonomous far-left militant organisations classified by the Obama-era U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigations as entities engaged in violent domestic terrorism activities since at least early-2016."
> 
> The KKK is also listed there, and there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Ku_Klux_Klan ) are many mentions of the word 'terror' in the Wikipedia page for the KKK here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Later_Klans:_1946.E2.80.93present
> 
> It's CLEAR the only reason people don't make a fuss about the KKK every week is because they are such a fringe movement condemned by just about every person in America that they barely do anything, with the only thing the KKK has seemingly done in recent times is be a part of Charlottesville, whereas ANTIFA make a show up at every protest or university campus in the country.


LOL that is rich coming from you Oxi

And yeah the KKK is such a fringe movement and the only thing they have done in recent times is Charlottesville except for things like this

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-nazi-kkk-attacks.html


Before Charlottesville, a String of Killings Raised the Specter of Far-Right Violence
By LIAM STACKAUG. 14, 2017
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Photo

Participants at a rally of white supremacists gathered near a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters
The death of Heather D. Heyer, who was killed on Saturday after a man drove a car into counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., was the latest in a string of fatal attacks that have raised the specter of far-right, racist or anti-immigrant violence.

The police said James Alex Fields Jr., 20, of Ohio was driving the car and charged him with second-degree murder and related crimes. The Department of Justice was opening a civil rights investigation into Ms. Heyer’s death; Attorney General Jeff Sessions called it an act of terrorism.


During the rally, Mr. Fields was photographed marching with Vanguard America, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as a white supremacist group that uses Nazi rhetoric. One of his former teachers, Derek Weimer, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that Mr. Fields once wrote a paper “very much along the party lines of the neo-Nazi movement.”

Here is a list of recent killings that law enforcement officials have linked to suspects with a history of racist and anti-immigrant views or affiliation with white supremacist groups.

Indian Immigrants Shot in Kansas

Photo

Srinivas Kuchibhotla, right, with his wife, Sunayana Dumala, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in an undated photo. Mr. Kuchibhotla was shot dead outside a bar in Kansas on February. Credit Courtesy of Kranti Shalia, via Associated Press
Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani, two tech engineers from India, liked to go to a bar in Olathe, Kan., after work. One evening there in February, they encountered Adam W. Purinton, a 51-year-old white man, who questioned their immigration status and hurled racial slurs at them.

“He asked us what visa are we currently on and whether we are staying here illegally,” Mr. Madasani told The New York Times.

Mr. Purinton was kicked out of the bar but came back a short time later, angry and armed. He shot both men and then shot another man, Ian Grillot, who tried to catch him. Mr. Kuchibhotla was killed.

Mr. Purinton fled to Missouri, where he was arrested after telling a bartender he was on the run, the police said. He faces state charges of premeditated first-degree murder in Kansas and was indicted on federal hate crimes charges in June.

A Plan to Kill Black Men in New York

Photo

James Harris Jackson at Manhattan Criminal Court in March. Credit Pool photo by Steven Hirsch
James Harris Jackson, a white man, traveled from Baltimore to New York City in March with the goal of killing black men, investigators said. Soon after he arrived, he fatally stabbed one, Timothy Caughman, 66, with a sword in Midtown Manhattan.

Mr. Jackson turned himself in to the police the day after the attack and told them where he disposed of the sword. He told investigators he wanted to kill black men in New York specifically because he would get more media attention there.

“We’re very fortunate that it stopped at one, and it wasn’t more,” Assistant Chief William Aubry, the commander of Manhattan South detectives, told reporters at the time.

Anti-Muslim Rant Leads to Fatal Stabbings

Photo

Jeremy Joseph Christian. Credit Portland Police
Jeremy Joseph Christian flew into a rage when he saw a young woman in a hijab on a commuter train in Portland, Ore., and began yelling anti-Muslim insults at her and her friend. When other passengers intervened, he pulled out a knife and slashed their throats.

Two people, Ricky John Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche, were killed, and a third, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, was seriously wounded. Mr. Christian was charged with two counts of aggravated murder but defended the killings in a courtroom rant.

“Death to the enemies of America. Leave this country if you hate our freedom,” he said. “You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism.”


One of the women Mr. Christian yelled at on the train, Destinee Mangum, 16, thanked the stabbing victims for saving her life. She told reporters she is not Muslim.

Former Neo-Nazi Kills Roommates in Florida

Photo

Devon Arthurs, 18, a former neo-Nazi, was arrested in the shooting deaths of his two roommates. He said they were neo-Nazis who mocked his conversion to Islam. Credit Tampa Police Department, via Associated Press
Devon Arthurs, 18, a former neo-Nazi who converted to Islam, took three people hostage inside a head shop in Tampa, Fla., in May. He told the hostages he was angry about American bombings in the Muslim world and said he had killed someone.

The police convinced Mr. Arthurs to release the hostages and arrested him. He told them he had killed two of his roommates, Jeremy Himmelman, 22, and Andrew Oneschuk, 18, because they did not respect his religious beliefs. He said they were neo-Nazis, which their families denied.

The police also arrested a fourth roommate, Brandon Russell, 21, after they found a stockpile of bomb-making material in his bedroom and a picture of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, on his dresser.

Mr. Arthurs was charged with two counts of murder. Mr. Russell was charged with two counts related to the explosive material.

A Killing at the University of Maryland

Photo

Sean Urbanski was charged with fatally stabbing a visiting student on the campus of the University of Maryland in May. Credit University of Maryland Police Department
Richard W. Collins III, 23, had just been commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army and was three days from graduating from Bowie State University in Maryland when he was stabbed and killed by Sean C. Urbanski, 22, a student at the University of Maryland. Mr. Collins was black and Mr. Urbanski is white.

David B. Mitchell, the police chief at the University of Maryland, said Mr. Urbanski belonged to a Facebook group called “Alt-Reich: Nation” whose content contained “extreme bias against women, Latinos, members of the Jewish faith, and especially African-Americans.”

But Prince George’s County State’s Attorney, Angela D. Alsobrooks, said prosecutors would “need something probably more than just a Facebook posting” to pursue a hate crimes charge.

“We do not have enough evidence to say conclusively whether this is a hate crime,” she said in May. “What we can say is that we will leave no stone unturned.”



But it just proves my point either further you didn't even know about those but htey happened its because in the US they dont make a huge deal about KKK terrorist like they do Muslim terrorist or when Antifa does something.


----------



## Reaper

Democrat Frankenstien now trying to kill the monster it created - including the monsters on their own side :mj4 










First the Anitfa, now the Identitarians on their own side. 

We :clap are :clap winning :clap the :clap culture :clap war 

:trump2


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> But it just proves my point either further you didn't even know about those but htey happened its because in the US they dont make a huge deal about KKK terrorist like they do Muslim terrorist or when Antifa does something.


Not ONE of the things you linked mentioned the KKK. The only one that mentioned Nazism was the one saying the "former" Neo Nazi. You're conflating all hate-based crimes to the KKK and Nazis (again), which not only is dishonest, but a bad thing to do. Don't patronise me with that pathetic shite saying I don't know because I'm not American. Nothing can be more ignorant.

Even if all those killings did confirm ties with KKK and Neo Nazis, it's STILL a fringe group. Do you KNOW what a fringe group is? ANTIFA is a fringe group too. The difference is one gets condemned straight away and the other takes, well, a couple of fucking months.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> Not ONE of the things you linked mentioned the KKK. The only one that mentioned Nazism was the one saying the "former" Neo Nazi. You're conflating all hate-based crimes to the KKK and Nazis (again), which not only is dishonest, but a bad thing to do. Don't patronise me with that pathetic shite saying I don't know because I'm not American. Nothing can be more ignorant.
> 
> Even if all those killings did confirm ties with KKK and Neo Nazis, it's STILL a fringe group. Do you KNOW what a fringe group is? ANTIFA is a fringe group too. The difference is one gets condemned straight away and the other takes, well, a couple of fucking months.


Keep making excuses Oxi. Neonationalist and the KKK are the far right. Those attacks are from the far right wingers. But you keep proving my point for me, thanks you made it too easy.


----------



## deepelemblues

The savagery of this madman saying daca will end in 6 months, putting the deadline for congress to do something right when primary season heats up. Bitch losers like Flake and Heller and Paul Ryan outmaneuvered again. Immigration is an issue where :trump's side has widespread support and it will now be a key issue of the midterms. The utter madman!


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep making excuses Oxi. Neonationalist and the KKK are the far right. Those attacks are from the far right wingers. But you keep proving my point for me, thanks you made it too easy.


Fringe

Groups


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The savagery of this madman saying daca will end in 6 months, putting the deadline for congress to do something right when primary season heats up. Bitch losers like Flake and Heller and Paul Ryan outmaneuvered again. Immigration is an issue where :trump's side has widespread support and it will now be a key issue of the midterms. The utter madman!


Support from who? Not Americans since most Americans are against Trump ending daca. 2/3s of Americans support daca.


----------



## Vic Capri

> First the Anitfa, now the Identitarians on their own side.
> 
> We are winning the culture war












Salon is cancer.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> The media has covered and criticized Trump and how he eats his steak, how many scoops of ice cream he gets ,whether or not Trump is scared of stairs and what shoes his wife wears
> 
> The media is pretty insane


Yeah, I remember when Obama was in power and he had to defend his nationality, when your in positions of power the craziest people try to find the stupidest shit to attack you.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> The way you describe the media is very similar to Trump, you're right it does go both ways.


It does, the Media was already going nuts before he even became President, fake stories, nonsense and obvious bias.

If they acted Professional and did their jobs they'd actually not have single digit amounts of people who trust them and calling out Trump would be more effective. 

If they didn't ignore Trump and try to put words in his mouth, they'd not been banned etc.

I'm not defending Trump from everything here, he's done and said some stupid shit. The banning of the media is dumb but it wasn't like it was done for no reason. 

The MSM has fact checkers, loads of employees and are our source of viable information to make sure the Government doesn't lie yet they've turned their backs on that to push their idiotic agendas and given up professionalism.
@Reaper of course they're going to give it up because they've realized they pushed to soon and they not only look like idiots but there is zero chance of any conflict going their way.

If a conflict did happen it would be innocent people they got hurt as the College Commies, people who fleeced groups like BLM for money and Antifa wimps go run to Canada. (Not Mexico though, it's too brown and scary!) The "Left" after that would have zero power and no sway over anyone or anything.

Another reason is because "Diversity is our Strength" is so laughably bad because they've turned it into a "Me first!" division among it's supporters. We've already seen BLM hijack Gay Pride Parades, seen the Resist movement hijack Gay Parades, seen people kick out Jewish people from them along with Police and others who don't follow the main ideology. It was bound to happen.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Another reason is because "Diversity is our Strength" is so laughably bad because they've turned it into a "Me first!" division among it's supporters. We've already seen BLM hijack Gay Pride Parades, seen the Resist movement hijack Gay Parades, seen people kick out Jewish people from them along with Police and others who don't follow the main ideology. It was bound to happen.


America is not the kind of country where the far-left can thrive. We've been run by centre right/center left governments for long enough. 

Plus as I made the case earlier in this thread, all of Social Justice is essentially borrowing a great deal of authoritarianism from socialist / anti-capitalist ideologies for it to be sustainable in a country like America where people are hyper-vigilant. 

Far left isn't as devious as the center when it came to pushing state policy. Ironically, their transparency and extreme nature is part of their downfall. America is run by centrists and that's not changing anytime soon.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> If you were a bit bored you could have used google and found the answers pretty quickly
> 
> Trump during the election talking about how he was going to implement a Muslim ban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he also had it on his website for months until a reporter asked him about it then it got taken down
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...an-deleted-from-campaign-site-after-reporters
> 
> And that was while he was president, it was still on is a website.
> 
> As for not denouncing KKK and David Duke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump doesn't know who the KKK and David Duke are? You really believe that?


My point about Trumps past remarks mean nothing to you as long as it doesn't fit your narrative . Case in point, you actively ignoring



*2000 Trump: Duke is ‘a big racist’*

Fifteen years ago, when Trump was flirting with a White House bid as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke as a cause of concern at least three times.

In 2000, former wrestler and then-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura broke with the Reform Party because he didn’t want to be associated with the Reform Party’s presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, whom Duke supported.

"Buchanan is an anti-abortion extremist and an unrealistic isolationist," Ventura told the New York Daily News on Feb. 12, 2000. "*The latest I hear is that he's now getting support from David Duke. I can't be a part of that and I won't be part of that.*"

Before he called it quits, Ventura said he consulted with Trump. After Ventura left the party, Trump also named Duke as one of the Reform's "biggest problems" on NBC’s Today Show.

"*Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000*. 

He announced that day that he wouldn’t seek the nomination of the Reform Party, naming Duke as one of his reasons.

"*Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan," Trump wrote in a statement. "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.*"

A few days later, Trump himself quit the party and repeated his earlier statement.

"Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep," Trump wrote in a Feb. 19, 2000, New York Times op-ed.

*1991 Trump: A vote for Duke is ‘an anger vote’*

Even earlier, Trump appeared on CNN on Nov. 19, 1991, and discussed Duke’s defeat in the Louisiana governor’s race and his possibly running against then-President George H.W. Bush. (Duke declared his candidacy as a Republican about a month after Trump’s interview.)

Larry King: "Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him. Four hundred New Yorkers contributed."

Trump: "*I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there's a lot of hostility in this country. There's a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.*"

King: "Anger?"

Trump: "It's anger. I mean, that's an anger vote. People are angry about what's happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they're really in deep trouble. When you talk about the East Coast — it's not the East Coast. It's the East Coast, the middle coast, the West Coast."

King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs, might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George (H.W.) Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like (Mario) Cuomo runs. I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/

But you'll disregard because it doesn't suit your narrative


----------



## samizayn

Vic Capri said:


> Salon is cancer.
> 
> - Vic


How dare a website give platforms to people from diverse viewpoints. Scandalous, outrageous, ruining our society etc.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

samizayn said:


> How dare a website give platforms to people from diverse viewpoints. Scandalous, outrageous, ruining our society etc.


Their is no other viewpoint but the viewpoint of Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> My point about Trumps past remarks mean nothing to you as long as it doesn't fit your narrative . Case in point, you actively ignoring
> 
> 
> 
> *2000 Trump: Duke is ‘a big racist’*
> 
> Fifteen years ago, when Trump was flirting with a White House bid as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke as a cause of concern at least three times.
> 
> In 2000, former wrestler and then-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura broke with the Reform Party because he didn’t want to be associated with the Reform Party’s presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, whom Duke supported.
> 
> "Buchanan is an anti-abortion extremist and an unrealistic isolationist," Ventura told the New York Daily News on Feb. 12, 2000. "*The latest I hear is that he's now getting support from David Duke. I can't be a part of that and I won't be part of that.*"
> 
> Before he called it quits, Ventura said he consulted with Trump. After Ventura left the party, Trump also named Duke as one of the Reform's "biggest problems" on NBC’s Today Show.
> 
> "*Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000*.
> 
> He announced that day that he wouldn’t seek the nomination of the Reform Party, naming Duke as one of his reasons.
> 
> "*Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan," Trump wrote in a statement. "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.*"
> 
> A few days later, Trump himself quit the party and repeated his earlier statement.
> 
> "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep," Trump wrote in a Feb. 19, 2000, New York Times op-ed.
> 
> *1991 Trump: A vote for Duke is ‘an anger vote’*
> 
> Even earlier, Trump appeared on CNN on Nov. 19, 1991, and discussed Duke’s defeat in the Louisiana governor’s race and his possibly running against then-President George H.W. Bush. (Duke declared his candidacy as a Republican about a month after Trump’s interview.)
> 
> Larry King: "Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him. Four hundred New Yorkers contributed."
> 
> Trump: "*I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there's a lot of hostility in this country. There's a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.*"
> 
> King: "Anger?"
> 
> Trump: "It's anger. I mean, that's an anger vote. People are angry about what's happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they're really in deep trouble. When you talk about the East Coast — it's not the East Coast. It's the East Coast, the middle coast, the West Coast."
> 
> King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs, might you see a really divided vote?"
> 
> Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George (H.W.) Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like (Mario) Cuomo runs. I think Cuomo can win the election."
> 
> King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."
> 
> Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes."
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/
> 
> But you'll disregard because it doesn't suit your narrative



So you admit Trump knows who David Duke is and was lying when he wouldn't denounce David Duke and the KKK in that Tapper interview.

The whole reason Trump wouldn't denouce him in the inteview because like he admitted Duke gets a lot of votes and Trump is a racist and didn't want to piss off his racist base.

But keep ignoring the facts, its what you do best its cute you find quotes from 20 years ago and ignore what he does recently like in the Tapper interview.


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> The savagery of this madman saying daca will end in 6 months, putting the deadline for congress to do something right when primary season heats up. Bitch losers like Flake and Heller and Paul Ryan outmaneuvered again. Immigration is an issue where :trump's side has widespread support and it will now be a key issue of the midterms. The utter madman!


However, months ago he was talking about continuing this program. In fact, back in February he was leaning towards allowing the program to remain in place. In fact, Rush Limbaugh stated that he was perfectly OK with it...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/22/trump-is-letting-dreamers-stay-and-rush-is-fine-with-that/

This has seemed to become more and more of a habit lately with this President, and I'm not liking it. With the exception of the appointment of Gorsuch to SCOTUS, it seems that he has to be pushed to get stuff done. 

For example...yes he condemned the KKK and white nationalists but he had to be pushed into making a statement. Then, the statement was brutal and had to come out a second time to do a make-good. Let's also look at he was leaning towards keeping the US in the Paris Accord, then finally pulls us out of it after catching flak from the likes of Bannon and Ann Coulter. The transgender ban comes out of left field, and coincidentally it came while catching shit from conservatives for the way he treated Sessions and the horrid attempt to repeal Obamacare. Same thing this week with DACA...he is pushing towards keeping the program, suddenly the wrath of his supporters comes through. So, if he gives this six months and he receives a bill from Congress keeping the program in place, is he going to go ahead and sign it just to say he has solved the problem? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mnuchin-congress-tie-harvey-aid-debt-limit-bill-49606100

Any aid package needs to be a completely separate issue from what is pending with the upcoming budget. However, it looks like his goal is to raise the debt ceiling and continue with the crazy spending and tie it all into the aid for the folks in Texas and Louisiana. Basically, if they vote against it, they are horrible Congresspeople and Senators. In fact, Trump seems to fight his party more then the political opposition. Ladies and gentlemen, he is looking to repeat the mistakes of George W Bush, who decided he was going to cut taxes but not cut spending. That will put this country on the path to another massive market correction at best, crash at worst down the road. 

So far, folks...for someone who claims to be a hero of the conservative movement, he's not governing much further to the right then either of the Bushes. Not to mention many of his trade policies are actually much closer to what Bernie believes. I know I might catch shit for this, but Trump seems to be more focused on being popular and loved then doing the right thing and doing what he stands for. Question is, we really don't know what he stands for as there's so much chaos right now in the WH. While I didn't agree with 98% of what Obama believed and stood for, he at least had a set of principles and values that guided him. They weren't what I would have rolled with, but at least he knew where he stood. We still don't know really where Trump stands. 

I'm scared that the conservative movement, one that I have fought for and supported my whole life...has been hijacked and that eventually the Republican Party will permanently be cemented as just another big government, big programs, bigly involved in all aspects of our life party. What they will call conservative will be replaced by what the Europeans call conservative...and then we are fucked as a country.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> How dare a website give platforms to people from diverse viewpoints. Scandalous, outrageous, ruining our society etc.


Oh please. Change that heading from White men must be stopped to Black men must be stopped and you'd be the first to rage about Salon being a platform for the KKK.

In fact that is exactly what would happen. Salon would be labeled as a hate speech platform, defunded and removed from Google and the Internet by its ISP. 

So please spare us the "intellectual diversity" bullshit because it reeks.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> They're actual results, not excuses. And western culture is obviously inclusive of other cultures. Otherwise, millions of people wouldn't have flocked to western countries for opportunities more promising than in their own home countries.


Inclusive to other cultures but it doesn't mean we share the same national identity. The only thing we have in common is basic moral principles. Other than that, everything else is different. 


> What you saw was simply racism, not white privilege. Minorities holding office, becoming millionaires and having relevance in pop culture are the biggest pieces of proof that privilege knows no color, creed or gender.


Relevance, money and power does not mean privilege doesn't exist. Because privilege is mixed with racism and provides double standards, exceptions, rejections, etc and other things that minorities with relevance, money and power are still subject too. Richard Spencer himself has literally said he wishes he can bathe in white privilege. They know. Part of the reason they practice white nationalism is because in their delusional minds, they feel their privilege shrinking. 

I'm not going to get into the details of it because this thread really isn't for that. There's so much around it that it's no point in going further. We'll just agree to disagree on this. 



> So if Obama disowning Wright's words but not Wright himself wasn't worthy of outrage, the same can be said for Trump's disowning of white nationalists' words and actions but not white nationalists themselves.


The problem is that he tried to play the both sides thing and that wasn't the appropriate time for it. 



> And if you hate racism that much, then you should hold Boynton to the same level of disdain as King and Walsh, since her basically shitting on white people is internalized racism (and self-hatred) due to her being white. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite.


I didn't say I condoned it. I'm saying if I had to choose on what's worse, I'd go with King or Walsh because they are legitimate racist trash. I'd take racist trash over internal intolerant trash anyday.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Pratchett

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


"George Orwell would have supported Antifa" said all the people who have never bothered to actually read not only his books but his essays. :mj


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit Trump knows who David Duke is and was lying when he wouldn't denounce David Duke and the KKK in that Tapper interview.
> 
> The whole reason Trump wouldn't denouce him in the inteview because like he admitted Duke gets a lot of votes and Trump is a racist and didn't want to piss off his racist base.
> 
> But keep ignoring the facts, its what you do best its cute you find quotes from 20 years ago and ignore what he does recently like in the Tapper interview.


Will you finally admit that he's not a racist since he clearly has been denouncing them since the 90s? My guess no

You're acting like I haven't posted this in the past before, you even posted on the same page I did. Donald Trump has a clear dislike towards white supremacists, David Duke and the KKK. There's a reason why the media never focused on these past remarks but were very quick to find his "grab them by the pussy" remarks just before the election. 

We have clear evidence about what Trump has said about these people for literally decades, but since it doesn't suit your narrative you refuse to acknowledge them and try to claim they don't count. You're proving to be hypocritical on this topic and showing that facts don't actually matter to you and you're the one who claims you deal with facts? :lol

Stop pretending everyone is racist who disagrees with you, you come across like a petulant child when you do. You'd be saying the exact same things about Cruz or Rubio had either of them won, its the leftist goto tactic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Will you finally admit that he's not a racist since he clearly has been denouncing them since the 90s? My guess no
> 
> You're acting like I haven't posted this in the past before, you even posted on the same page I did. Donald Trump has a clear dislike towards white supremacists, David Duke and the KKK. There's a reason why the media never focused on these past remarks but were very quick to find his "grab them by the pussy" remarks just before the election.
> 
> We have clear evidence about what Trump has said about these people for literally decades, but since it doesn't suit your narrative you refuse to acknowledge them and try to claim they don't count. You're proving to be hypocritical on this topic and showing that facts don't actually matter to you and you're the one who claims you deal with facts? :lol
> 
> Stop pretending everyone is racist who disagrees with you, you come across like a petulant child when you do. You'd be saying the exact same things about Cruz or Rubio had either of them won, its the leftist goto tactic.


I think it's funny you can't admit Trump is a racist after all the racist things he has done and said. But keep ignoring all of that, it's what you do best.

Its also funny how you totally ignored my question but we all know why. Ill ask it again, was Trump lying about not knowing who David Duke and the KKK were?

Yes we have clear evidence and mountains of examples of Trump being a racist but you still pretend he is not. 

I won't stop calling out Trumps racism, I love how people like you think you can scare off people from pointing out racism just by bitching about them calling a racist a racist.

Stop defending Trumps racism, it just makes you look bad


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump is a racist who doesn't act, talk, or govern like a racist.

I'm fine with this.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


> I think it's funny you can't admit Trump is a racist after all the racist things he has done and said. But keep ignoring all of that, it's what you do best.
> 
> Yes we have clear evidence and examples of Trump being a racist but you still pretend he is not.
> 
> I won't stop calling out Trumps racism, I love how people like you think you can scare off people from pointing out racism just by bitching about them calling a racist a racist.
> 
> Stop defending Trumps racism, it just makes you look bad


You do know that both you and I are on the losing in of the Trump fight on pretty much everything?

He's not going to get impeached nor is the 25th amendment going to be used . Democrats cannot get their act together to win anything maybe until the mid-2020's. 

Hell I will go on record and say Trump will very much win re-election in three years because the Democrats have milk toast people to pick from. These elections are about being very charismatic more then anything else. 

I hate Trump but his base will turn out to vote when it matters they want to make sure that he wins again and people like him hold on to the oval office long after he's gone.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> I think it's funny you can't admit Trump is a racist after all the racist things he has done and said. But keep ignoring all of that, it's what you do best.
> 
> Its also funny how you totally ignored my question but we all know why. Ill ask it again, was Trump lying about not knowing who David Duke and the KKK were?
> 
> Yes we have clear evidence and mountains of examples of Trump being a racist but you still pretend he is not.
> 
> I won't stop calling out Trumps racism, I love how people like you think you can scare off people from pointing out racism just by bitching about them calling a racist a racist.
> 
> Stop defending Trumps racism, it just makes you look bad


Let me ask you this one question.

A few women just before election accused Donald Trump of sexual assault , he responded by denying those allegations. Do you believe Donald Trump?


----------



## Brockamura

birthday_massacre said:


> I think it's funny you can't admit Trump is a racist after all the racist things he has done and said. But keep ignoring all of that, it's what you do best.
> 
> Its also funny how you totally ignored my question but we all know why. Ill ask it again, was Trump lying about not knowing who David Duke and the KKK were?
> 
> Yes we have clear evidence and mountains of examples of Trump being a racist but you still pretend he is not.
> 
> I won't stop calling out Trumps racism, I love how people like you think you can scare off people from pointing out racism just by bitching about them calling a racist a racist.
> 
> Stop defending Trumps racism, it just makes you look bad


Go watch spiderman.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904676249477550080


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> Inclusive to other cultures but it doesn't mean we share the same national identity. The only thing we have in common is basic moral principles. Other than that, everything else is different.
> 
> Relevance, money and power does not mean privilege doesn't exist. Because privilege is mixed with racism and provides double standards, exceptions, rejections, etc and other things that minorities with relevance, money and power are still subject too. Richard Spencer himself has literally said he wishes he can bathe in white privilege. They know. Part of the reason they practice white nationalism is because in their delusional minds, they feel their privilege shrinking.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details of it because this thread really isn't for that. There's so much around it that it's no point in going further. We'll just agree to disagree on this.
> 
> 
> The problem is that he tried to play the both sides thing and that wasn't the appropriate time for it.
> 
> 
> I didn't say I condoned it. I'm saying if I had to choose on what's worse, I'd go with King or Walsh because they are legitimate racist trash. I'd take racist trash over internal intolerant trash anyday.


Living in a country means you indeed live by that country's identity. If you don't wish to do so, moving elsewhere or adhering to globalism might be up your alley. However, I don't suggest the latter, since it's cancerous and whatnot.

Again, privilege is not mixed with racism. If it were, then Jeremy Lin, Jennifer Lopez, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama, among countless other minorities, wouldn't have amounted to anything. And good job on using the words of a white nationalist (AKA someone who seriously thinks whites are on the verge of being second-class citizens) to justify the absurd concept of race-based privilege.

Trump didn't play both sides. He denounced both the white nationalists and antifa because he was correct in that blame was on both sides.

And no matter how much you want to ignore it, what Boynton said is legitimately racist. If you can't see that, then you're a hypocrite.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Living in a country means you indeed live by that country's identity. If you don't wish to do so, moving elsewhere or adhering to globalism might be up your alley. However, I don't suggest the latter, since it's cancerous and whatnot.
> 
> Again, privilege is not mixed with racism. If it were, then Jeremy Lin, Jennifer Lopez, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama, among countless other minorities, wouldn't have amounted to anything. And good job on using the words of a white nationalist (AKA someone who seriously thinks whites are on the verge of being second-class citizens) to justify the absurd concept of race-based privilege.
> 
> Trump didn't play both sides. He denounced both the white nationalists and antifa because he was correct in that blame was on both sides.
> 
> And no matter how much you want to ignore it, what Boynton said is legitimately racist. If you can't see that, then you're a hypocrite.


No, living in a country means that you live under a set of expectations and guidelines that may not mesh with an individual culture. Again, after basic moral principles that most people follow, the divisions of race, bigotry and culture separates us and create different experiences for everyone. 

My identity has nothing to do with the nation's identity that is suppose to represent us all. 

Those were terrible examples that don't even make sense and it doesn't refute my argument one bit. Because privilege doesn't mean that every single minority automatically amounts to nothing. But what it does mean is that one group will most likely be favored over another. One group will most likely get away with something while the other group is not able to get away with the same thing. One group is more likely to be given passes for while the others are demonized/rejected. And it's all based on pre-judged notions and psychological perceptions of people that have been formed since the days of slavery. An example of this is cultural appropriation. _One of _the branches of racism or sympathizing is privilege. 

Again, no point in continuing this when you're just going to throw up the normal I'm white and I'm telling you there is no white privilege debate. We see the world in two different worlds based on two completely different experiences. We agree to disagree. 

In that incident, the blame was strictly on white supremacists. There is no "but" to it. There is no partisan BS to it. There is no equivalence in that particular event. 

Read what I said about Boynton/King in previous posts. I don't even know why you're still trying to debate me on it. I made my point clear and no, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Headliner said:


> Because privilege doesn't mean that every single minority automatically amounts to nothing. But what it does mean is that one group will most likely be favored over another. One group will most likely get away with something while the other group is not able to get away with the same thing. One group is more likely to be given passes for while the others are demonized/rejected. And it's all based on pre-judged notions and psychological perceptions of people that have been formed since the days of slavery. An example of this is cultural appropriation. _One of _the branches of racism or sympathizing is privilege.


QFT this is just a fact of life, different groups are always going to be favoured over the other, this has been going on since forever. It doesn't need to be about race or colour either, it can be about anything. 

The fuckin strong younger lions are going to be favoured over the older weaker ones when it comes to dividing up the dead meat. Maybe not the best metaphor in the world but to deny animals and humans haven't been displaying prejudice and bestowing privilege since forever because of it is ignorant in the extreme. Why would we stop now?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> No, living in a country means that you live under a set of expectations and guidelines that may not mesh with an individual culture. Again, after basic moral principles that most people follow, the divisions of race, bigotry and culture separates us and create different experiences for everyone.
> 
> My identity has nothing to do with the nation's identity that is suppose to represent us all.
> 
> Those were terrible examples that don't even make sense and it doesn't refute my argument one bit. Because privilege doesn't mean that every single minority automatically amounts to nothing. But what it does mean is that one group will most likely be favored over another. One group will most likely get away with something while the other group is not able to get away with the same thing. One group is more likely to be given passes for while the others are demonized/rejected. And it's all based on pre-judged notions and psychological perceptions of people that have been formed since the days of slavery. An example of this is cultural appropriation. _One of _the branches of racism or sympathizing is privilege.
> 
> Again, no point in continuing this when you're just going to throw up the normal I'm white and I'm telling you there is no white privilege debate. We see the world in two different worlds based on two completely different experiences. We agree to disagree.
> 
> In that incident, the blame was strictly on white supremacists. There is no "but" to it. There is no partisan BS to it. There is no equivalence in that particular event.
> 
> Read what I said about Boynton/King in previous posts. I don't even know why you're still trying to debate me on it. I made my point clear and no, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.


I understand that and two of those expectations / guidelines are assimilating properly and acknowledging that living in a country means you become part of its national identity. Race is only a big deal if you make it into one.

I'm not denying that one's results may vary, but the people I mentioned would be terrible examples if they amounted to nothing. Instead, they rose above their coloration and became great examples of how western culture espouses liberty. And good job on throwing in slavery as an excuse, even though:

1) Slavery ended in America *centuries ago* and we've made it known to the world that we won't ever let such a tragic chapter in our country's history go unremembered

2) Slavery was *and still* is done en masse by Arabs and Africans, as well having remnants of it *still going today* in southeast Asia and Russia

And no, the white nationalists / supremacists had a legal permit to do their march. Antifa went to the march looking to start shit and the nationalists / supremacists retaliated. When the facts rolled in, it became clear that *both* sides were at fault for the fuckery that happened there and Trump wisely held *both* of them to account.

And if you wish to denounce King and Walsh for them being racist against minorities, yet will denounce Bonyton only because of her being an SJW instead of in addition to her internalized racism against whites, then you're being hypocritical in saying that you're against racism period.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I understand that and two of those expectations / guidelines are assimilating properly and acknowledging that living in a country means you become part of its national identity. Race is only a big deal if you make it into one.


Race is reality and it causes my identity to be different from the national expectations of what my identity is suppose to be. 



> I'm not denying that one's results may vary, but the people I mentioned would be terrible examples if they amounted to nothing. Instead, they rose above their coloration and became great examples of how western culture espouses liberty. And good job on throwing in slavery as an excuse, even though


They are terrible examples because you are trying to use successful individuals to discredit a concept when it doesn't work that way. 



> 2) Slavery was *and still* is done en masse by Arabs and Africans, as well having remnants of it *still going today* in southeast Asia and Russia


And what does that have to do with anything? 



> And no, the white nationalists / supremacists had a legal permit to do their march. Antifa went to the march looking to start shit and the nationalists / supremacists retaliated. When the facts rolled in, it became clear that *both* sides were at fault for the fuckery that happened there and Trump wisely held *both* of them to account.


I don't care if they had a permit to be there or not. They knew what was about to happen. When you scream racist slurs, what do you think is about to happen? And let's ignore all the white supremacists that carried guns/weapons and chased after and beat up people because Antifa right? 


> And if you wish to denounce King and Walsh for them being racist against minorities, yet will denounce Bonyton only because of her being an SJW instead of in addition to her internalized racism against whites, then you're being hypocritical in saying that you're against racism period.


Some white people don't like hearing truths about themselves. They are normally too busy pre-judging other races. That's normally apart of being a white sympathizer. This will offend people reading this, but I really don't give a fuck. It wasn't a good idea for her to say that because it made her look like she was prejudice against her own people, but I'd take intolerant white people over King and Walsh any day. Two people who don't hide their racism toward minorities at all. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It doesn't make me a racist. That makes me someone that sees the world completely different from you due to experiences I've had that you will never ever have in your life.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Headliner said:


> Race is reality and it causes my identity to be different from the national expectations of what my identity is suppose to be.
> 
> 
> They are terrible examples because you are trying to use successful individuals to discredit a concept when it doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> I don't care if they had a permit to be there or not. They knew what was about to happen. When you scream racist slurs, what do you think is about to happen? And let's ignore all the white supremacists that carried guns/weapons and chased after and beat up people because Antifa right?
> 
> Some white people don't like hearing truths about themselves. They are normally too busy pre-judging other races. That's normally apart of being a white sympathizer. This will offend people reading this, but I really don't give a fuck. It wasn't a good idea for her to say that because it made her look like she was prejudice against her own people, but I'd take intolerant white people over King and Walsh any day. Two people who don't hide their racism toward minorities at all. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It doesn't make me a racist. That makes me someone that sees the world completely different from you due to experiences I've had that you will never ever have in your life.


No one's denying race is a reality. I said that it matters only if you make it matter. If a potential employer does that, then you have every right to take your talents elsewhere. And no, your merits are what affect your identity to in relation to a nation's expectations of you.

They encountered racial hardships along the way, no doubt. By being successful, however, they ultimately discredit the concept of race-based privilege. But go ahead and make sure to find a homeless white guy and tell him that he still has more privilege than the likes of Oprah and Jeremy Lin.

It has to do with you crying foul about American slavery fucking over black folks despite it being defunct for centuries here, yet turning a blind eye to slavery still being apparent elsewhere and, most ironically, in African countries. Slavery has fucked over more than just black people.

You don't have to care that they had a permit. The fact of the matter is that they had it and therefore had the right to say whatever repugnant shit they wanted so long as they did so within lawful reason. They, as well as Antifa, ultimately didn't do that due to coming to blows with each other and as a result, both are rightfully being held accountable.

There are bad apples in every bunch and white folks are no exception, as evident by the nationalists / supremacists. However, her nonchalantly saying that "her job is tell white folks to shut up and listen" is vilifying a whole group of people based solely on their color. You know, *that very same thing* that you're hung up on. By being against one take on racism, but not another, you're being hypocritical in regard to hating racism period. And guess what? I never said you were racist.


----------



## Oxidamus

So let me get this straight, you think I'm a troll because who knows why - despite me trying to convince you for at least two years I'm not - and because you believe that, you tell me I should "move wisely" to the point where I could comfortably disagree with *anyone but you* on posts like the ones quoted below, because they won't ban me.

You've thrown labels at me, said I'm some things I don't think I am, and then refuse to elaborate and subtly threaten to use your admin powers to remove me from the thread or ban me. So how about we just take each other seriously so you don't perceive yourself as being trolled and I don't get banned for no reason?



Headliner said:


> Relevance, money and power does not mean privilege doesn't exist. Because privilege is mixed with racism and provides double standards, exceptions, rejections, etc and other things that minorities with relevance, money and power are still subject too. Richard Spencer himself has literally said he wishes he can bathe in white privilege. They know. Part of the reason they practice white nationalism is because in their delusional minds, they feel their privilege shrinking.





Headliner said:


> Again, no point in continuing this when you're just going to throw up the normal I'm white and I'm telling you there is no white privilege debate. We see the world in two different worlds based on two completely different experiences. We agree to disagree.





Headliner said:


> Some white people don't like hearing truths about themselves. They are normally too busy pre-judging other races. That's normally apart of being a white sympathizer. This will offend people reading this, but I really don't give a fuck.


First it's something that's objective, then it's your perception, and then of course, you don't want to talk about it because it's "not the right thread" when first of all, you bring it up and second of all, it is the right thread.



> Relevance, money and power does not mean privilege doesn't exist.


Okay, if that's what you believe, can you elaborate on it any further than the very vague statement you followed it with:



> Because privilege is mixed with racism and provides double standards, exceptions, rejections, etc and other things that minorities with relevance, money and power are still subject too.


Because this doesn't really elaborate on anything. It would probably be best to begin from the ground up and explain how someone is inherently privileged for having white skin, and differentiating between "white privilege" and, let's say, "a lack of privilege for blacks and hispanics".


----------



## nucklehead88

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904676249477550080


38% approval rating says otherwise

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx


----------



## Goku

my dad could've given me his privilege but he chose to marry a brown skin :hogan


:carlo


----------



## Art Vandaley

My best example of white privilege is from Broome, a very isolated town on the northwest coast of Australia that has a high indigenous population.

There was a bottleshop near my house which I used to visit regularly. There is little to do in Broome other than drink.

One day I'm buying some beers after having walked in on foot as I always do and some Aboriginal people come in the drive through bit in a taxi and ask to get some alcohol and they have money and are sober, but the dude won't sell them any and points to a sign saying "drive through only - no sales on foot" and say that being in a taxi counts as them being on foot. 

White privilege is the fact that that rule was literally never applied to me (until that day I didn't know it even existed) and was applied to every Aboriginal person.

Anyway I actually came into the thread to post this page from Hilary's new book without comment:


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> White privilege is the fact that that rule was literally never applied to me (until that day I didn't know it even existed) and applied to every Aboriginal person.


That isn't white privilege. Are you to say an Asian person would walk in and be told they can't as well? Fairly obviously not, since these rules and regulations *specifically target aboriginal people*, which itself is wrong but it isn't white privilege if first of all the situation isn't a positive and second of all isn't a positive only one group gets. It's a negative that one group gets.

The gov also forces high aboriginal populated areas to commit to doing Work for the Dole every week of every year, which is usually only 6 months for people who don't live in these areas. So these people work 25 hours a week for their welfare payments which caps at an equivalency of about $10 an hour without work insurance and a loss of many workers rights, which would be arguably less than half minimum wage.
Also, cashless welfare cards are "trialed" in high aboriginal populated areas too and rarely get coverage on how pointlessly punitive the systems are.

Recently I believe a proposal to extend the/a dry zone somewhere in SA which a) was only implemented because of aboriginal people and b) would still affect aboriginal people at a disproportionate level, was also posed. Might have even passed, too.


These are all wrong but none of it is white privilege.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> it isn't white privilege if first of all the situation isn't a positive and second of all isn't a positive only one group gets. It's a negative that one group gets.


I feel like this is kind of a semantic debate but I'd call the absence of a negative a privilege, and if Asian people also had that privilege I'd call it an example of Asian privilege.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> Anyway I actually came into the thread to post this page from Hilary's new book without comment:


That passage hahahahahaha!


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I feel like this is kind of a semantic debate but I'd call the absence of a negative a privilege, and if Asian people also had that privilege I'd call it an example of Asian privilege.


The absence of a negative is not a privilege.

Asian privilege... You mean the Asian privilege that exists for Filipinos who despite having this magical privilege in place get to be the servants of humanity worldwide. 

The amount of mental energy you guys expend in trying to claim everything is racist must be exhausting. 

Try to unclench a little and start seeing life from a less "everything is racist" lens.



Goku said:


> my dad could've given me his privilege but he chose to marry a brown skin :hogan
> 
> 
> :carlo


You have more white privilege than I do because I'm all brown :mj2


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> I feel like this is kind of a semantic debate but I'd call the absence of a negative a privilege, and if Asian people also had that privilege I'd call it an example of Asian privilege.


Not really, there's a huge difference between saying one group has 'privilege' over other groups when it's not the only group to have that 'privilege'. Especially when it turns out all but one or a few groups have that 'privilege', the problem is that the group without it is beneath the others.

The idea of race-based privilege basically fuels the idea of bringing people down based on their race, which obviously shouldn't happen and obviously shouldn't be explained.

Also for the sake of trying to fix the problem, you focus on the outlier (say Aboriginal rights for us since we're Australian) instead of the rest (say literally every other race in Australia being treated the same socially).

Hell even if you wanted to say it's semantics, it's still a major problem to accuse a white person of having white privilege when you wouldn't accuse an Asian person of having Asian privilege, when their so-called 'privilege' is the same.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Not really, there's a huge difference between saying one group has 'privilege' over other groups when it's not the only group to have that 'privilege'. Especially when it turns out all but one or a few groups have that 'privilege', the problem is that the group without it is beneath the others.
> 
> The idea of race-based privilege basically fuels the idea of bringing people down based on their race, which obviously shouldn't happen and obviously shouldn't be explained.
> 
> Also for the sake of trying to fix the problem, you focus on the outlier (say Aboriginal rights for us since we're Australian) instead of the rest (say literally every other race in Australia being treated the same socially).
> 
> Hell even if you wanted to say it's semantics, it's still a major problem to accuse a white person of having white privilege when you wouldn't accuse an Asian person of having Asian privilege, when their so-called 'privilege' is the same.


Also, Aussies havning white privilege is completely retarded because aussies don't have a legacy of ownership ... weren't ya'all criminals at one point. Where did this privilege come from? 

But yah, the aussie aboriginals are treated like shit, but part of it isn't just domination by white people ... like in most countries where indigenous peoples' exist, some of that is refusal to assimilate and self-isolation as well I bet. In America white privilege makes *some* sense because of ancestral ownership of lands and wealth passing through generation after generation, but I don't think such a thing exists in Australia so aussies whinging about it now is a direct result of college indoctrination. 

The situation with indigenous people is complex but there's no major white conspiracy in place to hold them down anymore. Most don't want to assimilate and claim that they shouldn't have to assimilate and that's their choice at this point. There's nothing that holds them back. 

It's not like the Asians in developed western countries came in and were awarded everything. If you read the original stories of the chinese, indians and other cultures as immigrants, you'll see how hard they worked to earn it and are self-made people with incredible work ethic. The real racism here is people claiming that asians have some sort of "privilege". No ... they earned what they have. It's racist to assume that society favors them in some way and diminishes the value of their work ethic.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Also, Aussies havning white privilege is completely retarded because aussies don't have a legacy of ownership ... weren't ya'all criminals at one point. Where did this privilege come from?


Maybe but not me, my families came here after that. :mj



> But yah, the aussie aboriginals are treated like shit, but part of it isn't just domination by white people ... like in most countries where indigenous peoples' exist, some of that is refusal to assimilate and self-isolation as well I bet. In America white privilege makes *some* sense because of ancestral ownership of lands and wealth passing through generation after generation, but I don't think such a thing exists in Australia so aussies whinging about it now is a direct result of college indoctrination.
> 
> The situation with indigenous people is complex but there's no major white conspiracy in place to hold them down anymore. Most don't want to assimilate and claim that they shouldn't have to assimilate and that's their choice at this point. There's nothing that holds them back.
> 
> It's not like the Asians in developed western countries came in and were awarded everything. If you read the original stories of the chinese, indians and other cultures as immigrants, you'll see how hard they worked to earn it and are self-made people with incredible work ethic. The real racism here is people claiming that asians have some sort of "privilege". No ... they earned what they have. It's racist to assume that society favors them in some way and diminishes the value of their work ethic.


You're kind of right on the idea of white privilege, I think Australia has been governed by a way higher percentage of white people than the US has, which is probably the best example. The country, at least under European rule, was founded as a prison island basically, yea, but throughout (I think) the 19th and (definitely) the 20th century there were migration schemes to get certain European and British people to come over. That's why Australia has always had a really large Italian percentage, especially my area.

It's weird because a lot of the people who came here post WW2 like my grandparents on my mum's side weren't really well off before they came here, and weren't really well off after either. They came for 'better opportunities' and my grandfather didn't even want to leave Scotland, my grandma wishes she didn't too.

She's told me stories of when they came here, living in some really run-down housing in the outback for some reason, where the toilet wasn't even a toilet, was shared by neighbours, and many metres outside the house.

I can't remember the details but it's like, even those people who came here post 1945 via what people call the 'White Australia Policy' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy ) haven't exactly had the most "privilege" since they got here. Especially in my area they worked hard jobs (car manufacturing was huge here then), for mediocre pay, to *rent* small houses, to send their kids to stigmatised schools. I don't come from wealth by any means, but if my parents made better decisions I would have. It was so easy to make a real living for the boomers here, and come to think of it, that's probably because of how drastically different the Australian economy was to the rest of western countries in the early to mid-late 20th century.


As for the aboriginals I still don't know much, and as with a lot of identity based politics I'm wary of what I'm told... since most of what I'm told is from actual activists so I think it's reasonable to question it. But I tee the problems with the aboriginal community up to being in this gray-zone between being forced to assimilate into the British law and culture and being allowed to do what want.

I don't think anyone wants to really hold down the aboriginal community in Australia, rather they keep making really stupid, punitive decisions because they can't outright restrict their rights because that'd be racist. Crimes etc like alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse (worst of all of children), are way higher in aboriginal communities than anywhere else in Australia. First of all it's rarely talked about, I believe because admitting it is treated as racist (see Mark Latham getting shit for saying it on TV), and secondly because of that there's no way to answer the problems.

If you hold them legally to the same level as non-aboriginals, then they'd be even MORE disproportionately represented in crime stats. If you put them in jail, the same thing. If you restrict their right to spend money on whatever they want, like alcohol, then it's racist. So the government get around it by enforcing dry zone laws and (planning to) give all welfare recipients a card that prevents them from spending most of their money on what they want... smh.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> The absence of a negative is not a privilege.


A semantic debate.

verbformal
verb: privilege; 3rd person present: privileges; past tense: privileged; past participle: privileged; gerund or present participle: privileging
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
"English inheritance law privileged the eldest son"
exempt (someone) from a liability or obligation to which others are subject.
"barristers are privileged from arrest going to, coming from, and abiding in court"



> Asian privilege... You mean the Asian privilege that exists for Filipinos who despite having this magical privilege in place get to be the servants of humanity worldwide.
> 
> The amount of mental energy you guys expend in trying to claim everything is racist must be exhausting.
> 
> Try to unclench a little and start seeing life from a less "everything is racist" lens.


I think you may have misread/misunderstood that part of my post. 



Oxidamus said:


> Not really, there's a huge difference between saying one group has 'privilege' over other groups when it's not the only group to have that 'privilege'. Especially when it turns out all but one or a few groups have that 'privilege', the problem is that the group without it is beneath the others.
> 
> The idea of race-based privilege basically fuels the idea of bringing people down based on their race, which obviously shouldn't happen and obviously shouldn't be explained.
> 
> Also for the sake of trying to fix the problem, you focus on the outlier (say Aboriginal rights for us since we're Australian) instead of the rest (say literally every other race in Australia being treated the same socially).
> 
> Hell even if you wanted to say it's semantics, it's still a major problem to accuse a white person of having white privilege when you wouldn't accuse an Asian person of having Asian privilege, when their so-called 'privilege' is the same.


I don't disagree with anything you're saying. 

Though, feel like you're arguing that the problem isn't that one race is advantaged over another but rather that one race is disadvantaged compared to another. And I just feel like who cares? As long we all agree there is a problem.

Also just for Reapers info Australia does have a history of enslaving Aboriginal people and Pacific Islanders, a practice kept up in some places until the 1930s.

And yes wealth has passed from generation to generation in Australia, both in Australia since 1788 and earlier than that in Britain as many people emmigrated with a lot of wealth. To accept that argument for America but not Australia is weird.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Trump is a racist who doesn't act, talk, or govern like a racist.
> 
> I'm fine with this.



Of course appointing someone to AG who is pursuing draconian drug laws that disproportianetly effect young black men is totally in no way governing like a racist.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> I don't disagree with anything you're saying.
> 
> Though, feel like you're arguing that the problem isn't that one race is advantaged over another but rather that one race is disadvantaged compared to another. And I just feel like who cares? As long we all agree there is a problem.


Well when you say it's 'white privilege' as opposed to 'a lack of rights for aboriginals' you're putting blame on people. And it's not just any blame, it's blame based on race, which is definitively racist, right?

I'm happy to agree but I won't agree with ideological terminology. Like we can agree there are plenty of things wrong within and around the aboriginal communities here, but if you were to blame it all as 'white privilege' then I can't agree. And I think treatment of aboriginal people is the best potential argument for the existence of 'white privilege' in the western world today.

Past that, I was at a conference last year for some of the activist shit that I do, and a group of first nation activists (I can't remember what exactly they advocated for) were given the chance to speak. A lot of the things they had to say were blatantly blaming the white people for their positions. Like completely disregarding their own individual and community responsibilities. That's just another thing that happens when you blanket something with a term like 'white privilege'. 



> Also just for Reapers info Australia does have a history of enslaving Aboriginal people and Pacific Islanders, a practice kept up in some places until the 1930s.


I'm just saying this so we're all aware when I do talk about aboriginals I'm not glossing over any of this, I just don't know enough.

I would actually argue the forced work for the dole schemes for many aboriginals is slavery. :mj



> And yes wealth has passed from generation to generation in Australia, both in Australia since 1788 and earlier than that in Britain as many people emmigrated with a lot of wealth. To accept that argument for America but not Australia is weird.


I think the point though, is that most of the people that populated Australia in the earliest years were not well off at all. Some were. Some states were founded way after, and not by convicts, like SA. Which makes us better than you btw. :side:

I don't have any understanding of how suburbs became rich and poor here. I think I get the ghettoisation in America at least a bit. But here it's confusing as hell. My grandparents came here, and after some years living in god knows where, they moved out to the northern suburbs of Adelaide, which today is like the poorest non-rural area in SA and probably top ten in Australia overall. How does a suburb populated by thousands of well-trained and "wanted" migrants become the poverty-ridden place it is today?


----------



## CamillePunk

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Of course appointing someone to AG who is pursuing draconian drug laws that disproportianetly effect young black men is totally in no way governing like a racist.


Enforcing the law against murder disproportionately affects black men too. Guess wanting murderers arrested is racist as well!

Pls go with this sophistry.


----------



## Vic Capri

> everyone is racist who disagrees with you


It's the liberal way!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Of course appointing someone to AG who is pursuing draconian drug laws that disproportianetly effect young black men is totally in no way governing like a racist.


Interesting you people come in and pretend that it's the republicans that do that ... But ignore the deomcrats despite the fact that there is a significant correlation between OTT black incarceration and democratic states. 










This is in 2010. Look at the north-east side of the country which we know is very heavily dominated by democrat politicians and democrat leadership overall. But also blacks that continue to vote democrat. 

While the rate of black incarceration is also higher than whites in many of the southern states, the numbers are significantly higher in states that vote democrat. 










(this is the 2012 map).

Black incarceration rates are higher overall, but apparently they're also very high in democrat states. And yet it's only brought up as racist when republicans are in power in the federal government - despite the fact that democrats have done nothing to alleviate the minorities they pander too in their states either - nor at the federal level.

This map shows you the change over time. Notice how it has shifted from the south to the north










And with that so has the incarceration rates starting to mirror the shift in population. Democrats put blacks in jail at higher rates than whites in their states as well. 

California and Texas are extremely interesting here has California loves to promote itself as the beacon of minority emancipation while Texas is supposed to be this racist shithole ... and yet, the incarceration rates of blacks are extremely high in California as compared to Texas with respect to population of whites. 

This "republicans are racist" narrative is bullshit.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Enforcing the law against murder disproportionately affects black men too. Guess wanting murderers arrested is racist as well!
> 
> Pls go with this sophistry.


No one I know of advocates for murderers to go unprosecuted*(Unless they are in a police uniform and shoot an unarmed person)

However our country has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world,sure not all of that is due to prosecution of non violent drug offenders but it's one place to start looking at. It shouldn't really be a Partisan issue to feel like 20% of the Worlds Prison Population being on American soil as something unacceptable and worth trying to reverse.


----------



## CamillePunk

BoFreakinDallas said:


> No one I know of advocates for murderers to go unprosecuted*(Unless they are in a police uniform and shoot an unarmed person)
> 
> However our country has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world,sure not all of that is due to prosecution of non violent drug offenders but it's one place to start looking at. It shouldn't really be a Partisan issue to feel like 20% of the Worlds Prison Population being on American soil as something unacceptable and worth trying to reverse.


What in the name of straw men? :lol I agree with you about all of that. You suggested it was racist to to appoint someone who wanted to continue the drug war due to disproportionate outcomes. I invalidated your argument with an analogy, and quite successfully seeing as how dramatically you tried to re-frame the exchange. :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Of course appointing someone to AG who is pursuing draconian drug laws that disproportianetly effect young black men is totally in no way governing like a racist.


Trump has been promising since his campaign to crack down on illegal immigration, which he has been doing so. Cracking down on illegal immigration actually helps the black community as they face job competition from illegals. Say what you will about Ann Coulter but she mentioned during her politcon debate with Ana Kasparian(Of the Young Turks) that LA communities had testified to Congress about illegal immigration and how African Americans weren't getting jobs because they couldn't speak Spanish. Ana Kasparian replied basically with "learn Spanish". But I suppose this will just reinforce the notion that he governs like a racist because he's still deporting Latino's correct? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

I don't know what is in Sessions heart,whether his reasoning for wanting to continue the draconian war on drugs is highly racially motivated or motivated 0% for racial reasons and he is just some anti pot square. The net result is Sessions the policy maker as AG's policies in place are racist and will ruin many lives and disproportionately to the rest of the population young black men will be the one's who suffer.


----------



## Reaper

Black incarceration is a problem throughout the country and the drug war is insane. However, it is not a partisan issue at all. I don't even know where that myth comes from. Most blue states have incarceration rates that are significantly higher than black incarceration rates in red states. If there was any kind of racism involved in this that was specifically pushed by republicans, we'd see a correlation in red states and higher black incarceration rates which we simply don't.

Love how this Dallas guy is just plain ignoring the statistics right in front of him to continue to push a false narrative :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

They are a fascinating case of cognitive dissonance in action, these "Trump is racist!" people. You see him handing out meals to black people in hurricane-stricken Texas, kissing black babies, regularly talking about helping black America with regards to crime and unemployment, talking about how much he loves Hispanics and "the Mexican people", and a normal, somewhat rational person says "Well these are clearly not things a racist person would do or say, ever". Not these folks though, they just point to a tweet containing incorrect facts or a foolish letter advocating capital punishment and stubbornness to admit to being wrong about something as if it somehow outweighs everything else that so overwhelmingly shows Trump is not a racist. :lol It's all about preserving the narrative. Trump is racist, he's a white supremacist, he's friends with David Duke and the KKK, he was elected by a racist white majority, minorities are oppressed, fascism is on the rise! Cognitive dissonance is almost a survival mechanism when you've built such a house of cards as your worldview. I suppose it'd be difficult to live with the realization that you were so incredibly wrong and so easily deluded. It'd be hard to trust yourself after that, I imagine. Better to hallucinate and spare yourself the pain.


BoFreakinDallas said:


> I don't know what is in Sessions heart,whether his reasoning for wanting to continue the draconian war on drugs is highly racially motivated or motivated 0% for racial reasons and he is just some anti pot square.


I accept your capitulation on the matter. Good of you to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Trump has been promising since his campaign to crack down on illegal immigration, which he has been doing so. Cracking down on illegal immigration actually helps the black community as they face job competition from illegals. Say what you will about Ann Coulter but she mentioned during her politcon debate with Ana Kasparian(Of the Young Turks) that LA communities had testified to Congress about illegal immigration and how African Americans weren't getting jobs because they couldn't speak Spanish. Ana Kasparian replied basically with "learn Spanish". But I suppose this will just reinforce the notion that he governs like a racist because he's still deporting Latino's correct? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


That dang illegal privilege :no:

It's right up there with that damned Asian privilege. 

---

Speaking of cognitive dissonance :kobelol


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxidamus said:


> Well when you say it's 'white privilege' as opposed to 'a lack of rights for aboriginals' you're putting blame on people. And it's not just any blame, it's blame based on race, which is definitively racist, right?


I wouldn't necessarily have thought of white privilege as implying blame.

For instance I've never blamed myself for the fact that the bottle shop made buying alcohol more difficult for Aboriginal people than me when while acknowledging it as an example of benefiting from white privilege. 



> I'm happy to agree but I won't agree with ideological terminology. Like we can agree there are plenty of things wrong within and around the aboriginal communities here, but if you were to blame it all as 'white privilege' then I can't agree. And I think treatment of aboriginal people is the best potential argument for the existence of 'white privilege' in the western world today.


I think it would be a mistake to pretend white privilege is the only racism issue Australia faces. 



> I'm just saying this so we're all aware when I do talk about aboriginals I'm not glossing over any of this, I just don't know enough.
> 
> I would actually argue the forced work for the dole schemes for many aboriginals is slavery. :mj


You're probably right about that.



> I think the point though, is that most of the people that populated Australia in the earliest years were not well off at all. Some were. Some states were founded way after, and not by convicts, like SA. Which makes us better than you btw. :side:


Convicts did get given a piece of land at the end though. If you're the descendent of a convict you almost certainly inherited a lot more wealth than the average aboriginal person who ancestors were put in missions etc and importantly not given any land. 

Hopefully native title will fix that imbalance though. 



> I don't have any understanding of how suburbs became rich and poor here. I think I get the ghettoisation in America at least a bit. But here it's confusing as hell. My grandparents came here, and after some years living in god knows where, they moved out to the northern suburbs of Adelaide, which today is like the poorest non-rural area in SA and probably top ten in Australia overall. How does a suburb populated by thousands of well-trained and "wanted" migrants become the poverty-ridden place it is today?


Industries come and go tends to be the reason.

For example Albury used to be very rich because gambling was illegal in Victoria so people from Melbourne would come up and spend a bunch of money there. After Victoria legalised gambling Albury became poorer.

If the suburb is near enough to the cbd it'll gentrify eventually.


----------



## Miss Sally

I highly doubt the war on drugs Sessions has put forward is some sort of arrest (this race) master plan.

It seems like some Narco Wars throwback plan which in the end won't do anything.

If you want to stop the flow of drugs then perhaps stopping them as much as you can from the source is the best option.

It's not like nobody knows where they come from or how they're brought in, the Cartels openly admit to doing it.

So either legalize or maybe start hitting the Cartels before they smuggle everything over, pointless to have a war on drugs if you cannot even protect your border to ensure you're hitting the drug pushers where it hurts.


----------



## Reaper

GREAT day for Mexico. They're getting their children that are being held hostage by American progressives back so now they can go back and contribute their amazing skills to mexico instead. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904520573522505728


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> GREAT day for Mexico. They're getting their children that are being held hostage by American progressives back so now they can go back and contribute their amazing skills to mexico instead.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904520573522505728


Mexican Excellence! 

They'll rebuild Mexico into a better society!

I've never been so proud of my heritage!

roud


Also a good day for blacks, maybe now the Democrats will actually show up more than every 4 years and maybe keep some of their promises! Kind of have to now.


----------



## Vic Capri

DACA was another waste of taxpayer money. :clap

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

The irony (and stupidity) of wrestling fans finding the middle finger some kind of gauge on immigrant quality...guess the PG era has pussified them, in my day kids wore big fuck off foam fingers. But they're white so it's cool.

The war on drugs is not a racial one. The people who wage war on drugs are not smart enough to realize it's failed let alone some master scheme to lock up black people. Mind you if more black people commit more crimes then why blame the white law makers?


----------



## deepelemblues

The biggest crime of allowing mass illegal immigration is that it reduces the incentive to the people who immigrate illegally to stay and fix their home country. Getting rid of people to america lessens pressure on central and South American governments to not be corrupt and incompetent too. Mexico especially has been using the US as a safety valve for 130 years now. Dump as many of their poor uneducated people here as they can, then they're not the Mexican governments responsibility anymore.

Why do the hard work of making your country not a shithole, or pressuring the government to make it not a shithole, if you can move to a not shithole country with comparative ease. Illegal immigration to the US has been helping to hold back central and to a lesser degree south america for decades.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Damn Trump is a scumbag and anybody who supports him is a scumbag too.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> Oh please. Change that heading from White men must be stopped to Black men must be stopped and you'd be the first to rage about Salon being a platform for the KKK.
> 
> In fact that is exactly what would happen. Salon would be labeled as a hate speech platform, defunded and removed from Google and the Internet by its ISP.
> 
> So please spare us the "intellectual diversity" bullshit because it reeks.


Ok. That has literally nothing to do with the fact that the post was making fun of Salon for posting two articles that are directly at odds with each other, as if websites are only allowed to solicit one form of opinion lest they be "outed" as hypocrites. 

But you do you, or whatever.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Ok. That has literally nothing to do with the fact that _the post was making fun of Salon for posting two articles that are directly at odds with each other, as if websites are only allowed to solicit one form of opinion lest they be "outed" as hypocrites. _
> 
> But you do you, or whatever.


That post was pointing out the fact that for years Salon has propagated racism against whites as pushed all forms of identity politics and are now seemingly starting to change their tune. 

I'll be happy if they stopped posting generalized pseudo-intellectually sounding non-sense pandering specifically to white hating minorities and low IQ self-hating whites altogether, but just because they toss in one article from one person that's slightly self-aware does not make Salon a place that welcomes diversity of opinion. 

What's that word you guys use ... "Tokenism". 

Yeah, it goes both ways.

---

This is your brain on Social Justice:










At some point liberals really need to examine just what level of mind numbingly idiotic things they say and now believe in ... and honestly if they're not questioning their entire gambit of views and how they come across to listeners then they're beyond redemption imo.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: T R U M P #covfefe*

Wrong thread


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> The irony (and stupidity) of wrestling fans finding the middle finger some kind of gauge on immigrant quality...guess the PG era has pussified them, in my day kids wore big fuck off foam fingers. But they're white so it's cool.


how will the imaginary person in your head possibly recover from such a incredibly well-crafted argument? :done BAH GAWD KING, HE HAS AN IMAGINARY FAMILY 



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Damn Trump is a scumbag and anybody who supports him is a scumbag too.


no u :trump


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> how will the imaginary person in your head possibly recover from such a incredibly well-crafted argument? :done BAH GAWD KING, HE HAS AN IMAGINARY FAMILY
> 
> no u :trump


:lbjwut
Oh, the imaginary person whose post you liked saying exactly that? Nice dodge but that ain't going to work when there's proof one page over. Maybe next time.


----------



## Goku

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Damn Trump is a scumbag and anybody who supports him is a scumbag too.


damn sasha banks is a scumbag and anybody who has sasha banks avatars are scumbags too.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Goku said:


> damn sasha banks is a scumbag and anybody who has sasha banks avatars are scumbags too.


:yawn

Because supporting an entertainer is the same as supporting a policy maker intent on tearing apart families and abandoning ostensible Americans in foreign lands unconcerned with their survival.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> :lbjwut
> Oh, the imaginary person whose post you liked saying exactly that? Nice dodge but that ain't going to work when there's proof one page over. Maybe next time.


Show me where anyone said anything equivalent to "They use the middle finger therefore they are bad immigrants". :lol


----------



## virus21




----------



## Goku

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> :yawn
> 
> Because supporting an entertainer is the same as supporting a policy maker intent on tearing apart families and abandoning ostensible Americans in foreign lands unconcerned with their survival.


That's a scary world you're living in. Hope you get through okay.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol

I'm loving this thread and the other one in rants today. It's always fun when virtue signalling panties start getting wet at the prospect of a good online shag.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Show me where anyone said anything equivalent to "They use the middle finger therefore they are bad immigrants". :lol


You're either winding me up or your being stupid. You liked the post by reaper. There were Mexican kids on the photo. The only other link between them was all of them giving the middle finger. Then came the sarcastic posts about Mexico getting 'the best' immigrants back and miss sally even implying she was embarrassed by them. 

I hate having to explain basic stuff to people.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> You're either winding me up or your being stupid. You liked the post by reaper. There were Mexican kids on the photo. The only other link between them was all of them giving the middle finger. Then came the sarcastic posts about Mexico getting 'the best' immigrants back and miss sally even implying she was embarrassed by them.
> 
> I hate having to explain basic stuff to people.


No YOUR being stupid! :lol Classic. 

You should learn about a basic thing called context. 


Trump is being pretty lenient with his process of ending DACA, and is leaving the door open for Congress to pursue something less America First-centric. Let's hope this doesn't become another thing he backs down on.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> You're either winding me up or your being stupid. You liked the post by reaper. There were Mexican kids on the photo. The only other link between them was all of them giving the middle finger. Then came the sarcastic posts about Mexico getting 'the best' immigrants back and miss sally even implying she was embarrassed by them.
> 
> I hate having to explain basic stuff to people.


Look up a Confucius quote that starts with "When the wise man points to the moon" 

It's quite literally what you did here. 

I'm so tickled because I don't care about their fingers. I care about ending the cancerous culture of anchor babies that the DACA promotes.

Miss Sally has actually had to live with the lawlessness of moral relativists that cross borders illegally so you should listen to her stories. 

Since you're not directly impacted by this, maybe you should go soak your panties somewhere else.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> No YOUR being stupid! :lol Classic.
> 
> You should learn about a basic thing called context.
> 
> 
> Trump is being pretty lenient with his process of ending DACA, and is leaving the door open for Congress to pursue something less America First-centric. Let's hope this doesn't become another thing he backs down on.


The context is very obvious the original tweet uses the imagery of Mexicans putting their middle fingers up and uses it to bash those children as some kind of shitty immigrants.

I will give you the typo, I use Swype on my phone and it always gets shit wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> The context is very obvious the original tweet uses the imagery of Mexicans putting their middle fingers up and uses it to bash those children as some kind of shitty immigrants.
> 
> I will give you the typo, I use Swype on my phone and it always gets shit wrong.


Do be sure to look up that Confucius quote as you still seem to be struggling!


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Look up a Confucius quote that starts with "When the wise man points to the moon"
> 
> It's quite literally what you did here.
> 
> I'm so tickled because I don't care about their fingers. I care about ending the cancerous culture of anchor babies that the DACA promotes.
> 
> Miss Sally has actually had to live with the lawlessness of moral relativists that cross borders illegally so you should listen to her stories.
> 
> Since you're not directly impacted by this, maybe you should go soak your panties somewhere else.


Lol, nice try. You used that imagery on purpose, you cared what it contained otherwise you wouldn't have used it at all because without that image the rest of his tweet has no real context.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Do be sure to look up that Confucius quote as you still seem to be struggling!


The quote is meaningless, it's just deflection from my argument without addressing the argument. It's just reaper trying to pass off his invalid use of imagery to support his argument.

Confucius has no bearing on this discussion, it's faux intellectualism.

Never thought I'd see the use of the middle finger to attack authority be used against people by wrestling fans. You guys really have become pussies with the PG era.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol 

I guess that Confucius quote didn't quite register. But a great display of projection tho. Actual, real projection this time. :clap 

Meanwhile in Liberal America Social Media Land :lol 










Dat ain't da Confederate flag tho :mj4


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> :kobelol
> 
> I guess that Confucius quote didn't quite register. But a great display of projection tho. Actual, real projection this time. :clap
> 
> Meanwhile in Liberal America Social Media Land :lol


Like I said faux intellectualism and deflection. You can't defend your use of the imagery so you just hide behind bullshit quotes.

:mckinney


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> :kobelol
> 
> I guess that Confucius quote didn't quite register. But a great display of projection tho. Actual, real projection this time. :clap
> 
> Meanwhile in Liberal America Social Media Land :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dat ain't da Confederate flag tho :mj4


I know we're like the "bad guy" in a lot of US culture yada yada but I didn't realise it'd gone so far as our flag being a hate symbol! :surprise: :lmao


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I know we're like the "bad guy" in a lot of US culture yada yada but I didn't realise it'd gone so far as our flag being a hate symbol! :surprise: :lmao


You know, if I wasn't all about keeping it simple, I would actually conclude that this guy was a hard core patriot who still hasn't gotten over British rule, but then that would be giving him too much credit :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Starting to wonder if it's no longer safe to wear all my British band t-shirts in public now. :hmmm I'd hate to trigger someone as they tend to have the flag on them.


----------



## Draykorinee

Let's hope those bands aren't like our old punk bands, those guys always stuck their fingers up at people to stand against authority!!
:jericho3


----------



## Reaper

I bet that person is also a college educated democrat supporter :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

College educated is far too often used to denote intelligence.


----------



## BRITLAND

RavishingRickRules said:


> I know we're like the "bad guy" in a lot of US culture yada yada but I didn't realise it'd gone so far as our flag being a hate symbol! :surprise: :lmao


I thought Americans love us Brits? Those genetically manufactured presenters on Good Morning America, The Today Show and every other US magazine show have a borderline erotic obsession with the British Monarchy (most notably of William, Kate, George & Charlotte), more so than the average brit.


----------



## Headliner

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> No one's denying race is a reality. I said that it matters only if you make it matter. If a potential employer does that, then you have every right to take your talents elsewhere. And no, your merits are what affect your identity to in relation to a nation's expectations of you.


Here's the problem. Are basic moral principles are suppose to bind Americans together to form a national identity. Similar to many other countries. The problem is when you get deeper into the national identity, the more divides tend to be present. Americans are suppose to be considered patriotic, but I'm not patriotic at all and that has to do with my identity considering American patriotism was built on xenophobia, racism, hate and prejudice which is why I'm cautious and careful of anyone who is very patriotic. It's not me forcing it, it's the reality. 



> They encountered racial hardships along the way, no doubt. By being successful, however, they ultimately discredit the concept of race-based privilege. But go ahead and make sure to find a homeless white guy and tell him that he still has more privilege than the likes of Oprah and Jeremy Lin.


Again, you can't take individual people and use them as examples of how privilege is discredited. That's not how it works. Because those same rich or successful people may face privilege problems when they deal with rich/successful people who have that privilege. It doesn't stop them from being treated one way while another group is treated a different way. Which, is something that happens on the regular basis. Privledge is based on stereotyping, pre-judged notions and excepted acceptance. 

Terrible examples because Jeremy and Oprah are rich. 



> It has to do with you crying foul about American slavery fucking over black folks despite it being defunct for centuries here, yet turning a blind eye to slavery still being apparent elsewhere and, most ironically, in African countries. Slavery has fucked over more than just black people.


Because this has nothing to do with any other country. This is you bringing that shit up to spin/change/deflect the topic.

This is about America. If we were talking about another country then that would have been addressed already. 



> You don't have to care that they had a permit. The fact of the matter is that they had it and therefore had the right to say whatever repugnant shit they wanted so long as they did so within lawful reason. They, as well as Antifa, ultimately didn't do that due to coming to blows with each other and as a result, both are rightfully being held accountable.


They had the right to say whatever they want but they also had the right to know that their event was about to get violent. And a bunch of them came in dressed with some kind of military gear, shields and guns like they were looking for a fight. _Most_ accounts of the fights are white supremacists jumping people and people on the left attacking back. They knew what was about to happen because they came dressed for violence. I don't fault people who fight back. There's time to blame Antifa. This isn't it. This is just sympathizer bullshit. 



> There are bad apples in every bunch and white folks are no exception, as evident by the nationalists / supremacists. However, her nonchalantly saying that "her job is tell white folks to shut up and listen" is vilifying a whole group of people based solely on their color. You know, *that very same thing* that you're hung up on. By being against one take on racism, but not another, you're being hypocritical in regard to hating racism period. And guess what? I never said you were racist.


It would be nice if you quoted the whole thing.



> “My job is to listen and be a voice, and my job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. “My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, ‘Oh no I’m not prejudiced, I’m a Democrat, I’m accepting.’ My job is to make sure that they get that they have privilege and until we shut our mouths and we listen to those people who don’t and we lift our people up so that we all have equity in this country … we’re not going to break through this


Her tone could have been different or more politically correct, but it's true. Because there are plenty of white people like that. Plenty of them on this forum and in this thread who are quick to discredit minority movements, minority races, refuse to listen to them, but will then turn around and argue that they have no privilege and equality actually exists. It's proactive, toward discrediting minorities. Proactive toward the protection of their own race in some weird delusional race protection behavior because they don't want to admit the realities of this world for fear of feeling like they have discriminatory advantages which somehow makes them guilty by association. Or simply out of ignorance. 

We can go back and forth on this all day but there's really no point. We don't agree with each other. We see the world in two different views based on two different experiences. I keep saying this, you're not getting.


----------



## Dr. Middy

So instead of repealing DACA which is what everybody is making it sound like, all Trump is doing is trying to convince congress to make a better immigration law to help these children brought in as illegals as a result of their parents actions. Apparently I've read he's barely even defunding it outright, rather, he's slowly going to try and phase it out (which if you look at other things like how Obamacare is failing to be phased out) might result in this taking longer than the 6 months he is mentioning. 

Makes me wonder though what the next step is? I think it would make sense to outright stop any new applications for people who haven't used DACA before, but continue to keep it alive for the ones who are still on it, until something different can be reached. I don't see them just telling 2 million young adults and even some children to just flat out leave, and dump them back into Mexico to have they worry about it.


----------



## deepelemblues

Barack Obama whining on Facebook that it's not American to follow the constitution

George W. Bush confirmed smarter than Obama :heston

Dubya kept his mouth shut and continues to keep his mouth shut because he knows all opening it will accomplish is fire up the opposition

But Obama can't help himself so he gives another "that isn't us" lecture, policing what is and what isn't good American thinking. Like he did all his presidency because he didn't care how much it along with all his other high-handery was pissing off a big chunk of people. So they got pissed off and elected :trump

:trump says thanks for your Facebook lecture buddy that's worth a 10 point rise in my approval rating among Republicans, and some independents coming along with them, at least :trump3


----------



## CamillePunk

https://apnews.com/3c0b89362c414003a2603deaab43a702



> *Fear of deportation drives people off food stamps in US*
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) — A crackdown on illegal immigration under President Donald Trump has driven some poor people to take a drastic step: opt out of federal food assistance because they are fearful of deportation, activists and immigrants say.
> 
> People who are not legal residents of the U.S. are not eligible to take part in what is formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
> 
> But many poor families include a mix of non-legal residents and legal ones, such as children who have citizenship because they were born in the U.S. In those cases, it is often an adult who is not a legal resident who submits the application.
> 
> Some now feel that is too dangerous under a president who has made immigration enforcement a priority. Throughout the U.S., there are accounts of people resisting efforts of nonprofit organizations to sign them up for food stamps, letting benefits lapse or withdrawing from the program because of the perceived risk.
> 
> “They don’t want to put their name and address on a form for a government public benefit out of fear that they’ll be sought out and asked to leave,” said Teresa Smith, executive director of Catholic Charities of Orange County, California.
> 
> The food stamp program provides monthly payments, typically about $125 per eligible household member, to poor families to buy essential staples. Going without can be an extreme decision, advocates say.
> 
> “This means less food on the table, fewer meals in houses where the kids have rights because they are U.S. citizens,” said Andrew Hammond, an attorney for Chicago’s Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
> 
> It is not possible to determine the extent of the phenomenon. The number of food stamp recipients has declined as the U.S. recovers from the Great Recession and people could drop out for various reasons.
> 
> A 52-year-old woman interviewed in New York City, a Mexican in the country illegally, told The Associated Press she was motivated in January to drop a benefit that was supporting her teenage daughter, a U.S. citizen, purely because she was afraid of being in the food stamp system, which requires applicants to state their immigration status.
> 
> “I had been told that it’s OK to apply for food stamps. But, for the moment, I don’t want to take any risks,” said the woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of her immigration status and was introduced to AP through an organization that helps immigrants, the Mexican Coalition of the South Bronx.
> 
> “I need it but I have peace of mind because my case is closed,” said the woman, who makes $8.50 an hour cleaning houses and lives in small apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
> 
> A Honduran immigrant and single mother with one child in Silver Spring, Maryland, decided not to renew the food stamps she received when they expired in January. “We fear deportation,” said the 29-year-old immigrant, who also spoke on condition of anonymity and was introduced to AP through a local nonprofit. She normally earns about $350 per week answering phones at a travel agency but has been working extra hours cleaning homes to make up for the loss of about $150 per month in food stamps.
> 
> Mark Krikorian, a well-known advocate for reducing immigration to the U.S., said their situation reflects the fact that many people who come to the country lack the skills to earn enough money here. “It is an attempted moral blackmail to say ’If you Americans don’t give me your money, I can’t stay here and feed my children,’” he said. “Well, it’s your choice. No one made you sneak into the United States.”
> 
> About 3.9 million citizen children living with noncitizen parents received food stamps in the 2015 fiscal year, the most recent available data, according to the Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program.
> 
> The Department of Agriculture says a lower percentage of noncitizens who qualify for the program known as SNAP have historically used the benefit than citizens because of an incorrect perception that it could affect their immigration status or hurt their chances of becoming a U.S. citizen.
> 
> “It is important for non-citizens to know they will not be deported, denied entry to the country, or denied permanent status because they apply for or receive SNAP benefits,” the agency says on its website.
> 
> Driving the most recent fears about the program is an increase in immigration enforcement.
> 
> Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested nearly 40 percent more people suspected of being in the country illegally in the first 100 days under Trump than in the same period a year earlier. The agency said nearly 75 percent of them had been convicted of criminal offenses but “non-criminal arrests” were up by more than 150 percent.
> 
> Immigrant advocates see the aversion to food stamps as a reflection of a climate of fear that drives people in the country illegally deeper underground, which in some cases also makes them reluctant to report crimes.
> 
> “We should care if people are afraid to interact with institutions that all of us rely on for our health and well-being,” said Tanya Broder, senior attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.


:trump2

Apparently this is from 3 months ago, was just posted on my timeline. Well, I'm sure the latest news won't help...or should I say hurt? :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

It's weird how there were anti-:trump protests in front of :trump Tower in Manhattan and in front of the White House over DACA today yet no racist white people showed up to beat on the protesters :draper2

Maybe the NYPD and the DC police + the feds were serious about security so they knew better than to even try.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FriedTofu

Dr. Middy said:


> So instead of repealing DACA which is what everybody is making it sound like, all Trump is doing is trying to convince congress to make a better immigration law to help these children brought in as illegals as a result of their parents actions. Apparently I've read he's barely even defunding it outright, rather, he's slowly going to try and phase it out (which if you look at other things like how Obamacare is failing to be phased out) might result in this taking longer than the 6 months he is mentioning.
> 
> Makes me wonder though what the next step is? I think it would make sense to outright stop any new applications for people who haven't used DACA before, but continue to keep it alive for the ones who are still on it, until something different can be reached. I don't see them just telling 2 million young adults and even some children to just flat out leave, and dump them back into Mexico to have they worry about it.


That's the glass half-full version of looking at it. The way I understand is Obama introduced DACA because Congress has been pussyfooting around doing anything for those people because of the political minefield that it is. Someone actually did something for them and now they are back to square one.


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> Here's the problem. Are basic moral principles are suppose to bind Americans together to form a national identity. Similar to many other countries. The problem is when you get deeper into the national identity, the more divides tend to be present. Americans are suppose to be considered patriotic, but I'm not patriotic at all and that has to do with my identity considering American patriotism was built on xenophobia, racism, hate and prejudice which is why I'm cautious and careful of anyone who is very patriotic. It's not me forcing it, it's the reality.
> 
> 
> Again, you can't take individual people and use them as examples of how privilege is discredited. That's not how it works. Because those same rich or successful people may face privilege problems when they deal with rich/successful people who have that privilege. It doesn't stop them from being treated one way while another group is treated a different way. Which, is something that happens on the regular basis. Privledge is based on stereotyping, pre-judged notions and excepted acceptance.
> 
> Terrible examples because Jeremy and Oprah are rich.
> 
> Because this has nothing to do with any other country. This is you bringing that shit up to spin/change/deflect the topic.
> 
> This is about America. If we were talking about another country then that would have been addressed already.
> 
> 
> They had the right to say whatever they want but they also had the right to know that their event was about to get violent. And a bunch of them came in dressed with some kind of military gear, shields and guns like they were looking for a fight. _Most_ accounts of the fights are white supremacists jumping people and people on the left attacking back. They knew what was about to happen because they came dressed for violence. I don't fault people who fight back. There's time to blame Antifa. This isn't it. This is just sympathizer bullshit.
> 
> 
> It would be nice if you quoted the whole thing.
> 
> 
> Her tone could have been different or more politically correct, but it's true. Because there are plenty of white people like that. Plenty of them on this forum and in this thread who are quick to discredit minority movements, minority races, refuse to listen to them, but will then turn around and argue that they have no privilege and equality actually exists. It's proactive, toward discrediting minorities. Proactive toward the protection of their own race in some weird delusional race protection behavior because they don't want to admit the realities of this world for fear of feeling like they have discriminatory advantages which somehow makes them guilty by association. Or simply out of ignorance.
> 
> We can go back and forth on this all day but there's really no point. We don't agree with each other. We see the world in two different views based on two different experiences. I keep saying this, you're not getting.



Basically, you're saying : 

"You're entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine. Let's agree to disagree and move on." 


Correct? :shrug


----------



## virus21

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/declare-george-soros-terrorist-and-seize-all-his-related-organizations-assets-under-rico-and-ndaa-law


----------



## Reaper

Dat fascist!!


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> Barack Obama whining on Facebook that it's not American to follow the constitution
> 
> George W. Bush confirmed smarter than Obama :heston
> 
> Dubya kept his mouth shut and continues to keep his mouth shut because he knows all opening it will accomplish is fire up the opposition
> 
> But Obama can't help himself so he gives another "that isn't us" lecture, policing what is and what isn't good American thinking. Like he did all his presidency because he didn't care how much it along with all his other high-handery was pissing off a big chunk of people. So they got pissed off and elected :trump
> 
> :trump says thanks for your Facebook lecture buddy that's worth a 10 point rise in my approval rating among Republicans, and some independents coming along with them, at least :trump3


Yeah it's a problem when Obama speaks up yet Trump has been obsessed with Obama for 7 years and continues to talk dumb shit about him that has to get fact checked by people, yet it's ok when Trump does it. 

You guys continue to expose yourselves.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> That post was pointing out the fact that for years Salon has propagated racism against whites as pushed all forms of identity politics and are now seemingly starting to change their tune.


So they were doing a bad thing, and are now trying to do a good thing. Therefore they deserve to be made fun of.

I understood the post perfectly well, I just wanted to make doubly sure that that's where you and @Vic stood because I think the stance is more than a little ridiculous.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> College educated is far too often used to denote intelligence.












This isn't said enough.




draykorinee said:


> You're either winding me up or your being stupid. You liked the post by reaper. There were Mexican kids on the photo. The only other link between them was all of them giving the middle finger. Then came the sarcastic posts about Mexico getting 'the best' immigrants back and *miss sally even implying she was embarrassed by them*.
> 
> I hate having to explain basic stuff to people.



I'm embarrassed by the fact that the people who thought a campaign based on giving people the middle finger and saying "fuck you" to everyone was a good idea. I'm embarrassed by the Alt-Right, Antifa, people who are College Educated but are Communists and Identitarians who don't even help their own or use it as a way to say they're oppressed or excellent. Seriously, these people are embarrassing and they're American Citizens!


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> So they were doing a bad thing, and are now trying to do a good thing. Therefore they deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> I understood the post perfectly well, I just wanted to make doubly sure that that's where you and @Vic stood because I think the stance is more than a little ridiculous.


Making fun of a racist pile of trash consumed by more racists isn't ridiculous. 

They're not even actually apologizing for years of racist propaganda. Just simply admitting that it's bad for their political agenda.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> Making fun of a racist pile of trash consumed by more racists isn't ridiculous.


It's ridiculous if you are ridiculing something positive they're doing.

Don't laugh at Fox News if they do something completely crazy and out of left field, like humanize a person of colour. It's a trash publication/broadcast network. There are so many things to actually make fun of them for.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> It's ridiculous if you are ridiculing something positive they're doing.


One article does not atone for years of pushing racist propaganda because as a publication their content is still heavily geared towards pushing racism. Still deserving of ridicule and loathing by anyone that values reason and logic over their race-baiting nonsense.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm going to go ahead and take the under on Salon suddenly turning over a new leaf and becoming less race-baity. :lol


----------



## samizayn

I just heard about this:



Reaper said:


> One article does not atone for years of pushing racist propaganda because as a publication their content is still heavily geared towards pushing racism. Still deserving of ridicule and loathing by anyone that values reason and logic over their race-baiting nonsense.


I think it's a mistake to say it's trying to atone for anything. Regardless, if you hold certain beliefs and values in high esteem, it's really a mistake to ridicule an individual or publication for giving those beliefs exposition of any kind. Especially if it's being read by people who don't share those same values. I can't tell you how to think but I feel this is self evident.


----------



## Pratchett

FriedTofu said:


> That's the glass half-full version of looking at it. The way I understand is *Obama introduced DACA because Congress has been pussyfooting around doing anything for those people because of the political minefield that it is*. Someone actually did something for them and now they are back to square one.


And what Trump has done is he has taken this back and sent it to Congress to force them to _do their damn jobs_. People are in an uproar about this, and now is the time for them to stop crying about what Trump has done and put their Representative's feet to the fires and make sure they get something done like they were elected to do. Like they should have done many years ago. If the Media focused on that, instead of trying to drum up outrage for the views and clicks, people might actually get off their asses and turn their attention to the House and Senate where it belongs now.


----------



## FriedTofu

Pratchett said:


> And what Trump has done is he has taken this back and sent it to Congress to force them to _do their damn jobs_. People are in an uproar about this, and now is the time for them to stop crying about what Trump has done and put their Representative's feet to the fires and make sure they get something done like they were elected to do. Like they should have done many years ago. If the Media focused on that, instead of trying to drum up outrage for the views and clicks, people might actually get off their asses and turn their attention to the House and Senate where it belongs now.


What makes you think it will work this time after decades of pussyfooting around the issue?

The way I see it is Trump is putting his own party under the bus and absolve himself of any blame whichever decision is made.


----------



## Art Vandaley

FriedTofu said:


> What makes you think it will work this time after decades of pussyfooting around the issue?
> 
> The way I see it is Trump is putting his own party under the bus and absolve himself of any blame whichever decision is made.


I don't know dude I was pretty convinced by Dr Middy's argument that we should praise Trump for undoing Obama's solution to the problem because he may replace it with another solution.


----------



## Oxidamus

@samizayn has a point in principle, but fighting a defence of Salon is not the right way to cement that principle. The journalism of Salon will not change whatsoever, it isn't admitting wrongdoing anywhere near as much as it's admitting defeat and trying to switch tactics... which is the epitome of ideological, biased journalism.


----------



## BruiserKC

Pratchett said:


> And what Trump has done is he has taken this back and sent it to Congress to force them to _do their damn jobs_. People are in an uproar about this, and now is the time for them to stop crying about what Trump has done and put their Representative's feet to the fires and make sure they get something done like they were elected to do. Like they should have done many years ago. If the Media focused on that, instead of trying to drum up outrage for the views and clicks, people might actually get off their asses and turn their attention to the House and Senate where it belongs now.


I do 100% agree that Congress should have been doing their jobs all along. Shit, going back to the days of George W Bush they were talking immigration reform and nothing got done. They've been sitting on their asses and playing pocket pool when they are supposed to be sending bills to the POTUS to sign. There is no question Congress is massively derelict in their responsibility. 

On the other hand, I can't help but think, "Oh, NOW President Trump picks THIS moment to stop legislating by Executive Order." He's been passing these EOs out for months like memos for cover sheets on Bannon's TPS reports. If I'm going to rip Obama for doing the same thing with his phone and pen and governing in that fashion, I refuse to give Trump a pass for doing the same thing. Again, a lot of this is on Congress for not doing their jobs so he's not alone in blame. 

Trump trots out the Attorney General to make the announcement himself, and Sessions didn't take questions. The truth is that Trump does not want the blowback that will come either way, and he's hoping that no matter which way Congress acts or doesn't act that he is absolved of blame. If Congress does nothing, he can say that he tried. If Congress does give the Dreamers some form of amnesty and Trump were to go ahead and sign it, he wants Congress to take the wrath of his supporters who vehemently oppose amnesty in any form. Especially in that direction, he is hoping that they will attack Congressional leadership even if Trump does sign it and renege on another campaign promise. 

I don't think Trump really knows which way he wants to go at this point on the matter, and it's very telling here. For example...in a story for the New York Times...there's this quote...

*“It’s not clear what delaying this for six months means,” said Mark Krikorian, an immigration hard-liner who runs the Center for Immigration Studies who has supported the president’s actions to curtail immigration.

“He’s being pulled in a bunch of different directions, and because he doesn’t have any strong ideological anchor, or deep knowledge of the issue, he ends up sort of not knowing what to do,” Mr. Krikorian said. “I think the fact that they did nothing to it suggests that they had no idea what to do,” he added.*

Not to mention concerns that leaders like Senator Rubio have brought up, which is what exactly does Trump want to come out of all this? He has stated it's up to Congress now to draft something up, but what does he want out of taking care of the DACA issue? Does he want amnesty for the Dreamers in exchange for the RAISE act and funding for the border wall? Or, is he looking for Congress to end up doing nothing and letting the clock run out so he can say he tried? Most importantly, will he have the back of Congress or if they don't go the way he wants will he throw them under the bus? Rubio said that they're not really all that interested in discussing this if they don't have an idea of what the POTUS wants. 

Again, this is becoming a problem for President Trump. He keeps throwing out the big picture stuff, but he for the most part seems to not care about the details. If Trump has an idea of where he wants this matter to go regarding DACA, he needs to spell this out to Congressional leadership. Don't leave anything to chance. We saw this with the clusterfuck that was the non-repeal repeal of Obamacare, I see the same thing playing out here. Either Trump wants to see where Congress sits on this and that depends on who votes where, or he doesn't have a plan and just punted this issue. 

Mr. President, you were elected to get shit done. So far, not a lot is getting accomplished. Part of that is on Congress for not doing anything, but a lot of this is clearly on you, sir. You need to get in there and talk with your advisers and Congresspeople on what you want to get done. If you have an agenda, this needs to be spelled out to them and tell them what you are looking for. Most importantly, you can't hide behind Congress no matter what they decide when you don't lay out what you are wanting and then shit on them when it doesn't get done because they have NFI what you want. Most importantly, you're going to piss off people no matter which way you go, but this is part of the job. You need to determine what doing the right thing is in this case, accept that someone isn't going to be happy no matter which way this goes, take the praise and lumps, and push forward. The President is supposed to have the courage of their convictions, that they are going to stand by what they want and take the heat. This is your job, stop playing the campaign game and running behind your most fervent supporters when things get tough. If you didn't want this part of the job, you should have just stayed at Trump Tower.


----------



## FriedTofu

:ha


----------



## Vic Capri

> Obama introduced DACA


1.) DACA was ruled unconstitutional.

2.) It was an executive order, not a law.

3.) What's the point of having immigration laws if we're not going to enforce them? People who come here illegally should all be deported if they're not going to abide by the rules of law. 

4.) The "Dreamers" had plenty of time to begin the process of becoming U.S. citizens. What were they doing all this time?

5.) Liberals made it clear they care more about illegal immigrants than homeless Americans.

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

Can anyone explain to me why I'm having a *REALLY FUCKING TOUGH TIME* finding the video where Trump is asked about the children of illegal immigrants before he was elected, and he says something along the lines of "We need to do something to help them"?


----------



## krtgolfing

Wore a Rise Against t-shirt is public this past weekend and had a guy ask me why I hate this country.. So why can I not like a band who preaches equality and still love this country? When I saw them earlier this year they did not mention Trump. They did mention hate against race, sex, religion, etc. I told him I voted for Trump and to fuck off. Shut his ass right up.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> 5.) Liberals made it clear they care more about illegal immigrants than homeless Americans.
> 
> - Vic


Most of them don't even care about the actual immigrants, its just virtue signaling. They want immigrants, they just don't want them in this area where they live. They can go to this area, where you live. Wait, you don't want them in your area? RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Steve Harvey Describes Racist Backlash He Faced From The Left For Meeting With Trump*
> 
> Comedian and television host Steve Harvey says he regrets agreeing to meeting with Donald Trump during the presidential transition, but not because of any message of solidarity with the administration it might have conveyed. Instead, Harvey regrets the meeting because of the "vicious" backlash he experienced from the Left.
> 
> Harvey expressed his regret to The Hollywood Reporter in an interview published Tuesday in which he described the personal and racist nature of many of the attacks on him for agreeing to meet with the president-elect a few days before his inauguration.
> 
> Asked about his meeting with Trump on January 17, 2017, Harvey winced and said, "I didn't see that coming. Jesus." Pressed to explain further, he said, "The backlash."
> 
> "*It was so vicious that it really threw me*," said Harvey. "*I was being called names that I've never been called: Uncle Tom. A ****. A sellout. Because I went to see this man?!*"
> 
> The comedian went on to explain that the meeting only took place "because my business partner got a call from the Obama transition team, who said that the Trump transition team would like to set up a meeting. The Obama team said they thought it would be a good idea because the president is encouraging dialogue. And I have a relationship with Obama."
> 
> He noted that his wife told him to skip the meeting because he was supposed to go on a boat for his 60th birthday. "God, I should've listened," he said.
> 
> After the backlash from the Left, it's no wonder he didn't dare associate himself further with the president.


www.dailywire.com/news/20682/vicious-steve-harvey-describes-racist-backlash-he-james-barrett

But I was specifically told that only the right has racist people, what happened?


----------



## nyelator

Stinger Fan said:


> www.dailywire.com/news/20682/vicious-steve-harvey-describes-racist-backlash-he-james-barrett
> 
> But I was specifically told that only the right has racist people, what happened?


The left and thier lies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> 1.) DACA was ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> 2.) It was an executive order, not a law.
> 
> 3.) What's the point of having immigration laws if we're not going to enforce them? People who come here illegally should all be deported if they're not going to abide by the rules of law.
> 
> 4.) The "Dreamers" had plenty of time to begin the process of becoming U.S. citizens. What were they doing all this time?
> 
> 5.) Liberals made it clear they care more about illegal immigrants than homeless Americans.
> 
> - Vic


what is the point of having laws about civil rights if when you break them and ignore courts, when they tell you to stop and are found guiltily Trump will just pardon you like he did with Joe Arpaio.

So much for following the law right oh but its ok when Trump is pardoning a racist sheriff right that is infringing peoples rights


----------



## Reaper

I think I'll make my "Brains on Social Justice" thing a regular feature in this thread.










I honestly hope that this is satire.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Hurricanes, storms, etc don't give a fuck if people name 'em as male or female, nor do they give a fuck what percentage of races live in their path of destruction. They're fucking forces of nature ffs.

I hope that pic is fake or satire. If it's not? :heston


----------



## Brockamura

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Hurricanes, storms, etc don't give a fuck if people name 'em as male or female, nor do they give a fuck what percentage of races live in their path of destruction. They're fucking forces of nature ffs.
> 
> I hope that pic is fake or satire. If it's not? :heston


Oh its not fake, these people are real.


----------



## Oxidamus

@Reaper @L-DOPA + anyone else who might be interested can you please pose your cases against a universal basic income (or similar socialist-ish idea)? Not trying to have an argument or debate about it. Like I said ITCB, I feel like there's something VERY wrong with it but I can't really put my finger on it so I'm basically requesting someone try to tell me what they are.

:mj2


----------



## Reaper

Remind me after the hurricane and I will give my thoughts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> @Reaper @L-DOPA + anyone else who might be interested can you please pose your cases against a universal basic income (or similar socialist-ish idea)? Not trying to have an argument or debate about it. Like I said ITCB, I feel like there's something VERY wrong with it but I can't really put my finger on it so I'm basically requesting someone try to tell me what they are.
> 
> :mj2


If you don't think iita good idea, you should be able to come up with a case against it on your own.


LOL at trying to have Reaper and Dopa tell you how to think.

Why would you be against a basic income if it means doing away with programs like unemployment, welfare, food stamps etc? Plus you wouldn't have to worry about raising the minimum wage to a living wage. 

What you would have to do is see how much it would cost to support basic income and cutting all those programs vs keeping all those programs.

if its cheaper for the country to give everyone $10,000 a year in a basic income than to fund all those other programs, how is that a bad thing?


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> If you don't think iita good idea, you should be able to come up with a case against it on your own.
> 
> 
> LOL at trying to have Reaper and Dopa tell you how to think.


fpalm Fer fuck sake. I do think it's a good idea. I like to be able to either strengthen my argument by being able to understand and disprove potential opposing arguments, or alternatively adopt new information that might disprove my initial thoughts.

You realise we're humans, not gods, right? We don't know everything, it's good to listen to other people. If you still disagree afterwards at least you listened.

Maybe you can give that a try? :mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxidamus said:


> fpalm Fer fuck sake. I do think it's a good idea. I like to be able to either strengthen my argument by being able to understand and disprove potential opposing arguments, or alternatively adopt new information that might disprove my initial thoughts.
> 
> You realise we're humans, not gods, right? We don't know everything, it's good to listen to other people. If you still disagree afterwards at least you listened.
> 
> Maybe you can give that a try? :mj4


Then why didn't you ask for peoples thoughts on both sides, you just asked people who are against it.

You are not making any sense oxi. You should really try making sense sometime


----------



## DOPA

Oxidamus said:


> @Reaper @L-DOPA + anyone else who might be interested can you please pose your cases against a universal basic income (or similar socialist-ish idea)? Not trying to have an argument or debate about it. Like I said ITCB, I feel like there's something VERY wrong with it but I can't really put my finger on it so I'm basically requesting someone try to tell me what they are.
> 
> :mj2


To be fair, I'm not 100% sure what my opinion on Universal Basic Income is myself because I need to research it more.

I'll get back to you about it soon (Y).


----------



## Brockamura

LET'S GO T R U M P TRAIN :trump3:trump3

FUCK TRUDEAU :flip


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> Then why didn't you ask for peoples thoughts on both sides, you just asked people who are against it.
> 
> You are not making any sense oxi. You should really try making sense sometime


Because like I've mentioned a hundred times before, in real life I do LEFT WING ACTIVIST WORK with LEFT WINGERS that includes SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS which means I hear a LOT of positives about a UBI.
:CENA
I have the positives in my ear on a fortnightly basis and see it on Facebook semi-regularly.

I don't see the negatives. So I asked Reaper, who I don't even agree with economically but he has done a bit of looking into economic theory and posted it in this very thread, as well as @L-DOPA (whom I am tagging again) since he said he was going to do some looking into it and I thought he might have done that already.


----------



## MrMister

:lol




Ok, that shit about hurricanes attacking non-whites has to be not srs. If it's serious then :brady6 If it's not srs then :max


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oxidamus said:


> @Reaper @L-DOPA + anyone else who might be interested can you please pose your cases against a universal basic income (or similar socialist-ish idea)? Not trying to have an argument or debate about it. Like I said ITCB, I feel like there's something VERY wrong with it but I can't really put my finger on it so I'm basically requesting someone try to tell me what they are.
> 
> :mj2


I don't think its a particularly great idea , it opens up a can of worms. The idea that you should be forced to fund people simply for living doesn't sit well with me. A main point of contention would be that it would give people more money to help out, why couldn't lowering income taxes help solve that problem? What about encouraging people to pay their taxes early by giving them rewards such as 5-10% off their income tax when paying it a month early? Wouldn't that help people keep more money in their pockets? 

Also, who gets to receive this benefit? Do illegals receive this as well? If not, why not? To me, the answer seems obvious but there will be people who believe it wont be "universal" unless they get that benefit as well. It seems like it would encourage more illegal immigration if people can receive money simply for living in the country. Then there's people who believe healthcare should be entirely 100% free, education should be free .... at some point the money runs out then what? Raise taxes even more, which means less money in peoples pockets , then we get to the situation where the basic income isn't "enough". 

I mean, Bernie Sanders were bragging about Denmark but even they're cutting taxes now to encourage people to work


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I don't think its a particularly great idea , it opens up a can of worms. The idea that you should be forced to fund people simply for living doesn't sit well with me. A main point of contention would be that it would give people more money to help out, why couldn't lowering income taxes help solve that problem? What about encouraging people to pay their taxes early by giving them rewards such as 5-10% off their income tax when paying it a month early? Wouldn't that help people keep more money in their pockets?
> 
> Also, who gets to receive this benefit? Do illegals receive this as well? If not, why not? To me, the answer seems obvious but there will be people who believe it wont be "universal" unless they get that benefit as well. It seems like it would encourage more illegal immigration if people can receive money simply for living in the country. Then there's people who believe healthcare should be entirely 100% free, education should be free .... at some point the money runs out then what? Raise taxes even more, which means less money in peoples pockets , then we get to the situation where the basic income isn't "enough".
> 
> I mean, Bernie Sanders were bragging about Denmark but even they're cutting taxes now to encourage people to work



If giving a basic wage costs less than welfare, unemployment, food stamps etc, how is that a bad thing? Because those programs would be gone if they put in a living wage to pay for it.

And LOL if you think someone would not want to work just because they are getting 10,000 a year, no one can survive on 10k a year, but adding 10k to someone's salary, especially on the lower end would be a huge help.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> If giving a basic wage costs less than welfare, unemployment, food stamps etc, how is that a bad thing? Because those programs would be gone if they put in a living wage to pay for it.
> 
> And LOL if you think someone would not want to work just because they are getting 10,000 a year, no one can survive on 10k a year, but adding 10k to someone's salary, especially on the lower end would be a huge help.


You completely ignored everything I said


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You completely ignored everything I said


No actually I didn't, so feel free to answer my question.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> No actually I didn't, so feel free to answer my question.


No, you actively avoided 6 questions and 2 other points I made while mentioning another country and you responded with an "*if*" statement. 

:lol at you believing you can bully me


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> No, you actively avoided 6 questions and 2 other points I made while mentioning another country and you responded with an "*if*" statement.
> 
> :lol at you believing you can bully me



Do what you always do and dodge a direct question. All we are talking about here is a basic income, all the stuff you said about people wanting free education or free healthcare is irrelevant

You can't even answer a simple rebuttal because you can't defend your point of view.


----------



## krtgolfing

I want another 10k on top of what I already make.. I probably make to much to qualify. :mj2 :fuck :liquor


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Do what you always do and dodge a direct question. All we are talking about here is a basic income, all the stuff you said about people wanting free education or free healthcare is irrelevant
> 
> You can't even answer a simple rebuttal because you can't defend your point of view.


*I asked 6 questions, you answered 0 *but I'm dodging? :lol You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of doing and its quite hysterical you think you can bully me into getting what you want :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> *I asked 6 questions, you answered 0 *but I'm dodging? :lol You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of doing and its quite hysterical you think you can bully me into getting what you want :lol


Answer the question. You always do this because you can never defend your positions.

I can easily tear apart your questions

why couldn't lowering income taxes help solve that problem? What about encouraging people to pay their taxes early by giving them rewards such as 5-10% off their income tax when paying it a month early? Wouldn't that help people keep more money in their pockets? 

What are any of those going to matter to someone who needs the 10k the most? It's going to be at most a couple of hundred of dollars not 10,000. The whole point of a basic income is to help the people on the low end the most, none of your ideas would help them at all.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question. You always do this because you can never defend your positions.


:lol I've lost track of how many times you wouldn't respond to something I wrote directly to you.

When i abruptly stop responding to people, it has nothing to do with inability to defend myself and all to do with not wanting to derail potential good discussions by writing the same point a million times in different ways and getting myself involved in pointless arguments that go absolutely no way. There's no point in wasting time and a good conversation


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol I've lost track of how many times you wouldn't respond to something I wrote directly to you.
> 
> When i abruptly stop responding to people, it has nothing to do with inability to defend myself and all to do with not wanting to derail potential good discussions by writing the same point a million times in different ways and getting myself involved in pointless arguments that go absolutely no way. There's no point in wasting time and a good conversation


LOL Keep dodging the question because you can't answer it. It's what you always do. You couldn't even answer this simple question. You fail yet again


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump has wrested control of Al Gore's weather machine away from him and is using it to wipe out minorities. :done


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904947521260208128:nah


----------



## Oxidamus

I'll note each point instead of breaking the quote because it'll look messy.



Stinger Fan said:


> I don't think its a particularly great idea , it opens up a can of worms. The idea that you should be forced to fund people simply for living doesn't sit well with me. A main point of contention would be that it would give people more money to help out, why couldn't lowering income taxes help solve that problem?*[1]*
> 
> What about encouraging people to pay their taxes early by giving them rewards such as 5-10% off their income tax when paying it a month early? Wouldn't that help people keep more money in their pockets?*[2]*
> 
> Also, who gets to receive this benefit? Do illegals receive this as well? If not, why not? To me, the answer seems obvious but there will be people who believe it wont be "universal" unless they get that benefit as well. It seems like it would encourage more illegal immigration if people can receive money simply for living in the country. *[3]*
> 
> Then there's people who believe healthcare should be entirely 100% free, education should be free .... at some point the money runs out then what? Raise taxes even more, which means less money in peoples pockets , then we get to the situation where the basic income isn't "enough".*[4]*
> 
> I mean, Bernie Sanders were bragging about Denmark but even they're cutting taxes now to encourage people to work*[5]*


*1:*
From my understanding of unemployment (which is PRETTY FUCKIN' GOOD if I do say so myself) the point of the UBI is to alleviate the fact that automation is running amok on western civilisation. Like one of the (if not THE) most populous job in the US - driver - might actually be almost entirely extinct in the next few decades. That will likely increase the unemployment rate by a few percentage points alone.

Regardless, it's clear that eventually we'll be at a point where we have machines and robots doing potentially 3/4 of work humans used to do - but the question is when do we begin to admit that the current system of receiving money for work done won't work for such a large portion of people in the country? Welfare reliance (although the UBI is similar it's also fairly different) is fucked I'm sure we can all agree.

So reducing tax rates on the person won't alleviate the looming unemployment crisis and reducing tax rates on businesses doesn't necessarily increase job creation, and even if it did, it wouldn't be enough to alleviate the looming unemployment crisis either.


*2:*
I dunno about this but it's not really tied to the UBI. Basically the first point of the UBI is that it is one of the answers to the inevitable point of humanity where so many jobs are done for free by robots that a huge portion of people are jobless. So any idea on playing with existing tax rates of workers today is, at best, a band-aid fix.


*3:*
Well I suppose it depends on what kind of government you have, if the illegals get it. If it's some stupid Democrat government and they give it to the illegals you can kiss your country away in the next ten years.
Ideally, it'd be a more Trump-ish treatment of illegals where they're kicked the fuck out and have to apply to stay in the country like all the other migrants.

But every legal citizen would receive the UBI. I imagine there'd be situations where people get more (like welfare today) based on their circumstances. e.g. if the person is disabled and literally can't work they'd probably receive more than someone who can work.

I don't know why they call it "universal" though. :lmao I can't see handing out money like that working with illegals claiming it too.


*4:*
Well if a UBI is implemented then there would have to be drastic changes to the cost of virtually everything. On the topic of healthcare and education specifically, I imagine it would stay kind of the same as it does now. But the US would probably adopt the indebted system for college and university education like Australia (and other countries) where your course costs a flat amount and you pay it back through the years of you earning money.

I don't think the money would run out, but I think that's where I have this cognitive retardation where I feel like I'm wrong but just can't work out why...

The numbers I'm going to use are arbitrary, so they don't represent anything at all, just easy to math with.
If the minimum wage is $10 right now, then I imagine under a UBI what would happen is the minimum wage would reduce by a certain percentage - let's say 50% (remember, arbitrary) - and the employer would be taxed near enough to the leftover amount - which is 50% - and that is a way that could potentially pay for the UBI distributed throughout the people.


*Here's another interesting point that I feel a lot of people forget about btw...*
With a UBI the full-time working week could potentially be reduced and you could still get roughly the same quality of life. Numbers are weird here but I think it's another important thing we should consider. We're almost masters of technology that makes lives easier but people are still working the 9-5 every weekday. Why?! Imagine only working 9-5 four days of the week instead, for roughly the same outcome.
:sodone


*5:*
I have no idea about what's going on in Denmark and I don't know much about Sanders' thoughts on the matter but he's all for FREE UNIVERSITY which I am adamantly against so I imagine a lot of the core things regarding how the UBI would work would be drastically different between him and I.


Reminder - I'm trying to work this out to the point I'm TALKING TO MYSELF. :CENA
So if I say any dumb shit that seems to be wrong then go ahead and tell me coz I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong myself, just trying to work this damn shit out.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Brockamura

CamillePunk said:


> Trump has wrested control of Al Gore's weather machine away from him and is using it to wipe out minorities. :done
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904947521260208128:nah


I still laugh so hard when I see people who are white and are racist against whites. :heston


----------



## virus21

Brockamura said:


> I still laugh so hard when I see people who are white and are racist against whites. :heston


But they are the wrong type of white people, so its ok


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905260839690792960
:mj


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

> Trump has wrested control of Al Gore's weather machine away from him and is using it to wipe out minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> I still laugh so hard when I see people who are white and are racist against whites.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

15 states suing :trump over ending DACA 6 months from now if Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell don't do their fucking jobs.

A pure waste of time and taxpayer dollars. An executive order can be repealed at any time by the sitting President. One of his, an executive order of a previous President's, whatever. The sitting President has absolute and total constitutionally-given power and authority over all executive orders.

Plus DACA itself as created and authorized and implemented via executive orders is blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody anywhere near the mainstream on either side thinks what Obama did was legal.

Virtue-signal all the way to the Supreme Court with no hope of victory, on our dimes.


----------



## BruiserKC

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20712/trump-sides-democrats-links-hurricane-funding-debt-ben-shapiro

After Paul Ryan said that it would be bullshit to play politics with the debt ceiling as the Democrats only were willing to fund the government another three months and that the Dems were going to hold an aid package for Harvey and probably Irma hostage, Schumer and Pelosi went to Trump who agreed to it. In exchange for the aid package the debt ceiling has been raised and the government is funded until mid-December. 

I am trying to justify this, but it seems like Trump got rolled on by the Dems or he is now in cahoots with them. There seems to be no compromise here it was just flat out capitulation by the President...just a couple of weeks after threatening shutdown if the funding wasn't there for the wall. 

I hope someone can give me a good explanation because this stinks.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> 15 states suing :trump over ending DACA 6 months from now if Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell don't do their fucking jobs.
> 
> A pure waste of time and taxpayer dollars. An executive order can be repealed at any time by the sitting President. One of his, an executive order of a previous President's, whatever. The sitting President has absolute and total constitutionally-given power and authority over all executive orders.
> 
> Plus DACA itself as created and authorized and implemented via executive orders is blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody anywhere near the mainstream on either side thinks what Obama did was legal.
> 
> Virtue-signal all the way to the Supreme Court with no hope of victory, on our dimes.


This suing crap is getting old. States virtue signaling and wasting tax payer dollars while whining for more federal funds is idiotic.

Obama shouldn't have implemented DACA in the first place, if these States really want something done then sponsor it now where it can be passed legally. I get the feeling they don't really care, just want to look good.


----------



## stevefox1200

BruiserKC said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/20712/trump-sides-democrats-links-hurricane-funding-debt-ben-shapiro
> 
> After Paul Ryan said that it would be bullshit to play politics with the debt ceiling as the Democrats only were willing to fund the government another three months and that the Dems were going to hold an aid package for Harvey and probably Irma hostage, Schumer and Pelosi went to Trump who agreed to it. In exchange for the aid package the debt ceiling has been raised and the government is funded until mid-December.
> 
> I am trying to justify this, but it seems like Trump got rolled on by the Dems or he is now in cahoots with them. There seems to be no compromise here it was just flat out capitulation by the President...just a couple of weeks after threatening shutdown if the funding wasn't there for the wall.
> 
> I hope someone can give me a good explanation because this stinks.


I have to to say a shutdown over that damn wall would go down as one of the dumbest things possible

I mean the last shutdowns were over healthcare and shit like that which I can understand 

Most Trump voters I knew didn't really expect a literal brick and mortar wall

I also dislike the DACA decision because I like to say "DACA DACA DACA"


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> I have to to say a shutdown over that damn wall would go down as one of the dumbest things possible
> 
> I mean the last shutdowns were over healthcare and shit like that which I can understand
> 
> Most Trump voters I knew didn't really expect a literal brick and mortar wall
> 
> I also dislike the DACA decision because I like to say "DACA DACA DACA"


----------



## stevefox1200

virus21 said:


>


That was trumps biggest mistake 

if we are going to defeat immigrants like this

(ACTUAL PIC AT US BORDER TOWN)








(ACTUAL PIC AT US BORDER TOWN)

we need far more DACA not less


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> That was trumps biggest mistake
> 
> if we are going to defeat immigrants like this
> 
> (ACTUAL PIC AT US BORDER TOWN)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (ACTUAL PIC AT US BORDER TOWN)
> 
> we need far more DACA not less


So we want Orks to patrol the boarder? I can get by that


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Trump has wrested control of Al Gore's weather machine away from him and is using it to wipe out minorities. :done
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/904947521260208128:nah


Can I ask who is the person he's tweet-quoting who's putting down / then praising the glorious white man when it suits them?

Is it anyone we're supposed to know or a regular ham and egger?


----------



## BruiserKC

stevefox1200 said:


> I have to to say a shutdown over that damn wall would go down as one of the dumbest things possible
> 
> I mean the last shutdowns were over healthcare and shit like that which I can understand
> 
> Most Trump voters I knew didn't really expect a literal brick and mortar wall
> 
> I also dislike the DACA decision because I like to say "DACA DACA DACA"


It just seems to me that he just flat out folded and gave the Dems everything without getting jack shit for it. Back in May he talked about shutdown before signing a budget Hillary Clinton would have been proud of. What is the possibility in December he rolls over again when the next budget deadline comes up. Compromise is one thing, he surrendered outright. 

I want to believe otherwise as I thought about it but I can't give any justification, especially since this won't win him new supporters while folks at Breitbart want Bannon to run for POTUS in 2020. This is brutal.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> It just seems to me that he just flat out folded and gave the Dems everything without getting jack shit for it. Back in May he talked about shutdown before signing a budget Hillary Clinton would have been proud of. What is the possibility in December he rolls over again when the next budget deadline comes up. Compromise is one thing, he surrendered outright.
> 
> I want to believe otherwise as I thought about it but I can't give any justification, especially since this won't win him new supporters while folks at Breitbart want Bannon to run for POTUS in 2020. This is brutal.


Almost as if the guy really just doesn't know what he's doing. Anyone smart on his team is probably too scared to speak up and properly advise him at this point because they'll be shown the door if they hurt Trump's ego.


----------



## Vic Capri

Democrats wasting tax payer money? Shocking.

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> Almost as if the guy really just doesn't know what he's doing. Anyone smart on his team is probably too scared to speak up and properly advise him at this point because they'll be shown the door if they hurt Trump's ego.


Politics is just a dumb game, people vote for the person they want in control and they're held down by dozens of people in that party, as well as dozens more from opposing parties. Like fuckern ell, it's arguably worse in Aus, but it's shite everywhere. The layman has no clue how their politicians do things. Hell I barely know. All I know is the person people vote for doesn't have anywhere near as much power as they probably should have because it's a fucking pansy state.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> This suing crap is getting old. States virtue signaling and wasting tax payer dollars while whining for more federal funds is idiotic.
> 
> Obama shouldn't have implemented DACA in the first place, if these States really want something done then sponsor it now where it can be passed legally. I get the feeling they don't really care, just want to look good.


You realise the timing of Trump's announcement on DACA is because a group of conservative AGs threatening to sue the Department of Justice if DACA wasn't scrapped?


----------



## Brockamura

We are at page 777

P R A I S E J E S U S


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Reaper @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @BruiserKC @Pratchett 

Great article from the often fantastic and universally beloved Ann Coulter.  Talking about how the GOP has betrayed Americans with amnesty in the past, and why we should be wary of a DACA replacement bill. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/06/ann-coulter-made-donald-trump-president-else-can/



> Congress has tried to sneak through amnesties three times in a little more than a decade. Every time, the American people somehow found out — despite the best efforts of the press — rose up in a rage and killed the proposed bills.
> In 2006, President Bush got the brilliant idea to push amnesty on the country. His party was wiped out the very next time voters could get to the polls.
> 
> Liberals like to claim that their brave opposition to the Iraq War led to the midterm slaughter, but, as I recall, they were against that war in the 2004 presidential election, too, and Bush won. An April 2006 Washington Post–ABC News poll — taken about a month after Bush launched his amnesty crusade — showed that more Americans approved of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than approved of his handling of immigration. In nearly every poll on Bush’s handling of immigration that year, a huge majority of the public disapproved.
> 
> Three years ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat to an unknown economics professor, Dave Brat, by a whopping 55 percent to 45 percent, despite outspending Brat 40-to-1. It was the first time in history a member of leadership had lost a primary. (This despite Cantor being one of the “Young Guns”!) Brat had explicitly attacked Cantor for supporting amnesty.
> 
> Most spectacularly, last year, an utterly implausible presidential candidate crushed all his opponents — including the media — and won the White House by promising to deport illegals and build a wall.
> 
> The media imagine that President Trump’s deficiencies are an argument for not taking his positions seriously. Oh no — it’s just the reverse. The fact that Trump’s supporters implacably stick by him, through every horror, proves they are willing to put up with any lunacy if it means getting that agenda.
> 
> How many different ways can Americans express that they want a whole lot less immigration and absolutely no amnesties?
> 
> We already tried amnesty once. The 1986 amnesty under Reagan was supposed to be a one-time fix. We’d forgive the estimated 1 million illegal aliens living here and, in exchange, draconian measures would be imposed on any employer ever caught hiring an illegal again — up to a $10,000 fine per illegal and jail time for repeat offenders.
> 
> advertisement
> We never got the employer sanctions.
> 
> There weren’t 1 million illegals — it was 4 million.
> 
> It wasn’t a one-time fix. In another real-world example of “incentives,” the first amnesty led to a never-ending stream of illegals across our border, confident of getting in on the next amnesty. Today, there are at least 40 million illegals living in the U.S. (Eleven million is nonsense — they’ve been claiming that since 1986. See Adios, America)
> 
> And now, once again, politicians are lobbying for the exact same policy that was a complete failure last time. When it comes to immigration, it’s always Groundhog Day!
> 
> We’re told the DACA amnesty will apply only to a very small, discrete group of unbelievably fantastic illegals — who melt Ivanka’s heart by refilling her water glass at Cipriani with such alacrity!
> 
> Not only that, but there will be strict requirements on who qualifies for a DACA amnesty.
> 
> None of which will ever be enforced.
> 
> Congress has passed laws requiring that immigrants pay back taxes, learn English, not collect welfare and have good moral character. That’s not too onerous, right? It’s not like we’re requiring them to have any skills or talents that would be valuable to America.
> 
> Every single one of these requirements has been scuttled by immigration bureaucrats, federal judges and Democratic presidents. All of ’em. Our immigration bureaucracy is so dedicated to destroying America that it’s made citizens of thousands of convicted felons.
> 
> If you don’t understand how that could happen, you have no idea how much our cultural elites hate this country. Their governing philosophy is: Anyone we bring in is at least better than an American!
> 
> This nation is mind-bogglingly generous. But decades of lies make it impossible for even the most tender-hearted American to fall for this bait-and-switch one more time.
> 
> Every politician swears up and down that he wants a “secure border.” But then these same politicians go absolutely berserk when Trump says he wants to build a wall.
> 
> They say we’ll get enforcement right after the amnesty. That’s obviously absurd. When the tub is overflowing, water pouring out of the faucet, across the carpets, down the stairs, up the dining room walls, we don’t debate whether we’re going to dry clean the curtains or throw them out. We don’t argue about whether to use a mop or towels. FIRST: Turn off the water.
> 
> As long as both political parties stoutly refuse to build the wall, we know they are not serious about ever stopping illegal immigration. (Luckily, the Constitution gives the commander in chief full authority to protect our borders, with or without congressional approval.)
> 
> We know what happened after the Reagan amnesty. We know politicians and the media are lying to us. Why, some of the politicians who lied to us then are lying to us today, for example, Chuck Schumer.
> 
> No matter how innocent and lamblike a “Dreamer” they produce to tear at our heartstrings, it won’t work anymore. Decades of their perfidy has made sympathy impossible.
> 
> It’s as if, night after night, Paul Ryan knocked on our door and asked us to take in one helpless orphan and, night after night, we crack open our door, only to be set upon by 30 armed felons with tire chains and brass knuckles.
> 
> At a certain point, Ryan might actually produce a sad orphan. Who knows? It’s theoretically possible. But we could not be faulted for not opening the door.
> 
> Politicians and the press are themselves responsible for thoroughly killing any human sympathy Americans may have had for illegal immigrants — even the “Dreamers” (whom Ivanka adores, but would die before sending her kids to a school jam-packed with them).
> 
> The only question is: Will anyone in Washington ever listen?


----------



## Reaper

Ann Coulter on Illegal Immigration is my favorite person on earth. 

I see similar things happening on twitter since I immersed myself amongst the most average Republicans I could find. There's already a grassroots movement happening at that level to vote out anyone that is pro-amnesty. The thing is that the elites absolutely refuse to acknowledge is just how often illegals (dreamers and others) alike get involved in gangs, rape and murder. 

The people who have to live through these crimes will never vote for anyone that supports amnesty. There are too many victims and their families that simply wouldn't happen without these ridiculous "immigration" "laws" that allow them to stay here. I don't care if you're a good person or not, if you're not here legally, you're already a moral relativist and therefore still more inclined to break other laws.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Brockamura said:


> We are at page 777
> 
> P R A I S E J E S U S


JC actually looking a bit sinister there if you ask me.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @BruiserKC @Pratchett
> 
> Great article from the often fantastic and universally beloved Ann Coulter.  Talking about how the GOP has betrayed Americans with amnesty in the past, and why we should be wary of a DACA replacement bill.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/06/ann-coulter-made-donald-trump-president-else-can/


A great comment on the article from a gentleman calling himself 'Wrath of the UnCucked':

"I love Ann. One of the few women with a brain...and balls."


I'm sure Ann loves the support. 

I don't know too much about her TBH other than newsclips here and there, but I thought she had a bit more of a higher pricetag so to speak than to have to write for Breitbart directly.

She sure knew her audience though, clearly defining the enemies in classic OTT metaphors thus further cementing The Patriotic American's victim complex over their rapidly declining country.


----------



## samizayn

Oxidamus said:


> @samizayn has a point in principle, but fighting a defence of Salon is not the right way to cement that principle. The journalism of Salon will not change whatsoever, it isn't admitting wrongdoing anywhere near as much as it's admitting defeat and trying to switch tactics... *which is the epitome of ideological, biased journalism.*


Well it really isn't, first of all. Secondly I think you're still missing the mark focusing on the reputation of the website and what you perceive its intentions to be.

Not that you should spend a huge amount of effort contemplating a response that was made to someone whose capacity of thought ends at pretty much this:


Vic Capri said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> - Vic


:CENA


----------



## Vic Capri

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

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

samizayn said:


> Well it really isn't, first of all. Secondly I think you're still missing the mark focusing on the reputation of the website and what you perceive its intentions to be.
> 
> Not that you should spend a huge amount of effort contemplating a response that was made to someone whose capacity of thought ends at pretty much this:
> 
> 
> :CENA


Pages taking apart Salon, yet no one bats an eyelid over consistent articles from the likes of right wing 'publications' like your Breitbarts and RW youtube commentators with no claim to any sort of legitimacy whatsoever. I wonder why.


----------



## samizayn

^^lol. Though to be fair, that was part of my silly little point! That Ann Coulter article could have been titled 'White Supremacy: an outdated ideal?" and I would have looked like a dumbass if that was the moment I chose to shit on Breitbart. That's literally happening when pigs fly though so no such worry. Furthermore, despite that author/publication combo being the absolute wooooooooooooorst, I'm actually gonna have a read of it since I don't have to give them a click thanks to CP.



Vic Capri said:


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


Someone tell @Vic that the reason he can't think for himself is because he is scared of being exposed to different opinions.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Almost as if the guy really just doesn't know what he's doing. Anyone smart on his team is probably too scared to speak up and properly advise him at this point because they'll be shown the door if they hurt Trump's ego.


Sounds like his advisers said this was a bad idea but he went ahead and did it anyway. I am leaning towards the idea that he fooled his conservative supporters and is now showing his true colors. He ran to the liberals and they welcomed him with open arms. 

If we wanted a liberal perhaps we should have had Hillary because then we would have known what we were getting.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> That Ann Coulter article could have been titled 'White Supremacy: an outdated ideal?" and I would have looked like a dumbass if that was the moment I chose to shit on Breitbart. That's literally happening when pigs fly though so no such worry.


And what evidence do you have for Breitbart being sympathetic to white supremacy? You know they've employed Jewish and homosexual writers, right? Not exactly the alt right's favorite kind of people. Steve Bannon also recently called white nationalists "clowns" and "losers". I look forward to the case behind your implicit claim here. 



> Furthermore, despite that author/publication combo being the absolute wooooooooooooorst, I'm actually gonna have a read of it since I don't have to give them a click thanks to CP.


What makes either "the absolute worst"? I'll be looking for specifics.


----------



## Reaper

I actually don't care much for Sami and Yeahbaby;s views on either Coulter or Brietbart because 2 years ago, I was on their side of the argument and I admit whole-heartedly that my position was based on sheer ignorance of their content. Even now I don't consumne everything both media outlets put out, but generally I've learned over the last two years that Fox and Brietbart talk far, far less about race in a racist tone than Salon and most other far left propaganda mills do about whites and even minorities because they don't actually stop to consider that victimhood and consistently portraying a race as incapable of individual emancipation and empowerment is also racist. 

But since I'm on the right as a minority, I don't get to be offended by the bigotry of low expectations and using my existence to virtue signal. I'm more than willing to accept that for these racist whites, I'm the one who's racist because I don't agree with them anymore and that they can't get to feel like saviors at my expense anymore. It's never about actual empathy but rather narcissistic self-promotion for people who constantly whine about race issues. 

On the other hand, Salon actually has a whole page dedicated to archiving their articles spreading their cancerous nonsense about white people: 




























When Fox, Brietbart have pages dedicated specifically to articles about "Black People" with hundreds of articles whinging about black america specifically, then we can say they're at the same level of racism. 

But then I can actually make any claims about Brietbart because it would be too :triggered for Sami and Yeahbaby to read their content :trump 

I've noticed that people on the left generally lack the courage to challenge themselves EVEN in the name of research so let's see what happens after this post.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'll accept a list of articles similar to the one Reaper provided to show Salon's anti-white bias as evidence of Breitbart's white supremacist sympathies, if one can be provided.

I'll also accept capitulation, as usual.


Late Night Host Stephen Colbert misleads audience by citing a Politico article from August 29th saying that Trump never met with a single hurricane victim in Texas. He said this last night... Thankfully we have reputable and honest news sources like Breitbart to expose disgusting lies such as this.  

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...p-didnt-meet-single-storm-victim-texas-visit/

Truly harrowing to see the youtube comments under that Colbert video. The mass hysteria bubble is real.


----------



## DesolationRow

I probably look at Breitbart about once a week for a few minutes each time. Not a big fan, but I will say this. Mike Cernovich, who's an alternative online journalist, of whom I am even less of a fan--I might see the random tweet by him about once or twice a week--is quite honest about certain things. Cernovich noted that no publication he knew of was so strict about enforcing that every last word of his articles submitted them be accurate as Breitbart. And a self-described libertarian journalist I know in San Francisco whose work is usually fair game for those on both the right and left wrote something about the fecal frenzy (there are actual "poop maps" being circulated in this city because human feces is almost everywhere you look on the streets and sidewalks in major swaths of San Francisco). Left-of-center publications didn't want it; so he passed it along to right-of-center publications, and he noted to me over lunch that no publication was as brutally confrontational toward the author of any piece that he knew of as Breitbart was in examining and researching the matter at hand. So that was someone who backed up what Cernovich claimed about Breitbart.

As for white supremacy being espoused by Breitbart... No idea what that could even be remotely referring to. Some Pepe-the-Frog-wielding alt-right people seem to detest Breitbart for its myriad connections to Israel but for one point of contention among a host of others.


----------



## Pratchett

FriedTofu said:


> What makes you think it will work this time after decades of pussyfooting around the issue?
> 
> The way I see it is Trump is putting his own party under the bus and absolve himself of any blame whichever decision is made.


Doesn't matter to me. It still needs to be done. If it does not work, then the blame lies with the American people for not staying on their elected representatives and holding them accountable if they do not do their job (legislate!).

As far as I am concerned, Obama should have never created DACA in the first place. By doing so, he not only enabled Congress to sit on their hands and do nothing (since he did the dirty work himself), but he enabled the American people to sit back and be glad somebody did _something_, absolving them of the responsibility of actively taking part in the governance of their own country on this issue.

Way too many people in this country think all they have to do is show up at the polls every two to four years and then all the work is out of their hands. Then it becomes just a matter of waiting until the next election to hear who is going to make the best sounding promises this time around. Meanwhile we keep electing shysters and frauds whose biggest concerns revolve around keeping the political power they have and finding out ways to get more. Rinse and repeat.

If after however many months have gone by and nothing is still done, then I absolutely believe Trump is not to blame for this. The members of the Legislative Branch of government should be doing some actual legislating on this. Will they? I doubt it. Too many cowards in that bunch. But that fault lies with the people who elected them. If Trump doing this makes more people aware of the responsibility they have as voters (to hold accountable the representatives they have voted into office), then I will be satisfied with that much.

But I won't hold my breath one way or another. Over 65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton, showing a clear fundamental lack of judgment to begin with. :mj


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Breaking News: Trump does something irrationally racist and detrimental to the economy: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/daca-deportations-could-cost-us-economy-more-than-400-billion.html 

More shocking developments to come in the morning. *


----------



## FriedTofu

Pratchett said:


> Doesn't matter to me. It still needs to be done. If it does not work, then the blame lies with the American people for not staying on their elected representatives and holding them accountable if they do not do their job (legislate!).
> 
> As far as I am concerned, Obama should have never created DACA in the first place. By doing so, he not only enabled Congress to sit on their hands and do nothing (since he did the dirty work himself), but he enabled the American people to sit back and be glad somebody did _something_, absolving them of the responsibility of actively taking part in the governance of their own country on this issue.
> 
> Way too many people in this country think all they have to do is show up at the polls every two to four years and then all the work is out of their hands. Then it becomes just a matter of waiting until the next election to hear who is going to make the best sounding promises this time around. Meanwhile we keep electing shysters and frauds whose biggest concerns revolve around keeping the political power they have and finding out ways to get more. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> If after however many months have gone by and nothing is still done, then I absolutely believe Trump is not to blame for this. The members of the Legislative Branch of government should be doing some actual legislating on this. Will they? I doubt it. Too many cowards in that bunch. But that fault lies with the people who elected them. If Trump doing this makes more people aware of the responsibility they have as voters (to hold accountable the representatives they have voted into office), then I will be satisfied with that much.
> 
> But I won't hold my breath one way or another. Over 65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton, showing a clear fundamental lack of judgment to begin with. :mj


Basically what Trump wish to accomplish with this action. Absolve himself of any blame on anything to his followers. If anyone is a coward, it is Trump who trotted out Sessions to make the announcement, hide behind his twitter to try to appear compassionate to the dreamers so that he does not look like the 'bad guy'.

The really sinister part is some believe this is Trump holding 800k people hostage to get funding for his wall.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Breaking News: Trump does something irrationally racist and detrimental to the economy: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/daca-deportations-could-cost-us-economy-more-than-400-billion.html
> 
> More shocking developments to come in the morning. *


Except there's one thing missing in these studies: 

Removing working DACA illegals does not mean that no one is going to step up and replace them ... The only way the economy loses this money is that this labor force is irreplaceable. This is not the case at all. They've completely ignored the labor replacement impact in their so-called "economic model". 

I think that there's plenty of underemployed and unemployed Americans available to fill the vacancies. The economy will not suffer. In fact, they're also discounting and not including the impact of less burden on social welfare programs of the under and unemployed.

The primary reason why these Cali tech companies want illegals is because they have low expectations, work for less, demand less in terms of respectable hours and living conditions. Hiring Americans basically means that they have to provide them with good benefits and good living conditions - something that California simply does not want to do as there are plenty of old rich folks there that are lobbying very heard to stop new development and therefore hundreds of thousands of tech workers are currently living in sweatshop conditions as a result. 

The entire economy of California is essentially an imported tech sweatshop and that's why they're fighting so hard against DACA. 

Finally, DACA was started only 5 years ago. There is no WAY in hell that in 5 years illegals that were provided amnesty as a result are contributing 400 billion dollars to the economy. There's some seriously shady math going on in there. At most DACA arrivals are like 5-20 years old at this point --- with 20 being an unrealistic figure :lol

What they're doing is throwing in their H1 worker VISA lobbying in with the DACA program and hoping that people won't notice. This is really why Zuckerberg is involved.


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *Breaking News: Trump does something irrationally racist and detrimental to the economy: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/daca-deportations-could-cost-us-economy-more-than-400-billion.html
> 
> More shocking developments to come in the morning. *


Actually he rescinded an illegal executive order by our previous president, who didn't seem to understand or respect the limitations of his powers, and is calling on Congress to find a way to provide those protections legally. If he wanted to just deport them all he wouldn't have given a 6 month grace period, which he didn't have to do at all. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905228667336499200
I wish he was willing to do what is being erroneously reported, but alas he appears not to be. :sad:


----------



## deepelemblues

Constitution schmonstitution! We shouldn't pay attention to some piece of paper written by old white guys like a hundred years ago c'mon!


----------



## Reaper

There are some valid *but very weak* arguments for changing some things in the constitution, but when I look at the state of countries that take their constitution less seriously, I pretty much go back to sticking with what we have as the best document currently in existence. Most countries that don't have constitutions or take them loosely and give in to the urge to "update them" in an attempt to modernise and make them more "progressive" tend to start tilting very heavily on the side of regressiveness and draconian laws eventually. 

I mean, if they can change something in the constitution without undermining its authority over this land and leading to a slippery slope that eventually leads to destruction of some of its most important tenets (which I feel is impossible) ... Go right ahead. But I don't think that such a thing is possible or should be attempted loosely. 

I personally don't think the constitution requires any "update". Anyone that's actually read it agrees that we have one of the best written documents of governance man has currently written. Can we do better? I dunno ... A lot of countries have tried, but most countries have failed. None have been as successful as we are.

---

"I'm too intelligent for religion" :mj4 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905630488311758848


----------



## deepelemblues

Republican members of congress are 'seething' that :trump has 'sided' with Pelosi, schumer on the debt deiling.

Well you dumb fucks, you had your chance to be on the presidents side and repeal obamacare. You failed like the bitches you are, and you never miss an opportunity to criticize him. What did your retarded asses expect? That he wasn't going to hit back at you, both verbally and in his dealings with democrats? The Republican partys congressional membership has done nothing to deserve even a single shred of support from the president. On anything.

But Republicans have been betraying and shitting on their own voters for so long and still getting their support, I guess they thought they could do the same with :trump. 

These are not smart or even near sighted people. They're blind morons.

There's about a score of GOP senators that are actually conservative and maybe 100 members of the house, they don't deserve it, but the rest of them are either bland meek followers of the not conservative lying arrogant liars club that is the GOP leadership, or members of that leadership. Those followers and leaders deserve all the oppobrium and fails they receive.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Late Night Host Stephen Colbert misleads audience by citing a Politico article from August 29th saying that Trump never met with a single hurricane victim in Texas. He said this last night... Thankfully we have reputable and honest news sources like Breitbart to expose disgusting lies such as this.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...p-didnt-meet-single-storm-victim-texas-visit/
> 
> Truly harrowing to see the youtube comments under that Colbert video. The mass hysteria bubble is real.





> the report Colbert referred to came from Trump’s first visit to Texas on August 29, when he visited Corpus Christi, so as to avoid impeding relief efforts in Houston. The president conducted a briefing on the storm at the Annaville Fire Department as hundreds of Texans lined the street, chanting pro-Trump slogans including “Texas Strong!” and “We love Trump!”
> 
> The president visited the devastated Houston region four days later, where he met with with Harvey victims and helped to serve meals....


Correct me if I'm wrong but sounds like on that first trip, as much as Breitbart don't want to come out and say it, Trump didn't meet anyone. That appears to be what Colbert was referring to.


----------



## Oxidamus

Breaking news: Irrational Trump h8r on wrestlingforum.com enters the TRUMP thread to post something disparaging and not discuss the subject at all.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> There are some valid *but very weak* arguments for changing some things in the constitution, but when I look at the state of countries that take their constitution less seriously, I pretty much go back to sticking with what we have as the best document currently in existence. Most countries that don't have constitutions or take them loosely and give in to the urge to "update them" in an attempt to modernise and make them more "progressive" tend to start tilting very heavily on the side of regressiveness and draconian laws eventually.
> 
> I mean, if they can change something in the constitution without undermining its authority over this land and leading to a slippery slope that eventually leads to destruction of some of its most important tenets (which I feel is impossible) ... Go right ahead. But I don't think that such a thing is possible or should be attempted loosely.
> 
> I personally don't think the constitution requires any "update". Anyone that's actually read it agrees that we have one of the best written documents of governance man has currently written. Can we do better? I dunno ... A lot of countries have tried, but most countries have failed. None have been as successful as we are.
> 
> ---
> 
> "I'm too intelligent for religion" :mj4
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905630488311758848


I'm certain this guy posts here.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> There are some valid *but very weak* arguments for changing some things in the constitution


What type of strength is the "they didn't have hundreds of years of foresight" argument? Apply it to the gun control situation, I assume that's the one most people apply that idea to. The founding fathers obviously wouldn't have known that eventually guns would be a hundred times more dangerous and a thousand times easier to get.



> "I'm too intelligent for religion" :mj4


"I'm too intelligent" is my favourite real-life meme. :mj4


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> Republican members of congress are 'seething' that :trump has 'sided' with Pelosi, schumer on the debt deiling.
> 
> Well you dumb fucks, you had your chance to be on the presidents side and repeal obamacare. You failed like the bitches you are, and you never miss an opportunity to criticize him. What did your retarded asses expect? That he wasn't going to hit back at you, both verbally and in his dealings with democrats? The Republican partys congressional membership has done nothing to deserve even a single shred of support from the president. On anything.
> 
> But Republicans have been betraying and shitting on their own voters for so long and still getting their support, I guess they thought they could do the same with :trump.
> 
> These are not smart or even near sighted people. They're blind morons.
> 
> There's about a score of GOP senators that are actually conservative and maybe 100 members of the house, they don't deserve it, but the rest of them are either bland meek followers of the not conservative lying arrogant liars club that is the GOP leadership, or members of that leadership. Those followers and leaders deserve all the oppobrium and fails they receive.


Now is the time for all Trump supporters and voters to ask themselves why they REALLY voted for him. Is it because he claimed to be a Republican and a conservative? Is it you want to see the apple cart tipped over? Or do you drink the Trump Kool Aid and will blindly support him no matter what? Time to be fully honest about it also. 

And how many minds will he change on the other side? Chances are not many. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but sounds like on that first trip, as much as Breitbart don't want to come out and say it, Trump didn't meet anyone. That appears to be what Colbert was referring to.


To be fair, Trump tried to stay out of the way while surveying things the first time. Logistics are bad enough in normal conditions to allow for the visit of a POTUS and the entourage that comes with him, imagine doing that during one of the worst storms in recent memory. He let the first responders do their jobs.


----------



## Beatles123

Euphoric! :lol


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> Now is the time for all Trump supporters and voters to ask themselves why they REALLY voted for him. Is it because he claimed to be a Republican and a conservative? Is it you want to see the apple cart tipped over? Or do you drink the Trump Kool Aid and will blindly support him no matter what? Time to be fully honest about it also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, Trump tried to stay out of the way while surveying things the first time. Logistics are bad enough in normal conditions to allow for the visit of a POTUS and the entourage that comes with him, imagine doing that during one of the worst storms in recent memory.


Tell me. even if i said what I thought, would you believe me? Hell, you never have.


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> Tell me. even if i said what I thought, would you believe me? Hell, you never have.


Just what the question is. Because if you answer that he espoused traditional values and is a solid conservative, you need to put down the crack pipe. If you wanted him to shake shit up, he did just that. Trump pulled a very shortsighted move that in the long run won't make much difference. He was desperate for a win and doesn't care who he gets in bed with to do it. People that hate him won't change their minds and hopefully this serves for true conservative people in Congress to pull their heads out of their asses and finally get shit done. 

As I usually love being right, I didn't want to be. The limited government movement has been dealt a severe blow today.


----------



## Reaper

Your brain on Social Justice:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905700100848066560


Oxidamus said:


> What type of strength is the "they didn't have hundreds of years of foresight" argument? Apply it to the gun control situation, I assume that's the one most people apply that idea to. The founding fathers obviously wouldn't have known that eventually guns would be a hundred times more dangerous and a thousand times easier to get.


Well in a country where a deep mistrust of the Federal Government exists, it makes little sense for only the State and its chosen forces to be allowed to carry the latest and greatest technology to me. 

I mean, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to be armed against the potential tyranny of the police state therefore as the state grows more powerful in its artillery so should people have the ability to counteract with similar means. I see no problem with this. It's a form of empowerment of the individual.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nati...view.com/article/436605/assault-weapon-ban-no

Also read above. Good arguments all around.


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> Just what the question is. Because if you answer that he espoused traditional values and is a solid conservative, you need to put down the crack pipe. If you wanted him to shake shit up, he did just that. Trump pulled a very shortsighted move that in the long run won't make much difference. He was desperate for a win and doesn't care who he gets in bed with to do it. People that hate him won't change their minds and hopefully this serves for true conservative people in Congress to pull their heads out of their asses and finally get shit done.
> 
> As I usually love being right, I didn't want to be. The limited government movement has been dealt a severe blow today.


I see it as an FU to Ryan, who is a cuck, and McCuckle, who is as the alias implies also a cuck. No more, no less.


----------



## CamillePunk

No one cares about the debt ceiling (except True Conservatives, of course, always keeping those priorities straight!). It's a useless topic. The debt isn't payable. Economic collapse is inevitable. Surrender to the void.

What people care about today is saving Texas and Florida from Atlantean terrorism and getting immigration under control. Trump is working hard on both. Lower taxes would be grand as well.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> Well in a country where a deep mistrust of the Federal Government exists, it makes little sense for only the State and its chosen forces to be allowed to carry the latest and greatest technology to me.
> 
> I mean, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to be armed against the potential tyranny of the police state therefore as the state grows more powerful in its artillery so should people have the ability to counteract with similar means. I see no problem with this. It's a form of empowerment of the individual.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nati...view.com/article/436605/assault-weapon-ban-no
> 
> Also read above. Good arguments all around.


I wouldn't say people are wrong for that belief in the second amendment but I do think it's irrational with the level of globalism we have today.

I wasn't talking about assault weapons anyway, I mean even handguns today are way more advanced and deadly than the flintlock pistols from the 18th century.

Anyway I don't care enough about the gun 'debate' (it's pretty one sided IMO) to go on about it. I brought it up only as an example of something that is probably regularly referenced when talking about how in the late 18th and early 19th century people had no idea we'd have shit like HYDROGEN BOMBS. :CENA

Basically all I was asking if you consider it a fair argument. I suppose so.


----------



## Reaper

^^Yeah, I already said that there are *some valid arguments* in favor of updating, but the counter-arguments against are stronger in my view, hence we should remain steadfast in defending the constitution against infringement very largely due to the slippery slope a change would represent. 

Also @CamillePunk 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905765426449309697

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905560437554601984









:kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

She even threw Obama and Bernie in her list of reasons for losing :mj4


----------



## CamillePunk

Hillary lost because her campaign's persuasion wasn't as good as Trump's. 

Of course a lot of people have looked back and tried to explain the election result through their own filter, but doing so post hoc is actually quite useless and proves nothing. The persuasion filter, used by Scott Adams, predicted the election result over a year beforehand. It's by far the most credible filter.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> No one cares about the debt ceiling (except True Conservatives, of course, always keeping those priorities straight!). It's a useless topic. The debt isn't payable. Economic collapse is inevitable. Surrender to the void.
> 
> What people care about today is saving Texas and Florida from Atlantean terrorism and getting immigration under control. Trump is working hard on both. Lower taxes would be grand as well.


I would rather stand on principle than follow a trend just because it's cool. I sleep much better at night so when the inevitable collapse happens I can be well rested to remind everyone this didn't have to happen. 

While I understand what he tried to do, I hope he understands that instead of being seen as the great deal maker, he has been hammered on all sides for capitulation? When both the Wall Street Journal and the Communist News Network are ripping you, that should tell you it wasn't a good deal. Not to mention many on the left still won't work with him and he alienates some of those who want to work with him? 

Short term gain but long term bad move.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905788459301908480
This guy. :lmao


----------



## themuel1

BruiserKC said:


> I would rather stand on principle than follow a trend just because it's cool. I sleep much better at night so when the inevitable collapse happens I can be well rested to remind everyone this didn't have to happen.


Who doesn't enjoy a good "I told you so?" Even after whatever collapse you are referring to potentially happens


----------



## BruiserKC

themuel1 said:


> Who doesn't enjoy a good "I told you so?" Even after whatever collapse you are referring to potentially happens


Unfortunately this is one time I don't want to be right. The idea of limited government and fiscal responsibility works. But Ryan and McConnell neutered that wing of the GOP and have messed things up. 

Both of them are first rate assclowns who couldn't find their man parts if you put their hands on them and offered to give them a Dutch rudder. They are that incompetent.


----------



## deepelemblues

Betsy DeVos announcing that major changes are coming regarding the federal government's stance on the kafkaesque un-American campus kangaroo courts :mark:

Due process making a comeback babeeeeeeeeeeee :mark:


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> I would rather stand on principle than follow a trend just because it's cool. I sleep much better at night so when the inevitable collapse happens I can be well rested to remind everyone this didn't have to happen.


Like I said, utterly useless. :lol 

Lol @ hurricane relief and immigration being trends.


----------



## virus21

> Following its April post-mortem on its platform’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Facebook is out with some juicy new details. Most noteworthy given the public’s intense interest in all things Russian is the fact that potential pro-Kremlin entities apparently purchased as much as $150,000 in political ads on the platform between 2015 and 2017.
> 
> As Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos explained in a blog post:
> 
> “There have been a lot of questions since the 2016 US election about Russian interference in the electoral process. In April we published a white paper that outlined our understanding of organized attempts to misuse our platform. One question that has emerged is whether there’s a connection between the Russian efforts and ads purchased on Facebook. These are serious claims and we’ve been reviewing a range of activity on our platform to help understand what happened.
> 
> “In reviewing the ads buys, we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017 — associated with roughly 3,000 ads — that was connected to about 470 inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies. Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia.”
> 
> In addition to that $100,000, another $50,000 in political ad spending is thought to have loose connections to Russia that suggest Russian origins, including “ads bought from accounts with US IP addresses but with the language set to Russian.”
> 
> According to Stamos, the “vast majority” of the ads in question did not explicitly mention candidate names or the presidential race itself. Instead, they focused on a spectrum of wedge issues that were particularly hot leading into the election, including gun rights, immigration, LGBT rights and race. Roughly one quarter of these ads were targeted to particular geographic regions, particularly the ads that ran in 2015. Facebook’s more recent findings mesh with the insights around political misinformation campaigns that it published in April of this year. Perhaps most interesting is the revelation that bots aren’t actually responsible for most of this stuff — the bulk of it appears to be non-automated, coordinated campaigns by human actors.
> 
> Given the deep knowledge of state-level American politics necessary to successfully geo-target ads like these, the whole thing raises further questions about the possibility that entities linked to the Russian government might have coordinated with individuals in the U.S., though it doesn’t begin to answer those questions.
> 
> On Wednesday, Facebook spoke to Congress about the findings as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In a follow-up story by The Washington Post, Facebook admitted that “there is evidence that some of the accounts are linked to a troll farm in St. Petersburg, referred to as the Internet Research Agency, though we have no way to independently confirm.” The Internet Research Agency is a group known for its pro-Kremlin online propaganda campaigns, which U.S. intelligence agencies believe is funded by a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin with connections to the Russian intelligence community.
> 
> For its part, Facebook has been acting on the results of its internal audit examining the ways its platform may have been exploited in the 2016 U.S. election. Based on these reviews, the company was able to boot off its platform 30,000 suspect accounts engaging in what it calls “false amplification” around the time of the French election earlier this year. The company has also begun blocking ads from pages and accounts that repeatedly share fake news and misinformation. Still, if these kind of influence campaigns are truly linked to Russian intelligence efforts, Facebook is going to have a hell of a time trying to stay a few steps ahead.


https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/06/facebook-russia-ads-election/


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905788459301908480
> This guy. :lmao




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905790214844686336
:mj


----------



## deepelemblues

GOP 'leaders' fucked :trump over until he went to the Democrats like everyone said he would :heston

GOP 'leaders' so dumb

They don't stop being retards this will be a Democratic presidency by next summer


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> GOP 'leaders' fucked :trump over until he went to the Democrats like everyone said he would :heston
> 
> GOP 'leaders' so dumb
> 
> They don't stop being retards this will be a Democratic presidency by next summer


Just like you would expect from a business man. If someone isn't giving you a good deal, go to someone that will make you a better offer. Also, remember that Trump was a Democrat originally.





SJWs really are inhuman


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Like I said, utterly useless. :lol
> 
> Lol @ hurricane relief and immigration being trends.


I refer to the bleeding heart liberal masquerading as a conservative as our POTUS. That is the trend to be a blind Trump apologist. I wanted to support him but something just wasn't right. He fought his own party more than the opposition. Granted the GOP leadership are a bunch of incompetent idiots but still. I am all for compromise but he folded and headlines from all sides say he did just that. And folks like Hannity who blasted the GOP leadership for giving in time and again...he applauds his doing it. 

At least he came clean now rather than later. I don't think even Scott Adams can justify what he just did and make me or most others believe it.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> I refer to the bleeding heart liberal masquerading as a conservative as our POTUS. That is the trend to be a blind Trump apologist. I wanted to support him but something just wasn't right. He fought his own party more than the opposition. Granted the GOP leadership are a bunch of incompetent idiots but still. I am all for compromise but he folded and headlines from all sides say he did just that. And folks like Hannity who blasted the GOP leadership for giving in time and again...he applauds his doing it.
> 
> At least he came clean now rather than later. I don't think even Scott Adams can justify what he just did and make me or most others believe it.


Most people do not care at all because the debt is a useless and uninteresting topic. It will never be repaid. We're dealing in funny money. We're just kicking the can down the road and no one wants to be president or in control of the government when the rubber meets the road because, and President Trump understands this, the masses will simply blame whoever's currently in power rather than see the long chain of decisions and people involved in bringing us to ruin, dating back a hundred years.

Let's see what Trump's compromise with the Democrats gains him in future negotiations. Pretending you know the consequences right now is just imaginary thinking. :lol I'll trust the master persuader and lifelong expert negotiator over you, if you'll forgive me.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> I'll trust the master persuader and lifelong expert negotiator over you, if you'll forgive me.












Master Persuader. Don't change bro.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Most people do not care at all because the debt is a useless and uninteresting topic. It will never be repaid. We're dealing in funny money. We're just kicking the can down the road and no one wants to be president or in control of the government when the rubber meets the road because, and President Trump understands this, the masses will simply blame whoever's currently in power rather than see the long chain of decisions and people involved in bringing us to ruin, dating back a hundred years.
> 
> Let's see what Trump's compromise with the Democrats gains him in future negotiations. Pretending you know the consequences right now is just imaginary thinking. :lol I'll trust the master persuader and lifelong expert negotiator over you, if you'll forgive me.


I am willing to blame a lot of people that carried us to this point. The day is coming when the system will go up in flames and we had many chances to stop it. So I am aware of what the score is.

I would tolerate it a lot more if it didn't seem like Trump dropped his trousers, offered Schumer a container of Vaseline and gave them the option of taking it dry. Hopefully Schumer and Pelosi spooned with him afterwards.


----------



## Reaper

IMO PJW is as much of an ass as the SJWs for using Irma for views. I doubt he's impacted by this so his stake in this is questionable.


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump is sick and tired of the negative liberal media coverage. Make bed with your enemies.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> I am willing to blame a lot of people that carried us to this point. The day is coming when the system will go up in flames and we had many chances to stop it. So I am aware of what the score is.
> 
> I would tolerate it a lot more if it didn't seem like Trump dropped his trousers, offered Schumer a container of Vaseline and gave them the option of taking it dry. Hopefully Schumer and Pelosi spooned with him afterwards.


Well I am glad you are past pretending your criticism was ever based in anything real or serious then. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Well I am glad you are past pretending your criticism was ever based in anything real or serious then. :lol


My criticism is real...I have watched the movie too many times. Different players but same results. Call it a remake. Just like Hollywood has no original ideas Washington is out of them also


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> My criticism is real...I have watched the movie too many times. Different players but same results. Call it a remake. Just like Hollywood has no original ideas Washington is out of them also


You haven't watched the movie with this lead character or anyone with even a remotely close skill set.  He's won points with the Democrats over an issue that doesn't truly matter anymore because it's been 100% a lost cause a long time before Trump came around, you even said your major issue was the aesthetics of him "dropping his trousers" for them, which I'm sorry but is not a real or serious criticism.

Let's see what he can buy with those points. It may not be something in alignment with the True Conservative agenda, I am sorry to say.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905790214844686336
> :mj


Are you saying Trump got cucked by Pelosi?

Or is he playing 4D chess by putting out a clearly flippant message when Democrats wanted him to reassure the people affected to make them look bad to the far left of their party?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Are you saying Trump got cucked by Pelosi?
> 
> Or is he playing 4D chess by putting out a clearly flippant message when Democrats wanted him to reassure the people affected to make them look bad to the far left of their party?


Actually you're hallucinating that it is a flippant message. He's already tweeted about wanting to save DACA in the past. 

He and the Democrats apparently are in agreement about "dreamers", he just wants to do it legally, unlike Obama who did it illegally.  It's a less fascist way of governing than Obama's.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905911007427616768


----------



## Reaper

Apparently according to Bannon on 60 minutes, Mitch McConnel has been after Trump's head since he won. 

Congress deserves the shit it's getting. They are incompetent, selfish career politicians and I'm behind Trump in his obvious attempt to get RINO's and turncoats out of congress by painting them in the most negative light possible.

He's tried to work with his own party, he's tried to negotiate with them, he's tried to get them to support his agenda, but since they're not, he's appealing directly to his own very strong base to push more Trumpists' into congress through the vote. 

I'm behind him on this for the longterm and it's alright if he has to give in to certain things in the short-term. Unlike Bush who himself was a RINO and had absolutely no quips about pushing as many democrat policies as he could, Trump himself is resisting and trying to get Congress to resist but since they're not, I am pretty confident that Trump at this point is not "turning" on his base, but rather mobilizing it to get them to vote a more compliant Republican congress that supports his agenda. 

People are behind him and they will stay.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Actually you're hallucinating that it is a flippant message. He's already tweeted about wanting to save DACA in the past.
> 
> He and the Democrats apparently are in agreement about "dreamers", he just wants to do it legally, unlike Obama who did it illegally.  It's a less fascist way of governing than Obama's.


Who's hallucinating when you think Trump wants to do something to help these 'dreamers'? He also tweeted many other things which you choose to ignore when it doesn't suit your narrative. 

Maybe he can show us his proof that Obama wasn't born in America.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Who's hallucinating when you think Trump wants to do something to help these 'dreamers'? He also tweeted many other things which you choose to ignore when it doesn't suit your narrative.


Such as what? He's talked before about wanting to help them, he tweeted about it just the other day, we have a Democratic congressman on record saying Trump told him to his face he wants to help them, and then we have the latest tweet which you assume was flippant and yet apparently Nancy Pelosi asked him to make it. He's just compromised with Pelosi's party on one piece of legislation and now there's concern he might compromise again over finding a legal way to implement DACA or even straight up amnesty. There's a lot of reasons to believe the sentiment of the tweet is legitimate. 



> Maybe he can show us his proof that Obama wasn't born in America.


What a deflection. :lol

Anyway, not going to debate your hallucinations so we'll leave it at that.


----------



## deepelemblues

I miss MUH RUSSIA :mj2

Will MUH RUSSIA ever come back to us? :trump2


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Such as what? He's talked before about wanting to help them, he tweeted about it just the other day, we have a Democratic congressman on record saying Trump told him to his face he wants to help them, and then we have the latest tweet which you assume was flippant and yet apparently Nancy Pelosi asked him to make it. He's just compromised with Pelosi's party on one piece of legislation and now there's concern he might compromise again over finding a legal way to implement DACA or even straight up amnesty. There's a lot of reasons to believe the sentiment of the tweet is legitimate.
> 
> What a deflection. :lol
> 
> Anyway, not going to debate your hallucinations so we'll leave it at that.


He was also on record saying Mexico will pay for the wall. He is also on record saying repealing Obamacare on day one. Now whether you choose to view those as flippant is up to you. He has said many hyperbole things on record and had his staff back off from those positions saying he 'didn't really mean it'.



deepelemblues said:


> I miss MUH RUSSIA :mj2
> 
> Will MUH RUSSIA ever come back to us? :trump2


Ask and you shall receive.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/fac...-mueller-data-on-russian-ads-report-says.html


----------



## FITZ

CamillePunk said:


> Most people do not care at all because the debt is a useless and uninteresting topic. It will never be repaid. We're dealing in funny money. We're just kicking the can down the road and no one wants to be president or in control of the government when the rubber meets the road because, and President Trump understands this, the masses will simply blame whoever's currently in power rather than see the long chain of decisions and people involved in bringing us to ruin, dating back a hundred years.
> 
> Let's see what Trump's compromise with the Democrats gains him in future negotiations. Pretending you know the consequences right now is just imaginary thinking. :lol I'll trust the master persuader and lifelong expert negotiator over you, if you'll forgive me.


The national debt is like the $120,000 in student loans I have. Fake money.


----------



## Art Vandaley

While it's looking less and less likely that the dems take either the house or senate in 2018 as I used to predict, its also looking more and more likely that my prediction that Trump ends up at war with his own party and gets nothing done will come through.


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> While it's looking less and less likely that the dems take either the house or senate in 2018 as I used to predict, its also looking more and more likely that my prediction that Trump ends up at war with his own party and gets nothing done will come through.


Democrats are fighting off their own version of the tea party. I highly doubt the far left's message of 'FREE STUFF' is as persuasive as the far right's message of 'responsible spending' besides the usual extreme positions to the non-fringes.

Both major parties are being overtaken by the fringes because the only way to energise voters is negative partisanship. And the candidates that are the most vocal against 'the other side' in either party are the ones that come from the fringes.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> Democrats are fighting off their own version of the tea party. I highly doubt the far left's message of 'FREE STUFF' is as persuasive as the far right's message of 'responsible spending' besides the usual extreme positions to the non-fringes.
> 
> Both major parties are being overtaken by the fringes because the only way to energise voters is negative partisanship. And the candidates that are the most vocal against 'the other side' in either party are the ones that come from the fringes.


Be interesting to see how these groups react on the left. Some groups threatened to primary anyone who reached out to work with Trump on the Dems side. Many there still hate him and even working with them on this deal won't change their minds.


----------



## Oxidamus

FriedTofu said:


> Democrats are fighting off their own version of the tea party. I highly doubt the far left's message of 'FREE STUFF' is as persuasive as the far right's message of 'responsible spending' besides the usual extreme positions to the non-fringes.
> 
> Both major parties are being overtaken by the fringes because the only way to energise voters is negative partisanship. And the candidates that are the most vocal against 'the other side' in either party are the ones that come from the fringes.


Which fringe group are you referring to taking over the republican party? I don't keep up with the infighting, I'm not being facetious.


----------



## Beatles123

Ryan and McConnell can go die. Said it all thread.

Along with SEGA.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> Be interesting to see how these groups react on the left. Some groups threatened to primary anyone who reached out to work with Trump on the Dems side. Many there still hate him and even working with them on this deal won't change their minds.


Bernie got lit up for saying he'd help Trump with getting better Trade deals.

Both far Left and Right are so fanatical that any bipartisanship is seen as weakness, which is odd because the very people bitching about Trump tossing a bone to the Democrats with this.. are the same people that said he needed to show more bipartisanship.

Far Left says working with Trump on ANYTHING is EBIL! Far Right says anything that benefits the Democrats is EBIL!

Also hate to break it to Anti-Trumpers, what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional but to them, they don't see it this way. 

This is why I cannot take these people seriously.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Reaper

A most interesting DACA-related article from a week and a half ago, quite informative.

Approximately 20% of "Dreamers" are either enrolled in or have graduated from college. 72% are on either one or multiple levels of welfare.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...edom-for-crimes-gang-violence/article/2632820



> Feds: 30% surge in illegals losing DACA freedom for crimes, gang violence
> 
> by Paul Bedard | Aug 29, 2017, 11:06 AM
> 
> On the eve of President Trump deciding the status of the Obama era program deferring deportation for nearly 800,000 mostly Latin American young adults, federal immigration authorities are revealing a surge in those losing their freedom "due to criminality or gang affiliation concerns."
> 
> Officials told Secrets that the number has surged 30 percent this year.
> 
> The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said that 622 had their deferred action status pulled this year due to criminal activity.
> 
> The numbers on revocations and terminations:
> 
> 2013 -- 56.
> 2014 -- 153.
> 2015 -- 460.
> 2016 -- 848.
> 2017 -- 622.
> Total -- 2,139.
> According to USCIS, "The deferred action terminations were due to one or more of the following: a felony criminal conviction; a significant misdemeanor conviction; multiple misdemeanor convictions; gang affiliation; or arrest of any crime in which there is deemed to be a public safety concern. Most DACA terminations were based on the following infractions (not ranked): alien smuggling, assaultive offenses, domestic violence, drug offenses, DUI, larceny and thefts, criminal trespass and burglary, sexual offenses with minors, other sex offenses and weapons offenses."
> 
> In a recent case, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arrested three DACA immigrants in a nationwide sweep of gangs.
> 
> The numbers are small by comparison to the larger DACA population but experts said it shows that not a lot is known about the activities of the youths, mostly young adults.
> 
> "It confirms that the DACA screening process was woefully inadequate. The eligibility bar was set very low, explicitly allowing people with multiple misdemeanor and certain felony convictions to be approved. Only a handful of the applicants were ever interviewed, and only rarely was the information on the application ever verified," said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies.
> 
> She told Secrets, "this statistic undercuts the image of DACA that has been spread by the pro-illegal alien groups and the news media, that the DACA recipients are mostly college kids. This is not true. We don't know much about the population, but one of the few credible studies that has been done, by a scholar at Harvard University, found that at most are more than 22 years old, and only about 20 percent graduated from or attended a four-year college. A significant share never went beyond high school. This is not really all that surprising, since over 72 percent come from a family at or below poverty level and accessing some public assistance."
> 
> While the figures also show that many DACA recipients may be law followers and high achievers, but she said it shows that not all should be granted a form of citizenship if Trump extends the program.
> 
> "This suggests two important things that should happen if there is to be a legalization: not everyone with DACA should be guaranteed as eligible for legalization, and the existing legal immigration categories, especially the parents category and the extended family categories, should be trimmed back in order to minimize the fiscal and economic costs that the legalization will bring," said Vaughan.
> 
> Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Reaper
> 
> A most interesting DACA-related article from a week and a half ago, quite informative.
> 
> Approximately 20% of "Dreamers" are either enrolled in or have graduated from college. 72% are on either one or multiple levels of welfare.
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...edom-for-crimes-gang-violence/article/2632820


----------



## Oxidamus

DesolationRow said:


> Approximately 20% of "Dreamers" are either enrolled in or have graduated from college. 72% are on either one or multiple levels of welfare.


smh y'all blame everything but capitalism. :mj

Also

What happened to "the DAMN ILLEGALS stealing my jobs!"? :CENA


----------



## Draykorinee

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Reaper
> 
> A most interesting DACA-related article from a week and a half ago, quite informative.
> 
> Approximately 20% of "Dreamers" are either enrolled in or have graduated from college. 72% are on either one or multiple levels of welfare.
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...edom-for-crimes-gang-violence/article/2632820


So, lets go look at that study.

"There are important (self-acknowledged) caveats to the findings: The research is based on an online survey of just over 2,000 self-described DACA-eligible respondents and about 200 follow-up interviews."

Great start.

Now lets look at that 72%.

73 percent of DACA recipients he surveyed live in a low-income household (defined as qualifying for free lunch in high school);

So the spin you put on it 



> 72% are on either one or multiple levels of welfare.


Is based on the fact kids are eligible for free food at school, Nothing about multiple levels.

Bullshit survey detected ergo bullshit article based off bullshit data.


----------



## Draykorinee

@AryaDark @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Reaper

An interesting article based off this study.



> Work authorization is critical in helping DACA recipients participate more fully in the labor force. The data show that 91 percent of respondents are currently employed. Among respondents age 25 and older, employment jumps to 93 percent.
> After receiving DACA, 69 percent of respondents reported moving to a job with better pay; 54 percent moved to a job that “better fits my education and training”; 54 percent moved to a job that “better fits my long-term career goals”; and 56 percent moved to a job with better working conditions.
> We also see that 5 percent of respondents started their own business after receiving DACA. Among respondents 25 years and older, this climbs to 8 percent. As the 2016 survey noted, among the American public as a whole, the rate of starting a business is 3.1 percent, meaning that DACA recipients are outpacing the general population in terms of business creation.
> As one respondent stated, “I started a bookkeeping business which gives me the opportunity to help our Hispanic community be in compliance with tax law […] If DACA ended, I will not be able to keep my small business and help my community.”
> Another respondent stated, “Because of DACA, I opened a restaurant. We are contributing to the economic growth of our local community. We pay our fair share of taxes and hire employees […] It will be hard to maintain my business if DACA ended. I depend on my [social security number] for a lot of my business, such as when getting licenses, permits, leases, and credit.”
> 
> Overall, 45 percent of respondents are currently in school. Among those currently in school, 72 percent are pursuing a bachelor’s degree or higher. The majors and specializations that respondents report include accounting, biochemistry, business administration, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, early childhood education, economics, environmental science, history, law, mathematics, mechanical engineering, neuroscience, physics, psychology, and social work, to name a few.
> When it comes to educational attainment, 36 percent of respondents 25 years and older have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Importantly, among those who are currently in school, a robust 94 percent said that, because of DACA, “I pursued educational opportunities that I previously could not.”





Miss Sally said:


>


I think we can all be surprised when data is bullshit.


----------



## CamillePunk

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/05/hillary-clinton-complains-about-bernie-s



> Hillary: I Lost Because Bernie Promised Everyone a Pony
> 
> In her forthcoming book about the 2016 election, What Happened, Hillary Clinton complains that her chief opponent in the primaries, Bernie Sanders, consistently undercut her by one-upping her "bold" and "ambitious" proposals without explaining how his policies would work.
> 
> In other words, Sanders did to Clinton what Democrats have done to their critics for years: Frame any worry about the costs and unintended consequences of a program as a lack of concern for the problem the program is supposed to address. After years of cultivating economic illiteracy, the party reaped the results.
> 
> In an excerpt tweeted by a supporter ahead of the book's release, Clinton compared Sanders to the deranged hitchhiker in There's Something About Mary whose get-rich-quick scheme involves cribbing the famous "eight minute abs" program with his own "seven minute abs." Ben Stiller, who picks him up, points out that nothing's stopping him from cutting it down to six-minute abs.
> 
> "On issue after issue, it was like he kept proposing four-minute abs, or even no-minute abs," Clinton complained of Sanders. "Magic abs!"
> 
> Clinton continued by sharing a Facebook post she said someone sent her. The post compared Sanders' various positions to a belief that "America should get a pony." When Clinton expresses skepticism about the idea, Sanders says she thinks "America doesn't deserve a pony" and his supporters declare that Clinton hates ponies. Her clarification that actually she loves ponies is then treated as a flip-flop.
> 
> The reaction to the excerpt helped illustrate Clinton's point. Several Sanders supporters in the Twitter thread complained that Clinton dared to compare single-payer healthcare to ponies. "Funny that she likens no one dying or going into debt because they don't have enough money to a 'pony,'" a typical response read. Projecting the worst possible motives onto your opponents is a lot easier than explaining your own positions.
> 
> On the specific case of single payer, the same process has been playing out in California this year. Supporters of single payer didn't have a plan to overcome the procedural hurdles they faced. So instead they disingenuously blamed Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who had to shelf the bill, and for that was the target of mass protests and death threats.
> 
> "Rather than committing to raising the millions of dollars that would be needed to overcome special interests and pass that initiative, they would, apparently, rather deceive their supporters, hiding the realities of California's woeful political structure in favor of a morality play designed to advance careers and aggrandize power," The Intercept's David Dayen explained. "That may sound harsh. It's gentle."
> 
> Clinton has identified a real problem in American politics, even as she elides its roots. Both parties have promoted economic ignorance, because that makes it easier to make wild promises and then find scapegoats when the promises fall through. The consequences are all around us.


So Sanders did to Hillary what Democrats have done to Republicans for years. Poor gal. :sad: It was _her_ turn!


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> smh y'all blame everything but capitalism. :mj
> 
> Also
> 
> What happened to "the DAMN ILLEGALS stealing my jobs!"? :CENA


You project. The situation in America is nothing like in Australia. There are plenty of jobs for college graduates.

The problem with "Dreamers" is that their parents and therefore their culture is based on moral relativism. It's hard to teach your children to follow the law when you're law-breakers yourself :Shrug

---


----------



## virus21




----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> You project. The situation in America is nothing like in Australia. There are plenty of jobs for college graduates.
> 
> The problem with "Dreamers" is that their parents and therefore their culture is based on moral relativism. It's hard to teach your children to follow the law when you're law-breakers yourself :Shrug


I don't believe that. Like I told ya man, NAIRU. Also you mean to say there our jobs for the women's studies graduates, and computing isn't and oversaturated market? Another worthless debate about unemployment :woo

It would be easy for criminals to teach their kids to not follow in their footsteps... but that parents would need to realise what they did was wrong, something I imagine many illegal immigrants do not believe. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Ask and you shall receive.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/fac...-mueller-data-on-russian-ads-report-says.html


Mark Zuckerberg colluding with russia (which is totally unfair and dishonest to say but that never stopped anyone from saying it about the president) isnt MUH RUSSIA

And you know it

MUH RUSSIA is never coming back is it :hogan


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> Mark Zuckerberg colluding with russia (which is totally unfair and dishonest to say but that never stopped anyone from saying it about the president) isnt MUH RUSSIA
> 
> And you know it
> 
> MUH RUSSIA is never coming back is it :hogan


The year isn't up yet, get your letter to Santa!


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> The year isn't up yet, get your letter to Santa!


I've been too naughty this year

I'm getting the biggest lump of coal ever which I will sell to an energy company and make a nice pile of money thanks to the president ending the war on coal :trump2


----------



## Reaper

Your daily "Brain on Social Justice" Update: 



















:kobelol


----------



## deepelemblues

But when some bible thumper says GAWD is punishing America because teh gheys it's literally WORSE THAN HITLER ERMAGERD


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Your daily "Brain on Social Justice" Update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :kobelol


Celebrities never shut up do they? If that film bombs, shes just going to blame racists . That's already queued up as we speak


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Your daily "Brain on Social Justice" Update:


Wow, talk about fake news, that is clearly not what she said at all. The fucking mental gymnastics to get that headline going is extreme. This is what's wrong with the media today and it works both ways, the fact you fall for clickbait is sad.


----------



## Reaper

You're the only one who's doing mental gymnastics here. The implication is so god damned clear to anyone who has even the slightest bit of ability to understand english and also context. But I can see why it would be difficult for you. You're in the BM category of intellectuals on here.

The context is clear. They went from talking about climate change to where she mentions "these hurricanes are happening" and (which is a classic liberal climate change apocalypse cultist talking point) to Trump who's anti-climate apocalypse. 

If you don't understand context, then that's your problem.

Even my 13 year old nice came to me last night and asked me if I think Climate Change is fake because she knows I'm a Trump supporter so obviously someone in her school is brainwashing her to be a climate change cultist as well within the context of recognizing conservatives (which is what she called me despite me never making it clear to my family) as climate change "deniers". Her comments were very typical of the hysteria around climate change. And then she went on and on about hurricanes and being caused by climate change. The brainwashing is so real that it's not even funny anymore. 

Since you're one of the hystericals who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome yourself, you obviously don't see it this way. That is fine. WHen people are part of a cult, they generally don't notice it --- which is why so many cults are incredibly successful.


----------



## deepelemblues

not even a pretzel can twist as much as you need to twist to deny that's what the dumb bitch was saying :heston


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao no wonder Americans hate their celebrities, she on them good drugs. I suppose it's better than total asshats like Katie Hopkins but this is one of the most retarded things I've heard in months :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

virus21 said:


>


A poor workman always blames their tools, as they say.
Clinton didn't win because she put on this facade of urbanity - when her own behaviour, and years of social satire, have conditioned the American public to view her as a ruthless careerist.
Now, if that was how she had ran, if she had gotten angry and showed the forcefulness of her personality, she might well have won. But instead she lingered in the background of the campaign with that _Stepford Wives_ smile, trying to relate to the young people like a drunken spinster aunt at a wedding.
Voters can smell desperation as clear as horse shit. She did that, not Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> You're the only one who's doing mental gymnastics here. The implication is so god damned clear to anyone who has even the slightest bit of ability to understand english and also context. But I can see why it would be difficult for you. You're in the BM category of intellectuals on here.
> 
> The context is clear. They went from talking about climate change to where she mentions "these hurricanes are happening" and (which is a classic liberal climate change apocalypse cultist talking point) to Trump who's anti-climate apocalypse.
> 
> If you don't understand context, then that's your problem.
> 
> Even my 13 year old nice came to me last night and asked me if I think Climate Change is fake because she knows I'm a Trump supporter so obviously someone in her school is brainwashing her to be a climate change cultist as well. This is part of the hysteria around climate change. And then she went on and on about hurricanes and being caused by climate change. The brainwashing is so real that it's not even funny anymore.
> 
> Since you're one of the hystericals who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome yourself, you obviously don't see it this way. That is fine. WHen people are part of a cult, they generally don't notice it --- which is why so many cults are incredibly successful.


The word context is so over used, for you it basically means I hear what I want to hear. In any context she did not blame trump for the recent hurricanes. Not even close. It really is pure clickbait madness. 

Please supply the actual sentence where she specifically says Trump is to blame for hurricanes.

No?

Your grasping is embarrassing, nice try, it's the usual reaper bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> The word context is so over used, for you it basically means I hear what I want to hear. In any context she did not blame trump for the recent hurricanes. Not even close. It really is pure clickbait madness.
> 
> Please supply the actual sentence where she specifically says Trump is to blame for hurricanes.
> 
> No?
> 
> Your grasping is embarrassing, nice try, it's the usual reaper bullshit.


So you're going to hide behind "THAT's NOT EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID IN THOSE EXACT WORDS THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE THE INTELLECT OF A 10 YEAR OLD" logic. 

Ok. That's your prerogative.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word context is so over used, for you it basically means I hear what I want to hear. In any context she did not blame trump for the recent hurricanes. Not even close. It really is pure clickbait madness.
> 
> Please supply the actual sentence where she specifically says Trump is to blame for hurricanes.
> 
> No?
> 
> Your grasping is embarrassing, nice try, it's the usual reaper bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to hide behind "THAT's NOT EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID IN THOSE EXACT WORDS THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE THE INTELLECT OF A 10 YEAR OLD" logic.
> 
> Ok. That's your prerogative.
Click to expand...

You're going to hide behind the 'SHE DIDN'T SAY IT BUT COME ON GUYS THE NARRATIVE IS BETTER FOR US IF WE JUST SAY CONTEXT'

Embarrassing.

She said climate change is man made, we voted in someone who doesn't believe that and it's a shame with all the hurricanes going on. Just because a contingent of trumps fanbase think gays cause hurricanes it doesn't mean you have to conflate the two.


----------



## Tater

It looks like Hillary Clinton is gearing up for another run in 2020 because that psychotic cunt feels so entitled to the White House that she would rather than burn the USA to the ground than admit that shes a failure.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> It looks like Hillary Clinton is gearing up for another run in 2020 because that psychotic cunt feels so entitled to the White House that she would rather than burn the USA to the ground than admit that shes a failure.


Surely she wouldn't have a chance?


----------



## CamillePunk

If she does run again Bernie should run as well. :mj Maybe he can show some signs of life and self-respect this time around.


----------



## Vic Capri

Was Hurricane Sandy punishment for voting for Obama then? Jennifer went full retard.



> It looks like Hillary Clinton is gearing up for another run in 2020 because that psychotic cunt feels so entitled to the White House that she would rather than burn the USA to the ground than admit that shes a failure.


Joe Biden and Howard Schultz are rumored to run.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> Surely she wouldn't have a chance?


They rigged it for her last time. I wouldn't be shocked if they did it again.



CamillePunk said:


> If she does run again Bernie should run as well. :mj Maybe he can show some signs of life and self-respect this time around.


Bernie would have to stop being a pussy-whipped sheepdog first. It'll never cease to amaze me that such a weak milquetoast centrist "leader" is what's considered a revolutionary in this country.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Your daily "Brain on Social Justice" Update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :kobelol


Well we kind of knew that she was an empty headed moron for a while, this just confirms it.



Tater said:


> It looks like Hillary Clinton is gearing up for another run in 2020 because that psychotic cunt feels so entitled to the White House that she would rather than burn the USA to the ground than admit that shes a failure.


She'd burn USA to the ground even if she'd won. Well, when she wasn't doing the same to the Middle East that is.



CamillePunk said:


> If she does run again Bernie should run as well. :mj Maybe he can show some signs of life and self-respect this time around.


If he lives that long.



Vic Capri said:


> Was Hurricane Sandy punishment for voting for Obama then? Jennifer went full retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Biden and Howard Schultz are rumored to run.
> 
> - Vic


Can you go full retard when your natural state is full retard?

And a Biden presidency would be boring as hell. Granted it would be safer just because less madness, so one hand or the other.


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Bernie got lit up for saying he'd help Trump with getting better Trade deals.
> 
> Both far Left and Right are so fanatical that any bipartisanship is seen as weakness, which is odd because the very people bitching about Trump tossing a bone to the Democrats with this.. are the same people that said he needed to show more bipartisanship.
> 
> Far Left says working with Trump on ANYTHING is EBIL! Far Right says anything that benefits the Democrats is EBIL!
> 
> Also hate to break it to Anti-Trumpers, what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional but to them, they don't see it this way.
> 
> This is why I cannot take these people seriously.


Compromise is one thing, surrender is completely different. I am trying to wrap my head around why it was treason before Trump but when he does it is OK.


----------



## themuel1

Anyone seen the Roger Stone documentary on Netflix?


----------



## virus21




----------



## Arya Dark

*Jennifer Lawrence sounds like those idiotic religious people that blame natural disasters on stuff like homosexuality. It's just fucking ignorant. :chlol*


----------



## virus21




----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Eric Bolling out at Fox News and The Specialists canceled. http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fox-news-eric-bolling-investigation-1202552350/?dg I hope Eboni Williams gets featured on another show.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Eric Bolling out at Fox News and The Specialists canceled.


Women will accuse Shepard Smith next of sending lewd texts. :lol

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Vic Capri said:


> Women will accuse Shepard Smith next of sending lewd texts. :lol
> 
> - Vic


That would be hilarious even though he bats from the other side of the plate.


----------



## FriedTofu

AryaDark said:


> *Jennifer Lawrence sounds like those idiotic religious people that blame natural disasters on stuff like homosexuality. It's just fucking ignorant. :chlol*


People getting outraged at her linking the hurricanes to voting for Trump and here I am outraged that she said the 'only voice' they really have is through voting, showing her hashtag activism mentality.


----------



## Reaper

AryaDark said:


> *Jennifer Lawrence sounds like those idiotic religious people that blame natural disasters on stuff like homosexuality. It's just fucking ignorant. :chlol*


Climate Change Apocalypse is a real cultish belief. They have predicted end of times scenarios that are even more imaginative than the Christian Rapture and the Muslim Judgement Day.


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> You're the only one who's doing mental gymnastics here. The implication is so god damned clear to anyone who has even the slightest bit of ability to understand english and also context. But I can see why it would be difficult for you. You're in the BM category of intellectuals on here.
> 
> The context is clear. They went from talking about climate change to where she mentions "these hurricanes are happening" and (which is a classic liberal climate change apocalypse cultist talking point) to Trump who's anti-climate apocalypse.
> 
> If you don't understand context, then that's your problem.
> 
> Even my 13 year old nice came to me last night and asked me if I think Climate Change is fake because she knows I'm a Trump supporter so obviously someone in her school is brainwashing her to be a climate change cultist as well within the context of recognizing conservatives (which is what she called me despite me never making it clear to my family) as climate change "deniers". Her comments were very typical of the hysteria around climate change. And then she went on and on about hurricanes and being caused by climate change. The brainwashing is so real that it's not even funny anymore.
> 
> Since you're one of the hystericals who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome yourself, you obviously don't see it this way. That is fine. WHen people are part of a cult, they generally don't notice it --- which is why so many cults are incredibly successful.


I think you made up your mind before you watched the video. She says dumb, vague and linear modern liberal garbage throughout the whole video, to the point where if you switch climate change for ANTIFA and Trump for Democrats it would sound the exact same. Which I would argue is more hilarious.

But blaming Trump for it? That's too retarded even for the most diehard liberal celebrities. That involves a truly special level of idiocy that wasn't displayed here. She's just tying the fact these hurricanes are especially bad this year (as they seem to have been in the past) to Trump's non-left-wing stance on climate change. As in, not blaming him for it, but being like "ugh why can't you see what we have caused?!?!!!?" which is kinda dumb but nowhere near as dumb.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906281011503403008
Yes, the real "businesses" these DACA "dreamers" own are "cleaning services", "babysitting" (probably with fringe benefits for the daddies, or mommies that swing that way) .. cheap private "contractors" with dummy businesses that allow rich Californians the ability to keep cheap women (and men) around that they can fuck around with while getting their houses cleaned .. or hedges trimmed (if you know what I mean). 

I mean, if you call someone a maid or gardener or pool boy it doesn't sound as glamourous as calling them an entrepreneur. But make no mistake, maids are business owners that work for real cheap and go to regular community colleges that anyone can go to which have some pretty low acceptance standards. Community colleges accept anyone that has a high school diploma. There is no criteria that needs to be met as long as they can pay. 

I wouldn't expect someone like draykorinee to understand the kinds of businesses these "dreamers" own when he tosses out just numbers. Since they're illegal it's easier to underpay them and drive labor rates down in certain industries to the point where locals/citizens become unemployable. Lower income family white girls also want to get into cleaning services businesses but they are constantly under-cut by mexicans because the stereotype is that the mexican maid is subservient and will more willingly scrub your toilets than a white girl and will do it cheaper as well. 

It's unfair competition encouraged by rich white folk employing the cheaper labor - which is cheaper partly because of its murky legal status. 

People who live in America have a much better idea of this. I'm sure @Miss Sally can corroborate my assertions about mexican "entrepreneurs". 

Dreamers are no special breed of american that is better than regular americans. Them doing "well" in life in America has absolutely no relevance to them being allowed to stay. Of course, seriously speaking, IF they are good community members than Mexico should be falling all over itself to have them back. 

Mexico and Canada and everyone else in the whole wide world would be FOOLS not to accept such enterprising young individuals from America. Imagine that. BRAIN FUCKING DRAIN FROM America of some BRILLIANT individuals. 

So how come no one is stepping forward to take them in?


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906320446882271232
Thoughts?


----------



## Reaper

Sure why not. Since it's printed/fake money anyways, might as well just keep handing it out to everybody that wants it


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906281011503403008
> Yes, the real "businesses" these DACA "dreamers" own are "cleaning services", "babysitting" (probably with fringe benefits for the daddies, or mommies that swing that way) .. cheap private "contractors" with dummy businesses that allow rich Californians the ability to keep cheap women (and men) around that they can fuck around with while getting their houses cleaned .. or hedges trimmed (if you know what I mean).
> 
> I mean, if you call someone a maid or gardener or pool boy it doesn't sound as glamourous as calling them an entrepreneur. But make no mistake, maids are business owners that work for real cheap and go to regular community colleges that anyone can go to which have some pretty low acceptance standards. Community colleges accept anyone that has a high school diploma. There is no criteria that needs to be met as long as they can pay.
> 
> I wouldn't expect someone like draykorinee to understand the kinds of businesses these "dreamers" own when he tosses out just numbers. Since they're illegal it's easier to underpay them and drive labor rates down in certain industries to the point where locals/citizens become unemployable. Lower income family white girls also want to get into cleaning services businesses but they are constantly under-cut by mexicans because the stereotype is that the mexican maid is subservient and will more willingly scrub your toilets than a white girl and will do it cheaper as well.
> 
> It's unfair competition encouraged by rich white folk employing the cheaper labor - which is cheaper partly because of its murky legal status.
> 
> People who live in America have a much better idea of this. I'm sure @Miss Sally can corroborate my assertions about mexican "entrepreneurs".
> 
> Dreamers are no special breed of american that is better than regular americans. Them doing "well" in life in America has absolutely no relevance to them being allowed to stay. Of course, seriously speaking, IF they are good community members than Mexico should be falling all over itself to have them back.
> 
> Mexico and Canada and everyone else in the whole wide world would be FOOLS not to accept such enterprising young individuals from America. Imagine that. BRAIN FUCKING DRAIN FROM America of some BRILLIANT individuals.
> 
> So how come no one is stepping forward to take them in?


Rich white people looove cheap Mexican labor. Because then you don't have to pay things like a decent wage, offer benefits, can work them as long as you want with no federal oversight, can abuse them, sexually harass them and if they make a peep, deport them!

Then you got the "Leftist" white people who virtue signal about how great they are, talk about how no Americans want the jobs. Well why would they when you get paid virtually nothing? But that doesn't matter because these same people will talk about how minimum wage needs to be 15 bucks an hour! (Unless you're an illegal Mexican!)

"Entrepreneurs" indeed, drive down costs so much that nobody else can make a living doing it. Easy to be an "entrepreneur" when you probably don't fill out any legal documentation like everyone else to run a business. Hell the illegals wouldn't make a living on their wages either and that's why so many live together in homes. When there's 10+ of you making cash, no taxes and having a few on welfare and paying barely any rent then money isn't so bad. Especially if you bank it and take it back home to Mexico. 

My biggest issues with "Dreamers" is if you want to stay here why not get a citizenship? Why are there even entitlement programs for illegals yet your average American has to do basically everything themselves? If anyone needs help it's poor Americans who have children who are smart enough for College but cannot go because it's too expensive.


----------



## Reaper

It really is incredibly disingenuous to call "dreamers" entrepreneurs or "business owners". It's a blatant abuse of the English language. 

The majority of them cheap contractors or laborers working in non-creative private contractor type jobs. Call them what they are so we know which industries they're impacting. If you call them entrepreneurs then it gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve.

Sure, there are some legit creative entrepreneur types. No doubt. There's bound to be some. But I have to wonder if that number is really large enough to justify the program. Of course, Sally you have experiential knowledge in that demographic that none of us do so thanks for sharing as always.


----------



## Oxidamus

Uhhh doxxing isn't okay just because the person is an illegal. :kobe11


----------



## Reaper

Your brain on Social Justice. 










I guess these are probably just fake accounts created by actual Trump supporters who are just doing this to make people who suffer from TDS look bad. I wonder how many are regulars ITT :hmmm


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *More than 5,000 out-of-state voters may have tipped New Hampshire against Trump*
> 
> More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle.
> Conservatives say the state’s same-day registration is an invitation for fraud because of loose proof-of-residence rules.
> New Hampshire House Speaker Shawn Jasper, a Republican, issued the numbers Thursday based on inquiries he made to the Department of State, which oversees elections, and the Department of Safety.
> 
> Since Election Day, Republicans have charged that a significant number of nonresident Democrats, principally from Massachusetts, flowed into New Hampshire to vote illegally, tilting a close race to their party.
> “Having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real. It’s very serious. This morning, on this show, is not the venue for me to lay out all the evidence,” White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News in February.
> Though Mr. Jasper’s findings don’t prove those accusations, they do corroborate them. The numbers read this way:
> 
> ⦁ 6,540 people registered and voted on Nov. 8, based on presenting out-of-state licenses.
> ⦁ As of Aug. 30, about 15 percent (1,014 of the voters) had been issued New Hampshire driver’s licenses.
> ⦁ Οf the remaining 5,526, barely more than 200 (3.3 percent) had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire.
> 
> New Hampshire law gives drivers 60 days upon establishing residence to obtain a state license.
> But more than 80 percent of voters who registered on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, or 5,313 of them, neither had a state license nor registered a motor vehicle almost 10 months later.
> Double voting is illegal, and 196 people are being investigated for casting ballots in New Hampshire and in other states.
> In the presidential race, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes. In an even tighter race, for the Granite State’s U.S. Senate seat, Democratic challenger Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes.
> 
> Logan Churchwell, spokesman for Public Interest Legal Foundation, which investigates voter fraud, said Mr. Jasper’s numbers bolster his group’s findings that many people vote in New Hampshire without proof of residence.
> “We’ve known for months that more voters cast ballots without any proof of actually living in New Hampshire than the differentials for either federal contest there in 2016,” he said. “Now it looks like they were back in Boston in time to watch the election returns that evening. The left-wing groups suing to block new proof-of-residence laws for same-day voter registration are really proving what drives them to the courthouse.”
> Project Veritas, a conservative investigative unit, took hidden cameras to New Hampshire for the 2016 February primary.
> Poll workers told Veritas operatives that they did not need to live in the state to vote, that they could use a Massachusetts driver’s license and that they could fill out a form if they had no ID.
> “If you’re here today, you can vote and be gone,” one poll official unwittingly told Veritas.
> 
> A spokesman for Mr. Jasper said the speaker was presenting raw data and did not know which states issued the 6,540 licenses and acknowledged that the numbers could include some college students.
> In February, while meeting with senators at the White House, Mr. Trump said he lost New Hampshire because thousands of Massachusetts residents crossed state lines to vote. He also said Ms. Ayotte lost for the same reason: illegal voting.
> 
> The liberal media dismissed his accusations. The Boston Globe called them “groundless.”
> The president has appointed a special commission to investigate voter integrity, led by Vice President Mike Pence.
> By coincidence, New Hampshire will host the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity’s first meeting outside Washington on Tuesday. Vice Chairman Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, will preside.
> 
> Democrats oppose the panel and have called for its demise.
> At least two scientific surveys show that a larger number of noncitizens register and vote illegally in U.S. elections. One poll found that a large majority vote Democrat.
> Mr. Jasper said in a statement that he requested the driver’s license and motor vehicle information “to benefit the legislature in its assessment of the effectiveness of our current election laws as well as future legislation that could improve our voter registration and verification processes.”
> The two state departments, State and Safety, provided the data to Mr. Jasper on Wednesday in a joint letter.
> Secretary of State William M. Gardner, a Democrat, signed the letter. Also signing was John Barthelmes, the Republican appointed commissioner for the Department of Safety.
> 
> The two agencies explained the 5,313 number (neither a driver’s license nor a registered motor vehicle many months later) with several possible reasons.
> “It is likely that some unknown number of these individuals moved out of New Hampshire, it is possible that a few may have never driven in New Hampshire or have ceased driving, however, it is expected that an unknown number of the remainder continue to live and drive in New Hampshire. If they have established their residence in New Hampshire, they may have failed to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license.”
> Nowhere in the letter do the departments suggest that out-of-state people voted illegally.
> The letter contains another interesting fact: There were 6,033 people who signed domicile affidavits in order to register to vote. The secretary of state sent letters to all of them, and the U.S. Postal Service returned 458 of them as not delivered to the address on the registration forms.
> Democrats attacked Mr. Jasper for releasing raw data that fails to confirm any fraud.
> “Using cherry-picked data in order to support a false claim is dangerous and irresponsible. Today’s release of information by Speaker Jasper’s office fans the flames of misinformation in order to further suppress our citizens’ right to vote,” said Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn. “The fact of the matter is that there is no requirement to obtain a [New Hampshire] driver’s license or register your car in order to exercise your constitutionally-protected right to vote.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/voter-fraud-alert-over-5000-new-hampshire-presiden/

Pretty interesting. Reminds me of the silence the media had when the recounts in Wisconsin(I believe?)found Trump votes suppressed


----------



## Reaper

The election vote thing reminds of this incredibly fascinating stories that have come out over the last few months. These are just off the top of my head:

1. Trump is a russian agent
2. Trump's aids are russian agents
3. Russian hacking allowed Trump to win
4. That environmentalist hippie candidate (I can't even remember her name anymore) calls for a recount
5. Recount finds that Trump actually had a few more votes
6. Trump is a fascist
7. Trump is a Nazi
8. Trump is a white supremacist
9. Trump gives a bipartisan speech, but there were less people at the inauguration than Obama
10. The electoral college must be abolished
11. Trump's administration is crumbling
12. Sessions is a racist
13. Bannon is a white supremacist
14. Trump is still a russian agent
15. Trump fires Comey which is obstruction of justice
16. There's a Comey memo that will get Trump impeached
17. Trump will destroy North Korea
18. WWIII *reeee*
19. Trump is a racist. He didn't denounce White Supremacists hard enough or on time! 
20. How dare he call "counter-protesters" terrorists!
21. Hurricanes happening in Red States to punish Trump supporters
22. He just raised the debt ceiling ! See he's a Democrat after all and has been in cohoots with them all along :mj

:mj4 

Fascinating. Fascinating stuff. What a great timeline to be alive in :trump2


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906281011503403008
> Yes, the real "businesses" these DACA "dreamers" own are "cleaning services", "babysitting" (probably with fringe benefits for the daddies, or mommies that swing that way) .. cheap private "contractors" with dummy businesses that allow rich Californians the ability to keep cheap women (and men) around that they can fuck around with while getting their houses cleaned .. or hedges trimmed (if you know what I mean).
> 
> I mean, if you call someone a maid or gardener or pool boy it doesn't sound as glamourous as calling them an entrepreneur. But make no mistake, maids are business owners that work for real cheap and go to regular community colleges that anyone can go to which have some pretty low acceptance standards. Community colleges accept anyone that has a high school diploma. There is no criteria that needs to be met as long as they can pay.
> 
> I wouldn't expect someone like draykorinee to understand the kinds of businesses these "dreamers" own when he tosses out just numbers. Since they're illegal it's easier to underpay them and drive labor rates down in certain industries to the point where locals/citizens become unemployable. Lower income family white girls also want to get into cleaning services businesses but they are constantly under-cut by mexicans because the stereotype is that the mexican maid is subservient and will more willingly scrub your toilets than a white girl and will do it cheaper as well.
> 
> It's unfair competition encouraged by rich white folk employing the cheaper labor - which is cheaper partly because of its murky legal status.
> 
> People who live in America have a much better idea of this. I'm sure @Miss Sally can corroborate my assertions about mexican "entrepreneurs".
> 
> Dreamers are no special breed of american that is better than regular americans. Them doing "well" in life in America has absolutely no relevance to them being allowed to stay. Of course, seriously speaking, IF they are good community members than Mexico should be falling all over itself to have them back.
> 
> Mexico and Canada and everyone else in the whole wide world would be FOOLS not to accept such enterprising young individuals from America. Imagine that. BRAIN FUCKING DRAIN FROM America of some BRILLIANT individuals.
> 
> So how come no one is stepping forward to take them in?


I'm not really sure what someone's anecdotes have to do with anything. All I did was shit over the article linked by desolation and supply counter arguments to the idea that they're just welfare grabbing. Not once have I taken any stance on the businesses they run.

If you're going to take my name in vain at least have some balls and mention me, it's not the first time.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm not really sure what someone's anecdotes have to do with anything. All I did was shit over the article linked by desolation and supply counter arguments to the idea that they're just welfare grabbing. Not once have I taken any stance on the businesses they run.
> 
> If you're going to take my name in vain at least have some balls and mention me, it's not the first time.


The article you posted _painted _them in an _overly _positive light as enterprising individuals when they're not and irrespective it's irrelevant to the discussion of them being kicked out in the first place. I am not supporting the article Deso posted, just breaking down your attempted narrative spin. 

Of course, calling them "entrepreneurs" is only _technically_ correct, but that doesn't elevate the status of what they _really _are: Cheapo labor for the rich white folk who register businesses as a method of reinforcing their murky status. But _depth of knowledge_doesn't matter to you as long it's _you _pushing a narrative (like we found out earlier in our debate over red states and welfare which you did the same thing of posting a claim but never bothered to see if you were adequately countered), but does interestingly become important when you have to provide "counter-arguments" which eventually break down anyways. 

I don't mention you intentionally because I know that you read everything I post so I don't need to. I enjoy your obsession because it feeds my ego. I don't think even the pro-Trumpers read everything in this thread as obsessively as you do


----------



## Draykorinee

Oxidamus said:


> I think you made up your mind before you watched the video. She says dumb, vague and linear modern liberal garbage throughout the whole video, to the point where if you switch climate change for ANTIFA and Trump for Democrats it would sound the exact same. Which I would argue is more hilarious.
> 
> But blaming Trump for it? That's too retarded even for the most diehard liberal celebrities. That involves a truly special level of idiocy that wasn't displayed here. She's just tying the fact these hurricanes are especially bad this year (as they seem to have been in the past) to Trump's non-left-wing stance on climate change. As in, not blaming him for it, but being like "ugh why can't you see what we have caused?!?!!!?" which is kinda dumb but nowhere near as dumb.


Yeah, it really beggars belief that people thinks she blaming Trump for hurricanes, she may be dumb but she's not religious dumb. Supposedly it's a measure of my lack of intelligence that I couldn't see the 'context'.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> The article you posted _painted _them in an _overly _positive light as enterprising individuals when they're not and irrespective it's irrelevant to the discussion of them being kicked out in the first place. I am not supporting the article Deso posted, just breaking down your attempted narrative spin.
> 
> Of course, calling them "entrepreneurs" is only _technically_ correct, but that doesn't elevate the status of what they really are: Cheapo labor for the rich white folk. But _depth _doesn't matter to you as long it's _you _pushing a narrative, but does interestingly become important when you have to provide "counter-arguments" which eventually break down anyways.
> 
> I don't mention you intentionally because I know that you read everything I post so I don't need to. I enjoy your obsession because it feeds my ego


Yeah, I read every post in here, the fact you think you're special is an indictment of your inflated ego and nothing more lol.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, it really beggars belief that people thinks she blaming Trump for hurricanes, she may be dumb but she's not religious dumb. Supposedly it's a measure of my lack of intelligence that I couldn't see the 'context'.


There are several levels of blame. Just because she didn't directly say it doesn't mean that that's not what she believes. She very, very heavily implied it to the extent where if any brain cell was even remotely active at the point she would've gone "what am I saying" and offered some sort of a correction :lmao 

Of course these celebrities are dumb as fuck. This is a woman that vehemently believes that the gender wage gap is real and a result of intentional discrimination. 

She can believe anything at this point :lol



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, I read every post in here, the fact you think you're special is an indictment of your inflated ego and nothing more lol.


I never said I don't have an over-inflated ego. I am a self-declared narcissist. :move


----------



## Vic Capri

> Fascinating. Fascinating stuff. What a great timeline to be alive in


Jesus fucking Christ! :lol

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

As far as what is happening with DACA is concerned, it seems to me that the left and MSM are in a mass hysteria surrounding what is being done and what Trump is trying to do without actually looking into the details of it. This isn't surprising considering how hysterical the reactions have been on a number of other proposals and policies made by the Trump administration since he took office. Muh feels seems to be the dominating theme surrounding reactions to anything Trump has done and DACA is another perfect example of that.

Here is a couple of articles I've read surrounding this topic which whilst I don't entirely agree with everything in them, paints a much fairer picture on what is going on with DACA: 

https://www.economist.com/news/lead...s-bills-has-left-america-immigration-laws-are



> IF YOU could design people in a laboratory to be an adornment to America they would look like the recipients of DACA. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive action issued in 2012 by Barack Obama to protect most of those who were brought to the country as children from deportation, covers about 800,000 people. They are a high-achieving lot. More than 90% of those now aged over 25 are employed; they create businesses at twice the rate of the public as a whole; many have spouses and children who are citizens. They are American in every sense bar the bureaucratic one.
> 
> Correcting that ought to be about as hard politically as declaring a new public holiday. Instead, there is a good chance that Congress will return them to their prior limbo, or worse. Recipients of DACA were obliged to give their addresses to the federal government, which is charged with immigration enforcement, making it considerably easier to round them up now. After the Trump administration announced that it would end the programme in six months’ time, and called on Congress to pass a bill to replace it, the White House issued a set of talking points which suggested that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would find this personal information, given in exchange for shelter, very useful.
> 
> Both Mr Trump and Jeff Sessions, his attorney-general, presented the decision to end DACA as a victory for the rule of law (see article). There is something to this. Mr Obama said publicly that he doubted he had the authority to protect people from the enforcement of immigration laws passed by Congress and signed by previous presidents. Then he decided that, in fact, he did. Mr Trump’s administration thus faced having to defend an executive action by its predecessor from a legal challenge by several Republican attorneys-general—a challenge that the administration might lose in the Supreme Court at the hands of his own nominee, Neil Gorsuch. With that prospect, Mr Trump pushed the decision back to Congress.
> 
> But the choice on DACA is not between the rule of law and rule by presidential edict. It is between two different types of legal failure—executive actions that are possibly unconstitutional and a set of immigration laws that are definitely impossible to enforce. There are about 11m people in the country illegally, many of whom arrived decades ago. America already spends a huge amount on deportation—more than on the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Marshals and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, combined. At current deportation rates it would take over 40 years to expel them all. Congress has not willed the means to make this happen and would not want to face the consequences of doing so. The collective failure to say this on the part of the Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, is a giant exercise in ignoring reality. “Useless laws weaken necessary laws,” wrote Montesquieu, whose work the authors of the constitution consulted frequently. That is a fair description of the effect of America’s immigration laws, whose uselessness results in lawbreaking becoming routine.
> 
> *Deferred action*
> 
> The solution is for Congress to write DACA, or something like it, into law. Yet the long-running saga over DACA and its recipients, whose average age is now 25, has been another sign that Congress’s default setting is to inaction. Mr Obama issued his executive action after years of waiting for Congress to write legislation. Congressmen ducked the decision, leading the president to take it unilaterally, on questionable authority.
> 
> Mr Trump’s call on Congress to act may set up a repeat of this cycle. The programme expires in six months’ time, at which point many Republican congressmen will face primaries. They will be confronted by challengers denouncing anyone who supports such legislation as being pro-immigration-amnesty and too unpatriotic to put real Americans first, a Republican strain of identity politics that has been turbocharged by Mr Trump. If Congress fails to decide yet again, then Mr Trump may find himself in the same position as his predecessor, reintroducing something like DACA by executive action.
> 
> Better if the lawmakers who spent years denouncing Mr Obama for grabbing power from Congress now choose to exercise that power themselves. The alternative is an act of economic and moral self-harm, in which Congress would further undermine both itself and the standing of the law.


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/on-daca-trump-did-the-right-thing-commentary.html



> This week, the Trump Administration provided Congress with an opportunity: to make immigration law the right way, through legislation, not executive orders. Will they seize the moment, or squander it on scoring political points?
> 
> Hyperbolic reactions from the expected special interest groups, and from many politicians, to the Trump Administration's decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (an Obama-era executive order put in place to protect illegal youths from deportation known as DACA) have been predictable and counter-productive. It will continue to be tempting for Democrats in particular to exploit immigration as a political wedge issue – painting Trump and all Republicans as racist and anti-dreamer. (Dreamers are youths who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.) This approach would be both bad government and bad politics.
> 
> 
> The winding down of DACA is the perfect time for Congress to develop effective, compassionate policy on immigration – something most Americans strongly agree we need. The best reforms will be developed through the legislative process, not executive orders – and that's something else both sides can agree on.
> 
> In the meantime, leaders should stay away from inflammatory language and fear mongering. Mass deportations will not happen – it is simply not logistically possible, and it is not what the Trump Administration has called for. It is worth noting how Attorney General Sessions described the government's next steps:
> 
> The Department of Justice has advised the President and the Department of Homeland Security that DHS should begin an orderly, lawful wind down, including the cancellation of the memo that authorized this program. … This [wind down process] will enable DHS to conduct an orderly change and fulfill the desire of this administration to create a time period for Congress to act—should it so choose. We firmly believe this is the responsible path.
> 
> Sessions' words about a "wind down" were rational and calm, indicating an approach that is not drastic or dramatic, not gratuitously painful or overly political. The end of DACA and the beginning of lawful immigration reform can, and should, be handled with this level of maturity and respect – for dreamers for American citizens, and for our nation's tradition of the rule of law.
> 
> Demonstrators hold signs during a protest in front of the White House after the Trump administration today scrapped the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that protects from deportation almost 800,000 young men and women who were brought into the U.S. illegally as children, in Washington,
> 
> There are no easy or simple answers on immigration, and it's okay for our leaders to acknowledge that fact. I believe they can find legislative solutions that strengthen America, recognize our proud immigrant tradition, keep the economy strong, and keep our citizens safe and our borders secure. The core elements of President George W. Bush's immigration reform proposals, for example, met those goals through effective border security, a functioning and humane guest worker program, and a pathway to earned legal status for the undocumented. Given the six-month time frame Congress will have before DACA ends, they would do well to start their work with Bush's already well-developed proposal.
> 
> President Trump even Tweeted on Tuesday that he would revisit the issue if Congress cannot act.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/905228667336499200%5B
> If the end of DACA is turned into a political screaming match, an opportunity to move forward on immigration reform will be lost. DACA will end roughly and badly. If President Trump's critics encourage and enable this approach, they themselves will be responsible for derailing that which they say they hold dear: fair, compassionate treatment for dreamers.
> 
> Voters, in turn, will punish those who mishandle this moment. They will see it as political malpractice, or worse. Their desire for solutions, and for action, is why Donald Trump was elected president. Americans are weary of bloviating and politics. They want things to get fixed, period.
> 
> And the voters are right: Our immigration laws and enforcement need to be fixed. They are right to expect their representatives to do this, and President Trump is right to encourage Congress to act. The end of DACA can, and should, lead to immigration reform done the right way: through legislating.


From what I can see, DACA was essentially supposed to be a temporary measure that was pushed by the Obama administration which was essentially a papering over the cracks if you will regarding the problems in which the US has with it's immigration system, especially in regards to illegal immigration. Not only that but Obama's executive order surrounding DACA could very well be unconstitutional, something which Obama stated himself but pushed forward anyway.

This reveals a hilarious double standard and hypocrisy from the leftist camp, these were the same people who through a fit over Trump's immigration executive order concerning the temporary banning of immigration from seven different countries, one of the main rallying cries being that it was unconstitutional. Now I agreed that we should look into Trump's EO on that issue concerning whether or not it is line with the Constitution and yet when it comes to an EO created by Obama which very well could have been unconstitutional itself, the left throws a hissy fit about it being taken off the table. Simply put: they do not care if it is unconstitutional so long it is pushing a policy in which *they like.* Again, complete double standard and hypocrisy but should we really be surprised here? There's very little objective analysis here when it comes to Trump.

Then there's the reactions by the left concerning Trump's use or non-use of Executive Orders. Again, the leftists howled at the top of their lungs about Trump using EO's and about how much of tyrant he is and how he's not respecting the legislative or checks and balances of the system. Of course whenever a sitting president is in power we should be wary of how much authority they use and whether they overstep their boundaries. Yet did the left care about these things when Obama was sitting president? Did they ever just at least once care about for example bringing powers back to Congress such as declaration of war when Obama intervened in 7 different countries? Of course not, he was there guy.

And yet when Trump is dealing with another matter surrounding an EO from the previous president and he kicks the responsibility to Congress to actually do their job and legislate, they call him a coward and say he's not taking enough responsibility! :lol. Trump can't and will never win with these people. If he's using EO's (like every other president before him) to push through some of his agenda, he's labelled a tyrant. If he gives some responsibility to Congress to actually legislate, he's a coward. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Whatever happens, it's Trump's fault. That's essentially the attitude with these people. You can't reason with or compromise with a group that is not willing to give the benefit of the doubt or at least look into what Trump is trying to do here.

I've not agreed with everything Trump has done and was very vocal about him playing politics with the recent hurricane to pass up on spending reform surrounding the debt ceiling, but in this as well as many other cases in the past, his detractors are being ridiculous and hyperbolic. It's another example of pathetic political point scoring to make Trump out to be the monster they want him to be.

I don't exactly trust Congress to their job, but Trump absolutely did the right thing here. We're talking about an executive order surrounding a policy on illegal immigration which could not be properly enforced. A papering over an issue where the immigration system needs fundamental reform in order to make it work better for legal immigrants as well as significantly reduce those coming over illegally. That legislation in order for it to be in law and enforced has to come from Congress.

Trump isn't going to deport all of the DACA recipients :lol. If he were going to do that, he would have not given a 6 month window for Congress to legislate a replacement bill or even a properly enforced DACA program. Nor would he have said he'd revisit the issue should Congress fail. If you think this sounds like a man who is going to deport millions of illegals who came as children then you are out of your mind. He would start doing it now. And even if he attempted to, it's logistically impossible to kick every single illegal immigrant out of the country. You don't need to be a political scientist to figure that one out, even Trump who according to the left is incompetent at just about everything has the wherewithal to know this.

The only thing I'm concerned about is actually what Ann Coulter wrote about in the article @CamillePunk shared concerning a possible amnesty bill. The reason why I am against amnesty is simply because historically it hasn't worked. Ronald Reagan when he was president did what was supposed to be a one time amnesty for all of the illegal immigrants in the country during his presidency and then after that the immigration system and the borders would secured and enforced. Not only did the Reagan administration fail to realize that there were many millions more illegal aliens than what they had realized but it encouraged more of them to cross over knowing that there was the potential for a future encumbered president to simply pass a bill which grants them a path to citizenship. It essentially encouraged more illegals to cross the border which is why the US has this problem still today.

I'm not for punishing the children for the sins of the parents in regards to immigration as they would have not known any better at the time but also it is clear that a comprehensive legislation needs to be passed in order to both make it easier for legal immigrants to come over and at the same point, halt those who are gaming the system and who are jumping the queue at the expense of those who want to cross legally. From what I have seen once again, it seems as though there are certain leftists who are more interested in the plight of the illegal aliens who have broken the law by jumping the border than those who are struggling to get a visa to get into the country legally. It is amazing where the priorities lie for certain people.

Because of this, Coulter, Trump supporters and other Conservatives absolutely should be concerned about the possibility of an amnesty bill as it would not only fail to solve the problem but it would also make it worse down the line.


----------



## Vic Capri

NBC being classy as usual.

- Vic


----------



## Pratchett

Fantastic post there, @L-DOPA

And I am not saying that because it backs up other posts I have made previously ITT. :mj Far more eloquently and in depth than I did for sure. :clap



> If the end of DACA is turned into a political screaming match, an opportunity to move forward on immigration reform will be lost. DACA will end roughly and badly.


It is already on its way there, we'll have to see if it continues along this path. The opposition to Trump so far refuses to let go of their hope in the public's suffering from TDS. The more people that wake up will counteract this. It all remains to be seen.



> If President Trump's critics encourage and enable this approach, they themselves will be responsible for derailing that which they say they hold dear: fair, compassionate treatment for dreamers.


Once again it is a lot to hope that enough people will wake up to see this. TDS does so much to reinforce the tunnel vision that allows people to only perceive the "facts" that they want to see. Chalk it up to the thirst for confirmation bias that we all have if you want to. I call it close-mindedness, and it does nothing to help anyone here.


----------



## Reaper

Again. I can no longer tell the difference between satire and reality :hmmm


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Eric Bolling's 19 year old son died last night. One source said suicide, but it's unconfirmed. Condolences to his family. That's a terrible shame.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

:lmao 

I LOVE how predictably sheepish people can be :kobelol

Democrats: "He's a Nazi Russian Agent White Supremacist!"
True Conservatives: "He was liberal a democrat all along!" 

This guy has almost all the sheep going around in circles :ha


----------



## CamillePunk

Reaper said:


> Again. I can no longer tell the difference between satire and reality :hmmm


Hot damn that article was arousing.


----------



## Vic Capri

Donald Trump is a businessman first and foremost. Party loyalty be damned!

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tax/trump-calls-for-a-tax-reform-speed-up-in-light-of-hurricane-irma-idUSKCN1BK0XK



> *Trump calls for a tax reform 'speed-up' in light of Hurricane Irma*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he will ask the Republican-controlled Congress to further speed up its efforts to overhaul the U.S. tax code, citing the potential impact of Hurricane Irma as a reason to hasten reforms.
> 
> “I think now with what’s happened with the hurricane, I‘m going to ask for a speedup. I wanted a speedup anyway, but now we need it even more so,” the president said at the outset of a Cabinet meeting at Camp David. The White House released a video of his remarks.
> 
> Trump urged Congress in a Friday tweet not to wait until the end of September for tax legislation.


----------



## DemonKane

birthday_massacre said:


> I have always put forth real arguments on this but people like you just ignore the facts.
> 
> The fact is more illegals are LEAVING the US than entering. Not to mention they are just going to climb over the walls they put up so its a wasting of money.
> 
> Also, Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall but now the US is supposed to pay for it?
> 
> but sure keep defending this stupid and racist wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just Trump appeasing his racist base. The most he would have gotten was six months in jail, if he even saw jail time.



So, you provided no evidence. Thought you wouldn't.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906906430103584768


----------



## Reaper

But I thought that America was a violent, racist, fascist state that hates minorities and LGBT people. So why are they so afraid to leave America?

Shouldn't they be welcoming the opportunity instead since Trump's racist and homophobic and transphobic and Mexican hating regime is oh so bad. 

Where are the Mexican boatloads drowning themselves in an attempt to flee this horrible racist Nazi country?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DemonKane said:


> So, you provided no evidence. Thought you wouldn't.


I have over and over, but you just pretend you don't see the posts.

You have to go out of your way to pretend those things are not true. 

I always love when people like you keep proving my point.

But here you go AGAIN

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/undocumented-illegal-immigrants.html

oh you dont think Trump is going to get the US to pay for the wall, that is why he was claiming he would shut the govt down if he didnt get his way right

http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...vernment-shutdown-congress-border-wall-2017-8


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906906430103584768


You have no idea how true this is.

@Reaper You have no idea how bad it is! Why you can get assaulted just for speaking your mind by black clad wearing fascist goons! The Nazis are everywhere!


----------



## yeahbaby!

That Lauren Southern is a great artist.


----------



## Vic Capri

> How dare a website give platforms to people from diverse viewpoints. Scandalous, outrageous, ruining our society etc.







- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> But I thought that America was a violent, racist, fascist state that hates minorities and LGBT people. So why are they so afraid to leave America?


Semi related but re-mentioning something I mentioned in one post a while ago. That I am doing an online course to suffice the government to allow my existence. I mentioned the re-education style 'diversity training' it has in it. I had to, as a white person (oh my god I said it), describe my 'culture', which I had no negatives for.

Because it always makes me think about it.

Modern western culture is the least racist culture that has ever existed in human history. :wow


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku 






Great video talking about real issues for black Americans instead of the imaginary and exaggerated ones used by racialist fame-whores and those with victim complexes.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Hot damn that article was arousing.


I gotta find a liberal chick like that

A political hate fuck


----------



## Tater

> *Why Trump Won’t Start a War With North Korea*
> by Mike Whitney
> 
> Donald Trump isn’t going to start a war with North Korea. That’s just not going to happen.
> 
> Not only does the United States not have the ground forces for such a massive operation but, more important, a war with the North would serve no strategic purpose at all. The US already has the arrangement it wants on the Peninsula. The South remains under US military occupation, the economic and banking systems have been successfully integrated into the US-dominated western system, and the strategically-located landmass in northeast Asia provides an essential platform for critical weapons systems that will be used to encircle and control fast-emerging rivals, China and Russia.
> 
> So what would a war accomplish?
> 
> Nothing. As far as Washington is concerned, the status quo is just dandy.
> 
> And, yes, I realize that many people think Trump is calling the shots and that he is an impulsive amateur who might do something erratic that would trigger a nuclear conflagration with the North. That could happen, but I think the possibility is extremely remote. As you might have noticed, Trump has effectively handed over foreign policy to his generals, and those generals are closely aligned to powerful members of the foreign policy establishment who are using Trump’s reputation as a loose cannon to great effect. For example, by ratchetting up the rhetoric, (“fire and fury”, “locked and loaded”, etc) Trump has managed to stifle some of the public opposition to the deployment of the THAAD missile system which features “powerful AN/TPY-2 radar, that can be used to spy on Chinese territory, and the interceptors are designed to protect US bases and troops in the event of nuclear war with China or Russia.”
> 
> THAAD is clearly not aimed at North Korea which is small potatoes as far as Washington is concerned. It’s an essential part of the military buildup the US is stealthily carrying out to implement its “pivot to Asia” strategy.
> 
> Trump’s belligerence has also prompted a response from the North which has accelerated it ballistic missile and nuclear weapons testing. The North’s reaction has stirred up traditional antagonisms which has helped to undermine the conciliatory efforts of liberal President Moon Jae-in. At the same time, the North’s behavior has strengthened far-right groups that –among other things– want to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the South. By playing to the right wing and exacerbating hostilities between North and South, Trump has helped to fend off efforts to reunify the country while creating a justification for continued US military occupation. In other words.
> 
> The crisis has clearly tightened Washington’s grip on the peninsula while advancing the interests of America’s elite powerbrokers. I seriously doubt that Trump conjured up this plan by himself. This is the work of his deep state handlers who have figured out how to use his mercurial personality to their advantage.
> 
> *A Word About North Korea’s Nukes*
> 
> Leaders in North Korea don’t want to blow their money on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles when their people are on the brink of starvation. But what choice do they have? The primary responsibility of every government is to provide security for their people. That’s hard to do when the nation is still technically at war with a country that has toppled or tried to topple 50 sovereign governments in the last 70 years. The Korean War did not end with a treaty, it ended with an armistice which means the war is ongoing and could flare up at any time. And Washington won’t sign a treaty with the North because it despises their form of government, and is just waiting for the opportunity to force them from power. Trump is no different from most of his predecessors in this regard. He hates the leadership in Pyongyang and makes no bones about it.
> 
> Bottom line: The US refuses to provide the North with any written guarantees that it won’t resume hostilities, kill its people and blow their cities to smithereens. So, naturally, the North has taken steps to defend itself. And, yes, Kim Jong-in fully realizes that if he ever used his nukes in an act of aggression, the United States would –as Colin Powell breezily opined– “turn the North into a charcoal briquette.” But Kim is not going to use his nukes because he has no territorial ambitions nor does he have any driving desire to be subsumed into a fiery ball of ash. His nukes are merely bargaining chits for future negotiations with Washington. The only problem is that Trump doesn’t want to bargain because US geopolitical interests are better served by transforming a few pathetic missile tests into an Armageddon-type drama. No one knows how to exploit a crisis better than Washington.
> 
> Does Trump know anything about the history of the current crisis? Does he know that North Korea agreed to end its nuclear weapons program in 1994 if the US met its modest demands? Does he know that the US agreed to those terms but then failed to hold up its end of the bargain? Does he know that the North honored its commitments under the agreement but eventually got tired of being double-crossed by the US so they resumed their plutonium enrichment program? Does he know that that’s why the North has nuclear weapons today, because the United States broke its word and scotched the agreement?
> 
> That’s not conjecture. That’s history.
> 
> Here’s a clip from an article in the Independent that provides a brief outline of the so called Framework Agreement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Under the terms of the 1994 framework, North Korea agreed to freeze and ultimately dismantle its nuclear programme in exchange for “the full normalisation of political and economic relations with the United States”. This meant four things:
> 
> By 2003, a US-led consortium would build two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea to compensate for the loss of nuclear power.
> 
> Until then, the US would supply the north with 500,000 tons per year of heavy fuel.
> 
> The US would lift sanctions, remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, and – perhaps most importantly – normalise the political relationship, which is still subject to the terms of the 1953 Korean War armistice.
> 
> Finally, both sides would provide “formal assurances” against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” (“Why America’s 1994 deal with North Korea failed – and what Trump can learn from it”, The Independent)
> 
> 
> 
> It was a totally straightforward agreement that met the requirements of both parties. The North got a few economic perks along with the security assurances they desperately wanted and, in return, the US got to monitor any and all nuclear sites, thus, preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction. Everyone got exactly what they wanted, right? There was only one glitch: The US started foot-dragging from Day 1. The lightwater reactors never got beyond the foundation stage and the heavy fuel deliveries got more and more infrequent. In contrast, the North Koreans stuck religiously to the letter of the agreement. They did everything that was expected of them and more. In fact, according to the same article, four years after the agreement went into effect:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “both the US and the international atomic energy agency were satisfied that there had been ‘no fundamental violation of any aspect of the framework agreement’ by North Korea. But on its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through.” (Independent)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you have it: The North kept its word, but the US didn’t. It’s that simple.
> 
> This is an important point given the fact that the media typically mischaracterizes what actually took place and who should be held responsible. The onus does not fall on Pyongyang, it falls on Washington. Here’s more from the same article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “On its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through. The light-water reactors were never built. …Heavy fuel shipments were often delayed….North Korea was not removed from the state department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism until 2008, though it had long met the criteria for removal….Most importantly, no action was taken to formally end the Korean War – which was never technically ended – by replacing the 1953 ceasefire with a peace treaty. The “formal assurances” that the US would not attack North Korea were not provided until six years after the framework was signed.” (Independent)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Bush was elected in 2000, things got much worse. The North was included in Bush’s the Axis of Evil speech, it was also listed as a “rogue regime against which the US should be prepared to use force”, and the Pentagon stepped up its joint-military drills in the South which just added more gas to the fire. Eventually, Bush abandoned the agreement altogether and the North went back to building nukes.
> 
> Then came Obama who wasn’t much better than Bush, except for the public relations, of course. As Tim Shorrock points out in his excellent article at The Nation, Obama sabotaged the Six-Party Talks, suspended energy assistance to pressure the North to accept harsher “verification plans”, “abandoned the idea of direct talks” with Pyongyang, and “embarked on a series of military exercises with South Korea that increased in size and tempo over the course of his administration and are now at the heart of the tension with Kim Jong-un.”
> 
> So although Obama was able to conceal his cruelty and aggression behind the image of “peacemaker”, relations with the North continued to deteriorate and the situation got progressively worse.
> 
> Check out these brief excerpts from Shorrock’s article which help to provide a thumbnail sketch of what really happened and who is responsible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The Agreed Framework led North Korea to halt its plutonium-based nuclear-weapons program for over a decade, forgoing enough enrichment to make over 100 nuclear bombs. “What people don’t know is that North Korea made no fissile material whatsoever from 1991 to 2003.”
> 
> “…the framework remained in effect well into the Bush administration. In 1998, the State Department’s Rust Deming testified to Congress that “there is no fundamental violation of any aspect of the framework agreement.”
> 
> “…Pyongyang was prepared to shut down its development, testing, and deployment of all medium- and long-range missiles.”
> 
> “By 1997…the North Koreans were complaining bitterly that the United States was slow to deliver its promised oil and stalling on its pledge to end its hostile policies…”
> 
> “It was against this backdrop—Pyongyang’s growing conviction the US was not living up to its commitments—that the North in 1998 began to explore” other military options.”
> 
> “Bush tore up the framework agreement, exacerbating the deterioration in relations he had sparked a year earlier when he named North Korea part of his “axis of evil” in January 2002. In response, the North kicked out the IAEA inspectors and began building what would become its first bomb, in 2006, triggering a second nuclear crisis that continues to this day.” (“Diplomacy With North Korea Has Worked Before, and Can Work Again”, Tim Shorrock, The Nation)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the North has hydrogen bombs and Washington is still playing its stupid games. This whole fake crisis is a big smokescreen designed to conceal Washington’s imperial machinations. Trump is using Kim’s missile tests as a pretext to extend the Pentagon’s military tentacles deeper into Asia so the US can assume a dominant role in the world’s fastest growing region. It’s the same game Washington has been playing for the last hundred years. Unfortunately, they’re pretty good at it.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

 @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @CamillePunk


----------



## virus21

> NEW MILFORD — Town Council member Scott Chamberlain had never made a secret of his deep involvement in Furry Fandom, a subculture of adults who dress in mascot-like animal costumes, attend role-playing conventions and interact regularly online.
> But an uproar ensued when a town resident posted on a community Facebook page several screenshots of Chamberlain’s profile from a private website catering to “furries,” many of whom participate in or write about unusual sexual practices. The profile includes a list of Chamberlain’s “loves,” “likes” and “hates,” some sexual in nature, but also said that he “tolerates” rape.
> In an interview at midday Thursday, Chamberlain explained his involvement in the “furry” community as a harmless hobby.
> “It’s nothing to do with sex; it’s an interest in cartoon animals," said the first-term Democrat, who was up for re-election.
> But Mayor David Gronbach, saying elected officials should be held to a “higher standard,” called for Chamberlain’s immediate resignation, and within two hours party officials said he would resign all his town and party positions by Monday morning.
> Town Democratic Chairman Peter Mullen said Chamberlain had told him previously that he had written what he called “science fiction adult literature,” but that the Facebook post showed him a side of those activities that shocked him.
> “Literature is one thing, but this kind of stuff takes on a whole different level,” Mullen said.
> Chamberlain did not respond to a follow-up call and email Thursday afternoon.
> In the midday interview, Chamberlain had said the private site, sofurry.com, requires users to sort topics into four categories — “loves,” “likes,” “tolerates” and “hates” — to manage the content sent to them.
> “It’s basically a search feature,” he said.
> Chamberlain, whose avatar is a foxlike character named “Gray Muzzle,” said his participation in furry fandom is mostly about appreciating animal characters with human behaviors and features, such as Tony the Tiger and Mickey Mouse.
> But many of those commenting on the Facebook post — which has since been removed — said even suggesting that “rape” is tolerable was out of line.
> “Anyone is free to pursue any hobby of choice,” one commenter wrote, “however that doesn't mean they can represent me as an elected official and endorse the things that are seemingly endorsed on that page.”
> Chamberlain also writes what he calls a “soap opera” read by hundreds of users that includes furries in some sexual situations. He said these writings are posted to a site open only to adults, and that he writes under a pen name to keep his public and private lives separate.
> Chamberlain said someone must have created an account on that site with the sole purpose of getting private information on him.
> ”I’m just saddened by this whole thing,” he said. ”I’ve always tried to be positive in my public life and work hard and donate my time for the people of New Milford.“
> On Thursday night, as town Democrats held a previously scheduled opening ceremony of party headquarters on Bank Street, a small group of protesters gathered outside.
> Among them was Rick Agee, the resident who had made the original Facebook post. He carried a sign saying, “No perverts running our town!”
> ”I have kids and grandkids in this town, and I don’t want him representing us,” Agee said.
> Meanwhile, party officials removed a green sign saying, “Scott Chamberlain — New Milford Town Council” from the headquarters’ front window and peeled a Chamberlain bumper sticker from the glass door. Gronbach’s wife, Vanessa, ordered that a stack of Chamberlain bumper stickers be taken off the front table.


http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/New-Milford-councilman-resigns-after-furor-over-12181577.php


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

Tater said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @CamillePunk


Kims spends a massive chunk of his nations money to buy western liquor and food and import B-tier athletes to play in self contained contests in stadiums he built just so he could watch them play 

At the same time his citizens eat grass and his troops have to steal wood from houses to do public works becouse they are not issued tools 

To say that the North Korean leadership only creates nukes because they care about their nation and are looking after their people is borderline offensive


----------



## Pratchett

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video talking about real issues for black Americans instead of the imaginary and exaggerated ones used by racialist fame-whores and those with victim complexes.


I have been watching a bit of Candace Owens any chance I get. Will be checking this out tomorrow. :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906051877850066945
Fascinating article looking at the political trends in America and whether or not racism is on the rise. The answer, as expected from those of us outside of the media-created hysteria bubble, is no. :lol


----------



## Reaper

I barely have proper net access at the moment but I will check out the video tomorrow or whenever I have net back. Currently using what I can off my wife's phone Hotspot which is overburdened and giving me reminders of the modem era [emoji38]

Edit: Listening to it right now, it is absolutely fascinating. There's a lot of stuff in there that mirrors a lot of my own red-pilling. A lot.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Goku 

Lauren Southern with a good overview of the fall and fall of the Libertarian Party.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906051877850066945
> Fascinating article looking at the political trends in America and whether or not racism is on the rise. The answer, as expected from those of us outside of the media-created hysteria bubble, is no. :lol


How did he come to the conclusion that racism is not on the rise? I read the article and he supplied barely any data on racism outside of some data on the KKK. I am not suggesting it IS on the rise but it seems a pretty fallacious statement absed on his supplied evidence.

If his only metric is the KKK not rising then thats a really poor dataset.

Also, this is not in the article but is a footnote...



> The only exception is the data on the number of “hate groups” collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which reveals an upward climb since 1999. I am not going to say it’s wrong in a dismissive footnote, because it would deserve more attention than that. But I am excluding it from consideration here for a few reasons. First, it includes a wide variety of groups well beyond explicitly racist or white nationalist groups, including black separatist groups. So in this sense it does not reflect what I am considering in this post. But also the SPLC has come under fire for being increasingly politicized and untrustworthy as a data source. See this article from Politico, for instance. My personal view is that there has been a tendency in recent years for progressive groups to lower their bar for what counts as a hate group, and at least a few cases on the SPLC’s list suggest to me this has occurred there, at least to some degree. ↩


Then uses the SPLCs data to support his narrative. Wow.


----------



## Reaper

I'm at the "A Libertarian case for Bernie Sanders" and I already know where this is going 

"A Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders". 

I can't believe someone actually tried to make one :lmao 

:kobelol

I'm watching this video and she's totally on-song. This is her strength and it's clear as day that this is the direction she really needs to go. I love her when she talks like this. 
---

I sometimes really hate the Conservative media when it starts flashing about pictures and videos of looters (Fox is especially bad for this because they ALWAYS pick blacks). 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907578187865042944

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907293364646666240
If you can't see the similarity between this and what government does and call yourself pro-freedom, then you're not pro-freedom. Your understanding of what freedom and private property is is stunted by the government that has spent your entire life brainwashing you.


----------



## Vic Capri

Ted Cruz (or his social media manager) liked a porn video on Twitter! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Vic Capri said:


> Ted Cruz (or his social media manager) liked a porn video on Twitter! :lol
> 
> - Vic












I'm sure it was for research purposes :lol


----------



## Reaper

Jeez. It's not even the full video, just a trailer. Someone's been wanking to trailers :lmao

This is what his roommate had to say about Cruz in 2016:

"Mazi’s 2016 tweet, which has been pinned to the top of his Twitter feed, reads, “Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to ‘stimulate their genitals’. I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.”" .... This after Cruz tried to ban sex toys. 

Guess he was right. Sounds like Cruz has a serious masturbation addiction :lmao


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907271261939695617
:CENA


----------



## FriedTofu

Vic Capri said:


> Ted Cruz (or his social media manager) liked a porn video on Twitter! :lol
> 
> - Vic







:ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

Bets on how long the Hopester will last as new Comms Director?

I've analysed her background and she's obviously a white supremacist racist (I mean just look at her) so it won't be too long IMO before she slips up. No more than 6 months IMO.


----------



## samizayn

Somebody here asked what was so bad about Ann Coulter/Breitbart a few days ago, and reading of the rising death tolls and homes destroyed in hurricane Irma (with her horrifically insensitive tweet in mind) reminded me to respond.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...er/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/ 

Here is an article I got from about 2 seconds on google about her and her hatemongering, and the platform she is given by outlets like Breitbart. 




CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video talking about real issues for black Americans instead of the imaginary and exaggerated ones used by racialist fame-whores and those with victim complexes.


I don't have an hour to spare but would really appreciate cliffnotes if you or anyone else found the time to listen


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Somebody here asked what was so bad about Ann Coulter/Breitbart a few days ago, and reading of the rising death tolls and homes destroyed in hurricane Irma (with her horrifically insensitive tweet in mind) reminded me to respond.
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...er/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/
> 
> Here is an article I got from about 2 seconds on google about her and her hatemongering, and the platform she is given by outlets like Breitbart.


Sounds like a confirmation bias search to me. :lol What were the keywords? "Ann Coulter hate racist white devil"? :lol 

If all you turned up were some questionable statistics, that's a pretty bad example of "hatemongering". In any case, 11 million is far too low a figure and based on some pretty hilarious assumptions about illegals answering government surveys and how many would live in each house.

Also don't see anything about Breitbart being white supremacist as you implied earlier. :hmmm Guess you weren't able to turn up anything on that front. I accept your capitulation on that matter.


----------



## Pratchett

samizayn said:


> Somebody here asked what was so bad about Ann Coulter/Breitbart a few days ago, and reading of the rising death tolls and homes destroyed in hurricane Irma (with her horrifically insensitive tweet in mind) reminded me to respond.
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...er/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/
> 
> Here is an article I got from about 2 seconds on google about her and her hatemongering, and the platform she is given by outlets like Breitbart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an hour to spare but would really appreciate cliffnotes if you or anyone else found the time to listen


I've watched a number of her videos, and most of what was covered in that was can be found (sometimes in better depth) on her own channel. She is just one of quite a few people I subscribe to, and I am watching them when I can. Most of her videos fall into the 4 to 10 minute range, and you can look them up by topic.

Here is a link to *her channel* should you want to check it out.


----------



## Reaper

Ann Coulter is a hate-mongerer :lmao 

I'm an IMMIGRANT to America and she's a single issue voter who is anti-ILLEGAL immigration and as a BROWN AMERICAN IMMIGRANT, not once have I felt that she hates me or people like me. I follow her on Twitter and I have read pretty much everything she's ever written on the subject and here samizayn who has clearly never bothered to spend more than 10seconds of thought on Ann Coulter is claiming that she's a hate-mongerer. :lmao 

This "basket of deplorables" crap really has some serious cultist-creation properties :wow


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> Sounds like a confirmation bias search to me. :lol What were the keywords? "Ann Coulter hate racist white devil"? :lol
> 
> If all you turned up were some questionable statistics, that's a pretty bad example of "hatemongering". In any case, 11 million is far too low a figure and based on some pretty hilarious assumptions about illegals answering government surveys and how many would live in each house.
> 
> You are a huge fan of persuasive rhetoric I thought. I feel that selective hyperbole to play on people's fears of migration is that. Encouraging fear and hate among readers would then be hatemongering by the strictest definition
> 
> Also don't see anything about Breitbart being white supremacist as you implied earlier. :hmmm Guess you weren't able to turn up anything on that front. I accept your capitulation on that matter.



Something like "Ann Coulter headlines" or "quotes" so I could go on the images. Then I saw one about mexicans, searched her name + mexicans and got that. I feel like she's pretty much known for saying this kind of outrageous stuff so I don't know why it's surprising that this is the most prominent search results for her. 

I don't believe I said that Breitbart are white supremacist. I was getting at the fact that white supremacists flock to their publication, because they feature hatemongers like Coulter.



Pratchett said:


> I've watched a number of her videos, and most of what was covered in that was can be found (sometimes in better depth) on her own channel. She is just one of quite a few people I subscribe to, and I am watching them when I can. Most of her videos fall into the 4 to 10 minute range, and you can look them up by topic.
> 
> Here is a link to *her channel* should you want to check it out.


Oh thanks.



Reaper said:


> Ann Coulter is a hate-mongerer :lmao
> 
> I'm an IMMIGRANT to America and she's a single issue voter who is anti-ILLEGAL immigration and as a BROWN AMERICAN IMMIGRANT, not once have I felt that she hates me or people like me. I follow her on Twitter and I have read pretty much everything she's ever written on the subject and here samizayn who has clearly never bothered to spend more than 10seconds of thought on Ann Coulter is claiming that she's a hate-mongerer. :lmao
> 
> This "basket of deplorables" crap really has some serious cultist-creation properties :wow


You personally have not felt this, therefore it is unequivocally false. Hmm...


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> You personally have not felt this, therefore it is unequivocally false. Hmm...


That is not at all what I said. But I've become accustomed to people grasping at whatever straw they can in order to deflect. 

I have read everything she has written on the subject and there's no hate-mongering there. That's where my decision about her personality comes from. But sure, this wouldn't be the first time you're misrepresenting something. I mean, you consider her a hate-mongerer without having an iota of knowledge about her positions and her statements whatsoever. That's such a low bar for how you judge people. It's kind of ridiculous. 

There's some jabs, some jokes, some comments that are intentionally designed to trigger people with weak mental fortitude. I mean, if anyone is trying to convince people to dislike someone, it's actually you because you have no idea what she even says before tossing out a ridiculous label directed at her.


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump can't be wrong! If he is, it means he is drugged!



> ALEX JONES (HOST): Ladies and gentlemen, I was told this by high level sources and it was evident and especially after [Ronald] Reagan was shot in his first year in office when he was acting like Trump, and doing the right things, that he never really recovered. They gave him cold blood, and his transfusion that causes brain damage. They slowly gave him small amounts of sedatives. It’s known that most presidents end up getting drugged. Small dosages of sedatives till they build it up, Trump’s such a bull he hasn’t fully understood it yet.
> 
> But I’ve talked to people, multiple ones, and they believe that they are putting a slow sedative that they’re building up that’s also addictive in his Diet Cokes and in his iced tea and that the president by 6 or 7 at night is basically slurring his words and is drugged. Now first they had to isolate him to do that. But yes, ladies and gentleman, I’ve talked to people that talk to the president now at 9 at night, he is slurring his words. And I’m going to leave it at that. I’ve talked to folks that have talked to him directly.
> 
> So notice, “Oh, he’s mentally ill. Oh, he’s got Alzheimer’s.” They isolate him then you start slowly building up the dose, but instead of titrating it like poison, like venom of a cobra, or a rattlesnake, or a water moccasin where you build it up slowly so that you get a immunity to it, you’re building it slowly so the person doesn’t notice it. First it’s almost zero, just a tiny bit and then a little more and then your brain subconsciously becomes addicted to it and wants it and so as the dose gets bigger and bigger you get more comfortable in it. The president’s about two months into being covertly drugged. Now I’m risking my life, by the way, tell you all this. I was physically sick before I went on air. Because I’m smart. And I don’t mean that in a braggadocious way. I mean I’m not dumb. The information you’re going to get today is super dangerous. In fact, I’m tempted just to let it out now so they don’t cut the show off or something before this goes out. I mean this is the kind of thing that gets you killed.
> 
> [...]
> 
> JONES: They drug presidents because the power structure wants a puppet. The president needs his blood tested by an outside physician he trusts.


https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...-now-slurring-his-words-6-or-7-pm-each/217904



> ALEX JONES (HOST): By what time -- when people are talking to him, at what times is [Trump] slurring his words?
> 
> ROGER STONE: He is slurring his words on various times, and that’s what's concerning. Let’s be very clear: I have a source at The New York Times, a reporter who expressed to me a concern that in a conversation they had on the phone with the president that he was slurring his words. The president does not drink. The president certainly does not do drugs. The president is sharp as a tack. Now, let’s give some credibility to --
> 
> JONES: Let me stop you. Let me stop you. When I’ve had conversations with him it’s like he’s speaking like an actor. It’s so precise and so smooth, exactly, then you hear he’s slurring his words. It’s like, “Woah.”
> 
> STONE: Now, in the president’s defense, could he be exhausted? Yeah, he works very hard for the country. He is passionate about his desire for an economic revival, for a boom. He said it to me, “Wait and see. You’ll see. When I get my 15 percent tax rate this economy is going to cook like nothing you’ve ever seen, it will be the greatest advance in job creation this country’s ever seen.” He is deeply committed and passionate about this. But I have now heard not from one, but two different sources, that he seemed disoriented and was slurring his speech in conversations. To me this is a tip off that he may be being medicated. Is General [John] Kelly above this? No.


https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...-staff-john-kelly-having-trump-drugged/217906

:ha


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> I don't believe I said that Breitbart are white supremacist. I was getting at the fact that white supremacists flock to their publication, because they feature hatemongers like Coulter.


White supremacists enjoy and support a plethora of things that you might like such as sports, movies, games and music. Does that mean liking those things makes you a white supremacist? Not really. And no I'm not a Breitbart supporter but I just dont' like that logic. I do know they have a strong Jewish presence on their site, even their founder Andrew Breibart was a proud Jew. I don't know what Breitbart is in regards to being "alt-right" or "white supremacist" so I don't know why those types would flock there, but I also don't think it's that large of a fanbase either, especially when they have their own white supremacist sites already. Maybe I'm wrong on that last part as I really don't know the kind of readership they have, just what I've heard and quite frankly I don't really trust those who oppose them because they throw out the same stock insults about anyone who leans right anyway


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> I don't believe I said that Breitbart are white supremacist. I was getting at the fact that white supremacists flock to their publication, because they feature hatemongers like Coulter.


You implied Breitbart would never feature a headline suggesting white supremacy is an outdated ideal, implying that they are in some way sympathetic to white supremacy. You failed to back this up and continue to do so.

You also failed to produce evidence Ann Coulter is a "hatemonger". 

What is it with you and making outrageous claims and providing no evidence? Makes one start to wonder if you are not simply projecting with your criticism of Ms. Coulter. :hmmm


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> *That is not at all what I said. *But I've become accustomed to people grasping at whatever straw they can in order to deflect.
> 
> *I have read everything she has written on the subject and there's no hate-mongering there.* That's where my decision about her personality comes from. But sure, this wouldn't be the first time you're misrepresenting something. I mean, you consider her a hate-mongerer without having an iota of knowledge about her positions and her statements whatsoever. That's such a low bar for how you judge people. It's kind of ridiculous.
> 
> There's some jabs, some jokes, some comments that are intentionally designed to trigger people with weak mental fortitude. I mean, if anyone is trying to convince people to dislike someone, it's actually you because you have no idea what she even says before tossing out a ridiculous label directed at her.


This is exactly what you're saying, you just repeated yourself. I daresay you misread my posts more than I do yours!

I characterise people based on what they show of themselves to the world. Some people make headlines playing sports, or music. They come to be known as athletes and musicians, despite being much more than that as people. Ann Coulter is far from the only rightwing pundit, far from the only person that holds the views she does, but she is the only one that has gladly made her name off of making outrageous and hatemongering (or is fearmongering perhaps more fitting?) statements. If it quacks like a duck, etc.

It is also important to keep the relativity of morality in mind. Fundamentally repulsive on one person's part is permissible or even ideal on the part of many others. I can't convince people of something that was, in one form or another, already a part of their beliefs.


----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> White supremacists enjoy and support a plethora of things that you might like such as sports, movies, games and music. Does that mean liking those things makes you a white supremacist? Not really. And no I'm not a Breitbart supporter but I just dont' like that logic. I do know they have a strong Jewish presence on their site, even their founder Andrew Breibart was a proud Jew. I don't know what Breitbart is in regards to being "alt-right" or "white supremacist" so I don't know why those types would flock there, but I also don't think it's that large of a fanbase either, especially when they have their own white supremacist sites already. Maybe I'm wrong on that last part as I really don't know the kind of readership they have, just what I've heard and quite frankly I don't really trust those who oppose them because they throw out the same stock insults about anyone who leans right anyway


For sure. Take me in comparison to pro wrestling fans in general, for example :CENA

You are also right. In many ways simply being right wing is going to attract white supremacists just by the the fact of it - they sure aren't going to flock to left-wing publications, right?



CamillePunk said:


> You implied Breitbart would never feature a headline suggesting white supremacy is an outdated ideal, implying that they are in some way sympathetic to white supremacy. You failed to back this up and continue to do so.
> 
> You also failed to produce evidence Ann Coulter is a "hatemonger".
> 
> What is it with you and making outrageous claims and providing no evidence? Makes one start to wonder if you are not simply projecting with your criticism of Ms. Coulter. :hmmm


It's simply not a right-wing "talking point" that would be an op-ed on a right-wing publication. At all. 

I showed a very visible example of Ann Coulter intentionally misrepresenting statistics to stoke hatred and fear of Mexicans, which you personally considered, what was it, "not a great example." I cannot help what you choose to ignore, especially not when you seem so determined to be "proven" right.

double post, edit plz


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> This is exactly what you're saying, you just repeated yourself. I daresay you misread my posts more than I do yours!


If that's what you think I'm saying even though I've stated that I am well read on her on the subject of immigration then you're starting to come across as having comprehension issues. 



> I characterise people based on what they show of themselves to the world. Ann Coulter is far from the only rightwing pundit, far from the only person that holds the views she does, but she is the only one that has gladly made her name off of making outrageous and hatemongering (or is fearmongering perhaps more fitting?) statements. If it quacks like a duck, etc.


Then why are you struggling to provide evidence for your claims? If she is a hatemongerer or even a fear-mongerer than there's plenty of ways you can easily prove something like that. 



> It is also important to keep the relativity of morality in mind. Fundamentally repulsive on one person's part is permissible or even ideal on the part of many others. I can't convince people of something that was, in one form or another, already a part of their beliefs.


Relativity of morality has nothing to do with this discussion. You're trying to introduce it into it. We're talking about the fact that you called Ann Coulter a hate-mongerer (and now you're trying to slightly euphamize what you said by saying that she's a fear mongerer --- they are not interchangeable and they both require you to provide separate evidence for both claims). 

You can definitely convince someone of what is a part of their beliefs if there's evidence for it.

I used to think Ann Coulter was a hateful white supremacist stupid conservative bitch too before I actually read what she had to say so I'm simply talking to myself just 2 years ago. 

As has become pretty much usual for me on this site.


----------



## Oxidamus

samizayn said:


> You personally have not felt this, therefore it is unequivocally false. Hmm...


I don't actually know anything about Ann Coulter so I'm not defending her at all here, but this conversation posed the question. Do peoples feelings matter if they're wrong?

Take for example, if Reaper was right about Coulter, that she isn't fear/hate-mongering and is only misrepresented as such as an attempt to damage her character, would people who feel like she is a fearmongerer be valid to feel that way? Or is that where we draw the line on how people feel?


----------



## Reaper

If we started deciding whether someone is something based on their feelings then we'd be living in a state of mass hysteria and panic ... The claims of certain people being phobic of something would be enough to actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy where the monster that is not a monster becomes the monster for those people - but that doesn't make it any more rational at all. 

And yeah, we can see that for some people their irrational fears and labeling people without having any knowledge of their positions is a very disturbing trend exhibited by certain groups. It's become endemic to a damaging level within civilization.

BTW, saying that a certain number of a group exists in large numbers in no way comes from a place of hate, nor does it lead to anyone being afraid. 

The problem with this train of thought is that people are afraid of illegals and therefore a large number of them would stoke their fears. People are not afraid of illegals. They dislike the lawless existence of individuals in their country. 

Say you have a house. You come into your house one day and you find 30 homeless men who have eaten all of your food. You CAN afford to buy more, but you're really upset at having to feed 30 more people. You can even afford to feed them, but you just don't want them in your house. They don't want to do anything to you. 

You do not hate them. But do you welcome them into your house and agree to let them live with you? What if 1 of your family members now accuses you of being afraid of homeless men because you don't want them in your house. Are they right in their assertion that you're afraid of homeless people and that you hate them? And that if you want them out of your house you're a fear-mongering hateful person :lmao 

I just can't believe how logic works for some people in their heads at all. Just baffles me sometimes. Especially when it comes to their understanding of property.


----------



## CamillePunk

Reaper said:


> I used to think Ann Coulter was a hateful white supremacist stupid conservative bitch too before I actually read what she had to say so I'm simply talking to myself just 2 years ago.
> 
> As has become pretty much usual for me on this site.


As someone who actually did talk to your self 2 years ago, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't appropriate my struggle. :mj2


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> As someone who actually did talk to your self 2 years ago, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't appropriate my struggle. :mj2


I feel plenty of empathy for you now and it's no longer misguided


----------



## Reaper

If this is accurate then it explains everything. I haven't verified the source. 

Generally though I have observed this to be true. There isn't a single non-white person I personally know (ppl on the forum don't count) that even understands the concept of small government.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ann Coulter is the Katie Hopkins of the US (Or is Katie Hopkins the Ann Coulter of the UK?, I can't remember who was a bigger cunt first), a vile person with vile views.


----------



## Reaper

Figured something like that would happen on Veritt :lmao :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> For sure. Take me in comparison to pro wrestling fans in general, for example :CENA
> 
> You are also right. In many ways simply being right wing is going to attract white supremacists just by the the fact of it - they sure aren't going to flock to left-wing publications, right?


Neither you or I know what publications white supremacists go to other than their own. To suggest either one of us know for sure is ignorant. With the rate of people throwing around accusations of people being white supremacists, they could very well follow CNN, since the bar for being a white supremacist these days you can't help but trip over it. To me, it's odd that these white supremacists who are meant to hate Jews, would flock to a publication created by a Jew(he even sang Jewish songs at work) that employed several Jews as well. It doesn't make sense to me but what do I know?

Hell, people call Ben Shapiro a white supremacist and a KKK member so like I said, I honestly do not trust people who are willing to hurl around accusations simply because someone may lean right in anyway.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Hell, people call Ben Shapiro a white supremacist and a KKK member so like I said, I honestly do not trust people who are willing to hurl around accusations simply because someone may lean right in anyway.


White Supremacy and the KKK are not left or right by any stretch of the imagination. The KKK wants greater government control. They're anti-liberty and want to push legislation that limits freedom. Both things that are actually more well aligned with the big government side of the political spectrum - which is currently the left side. But that's a stretch because they end up stupidly voting for small government representatives meaning that they're actually voting against their own interest --- which would make sense because they're fucking idiots. 

Even long after the Southern Strategy was proposed, KKK and racists were still voting Democrat (for big government) because it makes perfect sense that a racist would not want a limited government but more in order to push their identity politics. 

IF racists are voting for the republican party, then they're idiots (well, we all know that they're idiots anyways) because the republicans have not proposed a single policy in their entire history that can be even remotely construed as racist in any way whatsoever. The party of slavery were the democrats, the party of Jim Crow laws were the democrats and the party of the KKK were democrats. There was no SWITCH. Only an abandonment of racism by the Democrats ... something that the republicans never adopted. The SWITCH is a myth. What is fact is that the republicans were never racist and the democrats abandoned racism. So neither party in America is a party of racism currently, but democrats have used the "switch" myth in order to grab the minority voter. It's a lie. 

The Southern Blacks migrated to the north en masse hoping for better opportunities after the Civil War, but were met with several states that had absolutely no integration plan in place because while the South was fighting to maintain slavery, the north was fighting to preserve the union hence integration of blacks was never really on their agenda nor did they plan for it. This resulted in the creation of the poverty stricken AA community in northern inner cities which didn't start integrating well into the 40's-50's and in many parts still not fully integrated economically. Over time, the Democrats abandoned racism but they did not have any plans in place to integrate the AA worker into their mega-cities and therefore it wasn't till well into the 90's that blacks started really doing well economically as a result of their sports, media and pop culture boom. It is the North that still incarcerates Blacks at disproportionate rates compared to whites. So where is this myth of northern democrat emancipator coming from if not the political pulpit and false narratives. 

I have asked this question of the leftists on here for about 12 months to name a single policy that's racist that's pushed by Republicans, and haven't gotten a single answer. Of course, providing evidence for any of their claims is the left's anathema because their politics are pretty much entirely based on feelings and not evidence anyways. Every single time I've asked for evidence for the BS claims, it hasn't come.


----------



## CamillePunk

Richard Spencer is a pretty left-wing dude.

He wants a big government, he just doesn't want any non-whites in his ethno-state. :lol


----------



## Reaper

White Supremacists simply have no representation at all and no one they can vote for. In 2017 there is no way to push for any kind of racist agenda if you're in government. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support it. 

Legislated racism is a thing of the past and isn't coming back. The Supreme Court has made it impossible for it to come back in any form whatsoever and racists don't have representatives that have any chance of winning anything at all.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> White Supremacy and the KKK are not left or right by any stretch of the imagination. The KKK wants greater government control. They're anti-liberty and want to push legislation that limits freedom. Both things that are actually more well aligned with the big government side of the political spectrum - which is currently the left side. But that's a stretch because they end up stupidly voting for small government representatives meaning that they're actually voting against their own interest --- which would make sense because they're fucking idiots.
> 
> Even long after the Southern Strategy was proposed, KKK and racists were still voting Democrat (for big government) because it makes perfect sense that a racist would not want a limited government but more in order to push their identity politics.
> 
> IF racists are voting for the republican party, then they're idiots (well, we all know that they're idiots anyways) because the republicans have not proposed a single policy in their entire history that can be even remotely construed as racist in any way whatsoever. The party of slavery were the democrats, the party of Jim Crow laws were the democrats and the party of the KKK were democrats. There was no SWITCH. Only an abandonment of racism by the Democrats ... something that the republicans never adopted. The SWITCH is a myth. What is fact is that the republicans were never racist and the democrats abandoned racism. So neither party in America is a party of racism currently, but democrats have used the "switch" myth in order to grab the minority voter. It's a lie.
> 
> The Southern Blacks migrated to the north en masse hoping for better opportunities after the Civil War, but were met with several states that had absolutely no integration plan in place because while the South was fighting to maintain slavery, the north was fighting to preserve the union hence integration of blacks was never really on their agenda nor did they plan for it. This resulted in the creation of the poverty stricken AA community in northern inner cities which didn't start integrating well into the 40's-50's and in many parts still not fully integrated economically. Over time, the Democrats abandoned racism but they did not have any plans in place to integrate the AA worker into their mega-cities and therefore it wasn't till well into the 90's that blacks started really doing well economically as a result of their sports, media and pop culture boom. It is the North that still incarcerates Blacks at disproportionate rates compared to whites. So where is this myth of northern democrat emancipator coming from if not the political pulpit and false narratives.
> 
> I have asked this question of the leftists on here for about 12 months to name a single policy that's racist that's pushed by Republicans, and haven't gotten a single answer. Of course, providing evidence for any of their claims is the left's anathema because their politics are pretty much entirely based on feelings and not evidence anyways. Every single time I've asked for evidence for the BS claims, it hasn't come.


Spot on

Even the "Southern Strategy" doesn't' make sense when looking into it . You can see the South becoming competitive as the Republicans were making strides down south decades before the "switch" happened. Then you can see it took decades after this "switch" for the South to be "synonymous" with the Republican party. Hell even David Duke was a Democrat until the early 80s.


----------



## Reaper

Trump has passed with flying colors since the Times basically omitted him from their Hurricane reporting :clap 

As a Floridian resident who just survived a massive hurricane, even as an anti-government rightist, I have to admit that the government has done a fantastic job in coordinating efforts. I can see the results in my own city which is one of the harder hit ones. We're out and about helping neighbors wherever we can. Doing our part. And seeing the government services up and running with the Florida Power Company's AMAZING relief effort has re-affirmed my faith in capitalism. 

FPL people are up there with Firefighters with respect to how far they're willing to go to save lives just to restore our electricity. They've been sleeping in tents in sweltering heat and in many sensitive areas even worked through the hurricane to do as much as was humanly possible. There's a HUGE tent of theirs in my city right now where they're all sleeping in sleeping bags and withstanding the heat as we just entered a massive heat wave. 

Young hunky gorgeous men are the saviors of our civilization and we should all worship them :banderas 

Stores are doing everything in their power to keep themselves stocked. Restaurants are giving away free meals to people who don't have electricity and 7-eleven has been giving out free ice and water for 3 days straight. Gas Prices are still at the pre-hurricane level and slowly but surely all stores are starting to restock. 

Most of us just have to go another 2-4 days without perishable / home-cooked meals and then we'll be back up. But that's not a big deal as the community is coming together to help each other out. People are literally driving to each others' homes with their resources to help those who lost theirs. It's a fantastic sight to witness and live through. Man, I fucking LOVE Americans. They're now my favorite people in the world if they weren't already. :clap 

Florida Keys are very hard hit, but there are currently thousands of military and government workers descending upon them to help them out as I type this. The relief efforts have been amazing. People are in great spirits despite the tragedy and loss. I feel really bad for people who've lost their homes and I hope that they were all insured so they can find places to live. Generally Floridian home owners have insurance so this won't be as much of a disaster during recovery as Katrina. 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/nyt-doesnt-mention-trump-in-story-lauding-hurricane-response/



> After laying the responsibility of disaster relief solely on the Trump administration before Hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall, The New York Times lauded the successful response of government Tuesday, yet it never mentioned Trump.
> 
> “The United States appears to be improving in the way it responds to hurricanes, at a time when climate scientists say the threats from such storms, fueled by warming oceans, are growing only more dire,” according to The Times. Avoiding any references to the Trump administration, The Times reports that the 9/11 terrorist attacks revolutionized the disaster response of the “American government.” The tone of their reporting changed dramatically in only a matter of weeks.
> 
> “Facing what could be the most powerful storm to slam into the United States in more than a decade, President Trump and the team he has put in place at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were bracing on Friday for one of the most important tests of his presidency,”reported The Times on Aug. 25. The paper placed sole responsibility for the response on Trump and his administration, seemingly putting him in a “see, we told you so” situation if all didn’t go as planned after the fact.
> 
> “The stakes could be exceedingly high. Few events test the effectiveness of an administration — or bear as many political risks — like a major natural disaster” the report continued. The Times even quoted Trump’s homeland security advisor, Thomas P. Bossert, saying “Now is not the time to lose faith in your government institutions.”
> 
> The set-up — repeated elsewhere in the media — made The Times’ non-mention of Trump in their report on the successful government response to both Harvey and Irma painfully obvious. “Hurricane Harvey Packs Political Perils For Trump,” read a Politico headline on August 25. The subhead declared political leaders “often get penalized for their response to natural disasters.”
> 
> The Bush administration’s failed response to Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example, with some declaring that it was ultimately his “undoing.” What The Times reveals in this report, however, is that a well orchestrated response by a presidential administration, doesn’t even elicit a mention of the administration at the helm.
> 
> “The planning and response also benefited from a few lucky turns in the weather, the growing sophistication of personal technology” read The Times’ report Tuesday, shifting some of the success of the response to luck. “The iPhone did not exist when Katrina struck.” It almost seemed as if The Times was deliberately trying to shift the victory of a rapid, and coordinated response to anything but the president.
> 
> “While thankfully the impact on people injured or killed was low, this is largely a factor of luck,” reported the Times, quoting a CEO of a California-based company that uses technology to improve disaster response. The report also acknowledged that “relying on residents, not just government workers” can help disaster relief, pointing out that the images of “neighbors helping neighbors.”


Trump for 2020. The way his government has responded to both the disasters is fantastic. :trump

Times being completely dishonest about "luck" is complete and UTTER HORSECRAP because Irma and Harvey BOTH literally ran up through their respective states as Cat 5/Cat 3 storms. As someone who lived through one of them and experienced the 120 MPH winds, this dishonesty is pretty much what you would expect from a shitstain organization run by shitstain leftists.

Expecting people to try to spin whatever creative narrative they can out of this if only to be entertained by the extent of their imaginations.


----------



## MrMister

I am not following Time being fucking awful. What is this shit about luck? Harvey just dumped the most rainfall in the US...OF ALL TIME. Irma was a Cat 5 monster and is up there with the most powerful hurricanes of all time. Irma was a direct hit to the Florida peninsula.

LUCK? are you shitting me?


----------



## Reaper

Well, we already know that left's bias has created a completely alternate reality for them, so at least in their delusions they're still being consistent :mj 

Irma hit us head on and came up through the spine. The winds on the east side of the eye are always the worst therefore the south west, south east and east are devastated. The Keys are devastated. But to their audience they don't need to report the truth. Just lie enough to create a false reality in their heads.

--- @L-DOPAl; @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907404124593025024
I fucking love the Polish :banderas


----------



## MrMister

Fuck off ya Nazis :lmao


----------



## Kabraxal

God damn Poland is rocking the EU.... that burn on Germany though. Hope Merkel isn't crying too hard (that's a lie. I want that bitch to cry herself out of power).


----------



## DOPA

The Alt-Right economically is very protectionist and definitely more to the left, they argue for a single payer system and say it can be afforded if only white Caucasians are allowed to use the service. Here is the article from Richard Spencer essentially promoting the idea: https://altright.com/2017/03/23/why-trump-must-champion-universal-healthcare/



> It won’t be the Russia conspiracy or the “Deep State.” It won’t be Olbermann, Maddow, and “The Resistance.” It won’t even be the bugbear of “racism.” No, the most likely thing that will bring down the presidency of Donald J. Trump is healthcare. Yes, healthcare. And the people to blame will be the “mainstream” Republicans who laid the trap.
> 
> The fact that Trump allowed himself to be tricked into supporting the current healthcare proposal reveals his own naiveté and reminds us, once again, that the Beltway advisors who have surrounded him are objectively bad at politics. Rather than focus on immigration—the issue that defined his candidacy—Trump got sucked into a whirlpool of regulations, arcane policies, climate-change debates, and taxes. This is a shocking waste of political capital, and it is not why his supporters put him in office.
> 
> Looking beyond the hysteria of the past two months, if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had won the presidency instead Trump, each wouldn’t have acted much differently in terms of policy, aside from the “Muslim bans,” which weren’t actually Muslim bans and have been tossed out anyway. Trump’s fights with the media are hilarious—and serve the strategic purpose of delegitimizing these old-line institutions and the Left as a whole—but they do little in terms of concrete change.
> 
> More important, the substance of Trump’s healthcare plan is a fucking joke. What Trump partisans call “Ryancare” or “Obamacare 2.0”—but which everyone else calls “Trumpcare”—will increase costs on Trump’s core constituency of White working-class voters, as even Breitbart points out.
> 
> The tedious goober Jason Chaffetz—who won’t defend the president when it comes to the synthetic Russia scandals but is fully aligned with Trump on this stupid bill—has given the Democrats every campaign ad it will ever need when he said people will need to choose between their iPhone and their healthcare.
> 
> So let’s call it what it is and not redirect the blame. Trumpcare is exactly the kind of Conservatism, Inc. idiocy we’ve seen year in, year out, where the most loyal constituents of the American Right are given the shaft, while those who despise Republican voters are rewarded.
> 
> The spectacle of Paul Ryan giggling with Rich Lowry about how he has been dreaming of cutting Medicare “since you and I were drinking out of kegs” is nothing short of nauseating. Who could relate to such people?
> 
> Worse, Trumpcare violates what Trump himself clearly stated. The President promised “insurance for everybody” in his Obamacare replacement plan. Trumpcare accomplishes nothing of the sort. The fundamental flaws in the old plan are preserved, and Ryan’s bill cuts benefits to Trump’s voters in order to keep the system going.
> 
> Lindsey Graham has suggested that, rather than put forth a new bill, we should just let Obamacare collapse and foist the blame onto the Democrats. Perhaps this is a better strategy than what is being pursued . . . but it is based on the faulty conservative premise that “Obama’s socialism” is set for an imminent and precipitous breakdown. The far more likely scenario is that Obamacare—much like Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of the “socialism” in Washington—will limp along for decades, maybe even a century, on borrowed money.
> 
> As mentioned, the fundament flaw of Trumpcare is the same as Obamacare: they are insurance schemes and not healthcare programs.
> 
> Taking a step back, what we call “health insurance” today is not truly insurance in the proper sense of the word. Essential to the concept of insurance is that no one expects to use it. For the holder, insurance is a hedge against unforeseen, rare, and catastrophic outcomes. For the lender, insurance is a bet that the holder won’t call in the liability. The classic insurance scenario, which dates back to the age of Hammurabi, is when merchants take out loans contingent on a vessel’s safe return from a voyage; if the ship were to sink at sea, the loan would not have to be repaid.
> 
> Today, what is called “health insurance” is better understood as a pre-payment or installment program. Everyone expects to use their “insurance” many time a year. Both Trumpcare and Obamacare seek to lower these installment payments by creating mandates and incentives that pool the healthy and the sick, the young and old, as a way of averaging out costs. Fiddling with this absurd model is much like trying to repair a car’s engine by giving it a new paint job.
> 
> Moreover, the fact that America has decided to socialize the insurance market, as opposed to socializing healthcare providers, reveals something important about our collective psyche and delusions.
> 
> The U.S. is one of the only industrialized nations that has never offered a universal healthcare system, despite the fact that the government spends hundreds of billions in the healthcare market every year. In the American psyche, “socialized medicine” is for whimpy Europeans and the working class. America doesn’t have a proletariate, or rather it has one that thinks of itself as “middle class.” Thus, Americans like talking about “health insurance,” a product for rich people, as opposed to talking about the government simply providing care for people who can’t afford it. A similar situation occurs in the “food stamp” program. Americans are provided with EBT cards (electronic benefit transfer) that act like fancy credit cards. As opposed simply to providing basic foodstuffs for the poor—yes, literally government cheese—Americans like to pretend that we’re all wealthy consumerists out shopping.
> 
> *If there are two things—two root concepts—that define the Alt Right, they are identity and the red pill, that is, the concept of race and belonging and the ethic of seeing through the pretty lies of our time.*
> 
> Identity means that we are part of a family, and that we have responsibilities to our people. Unlike Paul Ryan and Rich Lowry, who masturbated to Atlas Shrugged in their college dorms and have no loyalty to their race, Donald Trump is a nationalist. He is a man whose miraculous candidacy was based on promising his lower- and middle-class supporters that he would be their champion—that he understands the system and will make it work form them. If Trump actually believes his own words—and if he recognizes the reality that conservatives like Ryan never liked him, never really supported him, and don’t have his back—then why is he adopting their policies? *Why not “rig the system” on his people’s behalf?*
> 
> Taking the red pill on healthcare also means recognizing that the system was hardly a free-market paradise before Obama: prices were always set through Medicare. Moreover, Obamacare itself wasn’t really “socialism” at all: it was the fake socialism of an insurance scheme. (And let’s not forget that Obamacare’s “individual mandate” ultimately originated in the conservative movement of the late ‘80s.)
> 
> The red pill on healthcare also means recognizing the implications of human nature. Libertarians are probably right that a true, unfettered free market would provide “universal” healthcare, much like the markets for vacuum cleaners, hamburgers, and smartphones. But this is ultimately irrelevant. People can’t deal with the notion of rich “fat cats” buying up all the care and poor people getting kicked to the curb. Senator Bill Cassidy was right when he said recently, “There’s a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care.”
> 
> What is most frustrating is that Trump doesn’t even seem to believe in the lame ideas at the heart of Trumpcare. In Trump’s mind, the healthcare bill just seems to be something he wants to “get done” so he can credibly say he fulfilled his promise to repeal Obamacare. Or worse, he has adopted Ryan’s bill like a product he’s “branding,” à la “Trump steaks” or “Trump wine.” Worse still, there is reason to believe Trump favors a single payer solution in his heart of hearts. He cryptically commented during the first GOP debate that a single payer solution “could have worked in a different age. . . .” And Trump seems to understand, or at least did at one time, that healthcare is not like other goods. It is something at some point everyone needs.
> 
> Indeed, Trump gestured towards such ideas in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve (and was predictably slammed for it by the likes of über-cuck Erick Erickson). Said Trump:
> 
> I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by health care expenses. We must not allow citizens with medical problems to go untreated because of financial problems or red tape.
> 
> One can expect Trump’s opponents simply to use his own words against him when the time comes, especially as the Democrats (with an assist from the media) are now trying to present themselves as the champions of middle class, who will fight against the plutocrats and libertarians in the GOP. Bernie Sanders, selling universal healthcare to a receptive White crowd in West Virginia a short time ago, is a classic example. (Naturally, he was being disingenuous with this sudden concern for coal miners. During the campaign, Bernie confidently informed us, “When you’re White, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”)
> 
> And we can’t ignore the politics of this. If Trumpcare passes, leftists can credibly claim that Trump has betrayed his populist vision. They will recycle the hoary script about nationalism and “scapegoating” immigrants as a means of pushing through a draconian agenda. And they’ll have a point! This is the script they’ve used for decades, and it’s astonishing how the House Republicans seem determined to fit the caricature.
> 
> Like the Satsuma Rebellion, it’s time for supporters of the Emperor to rise against him in his name. And it is time for the Alt-Right to push for a “public option”—the single-payer system that Obama’s didn’t have the balls to implement.
> 
> Yes, of course, we don’t live in Sweden circa 1960; and a single-payer system would be mired by the contradictions of multiculturalism and open borders—but so is the system we have now. We are past the point of trying to impose a rational policy in what is already an irrational situation.
> 
> *And in any given environment, we have to consider what policy option or political choice will further the strategic objective of moving toward racial consciousness. Universal healthcare accomplishes this in several ways.*
> 
> Firstly—and most importantly, politically—we must accept that healthcare is an issue we cannot rationally address until we have a European nation. The best we can do is support the most plausible solution that would serve our constituency. The system we have now is essentially the worst of both the free market and socialist options, as the government tries to manipulate prices in order to preserve a nominally “capitalist” system. By doing this, it destroys the pricing mechanism, which is the one critical advantage capitalism has. The result is a bureaucratic nightmare. Universal healthcare is less confusing and nonsensical (and probably cheaper) than what White people have to deal with now.
> 
> Secondly, we underestimate the rise of neo-social democracy at our peril. Even as the “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela descends into chaos, socialism is growing more popular in the United States, and easily the most beloved politician is Bernie Sanders. As Dave Weigel observed, only half jokingly, single-payer is really the only way Trump can keep many of his working-class voters on board. It’s hard to believe the Democrats in 2020, under huge pressure from the Left, would nominate another corporate liberal like Hillary Clinton. In the current climate, the group that is most opposed to the Establishment wins. And the implementation of Trumpcare would make it far easier for Trump to be cast as a tool of the ruling class.
> 
> Third, we need to think about what single-payer would do for the Alt-Right movement. So many writers, activists, and content creators on our side shy away from becoming more involved, not just out of fear of social punishment, but out of fear of being fired and losing their health insurance. As many wags noted of Breaking Bad, the crippling fear of being sick and being unable to pay for it is one of the defining elements of American life. Single-payer would enable more political soldiers to step forward.
> 
> *Fourth, it moves the territory away from abstractions about “limited government” and towards issues where we have something to say. When single-payer healthcare is implemented, issues like food safety, nutrition, and obesity become matters of public concern. It will draw more attention to the alternative we are presenting to America’s current lowest-common-denominator society*. Contra Jeffrey Tucker, mankind’s highest aspirations are not to be found in a Taco Bell. Not even an American’s highest aspirations.
> 
> Finally, along with the looming issue of basic income, once automation really gets going—when those Uber drivers, waiters, and machinists are replaced by software—getting past the healthcare debate means moving to a political battleground where we have the strategic advantage. In one of the many videos now circulating, Marine Le Pen rails against those who are “threatening the survival of the French social model.” As even Paul Krugman once admitted, if you are going to try to guarantee healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global. But the Left today is defined by the effort to make each Western nation a microcosm of the non-White world. Indeed, as the fanatically anti-white (even by liberal Jewish standards) Zack Beauchamp observes, a strong social model in many ways enables the growth of the nationalist Right, as cultural and racial issues move to the front of politics.
> 
> Of course, the more libertarian elements of the Alt-Right may simply want Trump to pull a Pinochet and defend the free market through outright repression. But in healthcare, there is no free market now nor would there be one under Trumpcare. The incentive structure has been so totally screwed up that nothing short of absolute collapse can restore anything approaching a rational model. And Trump is already showing signs of weakness. He won’t even end DACA, let alone go full Pinochet.
> 
> Given these realities, we need to look first at the political situation. If Donald Trump actually signs this horrible bill, he may be ending his term even before it really begins. If the GOP loses the House majority in 2018, he’ll be impeached. And if they don’t, we’ll be looking at President Elizabeth Warren or someone similar in 2020.
> 
> Donald Trump became president by ignoring Republican orthodoxy. He’s only going to stay president by continuing to shun it. And we can only hope that Donald Trump, if only for selfish reasons, is not going to sacrifice himself for someone as despicable as Paul Ryan.


The bolded parts are the most important. The Alt Right are not Conservative or Libertarian, they are not for limited government which is clearly painted out in this article. To put someone like myself, CP, Brusier or Reaper in their camps would be nonsense.

Furthermore, they are talking about a single payer system, medicare for all. This is a clear Democratic talking point, Bernie Sanders has been pushing relentlessly for a bill for it this year and getting some support from the Democrat Representatives and Senators. Are the leftists going to accept that the alt right and the Democrats agree on this issue? Will they admit that the alt right and the Democrats at least economically speaking have more in common they originally thought? Of course they won't.

-------------------------------------------------------------

More importantly, here is an absolutely incredible speech from Rand Paul where he savages everybody on the issue of war and the role of congress: Republicans, Democrats, Obama, Trump. Everybody. It's one of the best speeches I've ever seen him deliver.






Rand is looking to force a vote on the Afghanistan war for the first time in 16 years, a war that Trump wants to continue to escalate despite saying he'd stop it. Despite parading around as non-interventionist. He may have made some great decisions like stopping the arming of terrorists in Syria, but he still continues to arm Saudi Arabia to the tune of billions of dollars whilst they massacre civilians in Yemen and now wants to re-escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Sorry Trump supporters, this is where I'm going to do a detour with you guys. Trump isn't a non-interventionist, he's still in many cases continuing the status quo concerning American Foreign Policy. Bush didn't get a pass, Obama didn't get a pass. You expect me to give Trump one now?


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @BruiserKC @CamillePunk


Dude, we cool and all...but that article is wrong. We have no empire-building intentions in the Korean peninsula, but to stop a man who if does not intend to unleash a nuclear holocaust on America does have every intention of someday taking back South Korea by force. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-to-reunite-korean-peninsula-2017-8

The idea of gaining a nuclear arsenal that has the means of reaching American cities is that he would guess we would be unwilling to risk thousands of American soldiers or potentially millions of American lives by taking on the North Korean forces. This was a question that was asked during the Cold War...we talked about the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. However, were the Red Army to actually cross over and reunify Germany under Communist control...or even a scenario where they were on the verge of taking Paris...the question is fair to ask as to whether we would be willing to risk American lives if the end result was cities like New York, Washington, and Boston getting lit up by mushroom clouds. 

Kim Jung Un is thinking that as well...he saw what happened to Qaddafi and Saddam when they were killed. It was well known that both leaders were hoping to obtain weapons programs. He feels that part of the reason that they were deposed by the West was the fact there was no deterrence per the fact both leaders had to give up those programs. He feels that if he obtains nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the United States will be unwilling to risk cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle getting wiped off the face of the earth. Then, he can finish the Korean War that has still officially not ended by taking over Seoul.


----------



## CamillePunk

L-DOPA said:


> Sorry Trump supporters, this is where I'm going to do a detour with you guys. Trump isn't a non-interventionist, he's still in many cases continuing the status quo concerning American Foreign Policy. Bush didn't get a pass, Obama didn't get a pass. You expect me to give Trump one now?


Think a lot of us acknowledge he's been a big disappointment with his foreign policy regarding the middle east. :draper2 Looks like we're just getting the status quo with the Middle East. Unfortunate.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907988696993058817
This lady. :lol She's in complete shambles.


----------



## Reaper

I don't think I've ever once supported Trump on foreign policy. The most I've done is try to rationalize a single reason why it might be ok to continue the Saudi relationship but I would prefer that it was ended and KSA placed on full economic sanctions. 

Trump has been disappointing on foreign policy and Healthcare but he's been fine on immigration. Numbers are down and the fear of law has been instilled into the current pervasive lawlessness enough. 

The left can poke and prod about the wall and Ann Coulter can and should keep demanding it but Trump has caused a ton of illegals to flee like cockroaches and that's fine by me. 

Healthcare in America isn't for the government to fix. It's only for them to stay out of. 

For the first 8 months, there are more Trump positives than negatives . I'm cool with a few negatives and it's 3 years away from becoming irredeemable.

I was never expecting perfection. I was demanding it but at the same time I've never been idiotic enough to believe that he'd be able to deliver on everything. 

If he had and if he had pushed like a demagogue, I would be more worried. He's even less authoritarian than I thought he was. He really is America's first independent President and that in of itself is a great feeling because he's started something of a real movement that may have a future even without him.

---


----------



## virus21

> Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir includes a questionable interpretation of the central lesson of George Orwell’s novel “1984,” namely that individuals should trust those in positions of authority.
> 
> Clinton’s memoir “What Happened,” released Tuesday, suggests the goal of the government-sanctioned torture featured prominently in Orwell’s novel is to erode trust in the authoritarian overlords who control all aspects of society. This perspective is diametrically opposed to the central lesson most readers have drawn from the book since it was published in 1949.
> 
> “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, ex-perts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”
> 
> There is no shortage of attempts to conform the lessons of “1984” to a range of modern political contexts, but Clinton’s interpretation stretches the broad limits of literary interpretation.
> 
> The origin of Clinton’s counterintuitive interpretation of the work is unclear. Somehow, after reading a terrifying account of government overreach creeping into every aspect of human life and choice, Clinton drew the lesson that individuals should be able to trust the government, and society’s various information gatekeepers.
> 
> A number of Clintons’ fellow Democrats have condemned the contents of the campaign memoir as unnecessarily divisive and derided her for the timing of its release. One former Clinton staffer told Politico that Clinton’s book release and the resulting news cycle was her “final torture” for the party.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/hillary-clinton-thinks-moral-of-1984-is-that-we-should-trust-the-government-and-media/
And this almost became our president!!!!


----------



## Reaper

I've been reading excerpts from that book and since I have a very strong background in social justice studies thanks to my own college background as well as the fact that my sister is an SJW professor, all of the excerpts in her book are directly taken off the desks of social justice academics... 

The George Orwell interpretation I've seen making the rounds amongst my sister's retarded college professor crowd. The conversation amongst them was about how the lesson people need to take from Orwell is to create a narrative based on reality where the government limits itself as well as speak to its subjects in a manner where that trust is not broken. It was a pretty silly conversation imo but considering it found its way in that book in even a worse state than what I read amongst them makes it funnier still  

Clinton didn't write this. Nor does she believe any of these. But her book is a propaganda tool for social justice evangelism.

"She" even talked about Putin manspreading. 

This is a condensed SJW manual likely written by some 25 year old Anita Sarkeesian / Zoe Quinn type of Tumblrina "intellectual" . It should be summarily dismissed.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

So I take all the small govt Conservative's right now are outraged after a Trump spokesperson called for a civilian citizen to be fired by their private business for an oninion voiced on their twitter. Will Ann Coulter and Breitbart call for a free speech rally on the white house lawn anytime soon to defend Jemele Hill's free speech rights.


----------



## CamillePunk

BoFreakinDallas said:


> So I take all the small govt Conservative's right now are outraged after a Trump spokesperson called for a civilian citizen to be fired by their private business for an oninion voiced on their twitter. Will Ann Coulter and Breitbart call for a free speech rally on the white house lawn anytime soon to defend Jemele Hill's free speech rights.


Considering her free speech rights weren't infringed upon in any way, probably not.


----------



## BruiserKC

BoFreakinDallas said:


> So I take all the small govt Conservative's right now are outraged after a Trump spokesperson called for a civilian citizen to be fired by their private business for an oninion voiced on their twitter. Will Ann Coulter and Breitbart call for a free speech rally on the white house lawn anytime soon to defend Jemele Hill's free speech rights.





CamillePunk said:


> Considering her free speech rights weren't infringed upon in any way, probably not.


http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201...ing-president-donald-trump-white-supremacist/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21023/huckabee-sanders-espn-should-fire-jemele-hill-ben-shapiro

Someone might use the excuse that while Sarah Huckabee-Sanders might not have used those exact words, the fact she said her statements were a fireable offense is like a mob boss saying what you did was a killable offense while his enforcers are standing right next to him looking at someone menacingly. He's not telling them to kill you, but the fact that it is strongly hinted at means you might just be fitted for cement overshoes and dumped into the river. 

ESPN has invested a lot in Jemele Hill, they gave her and Michael Smith the "SC on 6" slot (which IMHO has been ruined because Sportscenter should not get the "His and Hers" treatment), so they aren't likely to fire her. Yes, there is a double standard at ESPN as they fired Schilling for his anti-transgender and anti-Muslim comments and suspended Linda Cohn for saying politics hasn't helped ESPN's situation (although it still has more to do with overpaying for rights and cord-cutters that ESPN is going in the shitter), but if the Obama administration had called for the firing of Mike Ditka for his views on his administration people would have rightfully lost their minds.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Well, we already know that left's bias has created a completely alternate reality for them, so at least in their delusions they're still being consistent :mj
> 
> Irma hit us head on and came up through the spine. The winds on the east side of the eye are always the worst therefore the south west, south east and east are devastated. The Keys are devastated. But to their audience they don't need to report the truth. Just lie enough to create a false reality in their heads.
> 
> --- @L-DOPAl; @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907404124593025024
> I fucking love the Polish :banderas












Fucking Poland going hard on the Altruistic Fourth Reich!

Eastern European nations got fucked over because they didn't get the same benefits that Western Nations got by the reconstruction.

Crazy thing is Poland can win this, they've not caused problems for anyone, were one of the biggest victims of German aggression and didn't get much from them. 

Considering the message EU wants to send about making up for the past etc and altruism, the Polish have basically put them in a no win situation!

I want Trump to twist that dagger on Germany by publicly talking about Germany giving reparations since they're rich now. Germany and EU is going to try and keep this out of the News. 

Turnabout is fair play motherfukcers! Fuck you Germany!


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Someone might use the excuse that while Sarah Huckabee-Sanders might not have used those exact words, the fact she said her statements were a fireable offense is like a mob boss saying what you did was a killable offense while his enforcers are standing right next to him looking at someone menacingly. He's not telling them to kill you, but the fact that it is strongly hinted at means you might just be fitted for cement overshoes and dumped into the river.


I don't know who this mysterious "Someone" is, but they don't sound very rational.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> I don't know who this mysterious "Someone" is, but they don't sound very rational.


There are a lot of those "someones" who are howling for ESPN to fire her and are actually cheering what Sanders said. Of course, many of them are hypocrites because they felt Hank Williams, Jr. should not have been dumped from his MNF song for his comments about Obama golfing with Boehner was like Hitler and Netanyahu getting together and would have screamed if the previous administration had hinted at such a dismissal. 

Free speech protects Proverbs and the profane alike. Unfortunately, we have reached the point where people want someone shit-canned if it happens to not agree with their thought process.


----------



## Reaper

Huckabee gave her opinion as an individual.

Her exact words were "I think it's a fireable offense".

That's it. Stop being so hysterical.


----------



## FriedTofu

Can we call Trump a RINO or a CINO now?


----------



## Reaper

These ESPN anchors have already lost Disney millions of dollars. I am so fucking glad that I didn't buy Disney stock like I was planning to. 










No fucking clue why these retards are allowed on air anyways. But that's part for the course of Disney's current acid trip down the SJW rabbit hole. Pandering to the SJW market has resulted in losses for Sony and now for Disney simply because they haven't realized yet that SJW's are society's bums with internet connections. They are not consumers.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908272007011282944

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908274366739345409
The Wall is "continuing to be built". :banderas Quite the re-framing here. Let's see if it works on his base. 

I really wouldn't trust the Democrats to follow through on any kind of "border security" exchange. :lol Border security is the last thing their party wants. Inviting the third world is the only reason they're still a major political power in a post-racist America. Giving the black people you used to enslave and segregate free stuff wasn't a winning long term strategy.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908276308265795585
I guess he's still a racist bigot white supremacist who hates brown people. 

Maybe he does considering he's considering letting them stay in America because ya know, America is such a shithole for brown people anyways. So the real 4D chess here is to oppress brown people by making brown people stay in white supremacist America 

:mj


----------



## CamillePunk

Those in the mass hysteria bubble will just say he's flip flopping because of public backlash, which is somehow consistent with their view that he is a white supremacist fascist leader of a racist country. 

It all makes sense, don't question it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> I don't think I've ever once supported Trump on foreign policy. The most I've done is try to rationalize a single reason why it might be ok to continue the Saudi relationship but I would prefer that it was ended and KSA placed on full economic sanctions.
> 
> Trump has been disappointing on foreign policy and Healthcare but he's been fine on immigration. Numbers are down and the fear of law has been instilled into the current pervasive lawlessness enough.
> 
> The left can poke and prod about the wall and Ann Coulter can and should keep demanding it but Trump has caused a ton of illegals to flee like cockroaches and that's fine by me.
> 
> Healthcare in America isn't for the government to fix. It's only for them to stay out of.
> 
> For the first 8 months, there are more Trump positives than negatives . I'm cool with a few negatives and it's 3 years away from becoming irredeemable.
> 
> I was never expecting perfection. I was demanding it but at the same time I've never been idiotic enough to believe that he'd be able to deliver on everything.
> 
> If he had and if he had pushed like a demagogue, I would be more worried. He's even less authoritarian than I thought he was. He really is America's first independent President and that in of itself is a great feeling because he's started something of a real movement that may have a future even without him.
> 
> ---


You've supplied one positive and 2 negatives then said he's had more positive than negative. Can you explain the rationale for this assumption?

I mean, he's been a shambles with his hiring and firing, he's still not dodged the Russia fiasco completely, he's not built his wall or come close, failed to sort out North Korea or middle east, failed to 'drain the swamp' failed to repeal obamacare and who knows what he is doing with DACA.

Is there a number of positives you can supply?

Seems to me like people are happy to accept a mediocre performance, especially after all the crowing about 'winning'.

Also I think the fleeing like cockroaches gives a good impression of the way some people view human beings.

The Trump racist narrative is about as interesting as the Obama birthers, yet it still gets beat like a dead horse on both sides.


----------



## Reaper

I don't need to supply all the positives in all my posts. Since you've read every single post in this thread, you should have the knowledge of all of the positives he has accomplished but since you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome I don't think I need to engage you anymore than I have to because you have a thread history of rejecting everything that proves you wrong while never supplying any evidence of your own. You're not worth the effort or the time because engagement with you is merely there to stroke your own ego that someone is talking to you. You need a sounding board so feel free to keep posting. Engagement is unnecessary with individuals like you. 

---
Scouring Trump's statements on DACA, this is what I have come across so far: 



> In August 2015, Trump said that he would rescind President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions, which proposed extending DACA and creating DAPA. During an interview with Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said,* "We have to make a whole new set of standards. *And when people come in, they have to come in..." Todd then interrupted Trump, asking, "You're going to split up families. You're going to deport children." Trump replied, *"Chuck — no, no. No, we're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together."* Todd then asked, "But you're going to kick them out?" Trump replied, "They have to go." Todd then asked, *"What if they have no place to go?" Trump said, "We will work with them.* They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country or we don't have a country. Either we have a country or not."[5]


Interesting and it seems like that's what he's doing right now which is exactly what he said on the campaign trail. He's trying to wrestle with an issue that he was never fully committed to nor did he make many definitive statements on. Even Huffpo - the Mother of anti-Trumpers did not have a definitive thing to say about Trump's definitive stance on DACA.



> January 25, 2017 - Trump Tells ABC About His Big Heart, And Draft DACA Repeal Executive Order Leaked. *When asked directly about DREAMers by ABC’s David Muir, Trump indicated that a policy would be coming within four weeks, but that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.” *He went on to comment: “I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody...But I will tell you, we’re looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we’re looking at it with great heart.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...confusing-history_us_58b9960be4b0fa65b844b24a



> “*DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me...You have these incredible kids, in many cases not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too...I have to deal with a lot of politicians—don’t forget—and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me as I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grand kids and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough. It’s rough, very very rough.”*


No idea why people were assuming that he was going to end DACA. It's been clear that he's been torn on the subject throughout. 

I guess people on both sides are just too lazy to google and just assume shit they have no clue about. I mean, I didn't know exactly what Trump's stance on DACA was through the campaign trail and after election. Apparently, he's still doing what he seemed to hint at - which is have a confused but compassionate stance. People just assumed something that wasn't there. 

That said, I personally would prefer that he ends it. But now I no longer see it as a capitulation.

So, basically I see this as another media/political setup where the Media creates hysteria that he's going to end DACA to the point where people believe that that's what he wanted to do all along, so that when he finally makes up his mind, they can claim that he's a) racist if he ends it and b) capitulated if he keeps it. 

And both sides get played for fools --- even Trump's own base.


----------



## FriedTofu

Your standards have really fallen if Trump's ignorance is your only defence of Trump left.


----------



## Reaper

What does ignorance have anything to do with having a non-committal stance on a particular issue. Trump didn't run on ending DACA. Anyone that's saying this is basically assuming what he wanted to do when he made no firm commitment either way. 

As I said, I want him to end DACA. But at least I'm not one of those fools who are saying things like he capitulated or gave in or whatever when he didn't have a firm stance. But I do see a lot of Trump supporters projecting under the false impression that he was firm on ending DACA. 

Nah. He was firm on ending illegal immigration and building the wall and he hasn't given up on either. DACA is being thrown in as a setup for people who lack the mental fortitude to question their own projections.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Trump's bitch ass press secretary is trying to get Jemele Hill fired for telling the truth :lmao*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908059351839117313

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908043680791105542





*He's not racist, yet Congress had to FORCE HIM to denounce white supremacy and declare it as domestic terrorism with a unanimous vote :lmao*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907765795492646912


----------



## Reaper

Interesting from 2016: 

https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/...-had-run-as-what-he-is-the-amnesty-candidate/



> *Where Would Trump Be If He Had Run as What He Is: the Amnesty Candidate?*
> 
> One of the great ironies of the 2016 campaign is that Donald Trump, who has run as the immigration scourge, is actually the amnesty candidate.
> 
> Trump has expressly vowed to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens. For any other candidate, such a promise would have been the campaign death knell. To compare, John Kasich -- who is openly pro-amnesty -- has lost 38 of 39 primaries (the sole exception being his own state) and has never been a plausible contestant. When it comes to Trump, however, it seems that the all-important amnesty fine-print of his immigration position has been overlooked. This is no doubt due to his consciously controversial rhetoric: his fixation about building a wall on the Mexican border, his oft-repeated commitment to mass-deportation of illegal aliens, his disparaging comments about Mexicans, and his proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration.
> 
> Yet, Trump is the amnesty candidate. What’s more, the amnesty component of his immigration plan is the only part that has a realistic chance of happening.
> 
> Trump is not going to build his wall, much less make Mexico pay for it, as he has insisted our southern neighbor will do. Quite apart from the fact that much of the border is not suitable terrain for wall construction, his wall would be astronomically more expensive to build than he has estimated, and in any event, Democrats and many Republicans in Congress would block funding for it. (To be clear: I favor construction of walls and/or fencing where practical; but a wall is only one component, and not nearly the most critical one, of what must be a multi-faceted strategy if we are to be serious about border security.)
> 
> Trump’s categorical moratorium on Muslim immigration would also be rejected. It is foolish policy and the legal argument against it, though unpersuasive (aliens outside the U.S. do not have constitutional anti-discrimination rights or any claim on entitlement to admission into our country), would be treated as serious by the Left, the media, and those Republicans who similarly believe that anything foolish must perforce be unconstitutional.
> 
> The silliest component of the Trump plan is mass-deportation. There are approximately 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to (a) round them all up, (b) conduct the required legal proceedings, and (c) send them all to their native countries. The funding required would dwarf the cost of Trump’s fantasy wall.
> 
> Trump fans might claim that it would be an expense worth bearing in order to rid our country of trespassers. But Trump is not saying, “Get out and stay out!”
> 
> He is saying: “You must leave … but then you will be welcomed back in.”
> 
> Illegal immigration is essentially a law-enforcement problem (though it has some national security implications, as several law enforcement problems do). Law-enforcement problems are managed by effective allocation of finite resources; we seek to deter crime, we do not hope to obliterate it -- no one who aspires to liberty wants to live in a police state. To deal effectively with illegal immigration, it would not be necessary, practical, or desirable to incur the costs of hunting down 11 million people for the purpose of deporting them.
> 
> It would, however, be certifiably insane to incur the costs of hunting down and deporting those 11 million if the ultimate objective were to bring them back into the country.
> 
> But that is what Trump proposes to do.
> 
> And that’s not the half of it. The purpose of his pointless, ruinously expensive enterprise would be to grant legal status to the returning millions of illegal aliens.
> 
> So here is my question: What chance would Donald Trump have had in the race for the Republican presidential nomination if, at the start, he had forthrightly announced:
> 
> My plan is to give legal status to most of the many millions of illegal aliens in the United States by allowing them to return legally after we go to the trouble of deporting them. They would be permitted to live here as lawful immigrants, and would ultimately be given a path to American citizenship. While living here legally, they would be permitted to work legally. And they would have access to all the entitlements and other benefits available to legal aliens under federal and state law: Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Earned Income Tax Credits, unemployment benefits, public school education, housing assistance, food stamps etc.
> 
> I suspect Trump would have had no chance to win the nomination if he had explained his intentions clearly -- and if the media had given as much attention to the promise of touch-back amnesty as it did the specter of mass-deportations. Yet, touch-back amnesty -- with the alien required to go home and then come back in legally through an expedited process -- is the essence of his immigration plan. Moreover, Trump’s touch-back amnesty proposal makes a mockery of his campaign’s position paper on immigration. That paper laments “the influx of foreign workers [from illegal immigration]” because it “holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans -- including immigrants themselves and their children -- to earn a middle class wage.”
> 
> Nevertheless, his touch-back amnesty plan, by design, would orchestrate an influx of foreign workers on an unprecedentedly massive scale to compete for jobs with poor and working class Americans.
> 
> A final irony is worth mentioning. The campaign of Marco Rubio, who was the preference of many conservative Republican voters, was fatally undermined by his past, full-throated support for amnesty. Throughout his bid for the nomination, Senator Rubio spent most of his energy assuring GOP voters that he had learned his lesson. There could and should be no consideration of legalization or eventual citizenship for illegal aliens, he maintained, until the government sustained an effort, for as many years as it took, to prove Washington was serious about border security and immigration-law enforcement.
> 
> Though Rubio made these points forcefully, his prior iteration as the face of “comprehensive immigration reform” -- in effect, the face of amnesty -- made him incurably suspicious. Many GOP voters feared he was just saying what he thought he needed to say to be elected. Once in power, they suspected, he would proceed with the amnesty agenda. He could not overcome these doubts about his conversion.
> 
> Yet here is Donald Trump telling you that he will implement an amnesty program, and he is somehow the frontrunner.
> 
> Mark this down: Trump is running as the immigration scourge, but there is no way the wall is happening, and there is no way the Muslim moratorium is happening. If elected, after due hemming and hawing, Trump would state the obvious: It would be impractical and prohibitively expensive to arrest and deport 11 million people just so we can bring them back again. But he would also claim that his victory was a mandate for the ultimate objective of his immigration proposal: the granting of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens through a legal process. The Trump administration would thus dispense with any talk of deportations, and proceed promptly to the legalization part of the plan.
> 
> Donald Trump is the amnesty candidate. If he had made that clear to Republican voters at the beginning, he would already be out of the race.
> 
> (Disclosure: I support Ted Cruz for President.)


Fascinating reading digging up the past. Trump was never anti-DACA and in fact many of his statement alluded to him being an amnesty candidate.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> I don't need to supply all the positives in all my posts. Since you've read every single post in this thread, you should have the knowledge of all of the positives he has accomplished but since you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome I don't think I need to engage you anymore than I have to because you have a thread history of rejecting everything that proves you wrong while never supplying any evidence of your own. You're not worth the effort or the time because engagement with you is merely there to stroke your own ego that someone is talking to you. You need a sounding board so feel free to keep posting.
> 
> ---
> Scouring Trump's statements on DACA, this is what I have come across so far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In August 2015, Trump said that he would rescind President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions, which proposed extending DACA and creating DAPA. During an interview with Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said,* "We have to make a whole new set of standards. *And when people come in, they have to come in..." Todd then interrupted Trump, asking, "You're going to split up families. You're going to deport children." Trump replied, *"Chuck — no, no. No, we're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together."* Todd then asked, "But you're going to kick them out?" Trump replied, "They have to go." Todd then asked, *"What if they have no place to go?" Trump said, "We will work with them.* They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country or we don't have a country. Either we have a country or not."[5]
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting and it seems like that's what he's doing right now which is exactly what he said on the campaign trail. He's trying to wrestle with an issue that he was never fully committed to nor did he make many definitive statements on. Even Huffpo - the Mother of anti-Trumpers did not have a definitive thing to say about Trump's definitive stance on DACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January 25, 2017 - Trump Tells ABC About His Big Heart, And Draft DACA Repeal Executive Order Leaked. *When asked directly about DREAMers by ABC’s David Muir, Trump indicated that a policy would be coming within four weeks, but that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.” *He went on to comment: “I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody...But I will tell you, we’re looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we’re looking at it with great heart.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...confusing-history_us_58b9960be4b0fa65b844b24a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me...You have these incredible kids, in many cases not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too...I have to deal with a lot of politicians—don’t forget—and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me as I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grand kids and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough. It’s rough, very very rough.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea why people were assuming that he was going to end DACA. It's been clear that he's been torn on the subject throughout.
> 
> I guess people on both sides are just too lazy to google and just assume shit they have no clue about. I mean, I didn't know exactly what Trump's stance on DACA was through the campaign trail and after election. Apparently, he's still doing what he seemed to hint at - which is have a confused but compassionate stance. People just assumed something that wasn't there.
> 
> That said, I personally would prefer that he ends it. But now I no longer see it as a capitulation.
> 
> So, basically I see this as another media/political setup where the Media creates hysteria that he's going to end DACA to the point where people believe that that's what he wanted to do all along, so that when he finally makes up his mind, they can claim that he's a) racist if he ends it and b) capitulated if he keeps it.
> 
> And both sides get played for fools --- even Trump's own base.
Click to expand...

That's quite amusing seeing as the last few times I've posted recently I've supplied evidence to both defend my position and to renounce the position supplied from articles.

What a weak comeback. Can't even defend your position.



> Engagement is unnecessary with individuals like you.


Is this you not engaging me /Insert numerous laughing gifs.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Reaper




----------



## 2 Ton 21

Ann Coulter is going off.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908279228126416898

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908285561194078208

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908311419761971202

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908352472300826624

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908358593728139265

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908365756697628673

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908366164308447232

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908366514931331073

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908366671726903296


----------



## MrMister

Ann turning coats whoa. SAD!

On another note more proof of the mass hysteria bubble and cognitive dissonance last week on Bill Maher. The AMAZING SE Cupp took on both Bill and some random idiot writer. She exists in a completely different reality than they do, and she doesn't even like Donald Trump. It's insanity out there folks.


----------



## Reaper

Ann basically convinced herself that the wall was absolutely 100% happening with no obstruction and that no deals were going to happen and that all Republicans would just fall in line to make it happen so now she's upset that in her mind it isn't happening at all. 

It's basically imo a fantasy that was shattered. But of course, she voted for the wall ... she's going to be the most upset. However, once her meltdown and histrionics pass, she'll start thinking rationally again and realize that Trumpism is > Republicans > Democrats :trump

And yes, it does matter. The irony is that instead of being happy that Trump is being bipartisan and easing up on the rhetoric exactly as the looney leftists wanted him to, they're now prancing around claiming that Trump is dishonest. That particular group you're never going to win over. Trump however needs to make sure that his stance on immigration doesn't collapse entirely because that's where the real danger lies for him. 

The ICE numbers are still up. And he also just recently placed sanctions on countries that are refusing to take their deportees back.



I'm ok with believing that Trump IS the wall even if the physical wall never happens. I would like it to happen, but at the same time, I've always been pragmatic about it. I didn't hedge my entire support of Trump on something that was one of the most difficult things to deliver in a republic. Sure, if this was Communist China or some other country run by a demagogue. 

You can't say that Trump isn't Hitler and then whine when he can't deliver something like Hitler would have. Something like a wall represents total federal government authority and that imo when I really think about it is a dangerous situation to be in in a republic. BTW, I'm still very much aware that he is trying to wheel and deal is way into getting it done.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Totally saw this coming:*


----------



## deepelemblues

Jemele Hill is a proud racist and under the current standard racists should be fired from their jobs and thrown off a hundred-foot cliff into the sea.

Fuck Jemele Hill. Dumb racist bitch. As nearly all racists are. Dumb bitches.


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Jemele Hill is a proud racist and under the current standards all racists should be fired from their jobs and thrown off a 100-foot cliff into the sea.
> 
> Fuck Jemele Hill. Dumb racist bitch. As nearly all racists are. Dumb bitches.


From 2008 
"rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan"

Whatever happened to just focusing on you know sports?


----------



## Reaper

I love how Trump is on the ground personally inspiring people in disaster hit areas while the media has successfully managed to distract all the elites once again. 

This time *some* of Trump's base finally fell for it. 

It's amazing how the minds of some people work. 

First they say that they want a small government. 
But then demand that the government exert its full authority to push through a policy because "it was a campaign promise" ... because ya know, that's what small government individuals should be demanding. "WE LIBERTARIANS GAVE YOU THE HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENCY NOW GIVE ME WHAT I WANT" *reee* 
Then they whine about the media constantly trying to distract and demean Trump and the right wing, but the minute they see their personal big government agenda start to sway just a little, they're off becoming part of the same news cycle too. 

The whiny right can sometimes be just as bad as the whiny left. And honestly, today's news cycle is total evidence of that :kobelol 

It's really starting to boil down to "give _me _what _I _want otherwise you're a shit tier President but I'm still all for democracy" at this point. 

Yeah, get over it. You win some and you lose some. That's politics. :shrug

BTW, I'm not even defending Trump. I don't care to. I would rather he steamroll through the democrats, but at the same time I'm pragmatic enough to recognize that at some points you have to pick your battles and sometimes you will be on the losing side. It happens.


----------



## Vic Capri

:lol at all the TRIGGERED Republicans / Conservatives.

President Trump making deals with the Democrats doesn't bother me. Compromise is part of the game. FFS President Clinton got more done working with Republicans than his own party. 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Apparently, this from the AP congressional correspondant: 



















So basically a deal is #fakenews . 

Just how did people fall for it? In perspective Trump's tweets seem to be alluding to basically what he's been saying all along about DACA so I see nothing there. 

Looks like people are freaking out over fake news. Stefan Molyneaux and Ann Coulter's meltdowns have been the most hilarious :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

I don't think some of you guys realize how pissed off a chunk of Trumps base is with him going bi-party

As much you like to laugh at the "triggered" the lion-share of his supporters are Republicans who support the republican platform 

The democrats are never going to like him and at this point the only people I see praising him are his base which, to frank, are a awful demographic who think "trolling the media" is a "win" 

You know the criticism of "you only like Obama because he is black so he can do no wrong", well Trump has reached an even worse point where his supports are more loyal to him than anything else 

not healthy


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

stevefox1200 said:


> I don't think some of you guys realize how pissed off a chunk of Trumps base is with him going bi-party
> 
> As much you like to laugh at the "triggered" the lion-share of his supporters are Republicans who support the republican platform
> 
> The democrats are never going to like him and at this point the only people I see praising him are his base which, to frank, are a awful demographic who think "trolling the media" is a "win"
> 
> You know the criticism of "you only like Obama because he is black so he can do no wrong", well Trump has reached an even worse point where his supports are more loyal to him than anything else
> 
> not healthy


Bipartisan is one thing...he has completely ignored the leadership of the GOP to work with the Democrats. As a result, you now have what has gone back and forth on Twitter and sites like the Hill, Breitbart, etc. You have Pelosi saying we have a deal on DACA, Trump saying there is no definite deal on the table. More and more voices start to call out everytime Trump goes off the reservation, and now some of those voices are getting very loud. 

Look at what happened when Ah-nold was Governator of California. Schwarzenegger ran over to the Democrats to work on legislation and blew off his party. By the time his term was over, he had pretty much pissed everyone off to the point no one wanted to work with him. When he left office, his approval ratings were around 20%...about ten points lower then the previous Governor who had been recalled by the voters. Trump might find himself in that position if he's not careful. 

There are some who are disturbed by this, but there are those voters who are loving the chaos. They wanted him to upend the system and just go nuts. He is the bull in the china shop they want to see do widespread destruction so they can build everything back up. They don't care, this is what they were wanting.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> I don't think some of you guys realize how pissed off a chunk of Trumps base is with him going bi-party
> 
> As much you like to laugh at the "triggered" the lion-share of his supporters are Republicans who support the republican platform
> 
> The democrats are never going to like him and at this point the only people I see praising him are his base which, to frank, are a awful demographic who think "trolling the media" is a "win"
> 
> You know the criticism of "you only like Obama because he is black so he can do no wrong", well Trump has reached an even worse point where his supports are more loyal to him than anything else
> 
> not healthy


Yes, a huge chunk of Trump's base is Republicans. But since when has bipartisanship on immigration not been a Republican thing?

You seem to be mixing up Trump's base with Republicans here. Trump's base is completely against DACA, in favor of the wall and againsr amnesty. I can't even remember the last time Republicans weren't bipartisan on those issues. 

It seems like antitrumpers will jump on anything at this point. Trumpers especially those of us ITT were never against deal making and bipartisanship. There are a few that are having meltdowns but will eventually settle back in once the emotions stop controlling their rationality and once they realize that there was no deal made at all.

Trump was never partisan on DACA and he hasn't given up on the wall. What he tweeted requires more explanation and it's more rational to wait for it instead of knee jerking.


----------



## Reaper

Oh look. This was just in January. 

Fuck the GOP. They're simply on the Oppose whatever Trump does track too so let's not pretend that Trump is a bull in a China shop.



























So now "Republicans" are suddenly acting like Trump is betraying them... Bull fucking shit. What kind of wankery is this?


----------



## deepelemblues

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/14/sanders-single-payer-bill-real-dream-act/

:heyman6

Hey you! 50% of the population! 64% of the working-age population! Get off your employer-provided health insurance that you like and get on government healthcare that I won't even bother to try to calculate the cost of or how to pay for it!

You can always count on socialists to be stupid.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Goku @Lumpy McRighteous @Plato


BruiserKC said:


> Bipartisan is one thing...he has completely ignored the leadership of the GOP to work with the Democrats. As a result, you now have what has gone back and forth on Twitter and sites like the Hill, Breitbart, etc. You have Pelosi saying we have a deal on DACA, Trump saying there is no definite deal on the table. More and more voices start to call out everytime Trump goes off the reservation, and now some of those voices are getting very loud.


Why wouldn't he ignore the impotent, backstabbing GOP leadership at this point? :lol At least the Democrats are honest in their opposition to Trump. The GOP like to talk out of both sides of their mouths and stick the knife in the back at every opportunity. They are seriously AIDS and completely responsible for Trump having to reach across the aisle to get anything done. 



> There are some who are disturbed by this, but there are those voters who are loving the chaos. They wanted him to upend the system and just go nuts. He is the bull in the china shop they want to see do widespread destruction so they can build everything back up. They don't care, this is what they were wanting.





A lot of chaos and hyperbole and self-conflagration lately, so here is Scott Adams to bring clarity, wisdom, and highly credible expertise to the picture by explaining how Trump has used his master persuasion skills throughout this saga.  

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/165334092961/i-explain-the-persuasion-techniques-president



> You might enjoy my Periscope playback from this morning in which I describe the several persuasion techniques President Trump is using on the topic of The Wall and DACA.
> 
> Here’s the quick summary.
> 
> Visual Persuasion: President Trump describes border security (a concept) with the word “wall” because you can visualize it. Our visual sense is our most persuasive path for influence. It would be weak persuasion to talk about border security as a concept without a visual.
> 
> Simplicity: Border security is a big topic, and the method you use to secure it will depend on the terrain and other factors. If President Trump mentioned all of that complexity each time he talked about border security it would be a big yawn. Simple messages such as “build a wall” always beat complicated (but accurate) conceptual arguments.
> 
> Strategic Ambiguity: In hypnosis class we learned to omit any details the subject might find objectionable. Following good form, President Trump doesn’t get too specific about the type of wall he wants. He lets us see the wall that makes the most sense to us.
> 
> We see the same strategic ambiguity after his famous dinner “agreement” with Pelosi and Schumer. The Democratic leaders got to announce “no wall” while the President says “yes wall.” The reality is that both sides agree on spending for border improvements, some of which will undoubtedly be wall-ish sometime in the next few years. We citizens get to pick which version of reality we like best: wall or no wall. The ambiguity supports both views. And it is intentional.
> 
> Big First Demand: A good negotiator starts with an aggressive first demand so there is plenty of room to negotiate toward the middle. President Trump started his campaign promising to deport every undocumented immigrant. That first demand was so extreme that he has plenty of room to negotiate toward a reasonable center, such as allowing DACA folks to stay.
> 
> Likewise, the “Wall” idea is seen by many Trump critics and supporters alike to mean a solid wall for the entire border with Mexico. This was never a practical idea, and candidate Trump said so directly at least once, but he wisely didn’t emphasize the full range of solutions for the border. Now it will seem totally reasonable to build a solid wall wherever border security is most problematic, so long as it is not extended to the entire border.
> 
> Thinking Past the Sale: In this case, the “sale” is President Trump’s desire to tighten border security. Now both sides assume the border will be tightened and they are only debating the budget and the details. This is classic persuasion. The President never allowed the country to spend time debating whether or not we wanted better border control. Instead, he made us focus on how to do it. He made the sale before the country thought it had anything to buy.
> 
> Trading Imaginary Assets for Real Ones: If we believe initial reports from Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump, there will be some sort of deal for greater border security in exchange for allowing DACA folks to stay in the country. But realistically, the DACA folks couldn’t have been rounded up and deported without a civil war. So President Trump traded an imaginary asset (the idea of deporting the DACA folks) for something potentially real in terms of greater border security funding.
> 
> Pacing and Leading: Pacing refers to matching your subject in some way, either physically, verbally, or in terms of philosophy. Candidate Trump paced (matched) his base on immigration until he got elected. Now the base trusts that he is philosophically aligned with them. So if he finds he can’t do all the things they demand, they are likely to let him lead to whatever is practical and doable simply because they trust him on the topic. People don’t expect a politician to be magic, or to do the impossible. But they do want politicians to “get” them and to care about them and to fight for what they want. President Trump paced his supporters by understanding their needs and fighting for them. That group is likely to trust him when he says some form of “This is the best we can do for now.”
> 
> High Ground Maneuver: The high ground maneuver involves taking an argument out of the weeds and up to a level where everyone agrees. In this case, the weeds include a discussion of how best to handle DACA folks. President Trump tweeted that some are military veterans. The military is the high ground in the U.S., and any reference to them is likely to be a high ground play. In other words, President Trump is committing to keeping the DACA folks in this country. He just doesn’t want to say it until he gets his budget for border security.
> 
> Likewise, at some point soon President Trump will pivot from “the wall everywhere” to “effective border control.” Effective border control, and the job improvement for Americans that might come with it, are the high ground. The details of how to do it are the weeds.


I already picked up on a lot of this and even alluded to it in the thread, which is why I have not been losing my mind over the last few days while people like Ann Coulter and even Stefan Molyneux have been. :lol Reading Scott Adams and learning about persuasion really provides one with a level-headed and insightful look at things most people get hysterical about.


----------



## AmWolves10

C'mon SJW, keep fighting and bitching to keep tax moochers in the country! It's easy when you yourself are either jobless or low income and contribute very little of that money.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Ben Shapiro is speaking at Berkeley tonight and protesters are chanting that he's a white supremacist. They've really destroyed its meaning when you call a Jewish man who wears a yarmulke a white supremacist or Nazi.


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> Ben Shapiro is speaking at Berkeley tonight and protesters are chanting that he's a white supremacist. They've really destroyed its meaning when you call a Jewish man who wears a yarmulke a white supremacist or Nazi.


They already did that when they were calling black people that.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah SJWs have no idea what the beliefs and views of actual white supremacists are. It's hilarious.

I shouldn't laugh at the people in the mass hysteria bubble but it's hard not to. :trump


----------



## Reaper

I've gotten to the point where hysterical outrage has now become one of my preferred forms of entertainment. 

I deeply care about the issues too. However one can enjoy chaos as well as work towards ending it too.

Life isn't as humorless for me as it is for others.


----------



## FITZ

I'll gain a lot of respect for Trump if he ever ends up signing a bill that is similar to the executive order that he just lifted. 

I'm really not sure if he did what he did because he doesn't like immigrants or if he's putting pressure on both parties to work together on immigration. Signing the bill would make him look a lot better to me.


----------



## Stinger Fan

virus21 said:


> They already did that when they were calling black people that.


Yeah, I've seen that as well. It's so stupid yet people continue to throw it around like its candy on Halloween


----------



## deepelemblues

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/14/bernie-sanders-medicaid-for-all-bankrupt



BernieOld when he wasn't quite so BernieOld said:


> "If we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card—we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation."









> Medicaid, notably, is far less generous than Medicare, the health program for seniors that Sanders wants to expand.
> 
> ...
> 
> The most striking thing about the legislation Sanders introduced yesterday, in contrast, is that it effectively wishes those questions away. It promises huge overall savings along with coverage that would be far more expansive, and far more expensive, than Medicaid for all, with no clear way to pay for it, and no specific strategy for driving costs or spending down.
> 
> In 30 years of political advocacy, Sanders has not solved any of the fundamental problems with single payer. He has merely opted to pretend they do not exist.


:heston
:heston
:heston

Maybe the clouds will pay for it if BernieOld yells at them loud enough.


----------



## CamillePunk

FITZ said:


> I'll gain a lot of respect for Trump if he ever ends up signing a bill that is similar to the executive order that he just lifted.
> 
> I'm really not sure if he did what he did because he doesn't like immigrants or if he's putting pressure on both parties to work together on immigration. Signing the bill would make him look a lot better to me.


Read the Scott Adams article I posted. Should clear things up.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908533033287995393


----------



## Vic Capri

White supremacist: Anybody that disagrees with a liberal.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

While the post was framed in mockery as it should be when you look at the facts, @deepelemblues's post about Medicare For All is an important one and is going to be one of if not the most important topics in US politics because that is the position that the Democrats are going to quickly go to in the next few years leading up to the next election. Bernie's progressive base are playing politics brilliantly as much as I hate to say it because they are forcing the corporate democrats to slowly come on board with Medicare for All or risk losing support. They are pushing the party further left.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21077...91317-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal



> The Bernie revolution has arrived. Once considered a fringe socialist crazy with no chance of gaining ground in the Democratic Party, the populist socialist Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer "Medicare For All" health care bill that has been endorsed by 15 senators, meaning it may create a possible litmus test for candidates hoping to gain the nomination in 2020.
> 
> The "Medicare For All Act Of 2017" would essentially eliminate private insurance for most Americans and impose higher taxes. Here are five reasons why Bernie's plan, endorsed by 15 senators and 117 representatives, is just plain awful.
> 
> 1.) It will dramatically increase payroll taxes. Here's a helpful tip: anytime a politician says "free," just immediately add a few percentages to your tax bracket, which would definitely be the case in Bernie's plan, which calls for a 7.5% payroll tax on employers and a 4% “income-based premium” on all Americans. Sanders made a similar, albeit much more modest, proposal of 6.2% payroll tax increase last year, and according to a 2016 analysis of that proposal by Emory University Professor Kenneth Thorpe, the payroll tax would reduce wages.
> 
> "The new tax burden would vary dramatically by income. Low-income working families would pay 2.2 percent of taxable income and face a 6.2 percent reduction in wages traced to the employer payroll tax," he wrote. "Individuals and families earning over $250,000 would face a 40 percent increase in taxes to finance the plan and pay for most of the new costs of the plan."
> 
> 2.) It will cost trillions. The estimated initial costs (this is before years of inflation, mind you) is projected at $2.5 trillion per year, which would create an "average of over $1 trillion per year financing shortfall," according to Thorpe. That means the projected cost does not match the revenue stream, which in turn will require higher taxes than Bernie's 7.2% payroll tax.
> 
> "To fund the program, payroll and income taxes would have to increase from a combined 8.4 percent in the Sanders plan to 20 percent while also retaining all remaining tax increases on capital gains, increased marginal tax rates, the estate tax and eliminating tax expenditures," said Thorpe.
> 
> 3.) High costs means price controls. As noted by National Interest, the only way our government overlords can adequately impose stringent budgets on something as elusive as healthcare is to essentially create cost controls in the "form of old-fashioned price controls or periodic payment cuts to doctors, hospitals or other medical professionals."
> 
> "The little problem, of course, is that payment reductions for medical services always affect the patients who need those services," notes NI. "Cost control through budgetary limitations or medical-payment cuts typically reduces the access that patients have to treatment, starting with progressively longer waiting lists."
> 
> 4.) Bureaucrats will determine appropriate healthcare, NOT you. As Americans woefully witnessed during the horrific Charlie Gard case in Britain, if the government foots the bill for healthcare, then government gets the final say. Sanders claims the new system will be "simple" and free Americans of having to haggle with insurers, but that is a lie. Instead of haggling with insurers, whom they can always threaten to leave, Americans will now be forced to fight with government bureaucrats for their medical needs.
> 
> "Government officials cannot control the demand for medical services; they can only control the supply of medical goods and services," NI reports. "In practice, this means that government officials must determine what kind of care patients get, how they get it, under what circumstances they get it, and how those services will be 'priced.' (They don’t negotiate prices; they fix them.)"
> 
> "The Medicare program, with its tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations and guidelines, demonstrates that painful fact daily to any Medicare patient struggling with a Medicare claims denial, or any doctor or any other medical professional wrestling with Medicare paperwork. Meanwhile, forget personal freedom."
> 
> 5.) If you like your healthcare plan, you sure CANNOT keep it. Period. Even under Obamacare, private health insurance still remains. That will officially be over should Bernie's "Medicare For All" program become the law of the land. Unless you happen to fall into the upper-income brackets and can afford your own private insurer, you will be forced to grovel at the feet of Uncle Sam for all of your healthcare needs. Here's how the Washington Post gleefully frames it:
> 
> The bill would revolutionize America’s health-care system, replacing it with a public system that would be paid for by higher taxes. Everything from emergency surgery to prescription drugs, from mental health to eye care, would be covered, with no co-payments. Americans younger than 18 would immediately obtain 'universal Medicare cards,' while Americans not currently eligible for Medicare would be phased into the program over four years. Employer-provided health care would be replaced, with the employers paying higher taxes but no longer on the hook for insurance.
> 
> This will be a major platform for the Democrats in 2020, and quite possible may become the new litmus test for entry. Conservatives had better figure out a way to streamline their vision into a coherent plan or single-payer is here to stay.


Of course Single Payer was tried to be implemented in both Bernie's home state of Vermont and in California, both times failed. California, realizing the enormous costs of tripling the state tax rates there and how the costs didn't add up pulled out after 2 months and saw better sense. But don't underestimate how persuasive the Bernie wing of the party could be to get regular people on board with this down the line. It is something to be concerned about and not taken lightly.

Opposition to this: Conservatives and Libertarians better come up with a vision to counteract this or risk going the way of the UK and Canada, which I've warned about for a long about for a long time. Trust me, you don't want the type of system I'm living under.


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> While the post was framed in mockery as it should be when you look at the facts, @deepelemblues's post about Medicare For All is an important one and is going to be one of if not the most important topics in US politics because that is the position that the Democrats are going to quickly go to in the next few years leading up to the next election. Bernie's progressive base are playing politics brilliantly as much as I hate to say it because they are forcing the corporate democrats to slowly come on board with Medicare for All or risk losing support. They are pushing the party further left.
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/21077...91317-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Single Payer was tried to be implemented in both Bernie's home state of Vermont and in California, both times failed. California, realizing the enormous costs of tripling the state tax rates there and how the costs didn't add up pulled out after 2 months and saw better sense. But don't underestimate how persuasive the Bernie wing of the party could be to get regular people on board with this down the line. It is something to be concerned about and not taken lightly.
> 
> Opposition to this: Conservatives and Libertarians better come up with a vision to counteract this or risk going the way of the UK and Canada, which I've warned about for a long about for a long time. Trust me, you don't want the type of system I'm living under.


Lindsey Graham has introduced an idea of each state getting block money to set up insurance programs for themselves and completely leave the government out of it on the federal level. Considering that if nothing is done by September 30 then the chance of repeal of Obamacare through reconciliation is gone, it might be worth a look. 

As much as people feared Hillary in office, what comes next could be worse. The far left is ready to push the Schumers and Pelosis out of the way and take over. The fact that they are working with Trump angers them more as they want no one to work with him. The next Presidential nominee could be full blown progressive from the Dems.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> As much as people feared Hillary in office, what comes next could be worse. The far left is ready to push the Schumers and Pelosis out of the way and take over. The fact that they are working with Trump angers them more as they want no one to work with him. The next Presidential nominee could be full blown progressive from the Dems.


After 3 more years of Antifa and SJW lunacy I doubt there'll be much to fear from a candidate that presents as far left, speaking as a millennial in California who has heard many apolitical friends start to speak up about the rampant left-wing craziness.


----------



## Reaper

I'm not going to waste more than one line discussing Bernie's Bill. Trump has already declared that he's going to veto it. /discussion.










--

Everyone in here should read The Big Lie :


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908633990344564737


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm not the most up to date with the civil rights movement but what I did read said that the democrats who didn't vote for the bill were from southern states and after the bill passed all the Southern (racist) states switched to Republican. I am more than happy to be corrected because its not my expertise but it seems like whoever holds the south seems to be labelled the racist party? Also wasn't the civil rights bill passed bipartisan? Why is he giving credit to the republicans?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm not the most up to date with the civil rights movement but what I did read said that the democrats who didn't vote for the bill were from southern states and after the bill passed all the Southern (racist) states switched to Republican. I am more than happy to be corrected because its not my expertise but it seems like whoever holds the south seems to be labelled the racist party? Also wasn't the civil rights bill passed bipartisan? Why is he giving credit to the republicans?


The south didn't start voting Republican till 1996. There was some switching, but it wasn't till 1996 or so that 5 of the most well assumed racist states started voting _reliably _Republican. The Southern Strategy actually failed miserably to attract voters in 1968. By 1972, Nixon simply wins everything. In 1976, Republicans lose all of the south again. 

https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-South-start-voting-Republican

The first response to this is fantastic which is where I'm drawing my current info from. It's pretty clear that race isn't a factor in voting in the South. The South starts voting for small/limited government candidates by 2000 and has not voted for anything else since. 

Also, he's not giving the whole credit to republicans in that statement. He's just pointing out that Republicans passed it because the narrative today is that Republicans had nothing to do with the Civil Rights as it's conveniently ignored being mentioned at all. 

Sometimes when trying to bring new information (or just reminding people of what happened) people will make statements that do imply exclusivity when it's murkier than that. The problem is that The Big Lie is a book that not perfect, but it brings to light information that has been quietly erased from public consciousness. Republicans are not the party of racists and Democrats are not the party of racists anymore. BUT the "switch" of Republicans to racism is a myth and a fabrication.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> I'm not the most up to date with the civil rights movement but what I did read said that the democrats who didn't vote for the bill were from southern states and after the bill passed all the Southern (racist) states switched to Republican. I am more than happy to be corrected because its not my expertise but it seems like whoever holds the south seems to be labelled the racist party? Also wasn't the civil rights bill passed bipartisan? Why is he giving credit to the republicans?


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


>


That was an interesting video, I just have to take it all with a pinch of salt because of the source, Prager U are a heavily biased source. I mean would anyone here accept a source from motherjones that paints a different picture?

I'm going to probably sit on the fence because I don't know enough.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm going to probably sit on the fence because I don't know enough.


Glad to see you take a stance like this. Maybe we will eventually start seeing more eye-to-eye. 

And yes, PragerU and even Dinesh are not the best sources. This is why an aggregation of all sources is necessary in judging the alignments of the parties. 

My personal view on this is:

1. Republicans have not pushed a single racist policy since they defeated the Jim Crow laws. 
2. Democrats have not pushed a single racist policy since the Jim Crow laws were defeated
3. Inequality exists in society and it's worse for blacks in areas where there are larger black populations, but seem to so a similar disparity between rich whites and poor whites in areas where there is not that much racial diversity
4. _My_ explanation for black poverty is two-fold i) lack of inheritance and ii) being attracted to and staying in ghettos instead of exercising their freedom of movement and economic freedom
5. Republicans being the party of economic freedom say that blacks need to empower themselves (they say the same for whites) and Democrats being the party of social welfare say that blacks are oppressed and need to be emancipated through welfare and other government programs. Both ideologies conflict one another and neither has resulted in black emancipation. However, the democrats claim that Republicans are racist for demanding self-empowerment because of the history of slavery while giving themselves a pass on the failure of their social welfare policies as well. 

However, the one thing we do know for a fact is that entrepreneurship is the only thing that has pretty much guaranteed to work in elevating the wealth and status of blacks but with support from financial institutions and even charitable organisations - since they don't have inheritance. 

Personally, my solution is to inculcate the attitude of entrepreneurship within all cultures. Teach economics and financial responsibility in schools. Bail out people who are in need through non-governmental charity programs, and encourage people to start working for themselves and become employers instead of employees. Of course, we also need to phase out the worst aspects ghetto culture (this also refers to white trailer trash culture), rent-controlled housing (because rent controls create the slum lord directly) and a host of other things --- some of which are inconvenient to talk about, but need to be addressed the same. 

Even Asians that end up in their little china towns (basically racially homogonous ghettos) tend to do worse than those that move about freely. Usually the biggest barrier to one's own growth is the fear of moving beyond one's comfort zone. One can be collectivistic, but collectivism without understanding individual liberty becomes suffocating in and of itself because if the individual is too afraid to abandon the group then he/she falls victim to all the problems shared by the group as well as benefits.


----------



## Vic Capri

11 year old Frank Giaccio got his wish granted to mow the White House lawn. Of course, leave it to liberals to mock a kid for it, but hey, good for him!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> 11 year old Frank Giaccio got his wish granted to mow the White House lawn. Of course, leave it to liberals to mock a kid for it, but hey, good for him!
> 
> - Vic


Better to go to the white house to mow the lawn than to be invited for building a bomb :mj 

(boy I was wrong about that one)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908717949615267841
Kid's so dedicated that he doesn't even stop for the president :clap


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> That was an interesting video, I just have to take it all with a pinch of salt because of the source, Prager U are a heavily biased source. I mean would anyone here accept a source from motherjones that paints a different picture?
> 
> I'm going to probably sit on the fence because I don't know enough.


Voting habits don't lie, but Democrats do. Democrats have been lying about the party switch to absolve themselves for their past, thats why they invent accusations of racism against Republicans to blame them for winning elections down south, which makes no sense focus on the present, not the past. Democrats basically try to shame the South into voting Democrat , that's a tactic that has been applied to Republicans everywhere which really hasn't been working. You can see voting patterns from 68-92 that the Southern Strategy didn't really exist because in actuality the country flip flopped a lot. It wasn't until the early to mid 90s where you start to see the country take shape with their voting habits. In 92 after nearly 3 decades LA and Western USA voted Democrat, does that mean LA and the rest of the west were racist ? Of course not, USA was just competitive


----------



## MrMister

:lmao oh my god Ben Shapiro is considered a white supremacist by people :lmao

Stop being fucking idiots ffs.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol 

In 2021, I predict we are going to see a similar montage for Bernie Sanders.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> That was an interesting video, I just have to take it all with a pinch of salt because of the source, Prager U are a heavily biased source. I mean would anyone here accept a source from motherjones that paints a different picture?
> 
> I'm going to probably sit on the fence because I don't know enough.


biased?

so fucking what?

stop being lazy and find and analyze the facts yourself, you'll never care about how "biased" a source is ever again. you'll be able to see through "bias," to correctly conclude what is being said that is worth holding on to what is not. 

you're not some schlub with an average intellect destroyed by 2 decades of conventional education like 75% of the population is. you're smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff of any source if you don't allow reflexive ideological responses to be as far as your thinking goes.


----------



## Stinger Fan

For those interested. Lecture starts at the 29th minute mark


----------



## Reaper

^Yeah, I listened till they got to the Q&A ... This was one of his weakest appearances ever. He needs to be on a platform where he's debating or bouncing ideas off of others. On his own, he's dull AF. 

---










:kobelol

Srsly tho. We're Hurricane-ravaged with most stores still not having any perishable food and we're still eating better than the majority of Venezuelans.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Just saw the video of Trump meeting the kid mowing his lawn. Pretty cool, I can actually say now that I've had a moment where I quite liked what Trump was doing. I thought it was a great thing to do to be honest, and he probably gave that kid the most happiest moment of his life so good for him.


----------



## Draykorinee

It's definitely better than inviting clock boy.


----------



## Vic Capri

What in the actual fuck? :lol

- Vic


----------



## Vic Capri

What in the actual fuck? :lol

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> It's definitely better than inviting clock boy.


That kid played everyone so badly


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

For more on how left-wing the white nationalist so-called "far right" alt-right are, here are the types of things Richard Spencer retweets:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908463556416479233

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908832102770204672
Dude agrees with the left on major issues and trashes Trump regularly but somehow Trump is responsible for him and his movement and must condemn them every day or be labeled a white supremacist. :banderas

How about the socialists on here disavow the guy who agrees with them on major issues? :mj Remember, if bad people agree with you on something, this *must* reflect badly on you.

Socialism = white supremacy CONFIRMED by the logic of the liberals on here.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Goku @Lumpy McRighteous @PlatoWhy wouldn't he ignore the impotent, backstabbing GOP leadership at this point? :lol At least the Democrats are honest in their opposition to Trump. The GOP like to talk out of both sides of their mouths and stick the knife in the back at every opportunity. They are seriously AIDS and completely responsible for Trump having to reach across the aisle to get anything done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of chaos and hyperbole and self-conflagration lately, so here is Scott Adams to bring clarity, wisdom, and highly credible expertise to the picture by explaining how Trump has used his master persuasion skills throughout this saga.
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/165334092961/i-explain-the-persuasion-techniques-president
> 
> I already picked up on a lot of this and even alluded to it in the thread, which is why I have not been losing my mind over the last few days while people like Ann Coulter and even Stefan Molyneux have been. :lol Reading Scott Adams and learning about persuasion really provides one with a level-headed and insightful look at things most people get hysterical about.


Teflon Don Juan already has an ace up his sleeve for dealing with the two-faced RINOs and their scummy ilk:










:trump3


----------



## Genking48

Vic Capri said:


> What in the actual fuck? :lol
> 
> - Vic


Actual wtf, like, why, what reason for this!?

Anyway, for more wtf

"The Sneezing panda video which is *A YEAR AND A HALF OLD*"

More like 11 years old. Do your research properly!


----------



## Vic Capri

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber's ruling will not stand the test of the Supreme Court. The law is clear. Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.

Allowing tax dollar grants to reward Cities and or States that choose to ignore the immigration laws of our country can't be forced by any court. This country has become a place of insanity!



> That kid played everyone so badly


Surprise, surprise, you couldn't criticize him either back then otherwise you'd be called a racist.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

They're trying to delay everything as much as possible and get the Supreme Court to rule because it takes time and in the meantime they'll continue the theft.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> *'Juggalos,' Trump supporters both set for National Mall rallies*
> 
> A busy Saturday in Washington, D.C. will find a crowd of President Donald Trump's supporters and fans of the hip hop duo Insane Clown Posse holding separate rallies on the National Mall.
> 
> The unrelated events could bring thousands of demonstrators to the area stretching between the Lincoln Memorial and the United States Capitol. Both have attracted widespread attention.
> 
> Fans of Insane Clown Posse, known as "Juggalos," are holding the "Juggalo March" to protest their classification as a gang by the FBI and Department of Justice. A 2011 report on emerging trends by the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center listed Juggalos under "non-traditional gangs."
> 
> "Many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence," reads the report. "Most crimes committed by Juggalos are sporadic, disorganized, individualistic, and often involve simple assault, personal drug use and possession, petty theft, and vandalism."
> 
> Insane Clown Posse, comprised of members Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope, voiced intentions to sue the FBI in 2012 over their fans' inclusion in the report, according to Rolling Stone. A lawsuit on the matter in 2014 was dismissed, then eventually revived by a federal appeals court in 2015, according to the ACLU, which filed the case.
> 
> The official "Juggalo March" website describes personal and professional hardships faced by fans over the gang description, including the loss of employment and denial of admittance into the armed forces. The event Saturday will feature speakers and an organized protest march on the western end of the Mall, and will culminate with an Insane Clown Posse performance.
> 
> The pro-Trump rally, labeled the "Mother of All Rallies," has been billed as an opportunity for participants to "demand protection for traditional American culture while they express their love for the United States and the America First agenda," according to its website. The event will also include speakers and musical performances near the Washington Monument in the center of the Mall.


Could get wild.


----------



## virus21




----------



## MrMister

JFC that tweet by Chris Hayes I cannot stand this kid.


----------



## Reaper

Life has become a Dave Chapelle skit.











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909168166751883266
Looks like a lot of Trump's base is slowly starting to turn and the White House is being forced to reassert its positions.

--






This is some fascinating reading of Hillary's body language.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Vic Capri said:


> U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber's ruling will not stand the test of the Supreme Court. The law is clear. Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.
> 
> Allowing tax dollar grants to reward Cities and or States that choose to ignore the immigration laws of our country can't be forced by any court. This country has become a place of insanity!
> 
> - Vic


My (very limited) understanding is that it comes down to whether Sanctuary cities are viewed as an immigration issue or as a law enforcement issue, immigration being the purvey of the Federal gov but law enforcement being a more local issue. 

If its immigration then yes the Fed have supremacy but if its law enforcement then it would be inappropriate for the Fed to try to pressure lower levels of government over their policy issues by threatening to withhold unrelated funds.


----------



## Pratchett

Anyone taking Chelsea Handler seriously at this point :lol



Reaper said:


> This is some fascinating reading of Hillary's body language.


I'll tell you what is unfortunate, it is Hillary's choice of outfits. Make me think of:










:mj4

Oh, and by the way...






:mj


----------



## Reaper

And this is how the Socialist's brain works: 










Absolutely no concept of any kind of principles whatsoever as long as anything can be turned into a way of begging for handouts.


----------



## Icecube225

2 Ton 21 said:


> Could get wild.


More people turned up for the Juggalo March lol.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> My (very limited) understanding is that it comes down to whether Sanctuary cities are viewed as an immigration issue or as a law enforcement issue, immigration being the purvey of the Federal gov but law enforcement being a more local issue.
> 
> If its immigration then yes the Fed have supremacy but if its law enforcement then it would be inappropriate for the Fed to try to pressure lower levels of government over their policy issues by threatening to withhold unrelated funds.


Even if it falls to Local Law Enforcement the Federal Government might get a say if it makes a case for the Locals not being able to handle the illegal immigrant situation. 

The Feds insert themselves into the Local business all the time depending on the criminals and size of the activity, such as Cartel issues probably have Federal oversight. Really would depend what they label illegal immigration as.


Chelsea Handler and people who labeled Ben Shapiro a "White Supremacist" have ruined their own platform, Chelsea herself has made racist remarks so not sure why she's tossing stones. If they keep this up by 2018-2020 their labeling game that's worked so well for so long will have zero effect.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Even if it falls to Local Law Enforcement the Federal Government might get a say if it makes a case for the Locals not being able to handle the illegal immigrant situation.
> 
> The Feds insert themselves into the Local business all the time depending on the criminals and size of the activity, such as Cartel issues probably have Federal oversight. Really would depend what they label illegal immigration as.
> 
> 
> Chelsea Handler and people who labeled Ben Shapiro a "White Supremacist" have ruined their own platform, Chelsea herself has made racist remarks so not sure why she's tossing stones. If they keep this up by 2018-2020 their labeling game that's worked so well for so long will have zero effect.


I don't think people (including judges) want to acknowledge the innate conflict in demanding _local _sovereignty over procurement of _federal _funding.

That'll be like an entitled teenager claiming that he has a right to use his daddy's car and money to go out and buy drugs ... but then considering that we've built a society that does exactly that is why I can understand why this confusion exists at the judicial level.


----------



## Reaper

Hillary Clinton did her book signing at Costco between toilet paper and bottled water :lmao


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> And this is how the Socialist's brain works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no concept of any kind of principles whatsoever as long as anything can be turned into a way of begging for handouts.


Socialism is the FUTURE :CENA


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> Socialism is the FUTURE :CENA


So is hunting for rats and dogs on the streets for survival :CENA


----------



## Oxidamus

Reaper said:


> So is hunting for rats and dogs on the streets for survival :CENA


:henry3 So is hunting for jobs.


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> :henry3 So is hunting for jobs.


Yes. Exactly. That's part of Socialism's gambit of problems :cudi


----------



## Beatles123

:trump Come get us you Korean shitlords!


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> :trump Come get us you Korean shitlords!


The girl whose video I posted earlier in the thread did Trump's body language reading on North Korea: 






Other body language experts agree.

(I don't. I don't think that a war with NK happens during Trump's administration).


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908163011793358848
Posting this because liberals hate a sense of humor. 



> Chelsea Handler referred to Ben Carson as a "black white supremacist"


Well, her grandfather was an actual Nazi so...

*Re: Hillary's Costco signing*

How the mighty fall. What's next? Wal-Mart? :lol

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908163011793358848
> Posting this because liberals hate a sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, her grandfather was an actual Nazi so...
> 
> *Re: Hillary's Costco signing*
> 
> How the mighty fall. What's next? Wal-Mart? :lol
> 
> - Vic


Nah, Wal-Mart's to fancy for her now. How about Goodwill?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909499884813856768
These lefties should go on displaying an absolute lack of sense of humor.  It'll help tremendously.

I don't know if I posted this here already but it's an absolutely essential presentation for understanding why so many on the right are against DACA, and exposes the MANY lies about the program put out by politicians and journalists. If you claim to be for smaller government yet limiting immigration from the third world isn't your #1 issue, you are truly clueless (hint hint REASON).





 @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @Goku @BruiserKC


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909499884813856768
> These lefties should go on displaying an absolute lack of sense of humor.  It'll help tremendously.


I've seen what they consider comedy, they already do. And King is the last person to say that someone has a fucked up mind.


----------



## Vic Capri

:lol

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909499884813856768
> These lefties should go on displaying an absolute lack of sense of humor.  It'll help tremendously.


I saw this on my feed and just thought stfu, Its just a joke.


----------



## Reaper

Trump has his worst week in office by far, by far and the lefties yet again toss him a bone first with that outrage over the Clinton tweet and then the Emmy's. 

So, I'm not that disappointed. It seems like the leftists are out to destroy themselves no matter how rough of a week the President has. They'll always find ways to top him.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909734075493052417


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909499884813856768
> These lefties should go on displaying an absolute lack of sense of humor.  It'll help tremendously.
> 
> I don't know if I posted this here already but it's an absolutely essential presentation for understanding why so many on the right are against DACA, and exposes the MANY lies about the program put out by politicians and journalists. If you claim to be for smaller government yet limiting immigration from the third world isn't your #1 issue, you are truly clueless (hint hint REASON).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @Goku @BruiserKC


It's quite funny that these people have no sense of humor since the MSM comedians are mostly "Left" and constantly telling the right to have a sense of humor.

How can you control most of the aired comedy in the Nation and still have a stick up your ass about something harmless?


----------



## Vic Capri

Hollywood Report said:


> TV Ratings: Emmy Telecast on Track for Another Low


Life comes at you fast.







Pelosi getting protested by the very people she panders to, causing her to leave her own event. Karma in its full glorious splendor. :lol

#Irony 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909843990530416641
Reporter got fucking owned.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Life comes at you fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi getting protested by the very people she panders to, causing her to leave her own event. Karma in its full glorious splendor. :lol
> 
> #Irony
> 
> - Vic


Another awards show gets low ratings? Good, it means that the average folk are sick of these self indulgent assholes and their shitty attempts at entertainment. 

And Pelosi getting booed....gee its almost like the Democrat voters are sick of her incompetent leadership.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Another awards show gets low ratings? Good, it means that the average folk are sick of these self indulgent assholes and their shitty attempts at entertainment.
> 
> And Pelosi getting booed....gee its almost like the Democrat voters are sick of her incompetent leadership.


Pelosi getting booed should be a wake up call to the Democrats that the more entitlement you give a group of entitled fucks the more they demand them. Democrats need to abandon the illegals because all around illegals are bad for everyone.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk @Reaper @Miss Sally @Vic Capri @DesolationRow @BruiserKC 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...te-house-to-wall-street-in-less-than-one-year



> *Obama Goes From White House to Wall Street in Less Than One Year*
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton says she made a mistake when she gave speeches on Wall Street after leaving government. Taking money from banks, she writes in her new memoir, created the impression she was in their pocket.
> 
> Her old boss doesn’t seem to share her concern.
> 
> Last month, just before her book “What Happened” was published, Barack Obama spoke in New York to clients of Northern Trust Corp. for about $400,000, a person familiar with his appearance said. Last week, he reminisced about the White House for Carlyle Group LP, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to two people who were there. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s health-care conference.
> 
> Obama is coming to Wall Street less than a year after leaving the White House, following a path that’s well trod and well paid. While he can’t run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power. His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on and disappoint anyone expecting him to avoid a trap that snared Clinton. Or, as some of his executive friends see it, he’s just a private citizen giving a few paid speeches to other successful people while writing his next book.
> 
> “He was the president of the entire United States -- financial services are under that umbrella,” said former UBS Group AG executive Robert Wolf, an early supporter who joined the Obama Foundation board this year. “He doesn’t look at Wall Street like, ‘Oh, these are individuals who don’t want the best for the country.’ He doesn’t stereotype.”
> 
> *Fat Cats*
> 
> Since leaving office, Obama has delivered public and private speeches that are “true to his values,” Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, said in an email. “His paid speeches in part have allowed President Obama to contribute $2 million to Chicago programs offering job training and employment opportunities to low-income youth.”
> 
> Obama’s relationship with Wall Street hasn’t always been good. Bankers still boil over with rage about him, wincing over his 2009 line about fat cats as if the wounds were fresh. But his Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules but didn’t stop them from pulling in record profits.
> 
> The brokerage and investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald isn’t one of those giants. S&P Global Ratings announced this year that the New York-based firm’s debt grades could be cut to junk. Cantor’s investment banking division is run by health-care specialist Sage Kelly, who left Jefferies Group after divorce-case accusations became salacious tabloid fodder in 2014. His ex-wife later apologized for the storm caused by the claims, which he had denied.
> 
> Cantor Chief Executive Officer Howard Lutnick, whose firm lost more than 600 people in the Sept. 11 attacks, said the former president will make remarks and take questions. The three-day conference for current and prospective clients begins Sept. 25. Obama will be paid about $400,000, according to a person familiar with the arrangement.
> 
> “Everybody would like to come,” Lutnick said. “Hopefully, we will really talk about the Affordable Care Act in interesting and nuanced ways, which I think is really cool.”
> 
> *Private Island*
> 
> Obama’s appearance at the Carlyle conference in Washington was previously unreported. The private equity giant has enjoyed some of the best political connections in the world, with executives and advisers who have included former presidents, prime ministers and cabinet secretaries. Obama discussed his life and the decisions he made in the White House, the people who heard him said. A spokesman for the firm wouldn’t comment.
> 
> The ex-president has been busy. His foundation is raising money for a library in Chicago, and he and his wife signed a book deal with Penguin Random House after an auction that went above $60 million, according to the Financial Times. He spoke about food in Milan, democracy in Jakarta and himself at an A&E Television Networks event in New York. He vacationed in California and Hawaii and on Richard Branson’s Necker Island with its billionaire owner.
> 
> Obama has picked private equity, hedge fund, venture capital and banking veterans to oversee his foundation, and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to advise him on investments.
> 
> Northern Trust is a bank that specializes in wealth management for rich families and services for big funds. The event had gone unreported, but a program accessible on the firm’s website lists Obama alongside executives from Microsoft Corp., IBM and Michael Bloomberg, majority owner of Bloomberg LP.
> 
> Northern Trust, based in Chicago, gave Obama a discount on a $1.32 million loan for a mansion in that city in 2005, after he was elected to the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The rate was changed to account for an offer from another lender, a spokesman for Obama said three years later. Doug Holt, a spokesman for Northern Trust, wouldn’t comment for this story.
> 
> *Imperial Ballroom*
> 
> Obama is getting advice on investments from Robbie Robinson, who’s on leave from BDT & Co., according to a person familiar with the arrangement. That Chicago-based firm works with wealthy families and is run by Byron Trott. Both bankers worked for Goldman Sachs.
> 
> Obama has known executives there for more than a decade. He spoke at the 2006 Goldman Sachs partners’ meeting in Chicago. Then a senator, he appeared between Hank Paulson and Warren Buffett in the Fairmont hotel’s Imperial Ballroom, an event program shows.
> 
> Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump blasted Clinton for her lucrative Goldman Sachs speeches, and the issue is still raw. Sanders and fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren have tried to pry the Democratic Party away from its coziness with Wall Street. If Obama is hoping the party will be a big tent with room for corporate giants, they may stand in his way.
> 
> Obama’s donor friends tend to mention the same reason when they defend his Wall Street speeches, saying he’s no longer president and not running for office. Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman Tom Nides is one of them.
> 
> “I love Barack Obama, and if someone is willing to pay him to give a speech, God bless America,” said Nides, a deputy secretary of state under Clinton in Obama’s administration.
> 
> *Revolving Door*
> 
> But Jeff Hauser, who studies political corruption as head of the Revolving Door Project in Washington, said Obama should play by the same rules as other politicians because of his ongoing work with the Democratic Party.
> 
> “He’s continuing to exercise the authority,” Hauser said, citing Obama’s support for the party’s redistricting committee and the push he gave Tom Perez in the race to head the Democratic National Committee. If he wants to play a role, “he ought to forgo a few hundred thousand here and maybe a half-million there.”
> 
> Few leaders have left the top of the U.S. government recently and resisted the lure of corporate money. Former Vice President Al Gore is a director at Apple Inc. and a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the venture capital firm whose chairman, John Doerr, is on the Obama Foundation’s board. Dan Quayle, another ex-vice president, has spent almost two decades with private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP. Trump’s White House has lost officials so quickly that Sean Spicer has already made arrangements to speak to a financial firm this year.
> 
> “Not everyone’s going to be a Jimmy Carter, who does purely good works after he gets out,” said Sean Coffey, a Democratic donor who chairs the complex litigation group at corporate law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Obama is used to being criticized, the attorney added. “I don’t think getting any grief for doing this is going to bother him at all.”


http://www.dailywire.com/news/21224...91817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal



> Do you remember when former president Barack Obama railed against Wall Street not too long ago, accusing them of making too much money?
> 
> How about in 2009, when he said, “I did not run for office to be helpin’ out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic example occurred in April, 2010, when Obama spoke in Quincy, Illinois, of the greediness of Wall Street. Obama’s written text stated: "Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy."
> 
> But Obama went off the teleprompter and added some impromptu verbiage that revealed his true bias against the rich (as long as he wasn’t speaking about himself): "Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, but now Obama is using Wall Street to add to the millions he has accumulated, including the book deal he and his wife Michelle signed with Penguin Random House after an auction that went above $60 million, according to the Financial Times.
> 
> As Bloomberg notes of recent events, “Barack Obama spoke in New York to clients of Northern Trust Corp. for about $400,000, a person familiar with his appearance said. Last week, he reminisced about the White House for Carlyle Group LP, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to two people who were there. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s health-care conference.” That speech for Cantor Fitzgerald will net Obama roughly $400,000.
> 
> Whew. Suddenly Obama’s disdain for Wall Street seems to have dissipated just a tad.
> 
> Former UBS Group AG executive Robert Wolf, who serves on the Obama Foundation board, explained lamely, “He was the president of the entire United States — financial services are under that umbrella. He doesn’t look at Wall Street like, ‘Oh, these are individuals who don’t want the best for the country.’ He doesn’t stereotype.”
> 
> Of course Obama is comfortable with Northern Trust; the institution gave Obama a discount on a $1.32 million loan for a mansion in Chicago in 2005, after he was elected to the Senate, The Washington Post reported.


Obama being hypocritical when it comes to big money banks and wall street? NO! NEVER! Imagine my shock!

:HA :lmao.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21185/newly-released-emails-show-hillary-invited-putin-ryan-saavedra



> *Newly Released Emails Show Hillary Invited Putin To Clinton Foundation Event*
> 
> Hillary Clinton likes to talk a tough game about Russian President Vladimir Putin — but that didn't stop her from inviting him and other top Russian officials to a Clinton Foundation gala right after she became Secretary of State.
> 
> Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy Amitabh Desai sent dozens of invitations to world leaders including then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and Former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, emails recently obtained by Judicial Watch revealed.
> 
> On March 13, 2009, Desai emailed the list of invitations to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, who then forwarded the email to top Clinton aide, Jake Sullivan. This happened at approximately the same time that the newly appointed Clinton tried to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia.
> 
> Clinton repeatedly attacked Putin during her 2016 presidential campaign and often tried to link Donald Trump to the Russian leader.
> 
> Clinton and her staff allegedly concocted the “Russian hacking” narrative within 24-hours of her election defeat, as documented in the Clinton campaign tell-all book, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign:
> 
> That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
> 
> Clinton’s public display of contempt for Putin does not match her track record of how she interacted with the Russian leader in the past as controversy swirled following a *uranium deal* she approved while at the State Department. The deal was quickly followed by a massive donation to her foundation.
> 
> *“One year after inviting Putin to the Clinton Foundation event, she approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium capacity to Russia,” Conservative Review noted. “Shortly thereafter, donors connected to the company that was sold to Russia contributed $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”*


Funny how the Russia narrative coming straight from the Hillary camp to undermine Trump's election victory found nothing of substance and was a big nothingburger according to media moguls themselves behind closed doors, yet a fresh round of emails show that Hillary was rather friendly with Russia, friendly enough to invite Putin to a Clinton Foundation event and accept $145 million in donations :HA :lmao.

Classic.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/remember-when-republicans-were-conservative/



> Recently, the majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for a typical, all-you-can-eat buffet of Washington spending, including $15 billion in new spending added to our projected annual deficit of $500 billion. Only ten Republicans voted to offset the new spending with cuts to foreign aid welfare. Republicans voted for this monstrosity and in exchange got nothing — no reforms, cuts, or even promises to be ignored later.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> Historically, the debt ceiling vote has been leveraged to get spending restraint.
> 
> Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Pay-as-you-go, and the sequester were all forced on big spenders by holding the debt ceiling hostage.
> 
> This time around, capitulation came first, and nothing came later. With barely a whimper, most Republicans and all Democrats agreed to expand the status quo $500 billion annual deficit without any reform in exchange.
> 
> A sad day for fiscal conservatives.
> 
> Republicans have control of the House, Senate, and White House and have not passed a single dollar of cuts or fiscal reform. Fiscal conservatives are right to be very disappointed.
> 
> But while many were decrying the fact that Democrats “won” a shorter debt limit than Republican leaders wanted (3 months instead of 18 months), the length of the debt ceiling increase is rather insignificant when compared to the need for budgetary reform.
> 
> The fake news, in their glee to report President Trump making a deal with Senator Schumer, once again missed the point. Conservatives are unhappy, not so much about the length of time but about the absence of new spending restraint.
> 
> Let me be clear: I don’t think we should raise the debt ceiling at all. We should cut up the government’s way-overdrawn credit card and force it to live within its means. That’s one of the reasons I voted against this ill-conceived deal.
> 
> But if we are going to raise the debt ceiling, at the very least, Republicans, who control the entirety of government right now and claim to be fiscal conservatives, should demand major reforms as the price for doing so.
> 
> That didn’t happen this time, but perhaps we have been given an opportunity with the short-term extension instead of the long-term one.
> 
> We now have 3 months, and potentially longer if they use extraordinary measures, to rally to this cause. Do we want to keep borrowing hundreds of billions per year, adding to our $20 trillion mountain of debt, until our economy crashes?
> 
> I don’t.
> 
> Conservatives in Congress must immediately decide what our demands will be. In 2011, such an effort led to Cut, Cap, and Balance, a good fiscal reform that passed the Republican House but died in the Democrat-led Senate as President Obama threatened a veto.
> 
> What did it do? It forced a balanced budget, limited the growth of spending to the traditional amount of revenue we received, and cut specific areas of government, including some entitlements.
> 
> Just actually having this fight produced a good result in 2011, even with the Democrats holding 2/3rds of the cards. We secured the first spending cuts in recent memory, and, from 2011 to 2013, actual federal spending went down.
> 
> It wasn’t the solution, but it was a good first step.
> 
> Why did it happen? Because conservatives showed up to fight. They made demands. They showed the big spenders in Congress and in the White House that they would not simply roll over and let them keep spending.
> 
> Our budget needs balancing. Our programs need reform. Our spending ourselves into debt needs to end.
> 
> With this next three months, conservatives, and really all Republicans, need to get together and act. We need to insist that there will be no debt ceiling increase the next time if we aren’t heard, and if reforms aren’t enacted.
> 
> I plan to start right now — not wait until December. Last week, I met with conservative fighters in both the House and Senate to put together a coalition that says, “Stop.” No more spending without real reforms.
> 
> It is what we said we would do, and I plan to keep my word.


Unfortunately Rand, I don't remember a time where the Republican party weren't full of RINO cucks and fiscal liberals. At least not in my lifetime.


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Goku @virus21 @BruiserKC

Stefan Molyneux and Styxenhammer666 debate Trump's strategy regarding DACA:


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909932273902014464


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Goku @virus21 @BruiserKC
> 
> Stefan Molyneux and Styxenhammer666 debate Trump's strategy regarding DACA:


I still think we're doing this Bass ackwards. First should be border security, if you have a leaky faucet you plug the leak or shut off the water. Then discuss what to do with the illegals including the Dreamers. Then work on how this will work moving forward getting people in legally. THEN we can figure out who gets in and who doesn't. 
.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909932273902014464
:mj

People are expecting the Manafort wiretaps (which were done with the obvious foreknowledge that it would result in surveilling conversations with Donald Trump) to once again be THE END OF DRUMPF. I see it more like:


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> I still think we're doing this Bass ackwards. First should be border security, if you have a leaky faucet you plug the leak or shut off the water. Then discuss what to do with the illegals including the Dreamers. Then work on how this will work moving forward getting people in legally. THEN we can figure out who gets in and who doesn't.
> .


Do you lock yourself in with the burglar that breaks into your house or do you kick it out and then lock your door and fix your fence to keep it out?


----------



## IDidPaige

This probably doesn't go here, but it's so repulsive I had to post it, so here it is:










What a disgusting democrat/woman.


----------



## AVX

Trump must back out of this DACA deal, they will never stop until all 11 million (30 million) illegals get full amnesty and change the political landscape forever. Texas will go blue and that's all she wrote. California was a red state prior to the amnesty of 1986 and never turned back. NO COMPROMISE!


----------



## Headliner

Wat. Trump said Trump Tower was wiretapped. His own Department of Justice just came out last week or two weeks ago saying there's no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Manafort being wiretapped means wherever he went, he was being listened to and whoever he was talking to on the phone was being listened to by the NSA and/or FBI. Depending on which agency got the FISA warrant. That means Trump Tower, a coffee shop, a retail store. Anywhere Manafort went to. 

To get a FISA warrant, you have to present documents and evidence that shows that there's a serious concern and a FISA warrant is needed to further understand or pursue that concern. It's not easy to get one. 

Is common sense out the window? Are we really clouding the facts or distorting the facts for some bullshit partisan narrative? Really?


----------



## AVX

FISA warrants are issued by the Attorney General, no? You don't think Loretta Lynch would have jumped at the chance to wiretap Trump to try and help Hillary win? After that secret meeting on the tarmac will Bill I would bet everything I have on her being a bit player in a huge scheme to undermine Trump.


----------



## Headliner

AVX said:


> FISA warrants are issued by the Attorney General, no? You don't think Loretta Lynch would have jumped at the chance to wiretap Trump to try and help Hillary win? After that secret meeting on the tarmac will Bill I would bet everything I have on her being a bit player in a huge scheme to undermine Trump.


They are issued by a FISA court. The Department of Justice have to go to the FISA court and present the evidence and intelligence and the judge rules whether they get the warrant or not.


----------



## FITZ

I know they sound like they're hard to get but I think they have a super high approval rating by judges.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> Wat. Trump said Trump Tower was wiretapped. His own Department of Justice just came out last week or two weeks ago saying there's no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Manafort being wiretapped means wherever he went, he was being listened to and whoever he was talking to on the phone was being listened to by the NSA and/or FBI. Depending on which agency got the FISA warrant. That means Trump Tower, a coffee shop, a retail store. Anywhere Manafort went to.
> 
> To get a FISA warrant, you have to present documents and evidence that shows that there's a serious concern and a FISA warrant is needed to further understand or pursue that concern. It's not easy to get one.
> 
> Is common sense out the window? Are we really clouding the facts or distorting the facts for some bullshit partisan narrative? Really?


Common sense, reason, and logic has been out the window a long time ago in the Trump thread. Its ALT Facts.


----------



## CamillePunk

FITZ said:


> I know they sound like they're hard to get but I think they have a super high approval rating by judges.


It's more than 99%, with supposedly a quarter of those cases requiring "substantive changes" to meet the conditions for approval.  

Watching people on Twitter act like it's a big deal they "were able to" get the wiretap order approved by FISA is hilarious. :lol It's the end of Drumpf this time for sure! 

Also, alternative media already uncovered all of this months ago, but nevermind that. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Pelosi getting booed should be a wake up call to the Democrats that the more entitlement you give a group of entitled fucks the more they demand them. Democrats need to abandon the illegals because all around illegals are bad for everyone.


Actually I want them to keep pushing this. They'll push the working white class away from the party leaving only the lunatics, they'll have La Raza types trying to gain control and pushing out their white candidates and you'll eventually have blacks and hispanics butting heads within the Democratic party over who gets to eat first.

With them supporting identatarian/identity politic nonsense eventually those groups are going to fight with each other. Can only keep focused on the boogeyman for so long before they turn on each other like a pack of dogs on a single piece of meat!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Actually I want them to keep pushing this. They'll push the working white class away from the party leaving only the lunatics, they'll have La Raza types trying to gain control and pushing out their white candidates and you'll eventually have blacks and hispanics butting heads within the Democratic party over who gets to eat first.
> 
> With them supporting identatarian/identity politic nonsense eventually those groups are going to fight with each other. Can only keep focused on the boogeyman for so long before they turn on each other like a pack of dogs on a single piece of meat!


Problem is that while they've got their minority brainless pets, they've also got self hating whites voting Democrat. Since the 1986 amnesty California has not voted Republican. An amnesty vote means Texas is lost for perpetuity. And that's the end of the power of the electoral college. 

While I don't mind a dysfunctional Republican government much but a Democrat government is pretty much undeniably dystopian. 

It's like choosing between hitting yourself in the face with a pan or hitting yourself in the face with a chainsaw. Pick your poison.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Do you lock yourself in with the burglar that breaks into your house or do you kick it out and then lock your door and fix your fence to keep it out?


First I want to make sure his buddies in the getaway vehicle don't decide to want to come in when it goes bad for him. I have firearms and Iowa now has stand your ground. The burglar probably would be leaving in an ambulance or a body bag. But in the case of security we need to make sure the border is secure because as we kick one out another takes their place. 

If we were truly serious about solving this problem you freeze all immigration temporarily and work on security and making the process more efficient but politicians would rather use immigrants as a scapegoat rather than really solve the problem. But now the Mexicans and the Muslims need to be kept out is our version of keeping out the Italians and NINA (No Irish Need Apply). Contrary to what others believe not every Muslim wants to strap on a vest and blow someone up. Not every Hispanic brings in drugs, etc. If they can make a living and do it on their own without the government dole, I welcome them with open arms. 

Our government seems to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Let's be smart about really solving the issue if we are serious about it.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> First I want to make sure his buddies in the getaway vehicle don't decide to want to come in when it goes bad for him. I have firearms and Iowa now has stand your ground. The burglar probably would be leaving in an ambulance or a body bag. But in the case of security we need to make sure the border is secure because as we kick one out another takes their place.


I haven't actually looked at the stats, but I read somewhere that we're going through a phase right now where deportations outnumber illegal crossover. BUT at the same time because of Trump's recent stance on DACA we have more unaccompanied children coming over. 

Children who are old enough to make it and then sponsor their parents -- therefore all amnesty and the DACA program needs to fucking die a horrible death. 



> If we were truly serious about solving this problem you freeze all immigration temporarily


Sure. 



> and work on security and making the process more efficient but politicians would rather use immigrants as a scapegoat rather than really solve the problem.


I don't actually see a single politician scapegoating immigrants at all. I see Democrats seeing a healthy new base by legalizing illegals and Republicans too cowardly to take a firm stance that illegals should be kicked out. 



> But now the Mexicans and the Muslims need to be kept out is our version of keeping out the Italians and NINA (No Irish Need Apply).


That's really not the current policy or even campaign promise. It's the conflated version of the actual policy which is to decrease/eliminate immigration from Terrorist countries and stop the flow of illegals from Mexico. I don't think that either party wants to ban muslims or ban mexicans at all. 



> Contrary to what others believe not every Muslim wants to strap on a vest and blow someone up. Not every Hispanic brings in drugs, etc. If they can make a living and do it on their own without the government dole, I welcome them with open arms.


Literally no one believes this. Those who do are not a voting/effectual majority, nor can they form a voting bloc that would put a significant number of individuals in place that believe this enough to impact legislation. So I don't care about these people or their views. 



> Our government seems to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Let's be smart about really solving the issue if we are serious about it.


And I think that the real mistake is pushing any kind of amnesty at all. If someone has crossed the border illegally, then that person has no right to what is created by the people who are already here. 

Currently illegals are living in better conditions and receiving more benefits than Homeless people. America's spending under Obama on a single refugee was greater than a local homeless person. 

If anything, the mistakes we're making are not the ones you're talking about here - but the ones that keep Americans last and illegals first. There are so many welfare programs currently aimed at "helping" illegals that it boggles the mind. 

Actual, legal immigrants (at least the ones that don't come here from Mexico or South America) always take care of themselves. Ever heard of an Indian or Japanese or South Korean welfare queen? It's the ones that start illegally and then are legalized that tend to do worse both socially and economically. But then people use the positive amazing contributions of legal immigrants to toss in the illegals and claim that all foreigners are good ... Which is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty you can get. Sorry, the facts are that Mexicans and South/Central Americans do worse, get more welfare benefits and join more gangs than ANY immigrant group in America and therefore needs to be afforded special attention. 

I'm a legal immigrant. I came here legally. I have literally not heard a single person ever say to me that they don't want me here.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Contrary to what others believe not every Muslim wants to strap on a vest and blow someone up. Not every Hispanic brings in drugs, etc.


lol wtf



> If they can make a living and do it on their own without the government dole, I welcome them with open arms.


And so you would doom the conservatism you claim to stand for. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> First I want to make sure his buddies in the getaway vehicle don't decide to want to come in when it goes bad for him. I have firearms and Iowa now has stand your ground. The burglar probably would be leaving in an ambulance or a body bag. But in the case of security we need to make sure the border is secure because as we kick one out another takes their place.
> 
> If we were truly serious about solving this problem you freeze all immigration temporarily and work on security and making the process more efficient but politicians would rather use immigrants as a scapegoat rather than really solve the problem. But now the Mexicans and the Muslims need to be kept out is our version of keeping out the Italians and NINA (No Irish Need Apply). Contrary to what others believe not every Muslim wants to strap on a vest and blow someone up. Not every Hispanic brings in drugs, etc. If they can make a living and do it on their own without the government dole, I welcome them with open arms.
> 
> Our government seems to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Let's be smart about really solving the issue if we are serious about it.


Your idea of the way the Government should be ran would see the Republican Party decimated and there being no check against Democratic nonsense. I don't even think most Democrats want their party to go unchecked as mob rule never works out well. 

Nobody has said they want to keep out Mexicans or Muslims, people want Mexicans to come here legally. That's not much to ask, if it is to you well you have very low standards of who you'd want in the country. People don't want to ban Muslims, people just want to be sure people from terrorist infested countries aren't bringing their toxic ideology with them. It's all about better vetting.

Colleges, jobs and even people vet each other, do you just take you car to anyone without checking out if they're actually good at what they do? What about going to the Doctors? How about who you let inside your house?

I swear people want a free for all of flows of people without much vetting or selection but when it comes to themselves, by God and Jesus and baby Jesus they want to be sure everything is on the up and up. As long as someone else pays the bill and deals with the consequences, who cares!


----------



## The Absolute

For those wondering if Hollywood is still dwelling on this Russia thing:






yup.


----------



## Oxidamus

CamillePunk said:


>


"White is right!"


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> lol wtf
> 
> And so you would doom the conservatism you claim to stand for. :lol





Miss Sally said:


> Your idea of the way the Government should be ran would see the Republican Party decimated and there being no check against Democratic nonsense. I don't even think most Democrats want their party to go unchecked as mob rule never works out well.
> 
> Nobody has said they want to keep out Mexicans or Muslims, people want Mexicans to come here legally. That's not much to ask, if it is to you well you have very low standards of who you'd want in the country. People don't want to ban Muslims, people just want to be sure people from terrorist infested countries aren't bringing their toxic ideology with them. It's all about better vetting.
> 
> Colleges, jobs and even people vet each other, do you just take you car to anyone without checking out if they're actually good at what they do? What about going to the Doctors? How about who you let inside your house?
> 
> I swear people want a free for all of flows of people without much vetting or selection but when it comes to themselves, by God and Jesus and baby Jesus they want to be sure everything is on the up and up. As long as someone else pays the bill and deals with the consequences, who cares!





Reaper said:


> I haven't actually looked at the stats, but I read somewhere that we're going through a phase right now where deportations outnumber illegal crossover. BUT at the same time because of Trump's recent stance on DACA we have more unaccompanied children coming over.
> 
> Children who are old enough to make it and then sponsor their parents -- therefore all amnesty and the DACA program needs to fucking die a horrible death.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually see a single politician scapegoating immigrants at all. I see Democrats seeing a healthy new base by legalizing illegals and Republicans too cowardly to take a firm stance that illegals should be kicked out.
> 
> 
> 
> That's really not the current policy or even campaign promise. It's the conflated version of the actual policy which is to decrease/eliminate immigration from Terrorist countries and stop the flow of illegals from Mexico. I don't think that either party wants to ban muslims or ban mexicans at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Literally no one believes this. Those who do are not a voting/effectual majority, nor can they form a voting bloc that would put a significant number of individuals in place that believe this enough to impact legislation. So I don't care about these people or their views.
> 
> 
> 
> And I think that the real mistake is pushing any kind of amnesty at all. If someone has crossed the border illegally, then that person has no right to what is created by the people who are already here.
> 
> Currently illegals are living in better conditions and receiving more benefits than Homeless people. America's spending under Obama on a single refugee was greater than a local homeless person.
> 
> If anything, the mistakes we're making are not the ones you're talking about here - but the ones that keep Americans last and illegals first. There are so many welfare programs currently aimed at "helping" illegals that it boggles the mind.
> 
> Actual, legal immigrants (at least the ones that don't come here from Mexico or South America) always take care of themselves. Ever heard of an Indian or Japanese or South Korean welfare queen? It's the ones that start illegally and then are legalized that tend to do worse both socially and economically. But then people use the positive amazing contributions of legal immigrants to toss in the illegals and claim that all foreigners are good ... Which is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty you can get. Sorry, the facts are that Mexicans and South/Central Americans do worse, get more welfare benefits and join more gangs than ANY immigrant group in America and therefore needs to be afforded special attention.
> 
> I'm a legal immigrant. I came here legally. I have literally not heard a single person ever say to me that they don't want me here.


There are people who truly believe that all Muslims are bad, hell you have people mad that Trump didn't extend the ban to all Muslims everywhere like he said during the campaign. They really believe all Muslims and ex-Muslims are evil. The politicians won't come out and say it, they hide behind their mumbo jumbo and verbage. But there are a lot who believe it but won't just say it. It was the Irish in the 1840s, the Chinese in the 1890s, the Italians in the 1920s, now the Muslims. 

For those that say I am soft on the issue, I am wanting ALL illegals deported. Not some, not just the low end on the totem pole, but each and every single one. I understand that might not happen, but no one can accuse me of being soft. And my idea of conservative thought is put in place a system for immigration that is effective, and tell the bureaucrats in Washington to get the hell out of the way and let things progress. Until we address the issue of how to revamp the system we will keep having this argument


----------



## Reaper

Oxidamus said:


> "White is right!"


Maybe. Tolerance as well as acceptance of non-whites and emancipation of non-whites happens at a higher rate in White societies than any other societies in the world. 

So I guess, you're right. White is right :trump


----------



## Headliner

That UN speech was insane. Dumpster Fire Don at his finest.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> There are people who truly believe that all Muslims are bad, hell you have people mad that Trump didn't extend the ban to all Muslims everywhere like he said during the campaign. I want people to come here legally and embrace the American dream. Do we need to be smart about it, yes. But I want to see it done wisely and have them be serious about getting it right.
> 
> For those that say I am soft on the issue, I am wanting ALL illegals deported. Not some, not just the low end on the totem pole, but each and every single one.


100% agree with you.

I do wish the US would cut ties with Saudi Arabia and the EU etc would do something about the Mosques that preach hate, usually funded by the Saudis.

It just astounds me how Western Societies seem to tolerate dubious things done by foreign powers on their soil.

I wanted to talk about the amnesty issue but I'm tired, I'll comment on it later when I'm not falling asleep.


----------



## Vic Capri

United Nations speech.



President Trump said:


> The United States has great strength & patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice, but to totally destroy North Korea.


Donald Trump is going to finish what Harry Truman started.


P.S. Zero outrage from liberals when Obama threatened North Korea last year.

- Vic


----------



## Irish Jet

Let's nuke Korea, go to war with Iran and escalate in Afghanistan.

Trump really sticking to that anti-regime change narrative he was selling for votes.


----------



## CamillePunk

We're not going to war with North Korea and that's not Trump's aim. He's taking a tough negotiating stance as usual in the hopes it will lead to a deal, and it probably will. 

Not crazy about the Iran bits but much of that speech was great. The call for independent strong nations, the citing of the statistic of how its much cheaper to resettle refugees closer to their home countries and how Western countries have no right to risk the safety of their own citizens by allowing uncontrolled migration, and the complete takedown of vile socialism/communism. Overall a very good speech.


----------



## DOPA

@Reaper @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/



> Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because *scientists got their modelling wrong*, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.
> 
> An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.
> 
> Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
> 
> They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.
> 
> According to the models used to draw up the agreement, *the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.*
> 
> The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for *another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.*
> 
> *“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.*
> 
> Published in the *journal Nature Geoscience*, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, *there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.*
> 
> The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”.
> 
> Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is *stabilising emissions, particularly in China.*
> 
> Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted.
> 
> China has now acquired more than 100 gigawatts of solar cells, 25 per cent of which in the last six months, and in the UK, offshore wind has turned out to cost far less than expected.
> 
> Professor Michael Grubb, from University College London, had previously described the goals agreed at Paris in 2015 as “incompatible with democracy”.
> 
> But yesterday he said: "We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris."
> 
> He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because *“The White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions".*
> 
> *“The smaller constituencies - cities, businesses, states - are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind.”*
> 
> The new research was published as the Met Office announced that a “slowdown” in the rate of global temperature rises reported over roughly the first decade of this century was now over.
> 
> The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.
> 
> However, that cycle has now ended.
> 
> Claire Perry, the climate change and industry minister, claimed Britain had already demonstrated that tackling climate change and running a strong economy could go “hand in hand”.
> 
> “How is the time to build on our strengths and cement our position as a global hub for investment in clean growth,” she said.


Trump in my opinion at least officially, has been vindicated for pulling out of the Paris Agreement. As the study suggests, the reaction to the pullout was complete and utter hyperbole. The inaccuracy of the modelling systems was something which I talked about in reaction to the US pulling out of the Climate agreement as they have been historically wrong. Now it's being backed up by a study in which those who were outraged by Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Climate deal cannot deny it's authenticity or credibility.

Doesn't mean Climate Change isn't an issue we shouldn't take seriously or work on but for god's sake take everything into account and don't go all "muh feels" over every little decision Trump takes. Use your brain and analyze, this was stuff I was saying months ago :lol.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump bitchslapped the globalist socialists (but I repeat myself) yet again, of course they're gonna cry like the bitches they are :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

L-DOPA said:


> @Reaper @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
> 
> 
> 
> Trump in my opinion at least officially, has been vindicated for pulling out of the Paris Agreement. As the study suggests, the reaction to the pullout was complete and utter hyperbole. The inaccuracy of the modelling systems was something which I talked about in reaction to the US pulling out of the Climate agreement as they have been historically wrong. Now it's being backed up by a study in which those who were outraged by Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Climate deal cannot deny it's authenticity or credibility.
> 
> Doesn't mean Climate Change isn't an issue we shouldn't take seriously or work on but for god's sake take everything into account and don't go all "muh feels" over every little decision Trump takes. Use your brain and analyze, this was stuff I was saying months ago :lol.


The thing that bothers me the most is that they got their models wrong for Christ sakes


----------



## Reaper

Almost all American presidents have a history of saying strong stuff about North Korea 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910161007359623168


Stinger Fan said:


> The thing that bothers me the most is that they got their models wrong for Christ sakes


Climate "science" is BS propaganda. They haven't been right about most of their predictions. The track record is so poor that at this point they're nothing more than glorified psychics.


----------



## CamillePunk

Psychics have more incentive to appear credible to private citizens. Climate scientists get money from the government to support a state-expanding agenda.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Whatever happened to all those nazis and the president who loves them?

For some reason there aren't any more stories in the media about them. That makes zero sense. Nazis are serious fucking business. The president of the United states playing footsie with nazis is extremely serious fucking business. Not the kind of thing that the media should write stories about for a month then move on. 

But that's what has happened...

It's almost like it was a deliberate smear job, a ginned up moral panic and manufactured self righteous indignation :hmmm

Because again, freaking nazis being a real threat and the president being a sekrit nazi is far too important to be talked about for a month then basically dropped. The president being a sekrit nazi is not just something to drive the news cycle for a little while. It's a big fucking deal.

So why has it dropped off the radar?


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Whatever happened to all those nazis and the president who loves them?
> 
> For some reason there aren't any more stories in the media about them. That makes zero sense. Nazis are serious fucking business. The president of the United states playing footsie with nazis is extremely serious fucking business. Not the kind of thing that the media should write stories about for a month then move on.
> 
> But that's what has happened...
> 
> It's almost like it was a deliberate smear job, a ginned up moral panic and manufactured self righteous indignation :hmmm
> 
> Because again, freaking nazis being a real threat and the president being a sekrit nazi is far too important to be talked about for a month then basically dropped. The president being a sekrit nazi is not just something to drive the news cycle for a little while. It's a big fucking deal.
> 
> So why has it dropped off the radar?


The communists ruined the narrative by being more violent more often.


----------



## Reaper

^And Benjamin Nethanyahu just suffers from internalized antisemitism. He's like the "uncle tom" of Jews. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909859517034319873


----------



## MrMister

There is no moral equivalent between antifa and nazis.

I've heard that said by a lot of idiots and willful propagandists over the course of the past few weeks.


----------



## Vic Capri

> We're not going to war with North Korea and that's not Trump's aim. He's taking a tough negotiating stance as usual in the hopes it will lead to a deal, and it probably will.


Kim Jong Un is testing nuclear bombs and is unstable enough to start a war. Its a justified reason to take military action preferably with international support.



> Whatever happened to all those nazis and the president who loves them?
> 
> For some reason there aren't any more stories in the media about them. That makes zero sense. Nazis are serious fucking business. The president of the United states playing footsie with nazis is extremely serious fucking business. Not the kind of thing that the media should write stories about for a month then move on.
> 
> But that's what has happened...
> 
> It's almost like it was a deliberate smear job, a ginned up moral panic and manufactured self righteous indignation
> 
> Because again, freaking nazis being a real threat and the president being a sekrit nazi is far too important to be talked about for a month then basically dropped. The president being a sekrit nazi is not just something to drive the news cycle for a little while. It's a big fucking deal.
> 
> So why has it dropped off the radar?


The media takes turns every month calling him a Russian agent and the inventor of racism.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tbh, my only issue with Trump again is the language used with the North Korean speech. "Rocket Man" was childish tbh. The message was right though and tbh I'm surprised it hasn't come sooner (I've even alluded to such in this thread.) There's only so far you can be pushed and throw out sanctions with the other side continuing to escalate things before you have to stand your ground. Kim said he was going to reduce the US to ashes, though he could've done it with more art, Trump responded in kind. He's kinda supposed to do that no? If Kim turned round and said "We're going to nuke the UK to ashes" I'd bloody hope Theresa May would get her weak-spined arse on the telly and tell us that it's ok, stiff upper lip, Trident's here we'll fuck them hard if they carry on being cheeky twats.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rocket Man. :lol


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Tbh, my only issue with Trump again is the language used with the North Korean speech. "Rocket Man" was childish tbh. The message was right though and tbh I'm surprised it hasn't come sooner (I've even alluded to such in this thread.) There's only so far you can be pushed and throw out sanctions with the other side continuing to escalate things before you have to stand your ground. Kim said he was going to reduce the US to ashes, though he could've done it with more art, Trump responded in kind. He's kinda supposed to do that no? If Kim turned round and said "We're going to nuke the UK to ashes" I'd bloody hope Theresa May would get her weak-spined arse on the telly and tell us that it's ok, stiff upper lip, Trident's here we'll fuck them hard if they carry on being cheeky twats.


You're a very reasonable person, but I have to ask, why do we need to have leaders that speak elitest-speak in order to get the same point across. 

Why is saying "Kim Jong Un's missile testing poses a threat to the global peace and therefore we may have to resort to extreme action to take down what is turning out to be an uncontrollable dictator with nuclear aresenal" better than saying "I will destroy Rocketman"? when they both convey the same message in different language. 

I always thought that general populace doesn't like elitest political-speak?


----------



## skypod

Never in Trumps corner but I had no problems with the speech. Far too common at these things to speak in circles and no-one actually be held accountable for sheltering terrorism or human rights violations. I have this fantasy of world leaders truly being held accountable and punished and made to uncomfortably squirm from all the bad shit they do and this is the closest thing. 

North Korea has never been taken as seriously and is not apart of the global conversation so not sure why their leaders name should be treated with respect. Would be different if Trump disagreed with Theresa May on a political issue and started calling her an "old crank" or something. The North Korea issue goes past politics.


----------



## Reaper

Yes. Yes you do.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Yes. Yes you do.


----------



## Pratchett

L-DOPA said:


> @Reaper @CamillePunk @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
> 
> 
> 
> Trump in my opinion at least officially, has been vindicated for pulling out of the Paris Agreement. As the study suggests, the reaction to the pullout was complete and utter hyperbole. The inaccuracy of the modelling systems was something which I talked about in reaction to the US pulling out of the Climate agreement as they have been historically wrong. Now it's being backed up by a study in which those who were outraged by Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Climate deal cannot deny it's authenticity or credibility.
> 
> Doesn't mean Climate Change isn't an issue we shouldn't take seriously or work on but for god's sake take everything into account and don't go all "muh feels" over every little decision Trump takes. Use your brain and analyze, this was stuff I was saying months ago :lol.


Not surprising to me in the least. The "climate models" and forecasts change every 5 to 10 years apparently. :mj

It didn't take me much time to break down the public school conditioning that my son has received over the years, and he was finally able to see beyond all the nonsense that has been pushed at him. He was trying to argue with me at one point over the importance of things Bill Nye was saying (he was shown a video in his science class). I countered that by exposing him to the history of Global Alarmism that I have lived through, and showing him just what kind of a useful idiot Bill Nye is.

The Red Pilling has taken hold of him. roud


----------



## Neuron

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910235267314978816
Mexicans = Russians

Seems calling anything Russian is synonymous with any foreign group that compromises elections these days. I'd bet money these "dreamers" that rushed the old crone have fake identities and voted in the last election.


----------



## virus21

Neuron said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910235267314978816
> Mexicans = Russians
> 
> Seems calling anything Russian is synonymous with any foreign group that compromises elections these days. I'd bet money these "dreamers" that rushed the old crone have fake identities and voted in the last election.


Why don't you just start putting Russians in interment camps and get it over with. Seems like they want to.


----------



## Reaper

Pratchett said:


> The Red Pilling has taken hold of him. roud


I'm not going to be as lucky with my niece. Apparently, they've been brainwashing her to the point where she knows what conservatism/liberalism is already and that all conservatives are climate change deniers. She came at me one day in our family group chat and even though I patiently broke down the science of it, she had the nerve to disrespect me and ignore everything I said. Apparently, her head is full of the same kind of nonsense shit-speak you get from liberals ITT too. 

It's a shame. Her mother is an SJW, so she's likely going to be a lost cause ... And she's not even 14 yet. She's the daughter of a Muslim/feminist/SJW in Canada. 

Yeah. She never had a chance.


----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


> Why don't you just start putting Russians in interment camps and get it over with. Seems like they want to.


Putting people in internment camps based on their ancestry is what their hero FDR did. :draper2



Reaper said:


> I'm not going to be as lucky with my niece. Apparently, they've been brainwashing her to the point where she knows what conservatism/liberalism is already and that all conservatives are climate change deniers. She came at me one day in our family group chat and even though I patiently broke down the science of it, she had the nerve to disrespect me and ignore everything I said. Apparently, her head is full of the same kind of nonsense shit-speak you get from liberals ITT too.
> 
> It's a shame. Her mother is an SJW, so she's likely going to be a lost cause ... And she's not even 14 yet. She's the daughter of a Muslim/feminist/SJW in Canada.
> 
> Yeah. She never had a chance.


Don't give up. You might not "win her over" so to speak but you can make a difference. Perhaps instead of trying to convince her on specific issues just open her mind to critical thinking and reason in general and hope she starts to question the propaganda on her own.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Pratchett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Red Pilling has taken hold of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be as lucky with my niece. Apparently, they've been brainwashing her to the point where she knows what conservatism/liberalism is already and that all conservatives are climate change deniers. She came at me one day in our family group chat and even though I patiently broke down the science of it, she had the nerve to disrespect me and ignore everything I said. Apparently, her head is full of the same kind of nonsense shit-speak you get from liberals ITT too.
> 
> It's a shame. Her mother is an SJW, so she's likely going to be a lost cause ... And she's not even 14 yet. She's the daughter of a Muslim/feminist/SJW in Canada.
> 
> Yeah. She never had a chance.
Click to expand...

When you say she ignored all of it you mean she didn't accept your science and stuck with the science she knows and was taught because that's the consensus of most scientists and that maybe uncle reaper doesn't know better?

Sounds to me like you've got a 14 year old who is willing to at least be interested in global events and politics which is more than most so maybe over time you may be able to brainwash her yourself, seeing as taking a stance against your position is classed as brainwashed.

I would suggest this niece of yours has every chance, if only me family showed any interest in these kinds of things I'd be happy.


----------



## BruiserKC

If the UN was serious about reforming they would do it. They enjoy wallowing in their own incompetence. Trump was right in we spend way too much and get way too little. However he is mistaken if he thinks his speech will change minds there. When you see nations that head the Human Rights Committee that are the most egregious violators of human rights you know it's a joke. 

Trump should have said the US is pulling out of the UN and the UN can get out of the US.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Putting people in internment camps based on their ancestry is what their hero FDR did. :draper2
> 
> Don't give up. You might not "win her over" so to speak but you can make a difference. Perhaps instead of trying to convince her on specific issues just open her mind to critical thinking and reason in general and hope she starts to question the propaganda on her own.


I'll let her go through the same process as I did and hopefully over time she'll keep coming back to her conservative uncle with questions. At least she did approach me and I hope she will in the future as well. 

She can have her climate change and even some of Muslim dogma (since my family has always been liberty first when it comes to Islam) as long as I can talk to her about the ills of big government and feminism.


----------



## Littbarski

skypod said:


> Never in Trumps corner but I had no problems with the speech.


The speech wasn't good. 

He spent the first half of the speech talking isolationism and that America needs to stay out of other countries business then turns around and warns Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and Syria that America will intervene if they don't get their house in order.


----------



## The Absolute

For those wondering what Mrs. Clinton is up to these days...


































































































...she's still blaming Russia.


----------



## Vic Capri

Lock her up...in the mental ward.

- Vic


----------



## nyelator

Vic Capri said:


> Lock her up...in the mental ward.
> 
> - Vic


It's for her own good.


----------



## CamillePunk

Take five minutes, please. Whichever side you're on. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909961001876910080
No need for violence. Just keep talking.


----------



## DOPA

I was about to post about that @CamillePunk. A rare moment where both sides came together and actually talked and listened to each other. Maybe there is hope after all.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...content=090517-news&utm_campaign=dwreciprocal



> Between competing pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests in Washington, D.C., over the weekend, a silver lining was found with a Black Lives Matter group who unexpectedly took the stage during a boisterous pro-Trump rally.
> 
> *What happened?*
> 
> A Black Lives Matter group marched near the rally and passed closely to the stage. As they walked and shouted chants of “Black lives matter,” the group received jeers and boos from many people attending the pro-Trump rally.
> 
> At first, the mic-wielding organizer of the Trump rally told pro-Trump congregants, “Don’t give them the spotlight,” and “They don’t exist.”
> 
> No one could have predicted what would happen next.
> 
> From the stage, another organizer seemed to make a split-second decision and shouted, “I’m going to let Black Lives Matter come up here while I show them what patriotism is all about, all right?”
> 
> Another speaker, who handed the microphone over to the group’s leader, said, “[This rally is] about freedom of speech. It’s about celebration. So what we are gonna do is not something you’re used to, and we’re going to give you two minutes of our platform to put your message out.”
> 
> “Now, whether [the crowd disagrees or agrees] with your message is irrelevant — it’s the fact that you have the right to have the message,” he said.
> 
> Members of the Black Lives Matter then took the stage and their leader began speaking — to the cheers of the crowd gathered, both supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement as well as Trump supporters.
> 
> *What did the group say?*
> 
> “I am an American,” the Black Lives Matter group leader said. “And the beauty of America is that when you see something broke in your country, you can mobilize to fix it.”
> 
> He continued, “So you ask why there’s a ‘Black Lives Matter?’ Because you can watch a black man die and be choked to death on television, and nothing happened. We need to address that.”
> 
> The man’s comments seemed to turn the crowd against him, and cries of “No!” and protests to have the group removed from the stage began to ramp up.
> 
> Though the speaker declared that BLM is “not anti-cop,” the pro-Trump crowd’s reaction showed they didn’t believe it. But things began to turn around when the man clarified that the group was “anti-bad cop” and shouted that the group didn’t want any handouts, and didn’t want anything that didn’t rightfully belong to them.
> 
> “We want our God-given right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” the group’s leader shouted, and the crowd began to applaud and cheer once more.
> 
> The BLM leader added, “All lives matter, right? … If we really want to make America great, we do it together.”
> 
> The crowd applauded the group leader’s comments, and began chanting “USA! USA!”
> 
> *What was the BLM leader’s takeaway?*
> 
> After the leader’s speech came to an end, he told a nearby cameraman that his experience in speaking to the pro-Trump crowd “restored my faith in some of these people.”
> 
> “When I spoke truths, they agreed,” he said. “I feel like we made progress. I feel like two sides that never listen to each other actually made progress today.”
> 
> He added, “I expected to come down here with my fist in the air in a very militant way, and to exchange insults … if not on a grander level, and just person-to-person, I think we really made some substantial steps without either side yielding anything.
> 
> “I hope that they understand that one of the leaders of the Black Lives Matters movement is a proud American and a Christian who cares deeply about this country,” he said. “We really are here to help this country move toward a better place, not to destroy it.”
> 
> Noting that he had been approached by many people after his speech who agreed with him, and even wanted to take photographs with him, he said, “That’s the power of communication.”
> 
> “We came out, we were gonna chant, we were gonna do a demonstration, but we didn’t have to — we just spoke,” he said. “It worked. I’m happy about that.”



http://www.dailywire.com/news/21322...m_content=091817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro



> *Maxine Waters Calls For Trump Impeachment — During Eulogy!*
> 
> Rep. Maxine Waters has given up on doing anything for her constituents. Instead, she wakes every day with just one thing on her mind: Impeach President Trump!
> 
> She says it in nearly every speech. And she says it in every interview. And now, she's even said it during a eulogy!
> 
> The California congresswoman delivered a eulogy for comedian and activist Dick Gregory on Saturday. While all the other speakers focused on Gregory's life, Waters went on an anti-Trump rant.
> 
> “I’m cleaning out the White House,” Waters said. “We’re going to sanitize the White House. We’re not going to take what is happening in this country. Haven’t you taken enough?” she yelled — to the mourners, The American Mirror reports.
> 
> “And then comes along this person,” she said. “This person who does not respect you. This dishonorable human being who cheats everybody! This dishonorable human being who will lie at the drop of a hat.
> 
> “This dishonorable human being who has the alt-right, and the KKK and everybody else inside his Cabinet!” she bellowed to applause.
> 
> “This dishonorable human being who can criticize everybody but (Vladimir) Putin and Russia,” Waters said, referring to the man who just increased sanctions on the blustering country.
> 
> Moments later, Waters said, “Not only are we going to clean out the White House. We’re going to take back the house that slaves built!
> 
> Closing, she said, “And I know my colleagues get very upset. Some get afraid when I say ‘impeachment,'” she told the cheering mourners.
> 
> “When I get through with Donald Trump, he’s going to wish he had been impeached!” Waters yelled, pointing at the crowd.
> 
> “I feel it very deeply — I am so offended by him and I love my people so much I’m not gonna put up with it.
> 
> “I’m gonna say ‘Impeach 45 everyday,’ ‘Impeach 45 everyday,’ ‘Impeach 45 everyday,'” she said during the eulogy.


I've seen this insane woman continuously call for Trump's impeachment since the beginning but this must be the lowest I've seen someone sink to in terms of Trump hate.


----------



## CamillePunk

Here's a Scott Adams' analysis of the master persuasion techniques utilized by the BLM speaker, namely the high ground maneuever and pacing and leading, which were easy for me to recognize:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910489868509179904
Essential viewing for anyone on the BLM side who actually wants to persuade anyone to be sympathetic to their message/movement.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk @Reaper @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku @BrusierKC;

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/19/hours-after-hurricane-irma-miami-dade-co



> Mere hours after Hurricane Irma, *Miami-Dade County was ticketing residents for building code violations on their wrecked properties.*
> 
> Celso Perez was helping his neighbors remove some fallen trees blocking their street when a county code enforcer rolled up and issued him a safety notice for having a downed fence. "I laughed," Perez tells WSVN-TV. "I thought he was kidding. 'You are kidding right? We just had a hurricane six hours ago.'"
> 
> It wasn't a joke. *The official told Perez that the downed fence—which encloses a pool—was a safety hazard, and that if it wasn't fixed by the time he returned, Perez would be hit with a fine.* The official then hung the safety citation on the portion of Perez's fence that remained standing, leaving him and his neighbors to finish clearing the debris from their street.
> 
> According to WSVN, *the county has handed out 680 safety notices for downed pool barriers, and another 177 electrical hazard safety notices.* Reason reached out to the county to confirm those numbers, but has not received a reply.
> 
> From what can be gleaned from the WSVN story and from county code enforcement procedures, these safety notices appear to be just warnings, meaning no fines have been handed out as of yet. Reason tried to confirm this with the county as well, but was again rebuffed.
> 
> Still, these warnings carry with them a duty to correct the violation within a specific window of time. That might not even be possible for some residents, given how many businesses are still out of operation.
> 
> As Perez said of the day he got his ticket, "All the stores were closed. It's not like I can go to Home Depot and find some temporary barrier."
> 
> Even if he could, it's quite possible that Perez and the other people handed citations might have more pressing things to do right after a hurricane than bring their homes back up to code. You know: clearing the streets, seeking medical attention, checking in on family members, trying to find food. You might think the county would have higher priorities too, like getting the lights back on for Miami-Dade's 16,510 homes and businesses still without power.
> 
> County officials don't see it that way. "It is important that we reach residents in the immediate aftermath of the storm," one tells WSVN, "because that is when conditions are most dangerous, and taking steps to protect life is a critical part of the recovery process."
> 
> Update: After publication Reason received comment from Miami-Dade county, with the following explanation:
> 
> We were looking to advise residents of the following hazards on their properties that they may not have been aware of, but that pose a life safety threat: damaged structures that rendered them unsafe, unsecured pools with no barriers, electrical hazards (down lines, damaged meters) and gas hazards (damaged meters). If any of these hazards were found, our inspectors gave out a safety notice, which is neither a notice of violation warning nor a citation. That means there is no fine attached. The safety notices given to property owners identify the hazard, steps that should be taken to correct the hazard, and who to contact for additional information


That official threatening the citizen with a fine for safety violations after a fucking hurricane is an absolute asshole.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> You're a very reasonable person, but I have to ask, why do we need to have leaders that speak elitest-speak in order to get the same point across.


It's got very little to do with "getting the point across" and everything to do with "being the best leader he can be" if I'm honest. The childish name calling is beneath someone of his station for a start, it's also shit diplomacy when you're doing it on that particular stage. The thing with Trump, he has charisma. The problem is that most of the time he's speaking incoherent garbage or just terribly worded ugly language that charisma draws extra special attention to how piss poor he is as a public speaker. If he channelled that same charisma through an eloquent and well written address, would it not stand to reason that charisma plus great speech equals iconic moment? 

What I'm not sure many of the Trump fans have understood with me is that whilst I dislike Trump, I quite wholeheartedly want him to be as good as a President as he can be. It's the USA, if your shit fucks up, all our shit's fucked up. His biggest weakness is that he'll never be taken seriously on the political stage whilst he has worse oration skills than the average high school debate team member. His language is poor, his wording ugly. I'd much rather see a LEADER who leads for greatness and has the bearing of a leader, the poise, the DIGNITY. Those are qualities he must possess to be in the position he's in, but he doesn't show one iota of it to the world stage. I'd rather see him actually "Make America Great Again" and do it with class, and in a way that suits the leader of the world's most powerful country more than the bearing of a petulant, slightly spoiled and ignorant teenager. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Aah. I appreciate your point of view, I really do.

But you have to remember that American Republican presidents are always portrayed as the devil or worse and so it really does not matter how they appear anymore because they're going to be villainized. 

I and the vast majority of Trump's base are aware of this so him appearing presidential is extremely low on our priority list. It's damn near irrelevant now. The left has lost their credibility with regards to this particular criticism. 

It would have been valid under a completely different scenario where portrayal was just and fair.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @Reaper @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku @BrusierKC;
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/19/hours-after-hurricane-irma-miami-dade-co
> 
> 
> 
> That official threatening the citizen with a fine for safety violations after a fucking hurricane is an absolute asshole.


It's Miami. Most of us Floridians in Central and northern Florida know that it is a Democrat run disaster and we don't give a fuck about them. It's a stain on this State's good standing.

It's so bad that my wife doesn't even want to visit it even she's lived her entire life in Florida.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Aah. I appreciate your point of view, I really do.
> 
> But you have to remember that American Republican presidents are always portrayed as the devil or worse and so it really does not matter how they appear anymore because they're going to be villainized.
> 
> I and the vast majority of Trump's base are aware of this so him appearing presidential is extremely low on our priority list. It's damn near irrelevant now. The left has lost their credibility with regards to this particular criticism.
> 
> It would have been valid under a completely different scenario where portrayal was just and fair.


Unfortunately though, your "left" and your media are completely irrelevant outside of America for the most part. Maybe it's a little selfish, but my concern is more how Trump's presidency will affect the rest of us. Diplomacy always works better with a silver tongue than a wooden one.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Unfortunately though, your "left" and your media are completely irrelevant outside of America for the most part. Maybe it's a little selfish, but my concern is more how Trump's presidency will affect the rest of us. Diplomacy always works better with a silver tongue than a wooden one.


Rhetoric doesn't = Diplomacy. 

Obama and Clinton had silver tongues but their foreign policy was a disaster as well.


----------



## Vic Capri

> No need for violence. Just keep talking.


If two opposing sides can agree to talk, they'll eventually find a common ground.

- Vic


----------



## AVX

Trump has the ability to disarm people with charisma. People who vehemently hate him find him charming and cooperative after they interact with him in real life. It's a characteristic you can not be taught and you can't fake like many Politicians find out later. Ben Franklin was very much like this as well.


----------



## virus21

He mad


----------



## Reaper

For me it isn't Trump's charisma as much as it is his constant reminder of that alpha male / patriarch energy that is the driver of progress in families and in societies. 

It's all about that patriarchal aura that all great builders have.

I suppose you could call that charisma, but I don't think so. I think Trudeau has more natural charisma and charm than Trump has. However, we know what charming but incapable men are like.

---










:sodone


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

Good to see Morgan Freeman joined Keith Olbermann in the cuckoo house.

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

BruiserKC said:


> If the UN was serious about reforming they would do it. They enjoy wallowing in their own incompetence. Trump was right in we spend way too much and get way too little. However he is mistaken if he thinks his speech will change minds there. When you see nations that head the Human Rights Committee that are the most egregious violators of human rights you know it's a joke.
> 
> Trump should have said the US is pulling out of the UN and the UN can get out of the US.


Hes mentioned it, but getting the border fence, healthcare and tax cuts are eating all his time


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Take five minutes, please. Whichever side you're on.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909961001876910080
> No need for violence. Just keep talking.


I saw his speech

And what hes saying isnt in lockstep with the other blm leaders


----------



## FITZ

That's a nice video that was posted. I really think that the American people are just being played against each other. Poor black people are overwhelming Democrats and poor white people won Trump the presidency. But they have many of the same problems and issues yet are politically at odds with each other. I think there's a lot that could be accomplished with how divided we are if we didn't news outlets playing the other side as evil. 

And that was a really good speech by the guy. I didn't watch the analysis video but I know what it's going to say. I'm not going to call myself of public speaking but I think I'm pretty good at it and I know a lot of people who are great at it. He made his point seem reasonable and stressed more of common ground that he had with his audience. 

I just wish we were able to find more common ground. And I think a big problem is that people won't admit the other side is right at some cases. Michael Brown and Eric Garner are two of the highest profile cases. From the reading that I did I think the Brown killing was justified and the Garner killing wasn't. I feel like there won't be many people who agree with me on that (or flip the conclusions but still be split).



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @Reaper @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Goku @BrusierKC;
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/19/hours-after-hurricane-irma-miami-dade-co
> 
> 
> 
> That official threatening the citizen with a fine for safety violations after a fucking hurricane is an absolute asshole.


I kind of get doing that about lose wires or gas meters or something that could actually hurt or kill someone. I still think they should be doing it a nicer way but those are actual dangers. But they need to fuck off with the fences around pools.


----------



## virus21




----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2017/09/14/justice-department-no-2-weighs-in-on-marijuana-legalization/#4abc5de92cfb



> *Justice Department No. 2 Makes Ominous Comments On Marijuana Legalization*
> 
> The Trump administration is continuing to weigh.whether or not to reverse Obama-era guidance that generally allows states to legalize marijuana without federal interference, the Justice.Department's number two official said on Thursday.
> 
> "We are reviewing that policy. We haven't changed it, but we are reviewing it. We're looking at the states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, trying to evaluate what the impact is," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in an appearance at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
> 
> "And I think there is some pretty significant evidence that marijuana turns out to be more harmful than a lot of people anticipated, and it's more difficult to regulate than I think was contemplated ideally by some of those states," he said.
> 
> Under the so-called "Cole Memo," named after the former Obama Justice Department official who authored it in 2013, the federal government set out certain criteria that, if followed, would allow states to implement their own laws mostly without intervention..Those criteria concern areas like youth use, impaired driving and interstate trafficking.
> In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime legalization opponent, directed a Justice Department task force to review the memo and make recommendations for possible changes.
> 
> But that panel did not provide Sessions with any ammunition to support a crackdown on states, according to the Associated Press, which reviewed excerpts of the task force's report to the attorney general.
> In his new remarks, Rosenstein expressed concern that people are misinterpreting the still-in-effect memo.
> "That's been perceived in some places almost as if it creates a safe harbor, but it doesn't. And it's clear that it doesn't," he said. "That is, even if, under the terms of the memo you're not likely.to be prosecuted, it doesn't mean that what you're doing is legal or that it's approved by the federal government or that you protected from prosecution in the future."


----------



## CamillePunk

FITZ said:


> I just wish we were able to find more common ground. And I think a big problem is that people won't admit the other side is right at some cases. Michael Brown and Eric Garner are two of the highest profile cases. From the reading that I did I think the Brown killing was justified and the Garner killing wasn't. I feel like there won't be many people who agree with me on that (or flip the conclusions but still be split).


That was my take on both incidents as well. :draper2 Actually I think I was against the police early on with the Michael Brown thing until we got video evidence of him robbing the store and then witnesses started changing their stories. That made me go back to the Trayvon case too (which wasn't police I realize) and realize all of the media manipulation going on to incite racial tension, like with the edited 911 audio etc. 

Police brutality and government overreach (which is done via the police in many ways) are issues that affect everyone but through framing it as a racial issue and stoking those fires, the media successfully turned it into a polarizing issue that can never be solved because both sides have so much confirmation bias and it's impossible for them to be rational about it. I think the persuasion techniques utilized by that BLM speaker, if adopted by more "rational insiders" from both sides, could go a long way in getting us past all of that. Of course another problem is you have people behind both sides also using it as a political issue to gain power. It's a mess, really.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910597580802764800
Why is this guy Trump's CoS again?


----------



## BruiserKC

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/20...makes-bipartisan-health-care-deal-impossible/

Meanwhile...we're back to another attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare (yet it is hilarious that for years it was just repeal and only Trump ran on repeal and replace). I read what Graham-Cassidy does. It takes the money that the government gets for the ACA and hands it to the states in the form of block grants for them to use the money specifically to set up their own health care system. To that extent, it's OK because it takes the federal government out of the equation and lets the states decide for themselves how to handle their own exchanges. At the same time, it still keeps the skeleton of Obamacare around rather than completely remove it. So for anyone on either side of the aisle to say this is a repeal is being intellectually dishonest. 

Also, I'm disappointed in Rand Paul. He is against this, yet it turns out he voted for the partial repeal and skinny repeal and they kept more of the ACA in place. I would have hoped that he would have stood firm and voted no throughout, because now Trump is turning his Tweets on him. He at least could have said that he was the one person who voted on repeal and meant it all through these last few months. McConnell and company are now turning their fury on the conservatives like Paul and the Freedom Caucus. At least for the most part they have tried to keep their promises, but now they are possibly going to be the scapegoats that nothing gets done. 

On the other hand, you have more and more Senators and Congresspeople on the Democrat side that are coming on board with the idea of single-payer health care. For many, this is what the Obamacare implosion was supposed to be ending in all along. For some, Obama didn't go far enough and it should have just been single-payer to begin with. To some, it was designed to fail, and then when HRC rode in had she won the WH she would save Murrica with single-payer. 

I'm torn on this...I don't know if I can support Graham-Cassidy as while it still takes more of the ACA away it still leaves everything else. On the other hand, I have made very clear that single-payer would have severe consequences for this country regarding our budget and our health moving forward. I'm also concerned that if this fails, then conservatives who are actually serious about reducing government and its involvement in our everyday lives where it wasn't meant to be will be blamed.


----------



## DOPA




----------



## Reaper

Sargon thinks that Tucker is a Republican ? :kobe 

*sigh*


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberals: Bill O'Reilly needs to be fired for yelling at his staff.

Liberals: Lawrence O'Donnell was just having a bad day at work.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

But Trump is the Nazi fascist. She sounds like a member of the SS. 










So, the response to the ending of ISIS is that Trump hasn't killed an already dead terrorist? 










I wonder if she believes in Aliens too or has had any special encounters :hmmm


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> I wonder if she believes in Aliens too or has had any special encounters :hmmm


Not getting this last bit. She is a former covert CIA ops officer.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Not getting this last bit. She is a former covert CIA ops officer.


Lots of ex-CIA are pushers of the Alien coverup conspiracy theories.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> Lots of ex-CIA are part of the Alien coverup conspiracy theories.


Huh. Had not heard of that. Thanks for the info. It's interesting. I wonder what the cause is.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Huh. Had not heard of that. Thanks for the info. It's interesting. I wonder what the cause is.


Just google ex-CIA alien encounter and enjoy the journey down the rabbit hole.


----------



## MrMister

They either want to make money off the conspiracy industry...or they know things.

Most likely want to make money. I'd make up shit about aliens too, but also be vague because CLASSIFIED and TOP SECRET etc.

Also Plame must've been incredibly hot when she was young. She's in her 50s and is a fine looking woman.:max


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *14-year-old Jehovah's Witness forced to receive blood transfusion*
> 
> A judge authorized a Montreal hospital to perform blood transfusions to treat a 14-year-old female Jehovah’s Witness with cancer, despite the girl’s refusal “even if it kills me.”
> 
> In authorizing the transfusions, the tribunal underlined that it is adhering to laws protecting children, “sometimes against their own wishes” when those decisions could prove fatal.
> 
> The girl had turned 14 just three months before becoming aware of her condition, and dreamed of becoming a music teacher. In his decision, Judge Lukasz Granosik of the Superior Court described her as “a big girl, bright and articulate,” who does very well at school and “exhibits a maturity above her biological age in terms of her behaviour.”
> 
> In June 2017, the girl learned she had Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer, and needed to undergo chemotherapy treatments. Such treatments often required blood transfusions, failing which death or irreversible neurological damage are likely in case of haemorrhaging, according to her doctor.
> 
> Following the rules of her religion, the teen could not accept such transfusions. She therefore refused and asked that her choice and autonomy be respected.
> 
> The girl is a Jehovah’s Witness, as are her parents. She has preached since age 9 and was baptized at age 12 of her own accord and without her parents’ knowledge, the judgment notes.
> 
> The McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) therefore requested authorization from the tribunal to conduct the transfusions without her consent. The MUHC questioned the girl’s maturity and asserted that her consent is invalidated because she is under pressure from her parents.
> 
> According to the law, minors over 14 years old can refuse certain services; the authorization of a tribunal is therefore necessary if their parents or a hospital want to administer those services.
> 
> The girl’s hematologist-oncologist evaluates her prognosis as excellent, with a 97 per cent chance of recovery, and 85 per cent chance of recovery with no relapse. The doctor promised to use other treatment methods when possible and to resort to transfusion only if the girl’s life is in danger.
> 
> In his judgment, Judge Granosik remarked that the girl speaks of her will to live and her dreams, while at the same time “she speaks of death (as something abstract), without emotion and almost with resignation,” in mechanical fashion, like a robot.
> 
> Despite the girl’s insistence, the judge decided in favour of the required care: “The necessity of a blood transfusion must be considered to save the life of X, or to avoid permanent damage to her physical integrity.”


http://nationalpost.com/news/local-...sion/wcm/6e241871-5ae3-4dd4-a704-7fd4a95a9ae5

Thought this was an interesting story. Removing religion out of the equation, should it not be up to the patient to determine whether or not they want treatment?


----------



## Reaper

The state really shouldn't even have to interfere in a situation like this because if you remove indoctrination, I find it impossible that someone would refuse treatment. This isn't the same case as vaccines or car insurance where others can be harmed. 

Of course I don't think the state gets to make the decision here. That's the job of the parents.

I believe in the function of dysfunction in that a certain amount of dysfunction is necessary to help people learn from the dysfunction and have something to compare to and learn from.


----------



## Draykorinee

Patents shouldn't allow their children to die because of archaic beliefs, it's a disgusting idea. Even if you dislike state interference there has to be limits.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Patents shouldn't allow their children to die because of archaic beliefs, it's a disgusting idea. Even if you dislike state interference there has to be limits.


I agree. But you can't save everybody. The philosophy here that the government makes bad decisions too and that does not change irrespective of its ability to make decisions.

It becomes a slippery slope. You can't depend on the state to make right decisions for you or even your children. 

In this case the 14 year old made his/her own choice. It's not the right choice. But it's hee choice. She wasn't being forced to make that choice.

If this isn't an acceptable choice for the teen, the chances of this teen rejecting subsequent treatment increases because now she's in conflict with what's in her body.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Jug-Eared Fool confirmed as the most spyingest president on politically troublesome Americans since LBJ.

He's still the got Jug-Eared Fool beat though, he wiretapped both the Nixon and Humphrey campaigns in '68. JEF just wiretapped a half-dozen people around :trump, some of them very close to him, like his campaign manager, but we're supposed to believe that :trump wasn't being spied on.

And still not one shred of evidence produced of MUH RUSSIA. Instead you've got Mueller flailing around investigating people and allegations farther and farther removed from the allegation of collusion between the :trump campaign and the Russian government. Hopefully :trump tells Mueller's ass it's fired soon, it's been more than a year of the FBI and now the FBI and Mueller both investigating and they've produced nothing. 

I don't know why that skeevy fuck James Clapper isn't behind bars, he's perjured himself before Congress so many times. 

If a Republican president had done this people would be going to jail, and not the people who had been spied on. But it wasn't a Republican president that did this, it was the Jug-Eared Fool so they'll all get away with it. MUH RUSSIA is a smokescreen concocted to obscure Barack Obama's minions spying on Americans because they were political threats.


----------



## DavyJones

deepelemblues said:


> The Jug-Eared Fool confirmed as the most spyingest president on politically troublesome Americans since LBJ.
> 
> He's still the got Jug-Eared Fool beat though, he wiretapped both the Nixon and Humphrey campaigns in '68. JEF just wiretapped a half-dozen people around :trump, some of them very close to him, like his campaign manager, but we're supposed to believe that :trump wasn't being spied on.
> 
> And still not one shred of evidence produced of MUH RUSSIA. Instead you've got Mueller flailing around investigating people and allegations farther and farther removed from the allegation of collusion between the :trump campaign and the Russian government. Hopefully :trump tells Mueller's ass it's fired soon, it's been more than a year of the FBI and now the FBI and Mueller both investigating and they've produced nothing.
> 
> I don't know why that skeevy fuck James Clapper isn't behind bars, he's perjured himself before Congress so many times.
> 
> If a Republican president had done this people would be going to jail, and not the people who had been spied on. But it wasn't a Republican president that did this, it was the Jug-Eared Fool so they'll all get away with it. MUH RUSSIA is a smokescreen concocted to obscure Barack Obama's minions spying on Americans because they were political threats.


Glad to see the fact that the wiretapping began a year before Trump began his campaign doesn't matter to you.

Then again, facts don't matter much to Trump people. Never have. Never will.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*It's time for Trump's idiocy of the week!

Makes up a random country in Africa called Nambia: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/africa/trump-nambia-un-africa-trnd/index.html

Doesn't recognize his own wife outside of her extravagant clothing:* 10214505595900604


----------



## Tater

Reason # 23,917,387 why I moved from Alabama to Hawai'i: because Alabama derserves Judge Roy Moore.










http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/roy_moore_makes_alabama_derser.html


----------



## CamillePunk

Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone enough to make a rant but I thought this was funny and SAD. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910513444734062592


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone enough to make a rant but I thought this was funny and SAD. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910513444734062592


This is nothing new. Parents in the USA lie to their children all the time about mythical figures. Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny. The Tooth Fairy. Jesus. President Hillary Clinton.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look more evidence of the Trump campaign having ties to Russia.

I just cant stop being right.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...iefings-2016-race-russian-billionaire-n803246

Manafort Offered Private Briefings on 2016 Race to Russian Billionaire
by KEN DILANIAN and TOM WINTER

WASHINGTON — Shortly before Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination last summer, his campaign chairman offered to provide private briefings on the race to a Russian billionaire with Kremlin ties, his spokesman confirmed to NBC News.

The offer appeared in emails between then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and one of his employees, some of which suggested Manafort was seeking to use his role to make money, the Washington Post reported. The spokesman, Jason Maloni, said the emails, which had been turned over to congressional committees, showed nothing improper.

Did Manafort Try to Profit From Russia Off Trump Campaign Role? 
Play Facebook TwitterEmbed
Did Manafort Try to Profit From Russia Off Trump Campaign Role? 1:33
The Post said the billionaire was Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch in Putin's inner circle. NBC News has reported that Manafort had business dealings with Deripaska, who was once denied entry to the United States because of alleged mafia links.

Related: Trump Surprised By FBI Raid on Manafort Home

Maloni said he did not dispute that the billionaire was Deripaska.

"If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort wrote in the July 7, 2016, email, the Post reported.

Other exchanges discussed money Manafort believed he was owed by Eastern European clients, the Post said.

Just after Trump named Manafort as a campaign strategist, the Post reported, Manafort referred to his positive press and growing reputation and asked his employee in an email, "How do we use to get whole?"

Maloni told NBC News: "It is no secret Mr. Manafort was owed money by past clients after his work ended in 2014. This exchange is innocuous."

“How do we use to get whole?”
Maloni said other campaign emails show that Manafort turned down a proposal from another campaign aide for Trump to meet with Putin and other top Russian officials.

Related: Manafort, Flynn Are Key Figures in Mueller's Russia Probe

Manafort's business ties to Deripaska were detailed in a 2014 legal action in the Cayman Islands.

Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort reportedly facing indictment Play Facebook TwitterEmbed
Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort reportedly facing indictment 0:48
In the Cayman Island court petition, a company controlled by Deripaska alleged it invested $18.9 million in 2008 in a firm in which Manafort had an interest, Pericles Emerging Markets, to acquire a company called Black Sea Cable. The petition also alleged companies controlled by Deripaska paid $7.35 million toward management fees for Manafort and his partners. The court filing was seeking an accounting of the money.

Related: What Did Paul Manafort Really Do in Ukraine?

Manafort was questioned by Cayman Islands officials in the matter earlier this year, his lawyer has said publicly.

Manafort told NBC News in August of 2016 that the matter was closed.

Deripaska had been repeatedly denied a visa to enter the United States over his alleged ties to organized crime, current and former officials tell NBC News.

Several officials told NBC News he has since been given diplomatic status by the Russian government, allowing him to enter the U.S. with immunity


----------



## Goku

birthday_massacre said:


> I just cant stop being right.


insinuating that you're always right just cos you're white :no:


----------



## Stinger Fan

Has Trump been impeached yet? I was told he would be by now...


----------



## CamillePunk

Stinger Fan said:


> Has Trump been impeached yet? I was told he would be by now...


He's impeached in the same fantasy universe that baby's supposed father lives in where Hillary Clinton is president.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911173124976193536

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911192779908370433

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911196927626235904
When your two gay dads fight. :mj2

Seriously though, Rand is 100% correct. This bill is shit. Unfortunate that the spineless, unprincipled Republicans in Congress leave us with such terrible options.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

One of the reasons why I'm so much against voting in Muslims in positions of authority in any country (especially western countries). 










Iqra Khalid is a Canadian liberal MP who got voted in on the strength of the SJW dogma. 

If you guys take a moment to go and google Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, you'll see why I'm posting this here. 

Apparently, Iqra Khalid has ties to Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and is now championing m103 (a kind of a blasphemy law) in Canada. This goes in line with Yasir Naqvi (another guy I posted about), the AG who preemptively charged a Canadian radio host with a violation of M103 before it even passed. M103 pretends to be a bill about protecting Muslims from "Islamophobia" (somethign that doesn't even exist in Canada), but this is the gateway to eventually moving Canada towards adopting blasphemy laws. 

So if there's ever a Muslim running for any local position in your area. Make sure you don't vote for him/her. It's not about the fact that they're Muslims. It's about their "Islam-first" ideology that makes them terrible candidates.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> One of the reasons why I'm so much against voting in Muslims in positions of authority in any country (especially western countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iqra Khalid is a Canadian liberal MP who got voted in on the strength of the SJW dogma.
> 
> If you guys take a moment to go and google Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, you'll see why I'm posting this here.
> 
> Apparently, Iqra Khalid has ties to Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and is now championing m103 (a kind of a blasphemy law) in Canada. This goes in line with Yasir Naqvi (another guy I posted about), the AG who preemptively charged a Canadian radio host with a violation of M103 before it even passed. M103 pretends to be a bill about protecting Muslims from "Islamophobia" (somethign that doesn't even exist in Canada), but this is the gateway to eventually moving Canada towards adopting blasphemy laws.
> 
> So if there's ever a Muslim running for any local position in your area. Make sure you don't vote for him/her. It's not about the fact that they're Muslims. It's about their "Islam-first" ideology that makes them terrible candidates.


No one should vote for anyone that puts their religion first but if that happened there wouldn't be many republicans left.


----------



## virus21

> S President Donald Trump has signed a new order that boosts sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear weapons programme.
> The US treasury has been authorised to target firms and financial institutions conducting business with the North.
> The president also said China's Central Bank had instructed other Chinese banks to stop doing business with Pyongyang.
> It comes less than two weeks after the UN approved new sanctions against the country over its latest nuclear test.
> Tensions have risen in recent weeks over the North's continued nuclear and ballistic missile tests, despite pressure from world powers to stop.
> North Korea crisis in 300 words
> Can the world live with a nuclear North Korea?
> Sanctions won't stop us, warns N Korea
> Announcing a new executive order on Thursday, President Trump said the measures were designed to "cut off sources of revenue that fund North Korea's efforts to develop the deadliest weapons known to humankind".
> He singled out the North's textiles, fishing, information technology and manufacturing industries.
> "For much too long North Korea has been allowed to abuse the international financial system to facilitate funding for its nuclear weapons and missile programs," he said.
> He stressed that the sanctions were targeting "only one country, and that country is North Korea".
> The US president on Tuesday vowed to "totally destroy" the North if it posed a threat to the US and its allies, in his first address as US president to the UN General Assembly.
> 
> Enable it in your browser or download Flash Player here.
> Sorry, you need Flash to play this.
> Media captionTrump: 'Rocket Man's suicide mission'
> But North Korea's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, on Thursday likened Mr Trump's comments to "the sound of a barking dog".
> Mr Ri is set to make a speech to the UN in New York on Friday.
> Meanwhile, South Korea's president, Moon Jae-in, is meeting Donald Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly - an annual event, bringing together leaders of the UN's 193 member states.
> Earlier, Mr Moon said his country did not want the North to collapse, nor does it want an enforced reunification of the peninsular.
> But he said sanctions were necessary to bring Pyongyang to the negotiating table and force it to give up its nuclear weapons programme.
> What missiles does North Korea have?
> How do you defend against Pyongyang?
> The latest UN sanctions - which came after the North's nuclear test on 3 September - restrict oil imports and ban textile exports, in an attempt to starve it of fuel and income for its weapons programmes.
> It is the ninth round of UN sanctions to hit North Korea since 2006.
> North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un visiting a fruit farm Image copyrightAFP
> Image caption
> The US president is ramping up his threats against North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (far right)
> In his comments on Thursday, President Trump praised China, one of North Korea's closest trading partners, saying: "Their central bank has told their other banks, that's a massive banking system, to immediately stop doing business with North Korea."
> Reuters earlier reported, quoting four sources, that China had instructed its banks to strictly implement the UN sanctions. However, the Chinese authorities have not yet confirmed this development.
> Does China have any leverage?
> China banks fear North Korea sanctions
> Three days after the UN's punitive measures were approved, Pyongyang fired off a second ballistic missile over Japan - its furthest-reaching yet.
> European Union officials have also revealed plans to impose fresh sanctions against the country, but a decision is unlikely to be taken until the middle of October.
> Experts say North Korea has made surprisingly quick progress in its development of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.


http://archive.is/CxDjQ#selection-1491.1-1755.123


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why I'm so much against voting in Muslims in positions of authority in any country (especially western countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iqra Khalid is a Canadian liberal MP who got voted in on the strength of the SJW dogma.
> 
> If you guys take a moment to go and google Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, you'll see why I'm posting this here.
> 
> Apparently, Iqra Khalid has ties to Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and is now championing m103 (a kind of a blasphemy law) in Canada. This goes in line with Yasir Naqvi (another guy I posted about), the AG who preemptively charged a Canadian radio host with a violation of M103 before it even passed. M103 pretends to be a bill about protecting Muslims from "Islamophobia" (somethign that doesn't even exist in Canada), but this is the gateway to eventually moving Canada towards adopting blasphemy laws.
> 
> So if there's ever a Muslim running for any local position in your area. Make sure you don't vote for him/her. It's not about the fact that they're Muslims. It's about their "Islam-first" ideology that makes them terrible candidates.
> 
> 
> 
> No one should vote for anyone that puts their religion first but if that happened there wouldn't be many republicans left.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No one should use religion for political gains, even if they're a fake Christian like Trump.


----------



## Reaper

Yes because we all know that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. I'll take Christian leaders over Muslims leaders any day of the week. And you would too if you had to make the choice. Which is why none of you are clamoring over yourselves to leave America or the UK for a Muslim country. 

Meanwhile I left Pakistan because they kill people like me. They don't just disagree with me on internet forums. 

When Christians start killing non-Christians in Western Countries for being non-Christians in the thousands every year, then we can compare the two religions. 

---


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> Yes because we all know that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. I'll take Christian leaders over Muslims leaders any day of the week. And you would too if you had to make the choice. Which is why none of you are clamoring over yourselves to leave America or the UK for a Muslim country.
> 
> Meanwhile I left Pakistan because they kill people like me. They don't just disagree with me on internet forums.
> 
> When Christians start killing non-Christians in Western Countries for being non-Christians in the thousands every year, then we can compare the two religions.
> 
> ---


A good friend of mine is an Egyptian Christian, I don't think their family has ever gone back to Egypt once since coming over to Canada. I certainly doubt they'd want to go now


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> A good friend of mine is an Egyptian Christian, I don't think their family has ever gone back to Egypt once since coming over to Canada. I certainly doubt they'd want to go now


The Christianity / Islam comparisons are ridiculous at this point. 

It's like comparing a minor headache to cancer.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> The Christianity / Islam comparisons are ridiculous at this point.
> 
> It's like comparing a minor headache to cancer.


Those people don't make sense. They're the same who believe you shouldn't attack someones religious beliefs....as long as they're not Christians then its fair game. The hypocrisy that comes from them from sentence to sentence is astounding to me 



draykorinee said:


> Exactly. No one should use religion for political gains, even if they're a fake Christian like Trump.


Instead of trying to find things to attack Trump on, A fairly quick google search will get you your answer. 



> *Trump on the importance of religion to him*
> 
> It’s very important. I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don’t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer.


http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/
This was from 2011. He also has ties with Norman Vincent Peale who was a minster(someone I know nothing about)


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Those people don't make sense. They're the same who believe you shouldn't attack someones religious beliefs....as long as they're not Christians then its fair game. The hypocrisy that comes from them from sentence to sentence is astounding to me


Christian are the White People of the religious world. So obviously they're fair game. 

There's plenty to dislike about certain groups of Christians, but even at their worst, their dogmatism and orthodoxy pales in comparison to that of even average Muslims.


----------



## glenwo2

Tater said:


> This is nothing new. Parents in the USA lie to their children all the time about mythical figures. Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny. The Tooth Fairy. Jesus. President Hillary Clinton.


Then when they grow up and do some actual research, they find that their parents were full of shiznit.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's time for Trump's idiocy of the week!
> 
> Makes up a random country in Africa called Nambia: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/africa/trump-nambia-un-africa-trnd/index.html
> 
> Doesn't recognize his own wife outside of her extravagant clothing:* 10214505595900604




How did I miss this....ridiculous post? fpalm


Trump is there to support those that suffered damage from the storm in Florida(you can even see the headline) and what is the focus? That you claim he made up a random country in Africa when the vid provided does not show this but instead has the recording of some liberal(is that you calling him an idiot toward the end?) in the background while Trump is making his speech.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> How did I miss this....ridiculous post? fpalm
> 
> 
> Trump is there to support those that suffered damage from the storm in Florida(you can even see the headline) and what is the focus? That you claim he made up a random country in Africa when the vid provided does not show this but instead has the recording of some liberal(is that you calling him an idiot toward the end?) in the background while Trump is making his speech.


*How predictable. You deflected from the issue at hand, which was Trump not being able to recognize his own wife standing right next to him, and then you couldn't even click the link provided right in your face of the CNN article detailing Trump's "Nambia" flub. *


----------



## CamillePunk

Reaper said:


>


This meme...

This meme is all right...

No...

This meme is far out...

NO...

This meme is FAR RIGHT. :move


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *How predictable. You deflected from the issue at hand, which was Trump not being able to recognize his own wife standing right next to him, and then you couldn't even click the link provided right in your face of the CNN article detailing Trump's "Nambia" flub. *



I did click on the link.

The link that played the vid which had him speak. 


There was no other link that lead to this CNN article you're mentioning. :shrug


And besides....even if there were, I wouldn't click on that Fake-News horseshit website anyway. Thanks for letting me know it was CNN.


BTW, I did catch the "Melania, who couldn't be with us today...". I'll give you that. That was a goof-up but hey. 

He's like you and me : HUMAN. 

(maybe Melania was in disguise and was in on the gag?)


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> I did click on the link.
> 
> The link that played the vid which had him speak.
> 
> 
> There was no other link that lead to this CNN article you're mentioning. :shrug












*Just stop.*


----------



## Headliner

@Legit BOSS thoughts on Trump shitting on black people tonight by saying that NFL owners should kick protesters off the field.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Headliner said:


> @Legit BOSS thoughts on Trump shitting on black people tonight by saying that NFL owners should kick protesters off the field.


*He makes it easy for us. He also makes it harder for his supporters to chase their tails trying to come up with an excuse for it not being racist without looking foolish. I love these "Patriots" (read as white supremacists) who completely ignore the 1st amendment when it's used in a way in which they disagree. Protest isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable. It's done to bring awareness to things you blatantly disregard. Here's the irony of the situation: they try to say we disrespect the flag by kneeling, yet they're the ones disrespecting what the flag stands for by trying to enforce censorship on peaceful protests.*


----------



## Headliner

Legit BOSS said:


> *He makes it easy for us. He also makes it harder for his supporters to chase their tails trying to come up with an excuse for it not being racist without looking foolish. I love these "Patriots" (read as white supremacists) who completely ignore the 1st amendment when it's used in a way in which they disagree. Protest isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable. It's done to bring awareness to things you blatantly disregard.*


White sympathizers like him and his fanbase shit on liberals for not being tolerant toward bigot conservatives who want to make bullshit speeches on the basis of the first amendment and liberals being sensitive and intolerant, but protesting a flag out of the first amendment and being sensitive to the issues that effect us is a no no because we're expected to have the same patriotism as everyone else.


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *He makes it easy for us. He also makes it harder for his supporters to chase their tails trying to come up with an excuse for it not being racist without looking foolish. I love these "Patriots" (read as white supremacists) who completely ignore the 1st amendment when it's used in a way in which they disagree. Protest isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable. It's done to bring awareness to things you blatantly disregard. Here's the irony of the situation: they try to say we disrespect the flag by kneeling, yet they're the ones disrespecting what the flag stands for by trying to enforce censorship on peaceful protests.*


I'm fine with protesting the flag and in fact I'm the guy who doesn't rise for the anthem at sporting events and gets sideways glances, but the first amendment has zero to do with this situation. The first amendment applies to the government not infringing on your speech. If you occupy space the NFL, a private organization, owns or has rented, they have every right to kick you out. They also have every right to regulate their employees' behavior.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> I'm fine with protesting the flag and in fact I'm the guy who doesn't rise for the anthem at sporting events and gets sideways glances, but the first amendment has zero to do with this situation. The first amendment applies to the government not infringing on your speech. If you occupy space the NFL, a private organization, owns or has rented, they have every right to kick you out. They also have every right to regulate their employees' behavior.


*
They sure don't if it's not explicitly written as a violation, which it isn't. It is however, in the NBA, which is ironically far more liberal.*


----------



## Reaper

A quick google search revealed this pasty ginger knelt during the national anthem. 

Ergo Trump hates pasty gingers.

BTW, I think players have the right to protest however they want. I also think that people have a right to respect them or shit on them however they want :Shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> They sure don't if it's not explicitly written as a violation, which it isn't. It is however, in the NBA, which is ironically far more liberal.*


That's an interesting point. I wonder if that's the case. @FITZ You are needed.


----------



## BruiserKC

This afternoon, one of our local radio stations had an interview with former Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum was singing the praises of the Graham-Cassidy bill. I called the show and commented that Santorum kept using the phrase "Repeal and Replace" when in fact up until only about a year ago the talk was simply repeal. The host told me that our best chance was 2012 for Romney to win for repeal of the ACA to happen. He went on to say that unfortunately we might be going down the road to single-payer (the host emigrated here from England and said that the NHS system has been disastrous for his country of birth). The fact that people like Santorum seemed to be happy about this bill is extremely depressing and disgusting. 



Stinger Fan said:


> http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/
> This was from 2011. He also has ties with Norman Vincent Peale who was a minster(someone I know nothing about)


Peale was a very prominent minister for many years. He created the magazine Guideposts and wrote the Power of Positive Thinking. Trump's parents went to a church in NYC that Peale was the pastor of for many years.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> I'm fine with protesting the flag and in fact I'm the guy who doesn't rise for the anthem at sporting events and gets sideways glances, but the first amendment has zero to do with this situation. The first amendment applies to the government not infringing on your speech. If you occupy space the NFL, a private organization, owns or has rented, they have every right to kick you out. They also have every right to regulate their employees' behavior.


Do social media companies have the right to regulate content on their platform or is that anti-free speech?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Do social media companies have the right to regulate content on their platform or is that anti-free speech?


Of course. They're private entities. And everyone has the right to criticize them for doing so.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Of course. They're private entities. And everyone has the right to criticize them for doing so.


Thoughts on social media users using the first amendment argument in said criticisms?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Thoughts on social media users using the first amendment argument in said criticisms?


It's an invalid argument.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911388693231030272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911161776586346496


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911388693231030272


You just keep showing how uninformed you are on healthcare. Did you even READ the letter, you know the part about it NOT a Marketplace plan meaning its not under Obamacare.

Please inform yourself better


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *Just stop.*




Did you read the part of my post that says I don't click on CNN articles?

Yeah....Why don't YOU "stop"? Okay?


----------



## glenwo2

And as far as the protesters in the NFL go, and Trump saying that the protesters should be kicked out, let's all impeach him for stating his opinion!! HOLY SH-T, What an outrage!! 

It's not like he's now trying to pass a new law or anything............


He's got more important things to do....like getting ready to shove a warhead up Kim Jong's fatass.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christianity / Islam comparisons are ridiculous at this point.
> 
> It's like comparing a minor headache to cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> Those people don't make sense. They're the same who believe you shouldn't attack someones religious beliefs....as long as they're not Christians then its fair game. The hypocrisy that comes from them from sentence to sentence is astounding to me
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. No one should use religion for political gains, even if they're a fake Christian like Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead of trying to find things to attack Trump on, A fairly quick google search will get you your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump on the importance of religion to him*
> 
> It?s very important. I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don?t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/
> This was from 2011. He also has ties with Norman Vincent Peale who was a minster(someone I know nothing about)
Click to expand...

Answer to what? I didn't ask a question. Trump is a fake Christian using religion for political gain. He has ties to numerous prosperity preachers like Peale, and nothing embodies the disgusting greedy world of religious abuse like prosperity gospel preachers, so not sure how that helps.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911388693231030272


One school cancels a trip and Katie Hopkins loses her mind. Ridiculous response.


----------



## Nothing Finer

CamillePunk said:


> I'm fine with protesting the flag and in fact I'm the guy who doesn't rise for the anthem at sporting events and gets sideways glances, but the first amendment has zero to do with this situation. The first amendment applies to the government not infringing on your speech. If you occupy space the NFL, a private organization, owns or has rented, they have every right to kick you out. They also have every right to regulate their employees' behavior.


You're right that the First Amendment doesn't defend free speech for an employee in a private organisation, it would be totally legal for the NFL to punish him for expressing certain views.

However the idea of free speech goes beyond what is written in the First Amendment. If people are punished for expressing a particular point of view their right to free speech is being infringed. It may be legal to do it, in some cases it's necessary for the job - a PR guy for Pepsi can't talk about how great Coke is in a press conference - but it's still restricting free speech.

I support free speech as a concept except where it's extremely important that it be restricted (e.g. fire in a crowded theatre, PR guy). For that reason I think Trump's comments are disgusting and worrying, they're anti-free speech, that's not something I like in the President of a country. The players have a moral right to protest even if people disagree with it and there's no justification for restrict their free speech by threatening firing.

One's stance on this is a good indicator of whether you are pro-free speech or pro-first amendment. Sadly Trump seems to be the latter.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> Answer to what? I didn't ask a question. Trump is a fake Christian using religion for political gain. He has ties to numerous prosperity preachers like Peale, and nothing embodies the disgusting greedy world of religious abuse like prosperity gospel preachers, so not sure how that helps.


Oh for crying out loud , it's a figure of speech and why are you so defensive? Who cares if you're wrong or not on his religious affiliations? He's a Presbyterian , no one usually lies about being a Presbyterian :lol nor should it even matter


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Oh for crying out loud , it's a figure of speech and why are you so defensive? Who cares if you're wrong or not on his religious affiliations? He's a Presbyterian , no one usually lies about being a Presbyterian :lol nor should it even matter


Also, the context of Dray's comparison comes with contrasting Trump's christian beliefs and his church to Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA ... 

I don't think anyone compares Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA to any Christian Church if they knew what Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA actually were.

Meanwhile, at least he's consistent in downplaying the terrorist threat to London :Shrug Even a SINGLE school should not be stopping it's normal activities out of fear of terror. Not one.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Stinger Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for crying out loud , it's a figure of speech and why are you so defensive? Who cares if you're wrong or not on his religious affiliations? He's a Presbyterian , no one usually lies about being a Presbyterian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nor should it even matter
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the context of Dray's comparison comes with contrasting Trump's christian beliefs and his church to Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA ...
> 
> I don't think anyone compares Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA to any Christian Church if they knew what Jamaat-e-Islami and ISNA actually were.
> 
> Meanwhile, at least he's consistent in downplaying the terrorist threat to London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even a SINGLE school should not be stopping it's normal activities out of fear of terror. Not one.
Click to expand...

Actually that was BM, my context was using religion for political gains. Also, BM never compared the two like for like.

I do agree that a school shouldn't stop trips, just like schools shouldn't have to install gun detectors, but it happens. One school not going on a trip is not the sign for hysteria.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Actually that was BM, my context was using religion for political gains. Also, BM never compared the two like for like.


Nah. In context of BM's past posts, it's obvious that he compares Christianity with Islam as you say "like for like". And you did seem to be agreeing with him and also tossed in something about christianity as yet more of your whatabout stuff. I don't mind it, but at least rationally justify it and at least attempt to bring it close to what you're bringing it up against. If you're going to compare Trump's Christian beliefs and associations to Iqra Khalid's then you need to have more in common than just "but religion". 

All politicians use religion and religious affiliations but not all religions and religious affiliations are equally abhorrent. You should have at least done yourself a favor and read up on Jamaat-e-Islami. 



> I do agree that a school shouldn't stop trips, just like schools shouldn't have to install gun detectors, but it happens. One school not going on a trip is not the sign for hysteria.


I don't think that schools should have gun detectors either. But at the same time I think that America is still doing more to fight the ill of school shootings than you guys are currently outwardly displaying in your fight against terrorism. While American school shootings are trending downwards, as previously discussed, Britain Islamist terror attacks are on the rise.


----------



## BruiserKC

glenwo2 said:


> And as far as the protesters in the NFL go, and Trump saying that the protesters should be kicked out, let's all impeach him for stating his opinion!! HOLY SH-T, What an outrage!!
> 
> It's not like he's now trying to pass a new law or anything............
> 
> 
> He's got more important things to do....like getting ready to shove a warhead up Kim Jong's fatass.


Trump can have an opinion like anyone else. Yet, as President to speak out openly for the firing of employees is dangerous. That is not his place. If Obama had called openly for the firing of police officers as an example, people would have jumped up and down in outrage. They would have been justified in doing so. What concerns me is that these same people now cheer Trump for his stance. It's a dangerous double standard. 

Meanwhile, interesting that now Trump faces a challenge from the far right. He supports Strange, but Bannon and Palin endorse Moore.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Trump can have an opinion like anyone else. Yet, as President to speak out openly for the firing of employees is dangerous. That is not his place. If Obama had called openly for the firing of police officers as an example, people would have jumped up and down in outrage. They would have been justified in doing so. What concerns me is that these same people now cheer Trump for his stance. It's a dangerous double standard.
> 
> Meanwhile, interesting that now Trump faces a challenge from the far right. He supports Strange, but Bannon and Palin endorse Moore.


FWIW, while I stand by Trump's wild statements almost all of the time, I think this one was in poor taste imo. 

But we also know that he's going to say shit to kick up a shitstorm because his personality craves it so I guess the punches are starting to lose their impact. This could go either way. He either gets progressively worse, or he realizes that it's not causing the shitstorm he craves and it'll get him to stop or tone down the rhetoric.

The American Flag and the White House are nationalist symbols and no matter who the president or government is, they do not have the exalted position some believe they do. 

I will never disrespect a flag or sit during an anthem, but I won't respect it to the point of veneration and shaming people who don't either. They're symbols and while symbols have their place in society, idolization (of the religious veneration sort) is not one of them.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump calling out the losers once again and they don't like it :trump3

The NFL will condone and support the business-losing divisiveness of losers kneeling and sitting and raising their fists for the national anthem but the divisiveness of :trump saying what millions of NFL fans think must be forcefully responded to :lmao

So cucked

Enjoy your ratings declining even more and your stadiums being even more empty Roger

:trump base loves him even more now, figure it out guys. 88D chess game still running smoothly while you're clutching at pearls. Just look at how OUTRAGED all the right people are this morning, :trump playing them like a trombone :heston

The days of the president not calling out bitch leftist anti-American behavior and talk are done with, some people just still haven't figured out that they aren't immune to criticism or immune to even _being_ criticized anymore


----------



## Reaper

The High School Drama continues:

Trump: Yo babez, wanna cum to party 2nite?
Curry: Nah man. Me don't like you
Trumo: Fine, I didn't want you to come anyways. You can't come
Lebron: Yo dum dum, we din't wunna cum nyways. YOU CAN'T UNINVITE US! 
Lebron: *sigh* Where's ma baby daddy Obama at. 

:mj4


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump: Mummy says all of you have to come to my party because tradition.
Curry: We don't even like each other. Maybe this is a bad idea.
TrumO: FINE! YOU ARE NOT INVITED ANYMORE!
Lebron: You bum, he didn't want to come anyways.
Trump apologist: :mj2


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Trump: Mummy says all of you have to come to my party because tradition.
> Curry: We don't even like each other. Maybe this is a bad idea.
> TrumO: FINE! YOU ARE NOT INVITED ANYMORE!
> Lebron: You bum, he didn't want to come anyways.
> Trump apologist: :mj2


I'm not even defending Trump above. In fact, he's part of the high school drama. I make two straight posts criticizing Trump and I'm still the Trump apologist :mj4

But I'm very flattered by yours, BM's and Dray's daily obsession with me ITT. Can't get enough of it can you? 

You make my criticisms of Trump seem completely pointless everytime the three of you post btw.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> I'm not even defending Trump above. In fact, he's part of the high school drama. I make two straight posts criticizing Trump and I'm still the Trump apologist :mj4
> 
> But I'm very flattered by yours, BM's and Dray's daily obsession with me ITT. Can't get enough of it can you?
> 
> You make my criticisms of Trump seem completely pointless everytime the three of you post btw.


You are deflecting blame from him by criticising others or other things even more in the same posts. Nice spin attempt though.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> You are deflecting blame from him by criticising others or other things even more in the same posts. Nice spin attempt though.


No. He's part of my joke. In fact he's the brunt if it. So are the others.

But you're not a high iq poster. You don't even understand English for the most part.

In the previous post to this all I talk about is Trump, his personality flaw and his veneration and exaltation of symbols.

You three make a great trifecta or reasons why Trump has this much support. It reminds us of what lies I wait in case low iq individuals form governments again.

Trump apologia isn't even a thing. There's nothing I'm apologizing for when I'm directly criticizing him. But chalk up another word that you don't know how to use. 

Maybe you should start posting in mandarin or whatever your first language is so that you can express yourself better.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> No. He's part of my joke. In fact he's the brunt if it. So are the others.
> 
> But you're not a high iq poster. You don't even understand English for the most part.
> 
> In the previous post to this all I talk about is Trump, his personality flaw and his veneration and exaltation of symbols.
> 
> You three make a great trifecta or reasons why Trump has this much support. It reminds us of what lies I wait in case low iq individuals form governments again.


Sure he was part of the joke but to say he was the brunt of your joke is highly disingenuous. Take the NBA joke, the baby daddy Obama line was clearly the punchline. You criticise his personality but provide excuses to spin it even to a positive thing.

A low iq individual is already the president. :shrug

I think someone is :triggered and projecting his own insecurity about his command of the English language onto me yet again.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Sure he was part of the joke but to say he was the brunt of your joke is highly disingenuous. Take the NBA joke, the baby daddy Obama line was clearly the punchline. You criticise his personality but provide excuses to spin it even to a positive thing.
> 
> A low iq individual is already the president. :shrug


The punchline is that they're all acting like immature children. 

If you can't see that then you're the one with the prejudice.

But that's been determined from the start. I have consistently criticized Trump from the start and if a situation exists where others are being idiots too I don't need to nor have any reason to pretend that they aren't. 

No idea why you got so triggered by a joke post though. But that's expected since humor isn't a strong suit of people on your side of the culture war.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> The punchline is that they're all acting like immature children.
> 
> If you can't see that then you're the one with the prejudice.


Sorry for invading your safe space again. :lol


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Sorry for invading your safe space again.


Wait if you were invading my safe space (another word you have no clue what it means) I would be crumbling and hiding and making passive aggressive posts in rants about how libtarded this forum is and how hostile posters make me feel unwelcome or some stupid shit like that.

Not directly confronting you in this thread.

Just give it up dude. You don't even understand what you're saying and just repeat lines completely irrelevant to the statements you respond to :kobelol

What is your IQ BTW? I'm genuinely curious. You seem to be unable to contextualize things and respond to things that would indicate some level of independent critical thought but you don't. Repeating lines and using words that don't directly address what's been said does seem to indicate a lack of ability of some sort.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> Wait if you were invading my safe space (another word you have no clue what it means) I would be crumbling and hiding and making passive aggressive posts in rants about how libtarded this forum is and how hostile posters make me feel unwelcome or some stupid shit like that.
> 
> Not directly confronting you in this thread.
> 
> Just give it up dude. You don't even understand what you're saying and just repeat lines completely irrelevant to the statements you respond to :kobelol
> 
> What is your IQ BTW? I'm genuinely curious.


Wait, your multiple edits to insult my IQ and English isn't 'making passive aggressive posts'? Oh wait, it isn't in rants so it doesn't count as you 'crumbling'. :lol

You made a shit post. I made a shit post in reply. It triggered you enough to go on a rant so others won't do the same so you can keep your safe space.

I can't. Even. :lmao


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Wait, your multiple edits to insult my IQ and English isn't 'making passive aggressive posts'? Oh wait, it isn't in rants so it doesn't count as you 'crumbling'.
> 
> You made a shit post. I made a shit post in reply. It triggered you enough to go on a rant so others won't do the same so you can keep your safe space.
> 
> I can't. Even. :lmao


Passive aggressive is indirect hostility where the person is incapable of directly confronting the person. I'm being direct. Another word you don't understand. Is there any phrase in the English language that you do understand? 

Multiple edits are how I talk in all of my posts. It's just how I do it as more thoughts come to me that make my arguments progressively stronger. 

I responded to you directly and tried to tell you that I'm not even apologizing for Trump. 

I'm also insulting your IQ (rightfully so) because you've shown a historic inability in this thread (not just to me but to others) that you are incapable of using certain words and phrases correctly. Me trying to tell you that you use words and phrases wrong has consistently fallen on deaf ears. 

Learn how to comprehend. It'll help you understand reality better. 

The only person triggered here is you because you had a knee jerk to my joke. Made false claims. Misrepresented what I said. And now just digging a deeper and deeper hole because you can't understand what you're reading.

You don't even understand the difference between passive aggression and direct aggression.


----------



## glenwo2

BruiserKC said:


> Trump can have an opinion like anyone else. Yet, as President to speak out openly for the firing of employees is dangerous. That is not his place. If Obama had called openly for the firing of police officers as an example, people would have jumped up and down in outrage. They would have been justified in doing so. What concerns me is that these same people now cheer Trump for his stance. It's a dangerous double standard.
> 
> Meanwhile, interesting that now Trump faces a challenge from the far right. He supports Strange, but Bannon and Palin endorse Moore.


I get what you're saying. The President's opinion(no matter what opinion it is) does carry considerable weight. 

However, it still remains just that : An Opinion 

Not a Law; Not an executive order. 

Companies(like the NFL) as private entities can run themselves as they like basically and no opinion(not even the POTUS) can force them to change anything. 



Meanwhile, I saw his endorsement of Strange last night.

I'm still perplexed by it because while Strange is a Republican, he also supports Amnesty. 

Not quite sure what Trump is trying to accomplish here. :hmmm


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> I get what you're saying. The President's opinion(no matter what opinion it is) does carry considerable weight. However, it still remains just that : An Opinion; not a Law. Not an executive order. Companies(like the NFL) as private entities can run themselves as they like basically.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, I saw his endorsement of Strange last night.
> 
> I'm still perplexed by it because while Strange is a Republican, he also supports Amnesty.
> 
> Not quite sure what Trump is trying to accomplish here. :hmmm


Trump was never an anti amnesty candidate. People are projecting their own onto him. Hence why some are now thinking that he baited and switched while he is still trying to make up his mind. 

He was always torn on amnesty, especially for DACA recipients.


----------



## glenwo2

Nothing Finer said:


> You're right that the First Amendment doesn't defend free speech for an employee in a private organisation, it would be totally legal for the NFL to punish him for expressing certain views.
> 
> However the idea of free speech goes beyond what is written in the First Amendment. If people are punished for expressing a particular point of view their right to free speech is being infringed. It may be legal to do it, in some cases it's necessary for the job - a PR guy for Pepsi can't talk about how great Coke is in a press conference - but it's still restricting free speech.
> 
> I support free speech as a concept except where it's extremely important that it be restricted (e.g. fire in a crowded theatre, PR guy). For that reason I think Trump's comments are disgusting and worrying, they're anti-free speech, that's not something I like in the President of a country. The players have a moral right to protest even if people disagree with it and there's no justification for restrict their free speech by threatening firing.
> 
> One's stance on this is a good indicator of whether you are pro-free speech or pro-first amendment. Sadly Trump seems to be the latter.


There's a fine line between Morality and Legality.

And Legality always Trumps(no pun intended...mostly) Morality when it comes to this. 

Morality is Morality but the Law is the Law and the latter is what must always be followed.


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> :trump calling out the losers once again and they don't like it :trump3
> 
> The NFL will condone and support the business-losing divisiveness of losers kneeling and sitting and raising their fists for the national anthem but the divisiveness of :trump saying what millions of NFL fans think must be forcefully responded to :lmao
> 
> So cucked
> 
> Enjoy your ratings declining even more and your stadiums being even more empty Roger
> 
> :trump base loves him even more now, figure it out guys. 88D chess game still running smoothly while you're clutching at pearls. Just look at how OUTRAGED all the right people are this morning, :trump playing them like a trombone :heston
> 
> The days of the president not calling out bitch leftist anti-American behavior and talk are done with, some people just still haven't figured out that they aren't immune to criticism or immune to even _being_ criticized anymore


Protest is perfectly American, going back to the days when the Sons of Liberty disguised as Indians threw tea into Boston Harbor. Personally I don't agree with the protests but I am not going to tell them they can't. Trump overstepped bigly here. 

The NFL has stated there is no policy in place regarding the anthem. That has been left up to 32 teams to handle individually. Example, word is Jerry Jones told the Cowboys if you don't stand for the anthem you don't play for me. Cleveland and Seattle have stated they respect their players' rights. 

If you were outraged when Obama talked about police officers being held accountable (saying they should be fired), you need to be equally outraged at what Trump said. That is not the place for a President to go...EVER!


----------



## Ace

Lebron buried Trump :lmao

Thought it was known by everyone that Curry and most of the team turned down visiting the White House.


----------



## glenwo2

Reaper said:


> Trump was never an anti amnesty candidate. People are projecting their own onto him. Hence why some are now thinking that he baited and switched while he is still trying to make up his mind.
> 
> He was always torn on amnesty, especially for DACA recipients.


Is that right? Hmmm....

It's gotten to a point where we don't know who's who and what's what anymore. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

Ace said:


> Lebron buried Trump :lmao
> 
> Thought it was known by everyone that Curry and most of the team turned down visiting the White House.


Lebron is exercising the same right of having and stating his own OPINION that Trump did in regards to his comments on the NFL protesters. 

I'm sure if Trump had the time, he would've fired back but I think he has more important things to do unlike Lebron whose only job is to dribble a basketball.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Is that right? Hmmm....
> 
> It's gotten to a point where we don't know who's who and what's what anymore.


Trump's hard-core stances were:

- build the wall
- Keep illegal immigrants out
- Reform immigration 
- Potentially rescind DACA but he didn't want the children to suffer
- Deport *criminal* illegals and publish lists of such illegals
- Reduce or end (I forget which) worker visas that lead a path to citizenship 

He was very harsh on illegal immigrants and criminal illegal immigrants but not as harsh on those seeking amnesty and weren't criminals iirc.


----------



## glenwo2

Thanks, Reaper, for clearing that up. I haven't been following the Political scene all that much up till the Alabama rally last night.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Thanks, Reaper, for clearing that up. I haven't been following the Political scene all that much up till the Alabama rally last night.


His pro amnesty comments are there on record. As are his anti amnesty ones. 

To me it shows a man who wasn't as convinced himself at the time and still isn't and therefore making both kinds of statements. Overall I walked away with the impression that this is one of those that will unfold over time.


----------



## Stinger Fan

I remember when people were trying to claim Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins was a racist for not wanting to meet President Obama back in 2012. I don't recall many people defending him on it and suggested that he should go as to not disrupt the team and not to make it about him. Basically the idea that politics(or his politics) had no place in sports etc etc . My how times have changed haven't they?


----------



## BruiserKC

glenwo2 said:


> I get what you're saying. The President's opinion(no matter what opinion it is) does carry considerable weight.
> 
> However, it still remains just that : An Opinion
> 
> Not a Law; Not an executive order.
> 
> Companies(like the NFL) as private entities can run themselves as they like basically and no opinion(not even the POTUS) can force them to change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, I saw his endorsement of Strange last night.
> 
> I'm still perplexed by it because while Strange is a Republican, he also supports Amnesty.
> 
> Not quite sure what Trump is trying to accomplish here. :hmmm


But...his opinion holds a lot more weight then ours if you and I were discussing this at the corner of the bar of Buffalo Wild Wings. For example, I'm a manager and am responsible for about 100 people. If I go to a supervisor and say, "I think this person needs to consider another job", while it is an opinion it is also me strongly hinting to the sup to figure out what the hell is wrong with this worker and why he isn't doing the job or get rid of him. It would have been the same way for Trump when he was running his businesses. If he gave his opinion on a certain employee, his underlings took that seriously. To go down this path is a dangerous one. 

As for Strange...he's been basically told that Strange is the better choice and has the better chance to win in December when they have the general election for Sessions' seat. However, a lot of folks in Alabama were mad when Strange as AG supposedly dragged his feet on investigating the former governor. They really believe Moore is more likely to hold firm to his principles then Strange.


----------



## Draykorinee

The obsession with patriotism, flags and anthems is vomit inducing most of the time.


----------



## Irish Jet

deepemblues is so caught in that cult of personality. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Trump has sold his support down the river and they don't even realise it. It's actually pretty impressive.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Needs a UNANIMOUS bill passed to politely shame White Supremacists after calling them "fine people"

Voluntarily calls Kaepernick a son of a bitch for peacefully protesting police brutality

Asks for other peacefully protesting Black athletes to be fired

Keep your bullshit defenses to yourselves because I'm not here for them: http://huffp.st/w5Opbgm
*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *Asks for other Black athletes to be fired
> *


There are white players protesting too, but I can see how that's easy to ignore. It really messes with your confirmation bias.


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> There are white players protesting too, but I can see how that's easy to ignore. It really messes with your confirmation bias.


The protest was started by a black (half tbh) man and the protest is regarding black issues. It doesn't matter if white people protest too. The comments are proportionally directed toward black people just like the criminalization and demoralization of black lives matter is directed toward black people even though there are white protesters who have joined black lives matter.

Funny, he didn't say shit about Tom Brady not showing up at the white house but he got all the time in the world to pop off at Curry. Fuck him.


----------



## Magic

Headliner said:


> The protest was started by a black (half tbh) man and the protest is regarding black issues.* It doesn't matter if white people protest too*. The comments are proportionally directed toward black people just like the criminalization and demoralization of black lives matter is directed toward black people even though there are white protesters who have joined black lives matter.
> 
> Funny, he didn't say shit about Tom Brady not showing up at the white house but he got all the time in the world to pop off at Curry. Fuck him.


It sort of does, doesn't it? That issues might not effect them, but the unity and support is important.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> The protest was started by a black (half tbh) man and the protest is regarding black issues. It doesn't matter if white people protest too. The comments are proportionally directed toward black people just like the criminalization and demoralization of black lives matter is directed toward black people even though there are white protesters who have joined black lives matter.
> 
> Funny, he didn't say shit about Tom Brady not showing up at the white house but he got all the time in the world to pop off at Curry. Fuck him.


its because Tom Brady is white and Trump is a fan of his.




Stinger Fan said:


> I remember when people were trying to claim Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins was a racist for not wanting to meet President Obama back in 2012. I don't recall many people defending him on it and suggested that he should go as to not disrupt the team and not to make it about him. Basically the idea that politics(or his politics) had no place in sports etc etc . My how times have changed haven't they?


You didn't see Obama making a huge deal about Thomas not wanting to go and being a baby saying well I take back my offer for you to come to the white house. Trump is the biggest snowflake on the planet and this is just more poof of that.


----------



## Headliner

LONZO said:


> It sort of does, doesn't it? That issues might not effect them, but the unity and support is important.


I didn't mean it this way. I'm down for any white person or a person of any race or nationality that wants to support by protesting.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Headliner said:


> Funny, he didn't say shit about Tom Brady not showing up at the white house but he got all the time in the world to pop off at Curry. Fuck him.


*THIS is what stands out the most. Too many times has Trump treated Black people as hostile when white people are doing the same thing. The most notable example before today was how he came for the Black CEO when several other white guys pulled out and denounced his bigotry.*


----------



## FITZ

CamillePunk said:


> That's an interesting point. I wonder if that's the case. @FITZ You are needed.


You can contract yourself out of just about anything. I'm guessing that's what that the NBA Player's Union did with the current collective bargaining agreement.


----------



## Nothing Finer

glenwo2 said:


> There's a fine line between Morality and Legality.
> 
> And Legality always Trumps(no pun intended...mostly) Morality when it comes to this.
> 
> Morality is Morality but the Law is the Law and the latter is what must always be followed.


I want the President to be in favour of freedom of speech both legally and morally. Do you?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> The protest was started by a black (half tbh) man and the protest is regarding black issues. It doesn't matter if white people protest too. The comments are proportionally directed toward black people just like the criminalization and demoralization of black lives matter is directed toward black people even though there are white protesters who have joined black lives matter.
> 
> Funny, he didn't say shit about Tom Brady not showing up at the white house but he got all the time in the world to pop off at Curry. Fuck him.


To you that's what it's regarding, and then you have the other group who think the issue is regarding patriotism. 

Your belief that his comments are proportionally directed toward black people is just you sharing your confirmation bias. You want him to believe those things. You have to believe it in order to legitimize how you feel. He said NFL player(s). In any "normal" situation it would be roundly believed that he was talking about everyone who takes a knee, but this is Trump, so you have to believe he means all "black" players. It doesn't help your belief that he's racist if he's not saying racist things, so you create a racist slant when given the opportunity to do so. 

He also didn't make a big deal when "black" players on the Patriots didn't show up either. Yet another example of your confirmation bias. The only reason he did was because Curry tweeted about it and it was in the news, and Trump hates it when he perceives being insulted, and he loves being in the news.

Of course, your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to think critically on what I've just said, and you'll just think I'm a Trump-supporting, white supremacist apologist. That's fine. I'm not the one with the problem.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *THIS is what stands out the most. Too many times has Trump treated Black people as hostile when white people are doing the same thing. The most notable example before today was how he came for the Black CEO when several other white guys pulled out and denounced his bigotry.*


Tom Brady wasn't the only Patriots player who didn't show up. Plenty of "black" players didn't show up either. Trump didn't revoke their invitations. Funny how your research only goes as far as the white player who Trump didn't comment on, ignoring all the "black" players who didn't go, that Trump also didn't comment on.

It's pathetic that you ignore these things to fuel the hatred and drama you've succumbed to


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> I didn't mean it this way. I'm down for any white person or a person of any race or nationality that wants to support by protesting.


As am I. I'm also in favor of someone saying that they should be fired for doing it too.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

The best things about this is the corrupt NFL is screwed either way. If people continue to kneel some "Don't tread on Merica" people will quit watching.And they will start losing black fans and some liberals the longer Kapernick is blacklisted by the Owners. They are cornered and gonna lose support no matter what they do or don't do.


----------



## virus21




----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911610455877021697*The KANG has spoken! *:tucky


----------



## glenwo2

Nothing Finer said:


> I want the President to be in favour of freedom of speech both *legally* and morally. Do you?


I think you already know the answer to that question if you read my post. I even bolded and underlined the word that matters to me more.


If it's not illegal, then there's no issue, period.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911610455877021697*The KANG has spoken! *:tucky




Being the POTUS is the Greatest Honor. 


Anyone can learn to dribble a basketball.


Not anyone can learn to be POTUS. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

When you don't look to people in the government/mafia for moral leadership :trump2


----------



## amhlilhaus

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911610455877021697*The KANG has spoken! *:tucky


Imagine if a white athlete said something about obama

Either way, this stuffs silly.


----------



## Reaper

I love how we live in a society where a mixed kid raised by a couple of average white people to become a successful millionaire can become the face of black American problems.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

glenwo2 said:


> Not anyone can learn to be POTUS. :trump


If the last year has proven anything it's that Trump sure fucking can't.

Honestly as an outside observer from across the pond my main interest in US politics currently is seeing both when the shoe is going to drop for those who still remain supportive of Trump that he's nothing but a professional charlatan who has no idea what he's doing and only ever wanted to make himself more important to stroke his planet-sized and unwarranted ego... and to observe the lengths those for whom the shoe hasn't dropped yet will go to in order to continue pretending that Trump is some kind of machiavellian genius playing 3D chess games nobody else can comprehend.

The combination makes for some damn entertaining nonsense.


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> I love how we live in a society where a mixed kid raised by a couple of average white people to become a successful millionaire can become the face of black American problems.


Your smart ass comment completely ignores reality. We live in a world where if you are mixed you will be treated as black regardless of your economic status. So there is nothing wrong with him being a face for black issues. People like you I swear


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

amhlilhaus said:


> Imagine if a white athlete said something about obama
> 
> Either way, this stuffs silly.


*Imagine if Obama called Tom Brady a son of a bitch and tweeted half the dumb shit Trump says in one day. He would've been impeached before he refreshed his news feed. Keep deflecting from your president's shitty racist actions though.*


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> When you don't look to people in the government/mafia for moral leadership :trump2


When you look to the person who called for the death of innocent men accused of rape. And a person that denies black people housing for moral leadership :trump2


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> Your smart ass comment is completely ignores reality. We live in a world where if you are mixed you will be treated as black. So there is nothing wrong with him being a face for black issues. People like you I swear


You mean the reality of how if you're good at something you'll get paid millions irrespective of your skin tone :trump


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> You mean the reality of how if you're good at something you'll get paid millions irrespective of your skin tone :trump


No just the reality where a suspected white supremacist sympathizer like you ignores that you can have all the money in the world and still be treated differently, harrased by law enforcement beaten or killed if you are black


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> No just the reality where a suspected white supremacist sympathizer like you ignore that you can have all the money in the world and still be treated differently, harrased by law enforcement beaten or killed if you are black


I'm Hitler re-incarnated. 

:mj4


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> I love how we live in a society where a mixed kid raised by a couple of average white people to become a successful millionaire can become the face of black American problems.


*Yeah, kinda like how a billionaire became the face of broke ass, uneducated, racist ******** who want to repeal their own healthcare. Keep reaching and deflecting.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Yeah, kinda like how a billionaire became the face of broke ass, uneducated, racist ********. Keep reaching and deflecting.*


I'm not deflecting at all. I've already criticized Trump for his poor comments. 

I just think that you guys are too easily influenced by millionaires and their whinging about perceived victimhood.

NFL players are not victims. 

Real black people are. You think these fuckers actually give a fuck about poor black people? :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

KingCosmos said:


> When you look to the person who called for the death of innocent men accused of rape. And a person that denies black people housing for moral leadership :trump2


Even if that nonsense was true, I don't look to Trump for moral leadership and never have.


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> I'm Hitler re-incarnated.
> 
> :mj4


Nope you don't have to be Hitler or a cross burning KKK member to be a white supremacist. The thing that white supremacist sympathizers like you do is point to Nazis and KKK members and say "I'm not like that so i can't be a white supremacist" Well you are wrong White supremacy can be subtle or extreme and you just happen to fall on the lighter end of the spectrum. You pointing to a extreme case of white supremacy won't stop you from being labeled as one buddy


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> Nope you don't have to be Hitler or a cross burning KKK member to be a white supremacist. The thing that racists like you do is point to Nazis and KKK members and say "I'm not like that so i can't be a white supremacist" Well you are wrong White supremacy can be subtle or extreme and you just happen to fall on the lighter end of the spectrum


Twist it all you want but your assertions are ridiculous. It's nothing but mental gymnastics to smear other people because since your arguments themselves have no intellectual merit you need to believe that someone who doesn't agree with you is just plain evil.

Keep posting. You'll keep losing your credibility. 

Also it's a Saturday night. Go out and have fun. Your crippling depression is showing


----------



## KingCosmos

CamillePunk said:


> Even if that nonsense was true, I don't look to Trump for moral leadership and never have.


Except it is true it's been well documented for years......Have you not heard of the Central Park 5 or his Housing discrimination?


----------



## Stephen90

Trump is still mad about not being about to buy the Buffalo Bills
https://www.si.com/specials/greatest-sports-what-ifs/nfl/2017/donald-trump-buffalo-bills


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> I'm not deflecting at all. I've already criticized Trump for his poor comments.
> 
> I just think that you guys are too easily influenced by millionaires and their whinging about perceived victimhood.
> 
> NFL players are not victims.
> 
> Real black people are. You think these fuckers actually give a fuck about poor black people? :kobelol


*You must be blissfully unaware that a Black millionaire football player was wrongfully arrested and had his life threatened by police earlier this month. Allow me to educate you: http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/13/michael-bennett-lawsuit-las-vegas-police-incident/

Being a millionaire doesn't stop you from being Black and dealing with institutionalised racism. That's just an ignorant thing to say.*


----------



## KingCosmos

Reaper said:


> Twist it all you want but your assertions are ridiculous. It's nothing but mental gymnastics to smear other people because since your arguments themselves have no intellectual merit you need to believe that someone who doesn't agree with you is just plain evil.
> 
> Keep posting. You'll keep losing your credibility.
> 
> Also it's a Saturday night. Go out and have fun. Your crippling depression is showing


Except i don't think people that are racist are inherently evil. America has a epidemic of people who hold white supremacist tendencies and i don't think they are evil. They are on the lighter end of the spectrum and may not even realize it. You claim my views have no merit but you ignored my post with a smart comment about hitler completely ignoring the fact that your economic status of a person of color does not make you immune to the problems that black people face. But herp derp Colin is rich. You are hurt that i am calling a spade a spade and was completely dismissive of my point with the Hitler comment. You tried to make it seem like i was making a bold claim of you being comparable to Hitler to ignore the real issue. Deflections. You sympathize with racist people.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *You must be blissfully unaware that a Black millionaire football player was wrongfully arrested and had his life threatened by police earlier this month. Allow me to educate you: http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/13/michael-bennett-lawsuit-las-vegas-police-incident/
> 
> Being a millionaire doesn't stop you from being Black and dealing with institutionalised racism. That's just an ignorant thing to say.*


Considering that this happened after a shooting where other people were also arrested, I don't see how this is a case of a black dude being singled out? 

Dude, you need to get away from thinking that everything has a racial component to it. Not everything does. Some things do yes absolutely. You guys are turning into the new feminists who scream rape at everything and toss all kinds of accusations all over the place making it more complicated and more difficult for people to address REAL racism and REAL racists. 

I'm a brown dude too. Ok. I don't live in a mass paranoid world like some of you do. You know I'm aware of where black victims are and we've had these discussions before. 



KingCosmos said:


> Except i don't think people that are racist are inherently evil. America has a epidemic of people who hold white supremacist tendencies and i don't think they are evil. They are on the lighter end of the spectrum and may not even realize it. You claim my views have no merit but you ignored my post with a smart comment about hitler completely ignoring the fact that your economic status of a person of color does not make you immune to the problems that black people face. But herp derp Colin is rich. You are hurt that i am calling a spade a spade and was completely dismissive of my point with the Hitler comment. You tried to make it seem like i was making a bold claim of you being comparable to Hitler to ignore the real issue. Deflections


No. I dismissed you because I dismiss everyone that claims someone else is a white sympathizer. People like you who toss this around are not worth the time, energy or effort. You see racism and racists everywhere to the point where it needs to be diagnosed by a professional as a Paranoid Delusion Disorder. 

Colin Kaeparnick is not and should not be the face of black america problems. People who are really down in the gutter and the ghettos have a completely different set of problems and looking up to self-serving celebrities will not emancipate them. Get the cameras down in the ghettos and show white people the real problems. The real racism instead of the elitest bullshit you see in newspaper articles that claims that somehow bending a motherfucking knee during an anthem is ending racism. That's some real bullshit hacktivism there. Really bullshit. 

The reason why the Civil Rights movement succeeded was because that's what was done. People saw the suffering of blacks and they stepped up to help them. This time around, it's just a bunch of celebrity hicks and college students with money that are so far removed from real black people that no one is talking about them anymore. The conversation has been hijacked by self-serving individuals and groups that are out there for their personal and collective gains - and couldn't care less about Little Johnny who can't go to school or who doesn't have a daddy to raise him.

You wanna help black people, then go down into the ghetto and help them there. I don't give a fuck about someone bending a knee. It ain't achieving nothing.


----------



## Stephen90

glenwo2 said:


> Being the POTUS is the Greatest Honor.
> 
> 
> *Anyone can learn to dribble a basketball.*
> 
> 
> Not anyone can learn to be POTUS. :trump


You actually think basketball is just dribbling a ball. How arrogant must you be?


----------



## KingCosmos

Legit BOSS said:


> *You must be blissfully unaware that a Black millionaire football player was wrongfully arrested and had his life threatened by police earlier this month. Allow me to educate you: http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/13/michael-bennett-lawsuit-las-vegas-police-incident/
> 
> Being a millionaire doesn't stop you from being Black and dealing with institutionalised racism. That's just an ignorant thing to say.*


It's truly mind numbing that people don't understand the being rich doesn't protect you if you are black. They assume the issues will go away. They are either incredibly ignorant and have no understanding of the reality that they live in or they are just being disingenuous to further their points


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Considering that this happened after a shooting where other people were also arrested, I don't see how this is a case of a black dude being singled out?


*Are you seriously ignoring the part where the cop threatened to blow Bennett's head off? Are you seriously justifying a wrongful arrest because "other people were wrongfully arrested too." If you want to reach and claim it's not racism, then guess what? It's STILL police brutality, which is the reason these Black athletes are protesting, BECAUSE people like you and other Trump apologists keep blatantly ignoring it. Just stop. It's pathetic.*



> Dude, you need to get away from thinking that everything has a racial component to it. Not everything does. Some things do yes absolutely. You guys are turning into the new feminists who scream rape at everything and toss all kinds of accusations all over the place making it more complicated and more difficult for people to address REAL racism and REAL racists.
> 
> I'm a brown dude too. Ok. I don't live in a mass paranoid world like some of you do. You know I'm aware of where black victims are and we've had these discussions before.


*Hey guys, LeBron James didn't have the N word spray painted on his mansion this Spring. This must be FAKE NEWS because he's a millionaire and millionaires can't possibly experience racism: * http://www.theroot.com/makeamericahateagain-......-spray-painted-on-home-own-1795694861


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Are you seriously ignoring the part where the cop threatened to blow Bennett's head off? Are you seriously justifying a wrongful arrest because "other people were wrongfully arrested too." Just stop. It's pathetic.*


Don't toss out words that you don't know how to use BBR. No one justified a wrongful arrest. I just said that other people were arrested too. That's not a justification of wrongful arrest. It's just standard procedure after any public shooting. Police round people up and they let them go. 



> *Hey guys, LeBron James didn't have the N word spray painted on his mansion this Spring. This must be FAKE NEWS because he's a millionaire and millionaires can't possibly experience racism: * http://www.theroot.com/makeamericahateagain-......-spray-painted-on-home-own-1795694861


Being one of the richest men in America's biggest racism fear is having someone use the N word? How does that compute to racism? Racism would be a systematic oppression of his skill and talent and having all avenues of success blocked for him. Which does happen in some parts of the world and may even happen in some smaller communities, but these rich black people do not face racism ... if the most racism they face is a little name calling. If you think that your life is over after being called the N word and that somehow is indicative of debilitating racism, then you're paranoid delusional too. 

That is something EVERYONE faces. I can post a hundred tweets in here from black and brown and asian and korean and south asian racists on here that have said racist things to everyone of all races, but that does not mean that somehow there's some sort of massive race-war that's destroying people's lives. Yes, there are racists, but not to the extent you guys whinge about all the damn time. 

I get called all sorts of shit too and I have faced racism too. But I still don't see racists or racism all around me. I'm not paranoid. 

I also don't look up to millionaires to emancipate me and be my savior because I'm more than capable of dealing with racism myself if and when I face it. 

I get called all sorts of shit on this forum too ... by you lot. So I guess I'm a victim too #whatamievergonnado 

:eyeroll


----------



## Miss Sally

Didn't Bennett run in the wrong direction and tried to avoid Cops? I seen the video that was released at the time and lots of black people ran out the front and no Cops bothered with them. They were still looking for the shooter.

Also have to roll my eyes at the whole LeBron James thing, knowing that attention whore he did it himself. Also poor LeBron with his millions and house that's all segregated off and his jet setting around the world. He's so oppressed, rich people do suffer all the time. In fact they suffer the most because people just don't listen to what they say. 

The only color that matters is green.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Having your private property vandalised with a racial slur isn't racism guys. Having to explain to your daughter that people messed up the house because they hate your skin color has nothing to do with racism. I've heard it all now. I'm done.*


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Also poor LeBron with his millions and house that's all segregated off and his jet setting around the world. He's so oppressed, rich people do suffer all the time. In fact they suffer the most because people just don't listen to what they say.
> 
> The only color that matters is green.


Sally, we can't use the success of black people as a measure of lack of racism in America, but we have to use N words useage by lunatics as evidence of a completely racist America. 

You know how liberalism works.


----------



## KingCosmos

Legit BOSS said:


> *Having your private property vandalised with a racial slur isn't racism guys. Having to explain to your daughter that people messed up the house because they hate your skin color has nothing to do with racism. I've heard it all now. I'm done.*


Or you know having your head almost blown off by a cop


----------



## glenwo2

Miss Sally said:


> Didn't Bennett run in the wrong direction and tried to avoid Cops? I seen the video that was released at the time and lots of black people ran out the front and no Cops bothered with them. They were still looking for the shooter.
> 
> Also have to roll my eyes at the whole LeBron James thing, knowing that attention whore he did it himself. Also poor LeBron with his millions and house that's all segregated off and his jet setting around the world. He's so oppressed, rich people do suffer all the time. In fact they suffer the most because people just don't listen to what they say.
> 
> The only color that matters is green.



First-World problems, yo.


----------



## Miss Sally

KingCosmos said:


> Or you know having your head almost blown off by a cop


Why weren't the black people running out the front busted up?

Did bennett do something different from those people?

I know, the Cops had it out for Bennett, the shooter was a white guy and they wanted to frame Bennett.. FFS this country.. When a rich celeb gets taken down and the poor scum don't. 

Stop oppressing our sports stars!


----------



## Reaper

If this was a regular feature in football, I might actually watch it. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911783217304399872


----------



## 674297

Headliner said:


> I didn't mean it this way. I'm down for any white person or a person of any race or nationality that wants to support by protesting.


GREAT, THAT MEANS THE STUPID ASS KLAN WILL INTERFERE AS THESE STUPID ASS WHITE SKINHEADS BACK UP TRUMP! WHICH IS SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED!


----------



## Oxidamus

Over here on the other side of the world I only know who this Kaepernick geek is because he seems like a pseudo-liberal combining his B position in a national sport with muh black rights which has made him a household name for not doing the fucking job he's supposed to do. :mj4

At least I know guys like Tom Brady are good at their job because of this forum.


----------



## BruiserKC

I am not the slightest bit surprised. Trump uses this to deflect from the fact that he is not getting anything done except cozying up to the Dems in the hopes he will get the love he's not getting from the incompetent idiots like McConnell and Ryan. More and more he shows how much of a swamp creature he is. He complains about identity politics, yet he's using that same playbook (Bannon even admitted it in that 60 Minutes interview). He blasts Crooked Hillary and the tactics of the Clinton Crime Family, yet used their tactics all through the campaign and the first months of his Presidency.

With each passing day, more and more people start to realize that nothing is getting done and start grumbling. The grumblings are growing louder, especially this week with more talk of amnesty for illegals and once again another failure in trying to pass another Obamacare repeal (even though the bills are a joke). He heads for Alabama also looking at the possibility the guy he is supporting might lose in the primary. It's looking more and more like Moore is going to be the GOP nominee to face off in December for Sessions' speech. Plus look at the fact that Bannon and Sarah Palin (two extremely staunch advocates for the POTUS) are endorsing Moore as well. He started going after Rand Paul about his stance on the Graham-Cassidy bill, but Paul basically said that the Trump tactics won't work this time. Not the best week for him with the exception of a decent UN speech (and even there he let them off too easy). 

So, Trump has to throw some type of raw red meat to the base. Bingo, national anthem protesters and once again playing the game of identity politics. Look at what we're talking about now, when we should be putting more pressure on Trump's administration and our Congresspeople for collecting a paycheck for being completely incompetent. Instead, we're talking about what athletes get invited to the WH. Deflection shields have been activated and they are working. We're blasting athletes for daring to be un-American in attacking the President and kneeling for the anthem, and completely ignoring the fact that shit is just not getting done.

Too bad most of us are oblivious to that fact and keep doing the same old shit that he wants. I know I will catch shit for this, but I've stated all along my goalposts have never moved. Trump is getting nothing done (and yes, for the millionth time I know Congress is as useless as a pair of tits on a bull but the leadership style he used to run his businesses ain't working in Washington) and more and more people need to call him out on this. Instead, you allow him to distract with this stuff. Or, maybe you would rather talk about this. It's up to you.


----------



## Draykorinee

BruiserKC said:


> I am not the slightest bit surprised. Trump uses this to deflect from the fact that he is not getting anything done except cozying up to the Dems in the hopes he will get the love he's not getting from the incompetent idiots like McConnell and Ryan. More and more he shows how much of a swamp creature he is. He complains about identity politics, yet he's using that same playbook (Bannon even admitted it in that 60 Minutes interview). He blasts Crooked Hillary and the tactics of the Clinton Crime Family, yet used their tactics all through the campaign and the first months of his Presidency.
> 
> With each passing day, more and more people start to realize that nothing is getting done and start grumbling. The grumblings are growing louder, especially this week with more talk of amnesty for illegals and once again another failure in trying to pass another Obamacare repeal (even though the bills are a joke). He heads for Alabama also looking at the possibility the guy he is supporting might lose in the primary. It's looking more and more like Moore is going to be the GOP nominee to face off in December for Sessions' speech. Plus look at the fact that Bannon and Sarah Palin (two extremely staunch advocates for the POTUS) are endorsing Moore as well. He started going after Rand Paul about his stance on the Graham-Cassidy bill, but Paul basically said that the Trump tactics won't work this time. Not the best week for him with the exception of a decent UN speech (and even there he let them off too easy).
> 
> So, Trump has to throw some type of raw red meat to the base. Bingo, national anthem protesters and once again playing the game of identity politics. Look at what we're talking about now, when we should be putting more pressure on Trump's administration and our Congresspeople for collecting a paycheck for being completely incompetent. Instead, we're talking about what athletes get invited to the WH. Deflection shields have been activated and they are working. We're blasting athletes for daring to be un-American in attacking the President and kneeling for the anthem, and completely ignoring the fact that shit is just not getting done.


Well put.


----------



## CamillePunk

Not a fan of the feuding with sports organizations/athletes. If he wants a distraction he should go with something more productive where he can be on the right side of an issue - like withdrawing federal funds from UC Berkeley after they cancelled Milo's event - after jerking them around for weeks with nonsense, yet another act in a growing list of anti-free speech actions by the public university.


----------



## BruiserKC

draykorinee said:


> Well put.


To me, what is sad is that a movement that I have fought for and believed in my whole life got hijacked by Trump. I have believed in the idea that the government was overstepping its boundaries in every aspect of our life. 

I don't want what may be the eventual running of health care by the US government, basically because they seem to have a habit of fucking everything else up. 

I believe the government needs to cut funding on a shitload of programs, not because I hate those programs or the people that benefit from them but because I really believe that they can be better off being dealt with on the local level. 

I believe if the government can't make a living on the money I provide in taxes and are in the deficit, they don't need more of my money but they need to tighten their belt. I have to live within my budget, they can do the same. 

I don't want to be the world's policeman, but we can be a force for good in the world as they still look to us for assistance and guidance. 

People here have mocked my beliefs and the fact that my values will not change, but I know that the concept of limited government works if we were actually given the chance to implement it the way the Constitution laid it out. The movement over the last 8 years said that out loud as well. The Democrats lost nearly 1000 seats in legislatures all across the US, as well as both chambers of Congress and the WH. What they were doing clearly wasn't working for the American people. 

Unfortunately, into this vacuum came a man who has absolutely no moral or ideological base on which to build a foundation. I was the biggest critic of Obama on this site, but I understand that he had a value set and a set of principles on which he guided his life. Granted, it wasn't one that I agreed with, but at least it was there. Trump does not have this, he continues to want people to guess where he's coming from and go all over the place. His anger with the people of his own party (which I also share that anger but it is also worth pointing out for many years Trump was a proud Democrat only until the night Obama was poking fun at him at the WH Press Dinner) led him to run over to the Democrats and make a deal with them that made no sense. All of a sudden, Schumer and Pelosi are his pals? I have no issue with compromise, but I have a serious problem with capitulation. It was shortsighted because it did nothing, many on that side still hate him. In fact, Pelosi tried to have a discussion with Dreamers and those who support them and she was shouted down for even making a deal with the POTUS. Meanwhile, more people are blasting Trump for what he did. 

All you hear about here are the liberals who despise Trump and those that are taken aback by his manner. Very little is said about principled conservatives like me that knew who Trump was and that it was a matter of time before he showed his true colors. On a couple of occasions, if Trump had actually continued down the path of showing grace and just doing his job, I might have been able to support him. However, he has become just another example of big government and uses the same identity politics he ripped others for using. However, heaven forbid if you call them out on it...other sites have quite a few people who think I need to go to a re-education camp for daring to question our leader. :lol Some will call me #NeverTrump, I prefer to use the term #NeverLiberal. 

I just wish more people would wake up to this fact. I know where I stand, and I refuse to apologize for it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> You didn't see Obama making a huge deal about Thomas not wanting to go and being a baby saying well I take back my offer for you to come to the white house. Trump is the biggest snowflake on the planet and this is just more poof of that.


The thing you're missing is that I'm not defending Trump on this, but you've convinced yourself I did. My point is the clear hypocrisy people have in regards to protesting the president. When Obama was in office, people shit on Tim Thomas, now with Trump in office people are in favor of protesting the president. The fact that I have to explain this to you is ridiculous


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> People here have mocked my beliefs and the fact that my values will not change, but I know that the concept of limited government works if we were actually given the chance to implement it the way the Constitution laid it out.


This isn't why you get mocked on here at all I am sorry to tell you. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> This isn't why you get mocked on here at all I am sorry to tell you. :lol


But I know it's because I will tell the truth about Trump, and that is he is selling all of his supporters out but so many folks are too blind to see it. Personally, I have zero intention of supporting a President who will shift that far to the left with absolutely no point to do so. But then again, this is who Trump has been all along. Whenever he gets in trouble, he throws out another distraction. 

At this point, we don't need Hillary Clinton, we got Trump to pimp her agenda. Amnesty, more debt, talking about hurting our enemies but actually doing nothing about it, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In all of your efforts to keep the Hildabeast out of office, this is what we ended up with.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> But I know it's because I will tell the truth about Trump, and that is he is selling all of his supporters out but so many folks are too blind to see it. Personally, I have zero intention of supporting a President who will shift that far to the left with absolutely no point to do so. But then again, this is who Trump has been all along. Whenever he gets in trouble, he throws out another distraction.
> 
> At this point, we don't need Hillary Clinton, we got Trump to pimp her agenda. Amnesty, more debt, talking about hurting our enemies but actually doing nothing about it, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In all of your efforts to keep the Hildabeast out of office, this is what we ended up with.


No you're not getting mocked for criticizing Trump at all. 

It's because you have this thing about real vs fake conservatives... It's kinda memeworthy


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> No you're not getting mocked for criticizing Trump at all.
> 
> It's because you have this thing about real vs fake conservatives... It's kinda memeworthy


There is the term Conservafraud, which Michelle Malkin used to describe Trump once before she drank the Kool Aid that is orange flavored. That describes a certain number of his supporters who spout off leftist talking points which is some of his agenda.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> There is the term Conservafraud, which Michelle Malkin used to describe Trump once before she drank the Kool Aid that is orange flavored. That describes a certain number of his supporters who spout off leftist talking points which is some of his agenda.


Well that would be fine. But it's usually in the context of opposition to wars and foreign intervention that you've brought up the fake vs real conservative stuff IIRC... And I don't think that not wanting foreign intervention makes someone left wing at all.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*You can thank Trump for strengthening our cause. A baseball player named Bruce Maxwell kneeled in the wake of his stupid ass comments: *
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...cher-kneels-national-anthem-article-1.3516660


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *You can thank Trump for strengthening our cause. A baseball player named Bruce Maxwell kneeled in the wake of his stupid ass comments: *
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...cher-kneels-national-anthem-article-1.3516660


The NFL has lost viewership because of your "cause". Its not strengthening your "cause" its actually harming it. 



> *Anthem protests led poll of reasons viewers tuned out*
> 
> 
> National anthem protests were the top reason that NFL fans watched fewer games last season, according to a new survey released by J.D. Power.
> 
> The pollster said it asked more than 9,200 people who attended either one football, basketball or hockey game whether they tuned into fewer games and why. Twenty-six percent of those who watched fewer games last season said that national anthem protests, some of which were led by Colin Kaepernick, were the reason.
> 
> After that, 24 percent of those surveyed who said they watched fewer games said they did so either because of the league's off-the-field image issues with domestic violence or with game delays, including penalties.
> 
> 
> One in five (20 percent) listed excessive commercials and advertising as a reason, something the NFL is seeking to address by moving around traditional ad blocks.
> 
> Sixteen percent said it was because of their interest being replaced by the 2016 presidential election coverage.
> 
> Five percent said they watched fewer games because they got rid of cable.
> 
> J.D. Power noted that only 12 percent of the fans it surveyed said they watched fewer NFL games last season, with 27 percent of people saying they watched more and 62 percent saying they watched just as much as they had the season before.
> 
> The NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> NFL game viewership on networks that broadcast games was down an average of 8 percent for the 2016 regular season versus the season before. Before the election (Nov. 8), games for the first nine weeks were down 14 percent compared to 2015. The final eight weeks saw only a drop of 1 percent compared to Weeks 10-17 in 2015.


http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games

But I'm sure you'll say its propaganda or that its due to racism or something


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Well that would be fine. But it's usually in the context of opposition to wars and foreign intervention that you've brought up the fake vs real conservative stuff IIRC... And I don't think that not wanting foreign intervention makes someone left wing at all.


No, because I don't necessarily want to intervene unless not doing so is a threat to American interests and our possible lives. Where I have made the distinction is in policies that the Trump administration and his family endorse. Border tariffs, mandatory paid family leave, threatening to open up libel laws to sue people, etc. Those are protectionist and more heavy-handed government involved programs that are not what I believe in. Unfortunately too many of his supporters are blind to that concept, he could promote single payer health care (which he did once upon a time and early in the campaign as well) and they will cheer him for it and anyone who disagrees is a liberal to them. 

More are waking up to this...Rush Limbaugh said on his show he knows Trump is not ideologically conservative. Notice his Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies program he pimps is now the Institute of Advanced Anti-Leftist Studies. Too many people automatically say that Trump is for this so it's a conservative principle now when it's not necessarily true. But we eat it up like a fat kid eats cake. 

What I believe now is what I believed years ago and what I will believe years from now. The world may change but what I value doesn't. Many out there feel the same way but are staying out of the fray. I will stand for what I think is right. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Stinger Fan said:


> The NFL has lost viewership because of your "cause". Its not strengthening your "cause" its actually harming it.
> 
> 
> http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games
> 
> But I'm sure you'll say its propaganda or that its due to racism or something


*Way to ignore the tens of thousands of Black people boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick being blacklisted because it doesn't fit your racist apologist narrative :lmao*


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *Way to ignore the tens of thousands of Black people boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick being blacklisted because it doesn't fit your racist apologist narrative :lmao*


:lol Deflection ... Facts don't care about your feelings


----------



## FriedTofu

Gosh, are you guys going to micro analyse ratings for each NFL game like the IWC for wrestling 10 years ago?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911964887710146562
*After Trump's stupid comments, the Dolphins owner spoke out against him, the entire Ravens team kneeled, and the Jaguars' only non-white owner in the league came to the field to link arms with his players in solidarity. This all happened in less than a day.* https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...l-anthem-protests-baltimore-ravens/697764001/


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> The NFL has lost viewership because of your "cause". Its not strengthening your "cause" its actually harming it.
> 
> 
> http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games
> 
> But I'm sure you'll say its propaganda or that its due to racism or something


So what? If white sympathizers are mad that people don't share the same patriotism as them then too fucking bad. Instead of being so quick to criminalize and condemn minority social movements and minorities in general like they've been doing forever, maybe they should listen and try to understand. Their own intolerance and ignorance is the problem. Not our protest.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

KingCosmos said:


> Nope you don't have to be Hitler or a cross burning KKK member to be a white supremacist. The thing that white supremacist sympathizers like you do is point to Nazis and KKK members and say "I'm not like that so i can't be a white supremacist" Well you are wrong *White supremacy can be subtle or extreme and you just happen to fall on the lighter end of the spectrum.* You pointing to a extreme case of white supremacy won't stop you from being labeled as one buddy


So can "black supremacy", "brown supremacy", "european supremacy", etc. etc. Your point that you can be a subtle white supremacist is disgusting, dangerous, and does nothing to help further whatever cause you're fighting for. It's just an attempt by you to "other" a group of people. Basically, what you claim "subtle white supremacists" do.


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> Gosh, are you guys going to micro analyse ratings for each NFL game like the IWC for wrestling 10 years ago?


Seems like it, I reckon wwe figures are plummeting based on the McMahons support of Trump...sarcasm though.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *You must be blissfully unaware that a Black millionaire football player was wrongfully arrested and had his life threatened by police earlier this month. Allow me to educate you: http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/13/michael-bennett-lawsuit-las-vegas-police-incident/
> 
> Being a millionaire doesn't stop you from being Black and dealing with institutionalised racism. That's just an ignorant thing to say.*


When you look for racism hard enough, you'll find it. wens2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> So what? If white sympathizers are mad that people don't share the same patriotism as them then too fucking bad. Instead of being so quick to criminalize and condemn minority social movements and minorities in general like they've been doing forever, maybe they should listen and try to understand. Their own intolerance and ignorance is the problem. Not our protest.


Aren't you a black sympathizer?


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Aren't you a black sympathizer?


No. I'm someone that stands up to people like you. The white arrogance, ignorance and intolerance toward minorities and minority social movements will be addressed and it will make people uncomfortable. Race is a messy subject. That's just how it is.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg

Guess Trump needed a distraction from the fact he endorsed a yuge 'loser' that's about to get BTFO by double digits on Tuesday.

His ego wouldn't have been able to handle the news coverage focusing on his lack of political influence.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> No. I'm someone that stands up to people like you. The white arrogance, ignorance and intolerance toward minorities and minority social movements will be addressed and it will make people uncomfortable. Race is a messy subject. That's just how it is.


People like me? LOL

I see, so because I challenged you, I'm now arrogant, ignorant, and intolerant....because I'm white.

The issue I see here is, with that kind of belief system, how do you expect to make the changes you think this country needs to make? Do you honestly believe insulting and shaming a group of people is the key to prosperity?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Werner Heizenberg said:


> Guess Trump needed a distraction from the fact he endorsed a yuge 'loser' that's about to get BTFO by double digits on Tuesday.
> 
> His ego wouldn't have been able to handle the news coverage focusing on his lack of political influence.


No doubt, this was meant to be a distraction. He shouldn't have even brought it up, but if Trump is anything, he's a loud-mouth. Has always put his foot in his mouth, and always will.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911968948173905921


TheNightmanCometh said:


> Do you honestly believe insulting and shaming a group of people is the answer?


*Oh the irony coming from a Trump apologist :lmao. YOU'RE DEFENDING the guy who called a peaceful protester a son of a bitch and demanded to have everyone else who does it fired.*


----------



## glenwo2

BruiserKC said:


> I am not the slightest bit surprised. Trump uses this to deflect from the fact that he is not getting anything done except cozying up to the Dems in the hopes he will get the love he's not getting from the incompetent idiots like McConnell and Ryan. More and more he shows how much of a swamp creature he is. He complains about identity politics, yet he's using that same playbook (Bannon even admitted it in that 60 Minutes interview). He blasts Crooked Hillary and the tactics of the Clinton Crime Family, yet used their tactics all through the campaign and the first months of his Presidency.
> 
> With each passing day, more and more people start to realize that nothing is getting done and start grumbling. The grumblings are growing louder, especially this week with more talk of amnesty for illegals and once again another failure in trying to pass another Obamacare repeal (even though the bills are a joke). He heads for Alabama also looking at the possibility the guy he is supporting might lose in the primary. It's looking more and more like Moore is going to be the GOP nominee to face off in December for Sessions' speech. Plus look at the fact that Bannon and Sarah Palin (two extremely staunch advocates for the POTUS) are endorsing Moore as well. He started going after Rand Paul about his stance on the Graham-Cassidy bill, but Paul basically said that the Trump tactics won't work this time. Not the best week for him with the exception of a decent UN speech (and even there he let them off too easy).
> 
> So, Trump has to throw some type of raw red meat to the base. Bingo, national anthem protesters and once again playing the game of identity politics. Look at what we're talking about now, when we should be putting more pressure on Trump's administration and our Congresspeople for collecting a paycheck for being completely incompetent. Instead, we're talking about what athletes get invited to the WH. Deflection shields have been activated and they are working. We're blasting athletes for daring to be un-American in attacking the President and kneeling for the anthem, and completely ignoring the fact that shit is just not getting done.
> 
> Too bad most of us are oblivious to that fact and keep doing the same old shit that he wants. I know I will catch shit for this, but I've stated all along my goalposts have never moved. Trump is getting nothing done (and yes, for the millionth time I know Congress is as useless as a pair of tits on a bull but the leadership style he used to run his businesses ain't working in Washington) and more and more people need to call him out on this. Instead, you allow him to distract with this stuff. Or, maybe you would rather talk about this. It's up to you.



Sadly, I'm beginning to think you're right.

But also, it's not like Hilary wouldn't have been doing similar shit(or even worse).


This is why I hate Politicians or anything related to Politics. 

All they do is collect our money(Taxes), bicker like old ladies at a bingo hall, and nothing gets done. 


Bah. You got to give them credit, though. They always find a way to sucker us into believing shit will get done.....until it doesn't.


(although Trump did get that pipeline thing done so there's that but still.....we need MORE. MUCH MORE. )


----------



## Miss Sally

We're still talking about the kneeling stuff?

I'm not even a big Football fan and know Kaepernick wasn't a very good player, he was off the field trouble it seemed and wasn't pleasant to work with - all before he started his kneeling.

Frankly can see him starting it not for some great movement but simply if he made things political he'd have to be picked up by a team and get a payday. 

Regardless I support his right to kneel, players aren't slaves and there are far worse people playing the game, you know Micheal "I love dogs" Vick. As long as the players play up to their expectations they should be able to do whatever they like within reason. Though if they constantly fuck up or under perform well they're no different from any other employee. 

If people are tuning out for their own reasons that's fine. America's obsession with Sports needs to come to an end anyways. It's a corrupt system of exploitation and Football is a dangerous sport that should end. 

The celeb worship needs to end, these people aren't worth it.


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> So what? If white sympathizers are mad that people don't share the same patriotism as them then too fucking bad. Instead of being so quick to criminalize and condemn minority social movements and minorities in general like they've been doing forever, maybe they should listen and try to understand. Their own intolerance and ignorance is the problem. Not our protest.


I can replace the word "white" with "black" and it'll sound just as silly.


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> No. I'm someone that stands up to people like you. The white arrogance, ignorance and intolerance toward minorities and minority social movements will be addressed and it will make people uncomfortable. *Race is a messy subject. That's just how it is.*


Yet you keep talking about it ever since Trump became President.

That's just how it is. 



If Hilary was President, the Politics section would've been a ghost-town, I bet. lol.

If anything, Trump has brought out the entertainment aspect of this board.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> Mike Tomlin just told me @NFLonCBS #Steelers will NOT be participating in the #NationalAnthem today in CHI. Staying in the locker room.



His choice.









Of course, it's the NFL's choice to punish him since it's a Privately-owned entity as well. 

Should be interesting how the NFL Commissioner responds to all this going on.


----------



## 674297

draykorinee said:


> Seems like it, I reckon wwe figures are plummeting based on the McMahons support of Trump...sarcasm though.


Well, how many racist white fans are leading a little rally to Support creative, Vince McMahon's stupid ideas, and the superstars the people hate before they cheer for them at house shows?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> The thing you're missing is that I'm not defending Trump on this, but you've convinced yourself I did. My point is the clear hypocrisy people have in regards to protesting the president. When Obama was in office, people shit on Tim Thomas, now with Trump in office people are in favor of protesting the president. The fact that I have to explain this to you is ridiculous


The only person still missing the point here is you. The reason why this is a huge deal is because Trump cried like a baby about Curry not going and made a huge deal about it. 

When Brady go, it was not a huge deal at all because Trump didn't get butt hurt over it.


----------



## stevefox1200

Trump is becoming the greatest democrat president of all time purely through reverse psychology 

"I want to kill north korea" everyone finds way to cripple NK without nuclear fire

"black athletes need to stfu" they now have unity and support when views were once split

I hope he soon tweets about how cancer is great and world hunger is the future 

17d chess


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> People like me? LOL
> 
> I see, so because I challenged you, I'm now arrogant, ignorant, and intolerant....because I'm white.
> 
> The issue I see here is, with that kind of belief system, how do you expect to make the changes you think this country needs to make? Do you honestly believe insulting and shaming a group of people is the key to prosperity?


Ok. Allow me to educate you then since you and others here don't seem to get it. Because you know, rich black people shouldn't be protesting because they are rich. As if they are unable to identify the struggles of people in their race or as if they never experienced it themselves. 

America's birth was built on protest. From the Boston Tea Party protest to the protests that led to the Revolutionary War. So for those who want to shit on people for protesting the national anthem, how about you look at America's history and see that protest was one of the founding causes that led to America's birth. They protested and fought for freedom, free speech and independence and the fight for liberty, free speech and freedom still continues to be a core value of America today. 

But, but, but now that black people (proportionally) has decided to protest in favor of justice, equality and against racism, suddenly there's a problem because you're protesting against the national anthem and "how dare you disrespect America" while ignoring the fact that _America was also built on xenophobia, racism and prejudice and that has been passed down generation to generation. 
_
Let me tell you something about the creator of the national anthem. He was a racist piece of shit who tried to play both sides like he was a good person. He was a slave owner who said this about black people _"a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community."_

And there's people today that think like him. So the national anthem was literally created by a guy that thought black people were an inferior race and I'm suppose to stand for that because his anthem is representing the spirit of America? Fuck him. 

And we can even take him out of the equation just to do it. The symbolization of the national anthem and the idea of an equal, free America still doesn't fit with black people today. 

After slavery, the 3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, KKK torment, Ronald Reagan not only watching our people die in masses during the 80's crack boom, but expanding prison and police programs, signing the 100:1 crack to cocaine prison sentencing ratio law which perpetuated mass incarnation of blacks while whites got off light for coke, while suddenly everyone is now concerned about the white folks dying from opioids and are doing everything in their power to help them. To the systematic racism, racial profiling, injustice in the criminal justice system and discriminatory hiring practices that still exists *today. *

We see America in a completely different light. We are proud of ourselves. Our culture. Our people. We are not proud of this country because there continues to be a failure to live up to what this company is suppose to be about. It doesn't mean we hate the country. It means we are disappointed. And that's the problem. White sympathizer garbage (including Fox News) will frame this as black people hating the country or being disrespectful because that's what they to minority movements. That's what they've done for decades. They change and spin the purpose to fit their narrative of criminalizing minorities. 

Fuck your national anthem. Don't tell black people how we should feel, how we should protest or how we are in the wrong in any way. None of you have lived in are fucking shoes. We don't share the same patriotism because we don't have the same experiences.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> People like me? LOL
> 
> I see, so because I challenged you, I'm now arrogant, ignorant, and intolerant....because I'm white.
> 
> The issue I see here is, with that kind of belief system, how do you expect to make the changes you think this country needs to make? Do you honestly believe insulting and shaming a group of people is the key to prosperity?


OH you mean like Trump insults and shames people? 

You are ignorant for comments like calling someone a black sympathizer when blacks are the ones who are being killed by cops at an astronomical rate. That comment is beyond ignorant. 

Also, we don't have to put up with your bigotry and intolerance. 

I always love when people try to claim the people calling out others being standing up against bigotry or suppression as being the intolerant ones. 


We don't have to tolerate intolerance.


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump is becoming the greatest democrat president of all time purely through reverse psychology
> 
> "I want to kill north korea" everyone finds way to cripple NK without nuclear fire
> 
> "black athletes need to stfu" they now have unity and support when views were once split
> 
> I hope he soon tweets about how cancer is great and *world hunger* is the future
> 
> 17d chess


Stopping world hunger without anyway to taper off the population boom from it would be disastrous.


----------



## virus21

and on the other side



> Hillary Clinton's newly released campaign memoir adds voter ID laws and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to the list of reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.
> In “What Happened,” which was formally released on Tuesday, Clinton tells the full, 469-page “story” of what she “saw, felt and thought during two of the most intense years” she’s ever experienced.
> She kicked off the promotion Tuesday at Barnes & Noble in New York City’s Union Square, arriving to the event an hour late after some supporters waited overnight outside the store to see her. She eventually started signing her book -- which claims to “pull back the curtain” on a number of factors that contributed to her loss.
> While previously released passages faulted James Comey and even primary rival Bernie Sanders, the end of the book turns focus to allegedly discriminatory voter laws.
> hrc 2
> Hillary Clinton arrives to her first book event on September 12, 2017 with chairman of Barnes & Noble Len Riggio. (Fox News)
> On page 418, Clinton begins a section titled “Voter Suppression,” where she claims the Trump campaign “actively tried to discourage people from voting at all,” and adds that their play was “just the latest” in a “long-term” Republican strategy to “discourage and disenfranchise” Democratic-leaning voters.
> “The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts opened the floodgates by gutting the Voting Rights Act in 2013. When I was in the Senate, we voted to reauthorize the law 98 to 0 and President George W. Bush signed it,” Clinton writes. “But Justice Roberts essentially argued that racism was a thing of the past, and therefore the country no longer needed key protections of the Voting Rights Act.”
> Clinton describes Roberts' decision as “one of the worst the court has ever made,” and goes on to list “fourteen states” that had new voter ID restrictions by the 2016 election that she wrote were “aimed at weeding out students, poor people, the elderly, and people of color.” She goes on to blame Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now-vice chairman of President Trump’s voter fraud commission, for much of the “national effort.”
> As part of her case, Clinton cites a debunked study on Wisconsin.
> “Since the election, studies have documented how big an impact all this suppression had on the outcome. States with harsh new voting laws, such as Wisconsin, saw turnout dip 1.7 points, compared with a 1.3-point increase in states where the law didn’t change,” Clinton writes.
> “In Wisconsin, where I lost by just 22,748 votes, a study from Priorities USA estimated that the new voter ID law helped reduce turnout by 200,000 votes, primarily from low-income and minority areas,” Clinton says. “... Before the election, one Republican state representative in Wisconsin predicted the new law would help Trump pull off an upset in the state. It turns out he was right.”
> HRC 1
> Hillary Clinton signs copies of "What Happened" for fans and supporters at Barnes & Noble in New York City's Union Square on September 12, 2017. (Fox News)
> But PolitiFact slammed that study as “Mostly False.”
> “Priorities USA, a group that supports Democratic candidates, had issued a report saying a decline in voter turnout between the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in Wisconsin was entirely due to the state’s photo ID requirement,” PolitiFact wrote Tuesday. “But experts told us that while photo ID requirements may reduce turnout to some extent, they questioned the methodology of the report.”
> PolitiFact also wrote that experts said there was “no way” to put a number on how many people did not vote in Wisconsin because of the ID requirement.
> Clinton also infamously did not visit Wisconsin after the primaries.
> But throughout “What Happened,” Clinton blames multiple factors for her loss—like the attention on “Those Damn Emails,” the “unprecedented intervention in our election” by former FBI Director Comey, and the “audacious information warfare waged from the Kremlin.”
> Clinton even questioned the support of those who attended the massive Women’s March on Jan. 21. On page 14, Clinton explains how “bittersweet” the day after the inauguration was, as thousands of people joined to march on Washington.
> huma
> Long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin at the "What Happened" book event on September 12, 2017 in New York City. (Fox News)
> “Yet I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage, and passion had been during the election,” Clinton writes, noting the dozens of women who have approached her in months since, some apologizing for not voting. “We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions.”
> Clinton walked into the formal release on Tuesday with the chairman and founder of Barnes & Noble, Len Riggio. She was joined by longtime aide Huma Abedin and Nick Merrill, her campaign press secretary. The event was a prelude to a bigger book tour being launched across the country and Canada set to last through December.
> According to the director of corporate communications for B&N, Alan McNamara, they sold more than 1,200 copies of “What Happened” at the event by around noon—more than during her 2014 launch of “Hard Choices.”
> White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked at the press briefing Tuesday whether President Trump would read Clinton’s book.
> “I’m not sure,” Sanders said Tuesday. “I would think that he’s pretty well-versed on what happened.


http://archive.is/phTWi


----------



## stevefox1200

Miss Sally said:


> Stopping world hunger without anyway to taper off the population boom from it would be disastrous.


No problem

Trump than can then just tweet how much he loves population booms

suddenly the entire world will understand the importance of birth control


----------



## themuel1

draykorinee said:


> The obsession with patriotism, flags and anthems is vomit inducing most of the time.


For some it's Nationalism, which is a far more dangerous form of Patriotism.


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Way to ignore the tens of thousands of Black people boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick being blacklisted because it doesn't fit your racist apologist narrative :lmao*


Boycotting something where blacks have the most jobs and earn the highest overall salaries is not really very smart. This is one of the reasons why I said that celebrity worship is stupid.

Who has the most to lose in this boycott over a player not being respected for bending a knee. These are puppets and not leaders. Leaders are the millions of middle class blacks and entrepreneurs and job creators that have found success and empowered themselves against all odds. God-given talent is one thing, but being able to survive and thrive is where the real battle is. Don't lose perspective. 

From an outsider's perspective this is what cult of personality really looks like. Lack of rationality and action that has a net negative instead of positive. 

Smarter people are entrepreneurs and that's how they emancipate themselves into greater society. Not by being sheepish followers.

You think that the chinese who came here decided to remain communist that they would be as successful collectively as they are?


----------



## Dr. Middy

Headliner said:


> Ok. Allow me to educate you then since you and others here don't seem to get it. Because you know, rich black people shouldn't be protesting because they are rich. As if they are unable to identify the struggles of people in their race or as if they never experienced it themselves.
> 
> America's birth was built on protest. From the Boston Tea Party protest to the protests that led to the Revolutionary War. So for those who want to shit on people for protesting the national anthem, how about you look at America's history and see that protest was one of the founding causes that led to America's birth. They protested and fought for freedom, free speech and independence and the fight for liberty, free speech and freedom still continues to be a core value of America today.
> 
> But, but, but now that black people (proportionally) has decided to protest in favor of justice, equality and against racism, suddenly there's a problem because you're protesting against the national anthem and "how dare you disrespect America" while ignoring the fact that _America was also built on xenophobia, racism and prejudice and that has been passed down generation to generation.
> _
> Let me tell you something about the creator of the national anthem. He was a racist piece of shit who tried to play both sides like he was a good person. He was a slave owner who said this about black people _"a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community."_
> 
> And there's people today that think like him. So the national anthem was literally created by a guy that thought black people were an inferior race and I'm suppose to stand for that because his anthem is representing the spirit of America? Fuck him.
> 
> And we can even take him out of the equation just to do it. The symbolization of the national anthem and the idea of an equal, free America still doesn't fit with black people today.
> 
> After slavery, the 3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, KKK torment, Ronald Reagan not only watching our people die in masses during the 80's crack boom, but expanding prison and police programs, signing the 100:1 crack to cocaine prison sentencing ratio law which perpetuated mass incarnation of blacks while whites got off light for coke, while suddenly everyone is now concerned about the white folks dying from opioids and are doing everything in their power to help them. To the systematic racism, racial profiling, injustice in the criminal justice system and discriminatory hiring practices that still exists *today. *
> 
> We see America in a completely different light. We are proud of ourselves. Our culture. Our people. We are not proud of this country because there continues to be a failure to live up to what this company is suppose to be about. It doesn't mean we hate the country. It means we are disappointed. And that's the problem. White sympathizer garbage (including Fox News) will frame this as black people hating the country or being disrespectful because that's what they to minority movements. That's what they've done for decades. They change and spin the purpose to fit their narrative of criminalizing minorities.
> 
> Fuck your national anthem. Don't tell black people how we should feel, how we should protest or how we are in the wrong in any way. None of you have lived in are fucking shoes. We don't share the same patriotism because we don't have the same experiences.


I respect the pride you have in your people, and the fact that you are willing to stand up against pretty much anybody here with your beliefs and not back down for a second. It's commendable, however, I think in a lot of these posts (and others in that thread you made a few weeks ago that blew up huge) you come across as almost "holier than thou." You say nobody can pretty much understand where you are coming from because we haven't been in your shoes and the shoes of other black people who have been victims of a system that has been against them for how long, but how can we understand if we aren't given the chance to? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm assuming you will) but when you say "None of you have lived in our fucking shoes" I assume that basically makes it impossible for any white person to truly understand where you are coming from with your problems. 

Protesting is fine, and it should be fine, as long as it doesn't go down the path to violence like we've seen in demonstrations by Anifta and others. The same thing goes for all these protests that happened for the unjust labeled murders of black people we've seen in the past few years, like the ones we are seeing in St. Louis right now. I applaud the many who are protesting over the not guilty ruling given by Judge Timothy Wilson to Jason Stockley over the murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. I think that there is a serious problem with the current police force, not exactly in that most cops are out for blood, but that they use radical profiling (which depends on the case, but is still ehhh), and seemingly are a bit trigger happy with guns. The worst for me is that there seems to be a brotherhood mentality in that they will defend their own on the majority of occasions and fail to punish fellow police for wrongdoings, especially of this magnitude, and that is something that will have to be changed throughout the entire system. Now, I'm actually one who supports police generally speaking, but even that doesn't stop me from realizing the many problems within their system. 

Concerning the national anthem, so you believe that it cannot be separated from the man that wrote it? I could give a shit about Francis Scott Key himself, I'd rather have something like America the Beautiful as the National Anthem myself, but I mean I show respect to it not for Key himself, but for everybody in our country as a whole. It's why I was perfectly fine with Kapernick kneeling during it, he's still respectful, and same with that baseball player who also did that recently. You can choose not to do what is socially expected during the anthem, but I don't see why it can't have any respect put upon it, not for Trump or the government, not for Francis Scott Key, but for good standing American citizens that outnumber the bad. 

The failure of the country part makes me question things a little. Yes, there are still major problems with racist people within the country who still think black people as a whole are inferior, and you get questionable news agencies like Fox who will spin things around onto you and others. But if you compare now to back in the 1960s or so, do you not see improvement? You seem to be saying the current racial climate of the country is still very bad overall, and yes it has it's problems as we've seen, but it is improving no? I see black people given every bit the chance to succeed now, if put on the same economic level of a white person like myself, and our current generation has a higher respect than ever of everybody including any race. Sure things could be better, and I'm not saying that means you should stop the protesting like you and everybody is doing, but I think things are steadily improving as the generations change and people make more realizations of the problems and how to fix them. 

And if this is all over the place, my bad. I'm usually one not to post much on this topic specifically.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> The only person still missing the point here is you. The reason why this is a huge deal is because Trump cried like a baby about Curry not going and made a huge deal about it.
> 
> When Brady go, it was not a huge deal at all because Trump didn't get butt hurt over it.


You ignore what I write because you've made your mind up about what I said. I don't need to continue to explain what I said that was written clearly. You can keep responding, I simply do not care about you lying :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You ignore what I write because you've made your mind up about what I said. I don't need to continue to explain what I said that was written clearly. You can keep responding, I simply do not care about you lying :lol


The only person here ignoring what is being said is you. You keep bringing up ONE PERSON who got shit for not going and that was back in 2012 yet I keep bringing up Tom Brady who in 2017 didn't go and no one gave a shit not even Trump.

You are the one lying here not me. But that is typical of the shit you always pull on his forum with ignoring facts.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Good job Trump. Your plan backfired: *

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912008226400604161


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> Ok. Allow me to educate you then since you and others here don't seem to get it. Because you know, rich black people shouldn't be protesting because they are rich. As if they are unable to identify the struggles of people in their race or as if they never experienced it themselves.


I stopped reading after this part because you decided to educate me on the alternative to a stance I never took.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> OH you mean like Trump insults and shames people?
> 
> You are ignorant for comments like calling someone a black sympathizer when blacks are the ones who are being killed by cops at an astronomical rate. That comment is beyond ignorant.
> 
> Also, we don't have to put up with your bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> I always love when people try to claim the people calling out others being standing up against bigotry or suppression as being the intolerant ones.
> 
> 
> We don't have to tolerate intolerance.


Critical thinking and reading comprehension aren't your strong suits. You spend so much time proscribing opinions to people that you don't take the time to try and understand what people are saying. I'm not gonna waste my time pointing out how you misinterpreted what I said, you're far past gone to educate. Rather, I'll just say you have too much hate in your heart and it's apparent in every reply you make. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

Trump should tweet he hates himself and all his ideas are stupid and should never be passed 

His approval ratings would max out and the public would support all of his plans

His supporters would also have to agree and vote democrat sabotaging the party

1354d chess


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911968948173905921
> 
> 
> *Oh the irony coming from a Trump apologist :lmao. YOU'RE DEFENDING the guy who called a peaceful protester a son of a bitch and demanded to have everyone else who does it fired.*





> No doubt, this was meant to be a distraction. He shouldn't have even brought it up, but if Trump is anything, he's a loud-mouth. Has always put his foot in his mouth, and always will.


Similar to BM, your reading comprehension is piss poor. You, just like BM, hear what you want to hear and ignore everything else, particularly what someone is explicitly saying. I can't help you, nor do I feel the desire to do so. At the end of the day, you're a hateful person, not interested in finding solutions. Instead, you spend your time spreading divisiveness and I feel sorry for you.


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> Ok. Allow me to educate you then since you and others here don't seem to get it. Because you know, rich black people shouldn't be protesting because they are rich. As if they are unable to identify the struggles of people in their race or as if they never experienced it themselves.
> 
> America's birth was built on protest. From the Boston Tea Party protest to the protests that led to the Revolutionary War. So for those who want to shit on people for protesting the national anthem, how about you look at America's history and see that protest was one of the founding causes that led to America's birth. They protested and fought for freedom, free speech and independence and the fight for liberty, free speech and freedom still continues to be a core value of America today.


Except the difference between then and now is stark. 

Protests then were about FREEDOM which led to America's birth as you said. 

Protests now are more about "Oh! I don't like it that these personal views are different from mine". 





> But, but, but now that black people (proportionally) has decided to protest in favor of justice, equality and against racism, suddenly there's a problem because you're protesting against the national anthem and "how dare you disrespect America" while ignoring the fact that _America was also built on xenophobia, racism and prejudice and that has been passed down generation to generation.
> _


Yes because BlackLivesMatter(for example) is protesting in favor of all that you said and not because it's an opportunity to spout hate against White people. Yeah okay. 

All this shitstorm because of people getting bent way out of shape due to the feelings that the NFL may have blackballed Kapernick when in fact he has no job because he's no longer the effective player he once was. But even then, he still almost got an offer from the Ravens, however : 

In late July and early August, the Baltimore Ravens were working to extend an offer to Kaepernick. According to Ray Lewis, the offer was terminated after a tweet by Kaepernick's girlfriend compared the Ravens team owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner. According to other reports, Bisciotti had been objecting to signing Kaepernick even before the incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kaepernick#Controversy_over_free_agency
"

Before the incident? Yeah sure. Nice job, Miss Kaepernick. 



> Let me tell you something about the creator of the national anthem. He was a racist piece of shit who tried to play both sides like he was a good person. He was a slave owner who said this about black people _"a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community."_


So now we're turning this into "The National Anthem is bullshit and should be eliminated", right? 'Cause if that's the case, then America really doesn't need individuals who shit on our great country's song and name like this. smh.



> And there's people today that think like him. So the national anthem was literally created by a guy that thought black people were an inferior race and I'm suppose to stand for that because his anthem is representing the spirit of America? Fuck him.


No. The national anthem of America symbolizes the Spirit of America BECAUSE it's America. Not because of the racist shitbag who created the song. Stop living in the past where SLAVERY WAS LEGAL.

Compare the situation back then to now and you'll notice that while things can be better(and things are far from perfect), it's like night and day. We've finally had a BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKIN' STATES!! That's like the ULTIMATE ACHIEVEMENT to go along with the massive strides that African Americans have gotten, whether it's being Doctors, CEO's, or any other high-level occupation. 




> And we can even take him out of the equation just to do it. The symbolization of the national anthem and the idea of an equal, free America still doesn't fit with black people today.


First off, aside from the air we breathe, NOTHING is "Free" in America or any place in the world. NOTHING. 

There's always a Price to be had. Always.

As far as "equal"? It could be better. But looking back in the 60's and comparing it to now? It could be much MUCH WORSE. 

Blacks(because you're mentioning Caucasians as 'Whites') are in a better situation than they were 30+ years ago where they had to make sure they entered the appropriate labelled bathrooms, stores, and other places. 



> After slavery, the 3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, KKK torment, Ronald Reagan not only watching our people die in masses during the 80's crack boom, but expanding prison and police programs, signing the 100:1 crack to cocaine prison sentencing ratio law which perpetuated mass incarnation of blacks while whites got off light for coke, while suddenly everyone is now concerned about the white folks dying from opioids and are doing everything in their power to help them. To the systematic racism, racial profiling, injustice in the criminal justice system and discriminatory hiring practices that still exists *today. *
> 
> We see America in a completely different light. We are proud of ourselves. Our culture. Our people. We are not proud of this country because there continues to be a failure to live up to what this company is suppose to be about. *It doesn't mean we hate the country.* It means we are disappointed. And that's the problem. White sympathizer garbage (including Fox News) will frame this as black people hating the country or being disrespectful because that's what they to minority movements. That's what they've done for decades. They change and spin the purpose to fit their narrative of criminalizing minorities.
> 
> *Fuck your national anthem.* Don't tell black people how we should feel, how we should protest or how we are in the wrong in any way. None of you have lived in are fucking shoes. We don't share the same patriotism because we don't have the same experiences.


The two bolded are contradictory, don't you think?

"Fuck your national anthem" might as well be "Fuck the United States". 

But what do I know? I'm just a white man. :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *Good job Trump. Your plan backfired: *
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912008226400604161


Maybe there is something to this reverse psychology thing..... :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

Its ironic how TheNightmanCometh keeps claiming the people replying to him are the ones who have reading comprehension problems, yet the problem is US and not you. If many people think you are saying something you claim you are not, then its YOU who are a shitty communicator, not the people comprehening what you are saying.


the only person you are fooling is yourself


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao



I will raise you


----------



## stevefox1200

I'm not the most protest happy person in the world (I have been called authoritarian) but even I can see the implications of supporting far-right wing and racists right to protest and not supporting black athletes and black interest groups right to protest

Even if its not intended it has some very unfortunate implications 

Its kind of a support everyone or don't say shit kind of thing (I only have a problem when they start breaking the law)


----------



## glenwo2

stevefox1200 said:


> I'm not the most protest happy person in the world (I have been called authoritarian) but even I can see the implications of supporting far-right wing and racists right to protest and not supporting black athletes and black interest groups right to protest
> 
> Even if its not intended it has some very unfortunate implications
> 
> Its kind of a support everyone or don't say shit kind of thing *(I only have a problem when they start breaking the law)*


Same thing here.


I said that it would be interesting how the NFL responds to this situation. Well there's their response.

As a Private entity, they had the authority to either squelch these protests or let them do what they wanted to do and we've gotten the latter with this recent development. 

So can we now focus on NFL Football Games since the "fun" is over? Thanks.


----------



## altreineirialx

NFL
NAGGY FUCKING LOSERS


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> The only person here ignoring what is being said is you. You keep bringing up ONE PERSON who got shit for not going and that was back in 2012 yet I keep bringing up Tom Brady who in 2017 didn't go and no one gave a shit not even Trump.
> 
> You are the one lying here not me. But that is typical of the shit you always pull on his forum with ignoring facts.


What am I ignoring? You were the one who was trying to insinuate that I was defending Trump, thats what you did. I merely pointed out a hypocrisy and you ran away with what you _wanted_ to believe I said. I brought up Tim Thomas once, not multiple times in order for me to "keep bringing up" the situation. I pointed towards a hypocrisy and explained why it was hypocritical. Nothing more, nothing less. You're the one who was assuming I was waving the American flag with Trumps face on it. 

As for Tom Brady (who is a supporter of Trump),if I had to guess is he spoke to Trump beforehand. He didn't skip the white house because he was *protesting* by any means. Completely different situations that I don't understand why you're even bringing it up. Tim Thomas and The Warriors were entirely political situations 

Nothing I said was a lie , stop assuming people write things they didn't write


----------



## Empress

BruiserKC said:


> I am not the slightest bit surprised. Trump uses this to deflect from the fact that he is not getting anything done except cozying up to the Dems in the hopes he will get the love he's not getting from the incompetent idiots like McConnell and Ryan. More and more he shows how much of a swamp creature he is. He complains about identity politics, yet he's using that same playbook (Bannon even admitted it in that 60 Minutes interview). He blasts Crooked Hillary and the tactics of the Clinton Crime Family, yet used their tactics all through the campaign and the first months of his Presidency.
> 
> With each passing day, more and more people start to realize that nothing is getting done and start grumbling. The grumblings are growing louder, especially this week with more talk of amnesty for illegals and once again another failure in trying to pass another Obamacare repeal (even though the bills are a joke). He heads for Alabama also looking at the possibility the guy he is supporting might lose in the primary. It's looking more and more like Moore is going to be the GOP nominee to face off in December for Sessions' speech. Plus look at the fact that Bannon and Sarah Palin (two extremely staunch advocates for the POTUS) are endorsing Moore as well. He started going after Rand Paul about his stance on the Graham-Cassidy bill, but Paul basically said that the Trump tactics won't work this time. Not the best week for him with the exception of a decent UN speech (and even there he let them off too easy).
> 
> So, Trump has to throw some type of raw red meat to the base. Bingo, national anthem protesters and once again playing the game of identity politics. Look at what we're talking about now, when we should be putting more pressure on Trump's administration and our Congresspeople for collecting a paycheck for being completely incompetent. Instead, we're talking about what athletes get invited to the WH. Deflection shields have been activated and they are working. We're blasting athletes for daring to be un-American in attacking the President and kneeling for the anthem, and completely ignoring the fact that shit is just not getting done.
> 
> Too bad most of us are oblivious to that fact and keep doing the same old shit that he wants. I know I will catch shit for this, but I've stated all along my goalposts have never moved. Trump is getting nothing done (and yes, for the millionth time I know Congress is as useless as a pair of tits on a bull but the leadership style he used to run his businesses ain't working in Washington) and more and more people need to call him out on this. *Instead, you allow him to distract with this stuff. Or, maybe you would rather talk about this. It's up to you.*


I'm a liberal and oppose Trump but I don't don't wall myself to opinions that oppose that. 

I've been following this thread, not necessarily posting it it, for some time. If memory serves me correct, I think you were a supporter of Marco Rubio. Once upon a time, I thought he might've made a credible candidate, similar to Paul Ryan but they are both bereft any conviction. I hate Trump but I appreciate his bare honesty in how craven he is.

For the most part, I do agree with your comments. Trump is creating side issues to deflect from the fact that his legislative agenda has not taken flight.

However, I always take exception to the belief that racism is a distraction. Trump employs it as one but the NFL players are taking a knee in protest to police officers being given blanket protection under the law from abusing their power. America, for all it's faults, is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Trump can be held to account for instigating North Korea, DACA, directing Betsy DeVos to roll back Title IX protections, failure to repeal Obamacare and his impulse to tap into his groundswell of racist support. A woman died in Charlottesville and he labeled the encounter as both sides having "fine people" but spews venom at Black personalities and athletes. 

The flag can't be venerated if its values don't extend to all. I can't afford to label or treat it as a distraction when it's an everyday reality to be confronted. Speaking of players kneeling during the anthem and disrespecting the flag, up until 2009, the NFL didn't even do it. The military paid them to start to seem more patriotic and recruitment. 

Hope you understand my POV.


----------



## Kabraxal

I love how celebrities shit their pants when their own behaviour is shot back at them. I hate WH visits for spoiled athletes that won a game, but Curry wanted to make this shit political and try to grandstand... he got out maneuvered. But of course now these idiotic players want to get back even more and bringing politics where few want it.

Hopefully this ends WH visits for sports and tanks the NFL even more considering the LA and Las Vegas bullshit on top of these children throwing tantrums.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> What am I ignoring? You were the one who was trying to insinuate that I was defending Trump, thats what you did. I merely pointed out a hypocrisy and you ran away with what you _wanted_ to believe I said. I brought up Tim Thomas once, not multiple times in order for me to "keep bringing up" the situation. I pointed towards a hypocrisy and explained why it was hypocritical. Nothing more, nothing less. You're the one who was assuming I was waving the American flag with Trumps face on it.
> 
> As for Tom Brady (who is a supporter of Trump),if I had to guess is he spoke to Trump beforehand. He didn't skip the white house because he was *protesting* by any means. Completely different situations that I don't understand why you're even bringing it up. Tim Thomas and The Warriors were entirely political situations
> 
> Nothing I said was a lie , stop assuming people write things they didn't write


The only reason you are melting like a snowflake is because a white athlete in 2012 was given shit for not going to the white house and now a black athlete is being supported for not going.


----------



## Draykorinee

How did curry get out maneuvered?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> I love how celebrities shit their pants when their own behaviour is shot back at them. I hate WH visits for spoiled athletes that won a game, but Curry wanted to make this shit political and try to grandstand... he got out maneuvered. But of course now these idiotic players want to get back even more and bringing politics where few want it.
> 
> Hopefully this ends WH visits for sports and tanks the NFL even more considering the LA and Las Vegas bullshit on top of these children throwing tantrums.


LOL Trump is the one who is shitting his pants and crying like a baby because someone snubbed him and refused to go to the white house. Trump made a huge deal about it because he was butt hurt. The only person this is backfiring on is Trump since today more and more people are taking a knee. 

But keep living in your fairytale land and not reality


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I will raise you


Hilarious and so true, speaking for my own facebook feed. :lol


----------



## DOPA

Am I allowed to say this whole NFL/NBA deal is just stupid all around?

In all seriousness though, I have an immense amount of respect for the Golden State Warriors, particularly KD and especially Stephen Curry. I think their decision to not wanting to go to the white house....more specifically their reasons for it are silly. Not going in order to "prove a point" is about as effective as all the times celebrities at award shows have used the platform to bash Trump. All it does is show once again how much hyperbole and sensationalism there has been surrounding Trump since he took office. Having said that, of course they have every right to do this and I'm not going to be mad over something so trivial. I don't see it as an insult just because the Warriors may have decided in the end to not go to the white house. It's not a big deal and honestly if Trump just kept his mouth shut, they would have looked just as silly as the crybaby celebrities whining every chance they get just because Trump is president and their girl Hillary didn't win.

But of course, that's not what happened. Trump "dis-inviting" Curry and GS has to be one of the pettiest things I've seen Trump do since becoming a political figure. Honestly it makes him look utterly ridiculous and is simply a stupid political move, it's staggering how bad it was. All he had to do was let it play out and either way he would have came out looking good. Such a brain dead move. 

Lebron's reply wasn't much better, and pretty stupid itself considering it was already made political before Trump even tweeted out the dis-invite so what is he talking about? Curry and KD fired the first shots so to speak and said they didn't want to go. *They have every right to do so* and Trump looks stupid for revoking the invitation but it doesn't change the facts.

As far as the NFL protests and Trump's comments go, look: Trump has every right to comment his opinions on the past and current protests. It's the implication that the NFL coaches should fire any players that protest that is the problem. Now I don't know what the rules are NFL wise in regards to protest and refusing to stand for the anthem, generally speaking though, a private company has every right to either stand by their said employees and their actions or fire them for their actions. If it works the same way for the NFL and I know they have their own procedures and guidelines, then I have no problem with whatever NFL coaches of each team decide to do. But Trump stepped over the line in my opinion when he implied that firing the players protesting should be the course of action. Encouraging silence and a squashing down of dissent is pretty much the antithesis of western values let alone American ones.

I don't personally like sports or any form of entertainment getting political, that's not why I watch. I don't want politics being ingrained into every avenue, we get enough of it in the news. But I support any person's right to do so. Also any Conservative getting angry and butthurt over atheletes "disrespecting the anthem" or the flag are just as bad as liberals getting butthurt over opinions they don't like. Muh feels ruling the day again it seems. Makes me :lmao.

Also, stop calling people white sympathizers and white supremacists because they disagree with you. It's honestly cringe worthy, not to mention you are devaluing the meaning of white supremacy by attributing it to people who are not actual neo-nazis. When Ben Shapiro, a jew who was the number 1 target of online hate abuse by the alt right last year gets called a white supremacist then really you should re-evaluate your opinions.

You aren't going to persuade people that way and are just going to fuel further divisions rather than taking step forwards to progress. Maybe take a lesson from the BLM leader who actually talked to a Trump rally and found some common ground and got people to listen to him.......I would have hope if it weren't for the fact that another faction within BLM called him a fake leader because he actually had the sense to talk to people and try to get him to see where he's coming from! Jesus Christ....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21404...emns-fake-blm-group-jeffrey-cawood#exit-modal



> The Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists that shared the stage with Donald Trump supporters at the “Mother of All Rallies” on Saturday are a “fake” imitation that “does not share our principles, politics, or values,” according to the movement’s official chapter in Washington, D.C.
> 
> That might explain why media, attendees, and political observers seemed so surprised by the constructive dialogue and aura of patriotism that ensued — outcomes uncharacteristic of typical BLM disruptions.
> 
> By the end of the event, news cameras had captured images of Trump fans — and their children — posing for pictures alongside activists from an organization called Black Lives Matter of Greater New York (BLM-NY). That scenario has created confusion for those unable to differentiate between BLM knockoff groups and official BLM chapters.
> 
> “We don’t want handouts; we don’t want anything that’s yours,” Hawk Newsome, President of BLM-NY, told the crowd of mostly Trump supporters gathered on the National Mall. “We want our God-given right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
> 
> Newsome’s reference to the Declaration of Independence drew cheers, but onlookers were less enthusiastic when he spoke out against police brutality.
> 
> Nevertheless, Black Lives Matter-DC spurned Newsome’s collaboration, labeling it a "pro-fascism rallying" and "Trump cheerleading." The official branch apparently took offense to another group speaking in the name of BLM on their home turf.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909468907806744576
> “I feel like two sides that never listen to each other actually made progress today,” Newsome told NowThis Politics after exchanging ideas with rallygoers. “We really made some substantial steps without any side yielding anything. I hope they understand that one of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement is a proud American, and a Christian, who cares deeply about this country.”
> 
> “We really are here to help this country move toward a better place, not to destroy it,” he continued.
> 
> Founded in 2016, BLM-NY’s presence sometimes even confuses like-minded progressive groups within the tri-state area. Just last weekend, the Queens branch of the Democratic Socialists of America mixed up BLM-NY with the city’s less visible official chapter, Black Lives Matter-NYC (BLM-NYC).
> 
> “The difference between (BLM) Greater New York and (BLM) NYC is that we actually do the work and we’re always on the front lines,” Nupol Kiazolu, who leads BLM-NY’s Youth Coalition, told The Daily Wire. “We are all working toward black liberation and liberation for people of color, but we go about it in different progressive ways.”
> 
> “I don’t think we are in competition with the national group or Black Lives Matter-NYC,” said Kenneth Shelton Jr., BLM-NY’s Queens Director. “There’s no rivalry, especially when it comes to organizing black people. I welcome all people to get out here to do the work.”
> 
> Since its creation, BLM-NY has frequently organized protests and demonstrations throughout five boroughs. Its membership roster includes pop star, Nick Cannon. Similar to official BLM chapters, many of its activists are police and prison abolitionists seeking to dismantle institutions they believe were built on the concept of white supremacy.
> 
> However, there are fundamental differences between the group Newsome heads and the network’s certified 38 chapters. For example, BLM-NY is led by a man, while three women co-founded the BLM conglomerate. Its platform does not emphasize gay and transgender people, which have always been a focal point of the original movement. BLM-NY implements the red, black and green colors of the Black Liberation flag into its logo, while sanctioned BLM chapters tend to use black and yellow.
> 
> Also, Newsome’s group often takes its organizing efforts outside of New York City – actions that triggered the disparaging comments from Black Lives Matter-DC.
> 
> BLM-NY was part of a contingent of approximately 25 activists that traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia, last month to confront an assembly of white supremacists. They were there when an alleged neo-Nazi drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring several others. Days later, BLM-NY joined thousands of protesters outside Trump Tower in condemning the president’s reaction to the tragedy.
> 
> Newsome’s group might not be bona fide BLM, but it could continue to shape the public perception of the BLM Global Network as its official chapters shift strategies away from traditional street protests. All the while, infuriating authentic branches like BLM-DC.
> 
> “It hurt me that they denounced us like that, like we’re not really for the movement, like we’re traitors,” said Kiazolu, who joined Newsome onstage during Saturday’s rally. “They are dismissing all of the work we’ve done. We put our lives on the line. I was almost killed in Charlottesville.”
> 
> “We don’t support Trump,” Kiazolu insisted. “Period.”


Idiots everywhere. Identity politics continues to be cancer. Water is wet, grass is green. Same shit, different story. No doubt I'm also a white sympathizer.


----------



## Kabraxal

draykorinee said:


> How did curry get out maneuvered?


Wanted to make a political stand by refusing to go, instead had his invitation revoked. It was never about anything then trying to show up Trump.



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump is the one who is shitting his pants and crying like a baby because someone snubbed him and refused to go to the white house. Trump made a huge deal about it because he was butt hurt. The only person this is backfiring on is Trump since today more and more people are taking a knee.
> 
> But keep living in your fairytale land and not reality


Backfiring on Trump when this is the one time many agree with him and ate booing these spoiled children and the ratings fir the NFL continue to decline? I wouldn't care if this was Obama and the same shit was happening. These players are a joke and have lost all respect they might feel dur to them. 

For fuck sake... I detest the wars this country started, the over militarisation of the police, the continued abuse of federal power, and a shit ton more that is fucked up... but I don't turn my back on the ideas and hope that we should strive to achieve and those that risk their lives for it just so I can get my fifteen minutes if fame and be part of a juvenile circle jerk.

So fuck all of these players and fuck anyone that can't rise above their political identities to respect what the flag actually represents. And I learned this the hard way when I was an edgy teen pulling this bullshit until someone pulled me aside and explained what the flag and anthem really are... I quickly grew the fuck up. These babies didn't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Wanted to make a political stand by refusing to go, instead had his invitation revoked. It was never about anything then trying to show up Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> .


LOL you are kidding, right?

Curry said he was not going to go, THEN Trump revoked an invitation that was already turned down, and you think that is backfiring at Curry? You are not even making any sense.

It's like getting a wedding invite and saying you can't go, then the bride or groom getting all hurt saying FINE I am taking back the invite you turned down and thinking oh you showed them for turning down the invite.





Kabraxal said:


> Backfiring on Trump when this is the one time many agree with him and ate booing these spoiled children and the ratings fir the NFL continue to decline? I wouldn't care if this was Obama and the same shit was happening. These players are a joke and have lost all respect they might feel dur to them.
> 
> For fuck sake... I detest the wars this country started, the over militarisation of the police, the continued abuse of federal power, and a shit ton more that is fucked up... but I don't turn my back on the ideas and hope that we should strive to achieve and those that risk their lives for it just so I can get my fifteen minutes if fame and be part of a juvenile circle jerk.
> 
> So fuck all of these players and fuck anyone that can't rise above their political identities to respect what the flag actually represents. And I learned this the hard way when I was an edgy teen pulling this bullshit until someone pulled me aside and explained what the flag and anthem really are... I quickly grew the fuck up. These babies didn't.



More people are against Trump than with him on this one in case you haven't noticed.

Also, NFL ratings were already on the decline way before this whole kneeling thing started to happen.

If you think people should be forced to stand for the national anthem then maybe you should move to N. Korea.

Its people first amendment right to not stand.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the NFL didn't point out Capernick taking a knee, and if the man child president could keep his mouth shut.


----------



## Crasp

I'd love to hear @Kabraxal explain to us all "what the flag and anthem really are".


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you are kidding, right?
> 
> Curry said he was not going to go, THEN Trump revoked an invitation that was already turned down, and you think that is backfiring at Curry? You are not even making any sense.
> 
> It's like getting a wedding invite and saying you can't go, then the bride or groom getting all hurt saying FINE I am taking back the invite you turned down and thinking oh you showed them for turning down the invite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people are against Trump than with him on this one in case you haven't noticed.
> 
> Also, NFL ratings were already on the decline way before this whole kneeling thing started to happen.
> 
> If you think people should be forced to stand for the national anthem then maybe you should move to N. Korea.
> 
> Its people first amendment right to not stand.


So booing everywhere at these children is agreeing to you?

Also, I have right to tell these retarded children to go fuck themselves and not pay one dime to further line the pockets of such worthless shitbags. Funny how most only take a knee and do fuck else to fix the problems. It's a show to these people and that's it. They want a pat of the back and all I'll give them is a middle finger. 

And what's funny... the teacher that took me aside to calmly explain why kneeling for the anthem is not just disrespectful, but showing your own ignorance, was a lifelong liberal. But then he was one of the few I knew that didn't play identity politics and encouraged thoughtful debate and conversation. Most now have no idea what thise even are.


----------



## Lmnopqrstallion

My solution to National Anthem problem.... We just simply adopt Hendrixs version from Woodstock. It's performed by a black man on psychedlic drugs in a true artistic statement that both symbolizes patriotism and distress. And besides, a good 5 minute freakout of acid drenched sound goo is what this country needs before every sporting event right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwIymq0iTsw&app=desktop


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> So booing everywhere at these children is agreeing to you?
> 
> Also, I have right to tell these retarded children to go fuck themselves and not pay one dime to further line the pockets of such worthless shitbags. Funny how most only take a knee and do fuck else to fix the problems. It's a show to these people and that's it. They want a pat of the back and all I'll give them is a middle finger.
> 
> And what's funny... the teacher that took me aside to calmly explain why kneeling for the anthem is not just disrespectful, but showing your own ignorance, was a lifelong liberal. But then he was one of the few I knew that didn't play identity politics and encouraged thoughtful debate and conversation. Most now have no idea what thise even are.


People are booing everywhere, just because some do it does not mean most are. 

But again you probably think most people agree with Trump and like him when his approval rating is at like 17%, but keep using ALT FACTS

I just think it's so funny people get so butt hurt over others kneeing for the anthem when like I posted in that meme most of them don't bother to even stand up on their own homes for the national anthem before games.

But keep being an internet warrior against free speech, it just shows YOUR ignorance and respect for what all the troops fought for, our freedoms


----------



## Kabraxal

Crasp said:


> I'd love to hear @Kabraxal explain to us all "what the flag and anthem really are".


The symbols of our ideals of freedom, equality, and the continued struggle to right the injustices that still occur. It isn't a symbol of any ine administration or the current injustices rife throughout the country. So by kneeling, one isn't lambasting a president or speaking out against any injustice... they are showing their ignorance and inability to put aside political grandstanding and stand for the ideal of what America should be. 

You want to protest police brutality? March at the police stations and areas where it is most needed. You want to speak out about the idiot in office? March at the White House. You want to protest the wars or poverty or a use of power? March on every state and federal building involved. 

What you don't do is kneel and tell the world "fuck equality, fuck justice, fuck freedom" just to get your cliques fapping furiously in their circle jerk. The anthem and flag is where we should put aside put differences and strive to stand as one. Instead, most of you want to thump your chest and further the divide.


----------



## samizayn

Kabraxal said:


> Wanted to make a political stand by refusing to go, instead had his invitation revoked. It was never about anything then trying to show up Trump.


You have to be socially oblivious if you think this is an example of the inviter doing the outmaneuvering 

But your perspective is very interesting. I've never heard of anyone considering the flag as a representation of what the country should be. Usually people consider it a representation of what the country is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> The symbols of our ideals of freedom, equality, and the continued struggle to right the injustices that still occur. It isn't a symbol of any ine administration or the current injustices rife throughout the country. So by kneeling, one isn't lambasting a president or speaking out against any injustice... they are showing their ignorance and inability to put aside political grandstanding and stand for the ideal of what America should be.
> 
> You want to protest police brutality? March at the police stations and areas where it is most needed. You want to speak out about the idiot in office? March at the White House. You want to protest the wars or poverty or a use of power? March on every state and federal building involved.
> 
> What you don't do is kneel and tell the world "fuck equality, fuck justice, fuck freedom" just to get your cliques fapping furiously in their circle jerk. The anthem and flag is where we should put aside put differences and strive to stand as one. Instead, most of you want to thump your chest and further the divide.



but only freedoms that you seem to agree with since you are throwing a hissy fit at people using their freedom to kneel during the national anthem to protest, which is one of the most patriotic things you can do.

LOL you telling people where they should and should not protest.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> People are booing everywhere, just because some do it does not mean most are.
> 
> But again you probably think most people agree with Trump and like him when his approval rating is at like 17%, but keep using ALT FACTS
> 
> I just think it's so funny people get so butt hurt over others kneeing for the anthem when like I posted in that meme most of them don't bother to even stand up on their own homes for the national anthem before games.
> 
> But keep being an internet warrior against free speech, it just shows YOUR ignorance and respect for what all the troops fought for, our freedoms


What does his overall job have to do with this situation? I never voted for the idiot so stop acting like it is some white knight agenda to defend Trump at every turn. 

And last I checked, I did not call for any gov't to lock these children up. Funny how you rant I am anti the first amendment and yet you are the one that us ignorant of what it actually is. But then you celebrate posting a meme... congrats. You posted a picture. Do you want a cookie?


----------



## stevefox1200

Back when Trump was a private citizen he often tweeted about how what sports teams were doing was stupid and that Obama was opprsive for not supporting protesters right to speak 

other things include how awful government shutdowns are 
how we should respect pows 
how stupid amnesty is and how Rubio will along dreamers to stay in the country and must be stopped yet 2 years was in favor of amnesty

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

I will say this now, to any future politicians DELETE YOUR FUCKING PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND START A NEW ONE WHEN YOU START TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT RUNNING


----------



## Crasp

Kabraxal said:


> The symbols of our ideals of *freedom*, *equality*, and the continued *struggle to right the injustices that still occur*. It isn't a symbol of any ine administration or the current injustices rife throughout the country. So by kneeling, one isn't lambasting a president or speaking out against any injustice... they are showing their ignorance and inability to put aside political grandstanding and stand for the ideal of what America should be.
> 
> You want to protest police brutality? March at the police stations and areas where it is most needed. You want to speak out about the idiot in office? March at the White House. You want to protest the wars or poverty or a use of power? March on every state and federal building involved.
> 
> What you don't do is kneel and tell the world "fuck equality, fuck justice, fuck freedom" just to get your cliques fapping furiously in their circle jerk. The anthem and flag is where we should put aside put differences and strive to stand as one. Instead, most of you want to thump your chest and further the divide.


Do you have a sense of irony, I wonder?

Besides, kneeling isn't disrespectful in this context. It's not like they're all turning their backs or throwing up the bird. They are highlighting _precisely_ the dissonance between what you say the anthem/flag are _supposed_ to stand for, and what the country itself seems to stand for right now.

As for where to protest, I'd say the biggest stage with the most eyeballs is just about the best place you could ask for. 

If you think that those kneeling are saying "fuck equality, fuck justice, fuck freedom" then you're just about as ignorant as it's possible to be.

:curry :kobe13
Crasp out.


----------



## Kabraxal

samizayn said:


> You have to be socially oblivious if you think this is an example of the inviter doing the outmaneuvering
> 
> But your perspective is very interesting. I've never heard of anyone considering the flag as a representation of what the country should be. Usually people consider it a representation of what the country is.


If the flag was the symbol of every present situation, then it would be drenched in blood, racism, sexism, and atrocities. The flag was created as a symbol of hope and freedom that has physically evolved as the country grew and changed. To hang the actions of administrations on a symbol that has persisted hundreds of years of adminstrations... well, it was stupid when I asumed so at 15 and it remains stupid now. Administrations change. Situations of conflict arise in a lanscape of differing ideologies. But the fact that this country was founded on freedom and the urge to become better... that hasn't changed and that is what the flag represents. So many forget this... or ignore it in order to push an ideoligical position contrary to the ideals the flag stands for.


----------



## BruiserKC

Empress said:


> I'm a liberal and oppose Trump but I don't don't wall myself to opinions that oppose that.
> 
> I've been following this thread, not necessarily posting it it, for some time. If memory serves me correct, I think you were a supporter of Marco Rubio. Once upon a time, I thought he might've made a credible candidate, similar to Paul Ryan but they are both bereft any conviction. I hate Trump but I appreciate his bare honesty in how craven he is.
> 
> For the most part, I do agree with your comments. Trump is creating side issues to deflect from the fact that his legislative agenda has not taken flight.
> 
> However, I always take exception to the belief that racism is a distraction. Trump employs it as one but the NFL players are taking a knee in protest to police officers being given blanket protection under the law from abusing their power. America, for all it's faults, is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Trump can be held to account for instigating North Korea, DACA, directing Betsy DeVos to roll back Title IX protections, failure to repeal Obamacare and his impulse to tap into his groundswell of racist support. A woman died in Charlottesville and he labeled the encounter as both sides having "fine people" but spews venom at Black personalities and athletes.
> 
> The flag can't be venerated if its values don't extend to all. I can't afford to label or treat it as a distraction when it's an everyday reality to be confronted. Speaking of players kneeling during the anthem and disrespecting the flag, up until 2009, the NFL didn't even do it. The military paid them to start to seem more patriotic and recruitment.
> 
> Hope you understand my POV.


I would have been content with Rubio or Ted Cruz for President. They lean closer to what I believe as a person. 

I am referring to the fact that Trump is throwing this shit out there to distract from the shitty job he has done. Instead of talking about the failures that have taken place on his watch, we are now talking about athletes standing or sitting or kneeling for the anthem. He plays identity politics in the same fashion he accused others of doing. It fires up the base who hasn’t yet abandoned him and he wants others to get into a frenzy. I understand what you are saying. I oppose racism, he uses this to distract from what he does which is horrible. I look at it as what he does is bad AND I will still point out what he is not getting done. 

Hope that makes sense, I am keeping my eye on the ball.


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> I will say this now, to any future politicians DELETE YOUR FUCKING PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND START A NEW ONE WHEN YOU START TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT RUNNING


You think all that shit isn't archived? :lol


----------



## MrMister

BruiserKC said:


> I would have been content with Rubio or Ted Cruz for President. They lean closer to what I believe as a person.


Don't be fooled by lyin' Ted. He's only selling snake oil. Not sure what lil' Marco's story is.


The kneel down anthem thing isn't why the NFL ratings are down. They're down because the game sucks right now.


----------



## Empress

BruiserKC said:


> I would have been content with Rubio or Ted Cruz for President. They lean closer to what I believe as a person.
> 
> I am referring to the fact that Trump is throwing this shit out there to distract from the shitty job he has done. Instead of talking about the failures that have taken place on his watch, we are now talking about athletes standing or sitting or kneeling for the anthem. He plays identity politics in the same fashion he accused others of doing. It fires up the base who hasn’t yet abandoned him and he wants others to get into a frenzy. I understand what you are saying. I oppose racism, he uses this to distract from what he does which is horrible. I look at it as what he does is bad AND I will still point out what he is not getting done.
> 
> Hope that makes sense, I am keeping my eye on the ball.


Thanks for responding. I know how heated this thread can be and wasn't sure how you'd receive my comments. And yes, what you said makes sense. 

What are your thoughts on Evan McMullin? He has positioned himself as being a principled anti Trump politician. I think he's mulling a 2020 run. I don't share his social views but he doesn't seem as vulgar as Trump. I suppose that is a low bar at this point.

I'm not part of Trump's base but I'm curious as to what the bottom is. The jobs aren't returning and they still support him. Obamacare still remains law of the land and they still support him. North Korea ma bomb the West Coast and they support him taunting "Rocket Man". The wall is now talked about in terms of symbolism and it's accepted. DACA is potentially becoming amnesty and I can't help but feel that they will support him.

Much of Trump's support seems based on a cult of personality. So many people are enthralled by the man and disregard his lack of policy and executives (Tom Price, etc) leeching off the government dime.


----------



## Kabraxal

Crasp said:


> Do you have a sense of irony, I wonder?
> 
> Besides, kneeling isn't disrespectful in this context. It's not like they're all turning their backs or throwing up the bird. They are highlighting _precisely_ the dissonance between what you say the anthem/flag are _supposed_ to stand for, and what the country itself seems to stand for right now.
> 
> As for where to protest, I'd say the biggest stage with the most eyeballs is just about the best place you could ask for.
> 
> If you think that those kneeling are saying "fuck equality, fuck justice, fuck freedom" then you're just about as ignorant as it's possible to be.
> 
> :curry :kobe13
> Crasp out.


This is the stage: a sporting venue where most are there to watch sports... a stage that is ignoring the colour of their skin in favour of their ability and has provided millions of dollars. To top it off, these entitled millionaires do very little outside of taking a knee on a stage where no one wants politics. That is not the correct stage. 

But then it isn't about actually doing work to invoke change... it's about attention whoring. Taking a knee is easy. Standing up and actually spending time and money to meaningfully protest and challenge injustice.... that is difficult. 

Maybe these hypocrites should refuse to work and march in protest constantly to get the change they want. That would spur more action than taking a knee. But you'll just call ne ignorant and post cute smilies to get a laugh out of your clique. Typical internet activist.... useless.


----------



## BruiserKC

Empress said:


> Thanks for responding. I know how heated this thread can be and wasn't sure how you'd receive my comments. And yes, what you said makes sense.
> 
> What are your thoughts on Evan McMullin? He has positioned himself as being a principled anti Trump politician. I think he's mulling a 2020 run. I don't share his social views but he doesn't seem as vulgar as Trump. I suppose that is a low bar at this point.
> 
> I'm not part of Trump's base but I'm curious as to what the bottom is. The jobs aren't returning and they still support him. Obamacare still remains law of the land and they still support him. North Korea ma bomb the West Coast and they support him taunting "Rocket Man". The wall is now talked about in terms of symbolism and it's accepted. DACA is potentially becoming amnesty and I can't help but feel that they will support him.
> 
> Much of Trump's support seems based on a cult of personality. So many people are enthralled by the man and disregard his lack of policy and executives (Tom Price, etc) leeching off the government dime.


I am not going to lose my head here, it’s silly. 

Liked MacMullin but the problem with most 3rd Party candidates is they don’t stand a chance. I voted Constitution Party this year because neither candidate impressed me. Both of them sucked as candidates. 

The cult of personality depends on his succeeding. If he isn’t getting anything done then more people will become disheartened and turn on him. Many of his reactions are after failures or he angers some of his base. When he made people mad over his treatment of Sessions earlier this year, out comes the transgender military ban. This whole thing with the anthem really kicked into gear after another failed Obamacare repeal, people angry about possible amnesty for the Dreamers and Bannon backs Moore in Alabama when Trump supported Strange. It rallied the base and gives them something to fight.


----------



## BruiserKC

MrMister said:


> Don't be fooled by lyin' Ted. He's only selling snake oil. Not sure what lil' Marco's story is.
> 
> 
> The kneel down anthem thing isn't why the NFL ratings are down. They're down because the game sucks right now.


When it was down to Cruz and Trump, it was the GOO nightmare scenario. They don’t like Trump but hate Cruz more. Cruz called McConnell a liar in the Senate floor and has really shown he won’t be bought. They thought Trump could be molded...they were wrong bigly.


----------



## Empress

BruiserKC said:


> I am not going to lose my head here, it’s silly.
> 
> Liked MacMullin but the problem with most 3rd Party candidates is they don’t stand a chance. I voted Constitution Party this year because neither candidate impressed me. Both of them sucked as candidates.
> 
> The cult of personality depends on his succeeding. If he isn’t getting anything done then more people will become disheartened and turn on him. Many of his reactions are after failures or he angers some of his base. *When he made people mad over his treatment of Sessions earlier this year, out comes the transgender military ban. * This whole thing with the anthem really kicked into gear after another failed Obamacare repeal, people angry about possible amnesty for the Dreamers and Bannon backs Moore in Alabama when Trump supported Strange. It rallied the base and gives them something to fight.


How could I forget about this? Treating Sessions like garbage is one of the few times I saw revolt in Trump's base. 

Do you know why Trump and Bannon are on different sides? Trump is going all in for a man who looks likely to lose. Thought he liked "winners".


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> When it was down to Cruz and Trump, it was the GOO nightmare scenario. They don’t like Trump but hate Cruz more. Cruz called McConnell a liar in the Senate floor and has really shown he won’t be bought. They thought Trump could be molded...they were wrong bigly.


Cruz can't be bought? He flipped on not supporting Trump after the primaries when the Mercers threatened to stop backing his future campaigns. Just saying...


----------



## Lady Eastwood

I am so fucking tired of hearing this shit about NFL players kneeling.

First of all, politics have no place in sports. You get paid millions to play a game.

Second, I hope everyone complaining stands in their living room while the anthem is being played. If not, plz shut up.

Vets fought for our freedom, which also means the freedom to kneel and sit as the anthem plays, no matter how disrespectful, or not, it may be. If anyone likes to read, there are a number of vets who don't give a fuck if anyone kneels.


----------



## Art Vandaley

BruiserKC said:


> The cult of personality depends on his succeeding. If he isn?t getting anything done then more people will become disheartened and turn on him.


I seriously question this, a fair percentage of his base still believe his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's and the media "fake news" just posted misleading photos which make it look like Obama's crowd was larger, they live in a world of alternate facts where Trump by definition is a winner who cannot fail.

Doesn't get healthcare passed : A win because he's standing up against Mitch Mconnel.

Posts Covfefe, not a typo, a genius ploy mess with the media. 

No wall getting built, it's fine, he never meant an actual wall.

Mexico aren't gonna pay for the wall, the Mexican President told him as much and his response was that he knew but to please not tell the press that, that's fine, when he said Mexico would pay he really meant their citizens/businesses over time through levies.

He cannot do wrong in the eyes of his base, as by definition everything he does is correct. 

The problem is that his followers don't actually have political beliefs to hold him accountable to, they like him and that's as far their understanding of politics or political issues extends. 

If Trump turned around and backed single payer healthcare as he used to and has hinted at doing more than once, ie publicly describing the Australian system as superior to the US system, then suddenly all the people currently arguing that it's evil and communist etc would be behind it 110%.


----------



## AustinRockHulk

Catalanotto said:


> I am so fucking tired of hearing this shit about NFL players kneeling.
> 
> First of all, politics have no place in sports. You get paid millions to play a game.
> 
> Second, I hope everyone complaining stands in their living room while the anthem is being played. If not, plz shut up.
> 
> Vets fought for our freedom, which also means the freedom to kneel and sit as the anthem plays, no matter how disrespectful, or not, it may be. If anyone likes to read, there are a number of vets who don't give a fuck if anyone kneels.


Politics is everywhere. Sports, music, movies etc. You can't ignore it when something is wrong in America. It is the reason why they protest.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912150462593470464
Bend the knee for God Emperor Trump. :trump

:lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912018381653516288
Ice cold, Scott. :done


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911539159864631298


----------



## MrMister

^^^I am insane now.


----------



## Draykorinee

Kabraxal said:


> Wanted to make a political stand by refusing to go, instead had his invitation revoked. It was never about anything then trying to show up Trump.


Lol. I'm not coming to your party. Well you're not invited then , I Win!!!

:surprised

Also, politics has been involved is sports since forever. The Romans used to put on sporting events to placate the masses, to say it doesn't belong is utter garbage.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well apparently players being out on the field for the anthem only became a thing starting in 2009, and it's something that the military and national guard pay NFL teams to do in the hopes it will inspire people to join the military.

In short this entire saga is complete nonsense and the government is evil and wastes your money. Basically I'm right about everything please follow me on Twitter.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912090122312486912


----------



## Miss Sally

Catalanotto said:


> I am so fucking tired of hearing this shit about NFL players kneeling.
> 
> First of all, politics have no place in sports. You get paid millions to play a game.
> 
> Second, I hope everyone complaining stands in their living room while the anthem is being played. If not, plz shut up.
> 
> Vets fought for our freedom, which also means the freedom to kneel and sit as the anthem plays, no matter how disrespectful, or not, it may be. If anyone likes to read, there are a number of vets who don't give a fuck if anyone kneels.


Great post Cata! :clap

I don't know why people care about this so much, if they want to kneel or stand it's nothing to me. It's not like they're having a giant circle jerk as the anthem plays.

If you listen to these players for Politics you got issues, just as if you let their actions get to you. Regardless if it's disrespectful or not they have a right to peaceful protest.

Besides it's the average people who have the power, the power to change the channel and move on with something else in your life. There's more to life than Football or certain shows or Actors.

Nobody in their right mind should listen to Celebs, they are mega rich people who get handed nearly everything to them on a silver platter for simply being who they are. They're completely out of touch, people need to stop worshiping Celebs and realize they're just regular people like the rest of us.


----------



## 674297

Miss Sally said:


> Great post Cata! :clap
> 
> I don't know why people care about this so much, if they want to kneel or stand it's nothing to me. It's not like they're having a giant circle jerk as the anthem plays.
> 
> If you listen to these players for Politics you got issues, just as if you let their actions get to you. Regardless if it's disrespectful or not they have a right to peaceful protest.
> 
> Besides it's the average people who have the power, the power to change the channel and move on with something else in your life. There's more to life than Football or certain shows or Actors.
> 
> Nobody in their right mind should listen to Celebs, they are mega rich people who get handed nearly everything to them on a silver platter for simply being who they are. They're completely out of touch, people need to stop worshiping Celebs and realize they're just regular people like the rest of us.


I don't care if Vince McMahon is patriotic, I wouldn't watch WWE if he ran the company like a dictator and had racist slobs in suits and ties lust after women and push a guy who the people hate! What a hypocrite! Nothing infuriates me more than double standards and the status quo!


----------



## BruiserKC

Alkomesh2 said:


> I seriously question this, a fair percentage of his base still believe his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's and the media "fake news" just posted misleading photos which make it look like Obama's crowd was larger, they live in a world of alternate facts where Trump by definition is a winner who cannot fail.
> 
> Doesn't get healthcare passed : A win because he's standing up against Mitch Mconnel.
> 
> Posts Covfefe, not a typo, a genius ploy mess with the media.
> 
> No wall getting built, it's fine, he never meant an actual wall.
> 
> Mexico aren't gonna pay for the wall, the Mexican President told him as much and his response was that he knew but to please not tell the press that, that's fine, when he said Mexico would pay he really meant their citizens/businesses over time through levies.
> 
> He cannot do wrong in the eyes of his base, as by definition everything he does is correct.
> 
> The problem is that his followers don't actually have political beliefs to hold him accountable to, they like him and that's as far their understanding of politics or political issues extends.
> 
> If Trump turned around and backed single payer healthcare as he used to and has hinted at doing more than once, ie publicly describing the Australian system as superior to the US system, then suddenly all the people currently arguing that it's evil and communist etc would be behind it 110%.


Some of Trumps supporters do fit in that category without question. They believe the system is biased towards Trump and that everyone is out to get him. 

However there are a substantial number of them who are concerned about the direction of the United States. They want jobs back, they want us to assert ourselves on the world stage, they didn’t like the direction the last eight years took us. For some, it’s desperation. We heard that if HRC was elected that the country was permanently hosed. They are also angry Washington isn’t getting anything done. I share some of that anger myself, won’t lie. Our leadership isn’t doing shit. They truly think that Trump as an outsider and a businessman would be just what we need. They are the ones that want results. Right now they will stand with him but if by this time next year nothing major of his agenda has been implemented that will change.


----------



## Tater

MrMister said:


> ^^^I am insane now.


*Now?*



AryaDark said:


> Once seen, cannot be unseen





Miss Sally said:


> It's not like they're having a giant circle jerk as the anthem plays.


----------



## Crasp

BruiserKC said:


> Some of Trumps supporters do fit in that category without question. They believe the system is biased towards Trump and that everyone is out to get him.
> 
> However there are a substantial number of them who are concerned about the direction of the United States. They want jobs back, they want us to assert ourselves on the world stage, they didn’t like the direction the last eight years took us. For some, it’s desperation. We heard that if HRC was elected that the country was permanently hosed. They are also angry Washington isn’t getting anything done. I share some of that anger myself, won’t lie. Our leadership isn’t doing shit. They truly think that Trump as an outsider and a businessman would be just what we need. They are the ones that want results. *Right now they will stand with him but if by this time next year nothing major of his agenda has been implemented that will change.*


Not so sure. His base (his real base) will just accept the earliest & constant narative that the problem is not Trump but the system & "the swamp".

I won't say that that belief is either wrong or right, as it's probably both - and it effects both ends of the spectrum equally.

But Trump will not be held accountable by his core, even if with a more diplomatic approach he might have achieved more, they won't see that.

They won't abandon Trump, but they might finally abandon their faith in democracy & politics.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Well apparently players being out on the field for the anthem only became a thing starting in 2009, and it's something that the military and national guard pay NFL teams to do in the hopes it will inspire people to join the military.
> 
> In short this entire saga is complete nonsense and the government is evil and wastes your money. Basically I'm right about everything please follow me on Twitter.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912090122312486912


I believe US sports were leveraging patriotism to promote their leagues way before the paid engagement. Fans are always on the move during the anthem playing in the stadiums or arenas anyway. Not many people were bitching about it being disrespectful when flags are used to sell products. I wonder how many Trump supporters parroting his respect the flag rhetoric realises they are also disrespecting the flag by wearing it.

It only became a thing because people wanted it to be when that one dude started kneeling regularly.

PS: I tend to agree the players are being disrespectful for the stunt when the anthem is playing. The NFL should have a rule like the NBA if they want to avoid this.


----------



## Vic Capri

Welcome to America 2017 where liberals disrespect our President, our flag, our national anthem, police officers, military members, and defend a mass murdering North Korean dictator. :clap

P.S. The joke's on the NFL. They're going to lose a lot of money and ratings over supporting the unpopular decision.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> Lol. I'm not coming to your party. Well you're not invited then , I Win!!!
> 
> :surprised
> 
> Also, politics has been involved is sports since forever. The Romans used to put on sporting events to placate the masses, to say it doesn't belong is utter garbage.


People watch sports to avoid stuff like politics and real world issues. You hear this time and time again with athletes who want people to forget their problems for a few hours. Cramming it in peoples faces is a sure fire way to get them to turn off the product and the issue people want known. Yes politics have been in sports but that doesn't necessarily mean thats what people want, as evidence by the polls about why people aren't watching the NFL . We're talking about people playing a game , they're grown men kicking and throwing a ball around, slapping a puck into a net and people want politics to be a major story in sports? People want to know who won the game, if they wanted to know what Trump's policies were they'd watch the News. Right now, its popular to go after the Trump administration , seemingly everyone has become political out of no where. When Obama was in office it wasn't a wise idea to oppose him publicly because of the idea politics and sports "shouldn't" mesh together, thats why I brought up Tim Thomas and peoples hypocrisy over him. Now everyone is having a field day because the "wrong" person is in office so its perfectly okay to express your disdain for the current president as much as possible and no one bats an eye.

And Before you try to say anything, my favorite sports team was the most political team in my countries history


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Welcome to America 2017 where liberals disrespect our President
> 
> 
> - Vic



LOL right when Trump was the guy who kept claiming Obama was not an American. what do you call that?




Vic Capri said:


> our flag, our national anthem, police officers, military members
> 
> 
> - Vic


Right because people using their first amendment rights is really disrespecting all of those things.




Vic Capri said:


> defend a mass murdering North Korean dictator. :clap
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Nice strawman argument.

Also it was Turmp who said 

"It would be an honor to meet with KJU" and how Trump was gushing when he said "Look he was only 26 when he took over, It is impressive what he has done as a leader"


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> People watch sports to avoid stuff like politics and real world issues. You hear this time and time again with athletes who want people to forget their problems for a few hours. Cramming it in peoples faces is a sure fire way to get them to turn off the product and the issue people want known. Yes politics have been in sports but that doesn't necessarily mean thats what people want, as evidence by the polls about why people aren't watching the NFL . We're talking about people playing a game , they're grown men kicking and throwing a ball around, slapping a puck into a net and people want politics to be a major story in sports? People want to know who won the game, if they wanted to know what Trump's policies were they'd watch the News. Right now, its popular to go after the Trump administration , seemingly everyone has become political out of no where. When Obama was in office it wasn't a wise idea to oppose him publicly because of the idea politics and sports "shouldn't" mesh together, thats why I brought up Tim Thomas and peoples hypocrisy over him. Now everyone is having a field day because the "wrong" person is in office so its perfectly okay to express your disdain for the current president as much as possible and no one bats an eye.
> 
> And Before you try to say anything, my favorite sports team was the most political team in my countries history


I don't know who you're arguing against, I haven't once said people watch sports FOR politics, I said sports and politics have been synonymous for millennia. Whether or not you want to see sport stars use their platform for political gain is irrelevant to what I said. The idea that sports and politics are not linked, or even shouldn't be linked is still garbage. This isn't a new thing, its as old as sport itself.

Trump meshed sports and politics more than any other person this week, so saying its just because he's the wrong person is a nonsense as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> I don't know who you're arguing against, I haven't once said people watch sports FOR politics, I said sports and politics have been synonymous for millennia. Whether or not you want to see sport stars use their platform for political gain is irrelevant to what I said. The idea that sports and politics are not linked, or even shouldn't be linked is still garbage. This isn't a new thing, its as old as sport itself.
> 
> Trump meshed sports and politics more than any other person this week, so saying its just because he's the wrong person is a nonsense as well.


Only about 13 or 14 players through the first 2 weeks of the NFL season were kneeling during the national anthem, but once Trump opened his big mouth, over 300 this past week protested. 

The NFL could easily put this to bed by not showing the players kneeing and it wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## Stephen90

Funny people want to boycott NFL now. There's nothing wrong with hiding the effects of concussions. But not standing for for the national anthem is worst than murder. Hilarious he's bragging about getting the Pittsburgh Penguins. Since the NBA destroys the NHL in ratings and merchandise.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> I don't know who you're arguing against, I haven't once said people watch sports FOR politics, I said sports and politics have been synonymous for millennia. Whether or not you want to see sport stars use their platform for political gain is irrelevant to what I said. The idea that sports and politics are not linked, or even shouldn't be linked is still garbage. This isn't a new thing, its as old as sport itself.
> 
> Trump meshed sports and politics more than any other person this week, so saying its just because he's the wrong person is a nonsense as well.


I never claimed thats what you were saying though. I was simply saying people want to forget their problems, forget politics and forget real world issues for a few hours and something like sports helps with that. Politics and Sports have cross over sure, I even said that but synonymous isn't a word most people would use to describe the relationship by any means.

Trump should have kept quiet about the protests , I don't think anyone would disagree with that but as I mentioned in the past with Tim Thomas, it has everything to do with the right person in charge because you can see the stark difference between what's acceptable against Obama and what is acceptable against Trump. Besides, its Roger Goodell's fault for infusing politics more into the NFL by threatening players who want to honor 9/11, essentially encouraging the kneeling during the anthems while bending over for Kaepernick and the "movement" by refusing to allow the Dallas Cowboys to honor the police officers who were killed last year. He is absolutely part to blame for this by picking and choosing what's acceptable and this was before Trump was president.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912355328771133441
It's sad that standing for the anthem has basically become a symbol of defiance


----------



## birthday_massacre

So NK is now claiming Trump has declared war on them?


----------



## altreineirialx

Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.

By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.

By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


----------



## samizayn

Kabraxal said:


> If the flag was the symbol of every present situation, then it would be drenched in blood, racism, sexism, and atrocities. The flag was created as a symbol of hope and freedom that has physically evolved as the country grew and changed. To hang the actions of administrations on a symbol that has persisted hundreds of years of adminstrations... well, it was stupid when I asumed so at 15 and it remains stupid now. Administrations change. Situations of conflict arise in a lanscape of differing ideologies. But the fact that this country was founded on freedom and the urge to become better... that hasn't changed and that is what the flag represents. So many forget this... or ignore it in order to push an ideoligical position contrary to the ideals the flag stands for.


Is it the case that the kneeling is in response to a particular administration though? Kaep started kneeling during Obama.

What ideology is counter to the ideals of the flag? This kneeling has been the biggest act of collective patriotism I've ever seen out of the country.


altreineirialx said:


> Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.
> 
> By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.
> 
> By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


Deductive reasoning: batshit rightwing edition


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> Deductive reasoning: batshit rightwing edition


Well, she did cost him a job with Baltimore after tweeting a picture of Ray Lewis's as the slave character from Django Unchained, basically calling him an uncle Tom. Whether or not shes the main reason I don't know but she's definitely influencing him


----------



## Draykorinee

altreineirialx said:


> Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.
> 
> By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.
> 
> By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


:Wat?


----------



## birthday_massacre

altreineirialx said:


> Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.
> 
> By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.
> 
> By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


Is this a reaper alt account lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

altreineirialx said:


> Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.
> 
> By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.
> 
> By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


He's not protesting the flag or asking for it to be removed. He protested against police brutality and institutionalised racism. :hmmm


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> So NK is now claiming Trump has declared war on them?


NK always NK's.


lol'd at that one post about surrendering to Islam.


----------



## virus21

So everyone suddenly thinks they're Katness now? Because being political has sure helped Hollywood, ESPN, Marvel Comics ect. At this point even people who don't like Trump are sick of it.


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> So everyone suddenly thinks they're Katness now? Because being political has sure helped Hollywood, ESPN, Marvel Comics ect. At this point even people who don't like Trump are sick of it.


I'm loving it.


----------



## MrMister

Katniss is clearly the new Spartacus.


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> Katniss is clearly the new Spartacus.


Except Katniss wasn't crucified...sadly


----------



## MrMister

virus21 said:


> Except Katniss wasn't crucified...sadly


I never got to the ending of Hunger Games but this isn't surprising. On the other hand Katniss wasn't opposing the IRL Romans. Those bastards even crucified a god.:max


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> I never got to the ending of Hunger Games but this isn't surprising. On the other hand Katniss wasn't opposing the IRL Romans. Those bastards even crucified a god.:max


Well said god was a pacifist and dying was part of the plan anyway.



> Most of the top political polls that got the 2016 presidential race dead wrong are continuing to use a flawed methodology in rating President Trump's approval ratings that favors Democrats, women and younger voters, according to a new analysis.
> The report shows that the mainstream polls oversample an average of 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans and the results skew anti-Trump. The result is that it robs Trump of about 8 points in his approval ratings, from 46 percent to 38 percent, it said.
> 
> 
> Entrepreneur Elevator Pitch Ep1: Edible Selfies, Extreme Beer Pong and More!
> Watch Full Screen
> And, said the report from Bombthrowers.com, one outfit, the Economist, used 58 percent more Democrats than Republicans in a recent poll on Trump's approval ratings.
> "In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts. The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column. On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled," wrote James Simpson, an economist, businessman and journalist.
> Simpson called the practice "fraud."
> He also noted that the random sample used by many pollsters includes too many liberals and even illegal immigrants, and said that choosing "likely voters" is the best gauge. McLaughlin and Rasmussen use likely voters and show Trump's approval rating higher than the others.
> 
> John McLaughlin, a pollster for Trump, put the Bombthrower report on his company's website and emailed it around Washington. In it, McLaughlin said the big polls skew results for Democrats and against Trump.
> "Not only does it affect [Trump's] job rating and favorable rating, it also affects the policies and issues these polls purport to measure. Maybe this is why so many Republicans, Independents and Trump voters seem to disregard media polls. It appears the media is once again sacrificing its credibility for its liberal, anti-Trump bias," said the pollster.


http://archive.is/SFolY#selection-947.0-1355.356


----------



## Draykorinee

Polls are bullshit, shocking.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912007464010297344


----------



## MrMister

Don't ever say shit like that again Rand imo.

I had no idea Easy-E was a midget.


----------



## CamillePunk

I wonder if in the middle of typing the "#killObamaCare" hashtag he had any second thoughts...


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> So NK is now claiming Trump has declared war on them?


But Hilary would be more likely to start a war and only Democrats are playing identity politics! :eyeroll


----------



## BruiserKC

altreineirialx said:


> Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa has clearly told him that message directly from the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Kaepernick is getting the NFL to submit to Islam so they can continue to exist.
> 
> By taking the National Anthem out of the stadiums surrenders to Islam.
> 
> By removing the Flags of the US, the stadiums surrender to Islam.


So Kaepernick is Muhammad al-Mahdi, the 12th and final imam? 

Yes, some people need to share what they are smoking. :lol

Don’t forget the rotation...puff puff pass.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

AustinRockHulk said:


> Politics is everywhere. Sports, music, movies etc. You can't ignore it when something is wrong in America. It is the reason why they protest.


These athletes get paid to play the game, however, yes, if they want to protest they certainly can. I would just they rather stick to the sport instead of creating all this drama (which Trump had a huge hand in escalating). 

People are protesting the NFL because players took a knee. Where were the protests when players were beating their women? Dog fighting? The outrage over a bunch of people taking a knee is unbelievably huge, yet, chicks getting their bells rung and animal abuse isn't enough for people to cause a stir and protest the league. Cool priorities, society.

If these guys choose to spend their anthem time protesting, they certainly have the right to do it, I just personally don't give much of a shit about it and think that if they want to actually make a difference, taking a knee or stretching during an anthem is not going to do jack shit. They should go out in the communities and do what they can. Our society as a whole has fucked up individuals and the fact that it's almost 2018 and racism still runs wild just goes to show how absolutely pathetic people are.

My uncle fought in Desert Storm and the very thing he, and other vets, fought and died for is the very thing everyone is trying to take away. It doesn't matter if you and I agree with it or not, they still have the right to do it. 

People get offended just to get offended. 

This picture sums up practically everyone complaining. This is me, every single time I watch a game at home, and I watch 3 different sports regularly. I am not saying I agree with what they are doing, nor disagree, I just don't care, and think they are taking the wrong approach:


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> But Hilary would be more likely to start a war and only Democrats are playing identity politics! :eyeroll


North Korea says shit like this all the time. They said the exact same thing a year ago. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/28/north-korea-united-states-relations/87659264/

Yes, Hillary's plan to shoot down Russian planes is much more dangerous than anything Trump has done. Ted Cruz had the same plan, which I'm sure can be explained as the purest of True Conservative moves, somehow, some way.


----------



## virus21

Catalanotto said:


> These athletes get paid to play the game, however, yes, if they want to protest they certainly can. I would just they rather stick to the sport instead of creating all this drama (which Trump had a huge hand in escalating).
> 
> People are protesting the NFL because players took a knee. Where were the protests when players were beating their women? Dog fighting? The outrage over a bunch of people taking a knee is unbelievably huge, yet, chicks getting their bells rung and animal abuse isn't enough for people to cause a stir and protest the league. Cool priorities, society.
> 
> If these guys choose to spend their anthem time protesting, they certainly have the right to do it, I just personally don't give much of a shit about it and think that if they want to actually make a difference, taking a knee or stretching during an anthem is not going to do jack shit. They should go out in the communities and do what they can. Our society as a whole has fucked up individuals and the fact that it's almost 2018 and racism still runs wild just goes to show how absolutely pathetic people are.
> 
> My uncle fought in Desert Storm and the very thing he, and other vets, fought and died for is the very thing everyone is trying to take away. It doesn't matter if you and I agree with it or not, they still have the right to do it.
> 
> People get offended just to get offended.
> 
> This picture sums up practically everyone complaining. This is me, every single time I watch a game at home, and I watch 3 different sports regularly. I am not saying I agree with what they are doing, nor disagree, I just don't care, and think they are taking the wrong approach:


They'll feel the burn from this, just like all the others have recently. It will be funny to watch


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> North Korea says shit like this all the time. They said the exact same thing a year ago.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/28/north-korea-united-states-relations/87659264/
> 
> Yes, Hillary's plan to shoot down Russian planes is much more dangerous than anything Trump has done. Ted Cruz had the same plan, which I'm sure can be explained as the purest of True Conservative moves, somehow, some way.


Somehow I think Trump promising to destroy a country in a UN speech is equally dangerous.

Have you counted the number of Yemen air strikes this year?


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Welcome to America 2017 where liberals disrespect our President, our flag, our national anthem, police officers, military members, and defend a mass murdering North Korean dictator. :clap
> 
> P.S. The joke's on the NFL. They're going to lose a lot of money and ratings over supporting the unpopular decision.
> 
> - Vic


Oh look the president and his supporters care more a piece of cloth probably made in China then the recent hurricane tragedies.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Somehow I think Trump promising to destroy a country in a UN speech is equally dangerous.


Out of context, like most of the stuff you say. 



> Have you counted the number of Yemen air strikes this year?


As I've lamented numerous times, the foreign policy status quo continues. Shooting down Russian planes would've been worse.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Out of context, like most of the stuff you say.


Why is it out of context? Both were examples of sabre rattling that could spiral out of control.



> As I've lamented numerous times, the foreign policy status quo continues. Shooting down Russian planes would've been worse.


Except it isn't status quo.


----------



## BruiserKC

Catalanotto said:


> These athletes get paid to play the game, however, yes, if they want to protest they certainly can. I would just they rather stick to the sport instead of creating all this drama (*which Trump had a huge hand in escalating*).
> 
> People are protesting the NFL because players took a knee. Where were the protests when players were beating their women? Dog fighting? The outrage over a bunch of people taking a knee is unbelievably huge, yet, chicks getting their bells rung and animal abuse isn't enough for people to cause a stir and protest the league. Cool priorities, society.
> 
> If these guys choose to spend their anthem time protesting, they certainly have the right to do it, I just personally don't give much of a shit about it and think that if they want to actually make a difference, taking a knee or stretching during an anthem is not going to do jack shit. They should go out in the communities and do what they can. Our society as a whole has fucked up individuals and the fact that it's almost 2018 and racism still runs wild just goes to show how absolutely pathetic people are.
> 
> My uncle fought in Desert Storm and the very thing he, and other vets, fought and died for is the very thing everyone is trying to take away. It doesn't matter if you and I agree with it or not, they still have the right to do it.
> 
> People get offended just to get offended.
> 
> This picture sums up practically everyone complaining. This is me, every single time I watch a game at home, and I watch 3 different sports regularly. I am not saying I agree with what they are doing, nor disagree, I just don't care, and think they are taking the wrong approach:


That bolded part right there says it. There was progress being made as far as the police protests, as Goodell was working behind the scenes with the teams and local police forces to improve discussions. In Cleveland, players were sitting down with the police chief and talking. The truth was very few players were protesting and you were hearing very little about it. It was a very limited thing, and with time the whole thing probably would have blown over. If allowed to, it would have eventually worked itself out. 

Trump had to take advantage of the fact he had a shitty week and used this to deflect from that. It worked...it's the story on all the news shows. Even the sports talk shows that normally ignore this stuff were weighing in. While Dan LeBatard and Bomani Jones have no problem with talking about these hot-button issues, Mike and Mike and even Dan Patrick were discussing this at length. Those shows NEVER give much more than lip service to anything outside the sports world. 

I find hilarious, meanwhile, that Trump puffs out his chest and wants to question the patriotism of these players, yet he has never served and went out of his way with the help of his family to receive four draft deferrments. There is clearly a discussion that we can have regarding how to resolve this issue, but Trump has no interest in it. He'd rather just stoke the fires and just have attention turn away from the fact not much has been done so far on his watch. (Spare me the Congress isn't doing anything BS, because we all know that they're useless, but it's on him for not effectively leading).


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> I find hilarious, meanwhile, that Trump puffs out his chest and wants to question the patriotism of these players, yet he has never served and went out of his way with the help of his family to receive four draft deferrments.


He's serving as commander-in-chief of the military actually. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912408644096024578


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> That bolded part right there says it. There was progress being made as far as the police protests, as Goodell was working behind the scenes with the teams and local police forces to improve discussions. In Cleveland, players were sitting down with the police chief and talking. The truth was very few players were protesting and you were hearing very little about it. It was a very limited thing, and with time the whole thing probably would have blown over. If allowed to, it would have eventually worked itself out.
> 
> Trump had to take advantage of the fact he had a shitty week and used this to deflect from that. It worked...it's the story on all the news shows. Even the sports talk shows that normally ignore this stuff were weighing in. While Dan LeBatard and Bomani Jones have no problem with talking about these hot-button issues, Mike and Mike and even Dan Patrick were discussing this at length. Those shows NEVER give much more than lip service to anything outside the sports world.
> 
> I find hilarious, meanwhile, that Trump puffs out his chest and wants to question the patriotism of these players, yet he has never served and went out of his way with the help of his family to receive four draft deferrments. There is clearly a discussion that we can have regarding how to resolve this issue, but Trump has no interest in it. He'd rather just stoke the fires and just have attention turn away from the fact not much has been done so far on his watch. (Spare me the Congress isn't doing anything BS, because we all know that they're useless, but it's on him for not effectively leading).


It is similar to conservative rhetoric about the culture wars that you subscribe to. Similar to the gender and racial oppression rhetoric that the democrats use. Trump just drops all pretence of why he is doing it compared to seasoned politicians so he appears to be 'genuine' to his supporters. He riles up his supporters and his haters and create a 'us versus them' situation to solidify his base while demonising his non-supporters to his base.


----------



## amhlilhaus

MrMister said:


> I never got to the ending of Hunger Games but this isn't surprising. On the other hand Katniss wasn't opposing the IRL Romans. Those bastards even crucified a god.:max


Romans fucked shit up


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> As I've lamented numerous times, the foreign policy status quo continues. Shooting down Russian planes would've been worse.


Better to deal with NK over starting a war with Russia which seems to be the goal of Democrats and the majority of American Politicians. HRC would have pushed Russia to the limit to show she's a "strong woman" and "won't let the Russians get away with their nefarious deeds!".


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump vs Bannon in the Alabama Senate primary. Who ya got?

Bannon might win this one which is a scary thought as Roy Moore seem like a religious nutjob.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Miss Sally said:


> Great post Cata! :clap
> 
> I don't know why people care about this so much, if they want to kneel or stand it's nothing to me. It's not like they're having a giant circle jerk as the anthem plays.
> 
> If you listen to these players for Politics you got issues, just as if you let their actions get to you. Regardless if it's disrespectful or not they have a right to peaceful protest.
> 
> Besides it's the average people who have the power, the power to change the channel and move on with something else in your life. There's more to life than Football or certain shows or Actors.
> 
> Nobody in their right mind should listen to Celebs, they are mega rich people who get handed nearly everything to them on a silver platter for simply being who they are. They're completely out of touch, people need to stop worshiping Celebs and realize they're just regular people like the rest of us.


What a post :faint: :clap


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Fire chief directs racial slur at Steelers coach over anthem protest*










:no:

What the fuck is going on with people?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Fire chief directs racial slur at Steelers coach over anthem protest*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :no:
> 
> What the fuck is going on with people?


I thought there were no racists and "the left" was making it all up?


----------



## Stinger Fan

RavishingRickRules said:


> I thought there were no racists and "the left" was making it all up?


No, what the left made up was that only people who lean right are racist. Also, this post doesn't make much sense, you have made your assumption on a guy's political affiliation purely on the basis of one message? Quite the leap to be honest


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Stinger Fan said:


> No, what the left made up was that only people who lean right are racist. Also, this post doesn't make much sense, you have made your assumption on a guy's political affiliation purely on the basis of one message? Quite the leap to be honest


How is that a "leap?" I don't need to know the man's affiliation at all. Since the Trump election all I've seen is "the word racist doesn't mean anything at all" "there hasn't been any emboldening of the bigots" "it's all left propaganda." And lo and behold, nazi marches, racist fire chiefs, condemning black people whilst giving white people a pass. Seems plausible.


----------



## krtgolfing

These multi-millionaires protesting and then comparing themselves to MLK and Rosa Parks. Jesse Jackson is more like it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RavishingRickRules said:


> How is that a "leap?" I don't need to know the man's affiliation at all. Since the Trump election all I've seen is "the word racist doesn't mean anything at all" "there hasn't been any emboldening of the bigots" "it's all left propaganda." And lo and behold, nazi marches, racist fire chiefs, condemning black people whilst giving white people a pass. Seems plausible.


It's a leap because you've *assumed* his political affiliation purely on him using a racial slur and nothing more. You made a clear divide and distinction between political parties and what they think on the sole basis of racism and that only one team is racist. All of which is garbage . The idea that people are giving themselves a free pass because of Trump is absurd, you seem to forget Obama was president not only were there racist people still in existence , there was racist crap thrown his way too, on top of that racial tensions grew worse under him. Trump being president wouldn't change anything, stop trying to make up stuff to solidify your belief that only one team can be racist while the other is not. There are garbage racist people on both sides for crying out loud . Also, the idea that tehre weren't Nazi marches under Obama is hilariously ignorant , for christ sakes there were black people saving the lives of white supremacists at marches when shots broke out a couple years ago

The difference is that the media focuses on these things more, you also must not ignore the racist hate crimes that have been proven to be false. Lets also not forget the blatant racist crimes against that white disabled Trump supporter that the media actively tried to remove the racist aspect of it.What about the few riots where people were demanding that African Americans riot in white neighborhoods? What about riots where African Americans were beating up whites for being white? All of that was under Obama, not Trump. All you have to do is look this crap up . Shitty people run on both sides, get over it


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Stinger Fan said:


> It's a leap because you've *assumed* his political affiliation purely on him using a racial slur and nothing more. t


Wtf are you even going on about? Where did I once bring up the fire chief's political affiliation? Stop reading things that aren't there. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post tbh.

LIke straight up, you either didn't read a word I said or hallucinated something entirely different. I'm addressing the fact that I've been repeatedly told that "racist doesn't mean anything any more it's just left bullshit" since the election. Apparently that's not quite the case though is it? Enjoy your hallucinogens, I'm a little jealous I don't have any myself.


----------



## krtgolfing

RavishingRickRules said:


> How is that a "leap?" I don't need to know the man's affiliation at all. Since the Trump election all I've seen is "the word racist doesn't mean anything at all" "there hasn't been any emboldening of the bigots" "it's all left propaganda." And lo and behold, nazi marches, racist fire chiefs, condemning black people whilst giving white people a pass. Seems plausible.


:ha Acting like there was not racist marches before Trump. :gtfo They have been going on for a long time. They will continue to go on for a long time after Trump it out of office. I think those Neo-Nazis can fuck off but there is racism from every race. Whites towards blacks, blacks towards whites, whites towards asians, etc. I could go on for days.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wtf are you even going on about? Where did I once bring up the fire chief's political affiliation? Stop reading things that aren't there. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post tbh.
> 
> LIke straight up, you either didn't read a word I said or hallucinated something entirely different. I'm addressing the fact that I've been repeatedly told that "racist doesn't mean anything any more it's just left bullshit" since the election. Apparently that's not quite the case though is it? Enjoy your hallucinogens, I'm a little jealous I don't have any myself.


Your question is answered , if you bothered to read what I wrote you would have had it


----------



## RavishingRickRules

krtgolfing said:


> :ha Acting like there was not racist marches before Trump. :gtfo They have been going on for a long time. They will continue to go on for a long time after Trump it out of office. I think those Neo-Nazis can fuck off but there is racism from every race. Whites towards blacks, blacks towards whites, whites towards asians, etc. I could go on for days.


Nah you missed the point. I never said there weren't marches before Trump. However it wasn't til post Trump I was told "everyone just screams racist, it's a meaningless insult, there are no racists." Do you get it yet or do I have to try and some money to send to America to fix their primary education, focusing on reading comprehension? It's like you all trip balls the minute you see something that threatens your world view and create entirely different narratives that were never there in the first place. Nice job though.


----------



## krtgolfing

RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah you missed the point. I never said there weren't marches before Trump. However it wasn't til post Trump I was told "everyone just screams racist, it's a meaningless insult, there are no racists." Do you get it yet or do I have to try and some money to send to America to fix their primary education, focusing on reading comprehension? It's like you all trip balls the minute you see something that threatens your world view and create entirely different narratives that were never there in the first place. Nice job though.


Well when you have one party saying anyone who voted for Trump is a racist it kind of is a meaningless insult. I lean toward the Republican party when it comes to money/ economics as I think people who work should be able to keep as much money as they can even if that amount is big/ small. I am Dem when it comes to guns/ abortion/ and other social issues. But one is racists because of who you voted for? :confused


----------



## Draykorinee

I mean, the whole racist thing is tiresome even for a lefty like me. It's about as boring as the SJW nonsense. Like most lefties not being SJWs, most people who voted Trump are not racist, it's a tiny minority that are. That tiny minority does feel emboldened now, just like when Brexit went through.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Geauga sheriff prohibits deputies from working Browns games over protest during anthem*


----------



## birthday_massacre

krtgolfing said:


> :ha Acting like there was not racist marches before Trump. :gtfo They have been going on for a long time. They will continue to go on for a long time after Trump it out of office. I think those Neo-Nazis can fuck off but there is racism from every race. Whites towards blacks, blacks towards whites, whites towards asians, etc. I could go on for days.


People like you always miss the point. Because of Trump, the racists in the US are much more vocal and they stopped dog whistling their racism because they saw Trump being openly racist so started being more open and free with their racism as well.

And you can deny facts all you want, most of the racists in the US are conservatives / on the right. No one ever says ALL racists are on the right but most of them are, that is simply a fact.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Geauga sheriff prohibits deputies from working Browns games over protest during anthem*


----------



## stevefox1200

"Art of the deal" is not the blueprint, its this literary masterpiece 










as long as we're talking


----------



## deepelemblues

to understand :trump brilliance with this fight with pampered millionaire idiots google the term "stray voltage"


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Geauga sheriff prohibits deputies from working Browns games over protest during anthem*


What an idiot.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> What an idiot.


He and his men are taking a stand just as the players are (well the players are taking a stand by not standing)

Law enforcement isn't required by law or anything to provide security at such events, it's a courtesy and convenient and generally speaking a good idea. It's not necessary though, sports teams or stadium authorities provide the majority of security and are certainly capable of providing all of it if need be 

Freedom at work sir, players are free to make their point with their speech and behavior and anybody pissed off at them or supportive of them is free to make their points in response with their own speech and behavior


----------



## Vic Capri

> He's not protesting the flag or asking for it to be removed. He protested against police brutality and institutionalised racism


Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Vic Capri said:


> Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.
> 
> - Vic


It's like saying you're against the oppression of people but support an oppressive dictator like Castro, amirite?


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> It is similar to conservative rhetoric about the culture wars that you subscribe to. Similar to the gender and racial oppression rhetoric that the democrats use. Trump just drops all pretence of why he is doing it compared to seasoned politicians so he appears to be 'genuine' to his supporters. He riles up his supporters and his haters and create a 'us versus them' situation to solidify his base while demonising his non-supporters to his base.


No one wants to just talk anymore about the things that we don't agree with. I would like to think that I'm actually willing to actually have a conversation with people that don't see things my way. We might not change minds, but at least we can have an honest discussion and at least walk away knowing we were able to at least hash shit out. 

The lady at work who ADORES Trump was on a rant today about how Trump is right, Murrica Love it or Leave it...etc. Then, I asked her that if Obama had made a similar statement, or if HRC was President now and she said something similar, how would you react. She said that she would tell them to stay in their lane and mind their own business. Right away, the look on her face changed and I just smiled. 

Sorry, no double standards with me.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> No one wants to just talk anymore about the things that we don't agree with. I would like to think that I'm actually willing to actually have a conversation with people that don't see things my way. We might not change minds, but at least we can have an honest discussion and at least walk away knowing we were able to at least hash shit out.
> 
> The lady at work who ADORES Trump was on a rant today about how Trump is right, Murrica Love it or Leave it...etc. Then, I asked her that if Obama had made a similar statement, or if HRC was President now and she said something similar, how would you react. She said that she would tell them to stay in their lane and mind their own business. Right away, the look on her face changed and I just smiled.
> 
> Sorry, no double standards with me.


It's all about riling up the base. Trump just drop all pretence of offering an olive branch to those that are on the other side of the discussion. Trump is simply an evolution of the cultural war that started 20, 30 years ago. It's the same strategy, but with a different tactic of not being ashamed of offending.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.
> 
> - Vic


No it's nothing like that, punching someone in the face to protest domestic abuse is using violence, kneeing to protest police violence isn't.

Its funny Trump is more bothered by players kneeing protesting police violence than he was about the KKK running over someone with a car, going so far as defending the KKK calling some of them some very fine people.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Vic Capri said:


> Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.
> 
> - Vic


*This is as ridiculous as saying Rosa Parks was protesting public transportation. If you're not FOR, equal rights, you're against them. It's that simple. There's no gray area. There's no "I'm not racist, but..." You're a racist. If a piece of cloth is more important to you than an entire race fighting for equality, you're a racist.

In other unsurprising news: Donald Trump and his dumb ass secretary of press got Donkey of The Day:*


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny Trump is more bothered by players kneeing protesting police violence than he was about the KKK running over someone with a car, going so far as defending the KKK calling some of them some very fine people.


I've seen this repeated a lot and it's a complete lie. Here's the transcript: 



> Q The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.
> 
> Q (Inaudible.)
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did.
> 
> You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
> 
> Q George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down --
> 
> Excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?
> 
> Q I do love Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
> 
> So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
> 
> Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.
> 
> Q Who are the good people?
> 
> Q Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
> 
> But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.


He states clearly that the neo nazis and white nationalists were bad people. The "fine people" comment is clearly referring to other people, who were not neo nazis or white nationalists, that were just against taking down the statues. 

It's a complete hallucination that he was saying that the KKK or Neo Nazis were "fine people". There's zero truth to it and there's no way to read the transcript above and believe he was saying anything of the sort without hallucinating.


----------



## themuel1

This is incredible. 

The leader of one of the most powerful nations on the planet, the President of the United States of America, has spent the last week tweeting insults at American sports teams. Encouraging teams to fire players for being so bold as to speaking their mind. For protesting. Rescinding an invitation to the White House after a basketball teams star said he wouldn't go. Tweeting baited insults at an unstable leader and country which have fired numerous missiles in a show of force and that have nuclear weapons. Like a child in the playground.

This isn't the big issue though...? 

The big issue is not standing for an anthem. The players said it wasn't in any way meant to be disrespectful to the flag or the military. They told everyone why they did it. Yet the opposing narrative fits for some a weird nationalism that puts imagery and symbolism ahead of a constitutional set of rights that are supposed to guarantee a right to protest. You are of course free to disagree with what the players did and express that in a civilised manner but to say they shouldn't have done it or shouldn't have been able to protest? Is this argument and the disrespectful narrative easier than actually discussing the racial injustices going on in the States? 

Twitter was extremely insightful. People opposed to the kneeling suggesting it disrespected the military. Some of those people then went on to criticise veterans on Twitter who supported the right to kneel. Classy eh? 

But I'm just an outsider having watched the weekend like many others from outside the States with mouths open and heads being scratched. I'd have thought that military personnel went overseas to protect the American people and their way of life. The constitution. Not an anthem and a piece of cloth. What it seemed to me to be was a giant F U to people simply expressing their 1st amendment rights and be castigated for it. Most fervently by your President no less. That's a very cruel irony. 

My view on what disrespects the military is not remaining seated or kneeling for an anthem. It is in sending a great and extremely brave group of men and women overseas to a country that has nothing to do with you and possesses no threat to your way of life for some of those soldiers to die thousands of miles away from home. In a place and danger they should never have been put in. 

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I've seen this repeated a lot and it's a complete lie. Here's the transcript:
> 
> He states clearly that the neo nazis and white nationalists were bad people. The "fine people" comment is clearly referring to other people, who were not neo nazis or white nationalists, that were just against taking down the statues.
> 
> It's a complete hallucination that he was saying that the KKK or Neo Nazis were "fine people". There's zero truth to it and there's no way to read the transcript above and believe he was saying anything of the sort without hallucinating.


Of course you are defending Trump LOL Trump clearly stated there are very fine people in the KKK and Neo-Nazi group. Its hilarious you would even try to spin that. In that GROUP meaning the KKK side. but sure keep denying that. It why you have no credibility, it was a KKK rally FFS. that is the side Trump was talking about that had very fine people, some of the people on the KKK group.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Vic Capri said:


> Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.
> 
> - Vic


SO kneeling down whilst a song being played is "disrespecting the flag?" I've never been happier not to have been brought up in a country that forcibly indoctrinates the children with a "Pledge of Allegiance" to a coloured bit of material :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> SO kneeling down whilst a song being played is "disrespecting the flag?" I've never been happier not to have been brought up in a country that forcibly indoctrinates the children with a "Pledge of Allegiance" to a coloured bit of material :lmao


Its also funny standing for the national anthem in the NFL wasn't even a common thing before 2009. It only happened because the military paid the NFL to do it before every game as a way to get recruits and to make it seem more patriotic.


----------



## themuel1

birthday_massacre said:


> Its also funny standing for the national anthem in the NFL wasn't even a common thing before 2009. It only happened because the military paid the NFL to do it before every game as a way to get recruits and to make it seem more patriotic.


Is that true? 

So the in 8 years it's been taking place, a country has been conditioned to believe standing for an anthem is a requirement of showing respect because the military paid a private organisations to have it's athletes do it?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

themuel1 said:


> Is that true?
> 
> So the in 8 years it's been taking place, a country has been conditioned to believe standing for an anthem is a requirement of showing respect because the military paid a private organisations to have it's athletes do it?


Yeah it's 100% true. But let's face it, money being involved probably makes it EVEN MORE important to Americans :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

You guys know I tend to be rather anti-protest as I feel most of it lashing out rather than properly planned but I feel the flag kneeling is one of the more effective I have seen in a while

Sports have mass viewership so it gets the message out

It does not require anyone to bust their asses or risk personal harm and nobody gets hurt

It creates a very effective image that can be easily marketed to people outside of the political bubble 

It "disrupts" something that people want to see but does not do so in a way that is dangerous (like blocking a road)

It is super easy to explain 

I kind of like the idea of the whole "When America treats me like I am a citizen I while show it respect like a citizen"

Its easy to convince people to do it in mass 

the president won't stop talking about so it stays hot

I said I don't like rioting and I find this far more effective and just better overall, its hard to market violence but you need zero context or spin for this (one problem the right has is its current line of memes require too much context)

Hopefully it turns out to be actually effective as its self life is not permanent and we end up with one or two guys doing a non-stop holdout over something than its going to mess it up

(the actual athletes standing at attention was a 9/11 thing that never really went away, in most sports past like the 1970s they used the anthem time to do last minute adjustments)

Castro shirts and your girlfriend insulting your friends, not so much


----------



## MrMister

themuel1 said:


> Is that true?
> 
> So the in 8 years it's been taking place, a country has been conditioned to believe standing for an anthem is a requirement of showing respect because the military paid a private organisations to have it's athletes do it?


We've been rising for our national anthem at sporting events for decades prior to 2009 lol.


----------



## themuel1

MrMister said:


> We've been rising for our national anthem at sporting events for decades prior to 2009 lol.


Hence my question of "is that true"....

The suggestion was that it wasn't mandatory for NFL players to stand before 2009 for the anthem.

By the way, why don't you guys sing your anthem?


----------



## MrMister

themuel1 said:


> Hence my question of "is that true"....
> 
> The suggestion was that it wasn't mandatory for NFL players to stand before 2009 for the anthem.
> 
> By the way, why don't you guys sing your anthem?


We do sing it.


also the "lol" wasn't at you. it's at the notion that rising for the anthem is relatively new thing. it's really old. if we're talking about players rising well they're already on their feet so i don't see how it's relevant.


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> I've seen this repeated a lot and it's a complete lie. Here's the transcript:
> 
> He states clearly that the neo nazis and white nationalists were bad people. The "fine people" comment is clearly referring to other people, who were not neo nazis or white nationalists, that were just against taking down the statues.
> 
> It's a complete hallucination that he was saying that the KKK or Neo Nazis were "fine people". There's zero truth to it and there's no way to read the transcript above and believe he was saying anything of the sort without hallucinating.





birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you are defending Trump LOL Trump clearly stated there are very fine people in the KKK and Neo-Nazi group. Its hilarious you would even try to spin that. In that GROUP meaning the KKK side. but sure keep denying that. It why you have no credibility, it was a KKK rally FFS. that is the side Trump was talking about that had very fine people, some of the people on the KKK group.


okay, so cp lays out the transcript, then explains the transcript and bm is still hallucinating? :CENA

there is no cure :mj2


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> We do sing it.
> 
> 
> also the "lol" wasn't at you. it's at the notion that rising for the anthem is relatively new thing. it's really old. if we're talking about players rising well they're already on their feet so i don't see how it's relevant.


We are talking about the players having to be out on the field and standing for the national anthem, that was not mandatory until 2009 when the military paid the NFL to make it that way


----------



## birthday_massacre

Goku said:


> okay, so cp lays out the transcript, then explains the transcript and bm is still hallucinating? :CENA
> 
> there is no cure :mj2


You are right there is no cure for ignoring facts and the actual words of Trump himself by Trump supporters. He can try to twist Trumps own words all he wants. 

Here is the exact quote.


*THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. *

He said had some very bad people in that group meaning the KKK then he says BUT you also had some very fine people on both sides, meaning there are some very fine people in the KKK group as well.

Not sure how much clear that gets but of course Trumpism tries to explain it away. How is Trump not saying there are some very fine people in the KKK group? 

Its hard to take Trump supporters seriously at all.


----------



## Goku

bm, have you tried meditation? :hogan


----------



## birthday_massacre

Goku said:


> bm, have you tried meditation? :hogan


just what I expected for a response.


----------



## Goku

you expected me to ask whether you've tried meditation? :CENA


----------



## AustinRockHulk

Wow...Trump really doesn't know the constitution.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

Stray voltage guys.

Stray voltage.

Obama used it extensively.

:trump just doing things Obama did and people said over and over guys Obama ain't gonna be president forever and some day a president is gonna do the same stuff Obama is doing but for the other side and people are gonna just lose their shit over it when none of it would have happened if Obama hadn't decided to do it first.

Well here we are!

:trump saying controversial things to keep a certain topic at the top of the public consciousness, a topic that gets his base all hot and bothered and a topic where a majority agrees with his general stance. 64% think players should stand for the anthem. Tens of millions of people view it as an insult and disrespect towards America and a rejection of America. The standard placed on guys like Tim Tebow for kneeling as a religious act or William Gay wearing purple cleats to send a message about domestic violence (the league fined Gay, lefties lined up 12 deep to mock and criticize Tebow) compared to the standard placed on players not standing for the anthem (the NFL supports them), people notice the different standards and it gets them all cheesed off. 

Fuckin 88D chess alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> :shrug


Puerto Rico is 70 billion in debt with an additional 50 billion in unfunded future pension obligations.

33 million. :heston

33 million is 0.00047% of Puerto Rico's 70 billion debt.

The chance of this stupid woman expressing OUTRAGE over Puerto Rico putting itself 70 billion in debt: 0%.

But :trump is responsible for people dying in Puerto Rico because 33 million :lmao 

They're not sending their best folks. Well actually they are, but their best is Washington Generals level.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

deepelemblues said:


> Puerto Rico is 70 billion in debt with an additional 50 billion in unfunded future pension obligations.
> 
> 33 million. :heston
> 
> That's like 0.00047% of Puerto Rico's debt.
> 
> The chance of this stupid woman expressing OUTRAGE over Puerto Rico putting itself 70 billion in debt: 0%.
> 
> But :trump is responsible for people dying in Puerto Rico because 33 million :lmao
> 
> They're not sending their best folks. Well actually they are, but their best is Washington Generals level.


Main reason I posted with a "shrug" tbh. There's certain things that are easier to just ask people closer to the situation than scour the internet about places that're literally thousands of miles away.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-dea/u-s-drug-enforcement-chief-to-step-down-from-agency-idUSKCN1C139K?il=0



> *U.S. drug enforcement chief to step down from agency*
> 
> (Reuters) - The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s acting director on Tuesday said that he will be leaving his post, two months after he criticized Republican President Donald Trump for telling law enforcement officers not to be “too nice” to suspects.
> 
> Acting Director Chuck Rosenberg, a holdover from Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration, told the agency’s staff in an internal email that he will be leaving his position effective Oct. 1.
> 
> “This is a remarkable agency - full of remarkable people - and I am honored to have been a small part of it,” Rosenberg said in the message, which was reviewed by Reuters.
> 
> It was unclear who would replace Rosenberg. The news was first reported by The Washington Post.
> 
> A spokesman for the DEA confirmed Rosenberg’s resignation.
> 
> Rosenberg had been leading the DEA in an acting capacity since 2015. Before joining the agency, he served as chief of staff to former FBI director James Comey, who Trump fired in May.
> 
> Rosenberg generated headlines earlier this year after he wrote an agency-wide email in late July challenging comments by Trump suggesting officers do away with practices like protecting the head of a suspect being put into a patrol car.
> 
> Citing “an obligation to speak out when something is wrong,” Rosenberg said Trump’s remarks, delivered in New York the previous day, “condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement.”
> 
> He leaves the agency at a time when the DEA is grappling with the ongoing opioid drug epidemic, which has become a major law enforcement focus of the U.S. Justice Department.
> 
> Opioids, including prescription painkillers and heroin, killed more than 33,000 people in the United States in 2015, more than any year on record, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
> 
> “Opioids such as heroin and fentanyl - and diverted prescription pain pills - are killing people in this country at a horrifying rate,” Rosenberg said in December. “We face a public health crisis of historic proportions.”


Considering Jeff Sessions' drug opinions, I'm guessing Rosenberg will be replaced by a more hard line director. Considering how the DEA already is, I dread someone even more militant.


----------



## yeahbaby!

I've missed a lot of this thread recently, but was wondering if the likes of Scott Adams and Molyneaux et al, have had a chance yet to spin Trump's childish and dangerous tweet-provoking of North Korea into grand strategy and Master Persuading?

I'd love another chuckle.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> I've missed a lot of this thread recently, but was wondering if the likes of Scott Adams and Molyneaux et al, have had a chance yet to spin Trump's childish and dangerous tweet-provoking of North Korea into grand strategy and Master Persuading?
> 
> I'd love another chuckle.


I love the silliness of those who try and act superior and claim to be intellectuals, yet consider the cartoonist who draws fucking Dilbert the leading authority on politics :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> I love the silliness of those who try and act superior and claim to be intellectuals, yet consider the cartoonist who draws fucking Dilbert the leading authority on politics :lmao


Actually he's only the lead authority on Trump's persuasion skills.  You're hallucinating the rest.

Also not sure why you're only citing one field in which Adams is immensely successful when he has multiple. How many do you have?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Actually he's only the lead authority on Trump's persuasion skills.  You're hallucinating the rest.


Aaaannnd, that's what going to a toy town clown college will do to your education kids. Learn from his/her mistakes, go to a real school. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump wasn't saying the KKK were fine people, Jesus Christ. He was saying there were very fine people standing NEXT to the KKK. Oh wait, that's still fucking pathetic especially when he calls people kneeling for the anthem sons of bitches and lies about disrespecting the flag/army/country etc.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protesting the police by disrespecting the flag is like protesting domestic abuse by punching your sister.
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> SO kneeling down whilst a song being played is "disrespecting the flag?" I've never been happier not to have been brought up in a country that forcibly indoctrinates the children with a "Pledge of Allegiance" to a coloured bit of material
Click to expand...

I'd love them to mandate the national anthem before every fucking sporting event in the uk, no asshole would put up with that tedious bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Actually he's only the lead authority on Trump's persuasion skills.  You're hallucinating the rest.
> 
> Also not sure why you're only citing one field in which Adams is immensely successful when he has multiple. How many do you have?


Trump has zero persuasion skills. LOL at anyone who claims he does





draykorinee said:


> Trump wasn't saying the KKK were fine people, Jesus Christ. He was saying there were very fine people standing NEXT to the KKK. Oh wait, that's still fucking pathetic especially when he calls people kneeling for the anthem sons of bitches and lies about disrespecting the flag/army/country etc.


He was saying the racists in that group were very fine people. If someone is standing next to and protesting with the KKK, they are either part of the KKK or racists. those are the people Trump was calling very fine people.

If you go to a rally of white nationalists and supremacists and you are standing next to them protesting WITH THEM you are one of them. And where in Trumps quote does it say oh the people standing next to them

He said on both sides which means, the white nationalists and supremacists group and the protesters against them group.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Trump wasn't saying the KKK were fine people, Jesus Christ. He was saying there were very fine people standing NEXT to the KKK.


There were people standing next to Antifa, which is a violent terrorist group, as well. What's your point? 

Are you saying the woman who got ran over is somehow terrible because of who she was standing next to?


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> There were people standing next to Antifa, which is a violent terrorist group, as well. What's your point?
> 
> Are you saying the woman who got ran over is somehow terrible because of who she was standing next to?


I think he's agreeing with us on this one, cp. :KLOPP


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Also not sure why you're only citing one field in which Adams is immensely successful when he has multiple. How many do you have?


:lmao wrong person to try this on unfortunately. I graduated with 1st class honours from the 4th ranked University in the world. I have a 6 figure salary at the largest Energy company in the UK (because I'm actually educated, not clown college.) In my youth I was also a successful session musician playing on international tours and numerous recordings; I play 6 instruments 3 of which I have Grade 8 in (highest you can get in the UK for classical instruments) and got all 3 of those grade 8's before I left highschool (most people take til early adulthood to achieve one.) I speak French, German and Italian fluently and am currently learning Spanish. I'm a member of Mensa. I played for my county at both Cricket and Rugby and toured abroad with both as a youth. I've just been contacted about starting voice over work and I'm around 2 paychecks away from buying my first property, outright, with cash. 

What exactly have you done besides get into the biggest joke of a college I've ever encountered and failed to realise you're out of your depth in this conversation?
@Beatles123 these are the types I was talking about FYI.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wasn't saying the KKK were fine people, Jesus Christ. He was saying there were very fine people standing NEXT to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> There were people standing next to Antifa, which is a violent terrorist group, as well. What's your point?
> 
> Are you saying the woman who got ran over is somehow terrible because of who she was standing next to?
Click to expand...

Didn't say that though did I? If she saw violent people doing violent things and stood by them she's not a fine person. Nowhere did I say anyone was a terrible person. Although racists and violent people are terrible people, those standing side by side them can not class themselves as fine people.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

@CamillePunk @RavishingRickRules

Just drop it because this is going to lead nowhere.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao wrong person to try this on unfortunately. I graduated with 1st class honours from the 4th ranked University in the world. I have a 6 figure salary at the largest Energy company in the UK (because I'm actually educated, not clown college.) In my youth I was also a successful session musician playing on international tours and numerous recordings; I play 6 instruments 3 of which I have Grade 8 in (highest you can get in the UK for classical instruments) and got all 3 of those grade 8's before I left highschool (most people take til early adulthood to achieve one.) I speak French, German and Italian fluently and am currently learning Spanish. I'm a member of Mensa. I played for my county at both Cricket and Rugby and toured abroad with both as a youth. I've just been contacted about starting voice over work and I'm around 2 paychecks away from buying my first property, outright, with cash.
> 
> What exactly have you done besides get into the biggest joke of a college I've ever encountered and failed to realise you're out of your depth in this conversation?


Doesn't sound like you're anywhere near as famous or successful as Scott Adams, who you were criticizing, and thus is the only relevant resume to compare yourself with. Not sure why you're talking about me or repeatedly trying to insult me.  I haven't attacked you at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oda Nobunaga said:


> @CamillePunk @RavishingRickRules
> 
> Just drop it because this is going to lead nowhere.


except the ban hammer lol










Oh wait that is the wrong hammer, carry on


----------



## Draykorinee

Goku said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were people standing next to Antifa, which is a violent terrorist group, as well. What's your point?
> 
> Are you saying the woman who got ran over is somehow terrible because of who she was standing next to?
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's agreeing with us on this one, cp.
Click to expand...

I think I confused both sides judging by BM. I'm not agreeing with the idea that Trump called the KKK or even 'racists' very fine people. He called the people standing side by side without complaint while racist and xenophobic chants were said very fine people. Thus Trump is saying people who stand side by side with racists are very fine people, which is absurd.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Doesn't sound like you're anywhere near as famous or successful as Scott Adams, who you were criticizing, and thus is the only relevant resume to compare yourself with. Not sure why you're talking about me or repeatedly trying to insult me.  I haven't attacked you at all.


Yeah "famous" for drawing a low-rent comic strip. He worked as a low-end office worker after originally being a bank teller but getting scared from being held up, then got a degree from...clown college. Very credible as a political commentator :lmao :lmao :lmao

I'm done now Oda, like I said to Beatles in another thread, these people are actually beneath me.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> I think I confused both sides judging by BM. I'm not agreeing with the idea that Trump called the KKK or even 'racists' very fine people. He called the people standing side by side without complaint while racist and xenophobic chants were said. Thus Trump is saying people who stand side by side with racists are very fine people, which is absurd.


You don't know what other people protesting the removal of the statues did or said though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> I think I confused both sides judging by BM. I'm not agreeing with the idea that Trump called the KKK or even 'racists' very fine people. He called the people standing side by side without complaint while racist and xenophobic chants were said very fine people. Thus Trump is saying people who stand side by side with racists are very fine people, which is absurd.


LIke I said in my edit if someone is standing side by side with a KKK or white nationalist and chanting with them, those people standing next to them are KKK/white nationalist or racists.

I mean who goes to a KKK/white nationalist rally to stand with that group? 

They are racists, so Trump was saying some racists on that side are very fine people.


----------



## Goku

draykorinee said:


> I think I confused both sides judging by BM. I'm not agreeing with the idea that Trump called the KKK or even 'racists' very fine people. He called the people standing side by side without complaint while racist and xenophobic chants were said very fine people. Thus Trump is saying people who stand side by side with racists are very fine people, which is absurd.


i was travelling by train this one time and an old white guy came and sat next to me, smiled and started reading his newspaper. I felt uneasy and asked him if he was racist. He looked shocked and said "KEIN!" I went through the rest of the journey relatively undisturbed, having made sure I wasn't being racist by accident. :lenny5

(this is not a true story)


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Trump wasn't saying the KKK were fine people, Jesus Christ. He was saying there were very fine people standing NEXT to the KKK. Oh wait, that's still fucking pathetic especially when he calls people kneeling for the anthem sons of bitches and lies about disrespecting the flag/army/country etc.


Antifa was standing next to the nazis when it was beating on them

Maybe :trump meant antifa have you considered that sir :kappa

It's all thee-ate-err 

If the president was a sekrit nazi or sekritly liked nazis or was sekritly manipulating nazis for his own purposes it would be a bigger thing than its main purpose now which seems to be laying the rhetorical e-smackdown



draykorinee said:


> I'd love them to mandate the national anthem before every fucking sporting event in the uk, no asshole would put up with that tedious bullshit.


i dont find it tedious

it's a decent piece of music and with a good singer you get a fine performance

but really you have better than a thousand years of history and myth to provide cultural foundations and touchstones

we got 300-odd years of history and myth and most of that history and myth is wrapped up in ideas and symbols of those ideas. not that yours isn't, many of the highlights of our civic and cultural identity and myths comes from you duh, but there is a difference between a thousand years and around 300

really what i'm saying is that america is still a young country and young countries tend to be rather ummm exuberant i guess in a great many ways

not like you ancient shamblers in the old world







there aint shit wrong with it


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump has us debating kneeling protesters while North Korea are going

:Hall

To every empty threat he makes and he continues to fail to repeal obamacare.


----------



## CamillePunk

North Korea is nothing. 

Repealing Obamacare is Congress's job. They've failed every attempt because the bills they keep introducing aren't even repeals.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> North Korea is nothing.


Tell that to Trump who threatened North Korea then backed down.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Tell that to Trump who threatened North Korea then backed down.


He threatened to destroy North Korea if North Korea attacks the US or its allies. Where did he back down from that?


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> He threatened to destroy North Korea if North Korea attacks the US or its allies. Where did he back down from that?


Funny, because I remember him saying 'If he utters those words he won't be around much longer' which has NOTHING to do with direct attacks only words. I guess I must have misinterpreted what Trump means by this threat?

Trump nominee just lost to some crazy christian who rode a horse brandishing a gun to the voting booth.

:ti


----------



## GothicBohemian

@RavishingRickRules, no one in this thread is "beneath you". Stop that. 


As to Trumpy and Trumpism:

"We did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came here to praise and honor him"
_- Steven Bannon, at a rally where the winning candidate he backed, Roy Moore the Ten Commandments judge, pulled out a gun on stage. _

Am I the only person bothered by not only Moore but this quote? It seems cultish. Bannon has to calm the Trumpkins before getting them to vote for his wacko candidate. He also told them the Republican establishment thinks they're a "pack of morons" while his pandering to them makes it clear that he does as well. It's all so disheartening. 

Also, Trump's Twitter battle with pro sports (and amateur sport; now some potential Olympic athletes are saying they won't accept White House invites) is ridiculous and, yes, 'beneath' the office of president. Peaceful protest is not only allowed but encouraged in a functional democracy. A national leader proposing a sports league ban protests shows how changed the US is less than a year after his election to highest office. I suspect he's not being shut down by his adviser generals on this latest Twitter storm only because it distracts from more important issues, such as what's to happen with NK, the continuing mess that Obamacare repeal has become and the scramble to fix the poor response to disaster in Puerto Rico.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk @Pratchett @Miss Sally @Goku @Stinger Fan @Vic Capri @2 Ton 21 @deepelemblues @AryaDark 

I might catch some slack for sharing and commenting on this, but I feel it needs to be done to prove a wider point. I'll take a leaf out of Liz Wheeler's playbook and do a "What the MSM ignored this week" type of post.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21559...91817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal



> The media, eager to bury the story of the mass shooting at a church in Tennessee on Sunday in which a Sudanese immigrant, who is black, murdered a white mother of two and wounded six other people, including the pastor, has totally ignored the incident, conveniently using the NFL/ Trump controversy as grist for its mill.
> 
> Emanuel Kidega Samson, from Sudan, first murdered Melanie Smith, 39, in the parking lot, then entered Burnette Chapel Church of Christ and started shooting. He was only stopped by the heroism of an usher, Caleb Engle, 22, who was pistol-whipped in the face, but held tight until Samson accidentally shot himself. Engle then retrieved his firearm from his car and stood guard over Samson until police arrived.
> 
> Matt Walsh, in a powerful column at The Blaze, pointed out:
> 
> Maybe you read about this story on page 14 of the newspaper. I’m not exaggerating, either. The New York Times put this mass shooting on page 14. The front page was dominated by athletes kneeling. Or perhaps you heard it mentioned in a 12-second blurb at the end of a cable newscast last night. I flipped through a few different channels and didn’t hear it even mentioned one time, but maybe they got around to it. Of course, in a 60-minute broadcast they had to allot at least 59 minutes to cataloging the posture of NFL players. If you managed to sit through all of that, you may have heard the “P.S. There was a mass shooting at a church today okay that’s all goodnight” at the end.
> 
> Walsh noted:
> 
> The church shooting does no favors to the liberal narrative, so it must be ignored. The shooter was black. He’s a Sudanese immigrant. He killed a white woman. He was stopped by a good guy with a gun. If the races were switched and you removed the pesky pro-Second Amendment element of the story, perhaps it may have fighting chance to compete with choreographed protests in professional sports for airtime.
> 
> Engle has tried to downplay his incredibly heroic act, issuing a statement lauding the police and first responders. That, of course, garnered him no media attention.
> 
> Walsh concluded with a brutal takedown of the media’s moral lassitude: “In case you’re wondering, media: This why people despise you.”


Whilst taking note of the fact that the NFL controversy is dominating the news cycle and has every leftist media outlet outraged over Trump's comments surrounding the NFL players and his opinion that they should be fired (which I've already stated in my opinion he went too far doing that), have a read of this article. Take note of all the participants, take note of the race of the shooter, the victims and the person who used his 2nd amendment rights to stop the shooter from doing further harm and then ask yourself this question:

*Why wasn't this mass shooting, when so many other mass shootings have made headline news, not been reported on by the Mainstream Media this week?*

This post isn't to play a "woe is me" card or to say "see, white people are the victims of murder too!". The point is is any news such as this regardless of what race the victims or perpetrators are should be reported on and taken seriously. Yet this has been largely ignored by the left and the MSM and had I not been following Ben Shapiro, I would have never known that this had happened. If we didn't have a partisan media that is dead set on pushing a narrative and instead reported objective news and covered every major event, this would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and every media outlet going.

But it didn't, and it really makes you think why.....doesn't it?


----------



## FriedTofu

L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @Pratchett @Miss Sally @Goku @Stinger Fan @Vic Capri @2 Ton 21 @deepelemblues @AryaDark
> 
> I might catch some slack for sharing and commenting on this, but I feel it needs to be done to prove a wider point. I'll take a leaf out of Liz Wheeler's playbook and do a "What the MSM ignored this week" type of post.
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/21559...91817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst taking note of the fact that the NFL controversy is dominating the news cycle and has every leftist media outlet outraged over Trump's comments surrounding the NFL players and his opinion that they should be fired (which I've already stated in my opinion he went too far doing that), have a read of this article. Take note of all the participants, take note of the race of the shooter, the victims and the person who used his 2nd amendment rights to stop the shooter from doing further harm and then ask yourself this question:
> 
> *Why wasn't this mass shooting, when so many other mass shootings have made headline news, not been reported on by the Mainstream Media this week?*
> 
> This post isn't to play a "woe is me" card or to say "see, white people are the victims of murder too!". The point is is any news such as this regardless of what race the victims or perpetrators are should be reported on and taken seriously. Yet this has been largely ignored by the left and the MSM and had I not been following Ben Shapiro, I would have never known that this had happened. If we didn't have a partisan media that is dead set on pushing a narrative and instead reported objective news and covered every major event, this would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and every media outlet going.
> 
> But it didn't, and it really makes you think why.....doesn't it?


This certainly feels like a "woe is me" situation to bitch about the 'MSM' or the leftist media. The news was reported, but they are whining about it not being front page news. It isn't even only leftist media that ignored it initially as the most hits on right wing sites were also news regarding the NFL situation. Both on the MSM and online media so this rant is certainly disingenuous by the author.

The news cycle was dominated by Trump's spat with the NFL, Alabama GOP primary, and the North Korean situation. There was no space for it to be front page news.


----------



## Stinger Fan

FriedTofu said:


> This certainly feels like a "woe is me" situation to bitch about the 'MSM' or the leftist media. The news was reported, but they are whining about it not being front page news. It isn't even only leftist media that ignored it initially as the most hits on right wing sites were also news regarding the NFL situation. Both on the MSM and online media so this rant is certainly disingenuous by the author.
> 
> The news cycle was dominated by Trump's spat with the NFL, Alabama GOP primary, and the North Korean situation. There was no space for it to be front page news.


Well, if this was another Dylan Roof situation, do you think the media would have largely ignored it?


----------



## FriedTofu

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, if this was another Dylan Roof situation, do you think the media would have largely ignored it?


If Obama was openly attacking the NFL, then yeah.

Remember the author is accusing the MSM and leftist media for putting it in the back pages, yet seem to give a pass to other right-wing media for doing so as well because it plays to their narrative. It looks like a sly positioning of other more popular right-wing media has become part of the 'MSM' to discredit them to their readers.


----------



## amhlilhaus

draykorinee said:


> Trump has us debating kneeling protesters while North Korea are going
> 
> :Hall
> 
> To every empty threat he makes and he continues to fail to repeal obamacare.


Didnt know trump could wave a magic wand and repeal it. You must think republicans are like democrats, whod vote to elect satan if told too. Republicans, a lot of them just say stuff to get elected and have no problem with huge bloated government, and obamacare.

And whats trump to do with n korea? Attack preemptavely? Then youd be screaming about that.

Just relax, trump still has 7 more years, and youll live


----------



## Stinger Fan

FriedTofu said:


> If Obama was openly attacking the NFL, then yeah.
> 
> Remember the author is accusing the MSM and leftist media for putting it in the back pages, yet seem to give a pass to other right-wing media for doing so as well because it plays to their narrative. It looks like a sly positioning of other more popular right-wing media has become part of the 'MSM' to discredit them to their readers.


I don't buy that. Obama couldn't have been given more of a free pass if they tried. This is the same guy that was practically crapping on police officers while speaking at a funeral for... fallen police officers and the media basically didn't give a damn . 

Also, right wing media has been covering the story


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> This certainly feels like a "woe is me" situation to bitch about the 'MSM' or the leftist media. The news was reported, but they are whining about it not being front page news. It isn't even only leftist media that ignored it initially as the most hits on right wing sites were also news regarding the NFL situation. Both on the MSM and online media so this rant is certainly disingenuous by the author.
> 
> The news cycle was dominated by Trump's spat with the NFL, Alabama GOP primary, and the North Korean situation. There was no space for it to be front page news.


There wasn't even a WF thread about it!

This was on BBC and ITV news when I watched it, I'm not sure what they're wanting from the MSM?



amhlilhaus said:


> Didnt know trump could wave a magic wand and repeal it. You must think republicans are like democrats, whod vote to elect satan if told too. Republicans, a lot of them just say stuff to get elected and have no problem with huge bloated government, and obamacare.


Maybe he should stop trying to push shit through and come up with a decent repeal bill?



> And whats trump to do with n korea? Attack preemptavely? Then youd be screaming about that.


Tell that to Trump who said he would make them disappear if they said certain words. And yes, I would be peeved if he did a pre-emptive attack, that ain't the point though.


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> The point is is any news such as this regardless of what race the victims or perpetrators are should be reported on and taken seriously.


Which it did. Like everywhere. Other news also happened. Hilarious to say they compltely ignored it yet I can type in google and see every MSM source had a story on it. Woe is me indeed, mixed in with outright lies.



L-DOPA said:


> Yet this has been largely ignored by the left and the MSM and had I not been following Ben Shapiro, I would have never known that this had happened.


For real? Do you not watch the MSM?

BBC
Guardian 
Fox
NBC

Ad infinitum

And I can gaurantee you this was on the front page of the BBC, because I never delve in to the news section and I knew about this days ago, it was also on the 24 hour news for both BBC and SKY.

The more I search the more videos, sites and news I read about it. Sorry L-Dopa but you this is a swing and a miss.

The MSM mentioned it loads and Trump didn't, what is Trumps agenda?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Btw this headline news story supposedly buried by the MSM was a single person being killed.

One.

One person.

Do you have any idea how many people get shot in America each day?

85 according to wiki.

Should all 85 have been headline news?

Talk about grasping at straws.

Dylan Roof killed 9 for comparison.


----------



## FriedTofu

Stinger Fan said:


> I don't buy that. Obama couldn't have been given more of a free pass if they tried. This is the same guy that was practically crapping on police officers while speaking at a funeral for... fallen police officers and the media basically didn't give a damn .
> 
> Also, right wing media has been covering the story


Was Obama tweeting about it to the whole world?

Was it front page news on right wing media for days on days? The author is overreaching with his narrative like liberal snowflakes with their pet causes.



draykorinee said:


> There wasn't even a WF thread about it!
> 
> This was on BBC and ITV news when I watched it, I'm not sure what they're wanting from the MSM?


They want the MSM to be big brother. :troll


----------



## Draykorinee

Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw this headline news story supposedly buried by the MSM was a single person being killed.
> 
> One.
> 
> One person.
> 
> Do you have any idea how many people get shot in America each day?
> 
> 85 according to wiki.
> 
> Should all 85 have been headline news?
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws.
> 
> Dylan Roof killed 9 for comparison.


Yup, and of those 85 this is the ONLY one picked up by UK MSM, how's that for ignored.


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah "famous" for drawing a low-rent comic strip. He worked as a low-end office worker after originally being a bank teller but getting scared from being held up, then got a degree from...clown college. Very credible as a political commentator :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> I'm done now Oda, like I said to Beatles in another thread,* these people are actually beneath me.*


Oh how high and mighty you are! (I'm teasing you, also the second spot isn't about you, realized that you may think I was referring to you  )

It also doesn't surprise me the Church shooting isn't too big, the MSM kind of picks and chooses what it wants to talk about, will ignore a big story for a small one etc. 

This practice has been going on a while now.

What is amusing is the people who complain the MSM doesn't cover enough of what *they* feel is important and attack people who dislike the MSM's modus operandi and now defending it because it fits their agenda. 

I hope these posters never change, the self aggrandizement of their vitreous posts always makes me laugh.


----------



## Draykorinee

How big should the church shooting have been. I'm just wondering what magical metric people are using to judge it?

I mean, we know it's traveled around the world as a news story, which for a US shooting says a lot, is there anything in particular needed to make people happy?


----------



## Smarky Mark

The mainstream media has a huge, HUGE lefty bias. 

Even those that identify as liberals should be able to acknowledge that.


----------



## Draykorinee

Smarky Mark said:


> The mainstream media has a huge, HUGE lefty bias.
> 
> Even those that identify as liberals should be able to acknowledge that.


I don't know about huge huge but its certainly biased to left.

If you want right you have your choices still. 

Stil, if you're honestly interested in the MSM and you think they didn't cover this story, then you're actually not interested in the MSM, if a person says they only found out via Ben whatshisface then they're lying about being interested in the MSM.

Frankly the MSM in the UK is a horiffic scene, its probably one of the only ones where right wing rhetoric sells infinitely better than left. Sad. It still covered this shooting extensively.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> The mainstream media has a huge, HUGE lefty bias.
> 
> Even those that identify as liberals should be able to acknowledge that.


Right because Fox news is so lefty biased

So just curious, what is left biased when it comes to the news, care to give some examples


----------



## IDidPaige

Wow . . . reading some of these posts gives me the urge to scrub down with bleach and a Brillo pad in a scalding-hot shower.

Anyway, here's the New York Times' report on the Sudanese immigrant church shooter:










An attempted massacre at a place of worship earns you a spot on . . . page 14.

Liberals.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IDidPaige said:


> Wow . . . reading some of these posts gives me the urge to scrub down with bleach and a Brillo pad in a scalding-hot shower.
> 
> Anyway, here's the New York Times' report on the Sudanese immigrant church shooter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An attempted massacre at a place of worship earns you a spot on . . . page 14.
> 
> Liberals.


The US averages at least one mass shooting per day, so using your logic all of them should be front page news"? There has been 333 so far this year. How many of those made the front page? Its funny you only complain when its black person doing the shooting but the 90% of the other times when its a white person you dont give a shit


----------



## Vic Capri

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

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

The guys been in America since he was 4, he's 25. His place of origin is pretty irrelevant at this point because he's American, a highly educated American Christian. It wasn't race related. It wasn't religious. I'm not sure what narrative you guys on the right are trying to paint here?

We've already acknowledged every one of the MSM have fully reported this and of the hundreds of murders in the last few days in the US this is the only one getting worldwide coverage but you guys still aren't happy. Woe is me.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913086557715869696

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913135458040864768
I wish, Rand. :mj2


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913086557715869696
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913135458040864768
> I wish, Rand. :mj2


I don't know why they don't support this, it's like they want to support something they know isn't going to work with this shitty bill they keep trying to pass.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Right because Fox news is so lefty biased
> 
> So just curious, what is left biased when it comes to the news, care to give some examples


No offense but it's very telling that this has to be explained to you. This hasn't been a controversial opinion in a very long time. Most people are already aware of this.

There are three major broadcast networks (*CBS, NBC, ABC*) and all three favor left wing politics. All of their show hosts are democrats that peddle a liberal POV. 

There are three major cable news networks (Fox News, *CNN and MSNBC*) and two of them favor left wing politics. Again this has never been up for debate. Go watch all 3 channels right now and judge for yourself.

*Google*, ran and operated by leftists.

Google owns *Youtube* which also ran and operated by leftists. Clips of Colbert, Kimmel and John Oliver speaking ill of Trump are routinely advertised on the front page. You'll never see a conservative talking head like Tucker Carlson in that spot even though he averages more nightly viewers than all of them. They've also gone as far as demonetizing videos that spew conservative politics. Again if you do the slightest amount of research you will be able to see this for yourself.

*Facebook*, ran and operated by leftists. In fact there have been rumors of Zuckerberg actually making a presidential bid sometime in the future.

*Yahoo*, ran and operated by leftists. Go to their front page right now and look at the anti-Trump agenda. From misleading headlines to flooding the news section with links from BLATANTLY UNAPOLOGETIC liberal news sources like Huff Post.

I mean look at this. I just took this JUST NOW:











Tell me, can you spot the bias?


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> Which it did. Like everywhere. Other news also happened. Hilarious to say they compltely ignored it yet I can type in google and see every MSM source had a story on it. Woe is me indeed, mixed in with outright lies.
> 
> 
> 
> For real? Do you not watch the MSM?
> 
> BBC
> Guardian
> Fox
> NBC
> 
> Ad infinitum
> 
> And I can gaurantee you this was on the front page of the BBC, because I never delve in to the news section and I knew about this days ago, it was also on the 24 hour news for both BBC and SKY.
> 
> The more I search the more videos, sites and news I read about it. *Sorry L-Dopa but you this is a swing and a miss.
> *
> The MSM mentioned it loads and Trump didn't, what is Trumps agenda?


Yep it was, nothing else to add. I'll take the L gracefully and move on.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> The mainstream media has a huge, HUGE lefty bias.
> 
> Even those that identify as liberals should be able to acknowledge that.


In the USA definitely, though I see just as much from Fox as CNN here in the UK if I'm honest and I'd hardly call them "left." In the UK the media is the opposite and far more right wing, ranging from the quality right wing media like the Telegraph, through sensationalist made up crap like the Daily Fail and the Express (Daily Fail for old people.) Then you get to the pure trash like the Sun, again, massively right wing. The right wing press massively outnumbers the left here in the UK, and the BBC are the propaganda department of our nightmare right-wing government.

My big problem really is this ridiculous notion that "all progressives are bad" and "conservatives rule ok." If that was the case, none of us British people would have the right to vote. We wouldn't get paid vacations, maternity leave or even remotely have any sort of life/freedom at all - those are things we got from progressives. Conservatism has it's merits, but it's hardly the "be all and end all solution" unless you want mankind to stagnate holding onto past glories and ideals. Progression is how we evolve, it's how we improve, it's how things change (hence the name.) People seem to be under the mistaken impression that Conservatism is traditionally "for the people" it really isn't. 

The UK should be a great example of how sometimes right-wing politics and politicians are utterly useless. Theresa May and her government have been such a catastrophic disaster that any hope of a "positive" outcome from Brexit has long since dissipated and only the true delusional die-hards (usually Britain First nationalists, the EDL and their ilk) can think it's a "good idea" at this point. Funny thing about "being sick of the experts" is it means you're actually listening to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The experts have that name for a reason I guess, they've been vindicated many times over now. 

I guess really what I'm saying is; stop defining your opinions by left/right in absolutes. Frankly they're both as worthless and flawed as each other, despite their varying good points.


----------



## IDidPaige

birthday_massacre said:


> The US averages at least one mass shooting per day,


Doubtful, and if it does, the vast majority are domestic issues. What we're talking about is an attempted public massacre. This wasn't an ex-husband killing his ex-wife and his ex-inlaws. This wasn't a gangbanger going gangbanger. This was a black immigrant attempting the mass murder of whites.

This was terrorism.




birthday_massacre said:


> so using your logic all of them should be front page news"?


An attempted massacre at a church in which eight people were shot is front-page material. Terrorism always is.




birthday_massacre said:


> How many of those made the front page?


Any and all similar situations in recent history have been front-news, nationwide.

Not this, though. I wonder why the liberals at the fake news New York Times would push it to the near-irrelevancy of page 14? :hmmm




birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny you only complain when its black person doing the shooting but the 90% of the other times when its a white person you dont give a shit


I don't complain when attempted public massacres by whites don't make the front page, because *attempted public massacres by whites always make the front page*.

Duh.


----------



## Smarky Mark

I wasn't demonizing progressives, don't know where you got that from. 

I was just commenting on the MSM liberal bias here in the US.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> I wasn't demonizing progressives, don't know where you got that from.
> 
> I was just commenting on the MSM liberal bias here in the US.


You know Progressive is the opposite of Conservative right? All those "liberals" are progressives. I personally am not that left leaning, but I'm always "pro" progression, I'd rather not live in the past, all the older people I know told me how shit it was tbh.


----------



## Smarky Mark

RavishingRickRules said:


> You know Progressive is the opposite of Conservative right? All those "liberals" are progressives. I personally am not that left leaning, but I'm always "pro" progression, I'd rather not live in the past, all the older people I know told me how shit it was tbh.


Okay so how am I demonizing them? By pointing out that bias in the media?

What have I said that's negative?


----------



## birthday_massacre

IDidPaige said:


> Doubtful, and if it does, the vast majority are domestic issues. What we're talking about is an attempted public massacre. This wasn't an ex-husband killing his ex-wife and his ex-inlaws. This wasn't a gangbanger going gangbanger. This was a black immigrant attempting the mass murder of whites.
> 
> This was terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An attempted massacre at a church in which eight people were shot is front-page material. Terrorism always is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any and all similar situations in recent history have been front-news, nationwide.
> 
> Not this, though. I wonder why the liberals at the fake news New York Times would push it to the near-irrelevancy of page 14? :hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't complain when attempted public massacres by whites don't make the front page, because *attempted public massacres by whites always make the front page*.
> 
> Duh.


Keep ignoring the facts, its what you do best.

No similar situations don't make front page news all the time, again there is at least one mass shooting per day and they dont make the front page, just in the cases of huge ones where a number of people die.

The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Not even sure why you are putting a mass shooting post in the Trump thread.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring the facts, its what you do best.
> 
> No similar situations don't make front page news all the time, again there is at least one mass shooting per day and they dont make the front page, just in the cases of huge ones where a number of people die.
> 
> The only person you are fooling is yourself.
> 
> Not even sure why you are putting a mass shooting post in the Trump thread.


One mass shooting per day? Are you serious? LOL where are you getting these facts?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> One mass shooting per day? Are you serious? LOL where are you getting these facts?


A simple google search would have given you an answer.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/one-mass-shooting-happens-per-day-u-s-data-shows/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oting-per-day-in-2015/?utm_term=.21dd184c6ed6


----------



## Draykorinee

Terrorism? Based on what? Not the police because they're not saying it's terrorism. Must be made up terrorism.


----------



## FriedTofu

What is wrong with Alabama that keep getting Roy Moore into position of power? And now he is almost guaranteed a seat in the Senate. It's like watching America becoming more and more like democracy in a Muslim country with each passing year. :lol


----------



## T'Challa

birthday_massacre said:


> A simple google search would have given you an answer.
> 
> https://www.massshootingtracker.org
> 
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/one-mass-shooting-happens-per-day-u-s-data-shows/
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oting-per-day-in-2015/?utm_term=.21dd184c6ed6


You guys have tracking system for that damn that's sad.


----------



## IDidPaige

Smarky Mark said:


> One mass shooting per day? Are you serious? LOL where are you getting these facts?


birthday_massacre is unable to distinguish between domestic disputes and/or gang activity-based shootings, which are commonplace and typically only reported at a local level, and (attempted) public massacres, which are always front-page national news.

Well, they were until now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

IDidPaige said:


> Smarky Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> One mass shooting per day? Are you serious? LOL where are you getting these facts?
> 
> 
> 
> birthday_massacre is unable to distinguish between domestic disputes and/or gang activity-based shootings, which are commonplace and typically only reported at a local level, and (attempted) public massacres, which are always front-page national news.
> 
> Well, they were until now.
Click to expand...

1 death, while tragic, is not a massacre though.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Right because Fox news is so lefty biased
> 
> So just curious, what is left biased when it comes to the news, care to give some examples


Lets start with every survey the fucks vote democrat well over 90 percent.

Cant use facts with you, youre convinced trump colluded with russia


----------



## Draykorinee

amhlilhaus said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right because Fox news is so lefty biased
> 
> So just curious, what is left biased when it comes to the news, care to give some examples
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with every survey the fucks vote democrat well over 90 percent.
> 
> Cant use facts with you, youre convinced trump colluded with russia
Click to expand...

Is the first half of this in English?


----------



## IDidPaige

For those of you who think the media isn't bias, I present to you Crowdpac's research, originally reported by Business Insider:



> Here's Crowdpac's results showing the number of donors working in newspapers and print media falling in each ideology score. The blue bars to the left indicate people in each industry who are more liberal, and the red bars to the right show those who are more conservative:














> Liberal donors absolutely dominate conservative donors in the newspaper and print media industry. Crowdpac's data set, which includes donor records going back to 2004, includes 1,743 donors to the right of center, compared to 8,976 donors to the left of center. The liberal donors are also strongly concentrated on the far left of Crowdpac's spectrum.


Media organizations are overwhelmingly owned by leftists, and that creates a top-down atmosphere of liberal bias. Said liberal owners hire liberal management, who hire liberal journalists, who publish liberal junk.

If you're a liberal, chances are it's because you've been brainwashed to be a liberal by years of overwhelming liberal media.

Your views are not your own. Your views are simply regurgitations of the spoon-feedings the liberal media has given you over the years. You're basically a bunch parrots.

Do you understand how woke people, such as myself, would find you and "your" views nearly impossible to respect?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

IDidPaige said:


> Do you understand how woke people, such as myself, would find you and "your" views nearly impossible to respect?


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao no way did you legitimately say that and expect to be taken seriously. Next you'll tell us you believe the Rothschild conspiracy about "central banks" and all that nonsense too. (If you do btw, your opinions aren't your own, you've been brainwashed by idiotic conspiracy theorists into parroting anti-semitic bullshit  ) "Woke" :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

IDidPaige said:


> For those of you who think the media isn't bias, I present to you Crowdpac's research, originally reported by Business Insider:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Media organizations are overwhelmingly owned by leftists, and that creates a top-down atmosphere of liberal bias. Said liberal owners hire liberal management, who hire liberal journalists, who publish liberal junk.
> 
> If you're a liberal, chances are it's because you've been brainwashed to be a liberal by years of overwhelming liberal media.
> 
> Your views are not your own. Your views are simply regurgitations of the spoon-feedings the liberal media has given you over the years. You're basically a bunch parrots.
> 
> Do you understand how woke people, such as myself, would find you and "your" views nearly impossible to respect?


By brainwashed you mean educated.

The right is always so scared about education because it just shows how backwards the rights way of thinking is.

I always love the argument from people on the right, oh yeah people that go to college are indoctrinated. 

so tell me what are some examples of liberal brainwashing?

Is it that gays should be allowed marry people of the same gender?
is it that LGBT community should have the same rights as everyone else and not be discriminated against?
if it that the bible should be kept out of politics and public land?
Is it a woman should be able to control her own body with things like birth control or abortion?

I could go on and on.


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> By brainwashed you mean educated.
> 
> The right is always so scared about education because it just shows how backwards the rights way of thinking is.
> 
> I always love the argument from people on the right, oh yeah people that go to college are indoctrinated.
> 
> so tell me what are some examples of liberal brainwashing?
> 
> Is it that gays should be allowed marry people of the same gender?
> is it that LGBT community should have the same rights as everyone else and not be discriminated against?
> if it that the bible should be kept out of politics and public land?
> *Is it a woman should be able to control her own body with things like birth control or abortion?*
> I could go on and on.


Use a condom.


----------



## birthday_massacre

T'Challa said:


> You guys have tracking system for that damn that's sad.


No what is sad is all the shootings that go on in the US. But sure be more offended by the tracker.





IDidPaige said:


> birthday_massacre is unable to distinguish between domestic disputes and/or gang activity-based shootings, which are commonplace and typically only reported at a local level, and (attempted) public massacres, which are always front-page national news.
> 
> Well, they were until now.


a mass shooting is a mass shooting and that is a shooting in which 3 or more people are injured or killed in a single shooting. 

but sure try and weasel out of what is a mass shooting.




nyelator said:


> Use a condom.


Which conservatives are against. Conservatives are against birth control/contraception.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> No what is sad is all the shootings that go on in the US. But sure be more offended by the tracker.


I think that was actually his point tbh. Like "wow, how sad is it that this is such a common occurrences you actually have trackers for it." You know?


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> No what is sad is all the shootings that go on in the US. But sure be more offended by the tracker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mass shooting is a mass shooting and that is a shooting in which 3 or more people are injured or killed in a single shooting.
> 
> but sure try and weasel out of what is a mass shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which conservatives are against. Conservatives are against birth control/contraception.


Not all really very small percent anymore


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> I think that was actually his point tbh. Like "wow, how sad is it that this is such a common occurrences you actually have trackers for it." You know?


If that is how he meant it then I apologize. I read it as, oh how sad people waste their time tracking that to show gun violence.




nyelator said:


> Not all really very small percent anymore


yeah, that is why conservatives do everything they can do to shut down things like planned parenthood and women getting help receiving birth control right lol
conservatives don't even want birth control covered by medical insurance.


----------



## Draykorinee

Using the term woke should see you instantly on everyone's ignore list.

I'm not sure why people need to prove a liberal bias, the West is continuingly more liberal and that is the same for right and left leaning political parties, it's not exclusive to the left.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what is sad is all the shootings that go on in the US. But sure be more offended by the tracker.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was actually his point tbh. Like "wow, how sad is it that this is such a common occurrences you actually have trackers for it." You know?
Click to expand...

That's how I read it too.


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> If that is how he meant it then I apologize. I read it as, oh how sad people waste their time tracking that to show gun violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, that is why conservatives do everything they can do to shut down things like planned parenthood and women getting help receiving birth control right lol


Well nice job going away from the topic lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

nyelator said:


> Well nice job going away from the topic lol.


what topic are you referring to? we were discussing conservatives and conception.





draykorinee said:


> Using the term woke should see you instantly on everyone's ignore list.
> 
> I'm not sure why people need to prove a liberal bias, the West is continuingly more liberal and that is the same for right and left leaning political parties, it's not exclusive to the left.


its also funny to people like him, its when there is a conservative bias but when its liberal they all melt like a snowflake.


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> what topic are you referring to? we were discussing conservatives and conception.


Well I was saying use a condom I can run to CVS and get one right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

nyelator said:


> Well I was saying use a condom I can run to CVS and get one right now.


You are missing the point. Conservatives don't want to help women get contraception when they can't afford it or have trouble with getting access to it.

are you really going to deny that? Because you can simply google it and see that I am right.

You are the one trying to sidestep the point at hand, not me.


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> You are missing the point. Conservatives don't want to help women get contraception when they can't afford it or have trouble with getting access to it.
> 
> are you really going to deny that? Because you can simply google it and see that I am right.
> 
> You are the one trying to sidestep the point at hand, not me.


That would be a flaw with our party yes.(nor was I arguing that point)


----------



## birthday_massacre

nyelator said:


> That would be a flaw with our party yes.(nor was I arguing that point)


good you admit it, then we have nothing left to discuss.


----------



## nyelator

birthday_massacre said:


> good you admit it, then we have nothing left to discuss.


Actually you pointed out my three biggest issue with my party


----------



## IDidPaige

birthday_massacre said:


> a mass shooting is a mass shooting and that is a shooting in which 3 or more people are injured or killed in a single shooting.
> 
> but sure try and weasel out of what is a mass shooting.


Pay attention, dishonest child.

The question is why the terrorist incident at the church in Tennessee was pushed to the backburner, when similar incidents have been front-page news.

Your cheap excuse was that shootings happen every day, and those don't make the front page. I then corrected you by pointing out those are domestic disputes or gang-related, and rarely make the national news. The incident we saw in Tennessee was entirely different. This was an attempted public massacre. Those always made the front page, until now.

If simple conversation is too complex for you to follow along, you really have no business on this board. That's me putting it as politely as I can.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IDidPaige said:


> Pay attention, dishonest child.
> 
> The question is why the terrorist incident at the church in Tennessee was pushed to the backburner, when similar incidents have been front-page news.
> 
> Your cheap excuse was that shootings happen every day, and those don't make the front page. I then corrected you by pointing out those are domestic disputes or gang-related, and rarely make the national news. The incident we saw in Tennessee was entirely different. This was an attempted public massacre. Those always made the front page, until now.
> 
> If simple conversation is too complex for you to follow along, you really have no business on this board. That's me putting it as politely as I can.


The only person being dishonest here is you, you first said the media never covered it then you were given a bunch of examples of how it was covered. Now you are crying about something else. You have already been proven wrong about this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> No offense but it's very telling that this has to be explained to you. This hasn't been a controversial opinion in a very long time. Most people are already aware of this.
> 
> There are three major broadcast networks (*CBS, NBC, ABC*) and all three favor left wing politics. All of their show hosts are democrats that peddle a liberal POV.
> 
> There are three major cable news networks (Fox News, *CNN and MSNBC*) and two of them favor left wing politics. Again this has never been up for debate. Go watch all 3 channels right now and judge for yourself.
> 
> *Google*, ran and operated by leftists.
> 
> Google owns *Youtube* which also ran and operated by leftists. Clips of Colbert, Kimmel and John Oliver speaking ill of Trump are routinely advertised on the front page. You'll never see a conservative talking head like Tucker Carlson in that spot even though he averages more nightly viewers than all of them. They've also gone as far as demonetizing videos that spew conservative politics. Again if you do the slightest amount of research you will be able to see this for yourself.
> 
> *Facebook*, ran and operated by leftists. In fact there have been rumors of Zuckerberg actually making a presidential bid sometime in the future.
> 
> *Yahoo*, ran and operated by leftists. Go to their front page right now and look at the anti-Trump agenda. From misleading headlines to flooding the news section with links from BLATANTLY UNAPOLOGETIC liberal news sources like Huff Post.
> 
> I mean look at this. I just took this JUST NOW:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, can you spot the bias?


Again biased on what issues?

Give me the liberal issues you are mad about that the media agrees with.

is it that same-sex marriage is ok?
Should that LGBT not be allowed to be discriminated against?
is it that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to tell a woman what she can and can't-do with her body?

Bernie Sanders is the most liberal person in Congress and the media was totally against him.

The media isn't liberal they are establiment more than anything.


----------



## IDidPaige

birthday_massacre said:


> Is it a woman should be able to control her own body


A woman should be able to control her own body, on that we agree. Unfortunately, they can't, which is why we moral people have to do it for them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IDidPaige said:


> A woman should be able to control her own body, on that we agree. Unfortunately, they can't, which is why we moral people have to do it for them.


Moral based on what? the bible? you dont want to go there on that, you will lose.

And sorry to break it to but an embryo is not a life.


----------



## krtgolfing

birthday_massacre said:


> Moral based on what? the bible? you dont want to go there on that, you will lose.
> 
> And sorry to break it to but an embryo is not a life.


Have to agree with you on this one. Say a women is raped or having the birth will either the baby, the mother, or both? 

Don't even try to argue about how a girl has less than a 1% chance of getting pregnant due to stress. :gtfo


----------



## MrMister

IDidPaige said:


> *Pay attention, dishonest child.*
> 
> The question is why the terrorist incident at the church in Tennessee was pushed to the backburner, when similar incidents have been front-page news.
> 
> Your cheap excuse was that shootings happen every day, and those don't make the front page. I then corrected you by pointing out those are domestic disputes or gang-related, and rarely make the national news. The incident we saw in Tennessee was entirely different. This was an attempted public massacre. Those always made the front page, until now.
> 
> If simple conversation is too complex for you to follow along, you really have no business on this board. That's me putting it as politely as I can.


Keep the personal insults like the bolded out of your argument.


----------



## T'Challa

birthday_massacre said:


> No what is sad is all the shootings that go on in the US. But sure be more offended by the tracker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mass shooting is a mass shooting and that is a shooting in which 3 or more people are injured or killed in a single shooting.
> 
> but sure try and weasel out of what is a mass shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which conservatives are against. Conservatives are against birth control/contraception.


I didn't mean it like that it just ridiculous how casual something like this is for such an issue.


----------



## Arya Dark

:draper2


----------



## Warlock

AryaDark said:


> :draper2


:lmao

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RavishingRickRules

AryaDark said:


> :draper2


:applause 

that is outstanding :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

That story about Russian ads on Facebook makes sense now.

*#Collusion*

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I thought making ridiculous conspiracy theories about Russia was the realm of the left, no? :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> Using the term woke should see you instantly on everyone's ignore list.
> 
> I'm not sure why people need to prove a liberal bias, the West is continuingly more liberal and that is the same for right and left leaning political parties, it's not exclusive to the left.


I fucking hate the term "woke", I don't care who uses it, anybody. It's fucking stupid. I remember when the protests starting going on and everyone was like "I'm so woke".



RavishingRickRules said:


> I thought making ridiculous conspiracy theories about Russia was the realm of the left, no? :lmao :lmao :lmao



Russia is one of the boogeymen used nowadays. Granted when people talk about Clinton and shady shit with Russia she did deal with them. Tho now the American "Left" has a bug up their ass about Russia, if it spreads to the American Right then I'm almost certain it's not a conspiracy but a disease!


----------



## DOPA

This is an important video:


----------



## Draykorinee

Its probably not important to people in here because I think (or hope) we're all on board with Antifa being scumbags. I can't stand that presenters voice mind, I tried to watch the whole video but it only confirmed what we already knew. Not saying it isn't important for others mind.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Speaking of Fascism, the Trump administration is violating the privacy of any American on Facebook that's lead or participated in any kind of protest against him: 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/polit...-anti-administration-activists1101PMStoryLink

I also certainly hope the conservatives in here aren't sweeping Jared and Ivanka's personal email use under the rug after coming for Hillary :mj 

http://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trum...vate-email-domains-under-investigation-674102*


----------



## Crasp

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> 
> I also certainly hope the conservatives in here aren't sweeping Jared and Ivanka's personal email use under the rug after coming for Hillary :mj
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trum...vate-email-domains-under-investigation-674102*


Everyone seems _oddly_ quiet about that don't they?

:hmm


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Crasp said:


> Everyone seems _oddly_ quiet about that don't they?
> 
> :hmm


*It really is odd. We had to hear for a year what a threat to national security Hillary was because of it, making her completely unfit to be president, but there seems to be no outrage when it's Trump's children doing the same thing :hmm. Why do you think this is, Crasp?*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Legit BOSS said:


> *It really is odd. We had to hear for a year what a threat to national security Hillary was because of it, making her completely unfit to be president, but there seems to be no outrage when it's Trump's children doing the same thing :hmm. Why do you think this is, Crasp?*


Well, let's be fair here, most of the weight behind the Conservative clique comes from Reaper and DesolationRow, both of whom are absent. The others do better when they're riding the coat tails of those two


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I'm fairly certain many are just waiting for more facts to come out before responding to it.


----------



## Draykorinee

People using personal emails for official uses is always front page news and now it's not? The MSM is so biased.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm fairly certain many are just waiting for more facts to come out before responding to it.


Waiting for facts, like when Trump had the mother load lol. No one waits for facts in this day and age and Trump didn't bother during the election campaign.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> *It really is odd. We had to hear for a year what a threat to national security Hillary was because of it, making her completely unfit to be president, but there seems to be no outrage when it's Trump's children doing the same thing :hmm. Why do you think this is, Crasp?*


Are you really surprised at the hypocrisy of Trump supporters anymore?





Miss Sally said:


> I fucking hate the term "woke", I don't care who uses it, anybody. It's fucking stupid. I remember when the protests starting going on and everyone was like "I'm so woke".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is one of the boogeymen used nowadays. Granted when people talk about Clinton and shady shit with Russia she did deal with them. Tho now the American "Left" has a bug up their ass about Russia, if it spreads to the American Right then I'm almost certain it's not a conspiracy but a disease!


Trump, his admin, and campaign all have ties to Russia, its laughable people even try to pretend there isn't any with all the evidence that supports it. You have to go out of your way to ignore it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oh look, people who don't know what fascism or dictatorship actually is, speaking about fascism and dictatorship :lol . There's little information being given, how do people honestly expect to give any form of opinion on it? There's nothing on those activists and what they did or were planning to do for the Trump administration to go after them over . Lol The only real hypocrisy is people being quiet about Obama's illegal surveillance and actually spying on Trump :lol


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> Waiting for facts, like when Trump had the mother load lol. No one waits for facts in this day and age and Trump didn't bother during the election campaign.


You don't have to tell me about nobody waiting for facts. Is there any wonder we're in the state we're in? For some reason, people seem to think that being first is better than being right. I don't get my cues from Trump, or anyone like him, who choose to form opinions before the facts are presented. Only fools do that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You don't have to tell me about nobody waiting for facts. Is there any wonder we're in the state we're in? For some reason, people seem to think that being first is better than being right. I don't get my cues from Trump, or anyone like him, who choose to form opinions before the facts are presented. Only fools do that.


the worst part is when front page news is wrong, the retraction is always buried somewhere that no one ever sees it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*So back to the fascist Trump dictatorship-schools are now trying to illegally force nationalist propaganda on student athletes: *

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913420254394634240


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> *So back to the fascist Trump dictatorship-schools are now trying to illegally force nationalist propaganda on student athletes: *
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913420254394634240


Trump is turning the US into N. Korea.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> the worst part is when front page news is wrong, the retraction is always buried somewhere that no one ever sees it.


That is why it's imperative that you don't believe what you're reading is the truth. You have to look for the slant words, I don't mean literally slanted words, I mean words that clue you into whether you need to search for the actual truth. Words like "possible", "might", "unconfirmed", etc. etc. You see those types of words, buzzing should be going off in your head telling you that what you're reading is an opinion and not a fact.

Anyways...I rarely take anything at fact value, and while that happens rarely, it never happens when I read articles from ANY news outlet, but that's just me.

I don't worry about retractions, because if I care enough about the topic, I have already figured out the truth behind whatever it is they're retracting.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is turning the US into N. Korea.


You should go and visit NK. Get a good idea on whether that's true or not. Interested? I'll pay for your flight. Dead serious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You should go and visit NK. Get a good idea on whether that's true or not. Interested? I'll pay for your flight. Dead serious.


Trump wants forced patriotism, and force patriotism is the kind of thing N. Korea does. 

Does it not?

Yes or not.


----------



## MrMister

Making anyone stand for a national anthem OR ELSE is total bullshit. Rage levels rising.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Making anyone stand for a national anthem OR ELSE is total bullshit. Rage levels rising.


its ironic how some of the same people that call liberals snowflakes are the same ones who are losing their minds when people protest and don't stand for the national anthem.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Are the Trump supporters going to support him on this one for real though? That is literally nationalism, not patriotism. Is the echo chamber really that strong?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

MrMister said:


> Making anyone stand for a national anthem OR ELSE is total bullshit. Rage levels rising.


*They failed though :curry*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913809426569719809


----------



## krai999

Who cares about this situation really it's just people expressing meh feelings. A #awholenothingburger. The executive isn't gonna get practically involved due to the judicial system. Trump isn't stupid enough to attempt to do anything all he could do is express meh feelings on twitter . All this drama is just pandering to his base


----------



## Draykorinee

Regardless of how ridiculous the situation seems it's not just pandering to his base, it's creating division and stirring up ill will on both sides. This has blown up way more than it ever should have. Trump must foot most of the blame.


----------



## Kabraxal

Gov't force to ensure "patriotism" is utterly wrong. Few here have argued for judicial interference and anyone that does... well fuck them. Including Trump.

As for tge email issue... can we just lock up every politician that does this? An empty DC would be wonderful.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump wants forced patriotism, and force patriotism is the kind of thing N. Korea does.
> 
> Does it not?
> 
> Yes or not.


I take that as you don't want to go.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I take that as you don't want to go.


Do you really think you're "winning" that exchange somehow with that deflection? You're weakening your position not strengthening it. Best send a PM to your Conservative buddies to come save you, you're being humiliated by BM of all people. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

draykorinee said:


> Regardless of how ridiculous the situation seems it's not just pandering to his base, it's creating division and stirring up ill will on both sides. This has blown up way more than it ever should have. Trump must foot most of the blame.


I'm all for the Lawyer's Committee fighting this. I wonder if they'll also fight that football coaches dismissal for praying after games. The school told him not to do it, after all.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Do you really think you're "winning" that exchange somehow with that deflection? You're weakening your position not strengthening it. Best send a PM to your Conservative buddies to come save you, you're being humiliated by BM of all people. :lmao :lmao :lmao


Let me get this straight, BM is saying "Trump is literally making the US North Korea, guyz!!!" And I'm weakening my position? That's funny. I wasn't aware that comment was meant to be taken seriously.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Let me get this straight, BM is saying "Trump is literally making the US North Korea, guyz!!!" And I'm weakening my position? That's funny. I wasn't aware that comment was meant to be taken seriously.


No, you're deflecting from the FACT that Trump is advocating nationalism/forced patriotism with straw man arguments and idiotic tangents because you're not the political heavyweight you and many others like to think you are in this thread. Stop deflecting and just admit where you stand on the subject, if you aren't against Trump on this, you're a nationalist. That's fine if that's what you are, but cut out the pathetic cowardice and idiotic tangents to try and make yourself seem superior. You're failing miserably.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RavishingRickRules said:


> No, you're deflecting from the FACT that Trump is advocating nationalism/forced patriotism with straw man arguments and idiotic tangents because you're not the political heavyweight you and many others like to think you are in this thread. Stop deflecting and just admit where you stand on the subject, if you aren't against Trump on this, you're a nationalist. That's fine if that's what you are, but cut out the pathetic cowardice and idiotic tangents to try and make yourself seem superior. You're failing miserably.


LOL, you're acting like my response was to you. My response was to BM and his hyperbole-iffic comparison to North Korea. I already made a comment about the issue, agreeing with the Lawyer's Committee filing suit against the HS, but don't let get mess up your attack on me. I'm a far-right, Trump supporting, Nationalist, white supremacist apologist. Oh, and I'm a white, straight, male. So, go on and prejudice against me. I don't mind. I'm white and privileged. I can handle it.


----------



## MrMister

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I'm all for the Lawyer's Committee fighting this. I wonder if they'll also fight that football coaches dismissal for praying after games. The school told him not to do it, after all.


Someone losing their job for praying after a GAME is awful and has to be unlawful. And I can't stand religion, but the 1st Amendment is more important than my stance on religion.


----------



## Stephen90

Don't worry @TheNightmanCometh I'm sure when @Reaper comes back he'll debate for you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TheNightmanCometh said:


> LOL, you're acting like my response was to you. My response was to BM and his hyperbole-iffic comparison to North Korea. I already made a comment about the issue, agreeing with the Lawyer's Committee filing suit against the HS, but don't let get mess up your attack on me. I'm a far-right, Trump supporting, Nationalist, white supremacist apologist. Oh, and I'm a white, straight, male. So, go on and prejudice against me. I don't mind. I'm white and privileged. I can handle it.


Good glad you admitted you're a racist. It's not an attack, it's just stating a fact that you just admitted. You're a white supremacist. I don't know why you think that's a victory, but at least now people are 100% aware of who and what they're dealing with. Good job.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

MrMister said:


> Someone losing their job for praying after a GAME is awful and has to be unlawful. And I can't stand religion, but the 1st Amendment is more important than my stance on religion.


Like I said, I agree with it being fought in court. I also agree that a coach has a right to pray after a game. I think both are First Amendment protected rights.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Good glad you admitted you're a racist. It's not an attack, it's just stating a fact that you just admitted. You're a white supremacist. I don't know why you think that's a victory, but at least now people are 100% aware of who and what they're dealing with. Good job.


Please stop, you're inability to recognize sarcasm is giving me a headache.



Stephen90 said:


> Don't worry @TheNightmanCometh I'm sure when @Reaper comes back he'll debate for you.


Don't worry, I'm sure this comment will get plenty of likes by BM, LB, and all the other posters that think just like you.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Trump is turning the US into N. Korea.


Not even close. :lol

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

I was under the impression that TheNightmanCometh was being sarcastic about all that because people ITT are jumping to conclusions about who and what he is. 

Might be wrong.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

@TheNightmanCometh

Please use multi-quote, man.

Funnily enough, I merged two of your posts and out popped a third one after I merged 'em. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

RavishingRickRules said:


> Are the Trump supporters going to support him on this one for real though? That is literally nationalism, not patriotism. Is the echo chamber really that strong?


Of course they will they're only for the first amendment rights when favors them. It's ok for Ted Nugent to threaten to assassination on Obama. But it's wrong for Kathy Griffin to hold up a Trump head. Celebrities have no business talking politics unless you're Kid Rock.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

MrMister said:


> I was under the impression that TheNightmanCometh was being sarcastic about all that because people ITT are jumping to conclusions about who and what he is.
> 
> Might be wrong.


No, you're definitely right. It's good to see that someone isn't locked into looking for their confirmation bias, so much so that they have forgotten to recognize sarcasm.



Oda Nobunaga said:


> @TheNightmanCometh
> 
> Please use multi-quote, man.
> 
> Funnily enough, I merged two of your posts and out popped a third one after I merged 'em. :lol


Haven't taken the time to learn how to do that, lol.

EDIT: This was a dirty merger job.



> Of course they will they're only for the first amendment rights when favors them. It's ok for Ted Nugent to threaten to assassination on Obama. But it's wrong for Kathy Griffin to hold up a Trump head. Celebrities have no business talking politics unless you're Kid Rock.


 @Stephen90, Which parties fought to take away Kathy Griffin's 1st Amendment rights? Or, is saying she should sit down and shut up the same as taking away a person's rights? Did you not think Nugent should have sat down and shut up after saying what he said about Obama? At least be ideologically consistent.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Not even close. :lol
> 
> - Vic


He really wants to be trying to make people stand for the national anthem.



> @Stephen90, Which parties fought to take away Kathy Griffin's 1st Amendment rights? Or, is saying she should sit down and shut up the same as taking away a person's rights? Did you not think Nugent should have sat down and shut up after saying what he said about Obama? At least be ideologically consistent.


I actually think they were both stupid but I didn't defend Griffin unlike republicans did with Nugent. Saying it was the first amendment. I mean Griffin was the first amendment as well. But yet Trump supporters wanted her locked up. Isn't that right @TheNightmanCometh?


----------



## virus21

> Former first lady Michelle Obama questioned the decisions of women who did not cast a ballot for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, saying on Wednesday in Boston that they "voted against their own voice."
> The comment came as Obama discussed her process for writing the book she’s working on during a question and answer session at Inbound, a marketing and sales conference. Obama was a keynote speaker at the event.
> As Obama told the crowd that as she was working on her book, she reflected on why she was successful. She said success came because she stayed true to her “authentic self,” but feels that not everyone does the same, and used the recent election as an example.
> “Quite frankly, we saw this in this election. As far as I’m concerned, any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," Obama said.
> "What does it mean for us, as women, that we look at those two candidates… and many of us said, 'That guy? He's better for me. His voice is more true to me.' Well, to me that just says, you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like," she added, referring to President Trump.
> Obama campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, famously saying of Clinton’s critics, “When they go low, we go high.” Since leaving the White House, however, the Obamas have kept a relatively low profile in politics.
> Obama did say today that despite her opposition to Trump's candidacy, she is hoping for the best from his administration.
> “We want the sitting president to be successful, because we live in this country," said Obama. "He is our commander-in-chief. He was voted in. We may not like it, but it happened.”


http://archive.is/W3P3m#selection-2111.1-2155.181


----------



## stevefox1200

Back tracing facebook ads has revealed that Russian state backed groups were investing in BLM, Trump, pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, Johnson and Stein ads

these ads were largely targeted to the opposition to encourage radicalization 

Facebook also revealed that paid trolls operating under Moscow time were not just far right but also far left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

A book written by hardcore Putin supporter Aleksandr Dugin who has a habit of popping up in Russian backed populist revolutions has a guide to destabilizing western society 

"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics." 

watch your asses and make sure while you that your cause won't play into someones hands


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> Back tracing facebook ads has revealed that Russian state backed groups were investing in BLM, Trump, pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, Johnson and Stein ads
> 
> these ads were largely targeted to the opposition to encourage radicalization
> 
> Facebook also revealed that paid trolls operating under Moscow time were not just far right but also far left
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
> 
> A book written by hardcore Putin supporter Aleksandr Dugin who has a habit of popping up in Russian backed populist revolutions has a guide to destabilizing western society
> 
> "Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
> 
> watch your asses and make sure while you that your cause won't play into someones hands


HAHAHA, all this time people thought Trump was playing 44-D chess, when it was actually Putin, and boy have the Ruskies been successful.


----------



## MrMister

Really don't buy that bullshit. Russia is taking credit for our discontent? lolol fuck off ya shell gaming motherfuckers


----------



## stevefox1200

MrMister said:


> Really don't buy that bullshit. Russia is taking credit for our discontent? lolol fuck off ya shell gaming motherfuckers


That's the genius of it, they are not taking credit they are merely playing off it 

Lets say you are on facebook, facebook has targeted ads

They see that you are right wing for example and the Russian's ads have right wing tags but the ad itself us left wing, usually far left, its goal is piss you off and make you raise your passion to match this ad

Left wing people get ads about how Muslims are evil and right wings get ads calling for gun removal, it makes you think that the opposition is THAT serious that you need to get serious in response 

Russian organizations are funding both pro and anti BLM ads 

https://www.cnet.com/news/russian-linked-twitter-accounts-stoked-nfl-anthem-debate/

A chunk of the football protest twitter posts on both sides are being botted by Russian IPs

It could be something serious police shootings or something stupid like ice cream flavors, it doesn't matter as long as it makes you think the other side is not only wrong but is massive and out to get you


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> Are the Trump supporters going to support him on this one for real though? That is literally nationalism, not patriotism. Is the echo chamber really that strong?


Nobody should be forced to stand during the anthem. This is beyond Nationalist and is quite silly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I take that as you don't want to go.


Nice deflection and of course you didn't answer my question but we all know the answer to it.





MrMister said:


> I was under the impression that TheNightmanCometh was being sarcastic about all that because people ITT are jumping to conclusions about who and what he is.
> 
> Might be wrong.


going by his post history, its easy to not take it as sarcasm. He just pretends it is sarcasm to hide behind his true feelings.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Tom Price resigned. :trumpout


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection and of course you didn't answer my question but we all know the answer to it.


It's so obvious Trump wants a dictatorship. Trump actually sued the onion. But yet everyone is a snowflake who doesn't support him.
￦https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-letter-the-onion-parody-website-remember-7629421


----------



## Crasp

THE RETURN OF THE SHIV said:


> Tom Price resigned. :trumpout


Don't you mean "_resigned_"?


----------



## krai999

draykorinee said:


> Regardless of how ridiculous the situation seems it's not just pandering to his base, it's creating division and stirring up ill will on both sides. This has blown up way more than it ever should have. Trump must foot most of the blame.


^


----------



## Vic Capri

> He really wants to be trying to make people stand for the national anthem.







"Oppressed" people here wouldn't last 3 days there.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> Regardless of how ridiculous the situation seems it's not just pandering to his base, it's creating division and stirring up ill will on both sides. This has blown up way more than it ever should have. Trump must foot most of the blame.


I can agree with this, if Trump wanted to point something out he could have pointed out that Berkeley University was fucking around with speakers they don't like and trying to quash Free Speech while accepting Federal Funds.

Now that right there is something that should be pointed out, Colleges shouldn't be safe spaces for one side of the spectrum and it's rhetoric. Free Speech is good for everyone.

This "Take a knee" controversy is stupid, unlike a University trying to quash Free Speech, these players were peaceful, mostly respectful to those around them and not causing any harm or infringing on anyone's rights.


----------



## GothicBohemian

@stevefox1200

I tend to believe it too. Russia, or anyone else, poking multiple sides to stir up debate is entirely plausible. I've seen this kind of action proposed in activist circles so I've no trouble picturing better trained and organized operatives utilizing such a simple and potentially effective tactic. 

The misinformation and propaganda that spreads via social media is one of the reasons I'm not a fan. I've made such little use of Twitter that my five year old account has zero tweets. And yet, now I'm kinda tempted to use it more or see if my old Facebook account still lives just to go looking for what, if any, targeted triggers show up in my feed. That could be entertaining.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> "Oppressed" people here wouldn't last 3 days there.
> 
> - Vic


The kind of country Trump wants.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Miss Sally said:


> I can agree with this, if Trump wanted to point something out he could have pointed out that Berkeley University was fucking around with speakers they don't like and trying to quash the Free Speech while accepting Federal Funds.
> 
> Now that right there is something that should be pointed out, Colleges shouldn't be safe spaces for one side of the spectrum and it's rhetoric. Free Speech is good for everyone.
> 
> This "Take a knee" thing is stupid, unlike a University trying to quash Free Speech, these players were peaceful, mostly respectful to those around them and not causing any harm or infringing on anyone's rights.


Personally, I think Trump picks up on issues and picks the side that the majority of people are on. The majority of people think the statues should stay, which side was he on? The majority of people think athletes should stand, which side is he on? The majority of people want jobs, which side is he on? The majority of people want illegal immigration controlled, which side is he on? The majority of people dislike the media, which side is he on? The majority of people dislike politicians, which side is he on? Run down the list, and he argues for what the majority of people want.

I honestly have no idea if he believes all of them, like the majority does, or if he's just pandering.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> It's so obvious Trump wants a dictatorship. Trump actually sued the onion. But yet everyone is a snowflake who doesn't support him.
> ￦https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-letter-the-onion-parody-website-remember-7629421


You sound like a nutso-Republican, circa 2015. LOL


----------



## birthday_massacre

THE RETURN OF THE SHIV said:


> Tom Price resigned. :trumpout


This comes to mind










This is Trump fighting for LBGT rights

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-fired-being-gay-lgbt-issues-jeff-sessions-673398

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SAYS EMPLOYERS CAN FIRE PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY

Why does President Donald Trump care about what gay people do in the bedroom?

The question came up this week, when a lawyer for Trump's Department of Justice argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBTQ Americans from being fired because of their sexual orientation—a complete reversal of the government's position on such matters under previous presidents.

The Justice Department argument Tuesday, before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, came in the case of Donald Zarda who claims he was fired by his company, Altitude Express, for being gay.

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

Related: Here's How Donald Trump Could Actually Be Impeached

The agency inserted itself, even though the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had already sided with Zarda, arguing that LGBTQ employees are protected by Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights law.

That made the hearing odd, to say the least.

"It’s a little bit awkward for us to have the federal government on both sides of the case," observed Judge Rosemary Pooler at one point in the oral arguments.

But Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan pressed on anyway, opposing the EEOC, which was still run by an Obama administration holdover when the case first reached the court.

"Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees' out-of-work sexual conduct," Mooppan told the judges. "There is a common sense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation."

The lawyer for Zarda's side disagreed in the most basic terms.

"(It's) as conservative as it could possibly get: if having sex with a man is okay for a woman, it has to be okay for a man as well," Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal, tells Newsweek. "You cannot apply a different rule based on gender, according to the law. Apparently, that wasn’t conservative enough for the DOJ."

RTX35Y5S
The Department of Justice has repeatedly railed against LGBTQ protections in multiple high-profile cases under Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
REUTERS

The Justice Department argument reflects a "significant undermining of the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality," Nevins added.

The arguments came as the full 13-judge Second Circuit reviews an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel in favor of Zarda's former employer. They also came after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that people can't be fired because they engage in gay sex.

But the law has been interpreted to include protections for sexual orientation for decades, after multiple lower level district courts concluded beginning in 2002 that employees could not be fired simply for being gay. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in April that Title VII does in fact cover sexual orientation, noting that any other interpretation of the law would be “confusing and contradictory.”

It’s not the first time the Trump administration has moved to shred protections for gays.

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the department has filed multiple amicus briefs arguing against LGBTQ protections, including one for the upcoming high-profile Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Earlier this month, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall defended Colorado baker Jack Philips, who was found guilty of violating the state's Anti-Discrimination Act when he refused to make a wedding cake for two men who were getting married even though he routinely makes such cakes for straight couples.

Philips argued his case on First Amendment grounds: as an artist and a Christian, he should not be forced to create a work of art that violates his beliefs. Defying lower courts, the Trump administration agreed.

"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," Wall wrote in a brief earlier this month. 

Taken together, the Zarda and Masterpiece cases suggest to legal experts that the Trump administration is willfully targeting the gay community.

"It's nothing short of shocking," Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Washington Post. The administration, she said, "has already made its hostility" toward the LGBTQ community abundantly clear.

Nevins thinks he knows why—it's good politics for Trump.

"Trump touted his pro-LGBTQ credentials last year [but] one thing that’s preserved what’s left of his approval rating is that there are people who are happy with his administration fighting the good fight for them," he says. "It’s going to play well for them, even if the DOJ is weighing in on losing sides and their arguments are contrary to even conservative notions."


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You sound like a nutso-Republican, circa 2015. LOL


It's not like he demanded the NFL players to be fired for not standing for the national anthem.:toomanykobes


----------



## FriedTofu

I await the thoughtful input on the proposed tax reform by the white house after more facts are out *on both sides*. :troll


----------



## MrMister

stevefox1200 said:


> That's the genius of it, they are not taking credit they are merely playing off it
> 
> Lets say you are on facebook, facebook has targeted ads
> 
> They see that you are right wing for example and the Russian's ads have right wing tags but the ad itself us left wing, usually far left, its goal is piss you off and make you raise your passion to match this ad
> 
> Left wing people get ads about how Muslims are evil and right wings get ads calling for gun removal, it makes you think that the opposition is THAT serious that you need to get serious in response
> 
> Russian organizations are funding both pro and anti BLM ads
> 
> https://www.cnet.com/news/russian-linked-twitter-accounts-stoked-nfl-anthem-debate/
> 
> A chunk of the football protest twitter posts on both sides are being botted by Russian IPs
> 
> It could be something serious police shootings or something stupid like ice cream flavors, it doesn't matter as long as it makes you think the other side is not only wrong but is massive and out to get you


that's not what i read though.



> introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity


get fucked with your propaganda Ivan. we're raging on each other just fine without you. we do this shit to ourselves. we fan the flames ourselves.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> It's not like he demanded the NFL players to be fired for not standing for the national anthem.:toomanykobes


Until he tries passing a law or signing an executive order, I could care less what he thinks about NFL players standing, sitting, or whatever other options they have. It's all just talk. I'm sorry you get so triggered by what he says like he's gonna send the Gestapo to your door step at any moment. Man, that must really be a tiring way to live. I pity you.


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Nobody should be forced to stand during the anthem. This is beyond Nationalist and is quite silly.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/21561/you-dont-have-stand-trump-or-kneel-kaepernick-ben-shapiro#

Shapiro nailed this. I also am curious...with as tribal as politics seem to be these days...how many of these folks that are cheering for what Trump is saying would have told Obama or Hillary to stay in their lane if they said something like Trump has been Tweeting the last few days? 

This country was founded on protest, otherwise most likely we'd still be subjects of the Crown. 





THE RETURN OF THE SHIV said:


> Tom Price resigned. :trumpout


Also have to wonder here...would Trump have excused the flights on the taxpayer dollars if the man he said was going to be the architect to end Obamacare had actually made it happen? Sounds to me like if you get results for the boss you can do what you want. If not, then that is pretty expensive for failure.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Acting Homeland Secretary Elaine Duke.






San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz's response.






What a dumb thing to say. Anyone with half a brain would know not to use the words "good news story" in any context related to a disaster of this magnitude.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Until he tries passing a law or signing an executive order, I could care less what he thinks about NFL players standing, sitting, or whatever other options they have. It's all just talk. I'm sorry you get so triggered by what he says like he's gonna send the Gestapo to your door step at any moment. Man, that must really be a tiring way to live. I pity you.


Nice way to backtrack out of it. A Trump supporter should never call someone especially since Trump sued the onion.
https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-letter-the-onion-parody-website-remember-7629421


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Nice way to backtrack out of it. A Trump supporter should never call someone especially since Trump sued the onion.
> https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-letter-the-onion-parody-website-remember-7629421


LOL, just because you say it's backtracking doesn't mean it actually is. You're as bad as BM when it comes to comprehension. I'm really not going to get stuck in a debate with you. You hear what you want to hear, no matter how insane the conclusion is that you come to, but, by all means, remain in your crazy thought bubble, and continue your feeble attempt to contort who I actually am into who you want me to be, all so you can make your thoughts more palatable.

Seriously, though. I do feel sorry for you. Would you like a hug?


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> LOL, just because you say it's backtracking doesn't mean it actually is. You're as bad as BM when it comes to comprehension. I'm really not going to get stuck in a debate with you. You hear what you want to hear, no matter how insane the conclusion is that you come to, but, by all means, remain in your crazy thought bubble, and continue your feeble attempt to contort who I actually am into who you want me to be, all so you can make your thoughts more palatable.
> 
> Seriously, though. I do feel sorry for you. Would you like a hug?


Again you're backtracking and trying to save face.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Again you're backtracking *and trying to save face.*


To whom? LOL, none of your elk are going to change your minds, and anyone who thinks like me isn't going to change their minds either. So, again, to whom am I trying to save face?

Spend less time thinking you're clever, and more time comprehending, not only what I'm saying, but what you're saying.

That hug is still on the table if you want it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> LOL, just because you say it's backtracking doesn't mean it actually is. *You're as bad as BM when it comes to comprehension.* I'm really not going to get stuck in a debate with you. You hear what you want to hear, no matter how insane the conclusion is that you come to, but, by all means, remain in your crazy thought bubble, and continue your feeble attempt to contort who I actually am into who you want me to be, all so you can make your thoughts more palatable.
> 
> Seriously, though. I do feel sorry for you. Would you like a hug?


This has become a pattern with you, its ironic that everyone that exposes you has a comprehension problem, this is like the 4th person you have said this to when we back you into a corner and you cant defend you position.

The only person you are fooling is yourself, and you keep proving how clueless you are when reaper is not here to fight your battles for you


----------



## DOPA

With all the talk about the NFL kneeling, this went completely under the radar. I've not seen anyone post this yet and it's pretty big news if it gets put through:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-plans-executive-order-allowing-people-to-buy



> President Trump on Wednesday said he is considering an executive order to allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
> 
> Trump told reporters at the White House that he plans to issue a “very major" executive order, probably next week, "where people can go out across state lines, do lots of things, and buy their own health care.”
> 
> Trump said the order is “being finished now. It's going to cover a lot of territory and a lot of people — millions of people.”
> 
> Selling insurance across state lines is an idea Republicans have long backed. They say competition will help drive down prices.
> 
> Experts said it’s not clear what an executive order on selling insurance plans across state lines would do.
> 
> Under ObamaCare, states are already allowed to let insurers sell plans outside their borders. No states have chosen to do so.
> 
> The executive order could also be portrayed as contrary to the Republican pledge of returning health care power to the states, which was the main argument behind the multiple ObamaCare repeal attempts.
> 
> “To do anything from a federal level would usurp states’ ability” to regulate their own insurance markets, said Christopher Holt, director of health care policy at the right-leaning American Action Forum.
> 
> The idea is to make insurance more competitive by eliminating the barriers associated with state insurance regulation. Insurers would be able to offer national plans with lower administrative costs.
> 
> The insurance industry has never fully supported the idea.
> 
> “We want to find solutions that deliver more choices, more competition, and lower costs. We will be looking forward to the details of what specifically will be proposed,” a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans said in a statement to The Hill. “While cross-state selling has been offered as a solution” there are challenges “that need to be addressed for it to be a viable solution.”
> 
> Trump in his comments also insisted that Republicans *"have the votes" to repeal ObamaCare but said they could not move ahead now because a senator is in the hospital. He predicted a vote will happen early next year.*
> 
> In the meantime, *he said he would work with Democrats on a bipartisan health bill.*
> 
> Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Health Committee, are looking to restart bipartisan talks on an ObamaCare stabilization bill.
> 
> Trump also said he’s looking at an executive order on “associations.”
> 
> *“I am considering an executive order on associations, and that will take care of a tremendous number of people with regard to health care,” Trump said.*
> 
> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been championing the idea of allowing organizations, such as trade groups, to band together to buy insurance.
> 
> Paul has said he expects the executive order would loosen restrictions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which lets companies purchase insurance across state lines for their employees.
> 
> Paul has advocated letting individuals form associations to do the same thing.
> 
> The Employee Retirement Income Security Act "operates across state lines, but doesn’t apply to most associations right now,” a Paul aide told The Hill. “We have been pushing to remove regulations that prevent associations plans from forming under [the act].”


There's a lot to unpack here: first of all, great news about a potential executive order to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. Let's hope this gets put on the table soon but I'll still take this with a little grain of salt. Secondly, the look into an executive order on voluntary associations is an incredibly surprising move. It seems as though Trump is considering some of Rand Paul's ideas which he has put on the table for months. Perhaps they really are talking :CENA.

All this is good, but it also won't have a full effect unless Obamacare is completely repealed. And this is where things start getting shaky. In the article it states that Trump says Republicans have the votes for repeal but he's waiting for a senator to get back from the hospital so it's being delayed till next year. I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit on that one and it seems like a deflection in order to delay the process. Not particularly happy about that.

Then there's the work on a bipartisan deal with the Democrats. On the one hand, a bipartisan deal on paper is good because of the majority backing and the weight behind such a deal. On the other hand, I don't particularly trust any of the Democrats with healthcare, since they were the ones who backed Obamacare to begin with and got the US healthcare market in an even worse situation than it already was. So Trump needs to tread carefully.

Very interesting developments, a few things to cautiously be pleased about but some things to be critical and skeptical of. Let's see where this leads.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> Nobody should be forced to stand during the anthem. This is beyond Nationalist and is quite silly.


*We got a conservative, outspoken Trump supporter to acknowledge the hypocrisy of "freedom fighters" forcing Nationalism before the alleged centrist thenightmarecometh. Let that sink in.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *We got a conservative, outspoken Trump supporter to acknowledge the hypocrisy of "freedom fighters" forcing Nationalism before the alleged centrist thenightmarecometh. Let that sink in.*


I'd certainly not call myself a Conservative, Trump Supporter yes but most Conservatives aren't pro-gay/abortion etc but I strongly support these rights, probably abortion more hardcore than most people here. 

I'd consider myself an American Nationalist lite, skin color doesn't matter to me but I find things like DACA and foreign aid to countries that hate us un-American. There are poor Americans who could use that aid or access to education and programs but do not get it. I don't believe there should be any American citizen living in absolute poverty with no hope, I don't think there should be American companies hiring illegals and leaving loads of Americans out of work simply to lower costs and have a new form of slave labor.

Fuck the rest of the World for now, we have people who need help here! I also do not believe in forcing Nationalism on people even if I feel Nationalistic.

Now that's been said, the kneeling during the anthem wasn't disrespectful and was peaceful. These men were exercising their rights as Americans, rights we should hold sacred and nobody not even the President should say otherwise. You can disagree with these men, their cause but to say that their protest isn't American is just plain wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> With all the talk about the NFL kneeling, this went completely under the radar. I've not seen anyone post this yet and it's pretty big news if it gets put through:
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-plans-executive-order-allowing-people-to-buy
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot to unpack here: first of all, great news about a potential executive order to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. Let's hope this gets put on the table soon but I'll still take this with a little grain of salt. Secondly, the look into an executive order on voluntary associations is an incredibly surprising move. It seems as though Trump is considering some of Rand Paul's ideas which he has put on the table for months. Perhaps they really are talking :CENA.
> 
> All this is good, but it also won't have a full effect unless Obamacare is completely repealed. And this is where things start getting shaky. In the article it states that Trump says Republicans have the votes for repeal but he's waiting for a senator to get back from the hospital so it's being delayed till next year. I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit on that one and it seems like a deflection in order to delay the process. Not particularly happy about that.
> 
> Then there's the work on a bipartisan deal with the Democrats. On the one hand, a bipartisan deal on paper is good because of the majority backing and the weight behind such a deal. On the other hand, I don't particularly trust any of the Democrats with healthcare, since they were the ones who backed Obamacare to begin with and got the US healthcare market in an even worse situation than it already was. So Trump needs to tread carefully.
> 
> Very interesting developments, a few things to cautiously be pleased about but some things to be critical and skeptical of. Let's see where this leads.


Selling across state lines is a disaster waiting to happen.

all that will happen is the insurance companies will set up shop in the state with the least regulations, making your insurance worthless aka not cover anything, and good luck finding a doctor in your network if you are buying across state lines lol

But sure keep backing this terrible idea of selling across state lines.


----------



## CamillePunk

L-DOPA said:


> With all the talk about the NFL kneeling, this went completely under the radar. I've not seen anyone post this yet and it's pretty big news if it gets put through:


I did. :mj



birthday_massacre said:


> Selling across state lines is a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> all that will happen is the insurance companies will set up shop in the state with the least regulations, making your insurance worthless aka not cover anything, and good luck finding a doctor in your network if you are buying across state lines lol
> 
> But sure keep backing this terrible idea of selling across state lines.


Nobody's going to buy health insurance that doesn't cover anything. :lol

Unless they're legally forced to by the state. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

Surprise, surprise, the media lied again.












> San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz's response.


Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló's response:



PBS said:


> First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly. The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government. We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration. So, my call is to congressmen and congresswomen to take action quickly and conclusively with an aid package for Puerto Rico


- Vic


----------



## Empress

The mayor of San Juan should not be begging for help for Puerto Rico and Trump's response is to insult her and denigrate the people who are suffering; they're not lazy but there's only so much they can do within their own abilities at this moment in time. This is just another example of legislation without representation. Puerto Rico is a U.S. commonwealth but routinely treated as though it's an entity that is beholden to the mercy of this country.

This current Congress needs to be under the same scrutiny as Trump. They've abdicated any sense of maintaining a pushback against Trump's abuse of powers and the blatant corruption of his administration. Tom Price is merely just expendable because he wasn't successful in helping to roll back Obamacare.

As for the anthem, this is not North Korea. We're under no edict to perform forced patriotism.


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864885010809200660


----------



## GothicBohemian

Great, now the hatred and intolerance is leaking across the border. White Nationalists feel empowered and there's a president in the US who keeps saying things that make them bolder. We didn't elect Trump but the atmosphere created by his election to our south is also our problem. Thanks so much. 

These links don't belong itt but I'm damn well not making yet another thread on this subject so here they are. 

link

(This is the university my father attended btw)


> *Alt-right propaganda posted on Maliseet welcoming sign*
> Posters directed people to alt-right websites found on the St. Thomas University campus
> By Jordan Gill, CBC News
> 
> Three signs directing people to white nationalist and alt-right websites were posted to a Maliseet language welcome sign at St. Thomas University in Fredericton earlier this week.
> 
> They were spotted as the university was in the midst of a three-day conference on reconciliation with the Indigenous community.
> 
> The signs featured slogans such as "Equality is a false god" and "Critical thought is a crime." One of the posters featured a drawing of a man and a woman, who appear to be white, with the slogan "We have a right to exist." It directs people to an alt-right website.
> 
> Jeffrey Carleton, a spokesperson for the university, said while it's not clear that the posters were put up because of the conference, it's not a stretch to believe they were.
> 
> "These events, and other events like them, are very prominent on our website and on our social media accounts," Carleton said.
> 
> He said he doubts the signs were posted by St. Thomas students and said the school doesn't have an alt-right problem.
> 
> "I've been here for almost 15 years. I'm only aware of one or two occasions in that time period where there were what could be considered, or called today in the popular vernacular, alt-right posters on campus," said Carleton.
> 
> Carleton said the signs were removed Thursday morning as soon as the administration was made aware of their existence. He also said staff searched the campus for more signs, but couldn't find any.
> 
> Jeffrey Carleton, the director of communications for St. Thomas University, said the signs were taken down as soon as their existence was made known to staff.
> 
> The university doesn't want the signs to overshadow the work done during the conference, he said.
> 
> "The events we had this week were about diversity, they were about respect, they were about reconciliation, they were about asking tough questions and trying to work through the answers. We wanted to stay focused on what we're doing ... and not become distracted by an act of vandalism," said Carleton.


link



> *Far-right, anti-fascist protesters temporarily shut Quebec border crossing*
> Amid protests, St-Bernard-de-Lacolle border crossing in Quebec closed to passenger traffic
> By John Paul Tasker, CBC News
> 
> A standoff between far-right groups and anti-fascist protesters along the Canadian side of the U.S. border forced police to temporarily shut down the crossing near St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., on Saturday.
> 
> A separate anti-illegal immigrant rally on Parliament Hill, held amid heightened concerns about the arrival of asylum seekers, also provoked a handful of skirmishes, as riot police stepped in to prevent physical violence.
> 
> Roughly 300 members of the Storm Alliance — a group that identifies as "ultranationalist," and claims to eschew ties to far-right white nationalists — arrived at the border crossing near Lacolle, where thousands of migrants have crossed into the country on foot without proper documentation.
> 
> La Meute, French for "The Wolf Pack," another anti-immigrant, anti-Islam group, was also on hand at the border town Saturday.
> 
> Buses carrying roughly 100 anti-facist — or antifa — counter-protesters, from the group Solidarity Across Borders, left Montreal early Saturday to confront those associated with Storm Alliance and La Meute at the border. By midday, the far-right elements outnumbered those on the other side who said they stood in support of refugees.
> 
> Members of the provincial police, Sûreté du Québec, formed a perimeter to keep the two forces roughly 40 metres apart, while both sides taunted one another with chanting.
> 
> The police, decked out in tactical gear, with gas masks and heavy weaponry, blocked members of the Storm Alliance from marching closer to makeshift tents built by the federal government to temporarily house refugees, many of whom hail from Haiti.
> 
> Storm Alliance dispersed from the scene shortly before 3 p.m. ET after it became clear they would not make it to their intended destination.
> 
> Amid the tension, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) closed the Lacolle crossing to passenger traffic for about four hours. It is now reopened. Traffic was being rerouted to other nearby points of entry.
> 
> On Parliament Hill, protesters aligned with a group called the Canadian Coalition of Concerned Citizens (CCCC) assembled to stand against policies of the federal Liberal government they claim have allowed illegal immigration to flourish. Amid cries of "Fascist scum go away," a lone member of the group was involved in a skirmish with members of the antifa movement, before being led away by parliamentary police.
> 
> RCMP officers dressed in riot gear streamed on to the Hill after another brief scuffle between the two groups broke out. Police formed a protective line down the middle to prevent further physical encounters. The standoff ended after police escorted the group of anti-migrant protesters away from the seat of Parliament, as the number of antifa activists dwindled over the course of the afternoon.
> 
> Georges Hallak, the founder of the CCCC and himself an immigrant from Lebanon, was at the Ottawa protest. He told CBC News he is concerned Muslims will impose Shariah — the Islamic religious guidelines that govern everything from personal hygiene and charity to pilgrimages and burials — on Canada.
> 
> Hallak, a self-described Christian patriot, said he is steadfastly opposed to M-103, a non-binding, Liberal-sponsored motion that passed the House of Commons in the spring, which condemned Islamophobia. Hallak fears its passage will limit free speech and criticism of Islam.
> 
> He also said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has failed to secure the Canada-U.S. border while allowing mayors to declare cities sanctuaries, which he said shield undocumented migrants from law enforcement.
> 
> "I respect immigration 100 per cent, as long as the people coming to this country do not have criminal records, do not pose a threat to normal Canadians, that they come here with the intent to follow the laws of Canada without trying to modify [it] for their needs — we're talking about Shariah law, which goes against the Constitution of Canada," he said.
> 
> The group was vastly outnumbered by a group of counter-protesters aligned with the antifa movement, people who claim to support migrants and oppose racism. Many of them held placards with slogans such as "No to hate speech," and "Unite to fight right," others had their faces partially covered with bandanas.
> 
> An organizer with Ottawa Against Fascism, who would only identify himself as Robin for fear of online reprisal from the far-right, said these groups are "sugarcoating" the anti-immigrant movement by insisting their actions are not racially motivated.
> 
> "These groups are scary, they mask their anti-immigrant [sentiments] but underneath all of that they support genocide ... These forms of scapegoating can escalate and become something that is genuinely dangerous."
> 
> According to federal officials, some 13,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada irregularly, with many of those people crossing over from New York State into Quebec at a single point of entry at the end of Roxham Rd. in Hemmingford, Que., not far from Lacolle.
> 
> Approximately 5,550 asylum seekers crossed through Quebec in August alone, but numbers dropped dramatically in September.
> 
> Storm Alliance was created by people formerly aligned with the Soldiers of Odin, a group founded in Finland by a known neo-Nazi, which is highly critical of Islam and the tenets of Shariah. Dave Tregget, the founder and leader of Storm Alliance, has said he left Soldiers of Odin because of its overt racism.
> 
> Unlike Storm Alliance, many members of La Meute are Quebec sovereigntists, but they too are fearful Muslims will demand the imposition of Shariah in Canada. Some of its supporters were seen flying the Patriotes flag, an ode to the Lower Canada rebellions of 1837-38 when French-speaking settlers from present-day Quebec fought against British colonial rule.
> 
> In August, a protest in Quebec City turned violent after antifa protesters attacked a man with alleged ties to La Meute. He was seen carrying the patriote flag, alongside the provincial fleurs-de-lys.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I liken it to publishing the names of terrorists and slapping their picture on the TV. The more you highlight it, the more the crazies come out to get their 15 minutes. Both sides are guilty of this. All it does is make things worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

AryaDark said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864885010809200660


except in 1947 you had like 70% of the population openly supporting or quietly sympathizing with them and today it's like 7% at best 

in puerto rico news

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ing-politics-awol-at-meetings/article/2636185

:mj

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-30/no-trump-didn-t-botch-the-puerto-rico-crisis



> TH: So, it seems like everybody has blasted Trump administration's response to the Puerto Rico crisis. Has that criticism been fair?
> 
> JH: No, I don’t think so. First of all, there was a fair amount of anticipatory action that is not being recognized. Amphibious ships, including the light amphibious carriers Kearsarge and Wasp and the amphibious landing ship dock Oak Hill were at sea and dispatched to Puerto Rico ahead of the hurricane’s impact.
> 
> These are large ships that have large flight decks to land and dispatch heavy-lift CH-53 helicopters to and from disaster sites. They also have big well-decks -- exposed surfaces that are lower than the fore and aft of the ship -- from which large landing craft can be dispatched to shore carrying over 150 tons of water, food and other supplies on each trip. These are actually the ideal platforms for relief operations owing to their range of assets. The ships, due to their designs to support Marine amphibious landings in war zones, also have hospitals onboard to provide medical treatment on a large scale. That these ships were in the area should be viewed as a huge positive for the administration and the Department of Defense.





> TH: Many critics feel that Florida and Houston had much better preparation before their storms hit this month. What could have been done better in advance in Puerto Rico, and what can be done in the rebuilding process to help minimize damage next time around?
> 
> JH: Puerto Rico is an island that suffers from its position in the middle of the Caribbean and its physical separation from the U.S.* Its roads were in disrepair and its electrical grid was antiquated prior to the hurricane. The island has also suffered for years from ineffective local government and rising local territorial debt.*
> 
> The Navy used to operate a large Navy base there, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads. I spent six months on the island in 1993, but when the island’s population protested the presence of the training range at nearby Vieques Island, the Navy shuttered the base, taking $300 million a year out of the Puerto Rican economy. I have no doubt that the federal government will be taking a hard look at large infrastructure investments and I hope that local governments look at building and general construction codes to make future buildings more hurricane survivable.


:mj

Fake news is abounding about Puerto Rico because :trump handled Harvey and Irma spectacularly and his approval rating has been inching back up.


----------



## Draykorinee

If he did such a stand up job why did he use an excuse like big water? I don't have much else to mock him for today so I'm being facetious but why use words like a toddler of he thought he'd done such a good job?

Big water, ocean water.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*So, are we still pretending Trump isn't racist? Are we still pretending like this is yet another coincidence of him attacking a person of color while treating whites in the same situation favorably? I'd like to see more Trump supporters embarrass themselves trying to defend a president who's letting people die after a natural disaster because they owe Wall Street money and he doesn't like their Mayor: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico-mayor/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-puerto-rico-wall-street-tweets-2017-9

Meanwhile, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Fat Joe, Cardi B, Barack Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton have raised more money and sent more supplies to Puerto Rico: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...ico-hurricane-maria-one-america-appeal-2017-9

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ricky-martin-beyonce-aid-relief-efforts-puerto-rico-n805946

http://hiphopwired.com/554906/fat-joe-jay-z-chartering-plane-deliver-supplies-puerto-rico/


Trump is too busy trying to get Black athletes fired for speaking out against oppression. The only reason he's making such dumbfuck excuses for not helping Puerto Rico is because they ARE American and he's getting pressured to do something, but he doesn't want to, since they're brown Americans.*


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Tom Price losing his job couldn't have come at a more perfect time. Donalds old buddy OJ is out of jail as of today and probably needs the work.


----------



## virus21

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Tom Price losing his job couldn't have come at a more perfect time. Donalds old buddy OJ is out of jail as of today and probably needs the work.


Nah, OJ hasn't murdered enough people for a high ranking government job


----------



## nyelator

@Legit BOSS grasping at the strings


----------



## deepelemblues

Some people are never going to figure out that hysterically screaming "racist!!!!11111oneoneone~~~" all the time doesn't work anymore. The days when accusing someone of being racist meaning they immediately prostrate themselves in abject fear and submission and the accuser wins automatically are over. That credit card's run dry.


----------



## Empress

Legit BOSS said:


> *So, are we still pretending Trump isn't racist? Are we still pretending like this is yet another coincidence of him attacking a person of color while treating whites in the same situation favorably? I'd like to see more Trump supporters embarrass themselves trying to defend a president who's letting people die after a natural disaster because they owe Wall Street money and he doesn't like their Mayor: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico-mayor/index.html
> http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-puerto-rico-wall-street-tweets-2017-9
> 
> Meanwhile, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Fat Joe, Cardi B, Barack Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton have raised more money and sent more supplies to Puerto Rico:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...ico-hurricane-maria-one-america-appeal-2017-9
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ricky-martin-beyonce-aid-relief-efforts-puerto-rico-n805946
> 
> http://hiphopwired.com/554906/fat-joe-jay-z-chartering-plane-deliver-supplies-puerto-rico/
> 
> 
> Trump is too busy trying to get Black athletes fired for speaking out against oppression. The only reason he's making such dumbfuck excuses for not helping Puerto Rico is because they ARE American and he's getting pressured to do something, but he doesn't want to, since they're brown Americans.*


Trump is a proud white supremacist. I won't be gaslight or brow beaten into not stating what is the obvious truth. He has done nothing to deserve any benefit of doubt but instead doubles down on his prejudices. Unfortunately, he has the power of the United States government to implement a swath of policies that are harmful to those who fall outside his preferred hue and class.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Some people are never going to figure out that hysterically screaming "racist!!!!11111oneoneone~~~" all the time doesn't work anymore. The days when accusing someone of being racist meaning they immediately prostrate themselves in abject fear and submission and the accuser wins automatically are over. That credit card's run dry.


This trick of trying to shame people into stop calling out racism isn't going to work. The only people you are fooling are the racists who think it will work.

You can keep defending racism all you want, it just puts you in a bad light.

But keep it up


----------



## Headliner

In my city. Further proof that Trump is an enabler of racists:
http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/news/2017/09/30/mcc-student-racist-tweet-campus-outraged

But, let Stormfront here downplay it or spin it.


----------



## Sensei Utero

I know he's technically still in the early stages of his reign, but surely he already goes down as one of the worst US Presidents ever. The DUP over here in Northern Ireland are praising him for everything, making sure not to mention the enabling white supremacists part. It's disgusting.


----------



## stevefox1200

I'm not sure if Trump is an actual racist or not but its easy to see that racists see his comments as support

As annoyed as people are at political "non-answers" they speak like that for a reason, they are trying to make sure that they are not giving support or insults when they don't mean to

Politicians simply do not talk about issues they do not want to see as "legit", its the reason Obama never condemed "radical Islam" as he did not want to paint them as a legitimate platform

Most presidents on both sides never comment on something unless they have an official stance ready becouse what the president says implies what stance the US has

When Trump says Puerto Ricocans are lazy or that we should stop negotiation and just attack North Korea he is implying that is the stance America believes

There is a reason only weird fringe parties try to build up a twitter presence, because most real politicians know that everything they say matters


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> I'm not sure if Trump is an actual racist or not but its easy to see that racists see his comments as support
> 
> As annoyed as people are at political "non-answers" they speak like that for a reason, they are trying to make sure that they are not giving support or insults when they don't mean to
> 
> Politicians simply do not talk about issues they do not want to see as "legit", its the reason Obama never condemed "radical Islam" as he did not want to paint them as a legitimate platform
> 
> Most presidents on both sides never comment on something unless they have an official stance ready becouse what the president says implies what stance the US has
> 
> When Trump says Puerto Ricocans are lazy or that we should stop negotiation and just attack North Korea he is implying that is the stance America believes
> 
> There is a reason only weird fringe parties try to build up a twitter presence, because most real politicians know that everything they say matters


Trump is totally racist, how many times as he retweeted white nationalist tweets before? That alone shows how racists he is, that is even before you go into his racist / bigoted comments or how he discriminated against blacks for housing.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Headliner said:


> In my city. Further proof that Trump is an enabler of racists:
> http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/news/2017/09/30/mcc-student-racist-tweet-campus-outraged
> 
> But, let Stormfront here downplay it or spin it.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/honore-mayor-trump-cnntv/index.html



> Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré drew a stark distinction Saturday when asked about President Donald Trump's tweets accusing San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz of "poor leadership" in her response to the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria.
> "The mayor's living on a cot, and I hope the President has a good day at golf," said Honoré, who led the military response in 2005 to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Honoré made his remarks during an interview on CNN Newsroom.
> Trump tweeted after Cruz criticized the White House's response to Maria's disastrous impact on the US commonwealth. During an interview Friday on CNN, she cast the situation as "a story of devastation that continues to worsen."
> 
> Cruz also said she and her family are staying at the Coliseum in San Juan, along with more than 600 people. They're sleeping on cots and eating the same food as everyone else after their house flooded.
> 
> The President is spending the weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. On Tuesday, he's due to visit Puerto Rico, where Maria killed at least sixteen people and left many of the island's 3.4 million residents without power and water.


*Hey Headliner, do you think the far right racist apologists will listen to this retired Lt. General tell Trump to do his fuckin job, or do you think they'll come up with 1,000 excuses for why it's ok for him to go golfing while continuing to ignore millions of Americans suffering from mass devastation, hunger, and the lack of electricity and plumbing? This might be a strong conflict of interest for them since a military guy is burying Trump. They might have to avoid this one.*


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> I'm not sure if Trump is an actual racist or not but its easy to see that racists see his comments as support
> 
> As annoyed as people are at political "non-answers" they speak like that for a reason, they are trying to make sure that they are not giving support or insults when they don't mean to
> 
> Politicians simply do not talk about issues they do not want to see as "legit", its the reason Obama never condemed "radical Islam" as he did not want to paint them as a legitimate platform
> 
> Most presidents on both sides never comment on something unless they have an official stance ready becouse what the president says implies what stance the US has
> 
> When Trump says Puerto Ricocans are lazy or that we should stop negotiation and just attack North Korea he is implying that is the stance America believes
> 
> There is a reason only weird fringe parties try to build up a twitter presence, because most real politicians know that everything they say matters


The same people denying Trump is using racism to win votes are the same ones that used to decry Blacks for not speaking up about Black on Black violence enough or Moderate Muslims are not doing enough to fight against Islamic terrorism. Funny how their logic change when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Lauer, Feb. 14, 2000:* When you say the party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?
> 
> Trump: Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanan’s a disaster as we’ve, you know, covered. Jesse’s a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, it’s unfortunate, but he just left the party. He’s going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota.
> 
> “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani,” he said in his statement. “This is not company I wish to keep.”
> 
> *King, Nov. 19, 1991*: Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him.
> 
> Trump: I hate —
> 
> King: Four hundred New Yorkers contributed.
> 
> Trump: I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostility in this country. There’s a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.


:lol This is going to be fun


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol This is going to be fun


Sure is


http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/49595...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case


Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump

During the presidential debate on Monday night, Hillary Clinton raised a 1973 federal lawsuit brought against Donald Trump and his company for alleged racial discrimination at Trump housing developments in New York.

The Justice Department sued Donald Trump, his father, Fred, and Trump Management in order to obtain a settlement in which Trump and his father would promise not to discriminate. The case eventually was settled two years later after Trump tried to countersue the Justice Department for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court.

"Donald started his career, back in 1973, being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination — because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy," Clinton said on Monday night.

Clinton And Trump Clash In Tense First Presidential Debate 
POLITICS
Clinton And Trump Clash In Tense First Presidential Debate
Trump responded to Clinton by emphasizing that the case was settled with no admission of guilt.

"Yes, when I was very young, I went into my father's company — had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens," Trump said. "And we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country — it was a federal lawsuit — were sued. We settled the suit with zero, with no admission of guilt."

The lawsuit was based on evidence gathered by testers for the New York City Human Rights Division, which alleged that black people who went to Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while white people were offered units.

Back then, Sheila Morse worked as one of those testers. When a black New Yorker was turned down for service and racial bias was suspected, Morse, who is white, would be dispatched to see if she received different treatment.

In this case, a black man in search of an apartment in Brooklyn in 1972 saw a sign on a building: "apartment for rent."

"He met with the superintendent, and the superintendent said, 'I'm very sorry, but the apartment is rented — it's gone,' " Morse says. "So the gentlemen said to him, 'Well, why is the sign out? I still see a sign that says apartment for rent.' And the superintendent said, 'Oh, I guess I forgot to take it down.' "

How The Man Created The Brand In 'Trump Revealed'
POLITICS
How The Man Created The Brand In 'Trump Revealed'
When Morse went to the building to ask about the same apartment, she says, "They greeted me with open arms and showed me every aspect of the apartment."

Morse says she reported her experience to the Human Rights Commission, and then returned to the apartment building. After she was offered a lease, the black man who had tried to rent the apartment entered the office with a city human rights commissioner, and the three of them confronted the building superintendent.

"He said, 'Well, I'm only doing what my boss told me to do — I am not allowed to rent to black tenants,' " Morse says.

The commissioner asked the building superintendent to take him to his boss. That turned out to be Trump Management.

Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish, co-author of the book Trump Revealed, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that the Justice Department considered the case "one of the most significant race bias cases" at the time.

It was a suit that was directly against them, and it is one that Donald Trump to this day clearly is upset about.
Michael Kranish
"They signed what was called a consent order," Kranish says. "Trump fought the case for two years. ... He says it was very easy, but actually he fought the case for two years."

The Trumps took essentially the first settlement offer the federal government provided, Kranish says; the Trumps did not, in fact, have to admit guilt in settling the suit.

"[The settlement] required the Trumps to place ads in newspapers saying that they welcomed black applicants," Kranish says. "It said that the Trumps would familiarize themselves with the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination. So it also specifically said they don't admit wrongdoing, but they did have to take several measures that the Trumps had fought for two years not to take."

Trump claims the Justice Department lawsuit was just one of many housing cases against many landlords, but Kranish says this description is misleading.

"Well, there were cases brought against various companies, but the point here is that Trump has said in the debate — and he also told me when I interviewed him at Trump Tower earlier this year — that this was part of one massive suit." Kranish says, "And in fact, this very specifically is a case that charges Donald Trump, Fred Trump and their company of race bias in housing rentals. ... It was one of the largest cases of the time. ...

"It was a suit that was directly against them, and it is one that Donald Trump to this day clearly is upset about."



Keep deflecting

It also funny Trump claimed he didnt know who David Duke was just a few months ago when he wouldn't denouce him

So are you going to admit Trump lied about not knowing who Duke was?


----------



## FriedTofu

This isn't anything new. It was covered during the elections. 
It is similar to Trump's flip flop over his position on the Iraq war and his position on Hilary Clinton. Supporters and opponents of Trump gloss over them when it is convenient to their position on him being President.
If you are just finding this out then... :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

Uh Jesse is not exactly playing with a full deck as far as honesty is concerned

He kind of has habit of praising people for their racial tolerance and character when they pay him a bunch of money

he also kinda has a habit of running down the Jews 

Richard Spincer could likely get his support if he payed enough


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> This isn't anything new. It was covered during the elections.
> It is similar to Trump's flip flop over his position on the Iraq war and his position on Hilary Clinton. Supporters and opponents of Trump gloss over them when it is convenient to their position on him being President.
> If you are just finding this out then... :lol


Not to mention Trump was pals with the Clintons for years. He donated to their campaigns and probably to the Clinton Foundation. His campaign and administration borrows from the Clinton playbook in smearing anyone who dares disagree with you. 

They despised Hillary (which I do as well) but found her friend and donor to be just great. Interesting.


----------



## Vic Capri

Still waiting for proof of Trump using racial slurs.



> @Legit BOSS grasping at the strings


Shocking.

- Vic


----------



## MillionDollarProns

Ppl in this thread using Strawmans left and right like they've never taken communication studies 1A in jr college :mj2


----------



## GothicBohemian

Further to my irrelevant concerns about alt-right posters found on a Maliseet-language sign at STU campus here north of the US border, more posters have been found at an adjacent University I attended.

I lived in Fredericton, the city where these posters are appearing, and it isn't far from where I live now. North Fredericton borders the Saint Mary's reserve, a Maliseet Nation - there are a LOT of natives in the area, including students at the two universities in question. I can tell you this sort of thing didn't used to happen, not in the years I've been here. Now we have this garbage being placed when people who dislike the reconciliation process between Canada and the First Nations can find it and where a clear message is sent to Indigenous Canadians.

The hate and the, get ready for the trigger word, racism has been there but it's been muted, with the aggressive sort mostly a relic of older days and embraced by older generations. Now it's coming back and younger folks are jumping onboard. A lot even seem to think it's funny, like this is all harmless 4chan banter. I place not-insignificant blame on the largely internet-based culture of hate spawned by alt-right leaders and empowered by Trump playing along with them, being an internet troll when he has a country to run. It's disgusting.

This divisive obsession with 'triggering' others to get a reaction is going to create a disaster in North America and elsewhere. There are too many fragile minds who will last out violently if they're convinced there's a cultural or race war they need to fight, thereby helping create what they most fear.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> Not to mention Trump was pals with the Clintons for years. He donated to their campaigns and probably to the Clinton Foundation. His campaign and administration borrows from the Clinton playbook in smearing anyone who dares disagree with you.
> 
> They despised Hillary (which I do as well) but found her friend and donor to be just great. Interesting.


Smearing anyone who disagrees is out of the playbook of most politicians. Not sure why Clinton is being singled out for it.

Look at the intra party war in the GOP. Whoever disagree is either a RINO or a radical in recent years.


----------



## Vic Capri

*#LasVegasStrong*

- Vic


----------



## Arya Dark

*There are idiots like that in every single group, Logic. Don't let the idiots of a group define the group though. Both sides do it, I know, but still. You gotta remember there is nothing the rest of the group can do about the idiots except denounce them.*


----------



## Arya Dark

*Well from the looks of it the guy was using illegally bought guns so more gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented this. There are ways to legally buy fully automatic weapons but it is very very hard to do *and rightfully so* Just keep in mind that the guns were gathered more than likely illegally in the first place. 

But to your point there are things that should be done about gun laws.


EDIT: there were plenty of weapons in the room and it's my guess that some of them were legal... just making that clear. *


----------



## altreineirialx

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert. The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.*

Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
lie bleeding in a hospital.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Chicago has the most strict gun laws. Argument over. I'm just confused as to why the police didn't deploy a sniper when they heard of a mass shooter in a high building. That should've been an immediate course of action.*


----------



## Arya Dark

Legit BOSS said:


> *Chicago has the most strict gun laws. Argument over. I'm just confused as to why the police didn't deploy a sniper when they heard of a mass shooter in a high building. That should've been an immediate course of action.*


*Well we don't know that they didn't. That has to take time to get together. 

I think, every thing considered, the police did a fantastic job. Getting lucky via the smoke detector stopped more killing for sure. *


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

AryaDark said:


> *Well we don't know that they didn't. That has to take time to get together.
> 
> I think, every thing considered, the police did a fantastic job. Getting lucky via the smoke detector stopped more killing for sure. *


*This is something I will wait on all the details for. I know they sent multiple SWAT teams though.*


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> *How about the fact that almost all of these mass killings that are politically motivated come from the right?
> *
> Or the fact that shit like this could be prevented if a certain political party wasn't controlled by a certain pro gun organization, and because of that they block any sort of common sense legislation that could prevent shit like this from happen?
> 
> The fact is, the blood is on the hands on the NRA, their supporters, and the Republicans in office that are bought and paid for by the NRA.
> How many people have to die from gun violence before we actually do something about it and enact real gun control legislation?


Burden of proof is on you amigo. Where did you find those stats? There are so many mass shootings that have zero political affiliation behind them. I'm interested in seeing where you got those stats from.


----------



## Cabanarama

Legit BOSS said:


> *Chicago has the most strict gun laws. Argument over. I'm just confused as to why the police didn't deploy a sniper when they heard of a mass shooter in a high building. That should've been an immediate course of action.*


And what good are these gun laws when someone can just drive to the next town or next state over and buy guns without any problem? Let's not forget how close Chicago is to Indiana where there are virtually no gun laws. And why do people always cite Chicago while ignoring the fact that the gun violence was even worse before they enacted these gun laws?


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> Burden of proof is on you amigo. Where did you find those stats? There are so many mass shootings that have zero political affiliation behind them. I'm interested in seeing where you got those stats from.


Read more carefully what I said, i didn't say that most mass shootings come from the right, I said that of the mass killings/ attempted mass killings that are politically motivated (which you are right, most of them are not) come from the right far more often than they come from the left.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Cabanarama said:


> And what good are these gun laws when someone can just drive to the next town or next state over and buy guns without any problem? Let's not forget how close Chicago is to Indiana where there are virtually no gun laws. And why do people always cite Chicago while ignoring the fact that the gun violence was even worse before they enacted these gun laws?


*Because if they're buying illegal weaponry, then that makes stricter laws irrelevant. Also, if the deadliest city has the strictest gun laws, then that obviously won't solve the problem. Slight improvements on the city that still has the highest yearly body count isn't saying much. I want this crap to stop as much as you, but we must be realistic.*


----------



## Draykorinee

Isn't this the Trump thread? Seems like I'm reading the same thread twice.


----------



## MickDX

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert. The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.*



altreineirialx said:


> Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
> lie bleeding in a hospital.


Why is gun control not needed if people are bleeding in hospitals? If US had a better gun control maybe some of those mass shootings wouldn't happen. In Eastern Europe we have gun control and it's much better regarding security on the streets even though people are far more poor or even dumb.


----------



## MOX

AryaDark said:


> *Well from the looks of it the guy was using illegally bought guns so more gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented this. There are ways to legally buy fully automatic weapons but it is very very hard to do *and rightfully so* Just keep in mind that the guns were gathered more than likely illegally in the first place.
> 
> But to your point there are things that should be done about gun laws.
> 
> 
> EDIT: there were plenty of weapons in the room and it's my guess that some of them were legal... just making that clear. *


Doesn't this add weight to the theory that this guy was a patsy? Buying these kinds of illegal weapons is one thing, being able to learn how to fire them accurately and consistently enough to kill 50+ people and hit many more from at least a hundred yards away is another matter entirely. 

How/where do you learn to do that with illegal weapons such as the ones he used without having been in the military?

In the desert? Go out far enough and that's an option I suppose, but can you teach yourself without someone to help you? I genuinely don't know.


----------



## Crasp

Anark said:


> Doesn't this add weight to the theory that this guy was a patsy? Buying these kinds of illegal weapons is one thing, being able to learn how to fire them accurately and consistently enough to kill 50+ people and hit many more from at least a hundred yards away is another matter entirely.
> 
> How/where do you learn to do that with illegal weapons such as the ones he used without having been in the military?
> 
> In the desert? Go out far enough and that's an option I suppose, but can you teach yourself without someone to help you? I genuinely don't know.


TBH the area was a solid mass of people. It would have been harder to _not_ hit anyone. Especially as several accounts say people dropped to the floor, and tragically, from an elevated position that just made it easier for the gunman.


----------



## Draykorinee

You can easily and legally mod legally bought guns to be automatic, just add a bumper stock. Right now we don't know what's illegal or illegal but the idea you can only fire at the rates with an illegal automatic is false. Not saying his guns weren't illegal mind, we don't know because the police aren't saying.



Anark said:


> AryaDark said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well from the looks of it the guy was using illegally bought guns so more gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented this. There are ways to legally buy fully automatic weapons but it is very very hard to do *and rightfully so* Just keep in mind that the guns were gathered more than likely illegally in the first place.
> 
> But to your point there are things that should be done about gun laws.
> 
> 
> EDIT: there were plenty of weapons in the room and it's my guess that some of them were legal... just making that clear. *
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this add weight to the theory that this guy was a patsy? Buying these kinds of illegal weapons is one thing, being able to learn how to fire them accurately and consistently enough to kill 50+ people and hit many more from at least a hundred yards away is another matter entirely.
> 
> How/where do you learn to do that with illegal weapons such as the ones he used without having been in the military?
> 
> In the desert? Go out far enough and that's an option I suppose, but can you teach yourself without someone to help you? I genuinely don't know.
Click to expand...

You're firing hundreds of bullets from a gun with an effective range of thousands of yards in to a mass of people. That doesn't take training.


----------



## MOX

Crasp said:


> TBH the area was a solid mass of people. It would have been harder to _not_ hit anyone.


My point is that firing a high powered automatic rifle is not something somebody with no training can just do.

I would expect someone with military training who is experienced with fully automatic assault rifles to hit as many people as this guy did.

But this guy is a non-trained, non-military, random 64 year old who lived in a retirement home.

Are fully automatic assault rifles that easy to use? I dunno as I've only ever fired BB guns and .24 pellet guns.


----------



## Draykorinee

Anark said:


> Crasp said:
> 
> 
> 
> TBH the area was a solid mass of people. It would have been harder to _not_ hit anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that firing a high powered automatic rifle is not something somebody with no training can just do.
> 
> I would expect someone with military training who is experienced with fully automatic assault rifles to be hit as many as this guy did.
> 
> But this guy is a non-trained, non-military, random 64 year old who lived in a retirement home.
> 
> Are fully automatic assault rifles that easy to use?
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/U7DTjSla-O8

That's a bumper stock and some chick firing it from her shoulder.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
> lie bleeding in a hospital.


They couldn't wait for the bodies to get cold.



> There are idiots like that in every single group, Logic. Don't let the idiots of a group define the group though. Both sides do it, I know, but still. You gotta remember there is nothing the rest of the group can do about the idiots except denounce them.


And unfortunately, there's more idiots on the left.










- Vic


----------



## MOX

draykorinee said:


> https://youtu.be/U7DTjSla-O8
> 
> That's a bumper stock and some chick firing it from her shoulder.


Okay, just googled bump fire to understand what that is 

I know you've tried to belittle her as 'some chick' but women are people too and she seems pretty well trained. She knows what she's doing, no? If she went out and killed 50 people then there would be a trail leading back to where she got her guns from and the people/person who trained her, no?

Or is it possible to just buy an automatic assault rifle, hit the desert, and teach yourself to shoot it like an actual soldier? No bait, I genuinely don't know.

Also, I know I'm just speculating about this whole conspiracy thing - I'm not married to it - but I'm not into the whole 'thoughts and prayers' bollocks everyone feels obliged to post. I like having conversations, so this is where I'm coming from with this.

With that in mind, it also lines up well with the EVIL CORP stuff that does go on sometimes, assuming you saw my other posts about the loss of business the gun industry has been suffering since Trump became Prez, and the relatively huge boost they got immediately following this massacre. 

In a world where the rich elite send people off to die in wars all the time, I can well believe a massacre would be sanctioned to rescue an increasingly negative bottom line.


----------



## Crasp

Anark said:


> ... She knows what she's doing, no? If she went out and killed 50 people then there would be a trail leading back to where she got her guns from and the people/person who trained her, no?
> 
> Or is it possible to just buy an automatic assault rifle, hit the desert, and teach yourself to shoot it like an actual soldier? No bait, I genuinely don't know.


There's gun ranges right there in Vegas that you can visit as a tourist having never held a gun and be up and firing automatic weapons in no time at all assuming you can follow basic instruction.

I'll get back to you on the conspiracy stuff.


----------



## MOX

Crasp said:


> There's gun ranges right there in Vegas that you can visit as a tourist having never held a gun and be up and firing automatic weapons in no time at all assuming you can follow basic instruction.
> 
> I'll get back to you on the conspiracy stuff.


Okay, someone said (@LONZO) in the cb earlier that automatic weapons were illegal in the States. If you can legally train how to use them then that's obviously how he could have learned. Of course the place where he learned will have a record of it, the authorities will discover this and the information should be released in due course.


----------



## Arya Dark

Anark said:


> Doesn't this add weight to the theory that this guy was a patsy? Buying these kinds of illegal weapons is one thing, being able to learn how to fire them accurately and consistently enough to kill 50+ people and hit many more from at least a hundred yards away is another matter entirely.
> 
> How/where do you learn to do that with illegal weapons such as the ones he used without having been in the military?
> 
> In the desert? Go out far enough and that's an option I suppose, but can you teach yourself without someone to help you? I genuinely don't know.




*Automatic weapons aren't easy to get unless you know someone. They aren't easy to use unless you know how to use them. But that's not difficult to learn. If you can shoot a semi-automatic riffle you can shoot an automatic riffle. It's quite easy for anyone who has shot rifles before.

I have an AR 13 which is a semi-auto rifle and it fires as fast as you can individually pull the trigger. Learning to shoot that is easy and legal. And if you can shoot that then shooting the automatic version isn't hard at all.

As for training to hit what you're shooting at. That really doesn't come into play here. I hate to put it into these terms but with an automatic weapon it's "spray and pray" meaning you just spray the bullets and hope you hit something and when you're firing into a crowd of 30 thousand people you're going to hit someone with almost every single bullet. There's really no training needed for that type of massacre. *


----------



## MOX

AryaDark said:


> *Automatic weapons aren't easy to get unless you know someone. They aren't easy to use unless you know how to use them. But that's not difficult to learn. If you can shoot a semi-automatic riffle you can shoot an automatic riffle. It's quite easy for anyone who has shot rifles before.
> 
> I have an AR 13 which is a semi-auto rifle and it fires as fast as you can individually pull the trigger. Learning to shoot that is easy and legal. And if you can shoot that then shooting the automatic version isn't hard at all.
> 
> As for training to hit what you're shooting at. That really doesn't come into play here. I hate to put it into these terms but with an automatic weapon it's "spray and pray" meaning you just spray the bullets and hope you hit something and when you're firing into a crowd of 30 thousand people you're going to hit someone with almost every single bullet. There's really no training needed for that type of massacre. *


The last part of your post is clear, of course. But regarding the first part, this guy's brother said he wasn't a gun guy. He wasn't into all that and lived in a retirement home.

You know what, it's way too early to be rolling out this stuff so I'll put a lid on it for now as I've said everything I've got to say in this thread and the other. 

Let's just say my bones are rumbling about something. They've been wrong before though, once or twice.


----------



## Crasp

Anark said:


> Okay, someone said (@LONZO) in the cb earlier that automatic weapons were illegal in the States. If you can legally train how to use them then that's obviously how he could have learned. Of course the place where he learned will have a record of it, the authorities will discover this and the information should be released in due course.


Potentially. Also it's been noted that the guy travelled a lot. I visited a _musium_ in Kraków (Poland) which had a gun range where we fired WWII machine guns amongst other things, so there'd be no record of something like that I imagine.


----------



## DOPA

If we are to assume that indeed the mass murderer used a fully automatic weapon which is very likely in this scenario, then gun control laws would have done very little to stop this case from happening, even more so in Nevada. For starters, it's been illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons since 1986, any weapons that are fully automatic manufactured after 1986 cannot be obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the killer couldn't have gotten a fully automatic weapon that was made before that time period but it is very difficult and hinges on a number of tight regulations that need to be bypassed. The weapons themselves have to be of a certain class and the person has to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as go through very extensive background checks. Most critically, under Nevada state law, NFA items (National Firearms Act) are only legal if they have been legally obtained and registered under federal law. Any NFA weapon whether it being manufactured, sold or owned must be licensed by the ATF, which of course fully automatic weapons would full directly under and with it only be legal if obtained and registered federally in Nevada, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a fully automatic and heavily modified weapon legally in Vegas.

So gun control is very unlikely going to have an effect on this case when we look at it rationally. What I'm interested in is how in the hell did that guy end up having 10+ weapons where he was hiding out, either he played it very cleverly or the security in the hotel in which he was shooting from was very lapsed. Will be interesting to see if any details are released from that in the coming days and weeks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> If we are to assume that indeed the mass murderer used a fully automatic weapon which is very likely in this scenario, then gun control laws would have done very little to stop this case from happening, even more so in Nevada. For starters, it's been illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons since 1986, any weapons that are fully automatic manufactured after 1986 cannot be obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the killer couldn't have gotten a fully automatic weapon that was made before that time period but it is very difficult and hinges on a number of tight regulations that need to be bypassed. The weapons themselves have to be of a certain class and the person has to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as go through very extensive background checks. Most critically, under Nevada state law, NFA items (National Firearms Act) are only legal if they have been legally obtained and registered under federal law. Any NFA weapon whether it being manufactured, sold or owned must be licensed by the ATF, which of course fully automatic weapons would full directly under and with it only be legal if obtained and registered federally in Nevada, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a fully automatic and heavily modified weapon legally in Vegas.
> 
> So gun control is very unlikely going to have an effect on this case when we look at it rationally. What I'm interested in is how in the hell did that guy end up having 10+ weapons where he was hiding out, either he played it very cleverly or the security in the hotel in which he was shooting from was very lapsed. Will be interesting to see if any details are released from that in the coming days and weeks.


If he used the gun show loophole to get some of these guns then that could easily have had an effect on this shooting if those kinds of loopholes are closed.

Private sales also need background checks


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> If we are to assume that indeed the mass murderer used a fully automatic weapon which is very likely in this scenario, then gun control laws would have done very little to stop this case from happening, even more so in Nevada. For starters, it's been illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons since 1986, any weapons that are fully automatic manufactured after 1986 cannot be obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the killer couldn't have gotten a fully automatic weapon that was made before that time period but it is very difficult and hinges on a number of tight regulations that need to be bypassed. The weapons themselves have to be of a certain class and the person has to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as go through very extensive background checks. Most critically, under Nevada state law, NFA items (National Firearms Act) are only legal if they have been legally obtained and registered under federal law. Any NFA weapon whether it being manufactured, sold or owned must be licensed by the ATF, which of course fully automatic weapons would full directly under and with it only be legal if obtained and registered federally in Nevada, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a fully automatic and heavily modified weapon legally in Vegas.
> 
> So gun control is very unlikely going to have an effect on this case when we look at it rationally. What I'm interested in is how in the hell did that guy end up having 10+ weapons where he was hiding out, either he played it very cleverly or the security in the hotel in which he was shooting from was very lapsed. Will be interesting to see if any details are released from that in the coming days and weeks.


Can't you just get them in some other state and bring them over if the type you want isn't legal in the state you want to use them? 

I think another thing to consider is the message tightening gun laws would send to society, that the state is prepared to take back control of guns for it's own good and it's not controlled by the NRA. Anything to detract from a notion that it's so easy to obtain guns could stop things like this from happening potentially.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> If he used the gun show loophole to get some of these guns then that could easily have had an effect on this shooting if those kinds of loopholes are closed.
> 
> Private sales also need background checks


You bring up a good point about the gun show loopholes. There is a very clear case that current laws concerning gun ownership need to be enforced much better if these types of tragedies are going to be prevented in future.

We'll have to see when the details come out.



yeahbaby! said:


> Can't you just get them in some other state and bring them over if the type you want isn't legal in the state you want to use them?
> 
> I think another thing to consider is the message tightening gun laws would send to society, that the state is prepared to take back control of guns for it's own good and it's not controlled by the NRA. Anything to detract from a notion that it's so easy to obtain guns could stop things like this from happening potentially.


Again, with the type of weapons likely to be involved, they aren't easy to get a hold of to begin with as they are tightly regulated and require extensive background checks. Regardless of if the murderer got a hold of the weapons from a different state, he'd still have to be licensed and checked thoroughly, that includes for example going through the FBI as a screening for these types of weapons. It's possible but it isn't as likely as you would think.

We're talking about fully automatic weapons here, they are already tightly controlled on the federal level and yet we have seen what has happened. The current laws will have to be looked at, scrutinized and fixed if progress is going to be made in my opinion.


----------



## SovereignVA

Vic Capri said:


> And unfortunately, there's more idiots on the left.
> 
> - Vic


Yes yes. "There's more idiots on the left because that's not the side I'm on."

That kind of thinking is part of the problem. Both sides are equally to blame for the state the country is in, the longer anyone holds onto this "Yes, but your side is worse" the longer nothing will ever get resolved.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> They couldn't wait for the bodies to get cold.
> 
> 
> 
> And unfortunately, there's more idiots on the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Ironic how people like you say this but its ok when you and the right "don't wait until the bodies are cold" to talk about banning Muslims after they do an attack. Just more hypocrisy and shit posting from you.


----------



## Empress

L-DOPA said:


> If we are to assume that indeed the mass murderer used a fully automatic weapon which is very likely in this scenario, then gun control laws would have done very little to stop this case from happening, even more so in Nevada. For starters, it's been illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons since 1986, any weapons that are fully automatic manufactured after 1986 cannot be obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the killer couldn't have gotten a fully automatic weapon that was made before that time period but it is very difficult and hinges on a number of tight regulations that need to be bypassed. The weapons themselves have to be of a certain class and the person has to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as go through very extensive background checks. Most critically, under Nevada state law, NFA items (National Firearms Act) are only legal if they have been legally obtained and registered under federal law. Any NFA weapon whether it being manufactured, sold or owned must be licensed by the ATF, which of course fully automatic weapons would full directly under and with it only be legal if obtained and registered federally in Nevada, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a fully automatic and heavily modified weapon legally in Vegas.
> 
> So gun control is very unlikely going to have an effect on this case when we look at it rationally. What I'm interested in is how in the hell did that guy end up having 10+ weapons where he was hiding out, either he played it very cleverly or the security in the hotel in which he was shooting from was very lapsed. Will be interesting to see if any details are released from that in the coming days and weeks.


I agree with your post for the most part.

It's ridiculous that he had that many weapons. There should be certain red flags that tip off officials. 

I don't want to interfere with anyone's second amendment. But I do think background screenings, lax rules on the mentally ill and the sale of silencers are loopholes that can be addressed. If we recognize terrorism as an issue and want to confront it, that same will should be there for mass shootings. It sends chills down my spine that all those innocent kids at Sandy Hook were gunned down and that today is another tragedy. As I previously said, I do have a friend who was shot up in Pulse. She's better today but I don't want it happening to someone else.


----------



## Horsetooth Jackass

Anark said:


> The last part of your post is clear, of course. But regarding the first part, *this guy's brother said he wasn't a gun guy. He wasn't into all that and lived in a retirement home*.


Well he did own a pistol license and a hunting permit in Alaska, and also has records of owning up to 30 guns at one time. So he has experience with firearms.. So something is off, his brother doesn't seem to know him very well.. He also doesn't seem that bright. 

Also shooting a automatic weapon like that you don't need to be a sharpshooter. It doesn't take much training at all, but this guy seems to have already had some training.


----------



## MOX

Yeah it seems my Euro ignorance of how all this assault rifle business works was playing a misleading part in my conspiracy theory. 

Bones still rumbling though.


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> Isn't this the Trump thread? Seems like I'm reading the same thread twice.


It's a politics thread , it just happens to be named after the current president Donald Trump


----------



## FriedTofu

https://news.vice.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-nra



> This led to an interesting issue in Las Vegas, where street performers, some dressed as Storm Troopers from Star Wars and the like, were spooking crowds with their fake guns. The county was able to pass a restriction against the open carry of toy guns but would not have been able to do the same with real firearms.


Something is messed up when open carry of toy guns can be restricted due to safety concerns but not real guns.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> They couldn't wait for the bodies to get cold.
> 
> 
> 
> And unfortunately, there's more idiots on the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Anark said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/U7DTjSla-O8
> 
> That's a bumper stock and some chick firing it from her shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, just googled bump fire to understand what that is
> 
> I know you've tried to belittle her as 'some chick' but women are people too and she seems pretty well trained. She knows what she's doing, no? If she went out and killed 50 people then there would be a trail leading back to where she got her guns from and the people/person who trained her, no?
> 
> Or is it possible to just buy an automatic assault rifle, hit the desert, and teach yourself to shoot it like an actual soldier? No bait, I genuinely don't know.
> 
> Also, I know I'm just speculating about this whole conspiracy thing - I'm not married to it - but I'm not into the whole 'thoughts and prayers' bollocks everyone feels obliged to post. I like having conversations, so this is where I'm coming from with this.
> 
> With that in mind, it also lines up well with the EVIL CORP stuff that does go on sometimes, assuming you saw my other posts about the loss of business the gun industry has been suffering since Trump became Prez, and the relatively huge boost they got immediately following this massacre.
> 
> In a world where the rich elite send people off to die in wars all the time, I can well believe a massacre would be sanctioned to rescue an increasingly negative bottom line.
Click to expand...

She's some chick in the way a random man I don't know is some bloke or some dude. I don't know who they are so I use a broad term. Fucking belittle...Don't pull that sexist shit with me.


----------



## Vic Capri

This message is hidden because SovereignVA is on your ignore list. His kumbaya post was revolting.

- Vic


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

http://tmz.me/CKzU4cq

*Dumbass 45 went to Puerto Rico to blame them for the increasing debt. He then had the nerve to say "Only 16 people died. Katrina was a real catastrophe." and his blind supporters want to point at liberals for being insensitive during times of crisis :lmao.*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Legit BOSS said:


> http://tmz.me/CKzU4cq
> 
> *Dumbass 45 went to Puerto Rico to blame them for the increasing debt. He then had the nerve to say "Only 16 people died. Katrina was a real catastrophe." and his blind supporters want to point at liberals for being insensitive during times of crisis :lmao.*


He really is a terrible human being.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> http://tmz.me/CKzU4cq
> 
> *Dumbass 45 went to Puerto Rico to blame them for the increasing debt. He then had the nerve to say "Only 16 people died. Katrina was a real catastrophe." and his blind supporters want to point at liberals for being insensitive during times of crisis :lmao.*


Funny he didn't blame TX or FL, but Trump isn't racists right lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

Transcript


> *Radio Announcer*: What is your name?
> *
> Police Caller*: I cannot give my name because I work for Puerto Rico’s Police Department. I need to pass this information out because the stuff that is being brought from the U.S. is not being distributed. They are not allowing the Puerto Rican people to receive the donations.
> *
> Radio Announcer*: What part of Puerto Rico are you calling us from right now?
> 
> 
> *Police Caller*: I am right now in Guaynabo.
> 
> *Radio Announcer 2*: Wow.
> 
> *Radio Announcer 3*: But what information do you have? What have you seen?
> 
> *Police Caller*: The Mayor, *Carmen Yulin, is not allowing anyone to distribute… We need… what Puerto Ricans need is that the U.S. armed forces come in and distribute the aid. And that they stop the governor, Rosello, and the mayor, Yulin, on doing what they are doing… It’s an abuse, it looks like communism, in our own island* (sobbing)… (sobbing continues, inaudible translation due to cries)…
> 
> *Police Caller* (cont.): People are helping us, but they are not accepting it, they are not accepting anymore help supposedly: “they have to wait for the license, that there are no buses.” …Let me tell you something Boricuas (Puerto Ricans) are dying of hunger (crying continues) … This is a bureaucracy, everything has to be protocol, the lines are stretched. …We can only give one box of water per person (sobbing continues). …The medics here, people are dying, the hospitals are in crisis.
> 
> *Police Caller* (cont.): *I am embarrassed, as a Boricua to work for Puerto Rico’s police and see that we cannot do anything. There are dozens and thousands and thousands of food and when people ask we cannot give anything away because [Mayor] Carmen Yulin says that we cannot take anything out; because everything is a soap opera, everything is a show and there have to be cameras here and there. ….Because you know they are just looking for votes for the upcoming years.*
> 
> *Radio Announcer 2*: Wow
> 
> *Police Caller*: And the governor won’t move unless there is a camera behind him; [Mayor] Carmen Yulin won’t move unless there is a camera behind her. This is how we are living in Puerto Rico, meanwhile artists are giving money and the people of Florida are sending stuff, and I don’t know how many more people are helping because we have very limited communication, very limited, and we have no idea what’s going on outside; and the people who are sending stuff, they have to come in; they have to come to help Puerto Rico and distribute what is being wasted …because what else are we going to do? You tell me, what are we going to do?
> 
> *Radio Announcer #2*: Of course the desperation..
> 
> *Radio Announcer #3*: We are with our hearts broken listening to you describing this situation which is heartbreaking when we know that so many people are helping …this is a police officer speaking.
> 
> *Police Caller*: I’ve been for one hour and a half just trying to download an application because the phones that they give to us I cannot use them as a police officer due to security measures. But I need to speak for the people because the people are suffering. Because I, as a cop, and other partners are seeing it. A lot of people have been posting videos (sobbing – inaudible) …and no-one is paying attention.
> 
> *Radio Announcer #3*: We are truly sorry for this situation, we did not know that..
> 
> *Police Caller*: If Cuba and Venezuela want to help and we are grateful for that; and that the government denies their help, the government denies Cuba’s help. …That they reject Venezuela’s help, …Look for God’s sake! Tell me how is that possible, we need help.
> 
> *Radio Announcer #3*: We are going to send this message out so that it gets to where it needs to get to…
> 
> *Police Caller*: *We want the U.S. to come in, that the strongest forces come in and take the governor out, he is not doing anything, he is just going around and around, …and everyone is like: “oh, look how nice, the governor, he is going in the mud, he is going in the water”, And where is it? Pardon the expression: WHERE IS THE FOOD?*
> 
> *Police Caller* (cont.): Look, grab the food, grab the sausage can and take it to the families! Stop the show! The governor is just doing a show, is all a show. There are many mayors that are suffering because they cannot do anything for their people.
> 
> *Radio Announcer #2*: What are they doing with the food? Is it being kept in storage because they are not allowing to give it out?
> 
> *Police Caller*: *They are not doing anything, and they tell the harbors (ports) that they cannot bring stuff anymore. If the U.S. government doesn’t get involved they will finish us. We are going to end up worse. …Worse than Cuba, Africa, or worse than Haiti. We are living in an era that you don’t want to see, people are desperate. The gasoline, people are already killing each other. Not to rob you, they are doing it so they can be the firsts to get food and take it to their families.*
> *
> Police Caller *(cont.): Do you know what it is when a woman approaches me and tells me “I don’t have any more.” “I don’t know what else to give my kids because I don’t have anymore.” “Water and crackers”!
> 
> *Radio Announcer #1*: Sweetie, thank you for calling us and using this medium to denounce this situation; and good thing that it was you who explained this so that people don’t think that we are making up stuff; because this has nothing to do with politics. This is a very serious situation.
> 
> *Police Caller*: Very Serious (sobbing continues)


That sounds pretty messed up


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Stinger Fan said:


> Transcript
> 
> That sounds pretty messed up


If they're talking about Pedro Rosello who was exposed as a corrupted politician on the 90's then why would they vote for him again. I am Puerto rican and I'm blessed with living in the United states when shit happened there. I lived there for 13 years So I know exactly how corrupted the government is over there. 

even education was suffering when I was a in 7th grade school had torned books no water fountain no toilet paper nothing. there was no air conditioner which was needed due to how many people suffered from diabetes and other conditions regarding heat. 

computers were IBM models from the mid 80's mind you this happened somewhere in 2002 also had no Internet in school only math programs from a floppy disk.

and if you wanted to be at level of what a public school looks like in the US you'd have to pay money because those were considered charter schools.

every politician in Puerto Rico always used the whole I will rebuild schools and give them the appropriate supplies promises and never deliver and it breaks my heart to read stuff like this the government just fill the pockets then another comes and keeps stealing from the poor.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Legit BOSS said:


> http://tmz.me/CKzU4cq
> 
> *Dumbass 45 went to Puerto Rico to blame them for the increasing debt. He then had the nerve to say "Only 16 people died. Katrina was a real catastrophe." and his blind supporters want to point at liberals for being insensitive during times of crisis :lmao.*


This guy just keeps getting more pathetic.


----------



## Draykorinee

Wow, Trump is the worst public speaker of any president I've had the privilege or bad luck to live through. He seriously went there and said thanks for screwing our budgets with your unimpressive natural disaster, ours was this much bigger...

:wow


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Trump smh it can't be helped he's a fucking jackass but what you expect he's a Trump after all.

and about the international debt well it wasn't Puerto Rico who kept asking the Jews Arabs and Chinese government for money now was it? same old politician always blaming their bullshit on the voters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> Wow, Trump is the worst public speaker of any president I've had the privilege or bad luck to live through. He seriously went there and said thanks for screwing our budgets with your unimpressive natural disaster, ours was this much bigger...


and what is pathetic is his supporters claim how smart he is and how Trump is playing 4D chess.


----------



## Martins

Legit BOSS said:


> http://tmz.me/CKzU4cq
> 
> *Dumbass 45 went to Puerto Rico to blame them for the increasing debt. He then had the nerve to say "Only 16 people died. Katrina was a real catastrophe." and his blind supporters want to point at liberals for being insensitive during times of crisis :lmao.*


Just earlier in the day I was thinking he'd pull off *exactly* this sort of quote, and lo and behold, I get home and watch this and I just fucking lost it :lmao 

Your President *mocks* you and your dead.


----------



## Beatles123

Context

Wonder if all the Trump guys are still here. Haven't checked. Can't say im too politically inclined round these parts sense the purge.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> Context
> 
> Wonder if all the Trump guys are still here. Haven't checked. Can't say im too politically inclined round these parts sense the purge.












Reaps is back soon.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> Context
> 
> Wonder if all the Trump guys are still here. Haven't checked. Can't say im too politically inclined round these parts sense the purge.


How coincidental that your interest in politics wanes when there's no longer a position of strange for the echo chamber to shout people down with their bullshit/nonsense :heyman6


----------

